M-18 Hellcat

[Squire]

The existance of TDs in an army does not make other tanks "infantry support tanks". The Marder II didnt make the Panzer IV an infantry support tank. The Su-100 didnt make the T-34/85 an infantry support tank, and the M-10 didnt make the Sherman one either. The lack of AP power (or any other drawback) in its gun does not alter its designation or intended use on the battlefield.

The infantry tank concept was used by the British in the form of tanks like the Churchill and deployed into independant tank brigades. The Germans used assault guns like the StuG III in the same role. The Shermans that went into action at El Alemain, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, Normandy and Germany in the US, British and Canadian armies were deployed as multi-role main battle tanks. The role in the US Army of the tank destroyer was the same as other armies in most respects; they were intended to rapidly deploy to the area of an enemy armored attack and thwart it with the help of artillery and anti-tank guns. There were certainly M4 Sherman support variants but thats another matter.

Although it perhaps leaned towards being a TD The Firefly was not a designated tank destroyer. TDs (called Self Propelled guns in the British Army, but a rose by any other name I guess...) were issued to and manned by members of the Royal Artillery Branch. The Firefly Sherman was issued, deployed and used within standard medium tank regiments as an mbt by members of the Royal Armored Corps. They were issued as a % to units in 1944-45 because they could not be manufactured in time to completely replace the Shermans with the 75mm guns. The fact that they were better able to handle German armor doesn't classify them as tank destroyers any more than a US Army Sherman M4A3 (76) was or the later M26 Pershing was, or the later British Comet was. That being said a Firefly equipped troop would certainly get a "tap on the shoulder" if enemy armor was expected as they were there to improve an armored units ability to deal with Panthers and Tigers. All that said I get why its sometimes referred to as a TD being that it was designed with German armor in mind, but like I stated no more than other later Allied tanks were.

[HighTone]

Looks like fun...shes a beaut 

[KG45]

so, a tank that can be disabled by a Zeke? looks like the SdKfz 251 will a mate to keep it company in the hanger...

[M0nkey_Man]

so, a tank that can be disabled by a Zeke? looks like the SdKfz 251 will a mate to keep it company in the hanger...

spit 1

[Seanaldinho]

so, a tank that can be disabled by a Zeke? looks like the SdKfz 251 will a mate to keep it company in the hanger...

I know at least one person who will keep it out of the hanger. 

[WYOKIDIII]

The existance of TDs in an army does not make other tanks "infantry support tanks". The Marder II didnt make the Panzer IV an infantry support tank. The Su-100 didnt make the T-34/85 an infantry support tank, and the M-10 didnt make the Sherman one either. The lack of AP power (or any other drawback) in its gun does not alter its designation or intended use on the battlefield.

The infantry tank concept was used by the British in the form of tanks like the Churchill and deployed into independant tank brigades. The Germans used assault guns like the StuG III in the same role. The Shermans that went into action at El Alemain, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, Normandy and Germany in the US, British and Canadian armies were deployed as multi-role main battle tanks. The role in the US Army of the tank destroyer was the same as other armies in most respects; they were intended to rapidly deploy to the area of an enemy armored attack and thwart it with the help of artillery and anti-tank guns. There were certainly M4 Sherman support variants but thats another matter.

Although it perhaps leaned towards being a TD The Firefly was not a designated tank destroyer. TDs (called Self Propelled guns in the British Army, but a rose by any other name I guess...) were issued to and manned by members of the Royal Artillery Branch. The Firefly Sherman was issued, deployed and used within standard medium tank regiments as an mbt by members of the Royal Armored Corps. They were issued as a % to units in 1944-45 because they could not be manufactured in time to completely replace the Shermans with the 75mm guns. The fact that they were better able to handle German armor doesn't classify them as tank destroyers any more than a US Army Sherman M4A3 (76) was or the later M26 Pershing was, or the later British Comet was. That being said a Firefly equipped troop would certainly get a "tap on the shoulder" if enemy armor was expected as they were there to improve an armored units ability to deal with Panthers and Tigers. All that said I get why its sometimes referred to as a TD being that it was designed with German armor in mind, but like I stated no more than other later Allied tanks were.

