Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: mwk522 on August 23, 2013, 01:35:30 PM
-
The M36 tank destroyer, formally 90 mm Gun Motor Carriage, M36, was an American tank destroyer used during World War II. American soldiers usually referred to them as TDs for 'tank destroyers'.[3] The M36 first served in combat in Europe in September 1944, and served until the end of the war; it also served during the Korean War, and in the armies of several other countries.
Type Tank destroyer
Place of origin United States
Service history
Wars World War II, Korean War, First Indochina War, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Croatian War of Independence, Bosnian War
Specifications
Weight 29 tonnes (32.0 short tons; 28.5 long tons)
Length 7.46 metres (24 ft 6 in) (w/ gun)
5.97 metres (19 ft 7 in) (w/o gun)
Width 3.05 metres (10 ft 0 in)
Height 3.28 metres (10 ft 9 in)
Crew 5 (Commander, (3x) gun crew, driver)
Armor 9–108 millimetres (0.35–4.3 in)
Main
armament 90 mm M3 gun
47 rounds
Secondary
armament .50 cal Browning M2HB machine gun
1,000 rounds
Engine Ford GAA V-8 gasoline
450 hp (336 kW)
Power/weight 15.5 hp/t
Transmission Synchromesh gearbox with 5 forward and 1 reverse ratio[1]
Suspension Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS)
Fuel capacity 192 gallons[2]
Operational
range 240 km (150 mi) on roads
Speed 42 km/h (26 mph) (road)
With the advent of heavy German armor such as the Panther and Tiger, the standard U.S. tank destroyer, the 3in Gun Motor Carriage M10, was rapidly becoming obsolete, because its main armament, the 3in M7 gun, had difficulty engaging these new tanks past 500 metres. This was foreseen, however, and in September, 1942 American engineers had begun designing a new tank destroyer armed with the M3 90 mm gun. This was several months before any Western Allied unit encountered a Tiger in combat, as the British First Army in Tunisia was the first western Allied unit to encounter the Tiger I in the leadup to the Battle of the Kasserine Pass at the start of 1943, and well over a year before any US unit encountered a Panther in combat.
-
The more TDs the better. :aok Im loving these new German TDs and would love to see the SU-100 and M36 added as well.
-
Ouch! Anything armored with a gasoline engine is just a mobile BBQ waiting to happen. Or like the Red Army called the M3 Lee, "A casket for 7 brothers". That's how successful the celebrated M3 Lee was on the ostfront.
-
Ouch! Anything armored with a gasoline engine is just a mobile BBQ waiting to happen. Or like the Red Army called the M3 Lee, "A casket for 7 brothers". That's how successful the celebrated M3 Lee was on the ostfront.
It's a myth that gasoline engine powered tanks burn more easily than diesel engine powered tanks.
ack-ack
-
Maybe it was just the M4s and M3s sent to the soviets, that really sucked, then. :D
By the way this is from a soviet archive source and I don't consider that very much a myth even though the soviet / russian archives are notoriously unreliable.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/M36-GMC-Danbury.0004zx4t.jpg)
-
I have faith that HTC ignores these threads. ;) Adding the Jackson to AH's gv set makes about as much sense as adding the Pershing when there are so many other gv's that were far more prevalent and made a far greater contribution.
I also have faith enough in HTC that they are looking to plug the gaps in the plane set. This has shown to be spot on with the past few updates. The Oscar, the He111, the Yaks, and previously the P40's and Zekes. I was surprised at them releasing not 1 but 3 turret-less AFV's, but regardless I think it was a good move and it certainly changed the ground game a bit.
I have faith that HTC is spending their resources on modeling a Soviet level bomber and another Soviet AFV. Me thinks the SB-2, IL-4, or Tu-2 bomber (pick one) and Su-100 TD will be joining the ranks sooner than later. Not to go too far off subject (aw heck, too late), but in terms of "what is next?", once the Soviets have their level bomber the next logical step is to fill out what is obviously missing in the Big Five's plane sets. The Wellington and Beaufighter come to mind very quickly for the British, the Ki-45 "Nick" and Ki-100 for the Japanese, the Germans... ... ... not sure, the Soviets could use the Pe-2, and the US needs nuffin'. :D
-
The only thing that makes sense, or should, is tanks/aircraft that support additional interest to the game, provide for a growing user base, and satisfy inclusion requirements. From that you can easily see that the M36 is justifiable on all counts. I also want to emphasize that 1,400 of them were built during the war. The roof kit seen in Arlo's image was not used during the war.
It certainly makes more sense than any towed weapon that would provide nothing more than another manned gun role. The only problem I have with it is the relative ease with which it could be killed once it is discovered by mudhens.
-
Maybe it was just the M4s and M3s sent to the soviets, that really sucked, then. :D
By the way this is from a soviet archive source and I don't consider that very much a myth even though the soviet / russian archives are notoriously unreliable.
Depends on what version of the M4s the Soviets received through Lend-Lease. The Shermans could could have been the early M4s with the dry stowage which is what was responsible for the Sherman's reputation for going up in flames.
ack-ack
-
The Shermans could have been the early M4s with the dry stowage which is what was responsible for the Sherman's reputation for going up in flames.
Sounds likely, they were not liked by their Soviet crews.
-
Sounds likely, they were not liked by their Soviet crews.
Really? The few books I have read especially with Soviet M4 crews they absolutely loved the Sherman to their own tanks (especially KV-1).
-
What books are those? Based on what research? I can not say what is more correct and after all I wasn't there but many propaganda numbers were played post-war from the Soviet side. Not much reliable info was given, at all, up until the archives became directly available to western researchers some years after the collapse. I'd wager only the last 15 years or so of books based on actual Soviet archive research hold to a degree of good accuracy when it comes to portraying the war in the east.
The Prochorovka myth was killed, to give a high-profile example.
-
I'd wager only the last 15 years or so of books based on actual Soviet archive research hold to a degree of good accuracy when it comes to portraying the war in the east.
:headscratch: Did you just call the Soviet archives "accurate" and "honest"? :huh
I guess when you execute everyone who disagrees with the "State" then the remaining opinions are technically accurate. No one stepping up to dispute it and all.
-
:headscratch: Did you just call the Soviet archives "accurate" and "honest"? :huh
I guess when you execute everyone who disagrees with the "State" then the remaining opinions are technically accurate. No one stepping up to dispute it and all.
No, but the researchers who have arduously sifted through the archives, or at least big portions of them, have found a somewhat different picture from the political propaganda that's dominated the Soviet view of the war ever since. The Soviet archives are especially valuable when comparing with the data garnered from German archives. However, the soviet front line reports remain notoriously inaccurate. To the point of embarrassment to STAVKA when dealing with the western allies who complained that some of the German divisions reported to be encircled in the Cherkassy/Korsun pocket were fighting them in the west. :lol
-
No, but the researchers who have arduously sifted through the archives, or at least big portions of them, have found a somewhat different picture
The researchers you are referring to are the ones writing the books you were just casting doubt on. They may or may not be reliable, but they are the ones most likely cross checking data on all sides because the document owners generally don't.
There is nothing accurate about Soviet archives. They consist of the same erroneous reports you just described as well as being written with the constant and real threat of execution if the reports were not what the party wanted to hear.
-
Yes, and? Do you know which books Butcher have read, or are you two the same person? Your point eludes me.
