the jumbo is weak

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 28 Nov 2018, 00:35

Viper wrote:
but 75 jumbo should stay in infantry doctrine. or the doctrine will be very weak.

Forgot to answer this:

Really? I refuse using Jumbo in inf doc bc it felt absolutely stupid for me to use such a tank in an infantry doctrine.

You need to crush defenses?
We got pretty good infiltration squads, artillery (now with 8 shots per barrage for howitzer), the 105 sherman (which i dont know why its limited to one), VT ability for spotter and off maps, early calli jeep.

You need to kill inf? Use captain and call the 7 men rifle squad, Ranger HMG, simply snipers and normal shermans.... hell everything in inf doc kills infantry.


So whats the point here? The Jumbo provides nothing essential infantry doctrine lacks currently.



Shanks wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:Puh :roll:

Yes, ambushes shall kill and stop enemies, true. But then the enemie develops not only tactics, but also units and weapons to overcome them.
People started building fortresses? Others started using canons.
The defender started using anti tank guns in massses from ambushes? The attacker invented tanks with armor that could withstand them.
The churchill was some sort of "answer" to axis 50 mm (anti-tank) guns. The sherman was later also well enough armored to withstand 50 mm guns at ranges frontally. The 62 mm armor was 62 mm bc the 50 mm couldnt overmatch the armor plate anymore. The 57 mm anti tank gun was btw the other way arround and having 57 mm to overmatch the 50 mm armor of tank III and IV´s (which had 50 mm bc most anti tank guns were 37-47 mm in calibre like 2 pdr gun)

The Tiger was an answer to the 42 onwards anti tank weapons and tank guns such as 57 mm (churchills) and 75 mm (sherman) guns. Both the first churchills with their 101 mm armor and Tiger Tank didnt provide enough protection against 43/44 weapons such as the long axis 75 mm L/48 guns (that also overmatched most sherman armor).
In 1944 they upgraded churchills with MK VII with 152-172 mm armor in order to protect the tanks against the then mainstay anti tank and tank weaponary such as 75 mm Pak 40/Kwk40 etc. The Germans came up with King Tigers as the normal Tiger wasnt up to its main task anymore in 44 as breakthrough tank against defenses and to withstand ambush anti tank guns.
And the Jumbo was definitely a design of 44 that should withstand the then present anti tank weapons such as kwk/Pak 40.
The Axis upgraded their 88 mm gun to L/71 and even the panther gun was supposed to be lengthened to 100 calibre length (L/100) but didnt made it into service.


So when you say that a 17 pdr punches holes into a Tiger then its correct bc the Tiger was the answer to 75 mm and 57 mm guns. (Developments however begin with expecations of enemie gun improvments and not when the enemie already got a better weapon... at least usually, not always). The 17 pdr in contrast was the answer to Tigers while the KT was the answer to 17 pdr and other high performance anti tank guns.
So the Jumbo might be something in between Tiger in KT. Designed to withstand maintstay anti tank weapons up to normal 88 guns, not so much the longer 88 gun. The KT armor was enough to withstand any western ally anti tank gun (However russian ISU 100 was very powerfull).


excellent explanation, but in BK is a bit difficult to balance this unit (but if it was with the SP, I do not think there are many problems with the Jumbo). If the Jumbo is more stronger against 88 mm for example (I say "more" , because recently there was a case where the Jumbo destroyed a 1v1 tiger, and the first shot of 88 mm with charged AP bounced, and it is not the first time in my experience), the most likely is that the panther can not easily deal with the (in fact, i destroyed the luft panther with the Jumbo on several occasions, although we know that it is the weakest panther, but even so the Jumbo can pierce the Panther armor "G" too, and if you have more armor with the Jumbo could definitely destroy the Panther "g", and not only that, the Stug and the PZ "H" would no longer be rivals for the Jumbo), that I want mean is that the Jumbo should no longer be called only by MP, and I think that would complicate things again in armor doc




Ok, lets put it simple:

Tiger: Max 3 CP total (1 CP for Tank IV H/J and 2 for Tiger) and cool abilites, esspecially with vet. Can get ambushed and killed by 17 pdr guns (and 76 guns with HVAP etc). Very good armor protection against 57 mm and 75 mm guns. Reasonable good vs 76 guns, weak vs 17 pdr and 90 mm.

