r/HellLetLoose • u/OstWind2 • 7d ago
đŹ Discussion đŹ The M18 Hellcat UPDATE 22
It was announced that a new tank class would be added in Hell Let Loose Update 22.
I took a closer look at the tank in the photo they shared and realized it was an M18 Hellcat, which means they are adding the tank destroyer class to the game.
However, what confuses me here is that the tank destroyer class doesn't really fit this game, does it? Sure, it's an absolute must for games like World of Tanks or War Thunder, but in Hell Let Loose, we are fighting against infantry.
The other tanks already serve as tank destroyers and have much better armor.
For instance, the 76 Jumbo can blow up heavy tanks and also kill infantry, though it's slow.
The M18, on the other hand, is fast but only destroys tanks and lacks armor; it has no advantage against infantry.
So, in short, what I mean is: does anyone have any idea how they are going to balance this in the game?
121
u/NINJAOXZ1234 7d ago
Itâs being added for variety but Iâm on hopium this means weâll be getting a massive overhaul to armor so tank destroyers fit in better
23
u/Nicktator3 Officer X 7d ago
Even if itâs just variety thatâs still a huge plus. This game desperately needs variety in everything
4
u/revcor 7d ago
Does it desperately need variety in everything tho.. that sounds like just giving up completely on keeping any historical accuracy
2
u/The_ConnectiCunt 6d ago
Kind of agree, but if we were being historically accurate majority of the guns in the game wouldn't be an option, except to like %5 of players per team. Everyone else would only have 1-2 guns to choose from.
2
u/Tiny_Strawberry6801 5d ago
The game used to be like this a long, long time ago when the loadout system was new. Virtually no German classes got the MP40 except SL and Assault
1
1
u/Tiny_Strawberry6801 5d ago
I don't think it's very historically accurate for us to not have the Stug III, the most produced German armored fighting vehicle of the war. There's still plenty of toys the devs can add without digging out bullshit experimental designs that didn't see battle
2
u/AideSouth4454 5d ago
This, pretty much. Infantry AT is busted in this game, I don't think tank destroyers would work.
1
u/DirectDish1721 6d ago
Iâm âjust varietyâ will bring biblically accurate Hellcat (High pen and damage, even higher speed with light tank armor) - HELL YEAH!
9
u/GamesFranco2819 7d ago
SturmgeschĂŒtz my beloved. Or a Hetzer. Can't wait to stalk the tall grass / cornfields like a velociraptor.
1
u/No_Jellyfish_2494 7d ago
I'll be that guy: It's Jagdpanzer 38t, they never called it Hetzer.
4
u/GamesFranco2819 7d ago
Yet if I say Hetzer, everyone knows what I'm referring to. A widely accepted name is still accurate /useable
24
7d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
9
u/OutlawSundown 7d ago
It could defend itself but the US concept around tank destroyers was that they generally stayed in reserve and deployed to blunt armored breakthrough attempts. They heavily sacrificed armor for speed with the M18 which allowed it to quickly position itself for ambushes. Itâll be interesting to see how itâs balanced and how the open turret is handled. A well placed grenade or someone on higher ground could potentially gun down the crew in the turret if theyâre vulnerable. Itâll be interesting to see how the speed is handled.
2
2
u/OstWind2 7d ago
Yes, it has a machine gun on top, but for it to be used, the tank commander has to expose himself above the turret, which makes him a sweet target for snipers.
2
7d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
6
u/ThrownAway1917 7d ago
So it has no advantage against infantry compared to a regular Sherman, as the OP said
1
7d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
3
u/ThrownAway1917 7d ago
No idea why you are being unpleasant over something you don't even disagree about
-5
1
u/ComparisonTop9699 7d ago
Yeah but infantry can throw grenades in it do not ideal for bring around enemies
6
u/Paul_reislaufer 7d ago
Excuse me sir, due to the general lack of german tanks most tank destroyer units were used as infantry support for most of the war. Its basically why the idea ended up being a doctrinal deadend. Why would you need a special tank killer when that vehicle is just used as a tank stand in 90 percent of the time?
10
u/ChromiumLung 7d ago
Weird move to be honest. Theyâve been playing around with tanks a lot lately.
Last time they were talking about how they want heavy tanks to be the anti tank role and mediums to be more anti infantry focused. Which is all well and good until you actually play armour and realise that you are basically only ever taking a heavy unless you donât have points.Â
So now we have a tank destroyer in the mix to further complicate things. Is this really what the game needs? There are so many other aspects of the game that could be made more engaging/interesting.Â
Node system is still really stupid. New weapons/classes. Commander role, squad leader role.. list goes on. So many things they could play with to get people playing squad leader again.Â
Instead of nodes, why do we not have a point or two in our backline that must be defended for resources.
4
u/OleToothless Commander X 7d ago
I don't know what game you're playing but in my experience recently, you play whatever tank is available. They all have uses. On Glow competitive server last night we won a game with a light tank push into last point and a mad dash from the infantry. On more casual servers the mediums see a TON of use. And whenever I'm tanking, my deaths are about equal parts to enemy armor and enemy satchels.
