Login

russian armor

M36- badly underpowered?

PAGES (11)down
5 Dec 2014, 14:52 PM
#41
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2779



Howcome? He's only following Katitof's style of passive-aggressive posting. #Katistrat :clap:



While the people around here praising / feeling there is nothing wrong with the troll Katitoff since 2013, seriously why should I type something other than his style?

Oh well, when I was writing real contribution last time in here, what did I get? Got trolled to death. <444>_<444>
5 Dec 2014, 15:03 PM
#42
avatar of schnuersi

Posts: 56

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 14:11 PMAvNY

First of all, the tank destroyer units had priority over armor in getting "limited" Ap rounds. So assume the m36s, which were produced for the very purpose of countering Panthers and Tigers, will have these available.



Wich other vehicles used the M3 gun?

Exactly one! The M26. Wich was fielded in a two digit number in late 44 until the war in Europe ended.
So there is no prioritising. The 90 mm ammo was only really needed for the M36. Yet the M304 was limited issue. Wich means only a few rounds per platoon will be available if any.
Limited issue doesn't mean the few that are available are evenly distributed. It can't be assumed that any M36 equiped unit wich faced Panthers or Tigers had them available when they needed it.

I did a little research and found no evidence that any HVAP shells for the 90 mm guns were actually issued to M36 equiped units during the war. It seems this ammo was specifically designed and produced for the M26 and only issued to these during WW2.

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 14:11 PMAvNY
Second... if you answer is going to boil down to "historical"...


You completly miss the point.
My answer to the statement about the 90 mm M3 gun outperforming the 7,5 cm KwK 42 is using historical facts. In this case the answer is that this statement is plain and simple wrong.

Game balance wise I allready posted that I do think the M36 could need some improvements.

The limited availablility could be refected like the limited issue ammo of the AT57.

Actually I think making the M36 THE bane of heavy armor in this game would be a good idea since the US don't have heavy armor on their own. So getting the best hardcounter against it makes a lot of sense.
That doesn't mean I think a single M36 should ba able to slug it out with a Panther in a direct head on duel. The M36 should stay a tank destroyer. Even if it becomes the best one.
5 Dec 2014, 15:25 PM
#43
avatar of TensaiOni

Posts: 198



Despite having 240damage, look at the actual DPS of the gun compared to a Panther, Panzer IV or Tiger because of the huge rate of fire difference. You will find the dedicated tank destroyer has less DPS than heavily armoured multi purpose frontline tanks. Let alone the penetration and every other single advantage of the Axis armour.


Ok.

Assuming 100% accuracy (like at point blank range etc.):

M36 Jackson - 32,92 DPS

Panther - 21,(3) DPS
Tiger - 30,47 DPS
Panzer IV (Ostheer) - 27,82 DPS
Panzer IV (OKW) - 26,(6) DPS

As you have shown, Jackson clearly has less DPS than those tanks you've listed.
5 Dec 2014, 15:31 PM
#44
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned
USF needs M18 hellcat (commander)

The gun was almost identical to the EZ8

The Ez8 reliably penetrates

lightly armoured, high fired rate, high pentration, average damage, 50 range, .50 cal upgrade, and same cost and vet as m10,
5 Dec 2014, 15:45 PM
#45
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130




Also, for the ones saying L2P/Micro better. Explane how you would "Micro it better."


Use it as a puma. you know the unit that has been complained to death about its so called effectiveness. make sure you have plenty of support and meat shields. scout area have sherman or e8 take point use long range fire to draw him in, when confronting heavies use pairs. and never try to solo stuff.


@PwnageMachine

Is downright embarrassing as a caster how often you need to be corrected especially considering you have coh 2 stats (awesome site btw) to look things up.

Also a great vid on how not to use the m36's
5 Dec 2014, 15:52 PM
#46
avatar of steel

Posts: 1963 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 15:45 PMJaigen


Use it as a puma. you know the unit that has been complained to death about its so called effectiveness. make sure you have plenty of support and meat shields. scout area have sherman or e8 take point use long range fire to draw him in, when confronting heavies use pairs. and never try to solo stuff.


@PwnageMachine

Is downright embarrassing as a caster how often you need to be corrected especially considering you have coh 2 stats (awesome site btw) to look things up.

