Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on March 03, 2012, 02:20:39 PM
-
Can we have some more tank-destroyers? Personally, I would suggest:
the "SP 17pdr, Valentine, Mk I" aka, the Archer. Yeah, its slow, at only 20mph. Yeah, its gun is facing the rear of the tank. Yeah, it only had 60mm of armor. But it had a 17lber, a low profile, and was a good ambush weapon. Reverse into possiton, fire a few rounds, and then just drive off without having to turn around.
The Sturmgeschütz III (abreviated as StuG) Ausf. F (with StuK 40 L/43) and the StuG III Ausf. G (with StuK 40 L/48. Low-profiled and well protected, these would make great ambush weapons. Wouldn't have quite the same punch as the Archer, but the better speed, protection, and forward-facing gun would make up for it.
SU-100 With 75mm of sloped armor, a relativly low profile, and the powerful D-10S 100mm cannon, the SU-100 would be a great addition. It would be fast at 30mph, with a low profile, good armor, and what would probably be the second best gun in the game, bested only by the 8,8cm KwK 43 L'71.
Jagdpanzer IV Both the SdKfz 162 version (armed with the StuK 40 L/48) and the SdKfz 162/1 version (armed with the StuK 42 L/70). Better armored than the StuG, having a bit better sloping, and with more ammunition capacity, but being slower, and a bit larger overall. It would still have the armor and low profile of the StuG combined with the firepower of the Archer.
-
+1 to all of them, thats a good mix in there.
-
Little correction on the su-100
Only 45mm of armor, same as the t34, its donor tank. 75mm sloped is about the same as the Panther...
The gun penetrated 160mms at 1000 meters, pretty impressive.
ya, almost forgot +1! :aok
-
+1
-
+1
+1
+1
+1
=
+4
-
+1
-
think I am more afraid is that they will just stay on concrete for people who want easy perks during attack.
perhaps a wish for lowering percentage of perks earned the closer you are to concrete the better this tanks will be used what they are designed for. not talking about miles from bse but more about 300 to 400 yards and above. also perhaps kills within a spawn radius should be reduced the same way. here's an idea for somebody to post on the wish forum :D.
semp
-
I think the lack of a turret would make them less usefull for concrete sitting. I mean when you turn to engage a target in one direction, you expose your flank to someone from another direction.
And for the Archer, its pretty much going to be a one-shot trip to the tower. IIRC, the rear armor (the direction of the gun) wasn't reinforced. The 60m of armor is the frontal armor.
-
I add the Wespe ( ya I know that its a self-propelled howitzer but it was also used as a tank destroyer). Add the Nashorn, Ferdinand, sturmpanzer IV, Jagd panzer IV, Jagdpanzer 38(t), su-76, su-122, su-85, su-152, m24, m12, and m7. Ya, its pretty long but has many options.
-
I think the lack of a turret would make them less usefull for concrete sitting. I mean when you turn to engage a target in one direction, you expose your flank to someone from another direction.
Put 4 of 'em in town, one facing each road. :D
-
I add the Wespe ( ya I know that its a self-propelled howitzer but it was also used as a tank destroyer). Add the Nashorn, Ferdinand, sturmpanzer IV, Jagd panzer IV, Jagdpanzer 38(t), su-76, su-122, su-85, su-152, m24, m12, and m7. Ya, its pretty long but has many options.
Eventually, I would love to see all of those. But for now, I think my origional group of 4 would be the best balanced and well rounded. It also lets us get some parts in the game for later additions.
For example, the StuG III will give us two weapons in one package if we want to do it that way. We could use the StuG III Ausf. F and give it an L/48, and extra 30mm of bolt on armor for a total of 80mm. That way we have the 50mm armored L/43 version from pre-June 1942, and the 80mm armored L/48 version from post-June 1942. It wouldn't be quite as pretty as an Ausf. G (made with a different Panzer III chassis, and taller, so we can't just change weapons and armor, we have to change the whole visuals). Personally, I would rather have the Ausf. G but an Ausf. F with the L/48 and 80mm of armor would do.
