Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GFShill on January 26, 2009, 06:32:10 AM
-
An unperked tank destroyer would be a great way to refresh this game with the new terrain, and it could be used to uncamp spawns. Please bring the M-10 or M-18 to Aces High!
-
The armor on the Firefly is thicker and the gun much better than the M10 or M18 had.
The only advantage the M18 had was it's speed. Almost twice as fast as the Sherman or M10 vehicles.
M36 Jackson...now that would be a whole different story.
-
The Jackson would definitely rule, but he said "unperked". I'm thinking the 90mm on the M36 would definitely merit some "perkage" with the current GV set.
Useless info: Just read that two M36's were in service with Taiwanese forces as recently as 2001
-
The M-36 would not need to be perked. It could easily be taken out with most any vehicle in the MA. You just would have to watch where you were going so you didn't get nailed.
-
The M-36 would not need to be perked. It could easily be taken out with most any vehicle in the MA. You just would have to watch where you were going so you didn't get nailed.
Not sure I'd agree with that. Although it's definitely thin-skinned, that gun would command a lot of respect at range. And with it's mobility, a good operator could do plenty of damage. Although I agree, he'd have to constantly "shoot & scoot" to stay alive.
It would be a blast to hunt these things with an M8 though. :D (or an IL-2 :D :D :D)
-
What about any of the German or Russian tank killers? They might make some good additions to the game as well.
-
What about any of the German or Russian tank killers? They might make some good additions to the game as well.
JadgPanther or Su-100 would rock :rock, but I don't think we'll see either before the Panther. And I don't think we'll see that very soon.
-
I'm for a TD and have been for a long time. My preferance is probably the M-18 as I believe it was the ultimate TD of the war. Best of all was its speed and the combination of speed and firepower would make it a great addition to the game.
-
Sometimes I think the armour in AH doesn't matter that much. Once you have...say a Panzer with AP's on you, you're dead if you don't kill or evade mighty quick.
I usually get my tank disabled in the first shot.
-
I'd like to see a jadgpanzer IV or something along those lines. SU-76 would be cool too.
-
You can dodge shots (if far enough to see it coming, or just timing it right from medium range) and shoot from the turret while maneuvering with rudder pedals, and putting your armor at a glancing angle usualy makes a non negligible difference. Putting yourself uphill will really make a difference if done right. I've climbed a tiger up to the hill tops at the middle of OzKansas (or one of those maps with a TT) and stood without moving while four or five tanks tried to make their uphill long range shots stick. I flattened the base and rolled it home without any damage.. of course one of those guys showed up with a P47 just as I neared the tarmac.
-
I'd like to see a jadgpanzer IV or something along those lines. SU-76 would be cool too.
I still think having a tank/TD without a turret in the AH2 realm would be pointless. It wouldnt have any advantage over anything. They had very little ability to traverse the main gun. They sit very low, which in the AH2 realm is not like it was in the real deal because of the bunker-behind-mound effect most tank players use in game. And to top it all off, the ability for the tank/TD to pivot in place is not present, tanks have to move forward/reverse to turn. Not being able to pivot in place would really be a "shoot me" invite for the StuG, Jgdpzr IV, SU-x, etc.
Maybe I am wrong on this one, but I doubt it. ;)
-
Which is why we need an M-18 Hellcat. It was the fastest tracked vehicle of the war and could go 60 mph. M-18 missions, accompanied by M-16s, M-8s, and M-3s, would be very effective because the enemy just wouldnt have time to react. The whole shebang flying from spawn to town/base at 50 to 60 mph.
-
I still think having a tank/TD without a turret in the AH2 realm would be pointless. It wouldnt have any advantage over anything. They had very little ability to traverse the main gun. They sit very low, which in the AH2 realm is not like it was in the real deal because of the bunker-behind-mound effect most tank players use in game. And to top it all off, the ability for the tank/TD to pivot in place is not present, tanks have to move forward/reverse to turn. Not being able to pivot in place would really be a "shoot me" invite for the StuG, Jgdpzr IV, SU-x, etc.
