Chevrolet T66E1 (1943)
.jpg)
Ultimate evolution of the T19E1, with a M3 75 mm gun in a new all-welded open-topped turret for better visibility. For the US Tank Destroyer Command it was almost a possible wheeled equivalent to the M10 Wolverine. However the T66 75mm Gun Motor Carriage, despite generally good performance and later judged good by the British Desert Warfare Board was still deemed too heavy for reconnaissance vehicle and not adopted, especially when the North Africa campaign was now over.
T17E3 (1943)
The E3 was a T17E1 fitted with the turret of 75 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M8 Scott, open, with the 75mm M2/M3 short-barrel howitzer. Trials took place by December 1943, but it was not accepted for production. Only a single prototype was made. T18 Boarhound (1942)
This heavy armoured car was a potential competitor to the T17 lend-lease program, not chosen for production. Built by the Yellow Coach Co. it was a 8x8 armed with a 57 mm gun M1 (standard antitank gun) in a cast enclose turret, and two 8 mm Browning M1919A4, one coaxial, one in the hull. Protection consisted of partly cast and welded elements ranging from 9 mm (deck, roof) to 50 mm forward, to resist 20 mm autocannon rounds and 37 m AP rounds as well. It was closer to a 8x8 tank and inspired by similar eight wheeled heavy German reconnaissance cars.
R&D started in 1942 as a private venture from Yellow Coach Co. and it was developed into the T18 armed with the same 37 mm gun as the T17, the T18E1 6-wheeled version (cancelled January 18, 1943) and finally the 8x8 T18E2 with 57 mm gun. Interest ofthe Army was mild, although 30 were built in total for intensive tests in 1943. Eventually, it was rejected for mass-production for the British, as costly and having lesser performances than the Staghound. One is now on display at Bovington.
An apology post of sorts for the not so uncommon shovel-posts. I love tanks but BR armor like all BR has a lot of problems. Br is important so people with strong weapons do not bully weak weapons. BR1 ‘tanks’ that can be killed by heavy mgs to Tiger 2 AT br5 is silly.
Current BR do not seem to Balance Armor, Guns and speed. Sorry but given current cover and size of maps makes fast vehicles useless. The current tank on tank meta is heavy armor with big guns and turrets. Heavy tanks dominate the game as unlike war thunder there is no tank balance.
Tank destroyers without turrets are far weaker than a turreted tank. Tank destroyers with weak armor are easily killed. These ‘tanks’ can be used if given the appropriate BR. Or if the maps are corrected for Enlisted.
There are some differences MG’s are even more vital at all BR’s. This is to kill infantry something not-present in war thunder. MG’s and auto-cannons can even be used against tanks at low BR.
Consideration for artificial buffing and nerfing to allow non-meta ‘tanks’. Slowing tanks speed and turn radius and speed. This would allow the small maps to service ‘faster’ lightly armed ‘tanks’. This could give the same variety that war thunder has.
limiting the spawn rate of heavier ‘tanks’ by some means. A rotation that is three light two medium and one heavy. Or perhaps and armor point system to prevent people from spamming heavy tanks.
The heavy tank meta is very limiting to the game and makes balance difficult. No light/scout tank will ever approach a heavy in enlisted. I would love to see the same chess like matches of war thunder. I do not want to see artillery/spgs of war thunder.
Smoke should be used more but the run and gun of Enlisted has affected even armor. Tanks should be diverse we have attackers and fighters, no real pure bombers but that might be for the better. Tell me what you think how can we enrich enlisted armor combat.