It would also give us the chassis for a Panzer III, which we could add later on.
The Su-100 would also give us the chassis and basic design for an Su-85, but this way we get the usefull version first, instead of getting the Su-85 and waiting for the Su-100.
The Archer give us the Chassis for a Valentine tank, which we could add at a later point in time.
The Jagdpanzer IV makes use of existing components, and so would be a relativly easy vehicle to add. Panzer IV chassis (have it), StuK 40 L/48 (have it in KwK version), and the StuK 42 L/70 (have it in KwK version).
Put 4 of 'em in town, one facing each road. :D
Lol, we actually did that for an HMS event. I was leading a group of four Tiger I's against everyone else in T-34/76's, and I had us wedge ourselves in an alley, two wide, back-to-back. We blocked off the entire road and had buildings to the side so we couldn't be flanked, and because we were back-to-back nobody could shoot our rear.
-
Eventually, I would love to see all of those. But for now, I think my origional group of 4 would be the best balanced and well rounded. It also lets us get some parts in the game for later additions.
For example, the StuG III will give us two weapons in one package if we want to do it that way. We could use the StuG III Ausf. F and give it an L/48, and extra 30mm of bolt on armor for a total of 80mm. That way we have the 50mm armored L/43 version from pre-June 1942, and the 80mm armored L/48 version from post-June 1942. It wouldn't be quite as pretty as an Ausf. G (made with a different Panzer III chassis, and taller, so we can't just change weapons and armor, we have to change the whole visuals). Personally, I would rather have the Ausf. G but an Ausf. F with the L/48 and 80mm of armor would do.
It would also give us the chassis for a Panzer III, which we could add later on.
The Su-100 would also give us the chassis and basic design for an Su-85, but this way we get the usefull version first, instead of getting the Su-85 and waiting for the Su-100.
The Archer give us the Chassis for a Valentine tank, which we could add at a later point in time.
The Jagdpanzer IV makes use of existing components, and so would be a relativly easy vehicle to add. Panzer IV chassis (have it), StuK 40 L/48 (have it in KwK version), and the StuK 42 L/70 (have it in KwK version).
Lol, we actually did that for an HMS event. I was leading a group of four Tiger I's against everyone else in T-34/76's, and I had us wedge ourselves in an alley, two wide, back-to-back. We blocked off the entire road and had buildings to the side so we couldn't be flanked, and because we were back-to-back nobody could shoot our rear.
Very well thought out, and I totally agree with this!
-
+1
-
The Su-100 would also give us the chassis and basic design for an Su-85, but this way we get the usefull version first, instead of getting the Su-85 and waiting for the Su-100.
The SU-100 was based on a T-34/85 chassis and the SU-85 is on a T-34 chassis.
-
The SU-100 was based on a T-34/85 chassis and the SU-85 is on a T-34 chassis.
Aren't they the same? IIRC, the T-34/85 only had an uparmored turret and an 85mm, not a reworked chassis.
-
Still waiting on those badly needed tank destroyers. Box formation bombers would also be a nice upgradings.
-
What you mean, Rob? Im without any knowledge about those formations, plz lighten me up.
-
Please :pray
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee24/tmetal_blk/Planes%20of%20fame%20airshow%202008/anti-tankgun.jpg)
-
Please :pray
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee24/tmetal_blk/Planes%20of%20fame%20airshow%202008/anti-tankgun.jpg)
I think that this TD would see more use then any other that HTC could add, but thats just my opinion.
-
I think that this TD would see more use then any other that HTC could add, but thats just my opinion.
It would be a higher ENY tank, one reason i'd be interested in it - M18 is 1 perk and mid level Eny, 38(T) would be 30 or so Eny
-
If HTC is going to add in a turret-less AFV in to AH, I hope it is the Su-100, StuG III, or Hetzer.
The Su-100 main gun is on par with the Panther and 17 Pdr in terms of AP, but it would still be at a disadvantage because of no turret, no true pivot capability, limited armor, only 34 rounds of main gun ammo.
