As sad as it is the 90MM is strongest us at cannon mounted on a vehicle. adding this tank destroyer would be great as it has a good gun and good looks.
4 Likes
%2fUSA%2fFiles%2f4-TankDestroyers%2fM10%2fT35.usspg.jpg&ehk=EsJHwOAA1l5o6sDRR1YZOVDQjQmiuR1ohbXg8baKjOg%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Only good suggestion I’ve seen in a while from this place. Good! I see no reason why it cannot be added. Though with how constricting the maps feel (Due to greyzone) getting the most out of the m36 is… eh.
Incorrect. May I ask you look at the T92 and T93?
AT cannon not howitzers
8” gun
ok and how does that defeat my statement?
It’s not a howitzer. It’s a field artillery gun. You know, what a lot of the first tank cannons were derived from in the first place. Usually either that or AAA cannons. For example, the 75mm French field gun, the 88mm flak cannon, the 3” anti tank gun derived from the T9 anti aircraft gun.
It has a velocity of 2,850 ft/s. Compared to the 240mm howitzer’s 2,300 ft/s and the M1/M101 105mm howitzer’s velocity of only 1,500 ft/s. The M61 shell out of a M3 75mm cannon had 2024 ft/s. M62 out of the M1 76mm had a velocity of 2,600 ft/s
Anyways, as far as if it would be used for direct fire (which is what we’re really looking for here) it’s hard to tell with a quick google search cause the darn thing was never used. However, I do have this from Wikipedia (grain of salt it if you want I’m gonna try to dig deeper.) Experience with the 155 mm howitzer on the M4 chassis suggested it might be possible to mount it on the Heavy Tank T26E3 (which was formally named “heavy tank M26 Pershing” in March 1945) chassis, and that the 8-inch gun could also be mounted as part of a planned “heavy combat team” using the same chassis (other members would be the T26E5 assault tank and T84 8-inch HMC).
“Heavy combat team” sounds like a frontline unit to me. Not to mention the Jumbo Pershing would absolutely be front and center in a battle doing damage to enemy everything. Based off of this I’d say it was likely meant for direct fire, rather than indirect fire like a howitzer. Which GMC’s are usually meant for in comparison to HMC’s which are technically capable of both direct and indirect. But it’s still hard to tell given this is Wikipedia and again these were never used in combat. Still, the 8” gun isn’t a howitzer. It’s a heavy field gun. Emphasis on the HEAVY. So yeah I’d say perfectly capable of AT work
so the vehicle in question is the M12 GMC so GMC and HMC are just a way to say SPGs (self propelled guns) and the M12 was designed for indirect fire but you can direct fire it if you need to though that can be the case with all howitzers, however the 8 inch m1 and the m1918 howitzer differ is that the m1 only had HE while the 1918 howitzer had AP so the true strongest anti tank gun (if it was needed to) was the 155 howitzer
the heavy part could also be in reference to the size of the unit, so it could be a large units that engages in combat with the artillery being a supporting element (as we can see with BCT or brigade combat regiment)
Yes all of our self propelled’s are “X motor carriage” be it gun motor carriage, howitzer motor carriage, multiple gun motor carriage (typically SPAA), or mortar motor carriage.
Also quick thing the M12 GMC is the M1917 155mm gun on an M3 Lee. The 155mm on the M4 chassis is the M41 HMC which had these shells
Uploading: IMG_8224.png…
(Since it didn’t want to load right the last 2 were dummy rounds)
However, I do see your point of HE only and having AP available
This is entirely fair. Hard to tell as searching “heavy combat unit” just brings up the majority Jap unit that fought in the European Theater
1 Like
it looks so much like a sherman too me, makes sense since the lee is a stopgap for a reason
1 Like
Yeah that transmission case didn’t change a bit. Lol. The M3 Lee is literally a cross between the M2 Medium and M4 Medium, which have literally nothing in common other than maybe the engine but that I’m not sure on without googling that as well. It’s a pretty neat piece of American tank history. Plus with the top cut off and looking at the rear they got a similar silhouette. And considering how grainy old photos can be…yeah it’s no wonder they look alike
For once Unclaimed has a good point where is DOOM turtle?
Not a huge fan of tank destroyers. Limited turret traversal and paper thin armor around the turret.
Yeah but Doom turtle?
Ah yes the T95. I would love that too
Also…
THE FRICK YOU MEAN?! I always have good points. It’s just that most of my points are for humor
Seriously. Look for the “lol” at the end of sentences. It means what I’m saying is meant to be taken lightly or as a joke. You will see majority of the time I’m just screwing around
we still need the Jackson Doom turtles and maybe the Sturmtiger the sturmtiger for shits and giggles.
Also the M3 its not great but its is a TD that the U.S had early war it would probably slot the best at Rank 1-2 because its still a pretty bad example of one.
one at least it has a turret 2 the us does not have a lot of heavy tanks three not a lot of guns that are bigger then 76mm with high velocity in armored vehicles.
1 Like