Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Scotty55OEFVet on September 19, 2011, 11:39:44 PM
-
Ok guys, we all know that BAR has been waiting and wishing and hoping for the M18 forever along with hundred others, but here is my counter to that. I have read many times posts talking about how the M18 with its open top will be easy prey for many of the Aircraft with cannon in AH. I have also seen many say that it will be a tough little TD that will get its fair share of kills. Now, with the 76mm gun it will be a M4 with an open top and much quicker. SO I suggest this, why not ask for the M36 TD? It is armed with a 90mm gun that is more than enough to kill the heavy tanks in AH, as well as be nimble. I can see this bein the problem though. I am just posting this to say what everybody thinks. I know the M18 will probably be the one that is chosen as our next GV, but thoughts???
-
There was a sneak peek on HTC's Facebook page for the m-18 lol
-
So your wish is not to have the M18?
I understand you want the M36 but there is no need starting a thread which the explanation that tank A (that we don't have) is better than tank B (that we also don't have) so we should ignore all wishes for tank B and get tank A.
I don't really GV so I don't know much about tanks. I say what ever makes you guys happy so +1 for both.
-
:uhoh
hide!!
-
BAR is getting his BAR ready.
YES BAR YES I LOVE THE M18! dont shoot
-
BAR is getting his BAR ready.
YES BAR YES I LOVE THE M18! dont shoot
Ok, why are we talking about this, obviously it's time for an M26 to enter the game. I know it was near the end of the war and had barely been used. It had a 90mm I think, comparable to the Tiger's 88mm. However the M26's armour did not compare to the Tiger's, and the 90mm had a hell of a time getting through the four inches. However in my opinion I think the M10, M18, or M26 should be in the running. However if we do add tank destroyers, it will not off set the game, it will improve it. Their armour is so week, around from an M8 would probably cut it like butter. Also the only reason it's called a tank destroyer is because it most of the time does not have a machine gun. Who uses a machine gun anyways, you think you're going to shoot down a bomb tard with an M2? Tough luck, I've had only four rounds go into my Stuka, with a duration of 10 seconds into the wind of bullets. The only thing the MG is usefull for is killing troops, either that or getting an M3 or an M8, which it is not very affective anyways.
-
:noid
-
:noid
Dont worry buddy, I just posted about the M36 to see what people thought about it...and as rumor has it....your M18 is being hand delivered to YOUR PC to be used as the 1st M18 to be destroyed by a bomb**** at the spawn ever! Your cries have been seen, your voice heard...welcome M18!
-
So your wish is not to have the M18?
I understand you want the M36 but there is no need starting a thread which the explanation that tank A (that we don't have) is better than tank B (that we also don't have) so we should ignore all wishes for tank B and get tank A.
I don't really GV so I don't know much about tanks. I say what ever makes you guys happy so +1 for both.
As I said, was just to see what people thought about the topic. All I said was that if the M18 was being introduced...M36 should be thought of only becacue of the 90mm gun. Thank you for explaining that we have neither of those Vehicles....I did not know that.
+10 for stating the obvious :aok
-
Ok, why are we talking about this, obviously it's time for an M26 to enter the game. I know it was near the end of the war and had barely been used. It had a 90mm I think, comparable to the Tiger's 88mm. However the M26's armour did not compare to the Tiger's, and the 90mm had a hell of a time getting through the four inches. However in my opinion I think the M10, M18, or M26 should be in the running. However if we do add tank destroyers, it will not off set the game, it will improve it. Their armour is so week, around from an M8 would probably cut it like butter. Also the only reason it's called a tank destroyer is because it most of the time does not have a machine gun. Who uses a machine gun anyways, you think you're going to shoot down a bomb tard with an M2? Tough luck, I've had only four rounds go into my Stuka, with a duration of 10 seconds into the wind of bullets. The only thing the MG is usefull for is killing troops, either that or getting an M3 or an M8, which it is not very affective anyways.
I have shot down many planes with the pintle guns on tanks........... you cant????
NOT
-
Ok, why are we talking about this, obviously it's time for an M26 to enter the game. I know it was near the end of the war and had barely been used. It had a 90mm I think, comparable to the Tiger's 88mm. However the M26's armour did not compare to the Tiger's, and the 90mm had a hell of a time getting through the four inches. However in my opinion I think the M10, M18, or M26 should be in the running. However if we do add tank destroyers, it will not off set the game, it will improve it. Their armour is so week, around from an M8 would probably cut it like butter. Also the only reason it's called a tank destroyer is because it most of the time does not have a machine gun. Who uses a machine gun anyways, you think you're going to shoot down a bomb tard with an M2? Tough luck, I've had only four rounds go into my Stuka, with a duration of 10 seconds into the wind of bullets. The only thing the MG is usefull for is killing troops, either that or getting an M3 or an M8, which it is not very affective anyways.
