M36- badly underpowered?

The Panther has 58.66% chance to penetrate the frontal armor of an IS-2 at the max range of 50.

Yet I never hear complaints of the Panther being unreliable against Soviet heavy armor despite extremely similar chances to actually penetrate enemy heavy armor. Additionally the Panther has a longer reload time and a more punishing moving accuracy penalty nor the fact that it takes the Panther 7 penetrating shots to kill an IS-2 but it only takes a Jackson 5 penetrating shots to kill a Tiger. And the Panther is more expensive.

The Panther also has good mobility, armour (320 vs 130), and health (800/960 vs 480). There's a chance for the Jackson to fail penetrating a Panzer IV or Vet 2 StuG, but there's zero chance for a Panther to fail penetrating any Allied Medium Tank. I stand by the idea that the Jackson should trade damage for penetration for the sake of consistency and usability.

The Panther also has good mobility, armour (320 vs 130), and health (800/960 vs 480). There's a chance for the Jackson to fail penetrating a Panzer IV or Vet 2 StuG, but there's zero chance for a Panther to fail penetrating any Allied Medium Tank. I stand by the idea that the Jackson should trade damage for penetration for the sake of consistency and usability.

The Jackson has a 90% chance to penetrate the frontal armor of a Pz4 at max range... give me a break.

The mobility of the Jackson is almost exactly the same as that of the Panther.

Everyone knows that the Jackson is extremely powerful against Axis medium tanks just like the Panther is extremely strong against Allied mediums. I was simply pointing out that the "reliability" of the Jackson against the Tiger is pretty much the same, if not better, than the Panther's "reliability" against the Is-2. People consistently complain that the Jackson is a "RNG Machine" when facing heavies, yet by that same token the Panther must be as well - but I've literally never heard any complaints along those lines.

The Jackson has a 90% chance to penetrate the frontal armor of a Pz4 at max range... give me a break.

1 in 10 chance is still a chance, and that's exactly what I said, "there is a chance".

I was simply pointing out that the "reliability" of the Jackson against the Tiger is pretty much the same, if not better, than the Panther's "reliability" against the Is-2. People consistently complain that the Jackson is a "RNG Machine" when facing heavies, yet by that same token the Panther must be as well - but I've literally never heard any complaints along those lines.

The Panther is still far more reliable, because even if it doesn't penetrate, it isn't in constant danger of death at full health. The Panther can be relied on to survive even if the enemy rushes at it. The Jackson must be babysat constantly because it will die if you don't. But the fragility is another issue, and imo a non-issue. But when you stack RNG gun on a fragile chassis, you make a unit that's micro heavy to use and not fun to fight, and that's where both sides lose.

1 in 10 chance is still a chance, and that's exactly what I said, "there is a chance".



The Panther is still far more reliable, because even if it doesn't penetrate, it isn't in constant danger of death at full health. The Panther can be relied on to survive even if the enemy rushes at it. The Jackson must be babysat constantly because it will die if you don't. But the fragility is another issue, and imo a non-issue. But when you stack RNG gun on a fragile chassis, you make a unit that's micro heavy to use and not fun to fight, and that's where both sides lose.

Okay you win the semantics argument of the Jackson having a minute chance to not penetrate the frontal armor of the Pz4 at completely maximum range. Congrats. Still doesn't do anything to dispute the fact that the Jackson completely and utterly shuts down any and all Ost T3 play. Trying to dispute that (which to be fair you haven't tried to do) would be absolutely silly.

As for the reliability argument I'm not trying to argue whether or not the Panther or Jackson is the more reliable tank in the general sense of the word. I'm presenting a counter argument specifically to the numerous people in this thread that have claimed that the Jackson is "too RNG" against Axis heavy tanks. They used the word "reliable" saying that the Jackson cannot reliably penetrate the Axis heavies/Panthers, too much RNG, "RNG machine" etc etc etc.

Of course the Panther is the more reliable tank in the general sense of the word. It's also a lot more expensive. Doesn't change the fact that specifically regarding its ability to penetrate allied heavies (as is the claim about the Jackson) isn't significantly stronger than the Jackson.

Okay you win the semantics argument of the Jackson having a minute chance to not penetrate the frontal armor of the Pz4 at completely maximum range. Congrats. Still doesn't do anything to dispute the fact that the Jackson completely and utterly shuts down any and all Ost T3 play. Trying to dispute that (which to be fair you haven't tried to do) would be absolutely silly.

And you've pointed out my entire problem with the Jackson and the reason I feel consistency is key. The Jackson as-is is so inconsistent that it shuts down T3 yet still has a small chance to bounce against it. On the other hand, it's unreliable against heavy tanks in the late-game where anything can kill it easily. If had more reliable penetration for less damage, T3 would be more viable and it would be better equipped to deal with heavies.

