Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: crazyivan on September 19, 2009, 09:32:13 PM
-
Alright this a wishlist. I wish we had the M-18 hellcat in the game. It's one of the fastest tanks made in WW2 with over 1800 produced. It also has a 76mm main gun. Yeah thats right, it's fast and carries a big stick!
(http://i317.photobucket.com/albums/mm387/Daytona-675/M18-Hellcat-wiesloch-19450401.jpg)
(http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss129/Captain_B_Bear/hellcattank.jpg)
-
This would be a great addition to the game.It isd also histoically correct for the time period.It also played a major role in the Battle of the Bulge.
-
+1 :rock
-
Some one watched episode #4 last night? http://military.discovery.com/convergence/tank-overhaul/episode/episode.html
-
I've always liked the looks of both the M-18 and the M-10...just sharp IMO.
-
Alright this a wishlist. I wish we had the M-18 hellcat in the game. It's one of the fastest tanks made in WW2 with over 1800 produced. It also has a 76mm main gun. Yeah thats right, it's fast and carries a big stick!
(http://i317.photobucket.com/albums/mm387/Daytona-675/M18-Hellcat-wiesloch-19450401.jpg)
(http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss129/Captain_B_Bear/hellcattank.jpg)
It is not a tank, it is a tank destroyer. There is a huge difference. I love the M-18, but anyone expecting it to be a tank is going to be extremely upset.
-
+1 for the M18 :aok
-
I'd like to see it but I think HTC should be focusing on aircraft ATM, (He111, Hint Hint)
-
+1
-
+1 :rock
:salute ACEMAN
-
It is not a tank, it is a tank destroyer. There is a huge difference. I love the M-18, but anyone expecting it to be a tank is going to be extremely upset.
thanks Bob Barker! :confused:
-
It is not a tank, it is a tank destroyer. There is a huge difference. I love the M-18, but anyone expecting it to be a tank is going to be extremely upset.
Whats your definition of a tank? Has a big high velocity gun, tracked, armored, seems like a tank :salute
-
Whats your definition of a tank? Has a big high velocity gun, tracked, armored, seems like a tank :salute
Take a look at the lightly armored turret. In fact, the whole thing is lightly armored compared to even a light tank. It is not designed to do the jobs a tank is designed to do. It is 1/2 the weight of a Sherman, despite being built on the same chassis. Wonder where the weight went? It was armor they did not put on the M-18. How many tanks have an open top turret? The M-18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer does.
The vehicle is called the M-18 tank destroyer, because the military says it is not a tank.
-
seems like a tank :salute
What it looks like to the average guy, and what military deems it to be are two different views.
-
Having watched the episode of tank overhaul on the M18 it could not withstand heavy machine gun rounds. They would slice right through it also no machine gun mounted along side of the main gun & also the open top from what they said this is the reason it is not classified as a tank but a tank destroyer.
-
I like how the M-18 is getting reconized, we have had lots of posts about it this summer, hope that sends a message to HTC!
+1, no no +2 or +3! To the M-18 :rock
-
Hell ,savage have you even played AH in awhile ? askin ?
-
Take a look at the lightly armored turret. In fact, the whole thing is lightly armored compared to even a light tank. It is not designed to do the jobs a tank is designed to do. It is 1/2 the weight of a Sherman, despite being built on the same chassis. Wonder where the weight went? It was armor they did not put on the M-18. How many tanks have an open top turret? The M-18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer does.
The vehicle is called the M-18 tank destroyer, because the military says it is not a tank.
Yes, tank destroyers were designed to kill tanks, not support infantry. The M18 was not based upon the Sherman chassis, it was a unique design, far superior to the Sherman chassis.
The reality of the situation was that many TDs were used to support infantry and were frequently used for both direct and indirect fire against enemy strong points.
Anyone interested in WWII Tank Destroyer operations and doctrine can download a study from the Army's Combined Arms Research Library here: https://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf (https://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hell ,savage have you even played AH in awhile ? askin ?