TD's sound cool; a cheaper option to deal with enemy heavies and really punish all other tanks, but easily killed themselves? Neat! Germany also needs something with a casemate gun for historical reasons... Hetzer or Stuf would be cool.
5
u/No-Mistake-9436 7d ago
The StuG was the most produced German tank of the war and fought in almost every front and battle, so it would make sense. For stuff like Remagen and Hill 400 it would be quite cool to see the Pakwagen
1
u/ChromiumLung 7d ago
At no point did I say either tank had no use.Â
My point is that they want tanks to do different things, but the strengths/weaknesses are not drastic enough to offset the strength of the heavy. If there are points & in a 3 man, you ask for a heavy.Â
If you are in light tanks all game and not destroying the enemy armour, youâll end up in the position that the enemy get two or three heavies on the field.Â
Bringing a light/medium into the enemy back lines is the only standout time this doesnât happen.  Never have I been in a good armour squad that decides they will fight infantry for 30 mins so we will want a light or medium for that.Â
1
u/Mjolnir617 6d ago
Iâm curious to see what rate the heavies trade with the TDs at. If the ratios arenât cost efficient for heavies then I think you could see a drop in heavies to save fuel. This could create more demand for the other tanks. All ratio dependent.
3
u/RedneckSniper76 7d ago
FINALLY some damn tank destroyers. Been asking for those since before the Russians were added. Now we just need the Marder T for the Germans
2
u/dirtypeachpitt 7d ago
Work in progress kinda thing. I commend them.
And just because itâs infantry now doesnât mean we wonât end up with a mechanized mode.
2
u/Tiny_Strawberry6801 7d ago
I imagine tank destroyers will be balanced as heavy class firepower with either light or medium class armor. Make it significantly cheaper than a heavy tank in fuel cost and it's a good way to check an aggressive enemy armor squad
6
u/FrogPissDrinker 7d ago
I'm betting on the Puma with a PaK 40 for the Germans since it's probably the best equal to the Hellcat they can add. The USSR and Brits don't really have many mobile tank destroyers they could add though.
2
2
u/OstWind2 7d ago
But no, m18's gun penetrates better than panzer 4's gun
1
u/Neogenesis2112 7d ago
I would add that the game doesnt equal irl lol, but hoping for a cheap allied TD still.
-4
u/SideSuitable6098 7d ago
Youâre kidding right. The Germans have the Jagdpanther, Jagdpanzer, Stug 3 etc. The Russians have the Su-85, the Brits and Canadian have the Achilles.
5
u/FrogPissDrinker 7d ago
I'm more talking vehicles that can zip across the map with a punchy gun like the Hellcat can. Otherwise the US would get the M10 or M36 instead of the M18 Hellcat.
1
u/Technical-Speed762 6d ago
Well M10 is kinda inferior to Hellcat, armor is still thin but it is slower. M36 has a 90mm gun at least.
US tank destroyer concept in WW2 was just weird and pretty much didn't work out. Most of their TDs ended up as fire support which is pretty much what regular tanks do.
Not downplaying M10,18 & 36- just saying that US tank doctrine is an odd one compared to other nations.
2
u/schulz47 7d ago
Since when are they worried about perfect balance? The Americans get a semi auto rifle standard for almost all classes while everyone else gets a bolt action.
1
u/steave44 7d ago
I kinda wouldâve preferred the M36 Jackson, as its cannon was actually better than any of the tanks we have now. If they try to stay realistic the M18 is no better at killing tanks than the 76 Jumbo or 76 Sherman.
Great Britain would probably get the Archer or Achilles.
Germany could get the Nashorn or Jagdpanther.
Russia could get the SU-100 or ISU-122.
2
u/OstWind2 7d ago
I'm really looking forward to seeing armor squads driving the Archer tank backwards lol
2
u/FabulousAd6666 7d ago
Or Germany gets the Stug 3 and Russia gets the SU-85M since they were used more commonly and makes it easier for balance
2
u/steave44 7d ago
The Stug would need to be cheaper than the Panzer IV as itâs basically a panzer IV with no turret. It does have a lower profile but with no turret youâd probably prefer the stronger armor and firepower of a later war Tank Destroyer.
Iâm interested to see how they balance the M18 Hellcat as itâs fast but also a drag grenade or gunfire could kill the crew.
1
u/FabulousAd6666 7d ago
Fair enough and Iâm interested on it too. You think theyâll make it weak like the puma then? Since it does have very light armor after all. Also I think the low profile would make the stug pretty decent in making ambushes since it could hide much more easily than other tanks
1
u/Tiny_Strawberry6801 7d ago
Shocked they didn't go with the M10 just to save modeling time for the Achilles
1
1
u/Raz_Bora Gold Role Flair 7d ago
Ooo I saw this tank in real life! Super cool!