Also a great vid on how not to use the m36's
It would be helpful if the M36 penetration doesn't drop to 160 which even has a small chance to bounce off a Panzer IV.
5 Dec 2014, 16:05 PM
#47
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637



Ok.

Assuming 100% accuracy (like at point blank range etc.):

M36 Jackson - 32,92 DPS

Panther - 21,(3) DPS
Tiger - 30,47 DPS
Panzer IV (Ostheer) - 27,82 DPS
Panzer IV (OKW) - 26,(6) DPS

As you have shown, Jackson clearly has less DPS than those tanks you've listed.


Now compare it to the JP4 and SU85 which is what the Jackson closely relates. Dedicated AI-less Medium Tank destroyer.

Less HPs
Larger Target Size
Less Armor
Less ROF/DPS
Less Pen
Less site range

Turret YAY and Slightly better speed (but it aint no Blitzing Panther)

Or if you want to see what a Jackson could be like Add Mark Target to a T34/85 and you get less Pen slightly less reload but More HPs Armor and it has AI. Of course the less Pen isnt an issue as you arent going to go Point blank with a Jackson and you can easily with the T34/85 because OMG IT CAN FLANK since it doesnt die to a couple of shreks instantly!

All the wonderful things said about the Jackson. Its OK. Its not GREAT. Its just OK. It could use a buff imho and since its really good versus medium tanks the Buff should be to Pen as it doesnt matter on a Medium anyway.
5 Dec 2014, 16:06 PM
#48
avatar of ImSkemo

Posts: 444

I Love my jacksons, 1 jackson is verybad, 2 is good( for 1v1s) 3 is the critical mass..

2 Jacksons together are really good vs 1 panther i keep HMG crew near Jackson as it will die very quickly to Shrecks. I dont feel its UP you can field 2 jacksons by the time OKW guy gets a panther, (u need to sacrifice sherman)

I use armor pen 4% + General jackson armor pen 4% bulletins and my jacksons always score a pen.

5 Dec 2014, 16:09 PM
#49
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181

Well, you're not supposed to use the jackson in close range against panthers. You need to use the 10 extra range to harass and force it away.
They are also not the same price at all
470/175 vs 340(?)/125

Jacksons are in my opinion perfectly balanced for its design. With micro the only threat is volks blobs. They utterly suck on small maps like trois point and semoisky though
5 Dec 2014, 16:12 PM
#50
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 15:45 PMJaigen


Use it as a puma. you know the unit that has been complained to death about its so called effectiveness. make sure you have plenty of support and meat shields. scout area have sherman or e8 take point use long range fire to draw him in, when confronting heavies use pairs. and never try to solo stuff.


@PwnageMachine

Is downright embarrassing as a caster how often you need to be corrected especially considering you have coh 2 stats (awesome site btw) to look things up.

Also a great vid on how not to use the m36's


Give it smoke, Stun, an MG that has more DPS then an M20 at Vet 2 and a Pumas speed/small target size? SURE!!! DONE!
5 Dec 2014, 16:16 PM
#51
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637

Well, you're not supposed to use the jackson in close range against panthers. You need to use the 10 extra range to harass and force it away.
They are also not the same price at all
470/175 vs 340(?)/125

Jacksons are in my opinion perfectly balanced for its design. With micro the only threat is volks blobs. They utterly suck on small maps like trois point and semoisky though


So something thats worse at actually destroying a Tank than an SU85 is supposed to threaten things like Panthers, Tigers and KTs?

I cant agree. Unless of course USF had a heavy tank thats "Not part of their design".

Having two Jacksons prevents you from countering Obers and Falls that will just horribly murder your infantry. Unless of course Airborne! Everybodys favorite! Must use Airborne!

Its OK and only its speed makes it so. Everybody also likes to go OMG RANGE! But the range is the same as the other dedicated TDs that can site for themselves sooooo...not advantage Jackson...just Par for the course.

