It really does make more sense since they wouldn’t need the turret at all
M18s were obsolete since 1945.
Glad we’re in agreement about M18s in Korea.
Other situations of War Thunder:
Object 292 isn’t classified as an SPG.
F-117 isn’t classified as a fighter.
Appealing to the authority of some military document over conclusions derived from critical thinking won’t help any of us.
If you think of War Thunder’s “light tank” classification as relative mass [or IFV] relative to more armored tanks of the technology, it’s a reasonable interpretation of light tank.
Just as classifying F-117 as a strike aircraft makes sense.
F-117 wasnt classified as a fighter by the Air Force either it was a misnomer like the f-111 and f105 to get people to want to fly it
Ifv and wheeled tanks should have their own sperate classifications so that the SP costs and unique mechanics can be more finely tuned anyhow
Only one object 292 exists and it was a test bed to see if the soviets could up gun the pre-existing MBT inventory with an interchangeable up guned turret I don’t see any evidence that it was ever considered to be a tank destroyer
And if citing historical sources was an “appeal to authority” then we couldn’t use any technical documents to correct vehicles as it would be a logical fallacy at that point
There are several tanks in-game that get alternative classifications for balance reasons. The M18 plays more along the lines of a light tank within WT, which is why it gets the Light Tank designation now. SPG “tanks” have been placed under the Tank Destroyer role for a similar reason.
At the end of the day, the M18 would likely lose its scouting and artillery just for an ammo box and a slightly lower spawn cost, while tanks like the T95 would be transferred to the heavy tank role.
1 Like
Nah asu 57 has scouting so it has precedent to stay but yeah it would probably lose artillery
1 Like
There are several that do and several that don’t. It isn’t a consistent thing, just like how some non-TDs get ammo boxes like the Magach Hydra.
For example, the M56 Scorpion has scouting as a Tank Destroyer, but the nearly identical ELC BIS didn’t get it until the recent swap to a light tank.
At the end of the day, it’s Gaijin’s call, and it isn’t worth fussing over when the M18 is better balanced as a Light Tank.
It’s undeniably wrong, but so is counting MBT as Medium Tanks and IFV/AFV as Light Tanks.
1 Like
Whilst you’re at it, reclassify the Pvkv IV from medium tank to tank destroyer.
1 Like
105mm rejected failure, M10 Booker
2 Likes
They finally removed box from the terms?
M18 used to be a TD in WT, but one day it got reclassified (together with several other vehicles). The reason was “because it’s being played like a light tank, not a TD.” That’s Gaijin for you…
2 Likes
I wounder whether its possible to remove this thing from War Thunder. I find its highly problematic to have a 90km/h tracked vehicle in a (basically) capture the zone mode. Especially when the main opponent team can’t even go with half that speed. Beeing that fast always results in getting the zone, which is almost always match deciding.
Its too fast for its BR range.
The ingame classification reflects ingame role not the historical one. Gaijin never claimed to use historical classification. It is a game, role classification is irrelevant to historical accuracy of vehicle’s performance.
This. For Gajin’s ingame puproses, Tank Destroyers are almost always casematte designs without turrets. Only exeptions are modern field howitzers like M109 and super slow traversing M10 etc. This has nothing to do with IRL referrences.
You are so right.
I know that but, they claim to be a historical game so i figure they can change the classification of a vehicle, the the real life class, not what gaijin think it should be. I play the m 18 like a brawler i will admit, but that game is not representing how they were used in real life, other wise know as doctrine. And yes there are plenty of other vehicles like this in war thunder, i think they should fix those ones as well
2 Likes
Bull, the us government declassified the records that the m 18 is a TD not a light tank, and the USA opinion is the only one that matters in this arguement i dont care if other countrys labeled it as a light tank m, they did not make the plans for it, they did not produce it. America did, america the father to the plans labeled it a tank destroyer before the first one came of the production line. And you litthe comment about the "“wellehy did they green light the Pershing since we had the jumbo” shall not go unnoticed, they greenlighted it because the jumbo was not holding up to tank to tank combat like it use to it was becomeing outdated, the only thing the jumbo was good for late war was city combat where the amour worked well when coming around corners. And lets not forget that the jumbo was underguned most of the war only very few were fitted with the 76, now the 76 made a big cgange but nost of the jumbos were already in combat at a time were we need as much anour as we could get. Also the jumbo was hardly used in Korea and Vietnam can you take a guess what heavy tank took the jumbos place you are right the Pershing. So thats why the greenlighted it and the reason they greenlighted the chaffee was because the only light tank that we had before that wad the stuart which only did well in the pacific, it was way overguned in Europe.
2 Likes
No, they claim that vehicles are historically accurate. Don’t be that guy that nerds out on the most insignificant thing imginable. Unless they classify it as an SPAA it really doesn’t matter.
1 Like