Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: JMFJ on April 07, 2006, 04:43:32 PM
-
Hate to sound like a broken record but out of sight is out of mind.
The drastic gap in the game between the tigers and panzers is too much of a spread. We need a mid range tank that reloads in an appropriate amount of time.
An American Tank or change the reloading time on the T-34 and make it cost 5 perk points, this would really help create diversity in the tank side of the game.
JMFJ
-
*COUGH-HACK-Panther-GURGLE-SPITOOEY*
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
An American Tank
7 of the 11 vehicles in game are American, is that not enough?
-
Originally posted by Furball
7 of the 11 vehicles in game are American, is that not enough?
:lol
and you just got a jeep! that's the first entirely new vehicle/plane in over a year!!!!!!
quit complaining lol
-
Furball
pooface
you have a wish???
you have a solution to what the topic???
this isnt the general forum where you guys trolling is welcome
as for the tank situation t34 is good tank just way to long to reload i like the idea of reducing reload time but in historical intrest i think the reload time should be accurate
Any tank that is once again historically correct that my brigde the gap between tigers and panzers would be excellent
Hitech you and your boys are awsome
thanx for your time
Wannab
-
Sherman....huhuh....huhuh...t hat'd be cool...huhuh
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
An American Tank or change the reloading time on the T-34 and make it cost 5 perk points, this would really help create diversity in the tank side of the game.
JMFJ
IMO, keep the T-34/76 the way it is. Historically, it had a very cramped turret, which is reflected by the slow reload time in the game. A better "solve" would be to introduce the T-34/85. It had a redesigned, larger turret (and I believe a better rate of fire as a result) and more powerful gun to boot. I can see it being mildly perked as a result.
Lots of good suggestions for additional armor since I have been looking at the boards, so I won't rehash them. But I agree totally with your initial statement:
Originally posted by JMFJ
Hate to sound like a broken record but out of sight is out of mind.
Keep posting, I (and many others) will keep backing you up.:aok
-
*Hint Crusader Tank *Hint its sexy cuz its english *Hint *Hint:aok
-
Firefly.
-
Originally posted by Wannab
Furball
pooface
you have a wish???
you have a solution to what the topic???
this isnt the general forum where you guys trolling is welcome
Wannab
I was just making an observation about the number of American vehicles in game after an American tank was requested.
I just stated that i do not belive we need another American ground vehicle just yet. I also believe that is a very relevant, related point to this post
The British do not have a single vehicle despite being in the war from 1939 - 1945 and being in ground combat for every one of those years except 1939. the Russians have only a single tank, despite being on the eastern front where mass tank on tank combat was very common, and the Germans have 3 ground vehicles.
-
hey furby, dont bash teh american grownd vehiclz!!!!
i'd like to go for a piknick in my jeep!
:D
kidding. no, we dont need another american tank at all. we need to fill in the gaps. some british tanks, and some more russian ones would be great. maybe a firefly as an american/british tank, but i think with a new jeep added so recently, you need to be more grateful. keep in mind that tanks are only here as an added dimension, the main focus is on planes, and it will only grow more intense with combat tour.
if you guys want a new tank, you're going to be waiting a long time i reckon. in the mean time, i notice most of you are fairly new, and i usually find that that's the reason the GV guys dont fly much, because they find it too hard to compete with the rest of the arena. pop by the TA some time and i'll teach you:aok
-
I was thinking about this myself. Although a new tank would be nice it would be easier to re-make the T-34. Upgrade that thing to the T-34-85. I hit a Panzer with a T-34 yesterday 5 times from medium to point blank range and the shells were bouncing off the Panzer every time. It only took 2 hits from the Panzer to kill me. What's the use having a tank that has no hope of killing anouther tank? I like the T-34 because it's fast but that gun has got to go.
-
Originally posted by Furball
I was just making an observation about the number of American vehicles in game after an American tank was requested.
I just stated that i do not belive we need another American ground vehicle just yet. I also believe that is a very relevant, related point to this post
The British do not have a single vehicle despite being in the war from 1939 - 1945 and being in ground combat for every one of those years except 1939. the Russians have only a single tank, despite being on the eastern front where mass tank on tank combat was very common, and the Germans have 3 ground vehicles.
Furball, you know damn well that we are talking about adding an american tank. Not an american ground vehicle. There is a difference between the two.