Maybe I am wrong on this one, but I doubt it. ;)
You actually think there wouldn't be a track differential of some kind added with GVs using rotationless turrets? The TD turret guns sound like they packed an above average punch, and the speed would make mobility an adequate counter balance to light armor. T34s are already fast enough to throw off about 2/3s or 3/4s of players' aim. 60mph would put it on par with the M8, which is definitely a ($#@ to hit. Add an above average main gun and it will see plenty of use. The only true vulnerability would be A2G fire.
The terrain shortcomings of the game are a factor but not nearly enough to make something like an M18 unviable.
-
Which is why we need an M-18 Hellcat. It was the fastest tracked vehicle of the war and could go 60 mph. M-18 missions, accompanied by M-16s, M-8s, and M-3s, would be very effective because the enemy just wouldnt have time to react. The whole shebang flying from spawn to town/base at 50 to 60 mph.
An M-3 can not do a sustained speed of 40 mph let alone 50 to 60. I also highly doubt an M-18 could manage 40 mph off road for any sustained period.
-
But it would in AH, since that's the standard treatment they get. It would be cool if we got more realistic ground handling and lots of random roads with random buildings, bridges, etc, all over the maps. Would allow for more tactical variety and more realistic setting to ground slugfests.
-
You actually think there wouldn't be a track differential of some kind added with GVs using rotationless turrets? The TD turret guns sound like they packed an above average punch, and the speed would make mobility an adequate counter balance to light armor. T34s are already fast enough to throw off about 2/3s or 3/4s of players' aim. 60mph would put it on par with the M8, which is definitely a ($#@ to hit. Add an above average main gun and it will see plenty of use. The only true vulnerability would be A2G fire.
The terrain shortcomings of the game are a factor but not nearly enough to make something like an M18 unviable.
Re-read my post. You seem to have it out for me as of late and you're doing your best to get into an argument. "a track differential of some kind for turretless TD's"??? You're making some very broad statements about "TD guns sound like they packed an above average punch", etc, "speed and mobility", etc... the issue isnt the M18's gun, mobility, or speed. The issue is turret-less TD's. btw... the M18's gun was the 76mm which is less powerful than the Brit 17lb'er, and more powerful than the German Pzr 4 75mm (comparable, iirc), M4A1 Sherman 75mm, and T34/76mm. The M18 would bring speed WITH firepower to the game.
The current track model does not allow a tank to sit in one place and pivot, hence if one is behind cover in a turret-less TD two bad things happen: first, you must move forward or back (that requires a running engine so there goes the element of surprise) to traverse the gun further than the 15-20 degrees that requires a running engine. Secondly, by moving you could very well A> take your target ot of sight of the gun due to being below the mound/bunker, etc or B> move forard and become canted on the mound and still not get a shot due to being too high, etc. It must move forward or reverse to turn the body of the tank. Unless that model is corrected, the turretless TD's are sitting ducks and they will be left behind in the hanger for teh Firefly. If a TD is going to be introduced, I would highly suggest it have a turret (M10,M18, etc). Do you really think HTC is going to change the 5 other tanks in order to add the StuG, Jgdpzr IV, or other such turret-less TD? I doubt it. They'll continue with the model they have and as such the turretless TD's will be at that much more disadvantaged.
-
1- TDs having to get track differentials if they had any IRL is a given; a broad statement on a broad fact.
2- It's not hard at all to add individual track brakes. Therefore turretless TDs are not an issue for this reason.
3- Yes I think the other tanks would be "changed" if the introduction of separate track controls required it. It would be an improvement. That you think they wouldn't and insist it couldn't be otherwise is stupid. Your rants are uninformed, on top of being old news. Separate brakes have been suggested on the forums and in game before that, for years already.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,202114.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,201287.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,138226.msg1556017.html#msg1556017
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,112773.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,112200.0.html
All in all there's no reason for the TDs, turretless or not, to be considered "pointless" additions.
