Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: iron650 on July 09, 2011, 10:55:40 AM
-
The M10 Wolverine was used in the Desert Campaign. Also, the Wolverine was used in the Battle of Normandy and Pacific War. At the Battle of Normandy the Wolverine's gun couldn't penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger and Panther. The Wolverine used AP, APCBC, and APHE rounds.
The M10 specs:
Weight: 65,000lbs
Length: 22.41ft
Width: 10ft
Height: 8.43ft
Crew: 5 (Commander, 3 gun crew members, driver)
Armor: 9-57.2mm
Armament:
1x 3" (76.2mm) Gun M7
1x .50 cal M2 Browning machine gun
Engine: General Motors 6046 Twin Diesel 6-71 375 hp
Suspension: Vertical Volute Spring Suspension
Range: 186mi
Speed: 32mph
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/M10_tank_destroyer_italy_1945_sm.jpg)
The Wolverine will be an interesting addition. The M10 will help as a tank destroyer. The Wolverine is faster than the Sherman but has less armor. The M10 along with the Stug III and Su-85. The tank destroyer along and others can help defense/offense of a base.
-
This is blasphemy!
There should be no talk praising any Tank destroyers aside from the M-18 until after we get the M-18.
I'll assume you're just new to the game and let this one slide.
-
lol it would be nice to have some historic ones for any ealry war senerios
-
It would make for an easier addition to AH than the M18. The M10's chassis is already in game thanks to the M4's.
The ammunition is the same as the M4A3 (W) 76mm, yes? The charts are all showing the "AP M79" shot for the standard AP round for both the M10's 3in M7 main gun and the M4A3/76mm's M1 76mm main gun. Perhaps this is where HTC could add the APCBC (armor piercing capped w/ ballistic cap) and give the M10 better performance (another 15mm of AP) vs tanks over the M4/76mm???
The ability of the M10 to carry HE should be almost non-existent, with maybe a few token HE rounds for good measure. Actually, come to think of it I believe the Sherman VC Firefly carries far more HE rounds than it did in WWII as well. I'd like to see the Firefly have a diminished ablity to carry HE rounds.
-
Ok, it would make a nice addition buuuuuut, it is an open topped gun turret much like the wirblewind and as soon as it is strafed by any AC on 1 pass its turret will be renedered useless. Youmight as well ask for it to have the option of carrying a supply trailer behind it. And I havent done my research on the M10 in Normandy yet (I do not recall hearing about a single engagement in the Normandy Campaign in which M10's were used), I do know that a number of them were used during the The Battle of the Bulge along with the M18. There are other Armored vehicles that should be put into AH before this one. Good thought but -1
-
Ok, it would make a nice addition buuuuuut, it is an open topped gun turret much like the wirblewind and as soon as it is strafed by any AC on 1 pass its turret will be renedered useless. Youmight as well ask for it to have the option of carrying a supply trailer behind it. And I havent done my research on the M10 in Normandy yet (I do not recall hearing about a single engagement in the Normandy Campaign in which M10's were used), I do know that a number of them were used during the The Battle of the Bulge along with the M18. There are other Armored vehicles that should be put into AH before this one. Good thought but -1
That is the other thing as well, the M10 and M18 both would be quite easily to disable from the air. There really isnt much to gain from adding either. They offer nothing that a tank in AH cant do, save for the M18's 48mph speed.
-
Dont let 321BAR see this... it will get him started on the M-18 again. :O
-
"But its been awhile..." He will say.
:bolt:
-
You guys do know something right?... Think about what the M10 chassis is... then think of what size gun it has... then think of the one and only difference between it and another vehicle we have...
Its an M4A3/76 with an open top to it and a soft turret. that is it. Easy to introduce most likely but has absolutely no game changing possibilities unlike other much more distinct vehicle... err vehicles :aok
(http://imcdb.org/i130116.jpg)
-
yes a tank that i can explode with a couple of 20mm :P
-
Its an M4A3/76 with an open top to it and a soft turret. that is it. Easy to introduce most likely but has absolutely no game changing possibilities.
This.
-
It would make for an easier addition to AH than the M18. The M10's chassis is already in game thanks to the M4's.