Jumbo: 7 CP, 760 - 780 MP/ 100 fuel. 75 mm Jumbo as reward for current build cost. Can withstand 50 mm and 75 mm L/48 guns very well and can also withstand Tiger and Panther shells (same as now). Can get ambushed and Killed by Panther guns and 88 mm /L71 guns can kill it quite easily.

King Tiger: 7 CP total (assuming it comes directly after Tiger and thus also 7 CP to unlock and not after Panther). Can withstand pretty much every gun allied can field. Exception SP. 90 mm guns can kill it but its still a tough target. Ambushed 90 mm guns with HVAP are your best bet, 17 pdr can also do the job with APDS rounds but not always. Its pretty much a roling fortress.



I dont see why this should be impossible to balance or unbalanced. I did mention that jumbo would no longer be a call in.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby kwok » 28 Nov 2018, 05:59

I don't think the jumbo is weak per se but it is definitely meta compared to the current trend of Axis. I think post armor changes from the beta, we will see a meta change especially in armor combat. We are finally moving away from Axis always rushing heavy tanks and investing in medium tanks. In the prior meta, it was always important to rush pershings/jacksons to counter the tiger/panther rush. But with armor changes (and the painful development of luft meta), we will see more stugs/hetzers/medium tanks. This may have incidentally revealed the jumbo's vulnerability to mediums which were often found "OP" against the 50mm that were meant to use off against tanks until the panthers/tigers.

That being said, does this mean jumbos should be buffed now that we better know what can/cannot pen it? Not sure yet because the meta is still evolving. Maybe the issue isn't the jumbo but the cost of other tanks like the regular 76 shermans? Maybe the jumbo is fairly priced as being able to absorb multiple hits while a 76 sherman goes for the flanking maneuver, but this isn't done today because the 76 sherman is too expensive for a tank that can be 1-2 shotted. Afterall, are 76 shermans even meta? I'm not saying this as a balance suggestion, I'm saying that maybe we haven't found the bigger picture yet and it's too early to tell when we expect a meta shift coming soon with a patch release.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 28 Nov 2018, 12:17

I don't see a reason overall to diverse 75mm and 76mm into AI, and AT purposes. I mean, 76mm could be multi-role tank, such as Pz4 H and I hope it would be with .50 cal buff. Upgrade in the tank depot for the 76mm makes players decide, if they want go full 76mm Shermans to be able fight with the mediums and heavies, or use specialized vehicles, like 75mm Sherman and M10.

While 76mm overall needs to be more mobile as it was in RL, keeping it fragile in game.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2537
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby MarKr » 28 Nov 2018, 16:11

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:I mean, 76mm could be multi-role tank, such as Pz4 H and I hope it would be with .50 cal buff.

Isn't it the case already? 75mm Shermans are basically only anti-light vehicle with the basic ammo and anti-emplacement + anti-infantry with HE mode. So it doesn't have capacity to reliably counter medium or heavy tanks (even from rear the chances are quite low). On the other hand the 76mm Shermans have basic ammo which is somewhat effective against tanks (yes, yes, I know "not realistically strong" and whatnot but still a lot better than 75mm) can increase the efficiency with AP ability + have HE shot ability for the situations when you need to get rid of infantry or do some damage to emplacements. So if it combines Anti-tank, Anti-infantry and anti-emplacement capability, isn't it a "multi-role" tank already? Or what is it missing for the multi-role status?
Image

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 28 Nov 2018, 16:45

MarKr wrote:
Mr. FeministDonut wrote:I mean, 76mm could be multi-role tank, such as Pz4 H and I hope it would be with .50 cal buff.