M-26 probably won't be added to the game, dozen threads explain why, to few - to late in the war.
The M2 is a very nice AA gun, quite easy to shoot down planes with it - sorry you had sucky luck though.
-
M-26 probably won't be added to the game, dozen threads explain why, to few - to late in the war.
The M2 is a very nice AA gun, quite easy to shoot down planes with it - sorry you had sucky luck though.
152 had only 20 built. Its in the game.
Too late? Doesnt matter. If it saw WW2 combat and has it on record (which it does) it qualifies it for entry.
It prob be entered to give the american tank line a gv to take on the tiger II
-
152 had only 20 built. Its in the game.
Too late? Doesnt matter. If it saw WW2 combat and has it on record (which it does) it qualifies it for entry.
It prob be entered to give the american tank line a gv to take on the tiger II
So because the Tiger 2 is available a tank must be added just to beat it? Ta-152 was in Squadron strength (JG-300) and seen combat,
How many tank engagements did the M26 have?
-
As I said, was just to see what people thought about the topic. All I said was that if the M18 was being introduced...M36 should be thought of only becacue of the 90mm gun. Thank you for explaining that we have neither of those Vehicles....I did not know that.
+10 for stating the obvious :aok
You Welcome
So please explain do you want the M36 because we might be getting the M18 or because you want the M36 for what it is?
-
You Welcome
So please explain do you want the M36 because we might be getting the M18 or because you want the M36 for what it is?
M36 would be a nice Tiger/Panther killer, enough were built I would love to see it.
-
M-18 may have a 76mm but it used a special type of AP round.
-
StuG III Ausf G.
id rather take a M26 Pershing over the M36... :noid
-
So because the Tiger 2 is available a tank must be added just to beat it? Ta-152 was in Squadron strength (JG-300) and seen combat,
How many tank engagements did the M26 have?
only 43 ta-152s.
supposedly only about 20 out of 200 m26 pershings actually saw any combat before the war ended.
-
Ok guys, we all know that BAR has been waiting and wishing and hoping for the M18 forever along with hundred others, but here is my counter to that. I have read many times posts talking about how the M18 with its open top will be easy prey for many of the Aircraft with cannon in AH. I have also seen many say that it will be a tough little TD that will get its fair share of kills. Now, with the 76mm gun it will be a M4 with an open top and much quicker. SO I suggest this, why not ask for the M36 TD? It is armed with a 90mm gun that is more than enough to kill the heavy tanks in AH, as well as be nimble. I can see this bein the problem though. I am just posting this to say what everybody thinks. I know the M18 will probably be the one that is chosen as our next GV, but thoughts???
Check out the 90mm gun and its AP performance. Is it really worth having??? HTC would be better off with the M18 and a small selection of the high velocity ammo that was available for the M1A1 76mm cannon instead.
-
only 43 ta-152s.
supposedly only about 20 out of 200 m26 pershings actually saw any combat before the war ended.
20 could very well be enough, it just depends on what HTC feels about it - I would much rather have a tank that's proved itself in combat, then something that rarely seen combat (to explain this better - KV-1 for example, or the churchill) deserve their spot in the game.
I can think of 20 tanks that deserve a spot.
-
20 could very well be enough, it just depends on what HTC feels about it - I would much rather have a tank that's proved itself in combat, then something that rarely seen combat (to explain this better - KV-1 for example, or the churchill) deserve their spot in the game.
I can think of 20 tanks that deserve a spot.
Argeed, Churchill and KV-1 are in the running. However, we do need a Japanese tank, this was brought to my attention (EVEN THOUGH JAPANESE TANKS SUCKED). However, we need an allied tank to compete with the Tigers and Panthers, in my mind it would be a Pershing (90mm, poor ballistics), and the M18 (Special AP round for deadly 75mm or is it a 76mm?). Anyhow, I know for a sure fact, we need a tank to compete with it (Too bad the M6 never served), we didn't only have Sherman's against them soo... :old:
-
Argeed, Churchill and KV-1 are in the running. However, we do need a Japanese tank, this was brought to my attention (EVEN THOUGH JAPANESE TANKS SUCKED). However, we need an allied tank to compete with the Tigers and Panthers, in my mind it would be a Pershing (90mm, poor ballistics), and the M18 (Special AP round for deadly 75mm or is it a 76mm?). Anyhow, I know for a sure fact, we need a tank to compete with it (Too bad the M6 never served), we didn't only have Sherman's against them soo... :old:
Firefly already competes with the Tiger/Panther - sorry to say not many tanks actually competed with both tanks in a fair engagement. I would suggest looking into late war Russian tanks as the only opinion if you do require something to beat the Tiger. Even then take note - the Perk value of anything which is better is going to be pretty high.
