Forget the pershing, Jumbo 76 is where it's at

we can have both then

Yes because it happens to be one of the most unique Sherman variants ever made, and it's difference is very noticeable in size, as well as the role it will provide to the USF. I'll once again reiterate that I find that much more appealing than bringing another CoH1 unit to provide a roll that's already fulfilled.

No, it will be bigger E8, nothing new. And who will use 9cp sponge when you can get stock sherman around 4cp? When you reach 9cp you will make only Jacksons. No place for Jumbo. Even KV1 has hard time despite sov stock tanks are weaker than USF.

No, it will be bigger E8, nothing new. And who will use 9cp sponge when you can get stock sherman around 4cp? When you reach 9cp you will make only Jacksons. No place for Jumbo. Even KV1 has hard time despite sov stock tanks are weaker than USF.

If the tank synergized well with the rest of the abilities in the doctrine somehow I'm sure it could be made to be an appealing late game choice. Besides, biggest tank the USF would have? I'd say that's relatively new. At 9CP I would take a 140-150 fuel KV-1 to support Jacksons any day, particularly if it had decent AT power.

I do exactly this thing with KV1 and SU85 yet its not about KV1, its about B4 so jumbo doctrine should have some really cool ability.
But I still prefer Pershing. Such doctrine would give you other way to kill Axis heavies. Every faction has 4-5 units with penetration over 200. USF have only Jackson. Just yesterday... I was flanking JT. Almost the closest range. 3 shots, 3times crew shocked, 0 damage. That was sick and thats why i would see pershing.

Funny thing is that best armoured (frontally) american vehicle was... Jackson. I believe it was greatly harmed by taking out it's armour in game, it should be more like panther in function, sth between tank and tank destroyer that is fast and has great frontal armour, but it's rear armour is like the one in m20 and other light vevicles (as it was irl, killable by mg AP rounds) and with short range gun (sic!) as it had really bad accurancy, much worse than in tiger for example. Basically jackson is the oposite of tiger (that has gun with great accurancy and mostly same armour from any direction). And that is real type of usf's heavy vehicle.
Pershing on the other hand is nothing more than a copy of a tiger (with some things than better like speed and sloped armour and other worse like the gun but mostly worth the same) introduced when tiger, and tanks of it's kind were worth much less than in 1942 (when tiger was introduced) as there were tons of better ideas on how to build tanks (like panther, tiger2, IS2, IS3, T44 and so on) at the time.
And of course Jumbo is just a quick fix of us armoured forces that had no well armoured vehicles at the beginning, just like m10 was quick fix for no penetration.

Gamewise Jumbo should be added to act like kv-1: old tank that can lead the charge with its armour. It can be used in multiple doctrines.

Preshing could be added to but only if the doctrine was either like soviet industry: so usa had less manpower in early game while waiting for pershing, just to make it only able to defend, not attack, or it can be like a tiger ace doctrine so there would be only one (there were not many of them in europe, there were even more german ace crews that fought on the front than pershings i belive) and using it would kill your income.

And of course if changes would be applied to Jackson so it could act as it really was the hellcat could have it's actual place as a long range (it was more accurate) fast, ambush tank destroyer with not much armour.

I personally think Jackson should get same health and armor stats as EZ8

*hides in closet*

The jackson actually had an extremely lopsided frontal armor layout. The lower hull (starting from below the rivets) is the really really thick plate (100+mm). The easier to hit upper hull is much thinner than a sherman's (35mm).

Jumbo sherman would provide the heavy tank roll desperately needed by USF to be able to go toe-to-toe with Pak40s, P4s, Shrecks, etc (in terms of survivability) but would still be vulnerable to heavier Axis AT like Panthers, Tiger, Jagdtiger, etc

Actually the Jumbo could deflect hits from the Panther and Tiger at longer ranges.

I personally think Jackson should get same health and armor stats as EZ8

*hides in closet*

For reduced damage, I'd like to see something like this.

The jackson actually had an extremely lopsided frontal armor layout. The lower hull (starting from below the rivets) is the really really thick plate (100+mm). The easier to hit upper hull is much thinner than a sherman's (35mm).

I checked and while it's true it wasn't the same for the upper and lower front, the difference wasn't as drastic.

