Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: ozrocker on October 03, 2011, 12:22:14 PM
-
For the Gv'ers. M-18 on the way! On Home Page.
Nice looking target.
:cheers: Oz
-
In before BAR gets here! Somebody better get him some valium... :D
WTG HTC she is beautiful! :aok
-
Nicely done HTC! looks great! Bar will be so happy. :D
-
inb4 BAR
-
In b4 Bar... nice shots HTC
-
Awaiting BAR's over-reactive, out of control, orgasmic, shuddering, spasmatic, enthusiastic, reaction...
-
inb4BAR :rofl
-
oh gawd.
the 20th's never going to be the same now :uhoh
:noid
-
:aok
-
In b4 BAR :aok
-
In before Bar
(http://axisvsallies.com/albums/userpics/10001/M18_copy.jpg)
-
In before Bar
(http://axisvsallies.com/albums/userpics/10001/M18_copy.jpg)
:rofl
inb4barshowsup.
Now, for the StuG III Ausf G. to fight the M-18.
-
jagdpanzer vs the M18 :D
so if i ask around enough i will get it??
-
:t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t DIE MOFOS!!!!!
-
:t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t DIE MOFOS!!!!!
Looks like he appreciates the new vehicle and his fellow Aces High comrades.
Or, I could be be misreading his use of pictures and words.
-
comments on the hellact.....
Now HE rounds can kill a gv with one shot even from an m8.
sweet a tank you can turret with a colt .45 while parachuting out of your plane.
now finally i can kill a gv with those killer stuka 7.92mm cannons.
-
Perhaps it will have same damage model as WW... kill turret with 30cal round, but takes 15 direct hits from king tiger to blow it up.
-
:rock
-
Up yours haters!!!
:aok
:neener: :aok
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
:noid :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :noid
:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
P.S. HTC i love you!!! :bolt:
surprised bar didnt make another one of these
-
Can someone remind the author of the M18 write up that it is not the "first tank destroyer in AH". The British Sherman Firefly was a designated TD.
-
Can someone remind the author of the M18 write up that it is not the "first tank destroyer in AH". The British Sherman Firefly was a designated TD.
i didnt know the Firefly was considered a tank destroyer.
I always thought the m3 75mm was the first TD to be added to AH. my bad.
-
:t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t DIE MOFOS!!!!!
BAR, there will be a P-47D-25 lurk over you. It will at first it fly freely, dancing like a little girl ballerina. As you are memorized by it sexy body and moves, it will drop down with revenge on you with a 1,000 lbs bomb. :t
Congratulations on your M-18! :salute
-
BAR, there will be a P-47D-25 lurk over you. It will at first it fly freely, dancing like a little girl ballerina. As you are memorized by it sexy body and moves, it will drop down with revenge on you with a 1,000 lbs bomb. :t
Congratulations on your M-18! :salute
i think a 1k egg is a bit overkill...maybe a single rocket? :D
-
i think a 1k egg is a bit overkill...maybe a single rocket? :D
I don't do rockets. OK, 500 lbs or eight .50 cals.
-
I don't do rockets. OK, 500 lbs or eight .50 cals.
pssshhh...lightweight :neener:
-
pssshhh...lightweight :neener:
That is right. See the 1568 GV kills of mine, about half of that is from .50s alone.
-
That is right. See the 1568 GV kills of mine, about half of that is from .50s alone.
psssssshh....showoff...
:mad: :lol just yankin your chain, not bad for a jug man...then again, only real men like jugs. :D
-
psssssshh....showoff...
:mad: :lol just yankin your chain, not bad for a jug man...then again, only real men like jugs. :D
JUGS! :x
-
one question,is the M18 built on the chaffee chassis???
-
JUGS! :x
"double D guarantee i was checkin their size...." and no its not the women jugs, the D22 jugs you pervs! :x :x
-
"double D guarantee i was checkin their size...." and no its not the women jugs, the D22 jugs you pervs! :x :x
I would love to see the D-22, 28, or 30 on AH.
-
I would love to see the D-22, 28, or 30 on AH.
i think a D30 would be a great tank killer, and, it might piss off bar when hes putting around in the M-18.
:neener:
-
i think a D30 would be a great tank killer, and, it might piss off bar when hes putting around in the M-18.
:neener:
I have many ppl to piss off with it. Bar is on my side.