The ammunition is the same as the M4A3 (W) 76mm, yes? The charts are all showing the "AP M79" shot for the standard AP round for both the M10's 3in M7 main gun and the M4A3/76mm's M1 76mm main gun. Perhaps this is where HTC could add the APCBC (armor piercing capped w/ ballistic cap) and give the M10 better performance (another 15mm of AP) vs tanks over the M4/76mm???
The ability of the M10 to carry HE should be almost non-existent, with maybe a few token HE rounds for good measure. Actually, come to think of it I believe the Sherman VC Firefly carries far more HE rounds than it did in WWII as well. I'd like to see the Firefly have a diminished ablity to carry HE rounds.
Loon,
What are you using as the basis for stating what the loadouts were for HE rounds on these platforms. Wouldn't that be
based on the anticipated tactical situation and dictated locally? I'm just curious.
Odd
-
Loon,
What are you using as the basis for stating what the loadouts were for HE rounds on these platforms. Wouldn't that be
based on the anticipated tactical situation and dictated locally? I'm just curious.
Odd
THe US SOP didnt really allow for TD's to move up and engage the enemy with HE. The TD's had a role and that was to engage enemy armor, it couldnt take the MG and HE fire the enemy would sling at them. Think of it like using a rifle to shoot upland game. That doesnt mean a TD didnt ever move up and fire HE when needed in dire situations or as a last resort, but if I can dig up the standard ammo loadout again for an M10 I bet they had less than 10 rounds of HE (47 rounds max for an M10, iirc).
-
You guys do know something right?... Think about what the M10 chassis is... then think of what size gun it has... then think of the one and only difference between it and another vehicle we have...
Its an M4A3/76 with an open top to it and a soft turret. that is it. Easy to introduce most likely but has absolutely no game changing possibilities unlike other much more distinct vehicle... err vehicles :aok
(http://imcdb.org/i130116.jpg)
M26 Pershing would be next in line for an American Heavy Tank that can lock horns with the Tiger and Panther. But, I do think the Brits need another Tank to be represented such as the Crusader series of Tanks. say, maybe the Cromwell?
-
M26 Pershing would be next in line for an American Heavy Tank that can lock horns with the Tiger and Panther. But, I do think the Brits need another Tank to be represented such as the Crusader series of Tanks. say, maybe the Cromwell?
The Churchill can, too.
-
and soem early war tanks too likle panzer 3s and lees
-
My Biggest problem with the M-10 is what everyone thinks, the open top would be easy to smoke it, however the Hetzer or stug-G would be interesting trade offs.
-
The Sherman Firefly had @ 50 percent of their loadout HE rounds (Sherman Firefly vs Tiger I p.27 Stephen A. Hart). As for the M10 I dont have the data in front of me but others hace posted that it too had HE loads issued so I will take them at their word.
Its true that under most circumstances they would have had an emphasis on AP loads but it would have depended on a variety of factors. Tank destroyers also need HE ammo to engage enemy anti-tank gun crews which were a constant threat and usually more of a presence than enemy tanks. You took them out with proximity shots as they were very hard to spot. It would have been unpractical and dangerous to be only carrying AP loads in the ETO. German TD units (most) also were issued with HE ammo for the same reasons. Enemy ATGs and infantry were always a threat.
Army manuals and TO & Es didn't mean a fart in the war. As the war progressed and enemy armor became more scarce the proponderance of HE ammo would increase. US Army TD units were often pressed into a straight tank role just as the Shermans were pitted against enemy armor. In the end "TD Command" was retired in the US Army as post war analysis revealed what the soldiers and commanders already knew; that you can't ask the enemy to adhere to some tactical doctrine you have laid out when they come down the road. I have pics of US M10s in Italy being used as stationary artillery peices. I doubt their battalion commander cared what the field manual said re the M10s approved loadout. They needed arty, the M10s were available, they got the tasking.
The same can be observed for many Allied mobile AA units. Most ended up firing at enemy infantry. Nobody follows neat and tidy rules when the bullets start to fly. You shoot back with what you have. Picture yourself sitting with an M16 Halftrack in December 1944 as a line of German infantry emerge from the treeline at 1200 yards. You aren't going to sit down and brew coffee and wait for the Luftwaffe to attack doctrine or no. Same for the M10 beside you.
-
Well said Squire.