Isn't it the case already? 75mm Shermans are basically only anti-light vehicle with the basic ammo and anti-emplacement + anti-infantry with HE mode. So it doesn't have capacity to reliably counter medium or heavy tanks (even from rear the chances are quite low). On the other hand the 76mm Shermans have basic ammo which is somewhat effective against tanks (yes, yes, I know "not realistically strong" and whatnot but still a lot better than 75mm) can increase the efficiency with AP ability + have HE shot ability for the situations when you need to get rid of infantry or do some damage to emplacements. So if it combines Anti-tank, Anti-infantry and anti-emplacement capability, isn't it a "multi-role" tank already? Or what is it missing for the multi-role status?

Top HMG that shreds any infantry on sight!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 28 Nov 2018, 20:31

kwok wrote:
That being said, does this mean jumbos should be buffed now that we better know what can/cannot pen it? Not sure yet because the meta is still evolving. Maybe the issue isn't the jumbo but the cost of other tanks like the regular 76 shermans? Maybe the jumbo is fairly priced as being able to absorb multiple hits while a 76 sherman goes for the flanking maneuver, but this isn't done today because the 76 sherman is too expensive for a tank that can be 1-2 shotted. Afterall, are 76 shermans even meta? I'm not saying this as a balance suggestion, I'm saying that maybe we haven't found the bigger picture yet and it's too early to tell when we expect a meta shift coming soon with a patch release.


Can we pls get rid of this "Allis couldnt do anything but flanking" mythos?

Flanking was always a good strategy, esspecially vs superior enemies and it was common tactics of all factions of the war and thats how axis won their Blitzkrieg early in the war with tanks that were far weaker than their opponents and using combined arms tactics.

I mean its not like each faction gave crap to their soldiers by purpose like: "Sorry, we could deliver better stuff but we want you to flank the enemie, sorry."

So in order to fix what you said:

76 mm Purpose: Killing medium tanks (sadly it barely does that job). Sadly for the crews the gun was too weak to pen Panthers and heavies reliable frontally but had a chance to do so.

Sadly in BK it doesnt do this very well.


Jumbo Purpose: Be the best armored tank (lets take SP aside) in the US armor arsenal. Can withstand most common german anti tank guns very well.
Depending what gun you chose (jumbo variant) you are either better in dealing with armor or infantry/emplacments.
Sadly in BK the Jumbo doesnt do that job and is more a "rush for it tank" and being "once usefull" type of unit like MK VI churchill.


So pls stop with "Idk what the jumbo is made for to 100% and if its good or not. Perhaps it shall be able to survive a few more hits while the 76 flanking horde is going for its rush."

This being said the 76 is not too expensive. The "five sherman vs one axis tank which causes 4 shermans to die at least while the last one flanks the shit out of the enemies ass" is bullshit, we are not in russia and even those didnt made it by purpose but rather due to lack of experience, equipment, lack of tactics etc early in the war.

If the 76 would confront tank IV H/J and outclass it by a small margin (not saying to be immun and unkillable by these tank IV´s) all would be fine.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 28 Nov 2018, 22:00

everyone here is giving ideas to improve the tiger and the jumbo (although in my opinion the jumbo is very good now, it does not have many problems for lidar vs. PZ H or Stug, which is good, according to my experience it should not be improved ... but if most feel that it is weak, in any case, my suggestion is is that you can called a second Jumbo), but the main question is ...Any developer is interested in some of the suggestions made here?...Maybe Wolf, Markr or Panzerblitz?..because if we just start debating, we would only be spinning in circles, if there is no strong response from some developer, something like "we could probably improve this or that in the next beta"

MEFISTO
Posts: 37
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby MEFISTO » 28 Nov 2018, 23:45

The main problem here with the jumbo is not the main gun or penetration or his armor( it is very strong against Stugs IV, PIV all of them medium German tanks)(for a good price) also as Markr. said if you buff his main 76mm gun you will buff all Allies 76mm guns; so the problem here is that when the jumbo comes to the field the Germans have or are close to have Tigers or Panthers and you spend ALL YOUR CP IN HAVE A MEDIUM ARMOR, I remember when some years ago the Jumbo comes first the calliope it is a good idea to come back or reduce the CP to get it in order to have a Jumbo in the field before German get the tigers or panthers. Another idea is to move the Jumbo to the heavy tanks CP unlock line (before the the Pershing) like WH where they unlock for example (PIV_ tiger_ Panther) Avoiding to cut heavy tanks CP line (developers can figure it out how to balance it).
Also I remember that they increase the CP to have the (Random Call-In) BK doc in 1 or 2 CP, I can't remember.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 117
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Walderschmidt » 29 Nov 2018, 01:40

^I agree with that.

