The M10

[A176]

Strategies and other usefulness for this unit, plzkthx.

[Tyro]

I usually don't use it at all. :S

[Mac_Bug]

use it when you can't have enough fule to keep up with sherman cranking

[Demon_Eyes]

Better anti-tank damage output for cost than a sherman, use it to flank enemy tanks, do not use it like a sherman, it doesn't have much HP or armor :)

[Marwynn]

Really, I've gotten miffed at the AT guns' slowness so I've used this as very mobile AT guns. Keep it away from everything else and shoot, shoot, and shoot.

If it only had AP rounds...

But either way I manage to lose them rather quickly.

[Someguy]

I usually try to do a shoot and fade tactic with the M10s, but it's difficult with high deflectioin. I'm curious what the next balance changes will be for the m10 in the next update.

[Soldier of Dest]

I normally use the M10 together with Rangers. Together they rock - killed many Panthers :devil:

[TNT]

Get a sherman/pershing to "tank" while the M10 runs around the side and wtfowns it in the back. M10s can also stay out of a tiger's gun if you are good at micro.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

I've only found one way to get any use out of this, which is to build it in a ratio of about 2 shermans to 1 M10 and then send the M10s behind the enemy after the Shermans engage. They do about the same damage, are cheaper, and if the enemy turns to fight them then they get Sherman guns tearing up their rear armour.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The only m10s I ever get are the swarms that come with Off-Map Combat Group.

[NovaBurn]

I find that the m10s cost too much fuel to warrarnt their use in combat. I get more survivability out of shermans than that of a M10.

[Demon_Eyes]

The combat group is random though, sometimes you will get armored cars ;)

[Boomstar]

There very quick there good for chasing down retreating armor or using them with shermans (or rangers) while the m10 scoots around the back. Or if your low on fuel.

[TheLoneKnight]

One on one, the M10 can take out most Axis tanks (okay, mostly Tigers), I've found. They just need to get close before the Axis tank actually shoots them. After that their mobility can generally keep them from getting pounded by those big german guns.

Unfortunately Axis vehicles are rarely alone and there isn't always enough room to maneuver (though ducking behind a building just before that tiger fires helps sometimes), resulting in the M10s uselessness. Myself, I can't find much of a use for it. It's cheap, yeah, but armoured cars are cheaper and seem to do almost as much damage. :p

[Soldier of Dest]

Hmmm I can't agree with most of u.
M10 are very useful for me.
When they come along with my Rangers+Bazookas they kickass everything :D

[Turtle]

Anyone here try using the M10 as a replacement for the allied AT gun? The M10 costs slightly less resources at 300 as opposed to 310, it does cost fuel, but as the allies for some reason I always have an abundance of fuel.

They're more mobile than the AT gun, and don't have to reset the gun if the enemy strays out of range, it'll just turn the turret. They're less vulnerable to infantry ambushes too, since they can quickly retreat.

Not sure about surviveability, though. I'll have to experiment with it next time I play.

[TheLoneKnight]

The Allied AT gun can load penetrator shells that will punch straight through the front armour of a Tiger.

The M10 is lucky when its shots don't ping off of the rear of a Panther. :p

[jus7addwater]

M10's are very useful when you use themw ith infantry because they force the axis player to buidl extra units to deal with your force he can't just spam out flak panzer and hope to win. You use your m10 to kill the flak panzers and your infantry to mop up the enemy tanks:sniper:

[Marwynn]

Anyone here try using the M10 as a replacement for the allied AT gun? The M10 costs slightly less resources at 300 as opposed to 310, it does cost fuel, but as the allies for some reason I always have an abundance of fuel.

They're more mobile than the AT gun, and don't have to reset the gun if the enemy strays out of range, it'll just turn the turret. They're less vulnerable to infantry ambushes too, since they can quickly retreat.

Not sure about surviveability, though. I'll have to experiment with it next time I play.
Been playing with it and frankly I like my AT guns. But I think I'm going to work in an M10 in there. With a primary infantry force backed up by AT guns and a pair of M10s you should be flexible enough to handle anything.

I'm picking up the M10s primarily as a counter against the Flakpanzers, and something more mobile for the heavy armour.

Strange thing happened in a recent game, I put 2 stickies on a Stug with like a milimetre of health left and it took them both and kept on fighting (and burning). Killed two halves of two Ranger squads too, absorbing several of M9 shots, before an M10 rolled around and plinked it. A sign from the Beta Gods?

[DoltIncognito]

For purely anti-armor, they are more cost effective than a Sherman. But other than anti-armor, they have no use... Shermans become more effective than them with a gun upgrade, but are still effective against infantry.

[MirvShag]

jus7addwater (member.php?u=76847)! Bingo! I rarely hear that but you are 100% correct. Combined arms. Put a sherman or a M10 with u'r infantry and the flakpanzer is done.

Yet very few due and cry when their infantry only force gets owned. The flakpanzer is there to prevent MASS allied infantry assaults because they are unstoppable unless u have a flakpanzer. Believe me or not, I've seen it.