-
The Sherman Firefly had @ 50 percent of their loadout HE rounds (Sherman Firefly vs Tiger I p.27 Stephen A. Hart). As for the M10 I dont have the data in front of me but others hace posted that it too had HE loads issued so I will take them at their word.
The British not only manufactured but also issued a 6 to 1 ratio for AP/APC to HE rounds for Firefly crews in 1944/1945 [Source- 17pdr Handbook, pg 22, 511-514]. Doctrine even showed that the Firefly would be kept back until it was needed to deal with German tanks. The British Sherman and Cromwell tanks did most of the HE duty. Also, just a reminder, I didnt say to not issue any HE, but rather keep the Firefly in its own category, one that it was actually used mostly for, as a TD. That is done by keeping the HE in check (not having an all HE ammo loadout). True, as the war went on less AP ammo was fired and more HE was needed, no arguement there. In AH, the Firefly isnt seen taking down towns or even standing back and hammering fields, it has taken a back seat to the M4/76mm in a major way. It does not even have the HE destructive capability to keep pace with the Panzer IV or T34. It isnt a huge issue for me, just something HTC may want to think about if they are going to dive into the TD realm.
**off to dig in my sources on the M10**
-
My Biggest problem with the M-10 is what everyone thinks, the open top would be easy to smoke it, however the Hetzer or stug-G would be interesting trade offs.
+1
What about the Russain SU series such as the SU-100...
"The SU-100 quickly proved itself to be among the best self-propelled anti-tank guns of World War II, able to penetrate 125 mm (4.9 in) of vertical armor from a range of 2,000 m (1.2 mi) and the sloped 85 mm (3.3 in) front armor of the German Panther from 1,500 m (0.93 mi).[citation needed] This was quite capable of defeating any German tank in service with the exception of the King Tiger"
-
+1
What about the Russain SU series such as the SU-100...
"The SU-100 quickly proved itself to be among the best self-propelled anti-tank guns of World War II, able to penetrate 125 mm (4.9 in) of vertical armor from a range of 2,000 m (1.2 mi) and the sloped 85 mm (3.3 in) front armor of the German Panther from 1,500 m (0.93 mi).[citation needed] This was quite capable of defeating any German tank in service with the exception of the King Tiger"
This this would be fun to have, but keep in mind it would have the slowest reload in AH. Its main gun would be on par with the "big 3" currently in AH (Tiger, Panther, and Firefly). No turret, either. No MG for AA or anti-infantry use, either. The Su-100 is high on my list of "wants" for AH, but I think the StuG III would be a more fitting turretless gv to add. My opinion, of course. :)
-
Don't sweat the open top. M3's have open tops, M8's may as well have an open top, LVT's, Jeeps and 251s have no tops but they still have their use in the game.
The M-18 would be great for anytime you have air superiority and enemy tanks to fight.
It was classified as a tank destroyer.
It was not classified as a "we'd better not build this since it has an open top"
-
Don't sweat the open top. M3's have open tops, M8's may as well have an open top, LVT's, Jeeps and 251s have no tops but they still have their use in the game.
The M-18 would be great for anytime you have air superiority and enemy tanks to fight.
It was classified as a tank destroyer.
It was not classified as a "we'd better not build this since it has an open top"
lol +1
-
For all you guys saying no because the open top I found something on the wiki about the M18: "The open-topped turret (a characteristic which it shared with the M10) left the crew exposed to snipers, grenades, and shell fragments."
So both tanks have the same open-turret yet some of you would say yes to the M18.
Not a reliable resource so here's an aerial view: (M18)
(http://www.2iemeguerre.com/blindes/images/m18o.jpg)
-
For all you guys saying no because the open top I found something on the wiki about the M18: "The open-topped turret (a characteristic which it shared with the M10) left the crew exposed to snipers, grenades, and shell fragments."
So both tanks have the same open-turret yet some of you would say yes to the M18.
