Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SmokinLoon on October 13, 2011, 05:35:45 PM
-
In the short amount of time the M18 has been AH, I've heard all sorts of "way out in left field" tid-bits regarding said vehicle. This thread has a simple goal: to post the correct information about the M18 so players will **know** what is correct and what isnt. Please feel free to add/debate.
First, the main gun on the M18 is for all practical purposes is the exact same thing as on the M4/76mm. The AP and HE rounds are exactly the same. The AP round of the M18 will have the exact same AP capability as the M4/76 (134/115/97mm @ 0/1k/2k yards). The HE rounds are the weakest tank HE rounds in the game with 103 lbs of damage, meaning it will take 3 shots to take out a town building or other such OBJ). Reload rate is the same as well (5.5 seconds, est). The gun sight is the same, too. The only MG available is the pintle mounted .50 cal, no co-axial or hull mounted MG is available (not needed for TD duty, ;) ).
Secondly, the M18 has no more armor than the M8 (13mm all around the hull and turret), save for the front of the turret which as 46mm of armor. Meaning, a single .50 cal MG from an M3 will be able to send the M18 packing if it gets close enough, and more importantly and probably likely to happen a lot is it will get sent back to the hanger by aircraft fire rather easily. Also, the open turret has quite obviously been proven an Achilles heel.
The speed of the M18 is 51mph, acceleration is better than what I thought it would be. Climbing hills is better than the T34, but remember the transmission is only a 3 speed so the gears are really strung out. The jury is still out on this one.
The size of the M18 is misleading, it can squeeze in between trees and turn a bit tighter than other tanks, it truly feels like an M8 when moving at 51mph.
-
M8s are a deadly, deadly threat when you're in an M18. The rate of fire on their 37mm cannon is much higher and will punch through the M18s armor just about as easily as the M18's 76mm cannon will punch through the M8's armor.
-
This post is a great idea since it was released today, thanks for the info so far.
-
I think it does not deserve the perk cost. Fast, average firepower but a single bb ping can send you to the tower or break your tooth.
That armor piercing capability is just simmilar to the panzer4h, only 38 rounds carryed (still enough tho).
It could be a great rush-attack gv, but since a spit can kill like 10 of them... i stay in the panzer4f : )
Edit: ok Snail, my bad : )
-
That armor piercing capability is just simmilar to the panzer4h, only 38 rounds carryed (still enough tho).
It's up to 45 AP rounds.
-
I think it does not deserve the perk cost. Fast, average firepower but a single bb ping can send you to the tower or break your tooth.
That armor piercing capability is just simmilar to the panzer4h, only 38 rounds carryed (still enough tho).
It could be a great rush-attack gv, but since a spit can kill like 10 of them... i stay in the panzer4f : )
Edit: ok Snail, my bad : )
Thing is, the M3/75mm can get to where you need to go just as fast, do almost the same job (albeit less AP ability and much worse optics). So, if the M18 was not perked it would be used more so as a kamikaze than as a TD. Considering each and every advantage the M18 has over the M3/75mm, the 1 perk point cost is very low. Heck, I'd almost even up it to 2 just to keep 'em honest. :)
Remember again, the M18 is not an engagement vehicle, it is a shoot-n-scoot mobile gun platform, that is it. If you stop to engage a tank 1v1 (your gun vs his gun) you have disregarded what the M18 is all about: to rush the flank and destroy the enemy armor before he is able to engage you. Otherwise, if you want a 1v1 or "front vs front" battle you are better off in a M4/76mm Sherman. :)
-
Fun ride. I really enjoyed the brief try with two kills b4 getting turreted by the M-16 I just killed, fast drive home to re-up too. :aok
-
The M18 has already proven to be the bane of gv attacks on an airfield. The Rooks tried a combined attack on a field last night and a single M18 was able to beat the attackers to the town, set up in an ambush position (hidden behind mounds) between the attacking force and the target town and take 3 of us out and literally stopped the other 12-15 tanks from driving on through. It wasn't until after a few minutes that a quick burst from a Rook P51D on the M18's turret did the rest of the attacking force continue on to the town, or rather what was left of it because the M18 held up the attacking force enough that the bomb****s were able to recover and make waste.
That single M18 with its speed a proper ambush position saved the base. That, and the lack of fighter support for the Rooks. ;)
-
No HEAT rounds for the M-18?
ack-ack
-
Hmmm? I thought I saw HE? :huh
-
Hmmm? I thought I saw HE? :huh
Those are High Explosive rounds, not High Explosive Anti-Tank rounds.
ack-ack
-
HEAT rounds are not usually needed for high velocity guns. They are there to give howitzers and lower velocity cannon a decent AP ability for self defense vs armor as an AP round would be too low velocity to be much use and their normal HE rounds are largely useless vs armor. The M18s 76mm APC round is all it needs for anti-armor. In any case the M18 was not issued them. It was issued the T4 76mm HVAP round though.