-
Tank Destroyer... then we can have the SU-100 already too? :rock
-
I have many ppl to piss off with it. Bar is on my side.
darn...someone must carry out the dark deed somehow! :lol
-
Tank Destroyer... then we can have the SU-100 already too? :rock
I'm torn between the Su-100 and the StuG III G as to which, at least imo, should be AH's first turret-less AFV. If HTC (and a volunteer or 2) spend all the countless man hours developing a turret-less AFV and once it is introduced in to AH it quickly becomes a hanger queen due to the extra challenges it offers, hindsight will say to go with the StuG III because over 9700 were made, it saw major action in the ETO's western front, Ost front, MTO, and North Africa. But, the Su-100 would be a good fit as well seeing the direction HTC has gone lately with tanks (bigger and more powerful). The Su-100 would be a wee bit quicker off the assembly line too, the T34x is already in game.
-
Looks like he appreciates the new vehicle and his fellow Aces High comrades.
Or, I could be be misreading his use of pictures and words.
youre misreading it :lol i just quickly said that because i had no time to write anything else and it seemed to fit ok to what i meant
-
one question,is the M18 built on the chaffee chassis???
no. the chaffee is smaller (and iirc came after the M18?)
-
I got a question for you GV guys....
why would they call this a "Tank Destroyer" not just this particular one, but all the "tank destroyers" are they not usually less armored, I know this one is.....I am just curious.
seems silly to call something a "Tank destroyer" when a Tank can easily kill. :headscratch:
-
I got a question for you GV guys....
why would they call this a "Tank Destroyer" not just this particular one, but all the "tank destroyers" are they not usually less armored, I know this one is.....I am just curious.
seems silly to call something a "Tank destroyer" when a Tank can easily kill. :headscratch:
a Tank Destroyer is an armored vehicle dedicated for the destruction of other armored vehicles specifically tanks. A tank destroyer does not need to be lightly armored but only dedicated in the role of tank killing. The reason the M-18 is lightly armored is so it can maneuver quickly to the flanks of heavier German armor. while German TDs we're just heavily armored with heavy AT guns. but still they were dedicated to kill armor <S>
-
wouldn't that just make it another Tank?
whats the differences between TD and A Tank......
wait you already gave me that answer "Tank Destroyer is an armored vehicle dedicated for the destruction of other armored vehicles specifically tanks"
whereas a tank was designed to kill whatever got in its way.....
always wondered about that
what are the differences?
seems like they are just Tanks made to kill Tanks.
-
wouldn't that just make it another Tank?
Not quite. At least, not back then.
Typically, a tank destroyer had what amounted to the next-size-larger cannon than its corresponding "tank" version. Because of the added weight of the bigger gun and its components, something had to give. In this, American tank destroyer doctrine was the opposite of Russian and German doctrine. The Russian and German tank destroyers eliminated their turrets and added frontal armor so that they could slug it out toe to toe with enemy tanks. The Americans dumped as much armor as possible on the hope that the resulting hot rod tank destroyer could run rings around enemy tanks. There were good arguments on both sides, but in practice it was probably safer to be in one of the German or Russian vehicles than in something like an M10 or M18, at least if you were in the Ardennes or a town.
I had a professor in college who was a lieutenant in a tank destroyer company. Towards the end of the war his unit was reequipped with M18s. He told me he was happy that he never was in one of those during a fire fight.
- oldman
-
Not quite. At least, not back then.
Typically, a tank destroyer had what amounted to the next-size-larger cannon than its corresponding "tank" version. Because of the added weight of the bigger gun and its components, something had to give. In this, American tank destroyer doctrine was the opposite of Russian and German doctrine. The Russian and German tank destroyers eliminated their turrets and added frontal armor so that they could slug it out toe to toe with enemy tanks. The Americans dumped as much armor as possible on the hope that the resulting hot rod tank destroyer could run rings around enemy tanks. There were good arguments on both sides, but in practice it was probably safer to be in one of the German or Russian vehicles than in something like an M10 or M18, at least if you were in the Ardennes or a town.
I had a professor in college who was a lieutenant in a tank destroyer company. Towards the end of the war his unit was reequipped with M18s. He told me he was happy that he never was in one of those during a fire fight.
- oldman
thanx
I still wont get in one :lol
-
An M8 with a sun roof and a decent gun :old: AP rounds only I suppose which is a shame if you come up against another Hellcat ;)
I shall carry an umbrella :old:
-
Im not a GV'er but the M18 looks great. I look forward to it.
-
Here is a picture of Hooter, Dr7, and Hammer82 trying out the new Hellcat (from left to right) :banana:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/M18_hellcat_side.jpg/800px-M18_hellcat_side.jpg)
:aok
-
Since the m18 does have an open turret, and therefore very vunerable to strafing runs, would it be too much to give its name icon more of a cloak to aircraft?