The StuG III is a spittin' image of the Panzer IV F2 we currently have in AH, minus the turret. So... draw your own conclusions.
The Hetzer would be on par with the StuG III, but in a smaller vehicle.
The Archer would offer nothing a rearward facing Firefly cant offer. ;)
The Jagd IV would be an interesting venture, but that too would be like having a Panzer IV H with no turret.
Lots of potential, but I'd rather see some other EW/MW stuff come along first like the Panzer III, Valentine, Crusader, etc
-
Well Debrody, since we can already fly 3 bombers at a time, why not be able to take more? I know we've all got bomber perks lying around not getting used.
But not like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAz-Ax330tE
-
I think that this TD would see more use then any other that HTC could add, but thats just my opinion.
this tank is a hetzer. i would like it in the game because it's low, fast, and has a great main gun.
-
Great another "can we have another spawn camping toy" thread.
We need another GV in this game about as much as we need an early war plane.
None of these can slug it out with a Tiger2 or out run an M-18....so what's the point in adding them?
-
Great another "can we have another spawn camping toy" thread.
We need another GV in this game about as much as we need an early war plane.
None of these can slug it out with a Tiger2 or out run an M-18....so what's the point in adding them?
because they are good at ambushes and can at least get an engine kill or knock out the tigers tracks or main gun. and it's so low it will be hard to hit it. it would be good as a defensive weapon. we need the crusader, Cromwell, and churchill for offensive gv.
-
this tank is a hetzer. i would like it in the game because it's low, fast, and has a great main gun.
The M-18 we have already is lower faster and has a better gun. the reason i say it would see more use is not only the ENY but becuase it was quite popular with its crews during WW2.
-
Great another "can we have another spawn camping toy" thread.
We need another GV in this game about as much as we need an early war plane.
None of these can slug it out with a Tiger2 or out run an M-18....so what's the point in adding them?
I see what you did there. think it will work?
-
The M-18 we have already is lower faster and has a better gun. the reason i say it would see more use is not only the ENY but becuase it was quite popular with its crews during WW2.
The Jagdpanzer 38(t) was intended to be more cost-effective than the much more ambitious Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger designs of the same period. Using a proven chassis, it avoided the mechanical problems of the larger armoured vehicles.
It was better armored than the lightly armoured earlier Panzerjäger Marder and Nashorn with a sloped armour front plate of 60 mm sloped back at 60 degrees from the vertical (equivalent in protection to about 120 mm), carried a reasonably powerful gun, was mechanically reliable, small and easily concealed. wikipedia.
Its combat weight was 16 metric tons and it could travel at maximum speed of some 42km/h. Hetzer’s tracks had 96 links per side with 350mm wide tracks with track surface contact of 2.72m. Hetzer had a low well-sloped hull of welded construction. Hull had 60mm thick frontal plate, 8mm thin roof and rear armour and 20mm thin side armour. All armoured plates sloped inwards. In addition, Hetzer was fitted with small 5mm side skirts (Schuerzen). It was armed with 75mm Pak 39 L/48 gun with limited traverse (5 degrees to the left and 11 degrees to the right) and elevation (-6 