Axis heavy armor needs nerf or Allied AT needs buffs

Just explain me, how to flank vetted Tiger.
As a TD it should kill it because of range which is hard cause of low chance to penetrate and support of paks or by flanking which is also unlikely since all tanks with blitz are faster than Jackson.

Shows pretty well how Jackson can deal with Tigers. This is high level play.

You don't tank into account that heavy tanks shouldn't be an easy kill for a tank destroyer that has the half price. Jackson _easily_ destroy everything that is below Panther/Tiger. So it does its tank destroyer job well.

Heavies worry you once they hit the field? That's good, because they are designed to be powerful. And not a easy hit.

Panther has about 40% chance to win 1v1 with IS2. It's all about RNG but second use for TD is FLANKING.

Panther is a way faster, IS2 turret is very slow, zookr or PTRS are not the problem for Panther, amazing blitzkrieg and smoke. It's already great tank destroyer.

You do realize that zooks have a ONE HUNDRED percent chance to penetrate the rear armor of a panther at all ranges, right? If you're blitzing in to flank something with your Panther, you'll easily be exposing your rear armor to zooks.

Yes, people don't always have them - I actually think they're a little too expensive fuel-wise. Just wanted to point out the obvious flaw in your statement. They are in fact a threat to all Ost armor except for the Tiger (because of higher rear armor than the panther)

Really wanna know where your arbitrary claim of 40% chance for Panther to beat an Is-2 is coming from. It's pretty much a 0% chance for the Panther to score a kill on an Is-2 if a ZiS gun is around, or if the Soviet knows that his munitions can be used to plant mines.

If it is an actual 1v1, with no interference - which will never happen - the Panther has a 100% chance of beating the Is-2 as long as it has an infantry unit spotting for it. Probably a 0% chance of winning in a vacuum 1v1 (doesn't mean anything though).

Same exact logic applies to Jackson vs Tiger.

Shows pretty well how Jackson can deal with Tigers. This is high level play.

You don't tank into account that heavy tanks shouldn't be an easy kill for a tank destroyer that has the half price. Jackson _easily_ destroy everything that is below Panther/Tiger. So it does its tank destroyer job well.

Heavies worry you once they hit the field? That's good, because they are designed to be powerful. And not a easy hit.

Belive me, I know that Jackson is powerful and can easily kill Tiger when you use it defensively but on the open space, where you need just 2 shots to kill Tiger and you are trying to flank it, Tiger can just turn on blitz and there is nothing you can do. Only pray to RNG god that you will get 2 penetrating shots at front armor. You can't chase is since it's faster or at least has smae speed.

Point is, you can't chase it to finish. You have to give up and hope that you will kill it in next clash.
On the other hand Panther can easily chase and finish retreating unit.

And this viedo is not about thing I was saying about.

You do realize that zooks have a ONE HUNDRED percent chance to penetrate the rear armor of a panther at all ranges, right? If you're blitzing in to flank something with your Panther, you'll easily be exposing your rear armor to zooks.

Yes, people don't always have them - I actually think they're a little too expensive fuel-wise. Just wanted to point out the obvious flaw in your statement. They are in fact a threat to all Ost armor except for the Tiger (because of higher rear armor than the panther)

Really wanna know where your arbitrary claim of 40% chance for Panther to beat an Is-2 is coming from. It's pretty much a 0% chance for the Panther to score a kill on an Is-2 if a ZiS gun is around, or if the Soviet knows that his munitions can be used to plant mines.

If it is an actual 1v1, with no interference - which will never happen - the Panther has a 100% chance of beating the Is-2 as long as it has an infantry unit spotting for it. Probably a 0% chance of winning in a vacuum 1v1 (doesn't mean anything though).

Same exact logic applies to Jackson vs Tiger.

Yes but Pnahter has 800hp, not 480 and bazzoka deals 80 dmg, not 120.
Upgrading for zooks, grenades and bars can be deadly for USF because it delays Sherman for about 4mins. You have to give up something.