Make it so aircraft could only spot it at 1k out. instead of the usual 1.5k.
just a thought. :salute
-
Since the m18 does have an open turret, and therefore very vunerable to strafing runs, would it be too much to give its name icon more of a cloak to aircraft?
Make it so aircraft could only spot it at 1k out. instead of the usual 1.5k.
just a thought. :salute
so you're saying since it has an open turret, you'd be less likely to see it as compared to... oh, let's say - another tank? :headscratch:
-
so you're saying since it has an open turret, you'd be less likely to see it as compared to... oh, let's say - another tank? :headscratch:
well, not that.
Just give it a higher chance of survivability since the simplest of AC guns can nock its turret out.
Hiding under trees dont work very well in AH because the planes can still see the red name popping out. :(
-
either you change the icon settings to all gvs or to none. it is as big as the other tanks and should go by the same rules IMO. If you choose the hellcat it is your choice.
-
:t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t :t DIE MOFOS!!!!!
Was that a Bar quake??? :uhoh
Judging from the description, we can look forward to another Jeep killing spree!!! Depending upon how thinly armored and how vunerable to aircraft fire it is.
-
well, not that.
Just give it a higher chance of survivability since the simplest of AC guns can nock its turret out.
Hiding under trees dont work very well in AH because the planes can still see the red name popping out. :(
So you're saying that because it has thinner armor than some of the other tanks, it should harder to see? :huh
So we're going to presume that thinner armor is easier to camouflage :rolleyes:
-
:x looking forward to zipping around in this thing!! Gonna be a blast! Who needs a jeep when you can zip around at nearly the same speed with a 76mm gun :joystick:
-
Imagine the poor devil that loses all his perk points when you pull up behind the King Tiger and watch him good poof !!!!!
You could literally pull around faster than he can turn his turret.
:aok
-
wouldn't that just make it another Tank?
whats the differences between TD and A Tank......
wait you already gave me that answer "Tank Destroyer is an armored vehicle dedicated for the destruction of other armored vehicles specifically tanks"
whereas a tank was designed to kill whatever got in its way.....
always wondered about that
what are the differences?
seems like they are just Tanks made to kill Tanks.
The difference is that a tank's main role is to support the infantry. A tank kills other tanks because the enemy tank poses a threat to the infantry (or the assault). A tank destroyer's job is simply to go out and kill other tanks
-
I got a question for you GV guys....
why would they call this a "Tank Destroyer" not just this particular one, but all the "tank destroyers" are they not usually less armored, I know this one is.....I am just curious.
seems silly to call something a "Tank destroyer" when a Tank can easily kill. :headscratch:
By design, a TD was to engage enemy tanks/AFV's and destroy them. The name of the game is mobility. By design, and infantry support vehicle was to engage enemy infantry and fixed fortifications. Because the roles were so different and the tools needed were so different most countries split the duties. As WWII went on, it was apparent that a tank could be and should be able to do both jobs satisfactory. I think the Panzer IV H, or perhaps an earlier version with the long barreled 7.5cm cannon was the first "MBT" in WWII. Once WWII was over and the Cold War began, the "Main Battle Tank" concept took right off and the TD role was elevated to the skies. ;)
The other thing to keep in mind is that usually the TD design was meant for TD'ing first and foremost, and infantry support was a distant secondary thought. Case in point: the US 76mm M1A1 cannon found in the M4A3 and M18, the HE is rather weak in comparison vs the US 75mm cannon but the AP ability was quite superior. However, the 75mm was designed from the beginning as an infantry support cannon (origins prior to WWI, iirc), as was the Sherman M4 tank. It was the TD units job to destroy tanks, not the 75mm Shermans. The British would have 1 Firefly TD move in behind a rank of Cromwells and Shermans, once a German tank was spotted the Firefly was brought forward and they engaged the German tanks, not the Cromwells and Shermans. Ever notice the Firefly does not have a hull MG (not needing it is only part of the story, but still)?
-
ya...no...everything you guys wrote and the other responses are the extent of my knowledge of tanks :rofl
all I knew before was...they were big...heavy...slow.....and carried a big stick :rofl
thax for info...can never have enough knowledge :old:
-
I hope someopne sedated bar....he's probably tearing down a local watering hole atm
-
I hope someopne sedated bar....he's probably tearing down a local watering hole atm
Oh if you only knew...
-
well, not that.