          It is very true that tank on tank battles are quite common in the history of modern warfare, but the fact reamins that no tank ever designed will survive long without infantry support . Tanks without infantry in the face of determined and capable enemy infantry will lose the fight .
          Armored units require massive logistical support as well . If they are cut off or stray too far from supply lines they quickly become useless . Yes the big gun is made to kill enemy armor but it's primary purpose is always to provide infantry with mobile direct heavy fire power and the capability to flank an enemy force . If you really want to kill tanks efficiently call the air force not the cavalry.
          You call any type of armor whatever you choose and even design it to excell in certain battlefield roles . But the fact reamains , if you don't got a bunch of grunts in your back pocket you aint gonna get far . George Patton thought the most effective weapon mounted on a tank was the machinegun .

[Vulcan]

If anything I'd like to see both reduced, especially the air to ground icon.  The human eye can barely tell the make and model of a particular car at 400 yards away while it sits still.  Moving at 200mph+, searching for a camouflaged gv, I can not imagine being able to so easily see said ground target.  At 5000ft above a road in a Cesspool 150, I know I can see the difference between a semi-tractor, a pick-up truck, and a Handa Civic, but they are brightly colored and on a road.   

Isn't what you're asking for that the icon be changed to 'tank' above a certain range? Not turned off entirely.

Why not suggest that to HTC - it already happens with fighters. For example at ranges icons appear for 190, but you don't know if its an A5, A8, F8, D9, or 152 til you get close.

[SmokinLoon]

Isn't what you're asking for that the icon be changed to 'tank' above a certain range? Not turned off entirely.

Why not suggest that to HTC - it already happens with fighters. For example at ranges icons appear for 190, but you don't know if its an A5, A8, F8, D9, or 152 til you get close.

I could go for that.  Having HTC change all of the gv icons to "GV" then at 600 or 800 yards have the actual ID icon appear would be a decent if temporary compromise.  What makes me go     more than anything is the apparent staunch position of keeping things exactly the way they are.  The fact that each and every month threads like this come up by different authors and yet each and every month the icon ranges remain exactly the same. I try and try again to find legit reasons within the realms of game play, pc performance issues, new player capabilities or ease of learning, etc etc, and yet I can not put a finger on any particular reason for not at least experimenting in the MA's with different range icons.     

I'd still rather reduce the range of the air to gv icon down a bit.  Seeing and identifying a ground vehicle at 2000 yards from the air while moving 200mph is not very feasible under combat conditions (camo, trees, etc).

[MarineUS]

what's going to be the new "thing" going around in the wishlist now??????????????

[ozrocker]

what's going to be the new "thing" going around in the wishlist now??????????????

Well, now that you mention it. I want to see a re-vamped "Dance Boys" video,
with sheep swaying behind the grunts and maybe providing background vocals.


                                                                                                                                          Oz

[Pongo]

The US army studied the battle of France (1940) and decided that the best way to defeat such an attack and at the same time to have the capability to execute such an attack themselves was to have a Tank Destroyer arm in the army as a separate force from the Tank arm. That arm had its own generals and such who developed a doctrine of independent tank destroyer battalions equipped with fast hard hitting vehicles that could be quickly positioned to stem blitzkrieg breakthroughs. While the armoured corps designed a doctrine of fast medium tanks that were not intended to engage other tanks so much as exploit breakthroughs with speed and good anti infantry capabilities.

The M18 is the perfect doctrine US WW2 tank destroyer. Of course US Tank Destroyer battalions in ww2 were no more used for their doctrinal purpose then german Tiger battalions were. They were almost universally used as inferior tanks, just like the Tigers were almost universally used as superior tanks.

So its called a tank destroyer not because it is superior at destroying tanks, its not, but because it was designed to equip tank destroyer battalions.

[whopper2]

They explode wonderfully!   It is so easy to lead them in full run mode!

Please keep upping them!   My score loves it!

[W7LPNRICK]

It will NOT be a "Hanger Queen"!

[DMVIAGRA]

Forum bump



Post anything about the M-18 here....

[Nathan60]

per Lepape