Yeah, some, in the last month or two. Your point?
I've been a paying customer here since 2001, and in fact, since around 2003, without a break. So, I pay my $15, I figure I'm entitled to my opinion.
-
Yes, tank destroyers were designed to kill tanks, not support infantry. The M18 was not based upon the Sherman chassis, it was a unique design, far superior to the Sherman chassis.
The reality of the situation was that many TDs were used to support infantry and were frequently used for both direct and indirect fire against enemy strong points.
Anyone interested in WWII Tank Destroyer operations and doctrine can download a study from the Army's Combined Arms Research Library here: https://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf (https://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf)
My regards,
Widewing
I stand corrected. In two or three sources I read, it stated the M-18 was based on the Sherman chassis, modified.
-
I stand corrected. In two or three sources I read, it stated the M-18 was based on the Sherman chassis, modified.
The M10 and M36 TDs shared the Sherman Chassis. Both were lethal, especially the M36. However, both were way behind the M18 in speed and mobility.
M18
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/M18_hellcat_side.jpg/800px-M18_hellcat_side.jpg)
M10
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/53/Aberdean_proving_grounds_036.JPG/800px-Aberdean_proving_grounds_036.JPG)
M4 Sherman
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/M4A1_to_M4A3_tank_animation.gif)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yes, one would assume that the M-36 gun on the M-18 platform would be the ultimate in tank destroyers.
However, in reading the document you provided, one finds that the concept itself is somewhat flawed, and that firepower and armor tend to trump mobility, at least to a degree.
In AH II, since you do not really die, it would seem that the M-18 and the M-36 could be game changers.
-
Yes, one would assume that the M-36 gun on the M-18 platform would be the ultimate in tank destroyers.
However, in reading the document you provided, one finds that the concept itself is somewhat flawed, and that firepower and armor tend to trump mobility, at least to a degree.
In AH II, since you do not really die, it would seem that the M-18 and the M-36 could be game changers.
M18s ended the war with the lowest loss to kill ratio of any major American armored vehicle (M26 excluded as only a handful saw action). Speed and acceleration gave them a huge advantage. Shoot and scoot, get first shot and skedaddle. Shoot and reposition. Ultimate sniper vehicle. They could maneuver around Panthers and Mk IVs faster than they could track the M18... At St.Vith, hull-down M18s and M10s butchered German armor. Strategically, it was the defense of St. Vith, more than Bastogne, that crushed German chances at victory in the Bulge attack. Nothing else disrupted their schedule as badly. No other engagement used up armor and logistic assets faster at the most critical time of the German plan. St.Vith and those "damned American Engineers!", stalled the German attack to the point of futility.
There are some excellent studies on St.Vith on the Combined Arms Research Library site.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The paper you linked to, although lengthy and involved for most readers, was very good, and very informative.
Returning to my original point in this thread, people who try to use a tank destroyer like a tank are going to be upset at the results most often. They will not understand the light armor concept.
But a really good tank destroyer, like the M-18 or the M-36, or even to some extent the M-10, in the right hands will be deadly enough that it'll have a perk value and/or ENY value a lot closer to a Tiger than anything else.
People already complain about the Sherman/Firefly and the ability of its gun. While the M-18 doesn't have a really superior gun, in that it can't take out a Tiger from a great range with one frontal shot, the mobility of it will allow it, if properly used, to really work well. A really good shot in an M-36, especially one who has any grasp of position and concealment, is just going to break the hearts of a ton of Tiger drivers. The M-10 wouldn't be a bad ride, used properly.
-
depending on the modeling .. the M-18 would be a bust.. its a open turret and anyone can just straff to knock it out.
-
Proper use of cover, concealment, surprise, and movement will prevent that. There's not a GV in this game, outside of a Jeep, that can outrun the M-18 under normal circumstances. It would be hard to strafe the agile M-18 at it's top speed of about 55MPH. The M-18 can also go just about anywhere it will fit, it has the lowest ground pressure of just about any vehicle any where, its ground pressure is not that much greater than your average soldier, so it should even be able to traverse most beaches right up to the water's edge without even bogging down.