Hull Front, Upper: 1.5" (3.25")
Hull Front, Lower: 2" (3.75")

what would be the difference to a m10

IMO the Hellcat is what the M10 should be, an ideal tank destroyer. The weakness is that it is even weaker than the M10 or the Jackson. Like he said, a good analogy is the Puma but with a bigger gun, yet still relatively paper thin. You can't really get away with engaging a Jackson with a Puma (head on at least), and likewise, you can't expect a Hellcat to take on a Tiger and last more than two shots, given or taking.

The Pershing and Jumbo, in my view, occupies the opposite ends of this spectrum: the Jumbo can take such hits but isn't good at giving it back (plus slow); the Pershing combines elements of both Hellcat and Jumbo via reasonable armour, reasonable speed and reasonable firepower, at the cost of being more expensive than anything the USF can bring. The Hellcat solves the M10's problem, the Jumbo solves the Sherman's problem, the Pershing solves the Jackson's problem.

I can't understand why Jackson is so sluggish? If it is built on a chassis of Sherman, why it is have both LESS armor and LESS maneurability? Its pissing me off. Give me some more acceleration on Jackson and fuck Pershing, it is tincan, only bigger than sherman.

Its like : you make wrong move with Jackson, trying to reverse damn thing back, take a couple of hits from Pak|shreck - see your Jackson burn!

A jumbo would be a worse easy eight, being better only in having slightly better armor, the easy eight was the last evolution of the sherman tank, a jumbo in the game would be a slightly worse KV1.

About the Pershing, no its armor wouldn't be like that of a tiger, it had superior quality and was extremely sloped, its design resembled the next generation of tanks already, also the cannon while being very similiar to the flak 88 in terms of penetration would have been aided by the fact that the americans had the best ammunition (and currently still have) in the war, while the germans for example couldnt supply apcr shells to their tanks after '42, the americans supplied their hvap to the end of the war.

The pershing having poor mobility is true, though it had great suspensions and ease of repair, also its fire on the move was pretty great for a tank of the time.
Not that any of this matters since it's a videogame and a unit is as strong as the developer makes it.

I can't understand why Jackson is so sluggish? If it is built on a chassis of Sherman, why it is have both LESS armor and LESS maneurability? Its pissing me off. Give me some more acceleration on Jackson and fuck Pershing, it is tincan, only bigger than sherman.

If I recall my factual info correctly, the M36 was just a 90mm on a M10 chassis, itself based on a Sherman M4A2 hull, of unknown derivative (presumably the same? Doesn't look like it).

Anyways the game had the stats different than the M10, regardless of it being identical or familiar.

-snip-

If I recall my factual info correctly, the M36 was just a 90mm on a M10 chassis, itself based on a Sherman M4A2 hull, of unknown derivative (presumably the same? Doesn't look like it).

Anyways the game had the stats different than the M10, regardless of it being identical or familiar.

It was quite similar despite the fact that it had 108mm of sloped frontal armour (for example tiger had 100mm, jumbo and pershing 102mm, and m10 57mm)

It was quite similar despite the fact that it had 108mm of sloped frontal armour (for example tiger had 100mm, jumbo and pershing 102mm, and m10 57mm)

OMG. M36 frontal armor was 60mm. 108mm(or 114) was the LOWER hull armor. These didnt Play any role because tanks can only shoot at the UPPER part of other tanks.Tanks from ww2 can not lower there gun enough to hit the lower hull.

lower hull is the level where the tracks are tanks dont aim at this low Level they aim the upper part or the turret.

http://i.imgur.com/CkADS2B.png

OMG. M36 frontal armor was 60mm. 108mm(or 114) was the LOWER hull armor. These didnt Play any role because tanks can only shoot at the UPPER part of other tanks.Tanks from ww2 can not lower there gun enough to hit the lower hull.

http://i.imgur.com/CkADS2B.png

Actually they could with no problems, especially allied armor, even more so considering the fact that engagements weren't really at point blank range, where lowering(or not being able to) the gun actually mattered.

People talking so much bullsheet here its unbelievable.

People talking so much bullsheet here its unbelievable.

Welcome to the Internet.
Also the off-topicness of this thread is ridiculous.

Welcome to the Internet.
Also the off-topicness of this thread is ridiculous.

Bro, historical accuracy matters. Real life stats > Game balance