Vehicle Cmdr ability to fire M3's BFG

[Sabre]

Just realized recently that a 75mm gun option was added to the M3 load out.  The only problem is, the gun has a much longer range that the gunsight.  I would like to see the capability added to fire the gun from the vehicle commander's position (i.e. using the "2" keypad position), like the tanks can.  This would aid in it's use as an indirect fire weapon, as artillery, in other words.

[Volron]

Just realized recently that a 75mm gun option was added to the M3 load out.  The only problem is, the gun has a much longer range that the gunsight.  I would like to see the capability added to fire the gun from the vehicle commander's position (i.e. using the "2" keypad position), like the tanks can.  This would aid in it's use as an indirect fire weapon, as artillery, in other words.

Hmm...   I don't see why not. +1

[Ack-Ack]

Just realized recently that a 75mm gun option was added to the M3 load out.  The only problem is, the gun has a much longer range that the gunsight.  I would like to see the capability added to fire the gun from the vehicle commander's position (i.e. using the "2" keypad position), like the tanks can.  This would aid in it's use as an indirect fire weapon, as artillery, in other words.

You can fire the main gun from teh TC position in the LVT4, so I don't see why the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage M3 can't have this option as well.

ack-ack

[Mister Fork]

Just realized recently that a 75mm gun option was added to the M3 load out.  The only problem is, the gun has a much longer range that the gunsight.  I would like to see the capability added to fire the gun from the vehicle commander's position (i.e. using the "2" keypad position), like the tanks can.  This would aid in it's use as an indirect fire weapon, as artillery, in other words.

Yep. Makes sense. +1

[pembquist]

I don't oppose the idea but I imagine one thing that might go against allowing it is that it is so much faster than the m4 it might change the game dynamic for the worse. I don't know for sure, but it doesn't seem like an over sight to me. I think it isn't there for a reason.

[Eric19]

I don't oppose the idea but I imagine one thing that might go against allowing it is that it is so much faster than the m4 it might change the game dynamic for the worse. I don't know for sure, but it doesn't seem like an over sight to me. I think it isn't there for a reason.

wouldn't be anymore game changing than the m4 already is the m3 if yer a good shot is REALLY easy to kill just look at it the wrong way and it falls apart to almost any tank shell we have modeled in the game

[pembquist]

I was thinking of the 50 mph speed vs the 25 of the tank. Like I said I'm not arguing against it. I just think its that way for a reason.

[Sabre]

I was thinking of the 50 mph speed vs the 25 of the tank. Like I said I'm not arguing against it. I just think its that way for a reason.

I have to disagree.  While it is pretty fast, so is the M-18 (nearly as fast), and the M-18 is at least armored (though with a weaker gun).  The vulnerability of the M3 means it is a stand-off, offensive weapon (basically, mobile artillery).  Defensively, it's all but useless, as there would be non-perked tanks available anywhere an M3/75mm would be.  Given that, the inherent limitations on long-range fire due to not being able to fire from the VC position makes no sense.  Seems likely this was just an oversight.

[Arlo]

+1

[SmokinLoon]

I have to disagree.  While it is pretty fast, so is the M-18 (nearly as fast), and the M-18 is at least armored (though with a weaker gun).  The vulnerability of the M3 means it is a stand-off, offensive weapon (basically, mobile artillery).  Defensively, it's all but useless, as there would be non-perked tanks available anywhere an M3/75mm would be.  Given that, the inherent limitations on long-range fire due to not being able to fire from the VC position makes no sense.  Seems likely this was just an oversight.

Keep in mind the M3's 75mm is second only to the King Tiger, Tiger, and T34/85 in terms of damage.  Take in to consideration the speed of the reload and the amount of ammo carried I'd say the M3/75mm is a potent tool to be used when A: it is supported by air or armor, and B: the target is a town.  Otherwise, it has a lot to be desired in terms of a tank destroyer.  The sights alone make me cringe.

[bj229r]

It's hard to kill anything with that gun, practically never kill tanks with one shot, and it's not like it can stand a slugfest

[gyrene81]

an interesting history of that half track with marines in the pto...

http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_GMC_75mm.html