-
An M-3 can not do a sustained speed of 40 mph let alone 50 to 60. I also highly doubt an M-18 could manage 40 mph off road for any sustained period.
I always hought the M-3 goes about 45 mph. Were talking game here. If the M-18 is modeled for 60 mph then it will go 60 mph in the game, 100 mph downhill.
-
1- TDs having to get track differentials if they had any IRL is a given; a broad statement on a broad fact.
2- It's not hard at all to add individual track brakes. Therefore turretless TDs are not an issue for this reason.
3- Yes I think the other tanks would be "changed" if the introduction of separate track controls required it. It would be an improvement. That you think they wouldn't and insist it couldn't be otherwise is stupid. Your rants are uninformed, on top of being old news. Separate brakes have been suggested on the forums and in game before that, for years already.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,202114.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,201287.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,138226.msg1556017.html#msg1556017
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,112773.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,112200.0.html
All in all there's no reason for the TDs, turretless or not, to be considered "pointless" additions.
"Rants". You need to look up the defintion of "rant" because if you're pointing fingers at me you're being one Hell of a hypocrit.
LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU as I have said this already and you seem to keep prodding for a fight:
If HTC does not fix the inability to pivot a tracked vehicle in place (brakes, reversed tracks, etc) then adding a turreltess TD would be a lot of resources wasted for all the reasons I've already mentioned. If they do fix/update it (I doubt they will any time soon but if they do then "WTG HTC!"), then fine add in the Stug, Marder, Jdgpzr IV, etc. I dont care about previous threads suggesting brakes, etc for tracked vehicles because as it is we dont have it so suggesting we add in something that would otherwise be very handicapped would be a "moot" point. Until then, if a TD is going to be added I suggest the M10 or M18. Please, dont interpret my stance on teh matter in any other way, Mr. Over-Informed and Current on your info :rolleyes: .
-
I still think having a tank/TD without a turret in the AH2 realm would be pointless. It wouldnt have any advantage over anything. They had very little ability to traverse the main gun. They sit very low, which in the AH2 realm is not like it was in the real deal because of the bunker-behind-mound effect most tank players use in game. And to top it all off, the ability for the tank/TD to pivot in place is not present, tanks have to move forward/reverse to turn. Not being able to pivot in place would really be a "shoot me" invite for the StuG, Jgdpzr IV, SU-x, etc.
Maybe I am wrong on this one, but I doubt it. ;)
Proper separate track controls were'nt vital to the GVs we had added already. They would be to turretless GVs. They wouldn't be more than a minor feature as far as code/recode goes. Can you not do the math here?
-
Proper separate track controls were'nt vital to the GVs we had added already. They would be to turretless GVs. They wouldn't be more than a minor feature as far as code/recode goes. Can you not do the math here?
Is that kinda like baffles on the Mossie with regards to the minor code fix? ;)
If HTC doesnt alter the ability of tracked vehicles to be able to pivot in place, then having a turret-less TD (or other such armored piece) would be near suicide). If they alter that, then I'm all for it. Until then I say still with a TD that has a turrent.
-
The STuG.
Thread = over.
-
I'm for a TD and have been for a long time. My preferance is probably the M-18 as I believe it was the ultimate TD of the war. Best of all was its speed and the combination of speed and firepower would make it a great addition to the game.
Definitely your opinion. I guess it would depend how it was used but calling it the best TD of WW2 would be a stretch. The German Stug alone probally killed more tanks than all the American and British tanks combined including the TD's.
-
Definitely your opinion. I guess it would depend how it was used but calling it the best TD of WW2 would be a stretch. The German Stug alone probally killed more tanks than all the American and British tanks combined including the TD's.