-
Yes, and? Do you know which books Butcher have read, or are you two the same person? Your point eludes me.
Most of my books (memoirs) rather are in russian, they are not widely public because frankly in USA who cares about what the russians did? Dmitriy Loza wrote memoirs a while back detailing his time in a Sherman M4, its a pretty good book named Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks.
He doesn't praise or hate the tank, I actually am quite fond of some other russian memoirs, one detailing a gunner in the M4, he was much impressed with the tank VS russian design (the optics were terrible on whatever he trained on, I cant quite make out what he is referring too). I can't read russian although I do try to translate as much as I can get. Before he passed away in 1976, he wished to drive in a tank once again - however he wasn't specific on saying what tank he is referring too.
http://english.battlefield.ru/dmitriy-loza.html (http://english.battlefield.ru/dmitriy-loza.html)
He says there were some short barrel shermans, I'm guessing not enough to make an accurate judgement about it (that or blown up shermans won't tell stories either)
Soviet archives are to be taken with a grain of salt, its neither misinforming or lying - however consider that Soviets were victorious the winners always write the history books. However I have rarely came across "fictional" information thats down right misleading.
The biggest problem with the Soviets Archives is there is barely little information to cross reference it too, unlike american or british information you can cross it and get an accurate "picture".
Consider this, the average ground trooper doesn't have ALL the information we have - he is given a rifle and thrown into battle, of course front line reports can be misleading - one of the famous cases comes from the marine air wing at Midway island - some of the TRAINED pilots claimed Zeros were flying faster then 450mph and turned endless while out climbing. Misleading? not entirely, the pilots had no experience flying against the Zero or any information to go on - however it was not long after this the Thach Weave was invented and the zero invisibility wore off.
-
Yes indeed, the "Fog of War" as well as combat stress and fatigue are always important factors. Interesting info thanks for sharing and yes I agree with your opinion of the Soviet archives. The example I brought up of the 'Prochorovka Ridge' myth was more of a political propaganda nature than anything else. It was a way to cover up the huge losses taken by the soviets during the action of deliberate counterattack against the 48th PzKorps (iirc). They knew very well where the southern armored spearhead was and threw their armored reserves at it. The Prochorovka battle was only one in a series of armored clashes that wore down German tank forces. It was not the gigantic epic tank battle at point-blank range.
Overall, the Ostfront was characterized by German tactical excellence coupled with inept strategic planning pitted against well thought out and executed Soviet strategic planning coupled with inept tactical command and execution.
Anyway, let's get back on topic. :-)
-
Well, it fits the game requirements.. And I'd like to see the 90mm in the game too..
I'd like to see the 100mm soviet too..
Love to see the Japanese twin 5"x40 too, :huh..
-
Love to see the Japanese twin 5"x40 too, :huh..
The what?
-
Japanese didn't have much to crow about in the weapons department..
But the twin 5in x 40caliber self powered gunmount was the exception..
Oh I guess you are sayin how does that relate to an M36..
Because to me, it wouldn't add much to the game, other that bringing in the 90mm..
Cool, lots of other heavy rifle caliber artillery that I like too.. Like the twin 5in x 40..
-
I wouldn't be too sure. It would allow the defeat of Jagdpanthers on the ridge 4k out without too much trouble.
-
I wonder if peeps who wish for certain things research the good and the not so good, and the relevance their specific item played in WWII.
At 2000 yards, the US 90mm could defeat roughly 73mm of armor with its AP shot, and 87mm with its APC shot. Nothing to jump up and down about, really. Compare that to the King Tiger, Tiger, Panther, and even the Panzer IV H. Compare that to the Firefly's 17 Pdr gun. See my point? For whatever reason the Pershing and Jackson are thought of as being wonder tanks, and they certainly were not. Patton would have taken 1000's of M18's and M4/76mm long before he would have allowed for the slower firing and slower moving heavies.
I'm not seeing much being added that would be "new", unlike the Su-100, Panzer III (and all the variants that can come with the Panzer III chassis), or even the Cromwell (35mph fast firing 75mm), or Crusader (2 Pdr, 6 Pdr, 75mm, and AA variants available).
-
I wonder if peeps who wish for certain things research the good and the not so good, and the relevance their specific item played in WWII.
At 2000 yards, the US 90mm could defeat roughly 73mm of armor with its AP shot, and 87mm with its APC shot. Nothing to jump up and down about, really. Compare that to the King Tiger, Tiger, Panther, and even the Panzer IV H. Compare that to the Firefly's 17 Pdr gun. See my point? For whatever reason the Pershing and Jackson are thought of as being wonder tanks, and they certainly were not. Patton would have taken 1000's of M18's and M4/76mm long before he would have allowed for the slower firing and slower moving heavies.
I'm not seeing much being added that would be "new", unlike the Su-100, Panzer III (and all the variants that can come with the Panzer III chassis), or even the Cromwell (35mph fast firing 75mm), or Crusader (2 Pdr, 6 Pdr, 75mm, and AA variants available).
One thing you are missing is Aces High ground war doesn't exceed over 1400 yards in 90% of situations. Very FEW maps I have ever tanked I shot beyond 1400 yards total unless I am trying to flank a spawn, when you consider it 2000 yards at 73mm from the side works quite well for ANY tank.
Problem is from the front, I dont know any aces high ground war that actually even ranges 1400 yards total, the normal for me has always been under 1200 yards. However I used to teach in the TA, to flank and ride up a hull, where you can get an overall evaluation of the playing field and range in at 1400-1800 yards where most people have never even shot (making ranging even harder, assuming someone rangings on your side of a mountain).
One thing to remember is, consider anything under 1400 yards, if the M36 doesnt hit its dead - and with aircraft strafing its turret is out as well. The M18 is perked already, consider the M36 as well.
I am not knocking the M36, I would love to see it added along with the Puma scout car - eventually.
-
Japanese didn't have much to crow about in the weapons department..
But the twin 5in x 40caliber self powered gunmount was the exception..
Oh I guess you are sayin how does that relate to an M36..
Because to me, it wouldn't add much to the game, other that bringing in the 90mm..
Cool, lots of other heavy rifle caliber artillery that I like too.. Like the twin 5in x 40..
Ah.
From what I've read the Japanese 100mm (3.9") 65 caliber dual purpose twin mount used on the Akizuki class DDs was their best AA gun.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/100_65.htm
-
At 2000 yards, the US 90mm could defeat roughly 73mm of armor with its AP shot, and 87mm with its APC shot.
I'm just curious where you get your information. The data I found in the first search online indicates no figure for APC at 2000m, 105mm for APCBC, and 95mm for APC M77 both at 2000m. And then there's the AVAP that punches through 154mm. Inside of 1500m it's one shot one kill on any German armor.
More important (to me) is the maximum effective range of 19k, which I am curious how HTC would handle that (given visual range problems).
-
PzIII would be great! :x
Brummbär perhaps for those town sieges? :devil
Oh, and that would be the same chassis as the Jagdtiger btw. Perhaps that would tilt the game a bit too much. Still awesome platform. :D
-
Ah.
From what I've read the Japanese 100mm (3.9") 65 caliber dual purpose twin mount used on the Akizuki class DDs was their best AA gun.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/100_65.htm
But the twin 5in x 40 was on a nifty self powered mount that could be dropped anywhere, on land or on ships..