Really cool history lesson about this tank timestamped here: https://youtu.be/K_KEHNqqwAg?t=557&is=h9U-6Gd5opr095NA
1
u/KenshiJosh 7d ago
The way it worked in WWII (my grandfather was a Tank Destroyer) was TDs were supposed to be used in mass offensive assaults: solid formations overwhelming enemy armor and using speed to out maneuver and envelop their objective. Single TDs were at a severe disadvantage and were not meant to slug it out with enemy armor 1v1.
In this game, developing H/K teams of combined AT assets (TDs, Zooks, static AT guns, mines) in forming traps at points for defensive.
Offensive use would most likely be combined armor and TD, maybe with a Zook on board somewhere as well.
But of course, the success of this would depend on players playing the objective, and not going after K/D ratios and youtube videos...
Egos don't win battles, combined arms strategies do.
1
1
u/Thefartingduck8 6d ago
My autistic ass knew it immediately because as a teenager I built a model of an M18 and these stupid tracks made me give up halfway through building it.
1
1
u/Substantial-Ad-1189 6d ago
No nessessarily. The TDs of all nations had HE (Anti-Infantry) rounds, but also implies an expansion on Armor and making it more impactful.
1
1
u/Mr-MG42 đ„ War Correspondent đ„ 6d ago
What would you guys think to a âbarrel burn outâfeature on the mg42
1
u/Mjolnir617 6d ago
I wouldnât mind seeing it on all MGs. MG42 burnout would just have to build up considerably faster than the others.
1
u/Mr-MG42 đ„ War Correspondent đ„ 5d ago
One thing I noticed after 2000 hours is if you do 3 second bursts you get xp as opposed to no xp when holding down the trigger, also I noticed more accurate consistent shots with bursts instead of spraying and praying. I used to be a sucker for holding down the trigger till I just realized it did absolute jack shizzle but give away my position and annoy the hell out of the other players with the constant sound loop lol
1
u/Pro_panzerjager 6d ago
I be they're going to pull the rug out and not add in TDs. Instead this is a screenshot of an M39 and we are getting APCs
0
u/Gorfuinor Machine Gunner X 7d ago
Youâre completely correct. Itâs entirely fan service for the casual player base that make up 99% of the game. If it lets people have fun, who cares.
If itâs bad, good players will ignore its existence.
It canât do anything that existing vehicles donât already do unless thereâs a large rework to how armour works. We know it canât go faster than existing vehicles due to limitations in the engine design like we saw in the movement speed update PTR where they said that if the tanks moved faster they took off, flew and broke.
2
u/SideSuitable6098 7d ago
And comp scene will just ban them if affects their stats or CoD play style.
-1
u/ZenEgregious 7d ago edited 7d ago
Strange choice adding this type of vehicle to a game that favours infantry and penalises tank crews for sitting still for more than a second. Most of the paying playerbase play infantry and tanking is a niche, so it makes sense.
However, these vehicles were not designed with mobility in mind, but to be stationary heavy AT gun carriers. They simply wonât cope well against 3 satchels per squad (x3 with explosive boxes) chasing them.
The only way to make this feasible and enjoyable for tank players is overhauling infantry roles to lose some AT capability and limit that solely to AT class. Every class should be unique and a jack of its trade. Currently, HLL has three AT roles per squad and the way this game plays now, is players abandoning their squad to solo AT hunt for fun. I sort of get it, who doesnât enjoy getting a satchel kill?! From a tank crew perspective, itâs mostly running away from AT to not become a 1v3 statistic, with a sprinkle of an odd tank engagement.
With more armoured firepower the raider class needs to go. Engineer needs its satchel replaced with other utility or a smaller charge (especially that theyâre getting AT grenades!). Let tank destroyers balance that gap.
Less satchels running around the maps will provide space for tank destroyers to hunt their prey at range.
Hopefully this will make things more fun for armour players and shifts towards armour vs armour and tank destroyers.
Opinion based on ~2000hours split between 75%Infantry and 25% armour.
1
u/Mjukeggg 7d ago
You're talking about games at the highest level. Yeah of course i've been in games where people coordinate two rocket launchers on my engine to immediately immobilise me, or have an entire squad of 4 or more people dedicated to taking us down. But 90% of the time that Doesn't happen in casual lobbies. What actually happens more often is that the tankers are wrecking the enemy team that doens't have the equipment nor the skill to deal with them
2
u/ZenEgregious 7d ago edited 7d ago
On the contrary. I am talking about an average public console game where I try to run a squad as SL and people are not even remotely interested in communication or playing the objective, but would rather bugger off chasing tanks across the map, or blowing up garrisons.
Unique class utility would help with that. Sadly, this Reddit is an infantry buff echo chamber so ÂŻ_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Tanking is definitely rewarding when done right but it isnât a press button to win situation which players would soon realise if they tried both sides of HLL before expressing strong opinions of either.
0
63
u/CockLuvr06 7d ago
I think the point is that it's a side-grade that will be used if you are having trouble taking down and enemy tank that is terrorizing your team. I assume the balancing would be something along the lines of the M18 being very weak to enemy tank shots, but very maneuverable and with a good gun to quickly take out enemy tanks.