-
Just because one side has something does not mean the other side needs it too. In the MA you can use any unit. In scenario settings the imbalance of the German tanks or the Allied bombers is part of it.
We do not need an He177A-5, Piaggio P.108 or H8K2 just because the Allies have the B-17G, B-24J, B-29A and Lancaster Mk III.
We do not need the Meteor Mk III just because the Axis has the Me262.
We do not need the M-26 just because the Axis has the Tiger II and Panther V G.
Sure, it would be fun to have some of those in the MA, but we don't need them to create a balance that wasn't really there.
-
Argeed, Churchill and KV-1 are in the running. However, we do need a Japanese tank, this was brought to my attention (EVEN THOUGH JAPANESE TANKS SUCKED). However, we need an allied tank to compete with the Tigers and Panthers, in my mind it would be a Pershing (90mm, poor ballistics), and the M18 (Special AP round for deadly 75mm or is it a 76mm?). Anyhow, I know for a sure fact, we need a tank to compete with it (Too bad the M6 never served), we didn't only have Sherman's against them soo... :old:
hold on now. not saying it's needed but, by the time the m26 actually entered the theater, the 90mm m3 main gun performed very well as illustrated by the confirmed kills of a tiger and a panther at ~1000 yards which was considered a difficult feat with the 76mm used on the m18 and m4. according to army standards at the time, the 90mm m3 peformed on par with the german 88mm l56 kwk36.
the sherman firefly and the t-34/85 are very competitive against the tiger and panther now. no real need for more late war monsters when there are so many early war tanks not included at the moment.
-
Argeed, Churchill and KV-1 are in the running. However, we do need a Japanese tank, this was brought to my attention (EVEN THOUGH JAPANESE TANKS SUCKED). However, we need an allied tank to compete with the Tigers and Panthers, in my mind it would be a Pershing (90mm, poor ballistics), and the M18 (Special AP round for deadly 75mm or is it a 76mm?). Anyhow, I know for a sure fact, we need a tank to compete with it (Too bad the M6 never served), we didn't only have Sherman's against them soo... :old:
tsk tsk tsk.... Japanese tanks certainly did not "suck". The Japanese just didn't follow the rush to build bigger and better tanks like the combatants in the ETO because they really didnt need to. Seeing as how most of their engagements were in the thickest jungles in the world it makes sense to keep them light weight for mobility, ease of transportation, and for short range purposes. The M4 Sherman was not immune to their 45mm AP.
-
tsk tsk tsk.... Japanese tanks certainly did not "suck". The Japanese just didn't follow the rush to build bigger and better tanks like the combatants in the ETO because they really didnt need to. Seeing as how most of their engagements were in the thickest jungles in the world it makes sense to keep them light weight for mobility, ease of transportation, and for short range purposes. The M4 Sherman was not immune to their 45mm AP.
Interesting they never pushed any interest in Tank design after the massacre in Manchuria, granted they focused more on "island defending" rather then tank design - which what tanks they did have they tended to dig them in for defense. I do know on Tarawa the Japanese stationed Type 95 "Ha Go which had a 37mm and pair of 7.7mm MG's.
-
M-18 may have a 76mm but it used a special type of AP round.
So did the 3" gun of the M-10 and the 76 in the M-4 since it was the same gun used in the M-18.
The ammo was so limited in supply due to the lack of tungsten used in its core that. in the 12th Army Group, only about one round per tank per month was issued.
About half the division's M4's were armed with the 76-mm. gun.14 With this gun, firing the new but scarce tungsten-carbide-cored HVAP ammunition, the tankers could penetrate the front belly plate of the Panther at 300 yards and at 200 yards had a sporting chance (about one to four) of penetrating the front slope plate. The division's tank destroyer battalion had also recently been equipped with the new M36 destroyers mounting the 90-mm. gun. And
RE: Pershing's in combat.
20 of the first 40 completed T26E3s arrived in Antwerp in January 1945 as part of the "Zebra Mission", sending new and experimental weapons into combat for evaluation.