degrees to +10 degrees). The gun was mounted with Sfl.Z.F.1a gun sight. Main armament was protected by 60mm cast gun mantlet - Saukopf. Heavy gun and thick frontal plate overloaded the front but it was later corrected by the use of strengthen suspension. The main gun had an effective range of over 1000 meters. For example Hetzer could knock out Soviet T-34/85 at a distance of 700m by hitting the frontal armour, while Soviet T-34/85 could knock out Hetzer at a distance of 400m by hitting the frontal armour. In comparison with a JS-2, Hetzer could be knocked out at a distance of 1000m, while Hetzer could knock JS-2 out at a distance of 100m. The limited traverse of the gun forced Hetzer to constantly change position in order to target another enemy tank, while exposing its thin 20mm side armour to enemy fire. An interesting feature was the remotely controlled MG34/42 mounted on the roof, with 360 degrees rotation for local defense. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/jagdpanzer-38t-hetzer.htm
Crew 4
Radio Fu 5, FuG52, FuG Spr F2
Radio - command Fu 8
Physical Characteristics
Weight 31,967 lb3
14,500 kg3, 15,750 kg1, 16,000 kg6
15.5 tons1,7, 15.75 tons2, 16 tons5, 17.6 tons4 15.5 tons2
Length w/gun 20' 4.1"3, 20' 7"5,7, 20' 11.1"1
6.2 m3, 6.27 m5, 6.38 m1,2 4.87 m2
Length w/o gun 15' 9"3, 15' 11"5, 16'4,7
4.8 m3, 4.87 m5,6
Height 6' 10"5, 6' 10.7"3, 6' 11"7, 7'4, 7' 1.4"1, 7' 3"
2.1 m3,5, 2.17 m1,2,6 2.17 m2
Width 8' 2.4"3, 8.4'4, 8' 7"5, 8' 7.5"1, 8' 8"7
2.5 m3, 2.63 m1,2,5,6 2.63 m2
Width over tracks
Ground clearance 16"4, 1' 4.5"
0.38 m, 0.42 m6
Ground contact length 112"4
2.69 m
Ground pressure 0.85 kg/cm2
Turret ring diameter
Armament
Main 7.5 cm Pak 39 L/482,3,5,6,7
7.5 cm1
7.5 cm PaK 393
7.5 cm Pak, L/484 14 mm Flammenwerfer 412
Secondary
MG 1: MG7
7.92 mm MG1
7.92 mm MG34 or MG422
7.92 mm MG34 or MG422
MG - roof 7.92 mm MG344,5
MG 34 or 42
MG6
Side arms
Quantity
Main 40, 412: AP
414,5,6 154 gallons2, 24 bursts2
Secondary
MG 6004, 7805, 1,2002 1,2002
Side arms
Armor Thickness (mm) Front: 2.4"@60°4, 606
Side: 0.8"@45°4, 606
Rear: 206
601
Hull Front, Upper 60@60°2, 60@30°5 60@60°2
Hull Front, Lower 60@60°, 60@40°2,5 60@40°2
Hull Sides, Upper 20@40°2, 20@60°5 20@40°2
Hull Sides, Lower 20@15°2 20@15°2
Hull Rear 20@15°2 & 8@70°2,5 20@15°2 & 8@70°2
Hull Top 8@90°2 8@90°2
Hull Bottom 10@90°2 10@90°2
Superstructure Front Gun Mantlet: 60 Soukopfblende2
60@30°5
Superstructure Sides 20@75°5
Superstructure Rear 20@75°5
Superstructure Top 8@0°5
Engine (Make / Model) Praga AC/21,2
Praga AC/28003,6
Praga EPA TZj5
EPA (type T2)4
Praga7 Praga AC/22
Bore / stroke
Cooling Water4
Cylinders R65, 66, I-64
Capacity
Net HP 1507, 150-1603, 1585, 1606
158@2,600 rpm4
Power to weight ratio 11.4 psi4
Compression ratio
Transmission (Type) Preselective, Olvar 40 12 16
5 forward, 1 reverse2,4,6
Parge-Wilson tarpaulin power drive.6
Praga-Wilson planetary4 5 forward, 1 reverse.2
Steering Clutch brake, two speed4
Steering ratio
Starter Hand and electric4
Electrical system 12-volt4
Ignition Magneto4
Fuel (Type) Gasoline4
Octane
Quantity 84 gallons, 85 gallons5, 85 gallons in 2 tanks4
320 liters6, 386 liters5
Use per 100 km of road travel: 178 liters
Road consumption 100 km/178 liters
1.3 mpg4
Cross country consumption 0.7 mpg4
Performance
Traverse 11° right, 5° left2,4
5° right, 11° left5
Hand2 11° right, 5° left, hand2
Traverse - MG roof 360°
Speed - Road 16 mph5, 24 mph4, 24.2 mph3, 25 mph7, 26 mph1
26 kph5, 39 kph3, 42 kph1,2,6 42 kph2
Speed - Cross Country 9 mph5, 10 mph4
14 kph, 15 kph5, 16 kph
Range - Road 100 miles5, 110 miles1, 111 miles4,7, 124 miles, 155 miles3