Jumbo is like the Tiger only worse, because you don't unlock the Pershing after it. You have to unlock a completely different branch to get it.

As for the Tiger, I wish it wasn't in the game, it's so useless to me right now.

Wald

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 29 Nov 2018, 01:47

ah, whatever. Jumbo is supposed as a breakthrough tank but it cant do it very well (i think thats clear now) and is more effective as anti tank tank.

It should also not be in "heavy tank line" and clearly should clearly distinguish from pershing line. The upper line in the armor company is more the anti tank line where you scale up the guns and get tanks designed to counter enemie tanks or to deal with them.

The part to the lower left is the sherman line with all unlocks needed to overcome defenses with shermans. You get more of them bc they get cheaper, you get an arty variant and finally the jumbo to push the advance. There is no more need for an anti tank tank when you can get pershings. This tank is there to overcome defenses and to push the attack, not to engage panthers and stuff, even though it can do so. As i said, it should be somewhere between tiger and KT in terms of armor and the average medium tank firepower.

And there is no reason to "bring jumbo back before panther comes". Thats bullshit.

I dont get why you guys sit so fucking strong on this silly Tank comparision and reduce the entire game down to a handfull tanks, usually tigers and panthers. Thats plain stupid. Panthers and tigers main job is not to deal with jumbo bc you can get other docs with nashorn and stuff that can do the job.
The Jumbos job is also not to deal with panthers and tigers bc for that you get 90 mm guns, 17 pdrs from brits, anti tank emplacments and if necessary M10 and hellact.
So do me this little favour and stop watching the game with your "Tiger eyeglasses". The Jumbo needs to become a unit that can withstand defensive fire from 50 mm and normal 75 mm guns like pak 40, hetzers and stugs, not to be thrown primarily against tigers and other tanks in tank to tank combat.


If the tiger would be avaialble for 3 CP in total (and perhaps cool abilties and the one or other support unlock for the late games) and jumbo for 7 CP, not call in and instead buildable and able to bounce 75 mm L/48 guns decently, all would hopefully be fine i hope.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 29 Nov 2018, 11:39

Warhawks97 wrote:ah, whatever. Jumbo is supposed as a breakthrough tank but it cant do it very well (i think thats clear now) and is more effective as anti tank tank.

It should also not be in "heavy tank line" and clearly should clearly distinguish from pershing line. The upper line in the armor company is more the anti tank line where you scale up the guns and get tanks designed to counter enemie tanks or to deal with them.

The part to the lower left is the sherman line with all unlocks needed to overcome defenses with shermans. You get more of them bc they get cheaper, you get an arty variant and finally the jumbo to push the advance. There is no more need for an anti tank tank when you can get pershings. This tank is there to overcome defenses and to push the attack, not to engage panthers and stuff, even though it can do so. As i said, it should be somewhere between tiger and KT in terms of armor and the average medium tank firepower.

And there is no reason to "bring jumbo back before panther comes". Thats bullshit.

I dont get why you guys sit so fucking strong on this silly Tank comparision and reduce the entire game down to a handfull tanks, usually tigers and panthers. Thats plain stupid. Panthers and tigers main job is not to deal with jumbo bc you can get other docs with nashorn and stuff that can do the job.
The Jumbos job is also not to deal with panthers and tigers bc for that you get 90 mm guns, 17 pdrs from brits, anti tank emplacments and if necessary M10 and hellact.
So do me this little favour and stop watching the game with your "Tiger eyeglasses". The Jumbo needs to become a unit that can withstand defensive fire from 50 mm and normal 75 mm guns like pak 40, hetzers and stugs, not to be thrown primarily against tigers and other tanks in tank to tank combat.


