M36 Tank Destroyer

[TDeacon]

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

[SmokinLoon]

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. 

[TDeacon]

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

[Butcher]

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.

[TDeacon]

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

[Butcher]

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 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


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

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.

[TDeacon]

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 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


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

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

[Zacherof]

Jeep with bazookas first

[TDeacon]

Jeep with bazookas first

I'd rather have large carnivorous dinosaurs.  MH

[Chalenge]

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.

[TDeacon]

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

[Chalenge]

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.

[TDeacon]

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

[Arlo]

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.

 

[Chalenge]

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.