161 km5, 177 km1,2, 180 km, 250 km3, 260 km6 177 km2
Range - Cross Country 50 miles5, 60 miles4
130 km5 , 170 km6
Turning radius 4.5 m, 5 m6
Elevation limits -8° to +20°, -6° to +12°2, -6° to +10°4,5 -6° to +12°2
Fording depth 2' 11"3,4, 2' 11.5"
0.9 m3
Trench crossing 4.3'4, 4' 3.2"3
1.3 m3
Vertical obstacle 2' 1.6"3,4
0.65 m3
Climbing ability 37° (75%) slope4
Suspension (Type) Christie
Two bogies with 1/2 elliptic springs4
Wheels each side 45
Return rollers each side 1
Tracks (Type) Dry pin4
Length 12' 10.75"
2.69 m6
98 link6
Width 1' 1.75", 13.8"4
0.35 m6
Diameter
Number of links 984
Pitch 4.1"4
Tire tread
Track centers/tread 6' 10.5", 7'4
2.14 m
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tank-hunters/hetzer.asp
-
Great another "can we have another spawn camping toy" thread.
We need another GV in this game about as much as we need an early war plane.
None of these can slug it out with a Tiger2 or out run an M-18....so what's the point in adding them?
Lol, not a big GV'er are you? ANY vehicle can be used to camp a spawn, and all of them with comperable weapons are about equally as effective. The only difference is WHERE you camp the spawn from. These wouldn't be any better at spawn camping, and odds are would actually be worse. For one, they can't go hull-down, so no camping from behind a burm. Two, lack of a turret makes a flank shot more likely.
As for why we should get them: because its not about out-preforming another vehicle. If it were, the Tiger II would be the end of the line for WWII vehicles, and the 262 would be it for WWII fighters.
-
Hetzer
-
Great another "can we have another spawn camping toy" thread.
We need another GV in this game about as much as we need an early war plane.
None of these can slug it out with a Tiger2 or out run an M-18....so what's the point in adding them?
If you bothered to up a tank once in a while you'd figure out why mid-higher ranged ENY tanks are a great idea. I only pull out a King Tiger when the situation is dire and I need to stop your horde.
If its an even situation I sit in a Panzer F to perk farm, so I can pull out that Ace in the hole once in a while.
Problem is Panzer F is not a tank destroyer, its a slapped together tank to combat 1942 versions of the KV-1 and T-34 tanks, with an L/43 gun.
Put in a JadgPanzer or Hetzer and you have a nifty little tank that can do what its suppose to do which is ambush tanks, no it won't combat a King Tiger - yet I only see one once or twice a tour? So yeah not worried about king tigers so much.
-
As for why we should get them: because its not about outperforming another vehicle. If it were, the Tiger II would be the end of the line for WWII vehicles, and the 262 would be it for WWII fighters.
What a gem of wisdom. :cheers:
Now can we apply that same logic to the airplane set....ahem....maybe an few early war Japanese Army planes/bombers to round out the set. Only now of course, since its not about out preforming the other "vehicle"
-
What a gem of wisdom. :cheers:
Now can we apply that same logic to the airplane set....ahem....maybe an few early war Japanese Army planes/bombers to round out the set. Only now of course, since its not about out preforming the other "vehicle"
sure. a5m sound good?
-
What a gem of wisdom. :cheers:
Now can we apply that same logic to the airplane set....ahem....maybe an few early war Japanese Army planes/bombers to round out the set. Only now of course, since its not about out preforming the other "vehicle"
Now if only we could actually make use of those outside of scenarios, you might actually have an argument.