Little 2 stroke motor powered a generator, that gave it full powered function.. No external power required..
They welded them to their ships anywhere they would fit.. Rabaul had 100 of them, they were deadly till they ran out of ammo in 44.. That's when Rabaul became a Milkrun for Noobs..
The 3.9 never had that kind of production numbers, only 169 built..
www.navweaps.com is a good one too.. (careful, so much info you can get lost in it, lol)
-
The only thing that makes sense, or should, is tanks/aircraft that support additional interest to the game, provide for a growing user base, and satisfy inclusion requirements. From that you can easily see that the M36 is justifiable on all counts. I also want to emphasize that 1,400 of them were built during the war. The roof kit seen in Arlo's image was not used during the war.
I agree. While its fascinating to imagine sea planes and tri-motor I-talian bombers I dont see much sense at this point in modeling stuff people wont use. Or even worse, wont increase interest in the game. A SU-100 or M36 WILL increase interest cause they a BFG and BFGs are fun. By the same token the TU-2 would be a good addition cause not only does it fill a hole in the set but it will be very capable, being fast, with a good bomb load, and having many versions of it used.
A perfect world would see all the niche planes. I almost never fly anything under 15 eny. But this isnt a perfect world.
-
I agree. While its fascinating to imagine sea planes and tri-motor I-talian bombers I dont see much sense at this point in modeling stuff people wont use. Or even worse, wont increase interest in the game. A SU-100 or M36 WILL increase interest cause they a BFG and BFGs are fun.
Not to disregard the rest of your post, but... just to point out that there's more to AH than the MA.
The above is the MA mindset, while there's a completely different perspective on what 'draws a crowd' and that's the FSO mindset. For FSOs, there are several models of great historical significance that aren't BFGs and a prime example is the He111 that was recently added. How many fly that pig in the MA? It has a place though because the BoB events have been hurting because of its absence. Similarly there's a range of VVS bombers (for example) that would find their niche in the historical FSO mindset.
-
Not to disregard the rest of your post, but... just to point out that there's more to AH than the MA.
The above is the MA mindset, while there's a completely different perspective on what 'draws a crowd' and that's the FSO mindset. For FSOs, there are several models of great historical significance that aren't BFGs and a prime example is the He111 that was recently added. How many fly that pig in the MA? It has a place though because the BoB events have been hurting because of its absence. Similarly there's a range of VVS bombers (for example) that would find their niche in the historical FSO mindset.
I always said the best argument is if you look at what can serve the entire community as a whole. Beaufighter (something that served in many theaters) is a great example, however I'd love to see ground vehicles take a seat in the FSO and scenarios (we have in the past).
One could argue the "russian" planes only served on one theater, not true - there were three theaters with different plane sets.
Eventually if we add the LaGG-3 we can have a nice finland campaign, or Romanian/hungary a caucus theater.
I understand the mind set though "Lets just add big guns!" just look at the B-29, while it does get some use, the norm are B17s, B24s and Lancasters. He-111 might not serve the MA 100%, but in scenarios its vital to keep things historical.
Same goes for the Su-100 or Su-152 etc, consider the perk price and fact only if we had a Late soviet scenario it would ever used. Sure they should be added, but I put my vote behind stuff like the Panzer III, (just about anything russian in general) D.520, Stirling, wellington etc list goes on forever.
-
And yet, when a suggestion is made that might actually improve the number of vehicle scenarios for historical events it usually gets shot down with requests for 'BFG' vehicles or 'dark armor' like the Elefant (or 155 artillery for manned guns). What you are ignoring is the need for more American armor. These tanks (M36 and M26) have large caliber weapons, yet they are not heavy tanks. Because they can still be killed by nearly every vehicle out there you cannot ignore requests for them on the same principle that you might the usual kiddie requests for gigantic guns and walls of armor. They are just not the same thing, especially this M36 which can be killed by any aircraft. Even M3s have killed M18s, Wirbs, and Osties with just a few shots of .50cal, and the M36 would be no different.
And worse, Butcher, is your ideal of serving the entire community as a whole. Sorry, but armor and aircraft are two distinct groups and they always will be. Especially, the armor guys will regret the Beaufighter based on its use as a mudhen (until they use it as such). Aircraft only players will always try to poo-poo any new tank, because they are thump-your-chest furballers that never lower themselves to drive tanks. It's all bravado.
The M36 is an excellent vehicle to request and always will be until it is added.
-
And worse, Butcher, is your ideal of serving the entire community as a whole. Sorry, but armor and aircraft are two distinct groups and they always will be.
If that's true, how come I vouch for both? :)
-
While I definitely favor aircraft, I don't begrudge GVs and occasionally partake of them. I have an particular axe to grind with one particular mechanic, but by no means wish to see the GV game reduced or hurt.
I actually think that interaction between aircraft and GVs is good, provided the game's rules aren't unfair to either. I would like to see more GVs and more airplanes both.
I'd also like to see something to get the concrete sitters willingly off of the concrete.
-
I've been researching the "Slugger" and I'd love to see it in game if for no other reason than to get the gun into play,
It is better armored than the M-18 tho. Even tho it is open topped, and likely turreted by most any aircraft, it's stand off ability would be awesome to see,, and probably not much easier to kill than the firefly from other GV ' s
I've not read for sure that the additional top was not available during WW2 but neither have I read that it was,, If it was tho,, that would help with aircraft problems,,
I can also see a possibility of an eventual GV arena maybe ?? Most likely just wishful thinking on my part!!
I would like to see more " useable cover" for GV's in the moan arena tho,, some kind of camouflage netting maybe!
-
I can also see a possibility of an eventual GV arena maybe ??
I don't think dividing the community like that would be good. I think GV and aircraft interactions are a good thing, but there is room for improvements in how those interactions happen.
Deployable camouflage would be a nice thing.
-
I don't think dividing the community like that would be good. I think GV and aircraft interactions are a good thing, but there is room for improvements in how those interactions happen.
Deployable camouflage would be a nice thing.
im not sure,, the DA gets a good bit of usage by planes yet it doesn't seem to hurt the main arena,, I always thought the DA GV area would get more usage but it is dead. Or at least it was the last time I was there,, the few time we did have something there,, we still got bombed.
We do have the custom arenas. But I have yet to see someone set one up for a GV only ,type of fight,, we did have heavy metal Sundays but I think that has passed as well,, I wouldn't want to take away from the mains,,, but a little relief from the air cons would be nice every now and then,, Maybe some low cloud cover!! :noid
Anyway,, just my two cents,,, that and a dollar might get you a cup of Joe!
-
I don't think dividing the community like that would be good. I think GV and aircraft interactions are a good thing, but there is room for improvements in how those interactions happen.
<snip>
Your statement sounds very politically correct and good in theory. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work that way, unless you up in expendable GVs. Unfortunately, AC as implemented in AH cripple the GV game. Recall my tongue-in-cheek TigerII-versus-P51 duel suggestion. Interactions between the 2 platforms are OK on parts of the map (in conjunction with air base capture), but there need to be parts of the map where AC are ineffective, either due to geography or additional rule changes like no icons. The fact that we don't have this is the ***biggest*** flaw in the game as it currently plays, IMHO. It means that you can take up your 100 point Me262 and control how much risk you subject it to, but you ***can't*** do this with your 100 point TigerII, which is at the mercy of anyone with minimal bombing skills and a 1000-pounder. Huge imbalance, which HTC hasn't yet come to grips with. Given the additional development resources they have put into GVs (new control system and new GVs) lately, I think they will have to address this sooner or later, in order to maximize GV-oriented subscriber attraction and retention.