If the tiger would be avaialble for 3 CP in total (and perhaps cool abilties and the one or other support unlock for the late games) and jumbo for 7 CP, not call in and instead buildable and able to bounce 75 mm L/48 guns decently, all would hopefully be fine i hope.



Every time you talk about the "Jumbo", you talk about "Narshon and Hetzer", but it turns out that WM does not have "Narshon or Hetzer", maybe something similar like the L / 48 .. so please, whenever I look for balance , I'm talking specifically about WM vs. USA, osino could say, "105mm easily ends with Narshon", maybe something like the "Priest", or, the "Achilles is very effective vs the Panther" G "of terror", and each Once you mention any unit of PE, I could mention units of the British that do a lot of damage to WM, 17 pdr, comet, priest, etc etc, or could say, "the hetzer no longer has flanking speed, you can destroy it with bazuka more easily ", etc etc

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 29 Nov 2018, 14:12

Shanks wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:ah, whatever. Jumbo is supposed as a breakthrough tank but it cant do it very well (i think thats clear now) and is more effective as anti tank tank.

It should also not be in "heavy tank line" and clearly should clearly distinguish from pershing line. The upper line in the armor company is more the anti tank line where you scale up the guns and get tanks designed to counter enemie tanks or to deal with them.

The part to the lower left is the sherman line with all unlocks needed to overcome defenses with shermans. You get more of them bc they get cheaper, you get an arty variant and finally the jumbo to push the advance. There is no more need for an anti tank tank when you can get pershings. This tank is there to overcome defenses and to push the attack, not to engage panthers and stuff, even though it can do so. As i said, it should be somewhere between tiger and KT in terms of armor and the average medium tank firepower.

And there is no reason to "bring jumbo back before panther comes". Thats bullshit.

I dont get why you guys sit so fucking strong on this silly Tank comparision and reduce the entire game down to a handfull tanks, usually tigers and panthers. Thats plain stupid. Panthers and tigers main job is not to deal with jumbo bc you can get other docs with nashorn and stuff that can do the job.
The Jumbos job is also not to deal with panthers and tigers bc for that you get 90 mm guns, 17 pdrs from brits, anti tank emplacments and if necessary M10 and hellact.
So do me this little favour and stop watching the game with your "Tiger eyeglasses". The Jumbo needs to become a unit that can withstand defensive fire from 50 mm and normal 75 mm guns like pak 40, hetzers and stugs, not to be thrown primarily against tigers and other tanks in tank to tank combat.


If the tiger would be avaialble for 3 CP in total (and perhaps cool abilties and the one or other support unlock for the late games) and jumbo for 7 CP, not call in and instead buildable and able to bounce 75 mm L/48 guns decently, all would hopefully be fine i hope.



Every time you talk about the "Jumbo", you talk about "Narshon and Hetzer", but it turns out that WM does not have "Narshon or Hetzer", maybe something similar like the L / 48 .. so please, whenever I look for balance , I'm talking specifically about WM vs. USA, osino could say, "105mm easily ends with Narshon", maybe something like the "Priest", or, the "Achilles is very effective vs the Panther" G "of terror", and each Once you mention any unit of PE, I could mention units of the British that do a lot of damage to WM, 17 pdr, comet, priest, etc etc, or could say, "the hetzer no longer has flanking speed, you can destroy it with bazuka more easily ", etc etc



Do you even have an idea about axis armament and weaponary? It doesnt seem so.

The gun hetzer uses is pretty much the same or similiar as Pak 40, kwk 40 and stuk 40. Thats means that all these units are very similiar (pak 40 was slightly stronger than kwk 40 75 mm L/48.

So WM does have this weapon.
Def doc also has access to Panther canons with its Jagdpanzer IV/A. Terror and Def doc have also access to the long barreld 88 mm L/71 Nashorn uses. Its mounted in the King Tiger and Elephant. So dont say bullshit like "WH does not have access to this or this weapon" or dont try to put it like Wehrmacht has no guns strong enough to punish jumbos.

