Best Tank Destroyer

[Venoxxis]

Nice to hear that! 

Reward units which would make a even greater line up are:

- Sherman M4 105mm for the Calliope
- Sherman Jumbo - sensefull reward? only the pershing could be replaced by a cheaper tank with quite good armour

- Comet for the british croc (panther like stats?) i guess it doesnt fit into the brits rows though

- Covenanter tank for the stuart


Cant think of german reward units yet, the jagdtiger is too heavy and about the other units i prefer to wait for the ostheer first.

Maybe just the sturmtiger as a hummel replacement, some ppl would surely love that 

[GodlikeDennis]

Personally I would never switch out ANYTHING for calliopes. IMO they're the only reason to even go armour. I could see the Sturmtiger being a pretty good replacement for the hummel myself despite loving the hummel to bits.

Also, if I'm getting this right, the sherman jumbo will be like a churchill? If so then it's probably a poor replacement for even the pershing. Something should swap out for the croc sherman.

[TacticalNuke]

Now theres an idea!

[Seeme]

Oh ok I didnt know

[Blackbishop]

IMO replacing the sherman crocodile with a more armored version of the normal sherman won't work. And I agree with GodlikeDennis about the calliope & the hummel.

[Newbie.]

And Paciat the archer was built on a valentine tank chassis which was obsolete and very weak!!!

Valentines were called Montys (Montgomeries) Staghounds becouse they chased Romels troops across N. Arfica.
Armored allmost as good as the Matilda II (a small tank with more armor than a T-34) they were upgunned to 6lbs.
Valentines can be compared to PzIII.

Archer was a better tank destroyer than Achilles - it had a lower profile. If you want a tank destroyer with lots of armor get a real tank!

I have to agree with Paciat. The Archer was a excellent tank, and it's baxckwards gun was VERY powerful [It could park in ambush, then rush off after firing without turning around] And the Valentine was a EXCELLENT tank, almost 7,000 i think, we're made, making it one of the most-mass produced Brit tanks of the war.

[Seeme]

Theres lots of wierd britsh tanks...

[AbhMkh]

Mass production does not mean that a tank is excellent!!!!!!!!

Mass production means that they had no better designs at that time!!!!!!!!!!

The valentine was an early war british tank which became obsolete in late war(the british had to take shermans from the americans)

also the no of archers produced were only 400 which doent make it  a suitable canidate for the game!!!!!!!!

[GodlikeDennis]

Says who? The berge is in the game despite being contested whether or not it even existed at all. Ostwinds are in with their low unit numbers. Pershings are in despite only appearing at the VERY end of the war.

It's not a realism mod, it keeps with the cinematic feel of vCoH. So it will keep the hollywood feel of Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers/Enemy at the Gates and will put in whatever seems like an interesting unit.

[Seeme]

How many tigers were made? Answer that first.

[Paciat]

Mass production does not mean that a tank is excellent!!!!!!!!

Mass production means that they had no better designs at that time!!!!!!!!!!

The valentine was an early war british tank which became obsolete in late war(the british had to take shermans from the americans)

also the no of archers produced were only 400 which doent make it  a suitable canidate for the game!!!!!!!!

Mass production of Valentine tank means that it was better than Crusader and Matilda II tanks. It remained in production until April 1944.

As Ive said before Valentine can be compared to PzIII.
PzIII was obsolete in 1944. That dosnt make StugIII obsolete. UK didnt produce Archers much becouse it was a defensive weapon while they were attacking.

... why are you yelling so much?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Seeme]

YES, WHY ARE YOU YELLING!!, THERES NO NEED TO YELL.

[AbhMkh]

1. I'm not screaming

2. @ Paciat you are right that the valentine can be compared to the panzer3 but only in terms of armament ,panzer 3 had slightly better armor

3. Valentine served only in the African campaigns and became obsolete later with the intro of the churchill and shermans


4. The african threatre was the early stages of the war , the real tank action was seen on th eastern fronts and the western fronts


@ Paciat why the hell do you give history lessons when we are talking about practicality of an unit

Are you british or what??

[Paciat]

1. I'm not screaming

Finally.

2. @ Paciat you are right that the valentine can be compared to the panzer3 but only in terms of armament ,panzer 3 had slightly better armor

If it had "slightly better armor" than it can be compared.
57mm had "slightly better armor" penetration than the german 50mm.

3. Valentine served only in the African campaigns and became obsolete later with the intro of the churchill and shermans

It was produced till april 1944 so it had seen a lot of action. Including Eastern Front.

4. The african threatre was the early stages of the war , the real tank action was seen on th eastern fronts and the western fronts

Desert warfare was all about tanks. Whats not real about Tobruk or ElAlamain?

@ Paciat why the hell do you give history lessons when we are talking about practicality of an unit

Becouse COH units are based on history.

Are you british or what??

British no. Allied yes.

[Werwolf]

Are you british or what??

Paciat is Polish. Poles were officially on the Allied side (truth be told, their commanders barely tolerated each other), though there were some who fought in the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, including more than a few officers (Poland actually had the best Officer Corps before the war and during the early stages; most of them were liquidated by the Soviets, but the mass graves were discovered by German troops---ironically, Poland's "friends" the Allies denied/covered up the entire incident during and after the war and burned all reports pertaining to the event). Anyway, that's the end of that.  Nationality is of little relevance to this discussion, unless you want to start a flame war.

The Valentine was a pretty decent tank (I actually suggested a captured lend-lease version before as a reward unit to replace the Pz. IV "Stubby") which had good armour characteristics, decent mobility, and an effective gun for a tank of its size. However, it was NOT a tank destroyer, and neither are the Cromwell, Churchill, Pz. III and Pz. IV either, so this argument is off-topic. The Firefly, Comet and Archer tanks were deployed and (mis)used more often like up-gunned medium tanks by inept Allied strategists, so they would barely qualify as TDs IMO. Therefore, my choice would be the Nashorn...which had the longest range, a high kill-ratio and was deployed (defensively) in large numbers on the Ostfront. Second place goes to the SU-85.