The archer, is it useful?

[CombinedArms]

I did some rather extensive tests on the M-10 vs. the 75/L48 gun on the StugIIIG and PzIV that support Panzer76's statement. I started a thread on this which got a lot of discussion several months ago--you could find it by a search. What I found was that of distances of 600+ yards, the front turret armor of the M10 tended to deflect 75/L48 shots more often than not. At shorter ranges, it doesn't work and you need to be hulldown. The lower hull on the M10 is quite porous.

So yes, the M10 deserves some respect vs. the numerous PzIVs and Stugs, under the right conditions.

[Grimthane]

On the issue of Marder vs Archer, I totally accept CombinedArms advice of how they are best used, and that the 17lb is a better gun.

The advice, of course, stands for any AT weapon, and if followed, will lead to good success (particularly with dug-in guns!).

The problem is that most of the time you simply don't/can't do all those things, especially with Archers. If you have an AT gun, you usually are on defense, and can pick a nice spot for it. If nothing comes its way, bad luck. With a TD, though, you start with it in the nice spot, then you realise that you're getting hammered elsewhere, so you zoom over to help out. He sees you coming, your driver panicks as soon as he sees armour, and voila, another Archer bites the dust.

No doubt, used 'properly', they're excellent. What I like (and I guess RL tankers like), are vehicles that still do the business when the SNAFU bites.

[Buq-Buq]

Wow -- looking at the numbers, I wouldn't have thought I would have to change my mind about using M10s more often, but perhaps a re-assessment is in order! ("There's more to war than numbers, son . . .")

CombinedArms, I found one thread mentioning M10s (there was a quote by Rexford about the effective armor of the 75mm Sherman turrets) -- but it didn't appear to have any numbers quantifying your findings. In lieu of that, I conducted my own unscientific survey tonight using the 75mm L/48 gun using normal AP ammo against hull down M10s, and came up with results very similar to those you describe. Granted, my sampling wasn't nearly large enough to use these as hard percentages, but they are impressive, nonetheless. I tested the opponents at 600m and 700m, since these figures were specifically mentioned by both you and Panzer76. At 600m, the M10 held up rather well, shrugging off almost a quarter of the hits to the turret front as ricochets. As if that wasn't bad enough, I found a sharp decrease in the capabilities of the 75mm against the [hull down] M10 when going from 600m to 700m, where a full 50% of the turret front hits ricocheted! If it weren't for the [relatively] small chance of still obtaining an upper hull hit on a hull down vehicle, the M10 would be a very tough target (in the entire sampling, front upper hull penetrations accounted for almost 30% of the total hits). Again, as stated by CombinedArms, the front hull armor of the M10 is quite weak; almost a third of the penetrations of the front upper hull resulted in the immediate loss of the tank, either through crew abandonment or brew-up.

OK, so what is the up-shot of this little experiment? Two things spring to mind. Firstly, I probably will be using more M10s (and its Commonwealth sister, the SP, 17-pdr,, M10, aka Achilles IIC) when I get the opportunity while playing CMAK. As Panzer76 pointed out, the 75mm L/48 gun "(in form of the Stug) is the most numerous armoured enemy you will find", and the M10 can potentially take some of the sting out of their capability.

Secondly, and a bit more unsettling, is the question: "Is the 75mm L/48 gun -- and the M10 turret front -- appropriately modeled in CMAK?" I'm not sure that I know the answer to that question. I can tell you -- in agreement with CombinedArms and Panzer76 -- what experience CMAK will give you. Whether that experience is correct or not is a question I'm not sure that I'm qualified to answer. But I can certainly ask.

So! Back to Archers! Given that -- in CMAK -- my experience leads me to agree with Panzer76 and CombinedArms on the M10, I will amend my statement to read:

"Most Allied armor in 1944-45 isn't going to be able to stand up to a Panther's 75mm (or even a 75mm L/48 on a PzKpfw IV or a StuG IIIG, for that matter) -- so the question of armor thickness is relatively moot (excepting the case of a hull down M10 or SP, 17-pdr, M10 at > 500m)."

That having been said, the comment by Ian Hogg about the Archer and how its configuration influenced its use remains -- to my mind -- the crux of this entire thread. It is, in fact, a wonderful distillation of Mr. Renaud's excellent 10 Points for using Marders as quoted by CombinedArms (and seconded by Grimthane) earlier. It bears pointing out that these 10 points generally do not describe the handling of tanks on the battlefield (although you could certainly use tanks in that manner as well, you just wouldn't be particularly offensive with them). I believe that if players would bear these ideas in mind when employing thinned-skinned anti-armor AFVs, the experience of their use would tend to be more positive in nature.

Mark

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Bugger! He used the word 'cosign'...in a post!

No he didn't. He used the word 'cosine'.

Ignorant, blathering twit.

Michael

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seanachai:

Bugger! He used the word 'cosign'...in a post!

No he didn't. He used the word 'cosine'.

Ignorant, blathering twit.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seanachai:

Bugger! He used the word 'cosign'...in a post!

No he didn't. He used the word 'cosine'.

Ignorant, blathering twit.

Michael </font>