So it doesnt matter whether these particular units dont exist in WM, they do have access to the guns. And if armor doc bothers you and your BK/Terror doc (the only doctrines you keep talking about), just try a doctrine designed to handle armor doc.



So my whole point is that the Jumbo was specifically designed to withstand 50 mm and 75 mm L/43, L/46 and L/48 guns (pak 39, pak 40, kwk 40, etc) but it doesnt do that.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 15:55

Guys, i think you need to get some more research regarding how the M4A3E2 could stand up in front of Panthers, Tigers etc...
Our jumbo might need « maybe » some adjustments indeed, among others tanks.
The Jumbo wasn’t indestructible at all and its 76mm gun wasn’t a miraculous weapon in front of big cats, far from it, i don’t even talk about the early 75mm gun version who was pretty much useless in front of Panthers tanks, the Panther for example could take down any Jumbo frontal armor at a range of 500 meters, this is just an exemple... its also very true that the Jumbo could "bounced" frontally much more shells very often, especially on the frontal angled hull armor.
The Panthers 75mm gun had more chances to pierce the Jumbo armor than the Tiger I (shorter) 88mm gun, except if the hits were on the turrets ports or hull gunner port, all long barreled 88mm (KT, Jagdpanthers etc...) were dealing with pretty much anything in front of them, including Jumbos.

We are currently checking that and maybe come with some kind of new tanks organization later, its in discussion.

Historical informations in combats regarding the US sherman 76mm gun against Panther tanks:
Spoiler: show
The numbers advantage gave the Allies a strategic edge, but it didn’t make Sherman tank crews feel any better when they had to face heavier German tanks on the battlefield. Most Sherman tanks had 75mm and 76mm cannons that usually failed to penetrate the thick front armor of panzers such as the Panther or Tiger tanks at most ranges, whereas German 75mm or 88 mm cannons could penetrate the thinner armor of Sherman tanks from the front at long ranges. The sense of being outgunned and vulnerable led many U.S. tank crews to call every German tank they faced a “Tiger” and every anti-tank gun a dreaded “88”, even though German combat records showed that U.S. tanks in those specific encounters were usually facing weaker types of German armored vehicles and anti-tank guns.

Sherman tank crews paid the price in blood to learn how to deal with the German Panthers and Tigers by using the Sherman’s mobility to maneuver into a position where they could fire upon the weaker side and rear armor of the German tanks. But they still encountered frustrating scenarios such as the one faced by Sgt. Francis Baker, commander of Sherman tank with an improved 76mm gun, during a battle with German Mark V Panther tanks on Nov. 20, 1944, as recounted in Zaloga’s book.

“Ordering my gunner to fire at the closest tank, which was approximately 800 yards away, he placed one right in the side which was completely visible to me,” Baker wrote. “To my amazement and disgust I watched the shell bounce off the side. My gunner fired at least six more rounds at the vehicle hitting it from turret to the track. This German tank, knowing that I possibly would be supported by a tank destroyer, started to pull away. I was completely surprised to see it moving after receiving seven hits from my gun.”


Some datas for informations: these infos are calculated on effective penetration rounds, in combat, not all rounds could penetrate or hit the targets, lack of precision, deflections and bouncing rounds were very commun, check here for more exemples of how in real life, shells could perform:
Spoiler: show
To put more perspective on accuracy of British APDS at that time, I would note that the British Army’s own test results, obtained by two 17pr-armed Sherman Firefly tanks in September of 1944, were no better. These results and comments were published in Warrant Office Reports WO 291/1263 and WO 165/135 dated 22 September:

400 yds
APC hit 90.5%
APDS hit 56.6%

600 yds
APC hit 73.0%
APDS hit 34.2%

800 yds
APC hit 57.3%
APDS hit 21.9%

1000 yds
APC hit 45.3%
APDS hit 14.9%

1500 yds
APC hit 25.4%
APDS hit 7.1%

These tests were conducted against a Panther Turret-sized target. Still, the results show a rather disappointing accuracy for the APDS rounds.


