_Condottiero_

HEAT-FS for M26A1 and M36B1

7 hours ago, _Condottiero_ said:

Why don't these 2 tanks have access to HEAT-FS shells in the game?

They have the same M3A1 cannon as ST-A and M46 for example, I think they should get M348 HEAT-FS.

Don't even know if they used such ammunition.

Only listed information is loadout of:

M82 APC

M304 APCR

And HE round

 

You could easily drop m332 and m318 with even weren't used by Italians and drop BR to US counterparts...

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PlumleyBT said:

Afaik italian M26 has not HEATFS beacuse never used by italian army on this tank

I don't think this is the reason (i know) , for now the heat on m36 has been suggested because the highter BR of the italian M36, the M26 instead is fine where it is or the "BR hole" should be greater between the M4 and the M26.

This is one of the fix asked (one of many). Devs are working good and for many things, yes for the community they are "slow" but i can't complain about their disponibility.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BlueBeta said:

I don't think this is the reason (i know) , for now the heat on m36 has been suggested because the highter BR of the italian M36, the M26 instead is fine where it is or the "BR hole" should be greater between the M4 and the M26.

This is one of the fix asked (one of many). Devs are working good and for many things, yes for the community they are "slow" but i can't complain about their disponibility.

Oh cool, btw i meant that they didnt added HEATFS for M26 for historycally reasons and im good with that. Italian M26 works fine at that br ;)

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SasquatchFox360 said:

Trust me you don't want the heatfs it's the most disappointing round to use coming from someone who owns the Japanese tanks that use it your better off with the m82

I bring HEATFS on US tanks and im fine with M82 too. Its a good round when you know how to use it.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PlumleyBT said:

There is no TD both in game and IRL with a real armor. Most of Tank destroyers doctrines were developed on speed and ability to relocate the tank.

 

T28 and T95 say hi. Ferdinand is also waving its hand in your direction, along with Jagdtiger.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Dr_Pavel said:

 

T28 and T95 say hi. Ferdinand is also waving its hand in your direction, along with Jagdtiger.

T28/95(same vehicle) weren't TD but assault guns developed to breakthrought the heavily defended sigfrid line.

Ferdinand/Elephant performaced poorely on estern front due to technical failures, missing MGs and suffered many losses.

Jagdtiger suffered the same, if not more, issues of köenig tiger, wasn't mass produced and saw little combat action.

The good examples of a good performing TDs are the M18 hellcat due to its decent gun and excellent speed and the jagdpanzer IV, fast enough and low silhouette. 

So it's me to say hi to your examples.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PlumleyBT said:

T28/95(same vehicle) weren't TD but assault guns developed to breakthrought the heavily defended sigfrid line.

Ferdinand/Elephant performaced poorely on estern front due to technical failures, missing MGs and suffered many losses.

Jagdtiger suffered the same, if not more, issues of köenig tiger, wasn't mass produced and saw little combat action.

The good examples of a good performing TDs are the M18 hellcat due to its decent gun and excellent speed and the jagdpanzer IV, fast enough and low silhouette. 

So it's me to say hi to your examples.

 

You didn't talk about performance, you just said that there were no TDs with heavy armour, while that's simply false. 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that historically the tank destryers doctrines were based on speed and the ability to relocate; the most successfull TDs were light, less armored and fast.

In fact, your examples prove it, heavy armored TD were less used with lesser results.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PlumleyBT said:

My point was that historically the tank destryers doctrines were based on speed and the ability to relocate; the most successfull TDs were light, less armored and fast.

In fact, your examples prove it, heavy armored TD were less used with lesser results.

 

I wouldn't call a 10:1 KDR a "lesser result". 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PlumleyBT said:

Like the M18 faced the same number of enemy tanks on western front like the soviet t34 swarms on eastern front.

 

Let's take a look:

-Germany: Marders, Stugs, Nashorn, Jagdtiger, Ferdinand, Jagdpanzer, Hetzer

-Italy: Semovente, M41

etc etc

What I mean is that there wasn't one rule for TDs, but many: you either heavily armoured giants, slow and unarmoured gun platforms, go-karts with paper mache for armour, etc. The fil rouge was the need of a big, deadly gun, and the ability to shoot from either ambush positions or long range. Everything else was merely a situational accessory. 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion is about T108 shell, not about "general TD purpose".

Please stay in topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.