M10s

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Maybe it's just me but M10 Tank Destroyers arn't very useful. What really threw me over the edge was when i had two M10s chase a 5% health Tiger back to its base, hitting the rear armor. Every shot bounced off and I lost both M10s.

Long story short, even for 300 manpower they don't seem very useful. I get more use hauling around AT guns. Maybe if they had long range, or were noticably superior to Shermans at hurting tanks, or something. But they seem throwaway for now. They can't compete with the tigers or panthers you need them for, even on a manpower=manpower basis.

Thoughts? Call me an idiot? Am I missing something?

[MrBigBoom]

I totally agree, I never have enough fuel or other resources to make shermans/ m26's etc., so i make one of these, I send it into battle and it gets destroyed by infantry in less than a minute. For what you get it should cost less than it does now.

[TNT]

Minimal fuel cost. Make them the mobile AT guns they are. I think the high velocity gun is underrated, because there is no way those shells would bounce off as much as they do. That tank was specialized to take out German heavy armor. Keep their armor the same, because they were weak. Their speed might need a tiny boost.

Also, give them an explosive shell ability, that would make them worthwile because they could kill infantry well. You should have to research it, and it has no cooldown... Like alternating fire modes. But it takes a few seconds to switch, and explosive rounds are utterly useless against tanks.

[Trizzdog]

Yes, I must agree. M10s just.... suck. Hard. They have no firepower, and no armour. Really, make them acually HURT the tanks they flank. As it is, they kinda zip around aimlessly like a clown car in the circus, waiting for almost anything to pop it off.

[Russian Ninja]

I don't like the explosive shells idea, that would kill it's specialisation. It's a Tank Hunter, and really should be like a counter-tank unit.

I find they work well against Panthers (abet only when you're nailing its rear) and other, lighter Tanks, but they really can't hold out against a Tiger. It needs some form of damage boost as well as extra speed: this thing is supposed to flank the tanks whilst the Germans are tearing your Shermans to bits.

[TNT]

I don't like the explosive shells idea, that would kill it's specialisation. It's a Tank Hunter, and really should be like a counter-tank unit.

I find they work well against Panthers (abet only when you're nailing its rear) and other, lighter Tanks, but they really can't hold out against a Tiger. It needs some form of damage boost as well as extra speed: this thing is supposed to flank the tanks whilst the Germans are tearing your Shermans to bits.
On thinking more about the explosive shell idea, I agree. That would distract from its specialization. Let the crocs (which are a whole 'nother matter of underpoweredness) and .50 cal shermans (dont get me started) take care of the infantry. That is, once they are good at it. :P

Personally, I absolutely love the quad .50 cal upgraded halftrack. It shreds infantry and you can reinforce troops with it. Ideal for the infantry commander I am.

[Russian Ninja]

Here would be a decent way to buff up the effectiveness of the M10: AP Ammo. In the same vein as the Allied AT Guns, give the M10 the ability to fire AP rounds for a short time at the cost of Munitions. It would give people at least some reason to keep using the M10's after the bigger tanks come into play, especially when Calliopes and Pershings hit the field for the Armoured Companies.

[Mirage Knight]

The American tanks should reflect the operational doctrine the US Army employed at the time. Said doctrine dictated that M4 Shermans were to be used as pure infantry support and mobile artillery. Tank killing was the task of the M10, and while the M7 3 inch high velocity gun firing AP rounds did a good job at countering Panzer IV's, they had a hard time dealing with the Panther's well sloped frontal armour.

Heck in real life Bazooka rockets did squat to the Panther - with the exception of the rear armour plate and lower sides.

If anything, the M10 should be replaced end game by the M36 Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_Jackson) which was armed with a 90 mm M3 gun.

Leave the M10 - it pretty much performs as it did in real life. But upgrading it to M36 specs or offering the M36 as a late game counter to Axis heavy tanks should definitely be considered.

[Epilon]

How about an upgrade that allows you to build M36s instead of M10s in the late game? All they would have to do is change the moddel, and a few stats of newly built M10s after it.

[DoltIncognito]

They aren't terribly useful, but they are cheap and fast. Their shells bounce less on heavy armor and they can usually keep away from a Tigers gun. I usually build these over Shermans because they are somewhat more effective against armor, and they both seem to die about the same to Axis tanks... as Allied, you have to get used to having shitty endgame units. It may be a shitty unit, but it works, and we don't really have better. Its advantage vs AT guns is that it is tougher, doesn't die to snipers, and doesn't get insta-gibbed by flakpanzers. Also much more mobile.

Pretty useless vs infantry tho. Sticky bombs, Bazookas, etc, will destroy them.

[Woogie]

i find them fairly useful...

they do the trick you you flank the enemy with them...

[macktheknifeau]

I used an M10 today.

It could not kill a single stormtrooper. It hit the rear of a tiger 6 times and did virtually no damage.