MH
-
My current line of though is to massively reduce perk prices, I think to about 10% of where they are now, but then have the cost be final and landing it doesn't get you a refund. Tiger II would be 10 points, Me262 would be 20 points, but you'd lose those points no matter what you did the moment you spawn.
-
back to the original topic
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/70a43a336f54b9b00c47588431acec53_zpsf1804f53.jpg) (http://s249.photobucket.com/user/WWhiskey/media/70a43a336f54b9b00c47588431acec53_zpsf1804f53.jpg.html)
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/56c82bceab5a574a29536dc037e5b3ec_zpscfaf12b9.jpg) (http://s249.photobucket.com/user/WWhiskey/media/56c82bceab5a574a29536dc037e5b3ec_zpscfaf12b9.jpg.html)
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/1334fc63be65ef8970100e95e17ab89f_zps1d2ab7f1.jpg) (http://s249.photobucket.com/user/WWhiskey/media/1334fc63be65ef8970100e95e17ab89f_zps1d2ab7f1.jpg.html)
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/29cb7b6b21d4ffb2fc8ce6f4eec7d537_zps109ef3c6.jpg) (http://s249.photobucket.com/user/WWhiskey/media/29cb7b6b21d4ffb2fc8ce6f4eec7d537_zps109ef3c6.jpg.html)
-
back to the original topic
<snip images>
It's just an M10 with a 90mm gun. It sounds attractive in principle, but consider how vulnerable open-topped GVs are in the game, given current icons and the large hit bubble the game uses. Even a Storch can turret an M18 (zoom up and jump to the rear gunner), and presumably the same would occur with the M36. Given that it would probably have a 20-ish perk cost, that would not work so well.
MH
-
It's just an M10 with a 90mm gun. It sounds attractive in principle, but consider how vulnerable open-topped GVs are in the game, given current icons and the large hit bubble the game uses. Even a Storch can turret an M18 (zoom up and jump to the rear gunner), and presumably the same would occur with the M36. Given that it would probably have a 20-ish perk cost, that would not work so well.
MH
not sure about that perk price but,,,, it would bring the 90 mm gun into play,, I'm all for that,, :joystick:
-
not sure about that perk price but,,,, it would bring the 90 mm gun into play,, I'm all for that,, :joystick:
I would like to see the 2 & 6 pounder guns added first. Cromwell, Churchill, Matilda etc.
The 2 pounder gun did not have the worlds best armor penatration, but it could still hurt the most used tanks in game.
Armour penetration table (in millimeters)
Distance 91 m (100 yd) 457 m (500 yd) 914 m (1,000 yd) 1,371 m (1,499 yd)
AP (meet angle 60°) 49 37 27 17
APHV (meet angle 60°) 54 41
APCBC (meet angle 60°) 53.5
-
Seriously... what does the US 90mm offer AH? What did it really contribute? What does it bring new to AH?
There are so many other holes in the gv line up that asking to bring in the Pershing or Jackson is just a gamers dream. AH would be better served with more LW Soviet armor (Su-100), EW/MW German armor (Panzer III, and variants!), and EW/MW British armor (Crusader w/ multiple gun variants). The US is well represented with 2 variants of the M3, M8, M16, M4/75, M4/76, and M18. Oh, and don't forget the jeep! The US has all of its staples, who else does? While the Germans are very well represented, they are missing the Pzr III and StuG III. The Soviets have their 2 largest contributors in the T34/76 and T34/85, but the Su-100 is obviously missing (others can be argued for as well). Other than the Firefly the British have what?
Ultimately, the Ost Front needs some luvin' and that means M36 Jackson is disqualified. Next topic. :aok
-
What it offers is an American tank that can actually kill other tanks reliably. It's a tank killer that can kill tanks. Get it? :rolleyes:
-
What it offers is an American tank that can actually kill other tanks reliably. It's a tank killer that can kill tanks. Get it? :rolleyes:
And the Sherman we have doesn't? Just aim for the lower nose of a panther and you have a tank killer.
-
And the Sherman we have doesn't? Just aim for the lower nose of a panther and you have a tank killer.
No one tell Wales, he will be devastated to learn he never got a single kill in his M4A3(75). :cry
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/killsin.php?playername=Wales&kcnt=231&selectTour=LWTour162&pindex=108
-
I have heard Wales online, and I use the M4A3-75 myself. Don't even try to push it off as a reliable killer.
-
Seriously... what does the US 90mm offer AH? What did it really contribute? What does it bring new to AH?
There are so many other holes in the gv line up that asking to bring in the Pershing or Jackson is just a gamers dream. AH would be better served with more LW Soviet armor (Su-100), EW/MW German armor (Panzer III, and variants!), and EW/MW British armor (Crusader w/ multiple gun variants). The US is well represented with 2 variants of the M3, M8, M16, M4/75, M4/76, and M18. Oh, and don't forget the jeep! The US has all of its staples, who else does? While the Germans are very well represented, they are missing the Pzr III and StuG III. The Soviets have their 2 largest contributors in the T34/76 and T34/85, but the Su-100 is obviously missing (others can be argued for as well). Other than the Firefly the British have what?
Ultimately, the Ost Front needs some luvin' and that means M36 Jackson is disqualified. Next topic. :aok
If you want to put up a thread saying add the SU-100 go for it!!!! I'll vote +1 all day long,, until then,, I'll post the stuff I'd like to see!,, I wanted the Yak -3 for 6 years or more,, but I did get It eventually,,, and I'm happy,,, I'll be happy when the SU-100 gets added to,, but I want the Pershing or the Slugger,, and getting the gun into the game,, gets it that much closer to reality !! as far as German armor goes,, It's pretty well covered!!
-
It's pretty well covered!!
Sure, if the war stated in 1941.
If we had more EW tanks, we could spread out the eny to 60/80. True, smaller tanks would not work against T2s but the most common tank atm is the Panzer IV F and it only has a small chance against a T2.
-
I think the perk spread is just fine as it is. Adding the early 2pdr guns should not affect the late war tanks, period. Two different things.
-
+1
-
What it offers is an American tank that can actually kill other tanks reliably. It's a tank killer that can kill tanks. Get it? :rolleyes:
To quote you from another thread, horse hockey. Just pick a different ride. And unlike your reply to Tank Ace, GVs have almost no role in events so the requirement isn't made valid via that route either.
-
I would like to see the 2 & 6 pounder guns added first. Cromwell, Churchill, Matilda etc.
The 2 pounder gun did not have the worlds best armor penatration, but it could still hurt the most used tanks in game.
Armour penetration table (in millimeters)
Distance 91 m (100 yd) 457 m (500 yd) 914 m (1,000 yd) 1,371 m (1,499 yd)
AP (meet angle 60°) 49 37 27 17
APHV (meet angle 60°) 54 41
APCBC (meet angle 60°) 53.5
You have to be careful about armor penetration data. The above is almost certainly referring to homogeneous armor, and not face-hardened which is what the Germans were using mid-to-late war. (I am thinking of the Jentz books).