-
My all time wish has been & still is the Panther, it has good speed and maneuverability - decent armor - & a good enough gun for it to be a mid perk contender to hang with the tiger. That being said by me ( more than a few times ) I don't care if it's german or if it's british or whatever...as long as it has the mix above, it doesn't have to be the best tank of the war or even better than the tiger....just better competition than the t-34 & the panzie. Is it Germanys fault they made the best tanks of the war?....bring on the Leopard II!:rolleyes: ...kidding
Here are some general specs on the Panther
Production for the Panther G: 2,953 units built between 3/44 to 4/45
crew:5
weight:about 45 metric tons
top speed:about 35 mph
Engine:Maybach HL 230 P30 , gasoline powered (same as the tiger)
main gun:Kwk 42 - high velocity 75mm, that was said to out perform the KwK 36 88mm of the Tiger at close ranges only losing out to the bigger round at greater distances because of the lighter mass of the round being affected more by the wind. This weapon also had an automatic breech which ejected spent casings & closed automatically when the next shell was rammed home which sped the loading process. It was also electronically fired ( no firing pin )
mg's: 1 x MG34 /hull - 1 x MG34 -/coaxial - 1 x MG42 -/cupola
That's enough to give a glimpse of the capabilities. I would support any tank or even tank destroyer ( but I wouldn't like/use them as much - I like a traversing turret ) that would cost less perks & give the Tiger a run for it's money.
-
Originally posted by Furball
7 of the 11 vehicles in game are American, is that not enough?
But, none of the are actual tanks though, yeah we got the M-8 & LVT.
But those suck. Im all in for the Sherman & the M10.
I dont like crap, give me a tank.
MG
-
furball pooface i see both of your points and will agree it does need to be rounded between the countries involved
that being said i apologize for my rudeness but i couldnt see your point and though you were just being rude
WE need a tank yes pooface i know that some of us LOVE GV action just like you like flying i personally do both and enjoy both but the gap created by the tiger is hard to overcome even with an experienced jock in the panzer
i like the panther idea the firefly would be cool but until Hitech says anything we are just spinning our wheels
Unless hitech is going to SURPRISE us ;)
wannab:O
-
Originally posted by mentalguy
. Im all in for the Sherman & the M10.
I dont like crap, give me a tank.
MG
You state you don't like crap. You also state you want the Sherman.
The Sherman IS crap. If you had a Sherman it would be killed by one round. It would also have a difficult time killing a Panzer and the only way for it to kill a Tiger is to be behind it AND be very close.
-
m10 would be incredibly vunerable because of open turret
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
You state you don't like crap. You also state you want the Sherman.
The Sherman IS crap. If you had a Sherman it would be killed by one round. It would also have a difficult time killing a Panzer and the only way for it to kill a Tiger is to be behind it AND be very close.
IMHO, the Sherman was not crap. It acquired its poor reputation because it couldn't stand up to Tigers or Panthers. Big deal - neither could the T-34/76 -- yet that is the tank so many experts think was so incredibly good. Why? Because when introduced, it was going against Pzkw IIIs and early IVs. It acquired a reputation as a good tank going against lesser ones. Never mind they were destroyed by the bushell in 44 and 45 -- reputation was already established.
"Sherman would be killed by one round". Unlike the Panzer? The T-34? The Osti? All die with one round. IRL the armor protection of the Shermans was about equivelant to the PzkwIV.
A standard Sherman with the 75mm gun would have the one-hit power of the current T-34, but probably twice the rate of fire. An M4A3E8 (I think is correct designation) would have a 76mm gun roughly equal to the PzkwIV. A Sherman Firefly would have the Brit 17 pounder -- firing a sabot round, it was more powerful than the Tiger's 88. An interesting variant would be the 105mm assault gun version of the Sherman with HEAT rounds.
So, lots of ways to introduce it, none of them "crap" or useless.
-
Sherman got kills because they sent a pack of 4 in and 3 of them died while 1 went in to kill the enemy tank at very close range, and even then it wasn't a guaranteed kill for the Sherman. Hook a flame thrower onto that puppy though...:D
-
T-95 Super heavy tank :t
Tigers worst nightmare
Here Kitty Kitty Kitty
-
The super heavy variants were available to germany too & were more fearsome than any other tank in the war & some of them even saw limited action toward the end ( I believe the freaky looking "Mouse" was left at the Brandenburg Gate to defend until it ran out of ammo. ). But let's keep it in the realm of possibility, I seriously doubt they are ever going to model the super heavy variants of russian or german tanks. Some of those later German monsters with the 128mm guns would have been a match for a few of todays MBT's!