Not a reliable resource so here's an aerial view: (M18)
(http://www.2iemeguerre.com/blindes/images/m18o.jpg)
the open turret has no reasoning behind why it should not be included (either vehicle). The reasoning some of us would take the M-18 over the M-10 is that we basically have the M-10 as of now in game in the form of the M4/76 with an older M4/75 chassis. The M-18 adds basically an M8 speed demon with a large gun to the game with tracks and HP and torque to give it oomph the M8 doesnt have <S>
-
the open turret has no reasoning behind why it should not be included (either vehicle). The reasoning some of us would take the M-18 over the M-10 is that we basically have the M-10 as of now in game in the form of the M4/76 with an older M4/75 chassis. The M-18 adds basically an M8 speed demon with a large gun to the game with tracks and HP and torque to give it oomph the M8 doesnt have <S>
As soon as it stops, it gets sent back to respawn though. The M18 may have a gun to compete with, and some speed (48mph) to rely on, but with 13mm (at best) for hull armor and 25mm on the turret mantlet, it isnt going to take much to send it packing.
-
As soon as it stops, it gets sent back to respawn though. The M18 may have a gun to compete with, and some speed (48mph) to rely on, but with 13mm (at best) for hull armor and 25mm on the turret mantlet, it isnt going to take much to send it packing.
So it's basically like an M8 that's upgunned. So once it stops it's dead. The M10 might have more of a chance against enemies stopped.
-
Doctrine even showed that the Firefly would be kept back until it was needed to deal with German tanks.
No arguement that they would try to keep them focused on enemy armor or the possibility of enemy armor but war is war and it would not be possible under all circumstances to do that. Fireflys are an integral part of a Sherman troop in Sherman units or deployed as a troop in a Cromwell squadron in Cromwell units. On the line of advance there are no guarantees as to whats around the next hill, hedgegrow, village, ect. You cant sit around all day waiting for a textbook engagement when your orders are to get moving. Also enemy counter attacks have a nasty habit of getting in the way of such niceties.
As for the exact quantity of HE rounds sources vary as they do ( nothing like a good source skirmish ;) ) but as in all things real life would rule as king in the field and not some manual or doctrine as to what was listed as to quantity. I doubt many AFVs in the field in NW Europe in 1944 had everything just so; like infanteers, tankers would do what they felt they needed to to fight and to live another day.
An interesting discussion in any event.
...Oh +1 to the M10 in the game, it was a major Allied AFV in WW2 and deserves a place at some point.
-
As soon as it stops, it gets sent back to respawn though. The M18 may have a gun to compete with, and some speed (48mph) to rely on, but with 13mm (at best) for hull armor and 25mm on the turret mantlet, it isnt going to take much to send it packing.
one... the one thing about tank destroyers is fire and maneuver. you get behind the enemy, shoot, and freaking SCOOT. With this tactic an M8 can rack up over 10 kills in a sortie... what would an M8 with a 76mm do?
two... one way of not dieing is not getting shot.
three... where did you get 48mph? i have only heard 60mph on road (which is all we use in here)
So it's basically like an M8 that's upgunned. So once it stops it's dead. The M10 might have more of a chance against enemies stopped.
yet again the M-10 is only an M4/76mm Sherman with an older chassis based on the 75mm so there is still no point for adding it unless for diversity's sake (aka the first TD in game).
Adding something fast and hard hitting is something new and feasible. The M-18 is much more a vehicle to have over the M-10
-
No arguement that they would try to keep them focused on enemy armor or the possibility of enemy armor but war is war and it would not be possible under all circumstances to do that. Fireflys are an integral part of a Sherman troop in Sherman units or deployed as a troop in a Cromwell squadron in Cromwell units. On the line of advance there are no guarantees as to whats around the next hill, hedgegrow, village, ect. You cant sit around all day waiting for a textbook engagement when your orders are to get moving. Also enemy counter attacks have a nasty habit of getting in the way of such niceties.
As for the exact quantity of HE rounds sources vary as they do ( nothing like a good source skirmish ;) ) but as in all things real life would rule as king in the field and not some manual or doctrine as to what was listed as to quantity. I doubt many AFVs in the field in NW Europe in 1944 had everything just so; like infanteers, tankers would do what they felt they needed to to fight and to live another day.
An interesting discussion in any event.
...Oh +1 to the M10 in the game, it was a major Allied AFV in WW2 and deserves a place at some point.
I agree the M18 and M10 should be added to the game...eventually. Just like the I-16, once a few people fiddled with it, it won't come out of the hanger. Problem is with the open turret, a few shots and its disabled and sent packing.
