Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: funked on November 06, 2000, 10:20:00 PM
-
Wouldn't these be great?
http://battletanks.com/m18_hellcat.htm (http://battletanks.com/m18_hellcat.htm)
http://battletanks.com/new_page_24.htm (http://battletanks.com/new_page_24.htm)
I see all these suggestions for relatively slow boring tanks. Give me speed!!!
-
Let's compromise.
M8 AC - just think of it as an Ostwind with limited vertical traverse, slower ROF, and double the speed.
M3 75mm - We have the M3 chassis already, sling a M6 or the M1/2 75mm up there on top.
M12 - M7 is nice, but why settle for the 105 when you can get the 155?
M-18 and the M-24 have about as much of a chance as they do... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Greyhound-why?,it's gun could barely hurt the Pzkfw Iv it has no 37mm AA capability,and it could be killed easily by almost everything...
Puma would be better or a PSW 234/1,at least the later MA could be used in the AA role and it would take out Halftracks with ease,heck the Puma could TO a Pzkfw IV a lot easier than a M-8,and look better doing it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The M-24 is a cool looking tank and FAST,but it's 75mm gun lacks power and range,and it has weak armor,scoot and shoot..
T-34/76 or a M4A2 would be better.
Brady
-
Blah blah blah.
Slow tanks slow tanks slow tanks.
I want a big gun and fast wheels!!!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
The PSW 234 series had 8 wheals,all wheal drive and independent suspension,the Puma had a 5cm kwk L60 main armament in a fully enclosed turret,and the 234/1 had a 2cm main armament with a coxial MG 34 that could be used in the AA role,both were fast and a way better armored car than the M8/M20.
Brady
-
There's always the various German AC's...
You could have a 75mm FH or the Pak 40
Anyone for a M-37? Combine the M5 chassis with the long barreled M2 105mm and you've got a nice combo.
- Jig
-
M8 AC had a 37mm HV gun similar to the Stuarts. It's not a semi-auto, so the ROF would be probably 1 per 3-5 seconds.
The Hellcat would rock.
Another interesting option is the HMC M8. Essentially a Stuart chassis with a low velocity short barreled 75mm. Light armor, but more speed. I'm not sure that it would actually have any advantages, but it'd been cool to see someone include it. <grin>
Thog
-
Yep, speed, guns, speed, and more speed. Armor and huge guns are useless if you never make contact with the enemy. Gimme speed!!!
-
I'm with you Funked!!
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Nothing personal m8t's but the US tank destroyers are well collectively ahhh krap....
They all sacrifice armor for speed and with the exception of the 90mm tube on some late war models armed with a gun that could only be described as moderately effective against German tanks, and less than effective against most all late model German Tank destroyers.
The whole concept behind US tank destroyers proved to be a bit flawed,especially when compared to the way the Germans and Russians built them and deployed them.
Another annoying little aspect of them is that they are open toped,everybody and his grandma with a rock in her hand can hurt/stun/kill the crew with relative ease.
Yes speed is nice but they are, I feel, better choices for speed and a medium armament,say a M-24, a Puma,AEC MK 3,Daimler, to name but a few.
You will have to forgive my impassioned distaste for US tank destroyers for I am a Veteran of many an hour playing Advanced Squad Leader, and they gave me many a headache.
Brady
-
I'm sure the M18 was a turd in some games. But in real life (and probably in AH) it was a real pain in the butt for the enemy.
-
It would be to easy to kill, maybe not by a panzer while it was moving, but a osty could track and hit it so could ever airplane in the game, if a zero can kill a M3 from above even it could kill the M18.
And u still have to stop to shoot, al least with any degree of accuracy,They do look cool though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Brady
Wait, every dog deserves his day , we need a US tank, so why not add the M18, despite my misgivings about the soundness of the whole concept behind it, it could be fun to have a fast tank.
-
You're missing something in this debate. What? Easy; attacking structures. A 76mm gun would give a nasty wallop to nearly anything. Combine that with a chassis capable of 55mph and you've got a great Hit & Run unit for plastering V-bases. Add in an M3 right behind him, and you've got a high-speed capture team. 76mm blows the ack and M3 rolls in before that stupid Osty knows what's going on.
Of course, this would make V-base turn-over rates HIDEOUSLY high. You could see the same two pairs of idiots take and re-take one V-base inside 30 minutes. Field capture would be a real pain, as one team consisting of 4 M18s and a single M3 could take a field. 3 M18s would blow the ack, while #4 played camper near the VH. With an M3 near-by, the field is yours.
------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000
-
would prefer the M18 with the 105 howister..
Dog out...
-
Delta, M-18 carried between 25 and 40 rounds, and very very few of them were HE.
the assault gun version of the M-18...I dunno.
Using a short barreled M2 they'd be in a nasty position when putting it to practical use...normally within most AT weapon ranges for the howitzer to be effective.