Besides, many of the GV's in the game now have an open top. They're used effectively in spite of that.
The M-18 can shoot back, it has an M2 50BMG as well.
-
I was driving an M-8 (my preferred GV) the other night and was able to take out the turrets in several tanks, but not get good kills on them. I started thinking how the M-18 would change things. At first there would be more M-18s then anthing, then people would realize they could ambush the M-18 waves and snipe them out from long range. So the tanks would rebound and change how things are played. Less sitting around in tanks first shot first kill. More shoot and relocating.
-
The M-18 would probably be taken out easily with one shot correct?
But...um...aren't all the guys in Panzers used to that anyway? And then you have the extremely lethal gun and extremely high speed...I see this thing as ending up perked higher than the Sherm.
I was driving an M-8 (my preferred GV) the other night and was able to take out the turrets in several tanks, but not get good kills on them. I started thinking how the M-18 would change things. At first there would be more M-18s then anthing, then people would realize they could ambush the M-18 waves and snipe them out from long range. So the tanks would rebound and change how things are played. Less sitting around in tanks first shot first kill. More shoot and relocating.
-
No, its a TANK DESTROYER, not a TANK. Plus, for the creator of this thread, you said you wanted a tank that was fast and had around a 76mm gun. *coughWE ALREADY HAVE T-34cough*
-
I was driving an M-8 (my preferred GV) the other night and was able to take out the turrets in several tanks, but not get good kills on them. I started thinking how the M-18 would change things. At first there would be more M-18s then anthing, then people would realize they could ambush the M-18 waves and snipe them out from long range. So the tanks would rebound and change how things are played. Less sitting around in tanks first shot first kill. More shoot and relocating.
With the need to have it perked, the M-18 would not be nearly so popular as you think. Sure, people who do not understand it will burn perks for the new ride at first. But after that it will be used by people who know how. Anything short of the Tiger can be taken out in one shot, at a distance, with regularity. But only the M-18 will be scooting around at 45MPH, hard to hit that at any distance for a one shot kill. It can flank you, and you cannot do anything about it. Sneak GV attacks will be a problem. Now it won't take very long to get something capable of killing a tank out to the town from the GV hangar.
If you're shooting and relocating when you're fighting an M-18 if you're in a tank, you're playing his game, not yours.
A dedicated GV group can really make use of the M-18, give it a little air cover and a few good people operating them and it changes everything.
-
So, if HTC decides to put the M18 in the game, and they do decide to perk it, who agrees with me it should be unperked for the first week or so so all the gv'ers can play with it before the real business begins? :pray :pray
opposum
-
So, if HTC decides to put the M18 in the game, and they do decide to perk it, who agrees with me it should be unperked for the first week or so so all the gv'ers can play with it before the real business begins? :pray :pray
opposum
wouldnt be perked bad armor and the gun is same as the M4A3(76)W E8 HVSS Sherman's 76mm couldnt' kill a tiger in front armor at medium or long ranges
-
wouldnt be perked bad armor and the gun is same as the M4A3(76)W E8 HVSS Sherman's 76mm couldnt' kill a tiger in front armor at medium or long ranges
TD units were allocated HVAP ammo. This stuff was extremely effective against the Mk.V Panther. I read one report where an HVAP penetrated the front hull of a Panther at 1,200 yards and the spent round was found in the engine compartment. Sherman units would barter with TD outfits to trade for a few HVAP rounds, just in case they ran into a Panther or Tiger. HVAP ammo put the M1A1 76mm just about on par with the Panther's long 75mm.
My regards,
Widewing
-
plz add it HT plz plz plz plz :lol this looks like it would be awesome :rock ive been wanting another tank so bad
-
M-18 Hellkat would be a great addition to the game. It would totally change tactics
and make spawn camping a bit more dangerous.
-
Special events don't have to use the sherman or M8 for the hellcat anymore! This tank destroyer needs to be added! :rock