MH
-
You have to be careful about armor penetration data. The above is almost certainly referring to homogeneous armor, and not face-hardened which is what the Germans were using mid-to-late war. (I am thinking of the Jentz books).
MH
The British 2 Pdr would be like mounting the 37mm of the M8 Greyhound on M4 chassis. We all know what the M8 Greyhound is good for in tank battles. If a gun of that size is put on a typical tank chassis (25 mph), it is going to be a sitting duck. However, an EW scenario with the M3/75, M4/75, M8, Panzer IV F1, SdKfz 251, and Panzer III D/J, the Crusader armed with the 2 Pdr would be just fine.
Thing is though, I'd advocate for a tank like the Crusader to be added with both gun options available much like the Panzer IV F because both guns are very different and offer 2 different time periods and theaters to be represented.
-
To quote you from another thread, horse hockey. Just pick a different ride. And unlike your reply to Tank Ace, GVs have almost no role in events so the requirement isn't made valid via that route either.
That's one very big problem, Karnak. What we need in AH is historical tank battles AND more American tanks. Sorry you don't agree, but I know you don't drive vehicles enough to know.
-
That's one very big problem, Karnak. What we need in AH is historical tank battles AND more American tanks. Sorry you don't agree, but I know you don't drive vehicles enough to know.
If that were the case you'd be asking for Soviet armor, but your emphasis was on the fact that it is American.
I have no issue with the M36 being added, but your reasoning for it was lousy.
-
Without a shadow of a doubt the largest battles ever fought between armored forces was on the eastern front and so if you want to have historical battles that's where the game is lacking both in the planeset and vehicle park. There is easily a few dozen armored vehicles that could be justified and added to the game just in that theatre, granted a good number of them are US made vehicles.
-
More on the 90mm
Note that although the penetration of the APBC and APCBC projectiles is similar, the APBC could penetrate the Panther glacis (80mm at 55°) at up to 1,006m range, whereas the APCBC projectile could only do so at up to 411m range, due to the different effects of slope on the two types of projectile. The 90-mm Tank Gun M3 was highly accurate; after some practice on the firing range consistent hits could be achieved at a range of 572m using German helmets as targets. The APBC projectile was a solid shot round with no explosive filler.
From here
http://web.archive.org/web/20100117182005/http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns7.html
-
If that were the case you'd be asking for Soviet armor, but your emphasis was on the fact that it is American.
I have no issue with the M36 being added, but your reasoning for it was lousy.
NO, I said American tanks. That should be reason enough. Your comment to the contrary is bankrupt of logic, though.
-
Without a shadow of a doubt the largest battles ever fought between armored forces was on the eastern front and so if you want to have historical battles that's where the game is lacking both in the planeset and vehicle park. There is easily a few dozen armored vehicles that could be justified and added to the game just in that theatre, granted a good number of them are US made vehicles.
I don't think the size of the battle matters whatsoever. We will never see the numbers the Eastern front saw, so they will never be recreated accurately (and the facts of the battle are now lost to history as well).
-
Agreed, it is just obvious that you are looking at this from the US perspective only, as are a great number of AH players. The two major theatres were, the Soviet-German war and the US-Japan war. The US/GB led offensive in Africa and later France was more than just a sideshow, but there were greater factors in play to decide the outcome of the war such as industry (in that regard the allied air offensive was of significance) and manpower. The landgrab was mostly a matter of securing Europe for the next act, the cold war which was much closer in perspective than what most history books give you a hint of.
Of course, this can be dissected and argued against if you so wish but what the heck... I want AH to expand in historical events gameplay and more historical planes and vehicles would provide for that. That's not to argue against the M36, it has a place in the historical context.
-
Agreed, it is just obvious that you are looking at this from the US perspective only, as are a great number of AH players. The two major theatres were, the Soviet-German war and the US-Japan war. The US/GB led offensive in Africa and later France was more than just a sideshow, but there were greater factors in play to decide the outcome of the war such as industry (in that regard the allied air offensive was of significance) and manpower. The landgrab was mostly a matter of securing Europe for the next act, the cold war which was much closer in perspective than what most history books give you a hint of.
Of course, this can be dissected and argued against if you so wish but what the heck... I want AH to expand in historical events gameplay and more historical planes and vehicles would provide for that. That's not to argue against the M36, it has a place in the historical context.
So in other words you'd give a big :aok to adding the Su-100, or even the Su-85? :D
-
So in other words you'd give a big :aok to adding the Su-100, or even the Su-85? :D
Of course, but I guess this thread is more about making priorities which vehicles need to be added before others more than anything else. A historical point of view does not justify the M36 before others, but a pure MA gameplay perspective might if you are so inclined to like US armor.
Personally I think the Soviet-German conflict needs to be expanded on because that's where the game is lacking in both planes and vehicles. The US enjoy a great planeset in the game, and justifiably so but if the developers seek to expand the scope of the game and attract more players (Russian and German perhaps?) Russia is a huge market to expand into and if they're smart... there's no limit really. I mean sure there were no carriers used on the ostfront, but there were no gigantic armor clashes in the Pacific either. Currently we have plenty of CV action, and I don't want to take away anything from that, but the GV - aircraft interaction can be expanded upon in terms of support (mission requests by GVs, CAS? and extra points awarded if completed) and GV combat can also be expanded upon. To give a few examples, vehicles or mobile troop HQs that would enable players to set up mobile spawn points and fire support (arty) for GVs.
Do it right, couple with a translated russian version of the HTC site (maybe one in German too) push a bit of marketing and boom they might double their number of customers in a few months time which would give them that much more punch in development. Just in idea... but I really think HTC is stale in their marketing.
-
Agreed, it is just obvious that you are looking at this from the US perspective only, as are a great number of AH players. The two major theatres were, the Soviet-German war and the US-Japan war. The US/GB led offensive in Africa and later France was more than just a sideshow, but there were greater factors in play to decide the outcome of the war such as industry (in that regard the allied air offensive was of significance) and manpower. The landgrab was mostly a matter of securing Europe for the next act, the cold war which was much closer in perspective than what most history books give you a hint of.
Of course, this can be dissected and argued against if you so wish but what the heck... I want AH to expand in historical events gameplay and more historical planes and vehicles would provide for that. That's not to argue against the M36, it has a place in the historical context.
I'm not looking down at anyone. That fact is that the German brute tanks are in the game, the Russian T-34/85 ('upgunned' T-34), and the M4's which you could say are also Russian tanks through lend-lease.
While there is still a need for more armor from Russia, so too is there a need for more American armor. That being the case there is nothing wrong with asking for the M36. In fact, since tanks are now centered around late war armor it is exactly where the wishes should be focused. As much as I would like to see the battles from the mid-war era better represented, it should not be the main focus until such time as the user base begins to build to stronger levels. Right now I think that late war is the prime attraction for users and so that will be the focus of armor wishes.
I myself would like to see the Cromwell tank introduced. In fact, all of the Cruiser line interests me, but I know the Cromwell would be so very successful for users. I very much appreciate the tank, having spent some ten hours creating a 3DS Max model which is still mostly unfinished (and far too detailed for AH). I also have an interest in the M3 Lee/Grant tanks, but I know that it would be useless in LW. So, the most likely tank on the American side for LW use is the M36, although I could ask for the Pershing instead.