All 20 were assigned to General Bradley's 12th Army Group and sent to the 1st Army where ten went to the 3rd Armored Division and ten to the 9th Armored Division.
(http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/beachhd_btlefrnt/Photos/335.jpg)
In the last two weeks of April, the Pershings began to arrive in greater quantity. Third Army, for example, had ninety by the end of the month. On V-E Day there were 310 in the theater, of which about 200 had been issued to troops. But because of the difficulty of transporting them, and the time required to train crews in maintenance and operation, it is safe to say that the only Pershings that got into effective action were the 20 experimental models that First Army had received in February
THe first Pershing was lost on the night of February 25, ambushed at night by a Tiger I near Elsdorf. It was repaired and put back into action.
The next day a Pershing knocked out a Tiger 1 at 900 yards using a new T30E16 HVAP round.
On February 26th 1945 T26 number 38 was knocked out while guiding a roadblock. The position of the tank was poor as it was silhouetted by nearby fires and thus a conspicuous target. A Tiger I concealed by a nearby building fired 3 shots, the first of which penetrated through the coaxial machine gun port and whipped around inside the turret killing the gunner and loader. The second shot hit the muzzle brake of the 90mm gun causing a round chambered in the gun to go off which burst the barrel. The third shot glanced of the upper corner of the turret on the right side and took off the open had cover of the commanders cupola. The tank was repaired and back in action on March 7th in spite of limited spares availability. The Tiger got stuck trying to escape and was abandoned by its crew.
The next day T26 #40 knocked out a Tiger and 2 Panzer IV's at Elsdorf. 4 shots were fired at the Tiger at a range of approximately 900 yards, the first being a T30E16 HVAP which destroyed the tanks final drive sprocket on the left side. The second shot was a T33 which penetrated the bottom of the gun mantlet causing an explosion. Two other shots using HE were ineffective. The Panzer IV's were knocked out at 1,200 yards using one T33 round each with an additional round of HE fired at each to engage the escaping crews which caused considerable external damage to the vehicles.
In the fighting around Cologne on March 6th Pershing #26 famously destroyed a Panther in front of the cities cathedral with 3 rounds of T33 shot, an even caught on film and endlessly played on countless cable TV documentaries. #36 meanwhile knocked out a Tiger using 2 rounds of T33 shot.
Also in the Cologne fighting T26 #25 was knocked out at around 300 yards range by a Nashorn Panzerjager, whose Kwk 43 8.8cm gun was a much more effective weapon than the older Kwk 36 8.8cm used in the Tiger 1. A round, probably Pzgr.39 penetrated the lower hull front by the drivers feet and burned the turret of the tank out in an ammunition explosion. All of the crew escaped. This tank was repairable but instead stripped for spares and scrapped.
Another Pershing, #22 was hit by 2 high explosive shells from a 15cm field gun which caused extensive damage but that is a bit outside the scope of your question.
No King Tiger tanks were encountered by T26's so one can only speculate what might have happened.
Source(s):
Hunnicutt's "Pershing". Feist Publications
M-36:
Some assessment of the 90-mm. as an antitank gun was possible after the commitment of the 702d Tank Destroyer Battalion's M36 tank destroyers in the November Roer plain battles. The shell of the 90-mm. gun would ricochet off the 7-inch front armor plate of the Tiger tank at 3,000 to 3,500 yards; to be effective, the tank destroyers had either to get closer or attack the more vulnerable sides, and this fact the enemy evidently knew, for he had usually managed to keep his Tigers at a distance and expose only their heavily armored fronts.25 But to say that the 90-mm. would not defeat the frontal armor of the Tiger is not to condemn it as an antitank gun. The Tiger, cumbersome and underpowered for its great weight, was mainly valuable when the Germans were in a commanding position, as at Puffendorf, dug in on the defensive. Against the Panther, which most experts considered the Germans' best tank, the 90-mm. gun was far more effective than the 76-mm. In the tank battles on the Roer plain during November, the 67th Armored Regiment with three battalions of Shermans could claim only five Panthers; the 702d Tank Destroyer Battalion armed with 90-mm. guns claimed fifteen.
So essentially 20 Pershing's saw service and, possibly, combat. They certainly didn't see service in WW2 in "divisional" strength but tank destroyers, although there were alot more, were also scattered throughout armored divisons.
If you want to compare the numbers of Pershings to Whirblewinds or Ostwinds you need to take into account the unique niche that they serve in game as "armored" AAA versus just another tank with a big gun.
wrongway