M36 Tank Destroyer

[Butcher]

What it offers is an American tank that can actually kill other tanks reliably. It's a tank killer that can kill tanks. Get it? 

And the Sherman we have doesn't? Just aim for the lower nose of a panther and you have a tank killer.

[Fish42]

And the Sherman we have doesn't? Just aim for the lower nose of a panther and you have a tank killer.

No one tell Wales, he will be devastated to learn he never got a single kill in his M4A3(75).

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/killsin.php?playername=Wales&kcnt=231&selectTour=LWTour162&pindex=108

[Chalenge]

I have heard Wales online, and I use the M4A3-75 myself. Don't even try to push it off as a reliable killer.

[WWhiskey]

Seriously... what does the US 90mm offer AH?  What did it really contribute? What does it bring new to AH?

There are so many other holes in the gv line up that asking to bring in the Pershing or Jackson is just a gamers dream.  AH would be better served with more LW Soviet armor (Su-100), EW/MW German armor (Panzer III, and variants!), and EW/MW British armor (Crusader w/ multiple gun variants).  The US is well represented with 2 variants of the M3, M8, M16, M4/75, M4/76, and M18.  Oh, and don't forget the jeep!  The US has all of its staples, who else does?  While the Germans are very well represented, they are missing the Pzr III and StuG III.  The Soviets have their 2 largest contributors in the T34/76 and T34/85, but the Su-100 is obviously missing (others can be argued for as well). Other than the Firefly the British have what?

Ultimately, the Ost Front needs some luvin' and that means M36 Jackson is disqualified.  Next topic.   

  If you want to put up a thread saying add the SU-100  go for it!!!!  I'll vote +1 all day long,,  until then,, I'll post the stuff I'd like to see!,, I wanted the Yak -3 for 6 years or more,, but I did get It eventually,,,  and I'm happy,,, I'll be happy when the SU-100 gets added to,, but I want the Pershing or the Slugger,, and getting the gun into the game,, gets it that much closer to reality !!  as far as German armor goes,, It's pretty well covered!!

[Fish42]

It's pretty well covered!!

Sure, if the war stated in 1941.

If we had more EW tanks, we could spread out the eny to 60/80. True, smaller tanks would not work against T2s but the most common tank atm is the Panzer IV F and it only has a small chance against a T2.

[Chalenge]

I think the perk spread is just fine as it is. Adding the early 2pdr guns should not affect the late war tanks, period. Two different things.

[matt]

+1

[Karnak]

What it offers is an American tank that can actually kill other tanks reliably. It's a tank killer that can kill tanks. Get it? 

To quote you from another thread, horse hockey.  Just pick a different ride.  And unlike your reply to Tank Ace, GVs have almost no role in events so the requirement isn't made valid via that route either.

[TDeacon]

I would like to see the 2 & 6 pounder guns added first. Cromwell, Churchill, Matilda etc.

The 2 pounder gun did not have the worlds best armor penatration, but it could still hurt the most used tanks in game.

Armour penetration table (in millimeters)
Distance                           91 m (100 yd)   457 m (500 yd)   914 m (1,000 yd)   1,371 m (1,499 yd)
AP (meet angle 60°)           49                   37                   27                   17
APHV (meet angle 60°)      54                   41   
APCBC (meet angle 60°)                      53.5

You have to be careful about armor penetration data.  The above is almost certainly referring to homogeneous armor, and not face-hardened which is what the Germans were using mid-to-late war.  (I am thinking of the Jentz books).  

MH

[SmokinLoon]

You have to be careful about armor penetration data.  The above is almost certainly referring to homogeneous armor, and not face-hardened which is what the Germans were using mid-to-late war.  (I am thinking of the Jentz books).  

MH

The British 2 Pdr would be like mounting the 37mm of the M8 Greyhound on M4 chassis.  We all know what the M8 Greyhound is good for in tank battles.  If a gun of that size is put on a typical tank chassis (25 mph), it is going to be a sitting duck.  However, an EW scenario with the M3/75, M4/75, M8, Panzer IV F1, SdKfz 251, and Panzer III D/J, the Crusader armed with the 2 Pdr would be just fine.

Thing is though, I'd advocate for a tank like the Crusader to be added with both gun options available much like the Panzer IV F because both guns are very different and offer 2 different time periods and theaters to be represented.

[Chalenge]

To quote you from another thread, horse hockey.  Just pick a different ride.  And unlike your reply to Tank Ace, GVs have almost no role in events so the requirement isn't made valid via that route either.

That's one very big problem, Karnak. What we need in AH is historical tank battles AND more American tanks. Sorry you don't agree, but I know you don't drive vehicles enough to know.

[Karnak]

That's one very big problem, Karnak. What we need in AH is historical tank battles AND more American tanks. Sorry you don't agree, but I know you don't drive vehicles enough to know.

If that were the case you'd be asking for Soviet armor, but your emphasis was on the fact that it is American.

I have no issue with the M36 being added, but your reasoning for it was lousy.

[33Vortex]

Without a shadow of a doubt the largest battles ever fought between armored forces was on the eastern front and so if you want to have historical battles that's where the game is lacking both in the planeset and vehicle park. There is easily a few dozen armored vehicles that could be justified and added to the game just in that theatre, granted a good number of them are US made vehicles.

[WWhiskey]

More on the 90mm

Note that although the penetration of the APBC and APCBC projectiles is similar, the APBC could penetrate the Panther glacis (80mm at 55°) at up to 1,006m range, whereas the APCBC projectile could only do so at up to 411m range, due to the different effects of slope on the two types of projectile. The 90-mm Tank Gun M3 was highly accurate; after some practice on the firing range consistent hits could be achieved at a range of 572m using German helmets as targets. The APBC projectile was a solid shot round with no explosive filler.

From here
http://web.archive.org/web/20100117182005/http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns7.html

[Chalenge]

If that were the case you'd be asking for Soviet armor, but your emphasis was on the fact that it is American.

I have no issue with the M36 being added, but your reasoning for it was lousy.

NO, I said American tanks. That should be reason enough. Your comment to the contrary is bankrupt of logic, though.