-
Well this is sortof what I'm talking about... People tend to forget about the fact that the eastern front was very active from summer '41 already, even before the US entered the war. This means that there's a whole range of early-mid war GE and SU tanks not in the game. The PzIII would be a good start, but tanks like the T-28, BT-5, BT-7, T-60, T-70 (the list goes on...) saw action by the thousands and on the GE side light tanks like the PzII were still in use.
The Soviet Union was the largest manufacturer of armored vehicles in the world even before the war started. Hitler seriously did not believe the figures presented to him by german intelligence before the invasion, and later commented that if he'd known the estimated number of tanks was accurate he'd called off the attack.
Am a little tired of the typical MA mentality of the big gun buzz and US late-war perspective, so that's why I'm posting like this. WW2 was not just about Germany fighting a losing battle, there was a storm released in '39 that shocked the world for at least three full years. Those years were fought and won not by big guns, but superior tactics.
-
I'm not looking down at anyone. That fact is that the German brute tanks are in the game, the Russian T-34/85 ('upgunned' T-34), and the M4's which you could say are also Russian tanks through lend-lease.
While there is still a need for more armor from Russia, so too is there a need for more American armor. That being the case there is nothing wrong with asking for the M36. In fact, since tanks are now centered around late war armor it is exactly where the wishes should be focused. As much as I would like to see the battles from the mid-war era better represented, it should not be the main focus until such time as the user base begins to build to stronger levels. Right now I think that late war is the prime attraction for users and so that will be the focus of armor wishes.
I myself would like to see the Cromwell tank introduced. In fact, all of the Cruiser line interests me, but I know the Cromwell would be so very successful for users. I very much appreciate the tank, having spent some ten hours creating a 3DS Max model which is still mostly unfinished (and far too detailed for AH). I also have an interest in the M3 Lee/Grant tanks, but I know that it would be useless in LW. So, the most likely tank on the American side for LW use is the M36, although I could ask for the Pershing instead.
Tank battles where to a big extent ( like the airwar) a numbers game. Pit 4 Shermans against and expect to lose 3 was the norm.
In AH going American you want to stand a chance against the best tanks, and those in numbers where German tanks and one Russian (IS2).
Unfortunately British / American planners realized too late that German tank designs where well ahead in design, and panic designs / up-gunning existing tanks became de facto, and the result was a myriad of new designs coming to front 1945, Centurion even missed the war totally.
M4 was a reliable tank, and could be produced with speed and keeping spare parts for one type instead of Germans double digit numbers.
Fighting a defensive battle always give you the advantage of choosing where to fight, and prepare for it.
In my tank career I always preferred the reliable tank we had IKV91 in front of the the harder hitting heavier S-tank.
I commanded them both and saw the plus and minuses with them:
S-tank range was short, it did not have a turret, it was considerably slower, but if hit they could take 10x more punishment than the IKV91.
Also they could shoot at ranges we only could dream of, and had automatic loader that made 15 shots per minute possible.
Well we did not have to rely on roads, we could go over snow and always flank a MBT, pretty much act as tank commandos often carrying a group of combat soldiers with us on the rear of the tanks for close-in protection.
Later helicopters negated some of the advantage we had, flying with the Russian tank columns with AT-rockets.
In AH you don't have to care for reliability, range, and how fast different tanks can go through terrain, the only thing you want is low profile, thick sloped armour, and a long high calibre gun with good optics, and some speed.
-
...the only thing you want is low profile, thick sloped armour, and a long high calibre gun with good optics, and some speed.
Spellcheck just kicked in: Jagdpanther
-
Am a little tired of the typical MA mentality of the big gun buzz and US late-war perspective, so that's why I'm posting like this. WW2 was not just about Germany fighting a losing battle, there was a storm released in '39 that shocked the world for at least three full years. Those years were fought and won not by big guns, but superior tactics.
The arenas have zero resemblance to WWII. You would do well to remember that. :aok
I can always continue to use the T2, T1, Panther, Jagdpanther, etc. and I can live with that. But if every wish is going to be denied based on what happened in WWII, then you can expect me to tell you exactly why we don't need that.
The M36 will not be the last wish even if it is added.
-
While there is still a need for more armor from Russia, so too is there a need for more American armor. That being the case there is nothing wrong with asking for the M36. In fact, since tanks are now centered around late war armor it is exactly where the wishes should be focused. As much as I would like to see the battles from the mid-war era better represented, it should not be the main focus until such time as the user base begins to build to stronger levels. Right now I think that late war is the prime attraction for users and so that will be the focus of armor wishes.
Funny,
...and here you started a thread asking for earlier tanks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350677.15.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350677.15.html)). And when I told you they wouldn't really be used in the LWMA, scenario use for GVs is minimal and that EW and MW are close being empty. To which you replied:
Just another example of selective reception. NEWS FLASH!!! Early war tanks are also about historic events.
...to which I replied:
Adding planes historic events in mind is far more fruitful than adding tanks. As said, very very few events use GVs at all. People who participate speacial events want to fly.
Early tanks would be far bigger "hangar queens" than early planes.
...and then you decided to tell me that:
This statement disqualifies you from any further contribution in tank threads for all time.
*shrugh*
Nice to see you actually grasping it after all. No need to thank me, you're welcome! :aok
-
The arenas have zero resemblance to WWII. You would do well to remember that. :aok
Of course, and that's exactly what reduces the MA experience to a level closer to 'just another game'. What AH do right is the FSOs and historical events, that's what's really unique about it. The rest is just vanilla.
-
In my tank career I always preferred the reliable tank we had IKV91 in front of the the harder hitting heavier S-tank.
I commanded them both and saw the plus and minuses with them
If you get the opportunity, would you please post in the O-Club some more details of what these two were like? In the early 1970s I was convinced that the S-Tank was a really clever design.
- oldman
-
If you get the opportunity, would you please post in the O-Club some more details of what these two were like? In the early 1970s I was convinced that the S-Tank was a really clever design.
- oldman
+1
I wonder what sort of gun depression it could generate, and how that affected its ability to go hull-down (to the extent that one can do this and still shoot).
MH
-
Ok I get this sudden urge for a IKV91 now... :D
Back then at least we had numbers, today we have nothing. No defense on Gotland whatsoever but yeah it was a brilliant idea to put 20 tanks on the island in storage but without their crews. Might as well just give them away freely to whomever set their foot there first. Our politicians make no secret of it, there is no intention at all to defend the island and in all honesty the capacity just isn't there. Very smart, very smart indeed. Just setting us up for a sucker punch and to be the punch bag in the next war, like Poland in WW2.
-
... I myself would like to see the Cromwell tank introduced. In fact, all of the Cruiser line interests me, but I know the Cromwell would be so very successful for users. I very much appreciate the tank, ...
I'd certainly vouch for the Cromwell, just keep in mind it would have the speed of the T34/76, the main gun of the M4/75, and the armor of the Panzer IV. In order for it to be used successfully in the MA it will need to have the late war HV AP ammo available, and I'm not ever certain the British used the APCBC.
What would be best, imo, is for HTC to add the Cromwell with both guns available like they did with the Pzr IV F. That way the Mk I with the 6 Pdr and the Mk IV with the 75mm would both be available. Both of those guns are capable enough under 2000 yards (fire rate, AP ability, and 6X zoom sight) to put them in to play if the Cromwell's speed is utilized. It certainly isn't a stand up and fight it tank out like the Panther, it would need to use speed and cover.