Sherman M4A3 (105) carried HEAT rounds. Thats an example of an AFV that needed them. The 105mm howitzer being too low velocity for an AP round to be any use but a HEAT round would give it some defence vs an enemy tank or sp gun if encountered. I suppose you could also shoot at bunkers and the like with it.
-
It was issued the T4 76mm HVAP round though.
too bad there were too few tungsten cores for ammo :(
-
I think the issue surrounding them in game terms is likely that the HVAP rounds were not delivered untill the Fall of 1944 to the US Army. I think unless the vehicle had the HVAP from the start of its career like say the much less impressive Russian 76mm HVAP in the 1943 T-34s HTC opts to not include them? im just guessing. I suppose its good policy, you dont want every plane and gv with a bunch of exotic stuff that they rarely had and if you go down that road there is no end to it. Perk ord? who knows maybe we will see that some day. I dont recall if the M26 Pershing went into combat with its 90mm HVAP, I seem to recall they did...if it did there would be a case for its inclusion.
-
I think the issue surrounding them in game terms is likely that the HVAP rounds were not delivered untill the Fall of 1944 to the US Army. I think unless the vehicle had the HVAP from the start of its career like say the much less impressive Russian 76mm HVAP in the 1943 T-34s HTC opts to not include them? im just guessing. I suppose its good policy, you dont want every plane and gv with a bunch of exotic stuff that they rarely had and if you go down that road there is no end to it. Perk ord? who knows maybe we will see that some day. I dont recall if the M26 Pershing went into combat with its 90mm HVAP, I seem to recall they did...if it did there would be a case for its inclusion.
More than half the HVAP manufactured was for the 3" gun in the M-10. The rest was 76mm and some 90mm. The 76mm was pretty evenly distributed between M-4s and M-18s.
At any rate, tungsten used for the core was so rare that the rate of distribution was around one round per tank per month.
wrongway
-
More than half the HVAP manufactured was for the 3" gun in the M-10. The rest was 76mm and some 90mm. The 76mm was pretty evenly distributed between M-4s and M-18s.
At any rate, tungsten used for the core was so rare that the rate of distribution was around one round per tank per month.
wrongway
id take that round...
and wrongway the 3" gun on the M-10 is the same ammunition used in the 76.2mm M1A1 cannon. The difference being the M7 3" cannon was older and heavier than the newer lighter M1. So this info you said is starting to confuse me when the M7 and the M1A1 used the same ammo...
-
id take that round...
and wrongway the 3" gun on the M-10 is the same ammunition used in the 76.2mm M1A1 cannon. The difference being the M7 3" cannon was older and heavier than the newer lighter M1. So this info you said is starting to confuse me when the M7 and the M1A1 used the same ammo...
Same projectile, different propellant casing.
Couldn't find a pic comparing the two.
wrongway
-
Same projectile, different propellant casing.
Couldn't find a pic comparing the two.
wrongway
I'd like to see those specifications. So is what I am gathering from you, wrongway, is that they are indeed 2 different cartridges and are not interchangeable???
-
I'd like to see those specifications. So is what I am gathering from you, wrongway, is that they are indeed 2 different cartridges and are not interchangeable???
I always thought there was a slight difference. Ian Hogg's books are my sources....if only I could find them....
- oldman
-
I always thought there was a slight difference. Ian Hogg's books are my sources....if only I could find them....
- oldman
Slight difference being the difference between .223 Remington vs 5.56 NATO (yes, there is a difference), or .223 Remington vs .222 Remington (completely different case)?
Regardless, it isnt that big of deal really. The projectiles are the same, the velocities are the same, and the AP capabilities are the same.
-
I'd like to see those specifications. So is what I am gathering from you, wrongway, is that they are indeed 2 different cartridges and are not interchangeable???
I've searched the intardnet and cannot find specifications.
My only references are the Osprey Books on the M10 and M36 and M18 Hellcat, both by Steven J. Zaloga.
From M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-53 p.18:
During development of the rival M18 76mm GMC, Ordinance designed a new, lighter-weight 76mm gun better suited for use in tanks or tank destroyers. Tj=his gun fired the same projectile as the 3-inch gun, but was labeled as a 76mm gun since it used a different ammunition type with a new propellant casing that would not fit in the 3-inch gun,....
Pp.34-35 RE: HVAP ammo:
In September 1944, ETOUSA headquarters cabled back to the United States that they needed 43,000 rounds split evenly between 3-inch and 76mm guns, by January 1945, and 10,000 rounds monthly after that. However, tungsten was in such short supply that through early March 1945, only about 18,000 rounds arrived in Europe, including about 10,500 rounds for the M10 tank destroyers.
From M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97 Pp.23-24:
RE: HVAP production order as above:
The production was to be equally divided between 76mm and 3-inch, the latter for the M10 3-in. tank destroyer.
RE: HVAP distribution:
By early march 1945, a total of about 18,000 rounds of HVAP had been delivered to the ETO of which about 7,550 were 76mm rounds (42 percent) and the rest 3-in. ammunition for the M10 tank destroyers.
Essentially, since both books are by the same author, probably using the same research, it is only one source.
wrongway