more tank-destroyers?

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[MK-84]

+1 to all of them, thats a good mix in there.

[Debrody]

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!   

[MAINER]

+1

[Butcher]

+1
+1
+1
+1
=
+4

[Rob52240]

+1

[guncrasher]

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  .


semp

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[scottak]

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.

[B-17]

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.

[Tank-Ace]

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.

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.

[MK-84]

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!

[matt]

+1

[phatzo]

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.

[Tank-Ace]

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.