Here's a link you "super tank" guys might find interesting:
http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm
Enjoy!:aok
-
How bout the strum-tiger(spelling?)
that naval canon will even be able to take out a cv thats killing a base.
-
Originally posted by Furball
m10 would be incredibly vunerable because of open turret
Yeah, I can see that open turret thing has really slowed down the Osty.
-
Maybe if we could throw grenades or molitov cocktails it would matter. But for the purposes of this game I don't think the open turret is much of a factor.
Might make a difference in the amount of damage aircraft guns could do diving on one...I thought about that after the posting of the thought above.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Yeah, I can see that open turret thing has really slowed down the Osty.
ostwind has a 37mm cannon to fend aircraft off. it is incredibly easy to kill an osty turret with an aircraft.
they have the M-10 in wwiionline, that suffers badly from air attack and infantry with grenades when it is out in the open.
-
Originally posted by Furball
ostwind has a 37mm cannon to fend aircraft off. it is incredibly easy to kill an osty turret with an aircraft.
they have the M-10 in wwiionline, that suffers badly from air attack and infantry with grenades when it is out in the open.
Tank Destroyers in the open should be easy prey, in fact the gameplay
we use for panzers now is ideally suited for the ambush tactics used by
TD units. Of course we don't have infantry or grenades, but we do have
hordes of 1,000 lb carrying air units.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Russians have only a single tank, despite being on the eastern front where mass tank on tank combat was very common
You kidding right?
How come no one ever speaks about those?(we need those in game btw.)
Havy tanks "red army ww2"
T-35 | KV-1 | KV-2 | IS-2 | IS-3
Medium tanks
T-28 | T-34 | T-44
Self propelled guns
ZiS-30 | SU-5 | SU-76 | SU-85 | SU-100 | SU-122 | SU-152 | ISU-122 |
ISU-152
Anti-aircraft guns
T-60Z | T-70Z | T-90
Armored cars
D-8 | D-12 | D-13 | FAI | BA-10 | BA-11 | BA-20 | BA-21 | BA-3 | BA-6 | BA-27 | BA-64 | BA-I | LB-62 |LB-23
-
Originally posted by KgB
You kidding right?
How come no one ever speaks about those?(we need those in game btw.)
Havy tanks "red army ww2"
T-35 | KV-1 | KV-2 | IS-2 | IS-3
Medium tanks
T-28 | T-34 | T-44
Self propelled guns
ZiS-30 | SU-5 | SU-76 | SU-85 | SU-100 | SU-122 | SU-152 | ISU-122 |
ISU-152
Anti-aircraft guns
T-60Z | T-70Z | T-90
Armored cars
D-8 | D-12 | D-13 | FAI | BA-10 | BA-11 | BA-20 | BA-21 | BA-3 | BA-6 | BA-27 | BA-64 | BA-I | LB-62 |LB-23
It might help if you clarified what you meant, Furball was obviously refering to the fact there is only one russian tank modeled in AHII; what are you talking about?:confused:
-
Originally posted by KgB
You kidding right?
no, i was trying to say - we need more russian tanks.
See, Brenjan got it. :p
-
Originally posted by Pooface
:lol
and you just got a jeep! that's the first entirely new vehicle/plane in over a year!!!!!!
quit complaining lol
Come on, do we really need to flame the wishlist! LOL Nowhere is safe
I don't think it's even been a year since the T-34, so I'm not demanding a new tank, I'm WISHING for one. I'm requesting that when we get a new GV next (when ever that is) that IT'S A TANK. Most prefered that it will be a tank that will specifically narrow the tank gap between the Panzer & Tiger.
I only tossed out an American tank, cause I like em, and we don't have an American heavy tanks in the game yet. But I'm not headstrong on it, I know there is some really good choices available from the other countries.
The current T-34 Model is affective for breaking heavy spawn camps, or running down a smokin tiger, or if you just want to challenge yourself. But on the open battle field it is good for 1 shot, and then it's dead. This tank is not competetitive on the overall, any one shot ranging panzer can make quick work of a T34.
JMFJ
p.s. GV DORKS RULE!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Furball
no, i was trying to say - we need more russian tanks.
See, Brenjan got it. :p
Yeah i should stop posting when not sobber:noid
Sorry about that
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
I'm requesting that when we get a new GV next (when ever that is) that IT'S A TANK.
JMFJ
I would rather that it's a Wirblewind.
-
Ya'll keep yelling, gimme this, gimme that....If you want something so bad, why dont you try and bribe the man (im sure everything has its price).