[Frosty]

The M10 is useful against like vehicles and early armor like Stugs or Ostwinds. Later, you can use it to support shermans. However, i think that rangers are far more effective against tanks later in the game.

[shadowcreaper]

ok m10 isnt that good ok i can get round that, but wait what it called." m10 tank destroyer" should be more like "tank tickeler" i have had times i shot a panther rear armour and done little or no dmg.

but i must add once it gains vetren ability 3 striped it much better. though it should be much better than sherman shooting wise, yet feels like it has the dmg of a pop-gun ATM

[Starfisher]

I had two M10s take down a Panzer IV today. They got two flank and rear shots, then sat shooting at the front armor until it blew up. Then they got panzershrecked and one died, but the point is, with minimal micro they do do damage against tanks.

COMBINED ARMS PEOPLE. The M10 will do damage and present another target while you sticky bomb or AT gun.

[Frosty]

COMBINED ARMS PEOPLE. The M10 will do damage and present another target while you sticky bomb or AT gun.

Yeah, but allies have to be much better at microing their units, which is just annoying. What is easier to do? Positioning one Panzer IV and giving it attack orders, or positioning 2 M10 at the flanks and meanwhile using your riflemen's sticky bombs?

[FatalTheRabbit]

I also find the M10's to be pretty lame. As axis I killed two of them with a single stug, and as allies I've learned to simply skip them and rely on sticky bombs and shermans with AT gun support.

[shadowcreaper]

the point is m10 supposed to be a "tank destroyer" not needing to have infi support when hunting tanks.

if you relate to the war books and m10 tactics you wil see that infi rarly supported the m10 it was the "lone ranger" of the tanks, infi dint support it sinse they found them to get in way and cuase more problems then advantages.

id like to quote a war story witch sums up the m10.


Audie Murphy earned his Medal of Honor during the Battle of the Colmar Pocket near Holtzwihr, France. During this battle, he climbed aboard a burning M10 "Wolverine" Tank Destroyer which was abandoned in a nearby ditch and began firing a .50 caliber machine gun at the enemy. He killed an estimated 50 German foot soldiers and turned back 6 Panzer tanks. As Audie fought this lone battle, the M10 he was on sustained an estimated three direct hits from either enemy tanks or artillery

now i wonder could he survive this in COH ? lol

[n0z3k1ll3r]

That's nice, he got lucky. The M10 had paper thin armour so I assume all 3 shots just missed anything vital.

[shadowcreaper]

the M10 he was on sustained an estimated three direct hits from either enemy tanks or artillery

direct hits means it hit his tank "directly" so the armour wasnt jap style rice paper thin, it was american thin so could stand a resonble beating

[OjKa]

rambo ftw

[Starfisher]

Frosty: Yes, it does seem like the Allies have to be much better at micro than the Axis, and this is unfortunate. I think it was a design decision to make Allies have better infantry and Axis have better tanks, with the stuff in the middle being comparable. That's my guess, and I don't know if they intended for the current micro requirements to be the case, but that's what it is. You couldn't change that now without fundamentally changing the game, and that's not going to happen.

[shadowcreaper]

Axis have better tanks

could be debatable.

[Akranadas]

I find that you have to use M10 in suprise and flanking attacks to do anything.

[Firesparks]

I had two M10s take down a Panzer IV today. They got two flank and rear shots, then sat shooting at the front armor until it blew up. Then they got panzershrecked and one died, but the point is, with minimal micro they do do damage against tanks.

COMBINED ARMS PEOPLE. The M10 will do damage and present another target while you sticky bomb or AT gun.
except you beat a paner IV, the cheapest tank in the game and the weakest on the german, with two m10 while losing one.

by late game german will be making mostly panther, even then a panzer iv can fight reasonably well with a more expensive sherman with the 76mm upgrade.

[Dalamari]

Tank destroyer shots bouncing off has to be the dumbest thing ever, if it's a tank destroyer you would expect it can HIT THE DAMN THING

[Starfisher]

And I beat a Panther + mixed support infantry with a few squads of infantry, one AT gun, a halftrack and an artillery strike. A panther costs a TON of resources. If he has several then you probably made many mistakes already.

[Tharulerme]

Well the point what everyone makes here is, is that the M10 should do more damage.
It's pretty weak, and in 1 vs 1 tank fights they are outnumbered.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Who cares if you can handle it another way defensively. M10s aren't there so you can not use them. They have a designed role, and they don't fullfil it. Allies need the M10 as an assault vehicle, but it doesn't cut it.

[DatonKallandor]

M10 isn't an assault vehicle. It says right on the tooltip that it has bad armor! Shermans are your assault vehicle, while M10 are you trump card. They are fast enough to quickly kill fleeing enemy tanks, or flank enemy tanks in combat with your sherman/s.


