curih Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 I always found it interesting that the Americans and the Germans came up with such opposite solutions to deal with enemy tanks. The Americans built fast lightly armored and heavily gunned TDs (the M18 being the pinnacle of this design). While the Germans chose to take a standard tank and remove the turret to save some weight so that much heavier armor could be added. Then complementing the heavy armor with a powerful gun. Personally I find ( at least in CM ) the German designs to be more effective. Both are normally used from ambush, but I find the German ones more survivable after their position has been revealed. I'll leave this here for other people to weigh in on the topic. I'd like to see some other opinions. curih [This message has been edited by curih (edited 01-21-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by curih: I always found it interesting that the Americans and the Germans came up with such opposite solutions to deal with enemy tanks. ... Personally I find ( at least in CM ) the German designs to be more effective. Both are normally used from ambush, but I find the German ones more survivable after their position has been revealed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The german ones were designed to be more effective from ambush, the allied ones to move fast and be hard to hit (note the 55 mph speed of the Hellcat!!) If you keep your allied TDs moving fast, and only stopped when they're behind good cover they can be very effective. You can charge in and flank or get behind a german vehicle, get off a shot, and be gone before the thing can get the gun on target. The M10 TD is an exception to this, as it has a really slow turret, and insufficient armor to compensate. ------------------ Slayer of the Original Cesspool Thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 Over open ground, the hellcat is the fastest vehicle in the game. The German doctrine, on the other hand, was to wait in ambush, get two or three flanking shots, and then retreat, moving to set up another ambush further ahead. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 Personally, I see the M-18 as the direct descendant of Light Cavalry, and I use them as such. Move fast in groups and get in close to the enemy to deliver the fatal, Tungsten-powered blow to any and all before them! Even the heaviest of Uber tanks cannot survive a close side/rear shot by a M-18. Basically, as long as you recon the area you are about to "charge" with your cats before you send them in, you'll be fine. Undiscovered Shrecks, Fausts, and light AT guns will all spell doom for the Hellcat. Cheers! ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 1st Hussars Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 The major drawback to German TD's is that they're all turretless. Scoot that hellcat down the side of that jagdtaiger and there's not a damn thing that guy can do about it. ------------------ No bastard has ever won a war by dying for his country. They won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 Statistically at least, the Hellcat was the best TD of the war. While the normal TD might get 2 or 3 tanks for each casualty when facing armour (ie. the M36) or not even that (the M10) the M18 got 10 AFVs for each kill. In the right situation, they are deadly. Now Germans, they saw a TD as a fast AT gun. Fire, displace to new defensive position. TD s were defensive weapons (but remember, we are not talking assault guns which were used more like regular tanks). The Nashorn just put wheel under an 88 gun, while a Marder put wheels under a 75 gun. The Hellcat though is an offensive weapon, as is the M36. An AT gun that advances rather than retreats, and takes ground. No one would ever dream of attacking with a Nashorn, but an M36 can make a nice center peice to an attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 Some of the flaws of the German TD designs are not modelled in CM. For instance, the gun on most TDs are too low to the ground, which kicks up too much dirt when they fire, obscuring the target and revealing the TD much quicker. In the case of the JgPz IV/70, moving over rough terrain could be a problem as the gun could easily bury itself. Their only real benefit was in production. They were cheaper and simpler to build, and larger guns could be crammed into smaller chassis. However, if you're going to go to the expense of building turretted TDs like the Amis, you might as well build tanks. ------------------ Massada Lo Tipol Shenit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 If you have an opponent who loves Hellcats try the AA stuff like Ostwinds (37mm) or Wirbelwinds. They don't miss much with their rapid fire cannons even when the target is moving fast. Bye bye flanking Hellcat. Treeburst155 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curih Posted January 21, 2001 Author Share Posted January 21, 2001 Hey TreeBurst, I didn't need any AA stuff to take care of your Hellcats in our game. I just wish I could say the same for the rest of your armor. curih (Alex) [This message has been edited by curih (edited 01-21-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer_n_Pretzels Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 What about the Archer of Achilles? a 17pdr gun scares any German Tank. The Achilles is nothing more than tracks under a normal 17pdr gun, While the Achilles is a M10 with a 17pdr. The british Tank destroyers never seem to be without Tungsten either. My preference is for the Archer because it is so cheap and specialised you can't really use it for anything else other than as an AT weapon. The Archer is an ambush weapon only. With the Achilles, because it has a turret, you can get into big trouble by using it as a tank... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beer_n_Pretzels: ...The british Tank destroyers never seem to be without Tungsten either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's because they often lack HE rounds, especially in early 1944. Be sure to escort them with inf, because they can't fight back against shrecks or fausts very well. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 I wonder how the hell the Hellcats actually were used. I never ever get anything even resembling a 10 to 1 kill ratio. Just too many 20mm guns around. BTW, the Lynx is maybe the best vehicle to use against Hellcats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer_n_Pretzels Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Be sure to escort them with inf, because they can't fight back against shrecks or fausts very well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Spot on. Or keep them waaaay back from any sneaky Jerry Infantry. Also once their cover is blown they become enticing mortar targets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 Jarmo im sure that 10:1 ratio includes light armored vehicles like halftracks and german scout cars. Then it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Forever Babra: ... the gun on most TDs are too low to the ground, which kicks up too much dirt when they fire, obscuring the target and revealing the TD much quicker. In the case of the JgPz IV/70, moving over rough terrain could be a problem as the gun could easily bury itself. AFAIK the gun is very high up in the vehicle. Then the vehicle itself has a very low profile. This is a major advantage in avoiding detection and recieving hits. High profiles are spotted very easily, and one prominent feature of all towed ATGs are that they have a very low profile. The dust isn't a problem unless it's very dry, and you regularly have someone off to the side to correct the aim after the first shot. Once the shooting starts it doesn't matter much for detection if some dust is thrown up anyway, since it's the muzzle flash that gives the position away. The issue with the JgdPz IV gun is real, I pressume. It also applied to the S-tank, that were poor at negotiating ditches. Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by curih: The Americans built fast lightly armored and heavily gunned TDs ... While the Germans chose to take a standard tank and remove the turret to save some weight so that much heavier armor could be added.Not exactly true. Here's the development curve: 1) Both Axis and Allies relied on towed ATGs to fight enemy armour. 2) Once the mobility of warfare became apparent both sides started to increas the mobility of their ATGs. The British used portee mounted guns, and the Germans mounted their ATGs on lightly armoured obsolete tank chassis, like the Panzerjäger 1B and Marders. 3) Once USA entered the war in Africa, they realised that they too needed mobile ATGs, so they put guns on halftracks as an interim solution. Mobility was the key for driving an offensive. 4) When the German drive was halted in Russia, and the Germans actually had to start retreating, then they started to make TDs with more armour, like the Ferdinand and JgdPz IV. As the "Lebensraum" shrunk, the armour grew, since they couldn't afford a retreat. (Shoot n' scoot is the way for the lighter armoured TDs.) In conclusion your perception that the heavy TDs are better suited for defence is correct. Try using Hellcats to fend off a German assault on a 150m deep US defence line... Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I think some of the deferance was the different philosophies between the Americans and the Germans. The Americans purposely built TDs with the aim of using them as their anti-armor punch on the battlefield. The American philosophy at the begining of the war, and well into it, was to have TDs fight Axis tanks not tanks fighting tanks. The Germans, on the other hand, seemed to have found themselves forced into using TDs. When it became more economical to build a TD than a tank, they started to. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts