If we speak about that BR range, specifically most of them are 6.7-7.7 HEATFS slingers. There are few lower br tanks wth HEATFSes that are THAT effective.
Effective - maybe. DO they justify 90mm HEATFS sitting at 5.7? In no way.
As does APHE . Tho how is APHE even in question there, if all techs we discuss use HEATFS.
NOT penned tiger 2
Exactly what im talking about. THere are NO analogues of M36 sitting at that BR or lower. Only one is PT-76 but it has very POOR heatfs, whilist M36 slings M46s HEATFS which is PRETTY effective. Even the M51s were moved to 6.3.
And that doesnt make M56 sitting 5.7, nor does it make much worse HEATFS sligers (AUBL74 for example) sitting that. I can justify the Ratel 90 - its not only slower, but just unusable because its hull size. M36 isnt that bad. And even so Ratel sits 6.0, step higher than M36.
When I played the M51 my biggest enemies were Tiger 1s because you basically had to aim for the gunner to not die and then he would just drive away.
And hitting the gunner wouldn’t even destroy the breech next to him.
Now you can aim for the hull and most likely still kill the gunner.
It also features very bouncy turret armor. I’ve had 100mm APHE non pen the turret face on multiple occasions.
Meanwhile, I’ve been killed countless times in the M36B from hull down positions by APHE shells fuzing on that extra roof armor that doesn’t give you any advantages and just works against you.
M36B shoots HEATFS. AUBL shoots HEATFS, Ratel shoots HEATFS, Aml-90 shoots HEATFS, TF HEAT is doing there
I usually shot UFP to driver, 99% of the time killed the tank or driver-gunner combo when it was first added.
having 90mm HEATFS with NORMAL cannon and chassis is better than having garbage wheeler chassis and worst 90mm cannon*
But yeah its M36 which suffers and not AUBL, for sure.
There much more instances where you HEAT hits a vehicle and doesn’t kill it, where APHE would have, than HEAT being able to penetrate giving you a big advantage over hitting a weakspot with APHE.
Penetrating the armor is meaningless, when you don’t have the desired effect.
So how is needing to hit a spot that kills the enemy gunner with HEAT supposed to be and advantage over hitting a cupola or some other weakspot with APHE, when APHE is much more likely to kill a disable a tank?
Any German 6.7 vehicle isn’t a IS-3 that has enough armor on the side of it’s turret and hull to stop 90mm APHE but even then we’re talking about a vehicle that basically always gets shot first.
And since you don’t want to engage targets directly from the front with your paper vehicle, having HEAT to penetrate their strongest armor doesn’t even make sense.
If you get shot by a Tiger II, it’s your first mistake of playing a vehicle against it.
For example its BR 6 AND 7. Which DOESNT gove your M36, M26, M46 and ANY other tank a chance to penetrate Germans with APHE. But when M18 struggles, M26 struggles, T-34 and T-44 struggle, the M36B2 just slaps HEATFS to the gunner.
Maybe in your world you have no other choice than shooting at 10hp/t tanks from the front.
I’ve killed countless Tiger IIs, Ferdinand’s and Jagdtigers with the M4A3, T20 and M26.
And somehow I was always able to to that with APHE.
Not to mention the times I killed them from the front with 90mm APCR.
So how do you think I managed to kill them despite APHE not being able to penetrate their front?
I also have fond memories of killing a Ferdi and two Tiger IIs with an AMX-13.
Having good frontal armor doesn’t make a vehicle undefeatetable in an actual battle when they are forced to give up their advantage or simply get outplayed.
Well, it kinda turned into a all US 5.3-6.7 vehicle topic.
My personal opinion was always that the M18 is worse than the M4A3E8 Sherman, that can engage targets from the front with a stabilized 76mm compared to the M18 that is forced to only attack from ambush due to the complete lack of armor and extremely bouncy suspension.
I‘m certain I would perform better in the PaK Puma than in the M18, even while not having a turret.
Well I was not. My comparison was regarding the hull alone. I was in no way saying the M10 was a better vehicle than the m36. I was giving more perspective on the m36 and that it has weaknesses the M4/T26 does not have.
So it’s only better vs 2 vehicles? Seriously? The US went ahead to develop a gun that is barely better than the 76mm they already had? They must have felt quite foolish on that waste of time and resources.
The 90mm cannon gives the M4/T26 more targeting options when facing tougher enemies. The Panther F and Jagdpanther are 2 examples of this. There are plenty others out there.
The Puma is faster and goes backward at the same speed. That makes going into position and relocating very easy.
Because how bouncy the suspension of the M18 is, I don’t see much of an advantage in using the turret to target vehicles compare to turning the hull on the PaK Puma. I’m also sure it can turn the hull rather quickly, thanks to the all-wheel steering.
Two driver also means it can get still get out of trouble, even when one gets killed.
So for the role of fast light armored TD, I don’t see much of an advantage in using the M18.