-
Originally posted by KgB
You kidding right?
How come no one ever speaks about those?(we need those in game btw.)
Havy tanks "red army ww2"
T-35 | KV-1 | KV-2 | IS-2 | IS-3
Medium tanks
T-28 | T-34 | T-44
Self propelled guns
ZiS-30 | SU-5 | SU-76 | SU-85 | SU-100 | SU-122 | SU-152 | ISU-122 |
ISU-152
Anti-aircraft guns
T-60Z | T-70Z | T-90
Armored cars
D-8 | D-12 | D-13 | FAI | BA-10 | BA-11 | BA-20 | BA-21 | BA-3 | BA-6 | BA-27 | BA-64 | BA-I | LB-62 |LB-23
Since you admit to being "not sober" when you posted the above, I was hoping you wouldn't mind a few questions for me about your list.
Heavy's: I thought the T-35s were all retired by the time the war began with Germany. I also thought the IS-3 never saw action (at least not vs. Germany). Do you have info to the contrary?
Medium: By T-44, do you mean the T-34/85 (it was introduced in 44)?
Self-propelled guns: By SU-5, did you mean SU-45? I am not familiar with an SU-5.
Anti-aircraft guns: I know the T-60 and T-70 were light tanks with 20mm cannon, but I think both were closed-topped and not used for AA duty. And I am not familiar with the T-90 in WWII. Could you give a thumbnail?
Thanks!
-
Here are my choices for what it's worth.
(http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/anowe/wirbelwind_1.jpg)
(http://glidereng.bravepages.com/firefly.jpg)
(http://www.atlantikwall.net/pictures/arm_fort_sill_artillerie_8,8cm_flak_36.jpg)
-
Middle link was broken last post, sorry
Here ya go
(http://www.warchronicle.com/staffsyeo/soldierstories_wwii/firefly.jpg)
-
Originally posted by MOIL
Middle link was broken last post, sorry
Here ya go
(http://www.warchronicle.com/staffsyeo/soldierstories_wwii/firefly.jpg)
Firefly?
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
Firefly?
Yes sirre!!!! :aok
-
firefly would be cool :)
as would towable ack guns:D
-
I like all three & the Panther..I have been wishing for the whirblwind for an equally long time...& 88mm or 90mm manned ack with proximity fuses too. I think many of the gv'rs have a lot of the same wants.
-
I would be happy with any of those three MOIL posted or the panther. Better then the jeep.
-
I hear ya, the Jeep isn't my first choice, however, it does serve a purpose and I'm thankful we got something new in the GV lineup.
I honestly believe the ground action will continue to attract attn to new and old players alike. It's always tough to please everyone when considering adding new veh's & planes.
I choose these particular weapons for many reasons other than I happen to like them. The Flak-36 was widely used in WWII and played an important part in defense and assault.
The Wirbelwind was primarily used for defensive purposes to protect Panzer divisions from low flying/attacking A/C. There were more Wirbelwinds produced than Ostwinds (Eastwind)
The Swiss Bofors gun was widely used by many sides during the war, easily concealed, quick to deploy and very effective AA when setup in groups.
-
Originally posted by MOIL
I hear ya, the Jeep isn't my first choice, however, it does serve a purpose and I'm thankful we got something new in the GV lineup.
I honestly believe the ground action will continue to attract attn to new and old players alike. It's always tough to please everyone when considering adding new veh's & planes.
I choose these particular weapons for many reasons other than I happen to like them. The Flak-36 was widely used in WWII and played an important part in defense and assault.
The Wirbelwind was primarily used for defensive purposes to protect Panzer divisions from low flying/attacking A/C. There were more Wirbelwinds produced than Ostwinds (Eastwind)
The Swiss Bofors gun was widely used by many sides during the war, easily concealed, quick to deploy and very effective AA when setup in groups.
I like that other than remark. I think all three choices have merit I would vote for whirblwind over the bofors & the Panther over either of them we have ( I ain't crazy about the bofors ). I also think stationary manable 88mm AT guns & AA guns with proximity fuzes should be a staple at every base as well as quad .50's or 20mm on top of the tower or other building in a sandbagged position that can be manned would be a welcome addition ( proxy fuze for high buffs & quad sets for low fast jabo ) I know the jeep is the flavor of the day but it seems to be of little value from my eyes. It's faster, yes, It was built & deployed in staggering numbers, yes. It just wouldn't have made my top fifty wishlist. And not a single one of my wishes are because I think it would make me look cool when I look in the mirror:cool:
-
Here here:)
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
You state you don't like crap. You also state you want the Sherman.