5 Dec 2014, 16:22 PM
#52
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

when jacksons don't pen for shit, it is really frustrating

what if ap round was a default ability and the vet 1 ability made the tank stationary and +10 range. like a hulldown but without defensive bonuses
5 Dec 2014, 16:23 PM
#53
avatar of steel

Posts: 1963 | Subs: 1

when jacksons don't pen for shit, it is really frustrating

what if ap round was a default ability and the vet 1 ability made the tank stationary and +10 range. like a hulldown but without defensive bonuses
Sounds good. Definitely would help against stuff like the Panzer IV/70 which the shell tend to bounce off.
5 Dec 2014, 16:25 PM
#54
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637

when jacksons don't pen for shit, it is really frustrating

what if ap round was a default ability and the vet 1 ability made the tank stationary and +10 range. like a hulldown but without defensive bonuses


That would be a good start.

Also remember no Pen no XP no XP no Vet no Vet and its GG against a Blitzing Panther. This is the most frustrating thing. Hoping for actual damage to get Vet so it can actually have a chance.
5 Dec 2014, 16:32 PM
#55
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

The Jackson in terms of damage is fine, penetration against heavy armor is what really needed.
5 Dec 2014, 16:34 PM
#56
avatar of Rupert

Posts: 186

USF needs M18 hellcat (commander)

The gun was almost identical to the EZ8

The Ez8 reliably penetrates

lightly armoured, high fired rate, high pentration, average damage, 50 range, .50 cal upgrade, and same cost and vet as m10,


and 5-25mm armor pierced by MGs...
5 Dec 2014, 16:42 PM
#57
avatar of TensaiOni

Posts: 198



Now compare it to the JP4 and SU85 which is what the Jackson closely relates. Dedicated AI-less Medium Tank destroyer.

Less HPs
Larger Target Size
Less Armor
Less ROF/DPS
Less Pen
Less site range

Turret YAY and Slightly better speed (but it aint no Blitzing Panther)

Or if you want to see what a Jackson could be like Add Mark Target to a T34/85 and you get less Pen slightly less reload but More HPs Armor and it has AI. Of course the less Pen isnt an issue as you arent going to go Point blank with a Jackson and you can easily with the T34/85 because OMG IT CAN FLANK since it doesnt die to a couple of shreks instantly!

All the wonderful things said about the Jackson. Its OK. Its not GREAT. Its just OK. It could use a buff imho and since its really good versus medium tanks the Buff should be to Pen as it doesnt matter on a Medium anyway.


I just compared it to those tanks, because PwnageMachine claimed Jackson has worse DPS than they do.

If you want to compare those tank destroyers, you can do it yourself here, here and here.
5 Dec 2014, 16:43 PM
#58
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637

This is the best analogy of a Jackson vs a Panther in the current state of the game.

Lone MG42 vs a Conscript.

Yes you can restrict the movement through clever micro. Yes if it actually gets Vet 1 and the Scripts are stupid enough to sit there and take it then the MG42 CAN kill them.

But most cases the Conscripts will just retreat and come back at full health and OORAH around the MG and kill it.

I think rebuffing the Panther to Adamantium armor and rebuffing Blitz was a huge Mistake. All the Panther needed was an increase in DPS. Because yes by the time a Heavy tank that isnt the Tiger Ace arrives (I say this because you could have several P4s or a Panther by the time the TA arrives) you can afford to Field two of them and a Decent AI tank to deal with threats like Volks blobs and Obers (if you lose nothing)

But by the time the first OKW Panther arrives you will not have this advantage.
5 Dec 2014, 16:46 PM
#59
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637



I just compared it to those tanks, because PwnageMachine claimed Jackson has worse DPS than they do.

If you want to compare those tank destroyers, you can do it yourself here, here and here.


I already have. I agree PM was wrong on the DPS. My point is everybody wants to say how great the Jackson is at being a Tank Destroyer and how high its damage is. But in reality its just Alpha strike damage its DPS is lower then Case Mate TDs of the Medium level. SU85 and the JP4 needs to be what people compare it too. Because thats exactly what it is. It just has a turret.

And nobody sees the Casemate tanks as a Threat. Simply because no Turret. But the Jackson is going to be used in a similar fashion because trying to use it like a Puma never ends well.
5 Dec 2014, 16:50 PM
#60
avatar of aradim

Posts: 110

Trying to use a Jackson like a Puma gets it killed by a Puma.
PAGES (11)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

989 users are online: 989 guests
0 post in the last 24h
10 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50000
Welcome our newest member, qq801
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM