Lol it’s like you said, it’s so you can drink a nice cup of tea on the way to combat
Already?
I don’t think a thread has to be 100% about the mentioned vehicle if there’s a fitting comparison to make. Hope this makes it clear I don’t want to argue about the M24 or Puma it’s just them being in a similar situation to the M18.
Everyone knows it’s a meme and I don’t think any sane person would consider this a bannable offense.
1 Like
Yeah. I agree and understand what you were doing. It just got really out of hand and off topic :)
1 Like
where have i heard this before
The M18 is ridiculously good. In fact light tanks in general are kinda broken, mainly the fact that you can spot through buildings or over ridgelines without exposing yourself at all. You get a tank such a big mobility advantage over everything else with a potent gun, spotting, artillery, .50 cals, and a lower spawn point cost, and all you are sacrificing is armour which gives you a chance of surviving if you get hit. What makes it all the more powerful is that US basically have a monopoly on light tanks with Germany or Russia having no good light tanks at that tier, so m18 players can get to these vital areas uncontested and make it extremely difficult for the other team to advance when they are all spotted and getting sniped by the m18 and half the enemy team due to all being spotted.
Puma went up as well which was justified. Neither of those tanks deserve to be at the same BR as their medium tank counterparts with the same gun, the pz.III and sherman 76.
2 Likes
Scouting ROCKS when you really get into it.
You do have to be accurate though when spotting through terrain or buildings, but it’s so good to have the whole field flashing red.
(Edit - Absolutely on-topic, and those false flaggers can go wreck themselves…)
Its a light tank, or light tank destroyer so you shouldn’t expect to frontally pen everything. Instead you need to use tactics like ambushing and flanking to shoot someones side.
That’s the only vehicle I’ve gotten a nuke in.
1 Like
When 99% of everything you face is a heavy tank, that happens.
I beg to differ, at least for the Italian M18 (which doesn’t get a round with more than 149mm of pen).
It’s not that helpful for the M18 itself.
Also not that helpful.
With a killable MG gunner, the literal worst type of MG possible.
It’s a light tank so yeah it gets a lower spawn cost than the heavies it faces.
Ehhh…
M93 APCR is pretty useless as it stands right now. So personally I wouldn’t count it towards the firepower.
I don’t think any of the M18’s get a better APHE round than this… But don’t quote me on this :)
They don’t, but they get M93, which gets 190 mm flat pen.
However… that’s APCR.
Ahh okay. Yeah, APCR don’t do crap
APCR is better than nothing. Taking out a gunner can easily be done by APCR (even if it doesn’t spall to hit anything else).
Except M93 doesn’t even have enough penetration to actually engage new targets that you otherwise can’t with M62.
You cannot penetrate the turret front of a Tiger II (H) unless you explicitly aim for the gunner sight, which is a small and not particularly reliable reliable weakspot. Might as well keep M62 and shoot barrel.
I see you want the M18 to only face Tiger IIs lol. The APCR helps to surely pen Panthers, the Tiger II P, and Tiger II H’s turret (and in general it makes angled shots to the gunner more consistent).
I did not say this. I’m pointing out that there are no actual scenarios where M93 is useful over M62. The Tiger II (H) is a perfect example of where you explicitly need flat pen but even then M93 is not enough. But nice straw man I guess.
M62 penetrates the turret front of Panthers and the Tiger II (P) just as well as M93.
How are angled shots against the Tiger II (H)'s turret more consistent when APCR performs worse against angled armor than APCBC?
1 Like
That’s what I was thinking too
At point blank, M93 just has worse penetration past 45 degrees. As distance increases, you need less of an angle for M62 to take the lead (because APCR loses speed faster).