The Sherman IS crap. If you had a Sherman it would be killed by one round. It would also have a difficult time killing a Panzer and the only way for it to kill a Tiger is to be behind it AND be very close.
Depends on the Sherman, the 75 gunned Shermans yes, the 76mm gunned Shermans no, the 17 lber gunned Sherman no.
Both the 76 mm and 17 lber version of the Sherman was capable of killing both the Panzer Aus IV, Panther Aus V, and the Tiger Aug VI.
As for country as Furball requested the 17 lber was a british Sherman, but if I remember correctly the Brit crocodile with the 57mm gun would also kill Tigers and below.
-
Okay as much as people are whining aobut US had 7 VHs..blah blah blah.
THis what should be. Each country should have at LEAst 2 Good solid tanks in the game. The Germans have the most. The tanks that the US has couldn't stand up against un-maned john deer tractor.
The main battle tanks are lopsided to the Axis.. the Allies only have one real threat and that is the RUssian one.
To NOT include a Sherman for the US is a slap in the face of History by Hitechcreations. The Sherman was a GOOD SOLID tank and if ran right could EASLY stand toe to toe with any German tank out there.. AGAIN please continue to read and not let your ego take over... Granted the Sherman tank commander was smarter the then German.. if the German command was on equal skill level the Sherman would lose but even then the loses on the German was high also.
Anyway, if Hitehcreations was on their toes they would of made for each country have at LEAST 2 MAIN BATTLE TANKS. WEll if the country had 2 anyway..
People are getting tired of having the only REAL tank option of drving a German tank or a Russian. When it comes to WWII and tank Drvining.. there is 2 names that pop into most people minds.. Panzer.. Sherman
-
I don't really get the part about commander skill level. German soldiers were some of the best trained troops in the history of armed conflict. Hey folks, would an American design redesigned by the Brits kill two birds with one stone?:D
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I don't really get the part about commander skill level. German soldiers were some of the best trained troops in the history of armed conflict. Hey folks, would an American design redesigned by the Brits kill two birds with one stone?:D
Heheh well no, the main strong point for the Sherman was its reliability, it ran well and broke down seldom. It was never designed as an anti-tank vehicle in the first place but rather an infantry support vehicle (in which roll it performed well).
The facts are that the German, Brit and Russian tank crews were better trained than were the Americans, in fact in some cases guys were pulled out of the infantry line to become American tankers, cause they had some experience driving farm equipment in civilian life.
The other strong point for the Sherman was its numbers (as a guess I would say over 10 to 1 vs any other tank in WWII with the possible exception of the T34)
The later versions (easy 8 for one) could with first shot advantage destroy a Tiger, but usual tactic was to deploy 5 or 6 Shermans vs 1 panzer (panzer being the German word for tank) of any ilk.
-
I think you meant to quote gorf boxboy, replying to me with that quote makes no sense. By the way I think history bears out what you said as fact. I said exactly what you said...now the question I posed.
Would an American designed tank that was modified by the British fill the role for a U.S. & British tank in the game? I'm thinking specifically of the firefly here. Anyone, your opinions?
-
That's a good point Bren, I think it would. I just happen to like the Firefly (this is a personal choice) not sure it would be the "right" tank to add to the lineup.
There are many possibilities in this area, many good tanks from WWII.
-
I want something that is like a T-34 with a faster reloading time, and a low perk value.
JMFJ
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I think you meant to quote gorf boxboy, replying to me with that quote makes no sense. By the way I think history bears out what you said as fact. I said exactly what you said...now the question I posed.
Would an American designed tank that was modified by the British fill the role for a U.S. & British tank in the game? I'm thinking specifically of the firefly here. Anyone, your opinions?
OOPS you are right :eek:
-
Meh. All you "uber ist better" lads are completely missing the points why the Shermie is the obvious pick, boyos.
Historical scenario reasons:
1: Every front.
2: Pretty much every allied country had some. Skin those puppies.
3: Tons were made. Variants a plenty. Perkable and non perkable.
Just plain cool reasons:
1: Oddball's take on negative waves.
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
2: Oddball's occasional retake of negative waves.
Crapgame: Hey, Oddball, this is your moment of glory. And you're chickening out!
Oddball: To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three tigers.
3: Oddball regains some optimism.
Oddball: A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge.
4: Oddball takes a break.
Oddball: Hi, man.
Big Joe: What are you doing?