That doesnt make it the best. ;) Total numbers of StuG's and poor allied/Soviet (mostly Soviet) tactics were probably more of a factor, imo. Besides, the StuG wasnt a designated TD unlike the Jadgpzr IV, M18, etc, it was an "assault gun" for use in directly supporting infantry. That isnt to say it wasnt used for killing tanks because it did just that, but it wasnt designed nor implemented in that fashion.
Besides, nothing was the "best" in WWII. It all depends of the realm in which we're talking about. On paper, the Panther was the "best" medium tank of the war but paper doesnt tell us all the problems it had, either. On paper, it appears as if the Me262 should have ruled the skies, but it didnt for a multitude of reasons. Always keep things in perspective.
-
Besides, the StuG wasnt a designated TD unlike the Jadgpzr IV, M18, etc, it was an "assault gun" for use in directly supporting infantry.
You're right, the STuG wasn't designed to be designated as a TD... and that's because IMO it was the first (that wasn't just a widowmaker).
If you'd look into it, when the Germans designed the STuG III there wasn't any place in military doctrine for Tank Destroyers. Why go out and make something for a task that there was no demand for? As a demand did, they found simply upgrading the armaments on the STuGs to ones more suited for anti-tank purposes than infantry support resulted in the most successfuly mass produced TD of WWII.
All the other TD you listed above were still dreams and ideas in someones head, or at most plans on a board when the STuG was already in action and tearing steel up in Europe.
-
I always hought the M-3 goes about 45 mph. Were talking game here. If the M-18 is modeled for 60 mph then it will go 60 mph in the game, 100 mph downhill.
I have an M2A1. It will not go 45 unless it is going downhill. If there is any incline, it is lucky to do 20.
In game, I think it accelerates too fast and has to high a top speed.
-
That doesnt make it the best. ;) Total numbers of StuG's and poor allied/Soviet (mostly Soviet) tactics were probably more of a factor, imo. Besides, the StuG wasnt a designated TD unlike the Jadgpzr IV, M18, etc, it was an "assault gun" for use in directly supporting infantry. That isnt to say it wasnt used for killing tanks because it did just that, but it wasnt designed nor implemented in that fashion.
Besides, nothing was the "best" in WWII. It all depends of the realm in which we're talking about. On paper, the Panther was the "best" medium tank of the war but paper doesnt tell us all the problems it had, either. On paper, it appears as if the Me262 should have ruled the skies, but it didnt for a multitude of reasons. Always keep things in perspective.
When did I say it was the best. My point was that even the Stug which was not designed as a TD had more success at killing tanks then American and British main battle tanks did . Hands down all the experts say the Jadgpanther was probally the best TD of WW2. The SU-100 was probally the allies best TD, at least by number of tanks killed goes. My comment was based on that guy saying that the M-18 was the best TD of WW2.
Oh yeah if you think the Russians were the weak link in allied armor then think again. The armor that the Russian's fielded was some of the best of all the allies. The only reason that German armor was as good as it was, was a direct result of countering Russian armor. The standard Panzer Mk IV and the Stug would have been sufficient to deal with any American and British armor all the way up to the end of the war. I'm not just talking on paper . Stugs killed more armor then all American and British tanks did combined. So being that the Stug wasn't even designed as a TD it sure did it better then just about any TD in WW2.
-
When did I say it was the best. My point was that even the Stug which was not designed as a TD had more success at killing tanks then American and British main battle tanks did . Hands down all the experts say the Jadgpanther was probally the best TD of WW2. The SU-100 was probally the allies best TD, at least by number of tanks killed goes. My comment was based on that guy saying that the M-18 was the best TD of WW2.
Oh yeah if you think the Russians were the weak link in allied armor then think again. The armor that the Russian's fielded was some of the best of all the allies. The only reason that German armor was as good as it was, was a direct result of countering Russian armor. The standard Panzer Mk IV and the Stug would have been sufficient to deal with any American and British armor all the way up to the end of the war. I'm not just talking on paper . Stugs killed more armor then all American and British tanks did combined. So being that the Stug wasn't even designed as a TD it sure did it better then just about any TD in WW2.
