My Thoughts on USF Anti-Tank Structure...

Just out of curiosity, why do zooks need to be as bad as they are currently? Is it for fear of rifle blobs being too good against all targets? I find them to be ok at killing light vehicles like Pumas and half tracks and what not and when combined with at guns they are mildly effective at discouraging flanks from medium tanks but they're not even remotely scary for anything bigger.

Even then, they seem to miss and bounce off of p4 frontal all of the time. Putting a zook on anything but an RE gives up a lot of AI power and currently the trade off seems really underwhelming. When I put a shriek on a volks, I always feel it's worth it, when I buy a zook I often feel I wasted munis.

Historical basis probably. Unfortunately CoH tanks lack the attributes that made bazookas effective against them. Tigers are mass produced and a panther's side armor is half frontal half rear while the turret is never hit.

It's actually kind of the embodiment of why US AT has a hard time (and axis against soviet heavies to a lesser extant). There's a mechanical bias towards things like heavy tanks that emphasis their strengths (1280 KT health pool!) and outright ignore their flaws. Flaws that allowed shermans to be 8.4 times more effective than a panther when on the defense for example.

You would be correct about the two, the puma variant however didnt leave the factory though if I remember right. However the 5cm gun is capable of penning 69mm at 100m. The Sherman had 51 mm of hull frontal armor. Either way, the Sherman was too thin and the German guns could pen it. The hellcat can only pen so much and the panther was one of the heaviest armored tanks in the war.

Wikipedia quotes spielberger that there were 101 5cm pumas built compared the the 89 pakwagens built.

The sherman actually had pretty significant frontal sloping, about equivalent in effective armor to the T-34. The 5cm realistically had little effect on the T34 and sherman and was quickly abandoned because of that.

You would be correct about the two, the puma variant however didnt leave the factory though if I remember right. However the 5cm gun is capable of penning 69mm at 100m. The Sherman had 51 mm of hull frontal armor. Either way, the Sherman was too thin and the German guns could pen it. The hellcat can only pen so much and the panther was one of the heaviest armored tanks in the war.

The 51 mm armor is angled at 56 degrees, simulating armor that is substantially more thicker. 100m is not a far distance in tank combat anyways, and the 5 cm 234/2 was not built in mind to combat medium tanks at all. It was a reconnaissance vehicle, after all. The pak wagen, however, was capable of doing so, but it had a very limited amount of space for ammunition since, well, its a car. It also made the puma much heavier and had to be driven slower and more carefully. Both had a decent amount produced, and served their roles very late in the war.

Besides the point, the Hellcat would indeed be fast enough to flank Axis tanks and hit them reliably from behind at least (im not expecting it to pen a panther's front more than 50% of the time) since it is a death wish to try with anything else.

The call for a hellcat is funny. War time M18 where armard with 76mm AT M1A2 gun. The M36 was armed with the 90mm M3 gun. If the later war 90mm M3 gun on the Jackson for the USF in game can not pen the front of a Panther (btw was historically had one of the best front plates of any tanks in the war) then how would a historical 76mm AT m1A2 pen a panther? The hellcat was lighter and faster...but thats it. The Pershing came to late in the war to play a major roll; however, it was armed with a 90mm just like the jackson. Thus how would it theoretically fight better in the game?

BTW......Ik napalms videos, my games were with my good buddy Naplam thank you very much. Furthermore, zooks work great in the game when used in mass and on the weak points of tanks. The combo of zooks/at guns/supporting jacksons does do wonders. Replays can be provided if you need help understanding this concept.

Two words. Rear Armor. A Hellcat was the fastest thing on treads in WW2. If they made it properly here it could flank. The M10 does an OK job as it is for its cost. The M18 should be faster and pack a slightly bigger punch.

For all the touting of maneuvering the Devs did and the flexibility USF is lack luster in the speed department. A Jackson has the Target Size of a Panther and is just slightly faster. Ever so slightly. So it begs the question why isnt it just a Panther clone? That would probably do better honestly.

I want the Hellcat because I want something that not even a Puma can escape. That Permablitzes around the Battlefield to allow flanks that you can actually survive to escape from as USF. If you flank with a Jackson its not going to make it back alive.

I mean whats the point of how the Devs balanced the rear armor of the Heavies if you can almost never exploit it?

A lot of the problem comes from the vehicle design in COH2. The vehicle side has no "side" armor, it is a 50% chance of being front armor and a 50% chance of being rear armor. This actually makes it a pretty poor model of real combat.

In real life, flanking or ambushing a Panther and shooting it from the side even with the regular US tank guns would penetrate. That means you only have to get somewhat to the side (not completely perpendicular or to the rear) to the Panther to nit side armor, which was weak. In COH2 even if you are well past the 90 deg. markt he Pnather has a 50% chance of using "front armor" for its penetration calculation.