Its pretty easy to disable a Wirb or Osti, however I do agree both should be added to the game eventually.
Problem is "for" example the I-16, it was a nice addition however as we all know its nice to up now and then, however nobody is planning to make it a daily ride in the Late war arena.
My best supporting answer to this is to add both an american and german tank destroyer at the same time, to appeal the community as a whole, make it the M-10 with the StuG III-G.
-
I agree the M18 and M10 should be added to the game...eventually. Just like the I-16, once a few people fiddled with it, it won't come out of the hanger. Problem is with the open turret, a few shots and its disabled and sent packing.
Its pretty easy to disable a Wirb or Osti, however I do agree both should be added to the game eventually.
Problem is "for" example the I-16, it was a nice addition however as we all know its nice to up now and then, however nobody is planning to make it a daily ride in the Late war arena.
My best supporting answer to this is to add both an american and german tank destroyer at the same time, to appeal the community as a whole, make it the M-10 with the StuG III-G.
My question is this....and no I havent researched it because Ill get ot right here...wouldnt teh M18 be the better of the 2 when it came to an American TD and the STUG III. I am assuming the STUG had a much more powerful gun (being German) than the M10 (believe the M18 had a 90mm gun).
-
The guns were close. German 75mm L/48 APCBC and the M7 L/53 3 inch APCBC rounds did @ 96mm or so vs RHA armor at 30 degrees. The M10 had a decent gun.
Two other notes on the M10. It had a higher ROF than a Sherman 76mm owing to its semi-automatic breach and assistant loader. So its capabilities were not just "a Sherman with an open top". Also it was issued the T4 HVAP (High Velocity AP) ammo in 1944 that was tungsten cored and could penetrate 157mm of 30 degree armor at 500 yards according to my M10 book by S. Zaloga. They would not have been a round they had in large #s but it was issued. Might make a nice perk load.
Something else that seems to be missing from the conversation is the number of open topped TDs used by other nations. The Marder, The Su-76, the Archer, M3 Half Track TD (we have it in AH), Semovente L 40 da 47/32, Nashorn and others (not to mention the M36 and M18), as well as recce vehicles and Armored Cars. It was not the only open topped AFV or TD in WW2 by any means.
-
My question is this....and no I havent researched it because Ill get ot right here...wouldnt teh M18 be the better of the 2 when it came to an American TD and the STUG III. I am assuming the STUG had a much more powerful gun (being German) than the M10 (believe the M18 had a 90mm gun).
M-18 had a 76mm cannon. M-36 had the 90mm cannon. Stug III had the older Stuk40 L/48 75mm cannon and so did the Stug IV. Hell the Stug IV was on the same chassis as the Pnzr IV and the Stug III was on the same chassis as the Pnzr III. All they were were panzers with no turrets. Both Stugs were equivalent with the American 76mm M1A1 cannon in firepower approx. (The American 3" M7 cannon is the same only heavier than that of the 76mm and older by the way which is what is on the M-10). Both the M-10 and M-18 have the same firepower than that of the M4/76. The only differences being the M-10 was built on the M4 chassis while the M-18 was built on a new chassis meant for speed and maneuverability.
The point of armored warfare is to NOT get shot by the way... and speed helps with that while if it does get hit its dead
-
OH come on "no its open toped" then take EVERY AA vehicle out of the game. You want 15 spits, 109, 190 types because "they were used" and then say no to a vehicle that was there at the start of the war and was there at the end of the war.
-
Unlike the M18 the M10 can actually cover the EW. Although it possibly should be introduced there later. It can cover more gaps than the M18 does, being introduced in 1944. The M10 may not be as fast as the M18 but has more armor. Saying no because of an open turret would be saying no the the M3, Su76, Marder, and a few more armored cars.
OH come on "no its open toped" then take EVERY AA vehicle out of the game. You want 15 spits, 109, 190 types because "they were used" and then say no to a vehicle that was there at the start of the war and was there at the end of the war.
It's like saying no to the M3 Stuart (or M5) they saw the beginning and end of the war.
-
The M4A3 (W) 76mm we have in AH, the M10, and the M18 all fire the exact same ammo. Think of it as the difference between a Browning, Winchester, and Remington 12 gauge shotgun. Different brands, different mechanisms, same ammo.