M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo":
139mm hull
101mm glacis plate
150 mm Turret
177mm gun manlet

76mm penetration max at 500 meters:
93mm with Armour Piercing Capped M62.
109mm with Armour Piercing M79.
157mm with High Velocity Armour Piercing M93 ***High-Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition, standardized as M93, became available in August 1944 for the 76 mm gun.


Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger "Tiger I":
100mm hull
100mm Turret
120mm gun manlet

88mm penetration max at 500 meters:
156mm with PzGr.40
110mm with PzGr.39

Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther":
Hull-80mm(sloped)=150mm
110mm Turret 110mm(sloped so it was up to 140mm in LOS)
100mm Gun manlet(rounded)

75mm KwK 42 penetration max at 500 meters:
174mm with PzGr.40/42
124mm with PzGr.39/42


In conclusion regarding Bk mod, i don't think our Jumbo is that far from reality, it could be tweaked in price, values maybe, but it is fairly realistic in PvP gaming currently, its all depending if you will encounter Panzer IV with your Jumbo, or The Panther tank...
Attachments
cda644a5dff45e4b09b6727a2f3162e6.jpg
90b73a0e1bd595d01b7fc721d2a6b319.jpg
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 18:06

I love how suddenly only panther gets "sloped" armor, and the fact that shermans armor is also sloped is completly ignored

152.png

161.png


Sherman's hull has actually around 150mm of effective armor too, same as turret. Turns out that if u want to make jumbo realistic, axis would HAVE TO use apcr to get any chance to pen it frotally.

Panzerblitz1 wrote:76mm penetration max at 500 meters:
93mm with Armour Piercing Capped M62.
109mm with Armour Piercing M79.
157mm with High Velocity Armour Piercing M93 ***High-Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition, standardized as M93, became available in August 1944 for the 76 mm gun.



"While the 76 mm had less High Explosive (HE) and smoke performance than the 75 mm, the higher-velocity 76 mm gave better anti-tank performance, with firepower similar to many of the armored fighting vehicles it encountered, particularly the Panzer IV tank and StuG assault gun vehicles. Using the M62 APC round, the 76 mm gun penetrated 109 mm of armor at 0° obliquity at 1,000 m, with a muzzle velocity of 792 m/s. The HVAP round was able to penetrate 178 mm at 1,000 m, with a muzzle velocity of 1,036 m/s."

I dont know how did u find your data, but it's wrong.

Panthers armor u wrote here is also wrong:

145.png


It's around 150mm for hull.

Conclussion
Jumbo kills tiger effortlessly (no APCR needed) at 1000m, while tiger cant do shit at that distance, even with APCR (only 138mm of pen at 1000m)
Jumbo also can pen Panther turret at 1000m and hull too with APCR, while panther has a chance to pen it without AP only at 500m
Last edited by The New BK Champion on 29 Nov 2018, 18:25, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 18:23

The New BK Champion wrote:I love how suddenly only panther gets "sloped" armor, and the fact that shermans armor is also sloped is completly ignored.


Really? thats why i don't post often on the forum, where did you see that the Jumbo didn't had sloped armor? did you read my post?

Stop being a fan boy here, you start to piss me off.

Here the penetration table of the US 76mm gun.
Attachments
Capture.JPG
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 18:26

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
The New BK Champion wrote:I love how suddenly only panther gets "sloped" armor, and the fact that shermans armor is also sloped is completly ignored.


Really? thats why i don't post often on the forum, where did you see that the Jumbo didn't had sloped armor? did you read my post?

Stop being a fan boy here, you start to piss me off.


Here

Panzerblitz1 wrote:M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo":
139mm hull
101mm glacis plate
150 mm Turret
177mm gun manlet


Being straight with facts is fanboying xD? Lol man just lol

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 18:27

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
Here the penetration table of the 76mm gun.


FOR 30 degree slop man....


Wrong armor u give for panther is also faboying or am I just an asshole that try to piss you off constantly?