50cm Puma - only 100 of these were ever made. If it had been effective against Allied armor I am sure you would have seen a whole lot more of these made.

For all the touting of maneuvering the Devs did and the flexibility USF is lack luster in the speed department. A Jackson has the Target Size of a Panther and is just slightly faster. Ever so slightly. So it begs the question why isnt it just a Panther clone? That would probably do better honestly.

Jackson is slower (6.5 speed vs 6.6) but has higher acceleration (2.5 vs 2.4). Basically a wash, except Panthers have their vet 1 rocket boosters.

Flanking with Jacksons is a terrible idea anyway. They are way too fragile and one mistake = burning wreck. They also have no getaway ability of any kind, unless you want to count Sherman smoke for some reason. They are much inferior to Panthers for this, or even T-34/85s who have least have some durability to help them.

This wouldn't be that big of an issue if zookas were useful in flanks, as a synergy. But their penetration and accuracy is so piss poor you pretty much have to park your infantry on the ass of a heavy tank for them to have any sort of effectiveness. This simply doesn't work in a normal game.

Flanking with Jacksons is a terrible idea anyway. They are way too fragile and one mistake = burning wreck. They also have no getaway ability of any kind, unless you want to count Sherman smoke for some reason. They are much inferior to Panthers for this, or even T-34/85s who have least have some durability to help them.

This wouldn't be that big of an issue if zookas were useful in flanks, as a synergy. But their penetration and accuracy is so piss poor you pretty much have to park your infantry on the ass of a heavy tank for them to have any sort of effectiveness. This simply doesn't work in a normal game.

Well of course it is. But my point being A lot of folks want to act like the Jackson is some sort of speed demon. It was nicknamed the Slugger for a reason. But in coh2 slugger has a glass jaw.

The HPs or the Pen need to go up. I really don't understand why the unit has so much going against it. I really wish M10s were non doc so you could just spam the crap out of them every game as who cares about 20 less pen when you can actually flank with the thing.

Hellcat would really be welcomed if they did it right and made it cheap enough.

Flanking with Jacksons is a terrible idea anyway. They are way too fragile and one mistake = burning wreck. They also have no getaway ability of any kind, unless you want to count Sherman smoke for some reason. They are much inferior to Panthers for this, or even T-34/85s who have least have some durability to help them.

This wouldn't be that big of an issue if zookas were useful in flanks, as a synergy. But their penetration and accuracy is so piss poor you pretty much have to park your infantry on the ass of a heavy tank for them to have any sort of effectiveness. This simply doesn't work in a normal game.

This. Both the USF and the soviets are woefully lacking in any kind of effective infantry based AT. It's a big part of why the German late game so drastically out classes the allies.

The 51 mm armor is angled at 56 degrees, simulating armor that is substantially more thicker. 100m is not a far distance in tank combat anyways, and the 5 cm 234/2 was not built in mind to combat medium tanks at all. It was a reconnaissance vehicle, after all. The pak wagen, however, was capable of doing so, but it had a very limited amount of space for ammunition since, well, its a car. It also made the puma much heavier and had to be driven slower and more carefully. Both had a decent amount produced, and served their roles very late in the war.

Besides the point, the Hellcat would indeed be fast enough to flank Axis tanks and hit them reliably from behind at least (im not expecting it to pen a panther's front more than 50% of the time) since it is a death wish to try with anything else.

Saying something penetrates at 100 meters is not a feat.


The Poles were experimenting with a tank destroyer variant of their TKS tankette that would have been able to penetrate Panther side armor from 300 meters.



The biggest issue for me is that AT platforms for infantry have this odd issue- all of them historically were effective against anything short of a King Tiger yet in game your AT rifles and bazookas will mostly just bounce. Panzershreks are perfectly capable though for whatever reason (purely a gameplay statement, I know why they were good historically.)

50cm Puma - only 100 of these were ever made. If it had been effective against Allied armor I am sure you would have seen a whole lot more of these made.

In real life, the Puma's gun was meant to give it an advantage against other armoured cars and light tanks.

I think multiple things that would otherwise make the USF fun is lacking.