Just give it a higher chance of survivability since the simplest of AC guns can nock its turret out.
Hiding under trees dont work very well in AH because the planes can still see the red name popping out. :(
No. The Achilles heel of the M18 is its lack or armored protection from any angle. I dont even have to worry about this getting implemented, HTC isnt going to change the icon setting for 1 gv. They are stuck on the 6000 yard icon for air/ground to air and the 2000 yard icon for air to ground. The fact that the icon setting has been the same for so long in the MA does not give me much hope for it to change. If anything I'd like to see both reduced, especially the air to ground icon. The human eye can barely tell the make and model of a particular car at 400 yards away while it sits still. Moving at 200mph+, searching for a camouflaged gv, I can not imagine being able to so easily see said ground target. At 5000ft above a road in a Cesspool 150, I know I can see the difference between a semi-tractor, a pick-up truck, and a Handa Civic, but they are brightly colored and on a road.
-
The existance of TDs in an army does not make other tanks "infantry support tanks". The Marder II didnt make the Panzer IV an infantry support tank. The Su-100 didnt make the T-34/85 an infantry support tank, and the M-10 didnt make the Sherman one either. The lack of AP power (or any other drawback) in its gun does not alter its designation or intended use on the battlefield.
The infantry tank concept was used by the British in the form of tanks like the Churchill and deployed into independant tank brigades. The Germans used assault guns like the StuG III in the same role. The Shermans that went into action at El Alemain, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, Normandy and Germany in the US, British and Canadian armies were deployed as multi-role main battle tanks. The role in the US Army of the tank destroyer was the same as other armies in most respects; they were intended to rapidly deploy to the area of an enemy armored attack and thwart it with the help of artillery and anti-tank guns. There were certainly M4 Sherman support variants but thats another matter.
Although it perhaps leaned towards being a TD The Firefly was not a designated tank destroyer. TDs (called Self Propelled guns in the British Army, but a rose by any other name I guess...) were issued to and manned by members of the Royal Artillery Branch. The Firefly Sherman was issued, deployed and used within standard medium tank regiments as an mbt by members of the Royal Armored Corps. They were issued as a % to units in 1944-45 because they could not be manufactured in time to completely replace the Shermans with the 75mm guns. The fact that they were better able to handle German armor doesn't classify them as tank destroyers any more than a US Army Sherman M4A3 (76) was or the later M26 Pershing was, or the later British Comet was. That being said a Firefly equipped troop would certainly get a "tap on the shoulder" if enemy armor was expected as they were there to improve an armored units ability to deal with Panthers and Tigers. All that said I get why its sometimes referred to as a TD being that it was designed with German armor in mind, but like I stated no more than other later Allied tanks were.
-
Looks like fun...shes a beaut :aok
-
so, a tank that can be disabled by a Zeke? looks like the SdKfz 251 will a mate to keep it company in the hanger...
-
so, a tank that can be disabled by a Zeke? looks like the SdKfz 251 will a mate to keep it company in the hanger...
spit 1 :D
-
so, a tank that can be disabled by a Zeke? looks like the SdKfz 251 will a mate to keep it company in the hanger...
I know at least one person who will keep it out of the hanger. :D
-
The existance of TDs in an army does not make other tanks "infantry support tanks". The Marder II didnt make the Panzer IV an infantry support tank. The Su-100 didnt make the T-34/85 an infantry support tank, and the M-10 didnt make the Sherman one either. The lack of AP power (or any other drawback) in its gun does not alter its designation or intended use on the battlefield.
The infantry tank concept was used by the British in the form of tanks like the Churchill and deployed into independant tank brigades. The Germans used assault guns like the StuG III in the same role. The Shermans that went into action at El Alemain, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, Normandy and Germany in the US, British and Canadian armies were deployed as multi-role main battle tanks. The role in the US Army of the tank destroyer was the same as other armies in most respects; they were intended to rapidly deploy to the area of an enemy armored attack and thwart it with the help of artillery and anti-tank guns. There were certainly M4 Sherman support variants but thats another matter.
Although it perhaps leaned towards being a TD The Firefly was not a designated tank destroyer. TDs (called Self Propelled guns in the British Army, but a rose by any other name I guess...) were issued to and manned by members of the Royal Artillery Branch. The Firefly Sherman was issued, deployed and used within standard medium tank regiments as an mbt by members of the Royal Armored Corps. They were issued as a % to units in 1944-45 because they could not be manufactured in time to completely replace the Shermans with the 75mm guns. The fact that they were better able to handle German armor doesn't classify them as tank destroyers any more than a US Army Sherman M4A3 (76) was or the later M26 Pershing was, or the later British Comet was. That being said a Firefly equipped troop would certainly get a "tap on the shoulder" if enemy armor was expected as they were there to improve an armored units ability to deal with Panthers and Tigers. All that said I get why its sometimes referred to as a TD being that it was designed with German armor in mind, but like I stated no more than other later Allied tanks were.