[Woogie]

still prefer At guns anyday over the crappy M10's

there armor is just too weak and you cannot flank the enemy's because its VERY rare you will come across small groups of axis armor.... to be able to flank them effectivly..

besides AT guns can shoot hella far... get a sniper in near there tanks... place your AT's about a screen and a half away and they can still pound the axis armor.. if they start to move forward move your AT back and move shermans forward then set your AT's up again at the rear of your shermans...

problem is you end up pounding your own shermans as much as them when this happens :(

[jus7addwater]

well the big thing that happens is whena german player techs to panzer command they useally skip there other building and skip over troops, by that tiem allies usally have 3 or 4 rifle men and 2 or 3 ranger/airborne squads runnign around. Or if they are amor they ahve light armor all accross the map with infantry. but the first thing to coem out fo a panzer is useally a flak panzer and an m10 is cheaper and faster to produce and the minute its on the feild the flak panzer is rendered useless to atatck any group the m10 is currently with. Then the german player has to wait for reasorces and even with reasorce blitz he has to really get snipers and more squads to handle infantry and if they are at that stage they don;t have the munitions to supply ST with anti armor or infantry abilities. :drive:

[turbo]

Strange thing happened in a recent game, I put 2 stickies on a Stug with like a milimetre of health left and it took them both and kept on fighting (and burning). M10 rolled around and plinked it. A sign from the Beta Gods?

had a greyhound who survive 5-6 panzershrek shots even though the health bar was nearly empty, so there's some kind of bugg maybe lag?

[jus7addwater]

i ordered 5 infantry quads to panzer 1 sherman every shot hit but zero damage and i shot from 3 different angles.

[aerziel]

just read something about the M10 here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_Wolverine


The M10 was numerically the most important US tank destroyer of World War II. In its combat debut in the North African campaign, the M10 was successful as its M7 3-inch gun could penetrate most German tanks at long range. The heavy chassis did not conform to the tank destroyer doctrine of employing very light, high-speed vehicles, thus it began to be supplemented by the 76mm Gun Motor Carriage M18 early in 1944. Later in the Battle of Normandy the M10's gun proved to be inadequate against the frontal armor of the numerous German Panther tanks encountered and by the fall of 1944 the improved 90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36 was beginning to replace it, though it remained in service until the end of the war. In the Pacific, US Army M10s were used for traditional infantry-support missions and were unpopular due to their open topped turrets. The Japanese tactic of very close-in infantry attacks against US AFVs made the M10 much more vulnerable than a fully-enclosed tank.

so basically they were usless in the war too. I think would be better if the M10 can be upgraded into the achilles variant but I just found out about this so meh.

[TheLoneKnight]

So the M10 used to have an awesome gun but because it didn't "feel" like a tank killer, they took everything that made it great away? What the fuzz?

[aerziel]

Im sort of confuse with your post Loneknight?

[jeansberg]

Well, Im sort of confused by your conclusion that they were 'useless' in the war.

The M10 was numerically the most important US tank destroyer of World War II. In its combat debut in the North African campaign, the M10 was successful as its M7 3-inch gun could penetrate most German tanks at long range.

[aerziel]

at first yes but after reading some more post about the m36 the m10 was replace because they couldnt handle panther V and panther VI (tiger) tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_Jackson

heres the m36 that the US was trying to use to replace the m10 during the german campaign

I have to admit when relic said historical accuracy they werent kidding

wow can relic put this in the expansion maybe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

[jeansberg]

Yeah. I've been reading Wiki articles about the M# tanks, today as well. :)

WW2 games certainly don't lack material, what with all the variations/modifications of vehicles and whatnot that took place.

[aerziel]

just wondering why relic never implemented the m36 variant to fight against the tiger ace

[Soldier of Dest]

just wondering why relic never implemented the m36 variant to fight against the tiger ace

I quess they wanted the Pershing for that role(?) :confused:

[Woogie]

and the pershing comes no where near close enough to fulfilling that role either

[shadowcreaper]

the pershing is rarely seen anyway on the battle field, most game usealy last 15-45 mins long anylonger and you either realy bad or your opponent owning your attacks lol

[Mac_Bug]

it's called expansion pack

[Oryhara]

wow can relic put this in the expansion maybe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly
Don't all your Shermans get upgraded to Fireflys when you get the gun upgrade? Or does the Firefly have a different gun?

[BlackLabel]

The Sherman "firefly" (invented by the british) is exacly a upgraded sherman as the game shows it.

[MadCatChiken]

I always use the upgraded gun... it pwns. Another great thing from us brits..... we wtfpwnzor you americans.!!!!:focus: I don't really use the M10 now cos it can't even do what its supposed to... Destroy tanks... a Stug and pwn it easily.

[strategery]

M10 is a bit of a tricky unit. It does destroy tanks quite well, but it by no means can trade front armor shots all day. The problem is, like it's real life variant, it has a larger gun at the cost of thinner armor(thus the open top turret). The best thing to do is use their relatively cheap cost(by comparison of the sherman) and crank out a few of them. M10s have to outnumber their target and use concentrated fire from their larger gun to really be effective.