Abilities: Not a lot of them are uninspiring per se, but also many of the good ones are found in unis that you wouldn't use very often, or in many situations, which spoils the versatility theme they are supposed to have.
Take for example the Stuart's abilities, they are pretty good, even if they cost munitions that make fielding them a risk. If more USF tanks had similar abilities that are offensively based like the PzGr 39 stun round or abilities that aim to do critical hit damage. The Jackson is meant to be the heavy hitter vehicle so we can expect its special ability to be just do more damage and penetration, but most of the typical line up of units meant to support it lack such abilities: the closest are riflemen's horrible AT rifle greande ,which not only does not home and has a much lower chance of critical, but can be messed up by the vehicle being too close so the action is cancelled. The Stuart's abilities fit the complementary role, but it's light armour makes it highly un-ideal for tank engagements, at least when you compare the sort of role the StuG has compared to the Panzer4, and both to the Panther and Ostwind, etc. So it is not just the mere lack of durability for USF units- their abilities also make them poor components of a working team.
This, I think, is one of the reasons why USF players shift the brden of work more often to infantry which can at least be versatile in the sense that you can upgrade with with any proportion of bazookas or BAR/LMGs. The problem with THAT however is that since they were nerfed, there was no opposing buff or other changes that made USF vehicles more relevant in their stead. This nerf attempt then backfires: since there are no better alternatives, the only REAL solution for USF players is to rely on blobs even more.
Most of the more useful special abilities available to the USF player are in the hands of infantry and their upgrades/ doctrinal unlocks; most of the more relevant vehicle abilities are found in light vehicles requiring their use and increased micro as the game scales into the later stages where Panzers start rolling out. As a whole the USF faction is not versatile outside a very few select units (infantry), and the rest are very specialized while also being fragile.

Units: Since abilities don't make the necessary units very useful in their roles, it is only natural for the community to want more units to fill the gaps they perceive. This is why people want things like Pershing: it allows them to use units in a manner they find more appropriate for any tactical player. The Sherman is the closest to a meatshield tanker unit, but it sucks against whatever the Germans can throw as an equal; to make things worse, the only doctrinal unit that is better is the Easy Eight, and that is only sporting the 76mm gun, not better armour like those of the Tiger. But even new units wouldn't necessarily solve the problem, and part of that reason is because the way USF is designed, any new units worth their weight would simply make certain others obsolete (not to say that never happens in the other factions: any armour-based Soviet doctrine pretty much replaces the T-34/76), which may not always be the best idea. The Easy Eight for instance replaces the need for the regular Sherman, even if the E8 is slightly (or marginally) less effective against infantry, but of course choosing a commander just for one of its units isn't always a good idea.

Commanders: one of the most obvious routes to a solution is to imply create more USF commanders. WFA in general has no new commanders since June 24th, since then new Ostheer/ Soviet commanders were created. Abilities and units could really help with the USF situation.

Id love to see the m18 hellcat more than pershing

It would basically be a superfast weaker EZ8. that will consitantly penetrate

Did i mention is would be cheap most likely? Making it VERY spammable.

Another thing I forgot to mention: Veterancy

As of date, USF vet levels don't really help much with units' ability to perform their needed roles, especially when it comes to infantry dealing with tanks. The most common modifiers are accuracy and rate of fire (and the vast majority, vet1 just unlocks an ability).
None of the veterancy abilities really help against anti-vehicles, just generic rate of fire/ accuracy improvements. If special abilities were given however, that are dependent on the weapons being used that might actually introduce versatility among your units.
An example would be an ability called "Optimal Range" that given to squads then they are equipped with bazookas; like the LMG-only Defensive Stance, this greatly improves penetration capability of bazookas: the downside is that overall range of the unit is reduced. Naturally, this can be complemented by squads being outfitted with BARs and other weapons.

The pumas meagre 5cm gun could not penetrate sherman or T-34 frontally at all. At all.









Hell, the 5cm gun couldn't even penetrate the t-70 from the front...





EDIT : Gave the correct image

The biggest issue for me is that AT platforms for infantry have this odd issue- all of them historically were effective against anything short of a King Tiger yet in game your AT rifles and bazookas will mostly just bounce. Panzershreks are perfectly capable though for whatever reason (purely a gameplay statement, I know why they were good historically.)

Relic has this particular hang up about allied handheld AT weaponry for some reason, it was the same in the last game.

And at the same time they have this obsession with making the panzershrek super effective and having the Ostwind in every game...

snip

You accidentally put the Jackson gun vs a P4 as the second picture instead of 5cm vs T70

Burts that's not a very good argument regardless considering according to that same website, a ZiS-3 Anti-Tank gun cannot penetrate a Panzer IV Ausf. G frontally, nor could the M1 57mm. I agree the Puma was an odd choice, there's a lot about the new faction designs I'm not satisfied with. I suppose in time I'll just have to get used to it, like I did with Soviets.

Very interesting website though, I'll have to keep that around.

You accidentally put the Jackson gun vs a P4 as the second picture instead of 5cm vs T70

Fixed now.