As far comparative fire power goes, those AFV's have for all practical purposes the same firepower as the German Panzer IV H and StuG III/IV. Obviously, they lag behind the Panther, Tiger, and Firefly.
-
Lets all just assume everyone is aware of the open top and all of us can stfu about the roof.
Since the M-3 with the cannon has been added it has been used countless times to great effect.
The list of vehicles to add that would offer anything new and unique to the game is constantly getting shorter and we need to remember that every plane / vehicle in Aces High has it's own weak points. For example I will do some perfectly valid nay saying here just to illustrate how silly it is to do so.
Aircraft carriers - We shouldn't have them because they're too easy to sink get stolen
Fw-190 - Useless in a turn fight
Spitfire - Useless as a boom and zoom fighter
Stuka - Completely vulnerable to anything in the air with a gun.
Tiger I - Turret takes a very very long time to traverse & gets shot a lot while aiming
T-34 - No pintle gun
Me 163 - Can only be flown out of a handfull of bases
Torpedo Bombers - Completely vulnerable on approach
Jeep - Only carries 2 troops or supplies
M3 - Can be killed with machine gun fire
P-47 - Very slow and sluggish when carrying bombs
P-38 - Compresses very easily in a dive
Sherman Tanks - Easy to kill with other tanks
Japanese fighters - Easy to catch on fire
Japanese Bombers - Undergunned, not much payload & easy to catch on fire
251 - Rockets aren't usually very effective
I16 - Obsolete as soon as the spitfire/109 came into service
A-20 - Weak Wings
Lancaster - Only has 2 50 cals
D3A1 - SLOW
and the list goes on.
So Please HTC we really have a lot of planes / vehicles with characteristics that leave them outmatched in certain categories so we'd better not have them in the first place. Please realize your error and Give us 1 Bomber, 1 Fighter and 1 Tank to choose from so long as they're the best at what they are.
<S>
-
Rob you da man
-
Rob you're making an excellent point.
-
Rob, so what you are saying is that you wont complain when your M10 get its turret taken out by a burst of .50cal fire from a FM2?
Someone take note of this.... ;)
-
Rob, so what you are saying is that you wont complain when your M10 get its turret taken out by a burst of .50cal fire from a FM2?
Someone take note of this.... ;)
Do you complain when you're flak gets taken out by a burst of .50 cal fire?
-
M-18 had a 76mm cannon. M-36 had the 90mm cannon. Stug III had the older Stuk40 L/48 75mm cannon and so did the Stug IV. Hell the Stug IV was on the same chassis as the Pnzr IV and the Stug III was on the same chassis as the Pnzr III. All they were were panzers with no turrets. Both Stugs were equivalent with the American 76mm M1A1 cannon in firepower approx. (The American 3" M7 cannon is the same only heavier than that of the 76mm and older by the way which is what is on the M-10). Both the M-10 and M-18 have the same firepower than that of the M4/76. The only differences being the M-10 was built on the M4 chassis while the M-18 was built on a new chassis meant for speed and maneuverability.
The point of armored warfare is to NOT get shot by the way... and speed helps with that while if it does get hit its dead
My bad BAR, I actually meant to say M-36 in my original Post and not the M18....cuz I did mean the 90mm gun mounted on it...TY for the info!
-
Rob, so what you are saying is that you wont complain when your M10 get its turret taken out by a burst of .50cal fire from a FM2?
Someone take note of this.... ;)
Do you complain when you're in an FM2 and have a few kills to land when all of the sudden...... You can't live long enough or go fast enough to get home and land your kills because someone just sunk your boat and you're too slow to outrun most of the enemy planes that are chasing you.
But you can claim advantage with the fact that the FM2 has one of the best default rear views in the game.
-
Do you complain when you're in an FM2 and have a few kills to land when all of the sudden...... You can't live long enough or go fast enough to get home and land your kills because someone just sunk your boat and you're too slow to outrun most of the enemy planes that are chasing you.
But you can claim advantage with the fact that the FM2 has one of the best default rear views in the game.
