What a bullshit..
1. I could understand when rangers are doctrinal. But removing all long barrled (sherman) tanks from all US docs. You must be kidding. Its like removing all long barreld tank IV´s from all docs but BK doc.
76 shermans are currently much more comparable to Panzer IV F2. In terms of pen chance against each other but also in terms to medium AT gun resistance (where iirc the F2 is still better)
2. Let hellcat out here. The Chance for axis TD´s like Hetzer to kill a Pershing is just as good (or take marder III). Even easier as those benefit twice from doubled penetration since they shoot twice from ambush. Thus they also deal twice 50% more damage+ their AP boost the damage unlike US one.
So i can easily claim that killing pershings with hetzer and AP is easier as to kill a tiger with Hellcat.
3. The majority of unlocks in armor doc aims for buffing shermans and vehicles. I am not counting CP´s, just the ammount unlocks. Here, KT and perhaps Tigers take 2 unlock slots. Just like pershing and SP. But the core are shermans (unlock, mass prod, variants, ammo, war machinery, faster experience etc etc).
So yes, 76 shermans and shermans in general need to get better.... Rate of fire, perhaps pen, armor.... They are core units in one doc and max tier tanks in two more. in BK Tank IV´s are less core units... they can tier even higher)... the mass prod also makes the ostwind cheaper... so that unlock becomes not usless in late game when you dont bulld tank IV´s anymore.
get this straight.
and last but not least... the chances on hand held at now makes friendly armor support more important then ever. And AB and inf do lack it. TD´s arent good for closer frontline support...
Tiger1996 wrote:If you compare the 76 Sherman with Pz4.F2 for example, both of them almost cost the same.. right? However, there are some "differences" which makes you feel that you are using a "different" weapon... And that leads to a more realistic feeling.
Pz4.F2 has slightly higher rate of fire, but 76 Sherman has top MG gunner (with suppression ability) and also has slightly better penetrating against heavier Axis tanks... Does this seem unfair now?? I think it's already fair enough.
argh... honestly.... i wouldnt care a shit whether its 34 or 30 % pen vs Tiger.
I dont give a shit how good a 76 is against a tiger.... 20%, 30%.... i dont fucking care.
I care that Shermans taking a loss, even at same cost and superior gameplay, whenever they face a tank IV or stug...
And 2 sec faster reload isnt "slight"!
Didnt you notice that this means that even a vet 4 sherman is just as fast in reloading as a standard Tank IV? There is nothing "slight about it"..... Its 25-30% faster. This is not "slight"
Tigers are killed usually by other stuff, just as pershings. Its not that you sit there and say "Oh, Tiger, i build many shermans to counter it". You get AT nests, off maps ready, jacks, whatever fuck.....
What is shit is that you go for 76 bc.... bc yeah... why? That i have a 30-40% win chance against a unit my 76 is supposed to be a counter against.
Like when a Jagdpanzer IV/70 has a 40% chance to beat a Churchill MK IV.
And stop coming arround with that top gunner stuff. I wont be able to use it when my tank dies to the next ambushed 50 mm.... i can just as well build HE shermans to counter inf. I need 76 for fighting at the front against comming targets, which does not mean tigers. I talk about stugs, tank IV´s and perhaps TD´s at occassion.
Whats so hard to get this straight? Why always coming arround with pershings and tigers?