4.7 is generous. Even at max uptiers the heaviest of heavy tanks would be lolpenned. In addition to a 25-50% increase in armour.
As for the M10 being an “active TD” it isn’t and shouldn’t be. With its turret traverse if you’re trying to brawl with it it doesn’t matter how low a BR you throw it at, you’re going to have a bad time. But used as a sniper like it’s supposed to be the M10 and especially this variant would be incredibly effective.
Let’s be very clear; 17pdr Mk8 is the best round that gun has.
Achilles is 3.3, and would be very easy to push up to 3.7 with zero changes. 14 mm extra armour (presumably 9/16" so 14.3 mm) plus the corresponding (minor) loss of acceleration, and a 1st Generation APDS round that’s only useful under limited circumstances is not, in my opinion, enough to warrant 4.7. Avenger (which is a TD, Gaijin!) is considerably more mobile, survivable, and therefore useful than Achilles.
For now I won’t mention the actual gun depression limits but let me assure you it would change the behaviour significantly, because they are not correct.
2 Likes
I mean, that’s what the bolts were for. It was designed that way.
1 Like
Well I think I’ve finally found another picture of an M10 with applique armour. It’s only present on the front of the hull, despite this one having the capacity for the full set. Perhaps they wanted to save weight and thought they’d only need the frontal piece?
The wreckage of British and German AFVs destroyed in the battles around Caen, Villons-Les-Buissons, 1944 - NAM. 1975-03-63-18-197
1 Like
An M10 and other vehicles on the Vassy road, 4 August 1944. - IWM (B 8604)
A 3-inch SP with applique on the front and seemingly the hull sides too. Impossible to tell on the turret but I’d be surprised if it didn’t have the full set. It’s much easier to see on the IWM website but it gives a good indication of how difficult it is to tell whether or not an M10 has it fitted when they’re all camo’d up and covered in the crew’s kit.
Comparing all of the photos, it seems like the headlight’s brush guards needed to be removed in order to fit the frontal plate.
Chelsea and the wrecked one at the collection point both have the normal full-size frontal plates and are missing their brush guards (Chelsea is even missing its lights) but the others with the brush guards still in place have had segments cut out of the frontal plate.
+1 foldered with the current Achilles
1 Like
I think it’s on the sides too.
Looks like it has the seems between the plates.
5 Likes
I’m not entirely convinced because it doesn’t look like the studs are flush to the surface. I wouldn’t be surprised though if it maybe did have them at some point and that’s what caused the marks because they do seem to line up with where the seams would be.
A long time ago a user of the other game measured the armour plates of a surviving unit on display in France, the plates were 18mm thick with 17mm spacing.
3 Likes
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205206479
I want roof Achilles. I also assume it has extra armour cause it’s pretty stud-less?
3 Likes
Interesting, thanks for this. Given how the design of the kit is much more refined compared to Berg’s original concept, it’s not hard to imagine that they could’ve upped the thickness too but I still need to try finding a definitive answer on whether the kits that saw use were actually American or British.
Just a later-production vehicle built after they stopped applying the side studs unfortunately, but they still had them on the front so they do occasionally have the frontal applique plate as seen on Chelsea. It’s just another part of what makes it so difficult to find examples of the kit either fully or partially fitted.
The roof armour is the modification I mentioned to Spr4yz further up the thread. As far as I can work out it was done by 86th Anti-Tank Regiment, attached to XII Corps, and shows up a few times.
I’ve got the plans for it somewhere.
There’s more in the Canadian Microfilms but I seem to have misplaced the link to those pages. If I find them I’ll post them here.
Also:
4 Likes
Very interesting document. Nice to see official measurements matching the Veckring M10 shared by kuromori of the applique plates being 17mm.
Also interesting that it’s dated April '44 but then there doesn’t seem to be any appearance of roof armour until much later into the campaign. I’ll have to look further into M10 use in Italy and see what shows up there to compare between units.
im fine with it but it should go to all M10/M36 varaints cause this was a design feature to add on armor and it would look way better than the dumb track links
1 Like
I still need to edit the post itself but the evidence seems to suggest that these particular kits that actually saw use were British-made and would be unique to the UK TT.
Though, I see no reason why there couldn’t be an American M10 with Berg’s original patent design, but for that you’ll need someone who’s far better versed in the American side of things than me.
the entire point of the mounting points are for add on armor
1 Like
Yes but, from extra info that I’ve found and what has been provided, the specific kit used on the vehicles pictured was British and doesn’t belong on any other nation’s M10s/36s.
1 Like