As for the reliability argument I'm not trying to argue whether or not the Panther or Jackson is the more reliable tank in the general sense of the word. I'm presenting a counter argument specifically to the numerous people in this thread that have claimed that the Jackson is "too RNG" against Axis heavy tanks. They used the word "reliable" saying that the Jackson cannot reliably penetrate the Axis heavies/Panthers, too much RNG, "RNG machine" etc etc etc.

The RNG comes from the fact that it has average penetration but 1.5x damage. The IS-2 was fine when it had 240 damage and great penetration because it also had a sluggish reload. But Relic changed it to be more like a Panther with 160 damage and a shorter reload. But the M36 doesn't have a sluggish reload, does 1.5x damage, and has unreliable penetration, which makes it feel even less reliable than the old IS-2 was. I feel that if the IS-2 was considered too unreliable as it was, then the M36 absolutely fits the requirements for change.

M36 could use a health/armor buff and a small damage nerf to compensate. If it gets caught, it dies. Considering how pathing and random terrain bugs still happen it is entirely reasonable that the Jackson gets caught on invisible rock and proceeds to fail at pathing around and dies to Axis tank rush.

Even then the M36 has ot stay at constant 60 range or lose to high health Axis heavies, so it really does need some kind of survivability buff to compete with Heavies.

And you've pointed out my entire problem with the Jackson and the reason I feel consistency is key. The Jackson as-is is so inconsistent that it shuts down T3 yet still has a small chance to bounce against it. On the other hand, it's unreliable against heavy tanks in the late-game where anything can kill it easily. If had more reliable penetration for less damage, T3 would be more viable and it would be better equipped to deal with heavies.



The RNG comes from the fact that it has average penetration but 1.5x damage. The IS-2 was fine when it had 240 damage and great penetration because it also had a sluggish reload. But Relic changed it to be more like a Panther with 160 damage and a shorter reload. But the M36 doesn't have a sluggish reload, does 1.5x damage, and has unreliable penetration, which makes it feel even less reliable than the old IS-2 was. I feel that if the IS-2 was considered too unreliable as it was, then the M36 absolutely fits the requirements for change.

I think a buff to the AP rounds could probably suffice to make it feel more reliable.

And you've pointed out my entire problem with the Jackson and the reason I feel consistency is key. The Jackson as-is is so inconsistent that it shuts down T3 yet still has a small chance to bounce against it. On the other hand, it's unreliable against heavy tanks in the late-game where anything can kill it easily. If had more reliable penetration for less damage, T3 would be more viable and it would be better equipped to deal with heavies.



The RNG comes from the fact that it has average penetration but 1.5x damage. The IS-2 was fine when it had 240 damage and great penetration because it also had a sluggish reload. But Relic changed it to be more like a Panther with 160 damage and a shorter reload. But the M36 doesn't have a sluggish reload, does 1.5x damage, and has unreliable penetration, which makes it feel even less reliable than the old IS-2 was. I feel that if the IS-2 was considered too unreliable as it was, then the M36 absolutely fits the requirements for change.

I have no clue what you're trying to say with regard to your comparison between the Is-2 and the Panther...? The Is-2 is nothing at all like the Panther, and as far as I can remember it never has been.

I thought the reasoning for changing the Is-2 to 160 damage instead of 240 was to limit the number of times that it would insta-gib infantry squads.

I have no clue what you're trying to say with regard to your comparison between the Is-2 and the Panther...? The Is-2 is nothing at all like the Panther, and as far as I can remember it never has been.

The IS-2 used to deal 240 damage and have a long reload time, but it was chanced to 160 for a shorter reload time, the gun is now more similar to the Panther's, just effective vs Infantry.

I think a buff to the AP rounds could probably suffice to make it feel more reliable.

That'd work against heavy tanks but it'd still nullify WM T3, and it'd drain all of your munitions rapidly and you need Vet 1. I feel like having 240 damage for the sake of being a special snowflake isn't helping anything.

What if it keeps its damage, gets a penetration buff and a reduced rate of fire? Then it would be worse against T3, better against heavies, and still be a special snowflake.

Some more food for thought, for those saying that the Jackson being unreliable against heavies:

The Jackson has a 53.33% chance to penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger at the max range of 60, assuming no vet 1 ability popped.

The Panther has 58.66% chance to penetrate the frontal armor of an IS-2 at the max range of 50.

Yet I never hear complaints of the Panther being unreliable against Soviet heavy armor despite extremely similar chances to actually penetrate enemy heavy armor. Additionally the Panther has a longer reload time and a more punishing moving accuracy penalty nor the fact that it takes the Panther 7 penetrating shots to kill an IS-2 but it only takes a Jackson 5 penetrating shots to kill a Tiger. And the Panther is more expensive.

Are you seriously comparing the Panther and the Jackson? No one whines about the Panther for 2 simple reasons (and these are also the reasons why this comparison is extremely dumb),

The panther doesn't have to bite and run in fear of any sort of AT destroying it for a minor slip, it can stay a lot more in the fight and at closer ranges if extra at isn't around, more shots will be fired, on the other hand the Jackson will get one shot off before the enemy goes behind a building or the jackson is forced to retreat most of the time, if that shot doesn't penetrate or misses or hits god knows what it's a much bigger deal than a failed shot of a panther.

Now the second one, are we seriously going to compare the one and only engagement where a Panther can get its shot deflected (against an IS2) to Jackson and Axis heavies? I'm not going to say it's rare to face an IS-2 but it's much more uncommon than seeing the inevitable Axis heavy or panther, an axis player will not have to always face an IS-2, most of the time it will be the usual t34-85, on the other hand a USF player will always face the inevitable Tiger/Panther supported by the usual schreck screen, paks or both.

What if it keeps its damage, gets a penetration buff and a reduced rate of fire? Then it would be worse against T3, better against heavies, and still be a special snowflake.

That's also a good alternative solution. It's basically like the old IS-2 gun. Which I still didn't have a problem with, I kinda miss it. I liked my IS-2 having a sledgehammer.

Jackson is good if you're on an open map

Any map with shot blockers that force a jackson into range of any axis AT and it's dead in seconds

after playing with SOMEONE who got 3 jacksons on top of my 2 on semoisky summer I can safely say the jacksons biggest downfall is the ability to get stuck on wrecks

a TD has 480 HP with paper armor and medicore speed inside a faction with no real heavy, how can it be good anyway

a TD has 480 HP with paper armor and medicore speed inside a faction with no real heavy, how can it be good anyway

So the Panther has mediocre speed?

Toplol of this thread.

Also, if the Jackson has "paper armor" then by default the Su85 must have paper armor as well - but I've never heard anyone complaining about the Su85's armor.

Go watch the replay I linked Ugbear. Jacksons man-handling Tigers and KTs on one of the most axis favored maps in the current 2v2 pool. The Jackon is freaking amazing.

I think the m36 is fine. It's a great unit.

The problem is that it's the ONLY viable unit for countering heavy armor. 57mm's and bazookas just can't do it. Shermans and the m10 need to flank or move to point blank to have a decent chance at doing damage (which is close to impossible in large team games when fighting decent players). It'd be nice to have some other reliable AT options for dealing with heavies. It'd make the game more interesting imo.

Then you lose the game, just as relic intended

i don't know if you played DoW2 but bC once said that if you (as eldar) let SM get to t3 as force commander and shit out lightning claw terminators you deserved to lose.

Yet I never hear complaints of the Panther being unreliable against Soviet heavy armor despite extremely similar chances to actually penetrate enemy heavy armor.

i haven't used Vs against IS-2s in a LONG time (for various reasons) but what i used to do is either snipe at them from outside the IS-2's range, hoping to get damage and force a retreat or drive in as close as possible and circle strafe them. trading blows at mid/long range was a HUGE gamble that i wasn't interested in taking, especially if there was other soviet AT around.

as for the old IS-2, a huge part of the problem with it was that if it missed (it didn't have pen problems that i remember) you were waiting a long time to do something again. it was still an RNG gun (and vicious against infantry).

the jackson reload is a little (by a second or so) on the long side for an AT gun and it has poor pen. additionally, as others have said, it's the best non-doctrinal option the US has; all the others are even more RNG based. US doesn't have any good delaying options either; they can use tank traps (i don't think they're crushable) or M20 mines. the first is time intensive, easily disrupted, only works when for areas you want to hold at, and the traps are destroyable. M20 mines are very strong but also expensive and require T1 with an M20 and that the M20 stays alive to plant the mines and that the enemy runs them over.

When i play as US i tend to run into issues when the enemy attacks with large numbers of heavy tanks because jacksons just end up overwhelmed. ironically, jacksons preform best on open maps but the US defensive options work best on small maps. this isn't unique to US but they do have limited options, as do non-doctrinal soviets. axis has an easier time because their options are more rounded.

So the Panther has mediocre speed?

Toplol of this thread.

Also, if the Jackson has "paper armor" then by default the Su85 must have paper armor as well - but I've never heard anyone complaining about the Su85's armor.

Go watch the replay I linked Ugbear. Jacksons man-handling Tigers and KTs on one of the most axis favored maps in the current 2v2 pool. The Jackon is freaking amazing.

Just watched the replay, was very unimpressed. Yes, three jacksons and two t34-85 with an rocket straif coming in are going to beat up a KT and a Tiger. If he had build normal shermans, he would have also have had the benefit of murdering his opponents infantry instead of sitting around all game, which is what the jacksons primarily did.

Give it an inverse reload like the Firefly in OF/ToV. Super-good at long range, very meh at short range. Boom, instant incentive to kite + it actually becomes effective.