You produce as much drama as my 6yo daughter. :D
No, I don't. I don't complain when the CV turns while I'm taking off or landing, it isnt that hard to accomplish either task. I dont complain when the CV goes boom and I have no place to land, it is my own fault for not taking more fuel. I dont complain when I'm not able to land kills for whatever reason. I take the over whelming majority of this sim-game with a grain of salt. The thing that annoys me is the "gaming the game" and the total and undeniable abuse of a airplane, gv, etc.
I do think the Wirby and Osty lose their turret too easily, but that is my opinion.
-
I know you are but what am I?
(http://sushibandit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/pee-wees-big-adventure-1985-paul-reubens-pic-1.jpg)
People complain about all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Every plane / tank in the game fills it's own niche and some even share niches in some ways. Simply picking one attribute and saying that "this is why it sucks and we shouldn't have it" Is no reason to not go forward with progress. I was actually watching greatest tank battles on TV last night and they were going over a battle where Shermans and M-18's won a decisive victory against a large number of Panthers. The M-18 was effective because of it's speed which gave it the ability to maneuver well. You can't have great speed and great weight with anything a person can build so compromises must be made. It's just the way the world works.
-
Lol Rob, I watched it too. And what was amazing to me was the fact that the M-18 had a top speed of 68 mph!!! But, only 1" of armor meant if caught stag it was TOAST. If anyone has ever played the Combat Mission series such as "Barbarossa to Berlin", "Normandy", or "North Africa", one option for all armored vehicles was "Shoot and Scoot" which made a huge difference. It also can give the appearence of a much larger force entrenched than there actually is.
-
I know you are but what am I?
(http://sushibandit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/pee-wees-big-adventure-1985-paul-reubens-pic-1.jpg)
People complain about all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Every plane / tank in the game fills it's own niche and some even share niches in some ways. Simply picking one attribute and saying that "this is why it sucks and we shouldn't have it" Is no reason to not go forward with progress. I was actually watching greatest tank battles on TV last night and they were going over a battle where Shermans and M-18's won a decisive victory against a large number of Panthers. The M-18 was effective because of it's speed which gave it the ability to maneuver well. You can't have great speed and great weight with anything a person can build so compromises must be made. It's just the way the world works.
I agree with you to a certain degree, but think about it this way - If you had a choice between an I-16 and a P-51D coming out next which would you rather fly? If we had a choice to grab BOTH then I am all for the M-18 and M-10 as long as we get something with a little more survivability like the Stug-G or Hetzer.
I'd settle for all 4 and call it a success for us tankers, sadly were stuck with a Tiger upgrade.
-
I agree with you to a certain degree, but think about it this way - If you had a choice between an I-16 and a P-51D coming out next which would you rather fly? If we had a choice to grab BOTH then I am all for the M-18 and M-10 as long as we get something with a little more survivability like the Stug-G or Hetzer.
I'd settle for all 4 and call it a success for us tankers, sadly were stuck with a Tiger upgrade.
I don't think that that's a fair comparison. The M-18 was unmatched when it came to combining speed with firepower. The P-51 was arguably the best fighter of the war while the I16 was obsolete when the war started.
Did people complain this much about the RV8 getting a model? Cripes!
-
IMO, -1, not yet. I think most of the ppl arguing for it are imagining a 5mph faster M4A3(76). It would probably be closer to a 5mph faster Panzer IV :noid.
It would have M4 armor on the hull, true, but it wouldn't take the punisment the M4(76) does. The "w" in M4A3(76)W stands for "wet storage", meaning the amunition was stored in water-lined bins that made the tank less likely to out-and-out explode in the event the armor was penetrated. Thats the reason you will see M4(76)'s taking hits that would kill a panzer or M4(75).
So picture a faster panzer, and BOOM! you have the M10 :ahand.
-
How is 60mph only 5mph faster than a Panzer IV / Sherman?
-
M10, not the M18, sorry, I should have put that in there, my fault.
I'm all for the M18, which would be more like an upgunned M8.
-
My bad BAR, I actually meant to say M-36 in my original Post and not the M18....cuz I did mean the 90mm gun mounted on it...TY for the info!
sorry if my M-18 rants/info goes overboard :lol <S> bud
-
sorry if my M-18 rants/info goes overboard :lol <S> bud
You can't go overboard with the M-18 until you fall out of the open turret, which is no big deal anyway.