1 on 1 it'll get trashed by just about everything.

[rfisher983]

When you have your M10 face the axis AT guns, is there a way to keep your tank *MOVING* around the AT gun with out manually doing to each time ?

[Firesparks]

Don't all your Shermans get upgraded to Fireflys when you get the gun upgrade? Or does the Firefly have a different gun?
the sherman upgrade in the game is actually just the 76mm, a slighty more powerfull gun compared to the standard 75mm

the firefly only saw service with the common wealth force, as the 17 pounder (76.2mm) is a purely british weapon. However, the 17 pounder is regarded as the best allies at gun, able to defeat the frontal armor of even the tiger or the panther in one hit.

don't let the diameter of a gun fool you, as the guns on both the sherman and the panther has a 75mm, but the panther obiviously has more power.

[strategery]

When you have your M10 face the axis AT guns, is there a way to keep your tank *MOVING* around the AT gun with out manually doing to each time ?

Not that I'm aware of. You have to micro them behind the AT gun yourself.

[MadCatChiken]

THis is a bit off topic but what exactly is micro managing?


MCC.:chicken:

[strategery]

Micro Management is the art of telling your units to do something they won't do on their own.

For example trying to get your M10 around behind an AT gun. It obviously won't do this on it's own, so you have to issue move orders that will land it behind said AT gun. Thus micro-manageing the unit.

[MadCatChiken]

K thanks.


MCC.:chicken:

[ÜberJumper]

Hold down shift and issue a series of move commands for the M10 and it should circle.

[MadCatChiken]

nice i didn't know you could issue a series of commands...

[Demon_Eyes]

Yup, you can stack commands on anything really, building defensive stuff, moving, attacking. Comes in really handing building defenses as well :)

[aerziel]

just curious is there a way for not holding a shift button but still be able to do the series of commands?

[ÜberJumper]

Not that I'm aware.

[Kolath]

Some more excerpts from the wikipedia article on the M4 Sherman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman_tank):



Preface: Doctrine Stephen Ambrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Ambrose) states in Citizen Soldiers that, in accordance with U.S. Army doctrine at the time, the tank was designed to help infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry) exploit a breakout rather than to engage in armor vs. armor combat. In defense, Allied armies deployed infantry anti-tank guns, tank destroyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyers), artillery fire and airpower to wear down the German armor before launching an armored counter-attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-attack). In armored offense, American commanders were able to bring overwhelming numbers and airpower to bear.

The United States Army was influenced by the perceived actions of German tanks in the 1939 Polish Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_September_Campaign). The popular conception in the US was that tanks had been used boldly as part of a new system of war called Blitzkrieg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg). According to US doctrine the role of defeating German armour fell to tank destroyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer) such as the M10 Wolverine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_Wolverine) rather than the medium tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_tank).

Although the US Combined Arms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Arms) team included exceptional close air support, artillery, and engineer components, the tank component was weakened by the Tank Destroyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Destroyer) concept. This is most closely identified with the Chief of Army Ground Forces, General Leslie McNair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Leslie_McNair) who believed towed 57 mm AT guns, hand-held Bazookas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazookas) and thinly armoured Tank Destroyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Destroyers) to be superior to friendly tanks for fighting enemy tanks. Under this doctrine, tanks were supposed to avoid tank-vs-tank combat as much as possible, leaving enemy tanks to the tank destroyers. In actual combat, McNair's doctrine led to US tanks having weaker guns and less armor protection than their German counterparts, and in the narrow confines of much terrain in Normandy could not avoid one-on-one encounters with German tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer).

It does seem that Relic was at least partially true to history with their design of the allied armored and AT forces.

[Stinger]

I play a game called Combat Mission it's a hyper realistic WW2 game.
All the facts in that game are researched and correct. The M10 has an excellent gun in that game. It's penetration is top notch (not quite up to Panther standards but not far off) and in a realistic game like Combat Mission, even if the M10 has thinner armour, if it gets to fire the first shoot the fight is ususally over.
This thing will slice through side armour of a Panther and even a Tiger any day of the week. Off course it all depends on range and so on.

Fact is that in several missions in Combat Mission the Sherman is NOT the big cat killer but is more often used as a support weapon for the infantry while the M10 does all the big tank killing. Exception is off course the upgraded 76mm Sherman who does a bit off both.

Someone mentioned that caliber doesn't matter much in penetration in WW2 , and that is usually correct. Length of the gun is however crucial.

Just my 2 cents.

//Stinger

[DatonKallandor]

CoH places gameplay highter than realism and rightly so.


Daton

[Stinger]

I agree...I play Combat Mission and Company of heroes for different reasons. Combat Mission is more slow and suspensefull , while CoH is more actionpacked and visual.

I love them both for what they are, I was just trying to say that maybe the M10 should have a boost to it's firepower because it really could deliver a deadly shoot IRL.

//Stinger

[Demonic Spoon]

Gameplay comes first, for obvious reasons.

However, this game is insanely realistic even considering that.