Daton

[Demon_Eyes]

I would deffinatly like to see an option to upgrade the M10 to an M36 in the late game, should have a fairly hefty cost to it though and would need some sort of cost or requirement that forces it to be a late game upgrade.

[Starfisher]

The M10 is there to be used as an anti-tank tank. It will not, in itself and by itself, counter tanks. You need to support it, and use it in conjuction with other things.

The game really is about combined arms. It defies the traditional RTS logic of unit/counter, and it seems a lot of people are having trouble making that adjustment in thinking.

[Trizzdog]

Personally, the combination of at guns and infantry (perhaps a sherman or 2) is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than buying a M10 to replace one of said units. I think it's one of the only vechicles in the game I never use, hell, I even use the croc myself :p

[TNT]

None of this would be a huge issue if they allowed riflemen to upgrade with bazookas later in the game (one per squad). Instead grenadiers get panzershrecks. WTF? The axis are the tank powerhouse!

[DatonKallandor]

None of this would be a huge issue if they allowed riflemen to upgrade with bazookas later in the game (one per squad). Instead grenadiers get panzershrecks. WTF? The axis are the tank powerhouse!

Riflemen have stickys. Volksgrenadiers are the axis equivalent to Riflemen and all they get is an underpowered-for-cost panzerfaust.


Daton

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Maybe Tiger rear armor is just bugged, or something.

[TNT]

Riflemen have stickys. Volksgrenadiers are the axis equivalent to Riflemen and all they get is an underpowered-for-cost panzerfaust.


Daton
Only rangers get bazookas. Standard axis troops can upgrade to an effective anti-tank weapon in their second command stage. Allies dont even have a higher-tier infantry unit unless you go infantry or airborn.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

High tier infantry really isn't all that good. Knights Cross will beat rifleman 1v1 most of the time, barring abilitiy usage...but hey, they cost more and have no anti-tank.

[FatalTheRabbit]

It sure seems like they are when you're on the recieving end, especially if you're including storm troopers in that. It makes controlling allied armor a nightmare. In fact I find myself getting a little irritated seeing how storm troopers seem to be able to take on infantry and armor. I've fought a couple in the top 10 axis and they just mass storm troopers.

[TNT]

It sure seems like they are when you're on the recieving end, especially if you're including storm troopers in that. It makes controlling allied armor a nightmare. In fact I find myself getting a little irritated seeing how storm troopers seem to be able to take on infantry and armor. I've fought a couple in the top 10 axis and they just mass storm troopers.
Whereas allies cant do s*** or close to it.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Stormtroopers are just grenadiers with a couple tricks up their sleeves.They arn't capable of taking on an armor / infantry combo, so long as that armor isn't a m10.

[FatalTheRabbit]

uhmm their rockets chew up infantry like grenades nearly...

[Frosty]

None of this would be a huge issue if they allowed riflemen to upgrade with bazookas later in the game (one per squad). Instead grenadiers get panzershrecks. WTF? The axis are the tank powerhouse!

Agree. I really have no idea why allies can't upgrade their rifleman squads with bazookas. That would avoid a LOT of trouble, when defending against Panther rushes. I don't want to have to call in a special unit like rangers or paratroopers to have a good infantry-based anti tank weapon. Rangers and paratroopers aren't cheap at all, and only effective against tanks when used in masses (which ist hardly affordable).

[FatalTheRabbit]

The paratrooper's recoiless rifle isnt really that hot anyway especially at 125 munitions.

[DatonKallandor]

If you give Riflemen bazookas, you have to fix german grenades. They are practically useless compared to the allied grenades.


Daton

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The bundled grenade is insane.

[DatonKallandor]

It also costs a bunch and is only availible for Blitzkrieg tree. But I don't mean the bundled ones. I mean stock stick-grenades.


Daton

[naradaman]

The bundled grenade is insane. Is the the assault thingy on the Blitz tree? I've tried 3 times and nothing has worked, even in range. I'm not game enough to try again.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The bundled grenade is the stormtrooper one.

I don' know about Assault Grenades. They have never ever worked for me. Although the squad does seem to gain increased combat power.

The stick grenade is kind of weak, agreed. I wager they don't want to make it too strong since allies have more troops and are weaker invidually...

Has anyone poked around in the numbers?

[2biT]

Anyone tried using M10's as a direct hard counter to Ostwinds?

Similar tech position and cost, that screams counter to me.

Once they are out of the way, you can bring superior AT infintry to disable and finish off any heavey armour.

[PuGGy]

The M10 is good against flak panzers, but its more expensive in fuel at least and doesnt really have any other uses

[DatonKallandor]

It's very fast, and perfect for quickly finishing off fleeing tanks and flanking.


Daton

[shadowcreaper]

m10 has weak shooting, it pretty lame against panthers and tigers.
wish they let them upgrade the m10 to the historical one, then we can use them more as "tank destroyers" than "tank tickels" atm.