The M-37 wouldn't be to bad tho (you'd have to allow for time enough to lower the out-rigger for the normal M2 though, but you'd have a 7 mile range)
-
Couple notes;
1) The 76L54 was a decent, if not exceptional, gun. What made it a menace was that it could fire a tungsten cored round. If we had M18's (or M10's, or M4A3/76's etc) with a limited supply of tungsten rounds, it would be more appropriate. Figure maybe 5-8 tops, plus standard APBC.
2) The choice of even a 75L34 would work if the objective is to keep the armor on par with a MkIVH. Especially considering the speed improvement any American tank would have vs. a MkIV, you probably wouldn't want a HV gun on it as well if you want to keep things balanced. If you introduce heavy armor (say, a Tiger or KV series), then a 76mm armed Sherman or Ami-TD would work. The MkIV would still likely fall out of favor.
3) I spoke with a WWII vet who was a TC in an M18. He was one of the black tank crews in the Battle of the Bulge. He loved the speed, but the lack of armor got allot of his friends killed. Basically he felt that the M18 was a fast way to get to the battlefield and die. Partly this was because most engagements he was in occured at less than 200meters and from ambush, both when he was ambushing and when he was ambushed. This range makes the M18's speed irrelavent, and leaves it up to 1st shot (turret traverse, optics, and crew skill) and armor thickness/slope. In AH, things would not work out that way on the tilted-billiard table that the terrain is right now. And it'll be awhile before they can do much about that I suspect.
Thog
-
You're missing something in this debate. What? Easy; attacking structures. A 76mm gun would give a nasty wallop to nearly anything.
Flakbait gets it!
Brady, from what I've read M18 crews could fire on the move because of the gyrostabilizer. Sure Ostwinds could kill it, but they'd have to get in range first, and they can kill Panzers quite easily anyways.
-
How about a British-American AFV
SP, 17pounder M10
"Achilles"
http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/profiles/achilles/achilles.htm (http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/profiles/achilles/achilles.htm)
Or for amphibious operations
Sherman DD tank
http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/dd/dd1.html (http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/dd/dd1.html)
-
Funked, according to the TC I talked to, the gyrostab was very overrated. He said it was usually disabled by the crew because it didn't work as intended. In fact when I asked him what he would have wanted to see in a tank, he said an effective gyrostabilizer, a good rangefinder, and better armor.
When I replied that he was essentially describing the M1 tank, he asked what that was. Turns out he hadn't paid attention to any of that since about 1962 when he left the Army (he was in since '42).
So I wouldn't be inclined to put too much into a gyrostabilizer for the M18. I suspect that the effect is overmodled in Combat Mission is well.
Did I just use that word? Man, somebody frigging shoot me....
Thog
-
Yes all the stories I have read point to the Gyrostabilizer as not being used, it broke down and was seldom repaired,and that is true for any type of tank it was mounted on.
Also as pointed out earlier TD types commonly carried more AP than HE,and as far as tungston Carbide cored AP rounds, the Germans had them as well, although they were issued in smaller numbers do to a shortage of that material in Germany.
Another point and one maybe some of u can help me with,since some of my reference books are halfway across the state (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif),is to the best of my knowledge the German 7.5cm kwk L48 was a very good gun quite capable of killing all US tanks(with the exception of the JUMBO)from the front at a decent range, also I am under the impression that the 76mm tube on us tanks was in most respects so close in performance to it's German counterpart as to be considered equal to it.
Sooo it's HE shell should be about as effective as the German one in game terms/?
Another point those high speed base takeovers could be easily interdicted by strafing fighters against the M-18's open top.
Their are so many Tanks that could be added taht would be balanced for the one we currently have such as a M4A2, or a T-34/76, I suppose that this is half the fun though debating these issues, after all that's why I spend an hour a night hear before I fly (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Brady
-
Brady, the references I have indicate that the US 76L54 and German 75L48 are both at about 5.7 or 5.8 kgs for an HE round. This means they're roughy equivilent, with some variance for casing thickness and explosive material. Figure close enough for anyone but the supremely anal-retentive (eg, much of this board).
The M18 would do well, but would require carefull handling to survive. The 76mm gun with standard APBC would penetrate a MkIV at 1500 meters or less most of the time. But anything bigger than a .50cal would kill a M18 at any angle, almost any distance. It had about 15mm of armor in most places.
Agreed on the tank types. HTC isn't getting into anything like the Panzer Elite or Combat Mission level of detail, but they do a pretty good job with the vehical models. Still, I suspect it's somewhat easier to add vehicals than aircraft, if only because the FM details on an aircraft are so much more finicky than anything but the internal layout of a tank. Hope to see more sometime soon. Like a heavy (Tiger or KV), a fast mover (M18, M5, T-70, Puma), an assault gun (M4-105, M7, Hummel, Stug42), and a TD (Jagdpanther, JpzIV/70, Hetzer, Marder or Su-85).
Also looking for Elvis, but not holding my breath...
Thog