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 18:49

yes and? its because i didn't note the Panther sloped armor effectiveness and all penetration datas at "30°" that you must jump on me and text walling the post? where did you see any wrong datas here?

In combat the only 100% efficient guns who could deal with the Panthers at all ranges were the the Soviet 122 mm A-19, 100 mm BS-3 and US 90 mm M3.

The US 76mm wasn't that efficient on the Panther, READ my post, and yes the Panther upper glacis is ~140/150 mm armor effective thickness, so?
Image

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 29 Nov 2018, 18:51

@Hawks... lol always changing the subject ... just try not to talk so much about PE please...now it turns out that you want the Jumbo to be able to fight the elephant, or maybe you talk about the 88 mm emplacement that are easy to destroy now...is it ok that the panther and the L / 70 can deal with Jumbo ... or you want an indestructible unit? ... besides, not all armor doc is just the "jumbo" ... you need to understand my point..lol

yser
Posts: 29
Joined: 10 Aug 2017, 02:18

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby yser » 29 Nov 2018, 18:58

a cmo stug danger for evrey thing even to the m26 :D :D
i mange to kill jumbo ez by cmo stug 3 shoots idk if that luck but happend many times that stug kill my jumbo :cry: :cry:

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 18:59

Panzerblitz1 wrote:where did you see any wrong datas here?


Panzerblitz1 wrote:M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo":
139mm hull
101mm glacis plate

150 mm Turret
177mm gun manlet

here
Panzerblitz1 wrote:76mm penetration max at 500 meters:
93mm with Armour Piercing Capped M62.
109mm with Armour Piercing M79.
157mm with High Velocity Armour Piercing M93 ***High-Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition, standardized as M93, became available in August 1944 for the 76 mm gun.

here
Panzerblitz1 wrote:Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther":
60mm Hull-80mm(sloped)


here

You compare Axis penetraion at 0 degrees with 76 degree penetration at 30 degrees. You give sloped values about axis, but unsloped about allies. Need more examples?

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
In combat the only 100% efficient guns who could deal with the Panthers at all ranges were the the Soviet 122 mm A-19, 100 mm BS-3 and US 90 mm M3.

The US 76mm wasn't that efficient on the Panther, READ my post
Last edited by The New BK Champion on 29 Nov 2018, 19:02, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 19:01

The New BK Champion wrote:Conclussion[/u][/b] Jumbo kills tiger effortlessly (no APCR needed) at 1000m, while tiger cant do shit at that distance, even with APCR (only 138mm of pen at 1000m)
Jumbo also can pen Panther turret at 1000m and hull too with APCR, while panther has a chance to pen it without AP only at 500m


Yeah, tell that to Sgt. Francis Baker on Nov. 20, 1944 who shot with his 76mm gun 7 times with his gun a Panther SIDE at 800 yrds wihout scratching its paint... there is a lot of combats history and books concerning the 76mm sherman gun performance versus big cats, and it wasn't good...at all.
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 19:05

Maybe ask Sgt. Francis Baker to manage this mod then xD

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 19:12

The New BK Champion wrote:Maybe ask Sgt. Francis Baker to manage this mod then xD


Funny guy...

The Panther 60mm thickness was a typing error, don't know what happens here, but yes of course the original thickness is 80mm sloped for 150mm armor effectiveness, but thats not my point, if you see a typing mistake you tell me, you just don't jump on me like you did, im not your F@ punching ball here dude.
Second all my datas are for 30° sloped armor, US and Germans.
Attachments
Captureg.JPG
gth.JPG
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 19:19

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
Second all my datas are for 30° sloped armor, US and Germans.


In conclussion Jumbo kills tiger effortlessly (no APCR needed) at 1000m, while tiger cant do shit at that distance without APCR.
Jumbo also can pen Panther turret at 1000m with standart AP and hull too with APCR, while panther can do the same to jumbo.

Panzerblitz1 wrote:if you see a typing mistake you tell me, you just don't jump on me like you did.


How do I know you made a typing mistake, or knowledge mistake? Am I supposed to ask you each time?
Last edited by The New BK Champion on 29 Nov 2018, 19:22, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest