Why is the M18 a tank destroyer?

[tickle my pickle]

It should be classified as a light tank. It has a below-average gun for its tier, and it's only advantage is its speed. This sounds like a light tank to me, not a tank destroyer.

[Katokevin]

Open top, similar sized gun found on medium tanks (later 76 Shermans), fast, lightly armored, and open top turret are all what made a US tank destroyer. They focused on mobility and speed to get into a good firing position and the open top to easily spot targets. US light tanks are still lightly armored, but often carry smaller guns (in most cases, some exceptions) but also have fully enclosed turrets.

The US simply had a different idea for what a tank destroyer was. They were there specifically hunt and destroy tanks (well, later in the war not so much hunt) while light tanks could provide infantry support while being safer for the crews as well as scouting duties.

[tickle my pickle]

No, Kato, the other GMC TD's have a new gun, being the 76 mm and 90 mm gun respectively, at the lowest battle rating of any other tank. The M10 and M36 pretty much introduce a new gun. No, the M18 is more comparable to the light tanks, the M22 and M24 for example, as it is fast and has a below average/average gun.

[Katokevin]

Originally posted by i did inbred with your mom xd:

No, Kato, the other GMC TD's have a new gun, being the 76 mm and 90 mm gun respectively, at the lowest battle rating of any other tank. The M10 and M36 pretty much introduce a new gun. No, the M18 is more comparable to the light tanks, the M22 and M24 for example, as it is fast and has a below average/average gun.

The M22 features a small 37mm M6 and the M24 the 75mm M6 (a derived version of the T13E1 which is essentially a lightweight version of the M3 found on your 75mm M4 Shermans). At the time, 76mm Shermans were not highly common compared to M18's, offering a firepower advantage over most Shermans in service. But it was not designed to frontally engage targets. Like the other TD's, they racked up high kill to loss ratios by hitting most enemies in the side, something the M18 did very well thanks to its speed.

At 5.3 in WT, it does just that. You can get to any position faster then just about anybody else and shove 76mm M62 into the sides of enemies and often wipe crews in 1-2 hits. There is a good reason M10's and M18's racked up the most armored kills durring the war for the US, and it was not just because of the gun.

[MaximeDelaroux]

The US army simply decided to call it a tank destroyer, and designed it to what they felt made it one.

The mill-of-the-run tank is multi-purpose, meaning its used against enemy personel, vehicles, bases, etc. The tank destroyer was build for the sole purpose of hunting enemy vehicles. The M18, no matter its gun, was built to be a tank destroyer, and it does its job quite well in-game.

[Scrotum Scratcher]

It was a tank destroyer in real life. In game though? It's overtiered and overrated in my opinion

[tickle my pickle]

Kato, what you just described is the roll of a light tank. I am not saying the M18 is bad people, I am just saying that its roll is 100% being a light tank, flanking. TD's are meant to rely on powerful guns to sit back and snipe, mainly.

[83athom]

So why was my post removed if people can have profile names like that?

[Katokevin]

Originally posted by i did inbred with your mom xd:

Kato, what you just described is the roll of a light tank. I am not saying the M18 is bad people, I am just saying that its roll is 100% being a light tank, flanking. TD's are meant to rely on powerful guns to sit back and snipe, mainly.

That does not apply to every nation. In the early days of the war and US armored doctrine, light and medium tanks were not really designed for tank vs tank combat. They could, but the first and specified roll was infantry supprt, specifically shown on the M4 Sherman as its HE shell was only surpassed in power by their 105mm HE. With that, they wanted a vehicle specifically designed to hunt tanks and do just that.

To get the best out of it, you needed a strong gun, light armor for mobility, and an open top for the best visability. Every nation had their intended purpose. Look at the StuG III. Most people see them as tank destroyers, but they were specifially designed at first as assault guns for fortified positions while the Panzer III's did the main AT work. The Stridsvagn 103 is classified as an MBT by the Swedish, but many would think of it as a TD.

Other examples can be found all over. If you want a really weird one, you can take the French ARL-44 as the weirdest example. In almost all regards, it's a heavy tank, but for whatever reason, the French decided to classify it as a tank destroyer. The T28/T95 went through a whole name issue due to the use of "heavy tank" and "Gun Motor Carriage" for similar reasons.

[MaximeDelaroux]

Originally posted by i did inbred with your mom xd:

Kato, what you just described is the roll of a light tank. I am not saying the M18 is bad people, I am just saying that its roll is 100% being a light tank, flanking. TD's are meant to rely on powerful guns to sit back and snipe, mainly.

I think when the US designed their TD's they had a different purpose in mind than what Germany and the Soviets had. The latter group designed their TD's more for that sniping purpose like you mentioned, and the US wanted a more mobile vehicle.

Originally posted by 83athom:

So why was my post removed if people can have profile names like that?

I hid it because it wasn't on-topic and was open for a train of off-topic discussion. We cannot do anything about names/avatars here on this forum as names/avatars are linked to Steam. If you want to report offensive names/avatars do so through the users profile rather than the forum as us forum mods will get the report and not Valve mods.

[Obamenau]

It's simply the official designation.

It's the same with the ARL-44 which is classified as a tank destroyer even though it has all aspects of a typical heavy tank.

[Obamenau]

Originally posted by Mirage:

Originally posted by Mindstream:

It's simply the official designation.

It's the same with the ARL-44 which is classified as a tank destroyer even though it has all aspects of a typical heavy tank.

But the ACL version is classified as a heavy despite being a medium at best.

Also seeing how they beefed up the UFP on the ARL compared to the ACL but then messed up the turret kills me.

Just the french being french.
I mean they thought 1 man turrets armed with sa18 guns was the way to go into WW2.

[Lain]

The Italians also classified the P26/40 as a heavy but that thing is a medium at most.

[Horcerer]

Specifically, US TD's are designed purely as defensive vehicles rather than ones used in assaults. AT fire in attacks is given by other vehicles or support items.

[Jaes]

Originally posted by Horcerer:

Specifically, US TD's are designed purely as defensive vehicles rather than ones used in assaults. AT fire in attacks is given by other vehicles or support items.

This.

The M18 was designed to plug holes in friendly lines that were made by hostile armored forces in defensive actions.

What does that really well? Something that's fast and has a gun that can defeat the armor of tanks it encounters. Something that can engage an enemy tank platoon then retreat and reposition, never taking on the enemy in an assualt action.

That's what the Infantry supported by Shermans were for.

[Eftwyrd]

Originally posted by Horcerer:

Specifically, US TD's are designed purely as defensive vehicles rather than ones used in assaults. AT fire in attacks is given by other vehicles or support items.

to be a bit more specific to the US tanks like the sherman were to support infantry in assaults against enemy defenses but not expected to engage enemy armour directly while tank destroyers were rapid reactionary forces meant to redeploy and head off enemy armored spearheads, thus the good gun (for a US tank of the time), turret and high mobility emphasis

EDIT: to quote FM 18-5, Tank Destroyer Field Manual, Organization
and Tactics of Tank Destroyer Units:

Tank destroyer units are employed offensively in large numbers, by rapid maneuver, and by surprise .... Offensive action allows the entire strength of a tank destroyer unit to be engaged against the enemy. For individual tank destroyers, offensive action consists of vigorous reconnaissance to locate hostile tanks and movement to advantageous positions
from which to attack the enemy by fire. Tank destroyers avoid "slugging matches" with tanks, but compensate for their light armor and difficulty of concealment by exploitation of their mobility and superior observation

...

Rapidity of maneuver enables tank destroyer units to strike at vital objectives, fight on selected terrain, exercise pressure from varied and unexpected directions, and bring massed fire to bear in decisive areas. Tank destroyer units obtain results from rapidity and flexibility of action rather than by building up strongly organized positions. Tank destroyers depend for protection not on armor, but on speed and the use of cover and terrain. When maneuvering in the presence of the enemy they habitually move at the greatest speed permitted by the terrain.