Oddball: I'm drinking wine and eating cheese, and catching some rays, you know.
Big Joe: What's happening?
Oddball: Well, the tank's broke and they're trying to fix it.
Big Joe: Well, then, why the hell aren't you up there helping them?
Oddball: [chuckles] I only ride 'em, I don't know what makes 'em work.
Big Joe: Christ!
Oddball: Definitely an antisocial type. Woof, woof, woof! That's my other dog imitation.
5: Oddball on tactics and strategy
Oddball: We see our role as essentially defensive in nature. While our armies are advancing so fast and everyone's knocking themselves out to be heroes, we are holding ourselves in reserve in case the Krauts mount a counteroffensive which threatens Paris... or maybe even New York. Then we can move in and stop them. But for 1.6 million dollars, we could become heroes for three days.
(http://carteles.metropoliglobal.com/fotos/1/0062616158.jpg)
-
Just plain cool reasons:
1: Oddball's take on negative waves.
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
2: Oddball's occasional retake of negative waves.
Crapgame: Hey, Oddball, this is your moment of glory. And you're chickening out!
Oddball: To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three tigers.
3: Oddball regains some optimism.
Oddball: A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge.
4: Oddball takes a break.
Oddball: Hi, man.
Big Joe: What are you doing?
Oddball: I'm drinking wine and eating cheese, and catching some rays, you know.
Big Joe: What's happening?
Oddball: Well, the tank's broke and they're trying to fix it.
Big Joe: Well, then, why the hell aren't you up there helping them?
Oddball: [chuckles] I only ride 'em, I don't know what makes 'em work.
Big Joe: Christ!
Oddball: Definitely an antisocial type. Woof, woof, woof! That's my other dog imitation.
5: Oddball on tactics and strategy
Oddball: We see our role as essentially defensive in nature. While our armies are advancing so fast and everyone's knocking themselves out to be heroes, we are holding ourselves in reserve in case the Krauts mount a counteroffensive which threatens Paris... or maybe even New York. Then we can move in and stop them. But for 1.6 million dollars, we could become heroes for three days.
Well, that pretty much puts the lid on it as far as I'm concerned! Looks like the Sherman wins out! Hehehe...:lol
Arlo, you slay me...:D
-
BRITISH CRUSADER TANK! MUAHAHAHAHA
-
Well, I always like the jadgPanther, and it is not a bad option against tigers, some in the middle panzer IV and tigers.
The lack of turret, means you always must have the engine started, but also has a low shape, think is a good compromise and looks nice.
Salute all, Passao
-
*bump*
-
Originally posted by CapnMike
Arlo, you slay me...:D
Hiya Cap'n Mike. How's the CTs these days?
Woof! ... that's my other dog imitation. :D
-
I enjoy taking the M-8 and sneaking up on panzers and disabling them with 1 shot (takes about 5 to kill em though).
Give me an M-18 so I can sneak up on tigers!
-
what was the little tank Cadillac made?(was it the stewart?)Just wondering.
-
I believe Caddy built both the M5 version of the Stewart and the M24 "Chaffee" light tanks. Both were recon vehicles. The Stewart had only a 37mm gun, which was increasingly lacking as the war went on. The Chaffee had a 75mm gun which gave it as much firepower as the standard M4 Sherman, but had less armor and relied more on speed and manouver rather than try to fight toe-to-toe with anyone (as with most recon vehicles).
The M18 Hellcat was considered a tank destroyer. It was fast, had a decent gun (76mm), but very lightly armored. I googled it and the first sight says it was manufactured by Buick. It also says maximum hull thickness was a half inch and max turret armor was one inch. By comparison, IIRC the M4 Sherman had 2 inches armor in the front hull.
-
Stug please.
(http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531019/53101927.jpg)
More..
http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531019/ps531019.html
http://www.andreaslarka.net
-
The stug was one of the better designs, especially early in the war according to history, but since we don't have reliability issues & problems getting spare parts it doesn't "do it" for me....(but it'd be better than nothing)
-
Stug is just a turretless PZ IV
-
Good info, thanks for the reply.
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
Stug is just a turretless PZ IV
There were several very succesful models of the stug, any one of which could be added. I am not a stug expert nor do I want to become one, but it was held in high regard by the Germans & her adversaries. I think it's an ugly bugger myself & would be more useful in scenario play since it was one of the more powerful pieces of early german armour & captured stugs were used by the allies as well as the germans.....but so no one forgets my whiney- snotting - sniveling wish Bring on the Panther! :D