-
Instead of the M36, a more viable MA vehicle would be the British version of the M10 with the 17pdr and with the field mod overhead armor (this last is critical for the MA, as this vehicle would obviously be perked).
MH
-
Instead of the M36, a more viable MA vehicle would be the British version of the M10 with the 17pdr and with the field mod overhead armor (this last is critical for the MA, as this vehicle would obviously be perked).
MH
The Firefly is currently perked with a cost of 4. I can't see an even less capable vehicle be perked much more than 2, if at all. Keep in mind the Firefly is a designated tank destroyer. It has no hull MG (omitted to allow for more main gun ammo storage), typically didn't carry HE in large quantities (inferior HE compared to the US M1 75mm on the Sherman and Cromwell tanks), and was brought forward only after the Shermans and Cromwells passed through, typically. It was used specifically to engage enemy tanks and defensive hard points.
There is nothing for HTC to add to AH in the immediate sense that has the 17 Pdr for a main gun.
-
The Firefly is currently perked with a cost of 4. I can't see an even less capable vehicle be perked much more than 2, if at all. Keep in mind the Firefly is a designated tank destroyer. It has no hull MG (omitted to allow for more main gun ammo storage), typically didn't carry HE in large quantities (inferior HE compared to the US M1 75mm on the Sherman and Cromwell tanks), and was brought forward only after the Shermans and Cromwells passed through, typically. It was used specifically to engage enemy tanks and defensive hard points.
There is nothing for HTC to add to AH in the immediate sense that has the 17 Pdr for a main gun.
These days, GV perks seem to be assigned mostly based on the gun and gunsights, per the recent TDs. But in any case, whatever the perk cost, the Achilles seems to be a more viable MA vehicle than the M36, which was the topic of the OP. With respect to 17-pdr based AH additions, they could add 17pdr APDS (which should be there anyway as an ammo loadout option), fix the Firefly's low speed, or add the Archer (an interesting vehicle).
MH
-
These days, GV perks seem to be assigned mostly based on the gun and gunsights, per the recent TDs. But in any case, whatever the perk cost, the Achilles seems to be a more viable MA vehicle than the M36, which was the topic of the OP. With respect to 17-pdr based AH additions, they could add 17pdr APDS (which should be there anyway as an ammo loadout option), fix the Firefly's low speed, or add the Archer (an interesting vehicle).
MH
Firefly's speed is correct, and the ammo, the Firefly did use APDS eventually. However before 1945 I doubt it was used much,
It was chronically inaccurate above range of 500 yards. Accuracy improved around early 1945, but that wasn't the biggest problem. The APDS round had a tendency to hit the Muzzle brake. Basically what we have in game is the APCBC, which was the standard ammo for the firefly.
-
Firefly's speed is correct, and the ammo, the Firefly did use APDS eventually. However before 1945 I doubt it was used much,
It was chronically inaccurate above range of 500 yards. Accuracy improved around early 1945, but that wasn't the biggest problem. The APDS round had a tendency to hit the Muzzle brake. Basically what we have in game is the APCBC, which was the standard ammo for the firefly.
Max road speed for the VC (which I think is what we have in game) was a little over 22 mph. Last time I looked the game version was only 20 mph. Since all the other tanks in the game move cross-country at the published maximum road speed, Firefly should as well.
My sources (including the Hayward Firefly book) say they modified the muzzle brake to fix the problem with APDS. It was still reportedly "less" accurate at long ranges, but remember that AH tends to assume that all equipment works as designed (this for game play purposes). For example, we don't appear to model late-war Axis equipment reliability issues.
I am too lazy to look up when 17pdr APDS was first issued, but I found a brief reference to it's being among the different rounds tested for accuracy in "mid 1944". I also know that 6pdr APDS was used to kill Tigers on Hill 112 in Normandy (Tim Saunders' Hill 112 book). Thus, using the standard criteria for inclusion in game, APDS is certainly an option.
MH
-
Max road speed for the VC (which I think is what we have in game) was a little over 22 mph. Last time I looked the game version was only 20 mph. Since all the other tanks in the game move cross-country at the published maximum road speed, Firefly should as well.
It depends on the source, many of mine say 20mph, while a few say 22.25mph - http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,317654.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,317654.0.html) After going through 10 or so books on the firefly, 20mph seems to be the normal operating speed that I can find in 8 of 10 books. It must be something to do with the RPM limiter that most british tanks had where everyone else didn't use this. I suspect HTC is using the most issued source rather then what "few" say. Its possible the RPM limited is 20mph where uncapped is 22.25.
My sources (including the Hayward Firefly book) say they modified the muzzle brake to fix the problem with APDS. It was still reportedly "less" accurate at long ranges, but remember that AH tends to assume that all equipment works as designed (this for game play purposes). For example, we don't appear to model late-war Axis equipment reliability issues.
MH
I'd have to go back and research when they fixed the problem and just how many were issued APDS. for example http://books.google.com/books?id=fg-7XAont8cC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=sherman+firefly+apds&source=bl&ots=lcerUO7Lze&sig=d0FjcxgPCrHrEdDNZToYiJQ34ks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oHQhUsrVPLPBsATd9IHwCA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sherman%20firefly%20apds&f=false
(http://books.google.com/books?id=fg-7XAont8cC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=sherman+firefly+apds&source=bl&ots=lcerUO7Lze&sig=d0FjcxgPCrHrEdDNZToYiJQ34ks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oHQhUsrVPLPBsATd9IHwCA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sherman%20firefly%20apds&f=false)
Shows it to be a Rare loadout option, another page with more info is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/06/a2187506.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/06/a2187506.shtml)
From what I read you need to be within 700 yards and pray to penetrate a panther, in all honesty I see no reason to add it if we have APCBC that does just fine. You'd be adding ammo that is not accurate, and does less penetrating power then the APCBC.
-
Max road speed for the VC (which I think is what we have in game) was a little over 22 mph. Last time I looked the game version was only 20 mph. Since all the other tanks in the game move cross-country at the published maximum road speed, Firefly should as well.
It depends on the source, many of mine say 20mph, while a few say 22.25mph - http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,317654.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,317654.0.html) After going through 10 or so books on the firefly, 20mph seems to be the normal operating speed that I can find in 8 of 10 books. It must be something to do with the RPM limiter that most british tanks had where everyone else didn't use this. I suspect HTC is using the most issued source rather then what "few" say. Its possible the RPM limited is 20mph where uncapped is 22.25.
All of mine say 22.25 for the Firefly VC. It has the same power plant as the equivalent "normal" British Sherman (about 25 mph), but is a few tons heavier. When you design speeds into a game (any game) you want to use the same speed definition for each platform. “Normal operating speed” (whatever that means) is not used for the other GVs in AH. If you use this type of speed definition for only the Firefly, you distort the relative performance between the Firefly and all the other GVs. It’s like designing a set of naval rules and using trial speeds for Italian warships and design speeds (generally slower than trial speeds) for everyone else. Not logical. Finally it seems a strange design decision to allow relatively mechanically unreliable German tanks like Panthers to tool around at maximum designed speed, and not allow a much more reliable design like the Sherman to do so.
