Hmmm, so it was a Gun Motor Carrier (usually also called a SPG), and as far as I know all SPGs are classified as Tank destroyers and the other GMCs are classified as Tank Destroyers. And it was assigned to Tank destroyer units?!? Well wouldn’t a tank destroyer be assigned to tank destroyer units naturally?
1 Like
The bulldog was not irl classified as a td so lose the idea you have no clue about what you are arguing
1 Like
Tank destroyer is a subset of SPG. All tanks destroyers are SPGs but not all SPGs are tank destroyers.
There are 4 people in here who knows what they are taking about so drop the idea that it should be a light tank, also not all, actually the majority of light tanks were not used as recon units, they were mainly used in the pacific because medium tanks could not move though the terrian, in Europe they were SOMETIMES used but very rarely they were used for recon, mostly used for infantry rush pushes
I think gaijin should do more classifications, like in air. Not new icons, but more accurate titles. So the Sd.Kfz.221, 222, and 234 can be classified as Armored cars And things like the Hummel can be classified as Self propelled howitzers. They’ve already done it with the ATGM TDs
4 Likes
That would definitely help. You could write a suggestion about it lol.
1 Like
Am I one of the 4 ppl lol
1 Like
Ykw? I will soon™ (and the mods will probably deny it and I won’t automatically know why, so I’ll have to ask them.)
3 Likes
It used to be a TD, they reclassified it for some reason, not that classifications in WT have much to do with IRL anyway, things like the Mig-27s that are specifically modified for ground attack are fighters, IFVs and AFVs are light tanks, self propelled artillery and MLRS are tank destroyers.
And lets not forget the F-117 that is a bomber the USAF classified as a fighter and is an attacker in game…
2 Likes
Glad we agree about Walker Bulldog’s IRL status.
Glad we agree about the many other purposes of light tanks.
This entire topic is a semantic argument regardless of our statements.
Not sure why you’re repeating my exact takes back to me.
The US military’s own admission is these classifications are subjective & semantic.
Like, even I fell into the rabbit hole at one point; but when the military are arguing against each other…
M10 Booker isn’t a “light tank” despite that argument being one of the ones made.
IFVs aren’t “light tanks” either, yet they have that role in War Thunder.
At the end of the day, this would just nerf tanks that benefit from the “light tank” role.
So my only opinion in this entire topic is this:
We should not think too hardly on matters which even militaries can’t agree on.
Each military has its on criteria on what tank should be what. the booker is unknown because they dont know what to classify it as. IFVs currently dont use the role they were made for, in war thunder. But i would not be mad if war thunder reclassed them to just to get it right. But the US military DID classify the m18 in offical government documents that are unclassifyed, so you can look at them, and understand that you are arguing a point that you can even defend with evidence that pertains to what you are arguing
2 Likes
Yes rooster
1 Like
The US military wasn’t the only country, and many people here have already said it’s a light tank.
“Light tank destroyer.”
Oh look, light tank’s in the name.
Once again, this is just a semantic argument & nothing is incorrect.
These are not my takes, this is basic use of word meaning.
So if you have issue, bring it up with world militaries & dictionaries, not I.
Yeah, because light tank destroyer. It’s still a tank destroyer first and foremost.
Or lets put it differently, since you seem to be so adamant that the US did not have a clear purpose in mind for it: If the M18 functioned as a light tank, then why would they ever greenlight the Chaffee hmm? Wouldn’t they already have a vehicle that fulfils the purpose the M24?
3 Likes
No, not really. It also changes the SP cost and because its classified as a light tank it has a higher SP cost than tank destroyers by 10-20 sp depending on the br bracket of the match
“Why would they green light the M26 Pershing?
The M4A3E8 fulfills the purpose…” - Hypothetical, using the rationale of your post.
Because there were many things that needed testing during the war, and M18’s experience was clearly used for the development of M41. That, and there are many more armored vehicles that existed in service alongside others. Even more so with planes.
M18 crews ended up using their tanks as light tanks… and by other nations that fielded M18s in their own militaries.
These aren’t my takes, no where close. Experts were recording this history long before I existed.
I’m purely repeating their records.
And yes, I do use common definitions for words, because otherwise semantic topics like this happen…
@Columbia6448
Losing scouting, as the only scouting vehicle available to 6.0 lineups is a nerf.
SP doesn’t matter, and the primary reason SP for “SPGs” are lower is to incentivize people use them, and they were made lower when “SPGs” were chronically over-BR’d.
It doesn’t have to as we already see precedent with the asu57 having scouting as a TD
3 Likes
they were rarely used in Korea and when they were they were used mainly as utility tractors because they were obsolete by then
Correction: they were not used at all in Korea, since they were phased out of service right after WW2 ended. Only the M39 utility carrier saw service in that war.
1 Like