My reply about the StuG not being the best was countering the "quantity" arguement you made, thats all. But again, I wouldnt use total number of enemy tanks killed as a measuring device for quality, either. To say that the StuG destroyed more armor than both the US/UK did combined isnt telling the entire story. [I dont have the number in front of me so these are number from the air] ... if it took 1000 StuG's to destroy 3000 allied tanks, and it took 200 JgdPzr IV to destroy 1200 allied tanks, obviously the numbers dont tell the story. Plus, one cant forget to mention the close proximity fighting in bocage Normandy (easy to set up ambushes) vs the open steppes of eastern Europe where the Soviets and their "move towards the enemy" tactics played into the hands of the well trained, experienced, and professional German panzer crews. I understand your stance on "StuG wasnt a TD but destroyed ore tanks, etc", but that doesnt lend to the gaps that AH2 may have. No sense in adding in a like armed and less menouverable vehicle vs the Pzr IV we already have, imo.
Likewise, I didnt say the Soviets were a weak link. I mentioned their "head strong into the enemy" mentality and their lack of armored tactics, legit training, and decent armor leadership at least until early-mid '44. Their tanks were not a weak link in the least bit.
:salute
-
Just under 10,000 Stugs were built. Just under 50,000 Shermans were built, 30,000 T-34's were built during WW2, over 80,000 over all. You have to remember that of all major countries that fought in WW2 that Germany had the fewest tanks and TD's built . So quantity really isn't a factor concerning the Stug since it's production run was far less than any allied main battle tank. The point I was trying to make was that the M-18 was not the best TD in WW2 nor should it be added before many other TD's. The only reason the Stug would be a logical addition is that it can span all 3 arenas rather then just the LW. Soviet tactics were rather crude in the way they managed and trained their armor crews but the British had no idea how to use armor either. They were mauled at Normandy and their knowledge of armor fighting was inadequate against the Germans.
-
Just under 10,000 Stugs were built. Just under 50,000 Shermans were built, 30,000 T-34's were built during WW2, over 80,000 over all. You have to remember that of all major countries that fought in WW2 that Germany had the fewest tanks and TD's built . So quantity really isn't a factor concerning the Stug since it's production run was far less than any allied main battle tank. The point I was trying to make was that the M-18 was not the best TD in WW2 nor should it be added before many other TD's. The only reason the Stug would be a logical addition is that it can span all 3 arenas rather then just the LW. Soviet tactics were rather crude in the way they managed and trained their armor crews but the British had no idea how to use armor either. They were mauled at Normandy and their knowledge of armor fighting was inadequate against the Germans.
I understand your position with regards to adding the StuG being as prominate as it was. However, it fills no gap in the AH2 line up, imo. None. It would be less effective than the Pzr IV. Far less menouverable with our current tracked vehicle steering ability which means a very limited gun view/traverse, and the same exact gun. Adding the StuG (undeer current tracked vehicle coding) would be about as fruitful as taking the P40B or the rumored Buffalo in the LW arena and expecting to keep up. ;)
At this time, I dont think we need another tank. If HTC adds one, I hope it is a Sherman M4A1/75mm or M4A3/76mm. But I think the gap that needs to be filled is the TD gap, imo. We dont have a high speed/med-high firepower/low armor vehicle and the M18 would provide for just that. Or, the M10 would be an easy add on becuase iirc, the chassis is the same as an M4 which we already have and all that would need to be modelled would be the new turret, new gun, and new ammo. The hull is the same as our M4 Sherman Firefly (correct me if I am wrong).
:salute
out.
-
However, it fills no gap in the AH2 line up, imo. None.
