Jump to content


M45


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 21:55

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13795 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Posted Image


One of the lesser-known tanks in US service was the M45 medium tank, developed from the M26 program as T26E2.

Posted Image


The M4(105) was proving quite successful as a tank, as long as there was no long-range tank engagement. The large caliber gun provided a very useful infantry support round, far more capable of demolishing strongpoints and other obstructions to advancing that the troops may have been suffering from. It thus seemed reasonable that when the M4 was replaced with a more capable anti-armour vehicle, that at the same time the howitzer version similarly be replaced to both improve capability, and simplify logistics.
Spoiler                     


Phosphorus #2 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 22:33

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6501 battles
  • 471
  • Member since:
    02-28-2011
You know this tank is virtually useless in-game, but the German bunkers say differently.

And another thing, how come the M45 turret in-game doesn't have the armor boost?

trajan331 #3 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 22:34

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19503 battles
  • 121
  • [EPB] EPB
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
I am sure they could tweak it to work.

FaustianQ #4 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 22:46

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18727 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010
So Chieftain, why is it again that my Pershing doesn't have 127mm ffront and a 203mm mantlet? Would that be the same reason the devs used an M48 hull for the T110?

The_Chieftain #5 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 22:51

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13795 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostFaustianQ, on Nov 30 2011 - 22:46, said:

So Chieftain, why is it again that my Pershing doesn't have 127mm ffront and a 203mm mantlet? Would that be the same reason the devs used an M48 hull for the T110?

I'm guessing because the turret in game represents the high velocity gun turret, but I presume it can be suggested to have a second researchable turret just for the howitzer. (Note to self)

FaustianQ #6 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 22:59

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18727 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 30 2011 - 22:51, said:

I'm guessing because the turret in game represents the high velocity gun turret, but I presume it can be suggested to have a second researchable turret just for the howitzer. (Note to self)

Sorry, I think I came off a little crass there. I'm agitated, mostly after just looking over the T54E2 diagram and it hitting me what the hull is under the T110 turret. I've been continually frustrated with the devs handling and seeming incompetence with the American Tech Tree (T23 removal, T34 tree placement, T25 and T28 fantasy tanks, T110 hull)

The turret ingame is the M26M67 turret, which AFAIK was not the high velocity turret, but the M45 turret. You likely have the documents to prove me wrong  - as of right now however I can find no evidence that there was a similarly design turret for the M26 with less armor, which I have been searching for awhile now (literally since I had my hands on a Pershing).

kampfer91 #7 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 23:10

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16158 battles
  • 3,399
  • [AKAGI] AKAGI
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010
Uh , looks like a pershing with the derp 105 mm :blink:

Phosphorus #8 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 23:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6501 battles
  • 471
  • Member since:
    02-28-2011

View Postkampfer91, on Nov 30 2011 - 23:10, said:

Uh , looks like a pershing with the derp 105 mm :blink:

It is.

evanb90 #9 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 23:26

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 17908 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
Interesting read, as with the previous articles!

@Faustian: That is a good question actually. It's possible for them to assign armor values to the gun mantlet unique to each gun/turret. (for example, the bigger gun mantlet of the 128mm on the Ferdi provides better protection than the 88mm's)
@kampfer: the M45 is exactly that- an M26 Pershing with a 105mm howitzer.

The_Chieftain #10 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 23:30

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13795 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostFaustianQ, on Nov 30 2011 - 22:59, said:

The turret ingame is the M26M67 turret, which AFAIK was not the high velocity turret, but the M45 turret. You likely have the documents to prove me wrong  - as of right now however I can find no evidence that there was a similarly design turret for the M26 with less armor, which I have been searching for awhile now (literally since I had my hands on a Pershing).

Honestly, I have no idea how they came up with the names of some of the turrets.  I've found some that were named after the gun mounts, some named after the optics installed, some were even named after (gasp) the actual turret designations. I'm having as much fun researching their system as I am the real thing!

CriticalThinking #11 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 23:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45845 battles
  • 1,218
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011
So does this mean the Pershing will get an M45 turret option with a 105mm SPH(slightly buffed) option as well? That would be kind of cool. Either that or a M45 SPG on the tech tree, one with arty mode and direct fire sights? This is just my wishful thinking, but it would add diversity to the game and a certain 'cool factor.'

The_Chieftain #12 Posted Nov 30 2011 - 23:46

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13795 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostWolfpack_0313, on Nov 30 2011 - 23:37, said:

So does this mean the Pershing will get an M45 turret option with a 105mm SPH(slightly buffed) option as well? That would be kind of cool. Either that or a M45 SPG on the tech tree, one with arty mode and direct fire sights? This is just my wishful thinking, but it would add diversity to the game and a certain 'cool factor.'

No, the article is just an overview of the real tank since most people have never heard of it. Actually implementing it is another matter entirely.

QJW #13 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 00:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 22232 battles
  • 2,518
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
will the T23 ever come back to the game? if so when is it possibly back?

Pongo #14 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 00:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 24623 battles
  • 2,274
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010
Slight side step, but its a shame they didn't use 105mm Shermans for the DDs. Would have been a great application.

Valkeiper #15 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 00:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011
You know, this game has a few problems and many have to do with perception.

One perception is players who have never attempted to use indirect fire (or only did so at low tiers) tend to think it is 'easy mode'.

That is a major reason why there is so much misconception about arty in these forums.

Now, if tanks and TDs had an option to use 'indirect fire optics' (replace the 'sniper mode' with 'overhead arty mode') for their stock guns; a lot of this misunderstanding would vanish. Perhaps this could be a 'gold system' that would not effect the 'elite' status of vehicle.

as an alternative, maybe heavy tanks and TDs of tier four and above could have access to the stock guns (and 'optics') of arty units one tier lower (tier tens would not have the option, since there aren't any 'tier 9 arty') and mediums two tiers lower. This could be a 'gold buy' that would not effect elite status or a 'standard research box'.

The whole idea is to make indirect fire available to the rank and file Tanker and TD driver (at the loss of 'sniper mode'). It should also be noted that if and when WG ever implements an effective counter-battery system, the use of these guns would make the vehicles vulnerable the counter-battery. It is my opinion that only SPGs should be able to use the CB system even if tanks and/or TDs had the 'indirect fire' option.

I am quite sure complaints about 'too many arty' and 'arty is OP' would drop drastically.

ramp4ge #16 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 02:46

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
Hey Chief, I'll take your T26E2 and raise you a T26E4!

Posted Image

Posted Image

God I love Pershing variants. I just wish the devs would fix the low-poly spare tracks on the side of the T32's second turret.

ramp4ge #17 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 03:09

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
Oh, and Chief, you should do a write-up on the M46E1, so people know why the 90mm M36 is in the game and why the M46 has the T42/M47 turret. Lol.

Antare #18 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 03:55

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 13278 battles
  • 195
  • Member since:
    12-17-2010
That or do a writeup on the M47, the turret design intrigues me.

The_Chieftain #19 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 04:29

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13795 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostAntare, on Dec 01 2011 - 03:55, said:

That or do a writeup on the M47, the turret design intrigues me.

I have something better in mind.

WolfArcher #20 Posted Dec 01 2011 - 05:05

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6292 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    09-15-2011

View Posttrajan331, on Nov 30 2011 - 22:34, said:

I am sure they could tweak it to work.

agreed




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users