My sources (including the Hayward Firefly book) say they modified the muzzle brake to fix the problem with APDS. It was still reportedly "less" accurate at long ranges, but remember that AH tends to assume that all equipment works as designed (this for game play purposes). For example, we don't appear to model late-war Axis equipment reliability issues.
I'd have to go back and research when they fixed the problem and just how many were issued APDS. for example http://books.google.com/books?id=fg-7XAont8cC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=sherman+firefly+apds&source=bl&ots=lcerUO7Lze&sig=d0FjcxgPCrHrEdDNZToYiJQ34ks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oHQhUsrVPLPBsATd9IHwCA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sherman%20firefly%20apds&f=false
(http://books.google.com/books?id=fg-7XAont8cC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=sherman+firefly+apds&source=bl&ots=lcerUO7Lze&sig=d0FjcxgPCrHrEdDNZToYiJQ34ks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oHQhUsrVPLPBsATd9IHwCA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sherman%20firefly%20apds&f=false)
Shows it to be a Rare loadout option, another page with more info is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/06/a2187506.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/06/a2187506.shtml)
From what I read you need to be within 700 yards and pray to penetrate a panther, in all honesty I see no reason to add it if we have APCBC that does just fine. You'd be adding ammo that is not accurate, and does less penetrating power then the APCBC
Again, AH doesn’t appear to model gun accuracy (meaning repeatability-type accuracy; HTC can correct me on this; like when you say a target rifle can shoot to 1/2 minutes of angle), and you are *way* off if you think that 17pdr APDS had worse penetration performance than APCBC. I would be surprised if you could find *any* source which says that. APDS was used in combat as early as 1944, and by 1945 would certainly be available, which is when they had improved the accuracy as well. BTW, your first link doesn't seem to support the assertion that APDS was a "rare" loadout, and the 2nd link is a TV station... So, since we allow the Russian tanks their HVAP, why not allow that for the 17pdr?
MH
-
Jeep with bazookas first :banana:
-
Jeep with bazookas first :banana:
I'd rather have large carnivorous dinosaurs. MH
-
Instead of the M36, a more viable MA vehicle would be the British version of the M10 with the 17pdr and with the field mod overhead armor (this last is critical for the MA, as this vehicle would obviously be perked).
MH
I'm really surprised at the lack of historical knowledge considering how many WWII aficionados are supposed to hang around here.
The M4 was never considered by the Army brass as a tank-vs-tank option during the war. The plan was always for the M4's to support infantry, and for the tank destroyers to handle the German armor. The problem the Army had was that the M4 units were overconfident and usually charged headlong into battle. Still, the intention was for the M4 to support infantry, and for the M10 and M36 (M18 and M26) units to hit the tanks.
So, until we have the M10, M36, and M26 the armor set for the Americans will always be incomplete late war.
Of course, there are lots of other tanks for early war scenarios, but with the lack of knowledge demonstrated here I would think even if we had the tanks we could not field a proper scenario.
-
I'm really surprised at the lack of historical knowledge considering how many WWII aficionados are supposed to hang around here.
The M4 was never considered by the Army brass as a tank-vs-tank option during the war. The plan was always for the M4's to support infantry, and for the tank destroyers to handle the German armor. The problem the Army had was that the M4 units were overconfident and usually charged headlong into battle. Still, the intention was for the M4 to support infantry, and for the M10 and M36 (M18 and M26) units to hit the tanks.
So, until we have the M10, M36, and M26 the armor set for the Americans will always be incomplete late war.
Of course, there are lots of other tanks for early war scenarios, but with the lack of knowledge demonstrated here I would think even if we had the tanks we could not field a proper scenario.
Not sure why you quoted my post here, as your subsequent comments have nothing to do with it. If you actually bother to *read* my post, you will see that I am commenting on which vehicles are more survivable in the MA (i.e. Achillies instead of M36).
MH
-
Precisely because you preferred (in your post) one TD over another. If you ever want tank scenarios to play out in AH anything like historical events then we need all of these and more.
The general wish for the up-gunned 'experiments' from Russia would be an exception. The Firefly that we have in game would be one I would not have chosen, precisely because it is an experiment that failed in a sense. It did get a big gun into action more quickly than it would have otherwise, but your current wish for more speed out of the VC is exactly why it was a failure. Even the man that is alleged to have killed Wittman admitted that the VC needed to get with 300 yards to kill the heavy tanks it fought. Doing that was almost impossible, and the fact that it did happen in history and is nearly impossible in AH proves the fallibility of online gaming. We don't have infantry, so we cannot support infantry. Without the presence of infantry the support of more forms of tanks is even more imperative.
Now, if we limit our fights to tank-vs-tank and we do not ever see large numbers then we also don't have to worry about wishing for more tanks of any kind, but it would be nice to one day have something a little more historical.
-
Hey Challenge, give me a break. This is a troll, right???
Because if it isn’t,
Precisely because you preferred (in your post) one TD over another.
So I exhibit a general lack of historical knowledge because I comment on one GV being more survivable than another GV in the MA?
If you ever want tank scenarios to play out in AH anything like historical events then we need all of these and more.
I don’t aspire to have MA game play be “historical”, and in any case that was not the topic under discussion. If I want historical, I play historical miniatures rules (like the Command Decision series, which attempts to simulate interaction between infantry, armor, and artillery within a consistent historical time framework). Even HTC doesn’t claim that MA game play is “historical”. In AH, our individual platforms (AC/GVs) are supposed to be historical, but MA game play is supposed to be *entertaining*, within a framework very loosely inspired by certain superficial elements of WWII combat.
The general wish for the up-gunned 'experiments' from Russia would be an exception. The Firefly that we have in game would be one I would not have chosen, precisely because it is an experiment that failed in a sense. It did get a big gun into action more quickly than it would have otherwise, but your current wish for more speed out of the VC is exactly why it was a failure. Even the man that is alleged to have killed Wittman admitted that the VC needed to get with 300 yards to kill the heavy tanks it fought. Doing that was almost impossible, and the fact that it did happen in history and is nearly impossible in AH proves the fallibility of online gaming. We don't have infantry, so we cannot support infantry. Without the presence of infantry the support of more forms of tanks is even more imperative.
My motivation for correcting the Firefly’s in-game speed is to incrementally lessen its chances of being run down by other tanks when it withdraws. The historical data justifies this from a technical perspective. Of course, it’s still the slowest tank in the MA, but every mph helps. BTW, your implication that the WWII Firefly was somehow tactically crippled by its speed relative to other tanks is not something that I have seen in the history.
Now, if we limit our fights to tank-vs-tank and we do not ever see large numbers then we also don't have to worry about wishing for more tanks of any kind, but it would be nice to one day have something a little more historical.
I doubt that this would work well in an on-line multiplayer game, due to the huge difference in time players are willing to spend, versus the time it took to do the real thing in WWII.
MH
-
So, until we have the M10, M36, and M26 the armor set for the Americans will always be incomplete late war.
M3 for early war.
Hotchkiss H-39 for Meg's Battle of France.
:D
-
Hey Challenge, give me a break. This is a troll, right???
I'm not attacking you, Deacon. I'm just pointing out the trend in wish list history as much as anything.
As to the tactical 'results' I mentioned, I will look up two books for reference that you might find interesting.