:huh
We have ZERO turretless GVs with tank-caliber weaponry. That seems a very large gap to me, considering how much they were used.
At this time, I dont think we need another tank. If HTC adds one, I hope it is a Sherman M4A1/75mm or M4A3/76mm. But I think the gap that needs to be filled is the TD gap, imo. We dont have a high speed/med-high firepower/low armor vehicle and the M18 would provide for just that. Or, the M10 would be an easy add on becuase iirc, the chassis is the same as an M4 which we already have and all that would need to be modelled would be the new turret, new gun, and new ammo. The hull is the same as our M4 Sherman Firefly (correct me if I am wrong).
I can understand the desire for the M18, but it baffles me why people would want the M10 over so many other vehicles. It's armor, speed, and firepower are nearly exactly that of a 76mm armed Sherman. There is your vehicle that truly fills no gaps in the AH line up.
Oh, I forgot, it would be designated a TD instead of a tank. Well, if it waddles, swims, and quacks . . .
The "classic" TD is a turretless tank like the already mentioned Stg's, Jadgpanzers, Hetzer (my personal favorite), and Russian SUs and JSUs. US TDs are TDs by classification, but differ very little from true tanks in form. This IMO makes the Stg's et. al. much more desireable.
-
:huh
We have ZERO turretless GVs with tank-caliber weaponry. That seems a very large gap to me, considering how much they were used.
I can understand the desire for the M18, but it baffles me why people would want the M10 over so many other vehicles. It's armor, speed, and firepower are nearly exactly that of a 76mm armed Sherman. There is your vehicle that truly fills no gaps in the AH line up.
Oh, I forgot, it would be designated a TD instead of a tank. Well, if it waddles, swims, and quacks . . .
The "classic" TD is a turretless tank like the already mentioned Stg's, Jadgpanzers, Hetzer (my personal favorite), and Russian SUs and JSUs. US TDs are TDs by classification, but differ very little from true tanks in form. This IMO makes the Stg's et. al. much more desireable.
I couldn't have said it better. You are probally the most knowlegable tank guy that I have run across in the forums. :salute
-
I understand your position with regards to adding the StuG being as prominate as it was. However, it fills no gap in the AH2 line up, imo. None. It would be less effective than the Pzr IV. Far less menouverable with our current tracked vehicle steering ability which means a very limited gun view/traverse, and the same exact gun. Adding the StuG (undeer current tracked vehicle coding) would be about as fruitful as taking the P40B or the rumored Buffalo in the LW arena and expecting to keep up. ;)
At this time, I dont think we need another tank. If HTC adds one, I hope it is a Sherman M4A1/75mm or M4A3/76mm. But I think the gap that needs to be filled is the TD gap, imo. We dont have a high speed/med-high firepower/low armor vehicle and the M18 would provide for just that. Or, the M10 would be an easy add on becuase iirc, the chassis is the same as an M4 which we already have and all that would need to be modelled would be the new turret, new gun, and new ammo. The hull is the same as our M4 Sherman Firefly (correct me if I am wrong).
:salute
out.
No the M-10 has a different chassis, also the M-10 's turret was hand cranked not electric so I would imagine it would be a very slow traverse . The turretless TD's would add a whole new dimension to gv fighting. Remember that there is I believe 15deg of traverse to the right and left on most of them so shooting from a distance and adjusting to the left or right 15deg covers a lot of ground. I know when I go to LW tank town a lot of guys like to hide and wait for tanks to pass in front of them which would suit the TD's well so I think they could be used effectually, heck they were used that way in real life so why not here. The Stug in fact would be a different and possible better choice then the panzer. Same gun but thicker frontal armor, lower profile and would be harder to see and hit. Once again the only reason I say Stug is because it would be able to be used in all arenas. I would much rather see the jadgpanzer or the Su85 or Su100, even the Hetzer before any but again they would be limited to LW only which isn't fair to the folks that only play the earlier arenas.