It is very true that tank on tank battles are quite common in the history of modern warfare, but the fact reamins that no tank ever designed will survive long without infantry support . Tanks without infantry in the face of determined and capable enemy infantry will lose the fight .
Armored units require massive logistical support as well . If they are cut off or stray too far from supply lines they quickly become useless . Yes the big gun is made to kill enemy armor but it's primary purpose is always to provide infantry with mobile direct heavy fire power and the capability to flank an enemy force . If you really want to kill tanks efficiently call the air force not the cavalry.
You call any type of armor whatever you choose and even design it to excell in certain battlefield roles . But the fact reamains , if you don't got a bunch of grunts in your back pocket you aint gonna get far . George Patton thought the most effective weapon mounted on a tank was the machinegun .
-
If anything I'd like to see both reduced, especially the air to ground icon. The human eye can barely tell the make and model of a particular car at 400 yards away while it sits still. Moving at 200mph+, searching for a camouflaged gv, I can not imagine being able to so easily see said ground target. At 5000ft above a road in a Cesspool 150, I know I can see the difference between a semi-tractor, a pick-up truck, and a Handa Civic, but they are brightly colored and on a road.
Isn't what you're asking for that the icon be changed to 'tank' above a certain range? Not turned off entirely.
Why not suggest that to HTC - it already happens with fighters. For example at ranges icons appear for 190, but you don't know if its an A5, A8, F8, D9, or 152 til you get close.
-
Isn't what you're asking for that the icon be changed to 'tank' above a certain range? Not turned off entirely.
Why not suggest that to HTC - it already happens with fighters. For example at ranges icons appear for 190, but you don't know if its an A5, A8, F8, D9, or 152 til you get close.
I could go for that. Having HTC change all of the gv icons to "GV" then at 600 or 800 yards have the actual ID icon appear would be a decent if temporary compromise. What makes me go :headscratch: more than anything is the apparent staunch position of keeping things exactly the way they are. The fact that each and every month threads like this come up by different authors and yet each and every month the icon ranges remain exactly the same. I try and try again to find legit reasons within the realms of game play, pc performance issues, new player capabilities or ease of learning, etc etc, and yet I can not put a finger on any particular reason for not at least experimenting in the MA's with different range icons.
I'd still rather reduce the range of the air to gv icon down a bit. Seeing and identifying a ground vehicle at 2000 yards from the air while moving 200mph is not very feasible under combat conditions (camo, trees, etc).
-
what's going to be the new "thing" going around in the wishlist now??????????????
-
what's going to be the new "thing" going around in the wishlist now??????????????
Well, now that you mention it. I want to see a re-vamped "Dance Boys" video,
with sheep swaying behind the grunts and maybe providing background vocals.
:cheers: Oz
-
The US army studied the battle of France (1940) and decided that the best way to defeat such an attack and at the same time to have the capability to execute such an attack themselves was to have a Tank Destroyer arm in the army as a separate force from the Tank arm. That arm had its own generals and such who developed a doctrine of independent tank destroyer battalions equipped with fast hard hitting vehicles that could be quickly positioned to stem blitzkrieg breakthroughs. While the armoured corps designed a doctrine of fast medium tanks that were not intended to engage other tanks so much as exploit breakthroughs with speed and good anti infantry capabilities.
The M18 is the perfect doctrine US WW2 tank destroyer. Of course US Tank Destroyer battalions in ww2 were no more used for their doctrinal purpose then german Tiger battalions were. They were almost universally used as inferior tanks, just like the Tigers were almost universally used as superior tanks.
So its called a tank destroyer not because it is superior at destroying tanks, its not, but because it was designed to equip tank destroyer battalions.
-
They explode wonderfully! It is so easy to lead them in full run mode!
Please keep upping them! My score loves it!
-
It will NOT be a "Hanger Queen"! :rock
-
Forum bump
Post anything about the M-18 here....
-
per Lepape (http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n150/lepape/M18DoubleJumpwmv.gif)
-
per Lepape (http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n150/lepape/M18DoubleJumpwmv.gif)
Har! that's what I was doing. Kick in the butt! :banana: