![:guyokay: :guyokay:](/images/Smileys/okay.gif)
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_xb9d4zmhrE/ToEkBCiNmZI/AAAAAAAAAEM/HSsFpFYJ3Is/s200/closeup_of_teenaged_girl_crying_with_head_in_hands_10019088.jpeg)
Posts: 2819
Posts: 177
Permanently Banned
Didn't you tell the exaxt same shit when people predicted the western front? You did.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Didn't you tell the exaxt same shit when people predicted the western front? You did.
Posts: 177
Permanently BannedPosts: 13
Permanently BannedPosts: 177
Permanently BannedWhat about the Sherman M4A3E2 (Jumbo) as a new heavy tank?
Posts: 13
Permanently BannedPosts: 3293
Posts: 177
Permanently BannedPosts: 65
Posts: 65
Posts: 177
Permanently BannedThe problem with the Pershing, and as far as I can remember I'm paraphrasing Noun here from one of the latest streams, is that it's just unrealistic to include it.
I really haven't heard any good reasons why they wouldn't add it with all the user demand.
Posts: 65
I see a lot of top community members being very firm that there will be no Pershing as if they have some insider information. If that is the case, can you explain why the US was given a heavy skin if not to have some kind of heavy tank fill that role sometime in the future?
I really haven't heard any good reasons why they wouldn't add it with all the user demand. At the right price, CP level, and pop cap (if they solve this issue for US) any unit can become balanced.
The tank was actually used late in the war and saw some combat. It's not like it was strictly a prototype tank.
Posts: 1702
And that was a crushing letdown for me and quite a few others as unique eastern front feel went down to shitter.
Last thing I want to see is unique feel of armies go the same route.
Also, there is a quote on the blog stating specifically there will be no pershing or chaffee, but they have use their engine sounds for OKW vehicles.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I see a lot of top community members being very firm that there will be no Pershing as if they have some insider information. If that is the case, can you explain why the US was given a heavy skin if not to have some kind of heavy tank fill that role sometime in the future?
I really haven't heard any good reasons why they wouldn't add it with all the user demand. At the right price, CP level, and pop cap (if they solve this issue for US) any unit can become balanced.
The tank was actually used late in the war and saw some combat. It's not like it was strictly a prototype tank.
Posts: 3293
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Posts: 110
Posts: 247
Asking for pershing is like asking for soviets to have wehrmacht tiering system.
It just will not happen. Deal with it.
Posts: 65
That is exceptionally easy to explain.
Because the code is already there and what good would it do to remove it just for a single faction?
One of the reasons would be: there was a total of 0 pershings during battle of bulge, which USF are based on.
First pershing have seen the combat only after the battle of bulge(and let me say this again, USF are based on US forces during Battle of bulge, not earlier, not later, exactly that, same for OKW).
Whooping 20 of them have seen any action.
Makes as much sense as including IS-3 tank, because one regiment have seen action on far east.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
442 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
18 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
17 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
10 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
2 |