I was testing Panther vs IS2 but in fact I can't remember if it was Panther or vet 2 Panther... I think Vet 2.. and Vet 2 Panther has a chance to win against IS2. It depends if RNG is behind you. Maybe not 40% but 30% tho.

Are you seriously complaining that you can't always kill a Tiger that you scare off? Good opponents won't let them kill your tanks, vs good opponents it's usually only possible to keep their expensive units at bay, since they won't allow you to kill them.

If two Jackson scare a damaged Tiger off, then it's a job well done and you can again prepare your defensive again, lay out mines, position at guns etc.

Are you seriously complaining that you can't always kill a Tiger that you scare off? Good opponents won't let them kill your tanks, vs good opponents it's usually only possible to keep their expensive units at bay, since they won't allow you to kill them.

If two Jackson scare a damaged Tiger off, then it's a job well done and you can again prepare your defensive again, lay out mines, position at guns etc.

And give a Tiger veterancy...
Sometimes you prepare ambush, enemy is falling into but you can't chase down one-shot Tiger with Jackson which is annoying.

On the other hand Axis and Soviets can do this.

If Jackson at least has something to increase sight (it does not have roof for a purpose - to increase sight but we don't see this in game).


And what mines? US Forces don't have a mines - only from M20
So mines or AT gun. Not both

And give a Tiger veterancy...
Sometimes you prepare ambush, enemy is falling into but you can't chase down one-shot Tiger with Jackson which is annoying.

On the other hand Axis and Soviets can do this.

If Jackson at least has something to increase sight (it does not have roof for a purpose - to increase sight but we don't see this in game).


And what mines? US Forces don't have a mines - only from M20
So mines or AT gun. Not both

That mine is a non doctrinal regal, The tiger won't be retreating.

That mine is a non doctrinal regal, The tiger won't be retreating.

It's but you can't have mines, at guns and jacksons. Mines and at guns or mines and jackson or at gun and jackson.
Sure you can go for airborne and get doc at gun but what's the point of makinf only 1 doctrine useful? In fact it's already the only useful...



By the way, once I posted my replay. 3 Jacksons vs 1 Panther. 6 shell, one by one bounced... Is it right?

Point is, you can't chase it to finish. You have to give up and hope that you will kill it in next clash.
On the other hand Panther can easily chase and finish retreating unit.

And this viedo is not about thing I was saying about.

This is not an issue , you are not allowed to have an i win button against tanks.

If Jackson at least has something to increase sight (it does not have roof for a purpose - to increase sight but we don't see this in game).

you basically saying your not supporting your shit . simply send an infantry squad. safe for the elephant with scope sighting should never be turned on.

It's but you can't have mines, at guns and jacksons. Mines and at guns or mines and jackson or at gun and jackson.

Since when?

I say the TIger is in a pretty good spot. ANything above it is pretty RNG dependent though

Both the Panther and Jackson are strong tanks and they're extremely good at what they do. If you're having trouble using the Jackson try focusing more on keeping it at max range/out of harm's way. It is just a more micro-intensive unit, but has incredible potential. And maybe take a step back to realize that Is-2s are just as much, if not more, of a nightmare for Axis to deal with than Tigers are for allies - the ZiS actually has a higher chance to penetrate the front of a Tiger and Panther than the PaK 40 has to penetrate the front of an Is-2. I think the ZiS and PaK 40 are both in a good spot, not trying to argue for a buff/nerf to either of these units - just demonstrate that Allies DO have extremely heavily armored units that Axis has trouble "reliably" penetrating as you guys like to say.

Well written and factual response. However, I think the last part is somewhat misleading. If we take the Jackson's chance of penetration as reliable at 53% and go as far as to describe an almost 5% difference to the panther as "almost exactly the same" then there is in fact only 1 allied thank that is not reliably penetrated, which is the is2. The pak40 has a 51% chance to penetrate which is "almost exactly the same" as the Jackson but since we draw the line of reliability at the Jackson's level, it misses the criteria. All other Soviet call-ins have a chance of above 60% to be penetrated by a pak40 (52% by Schrecks, which barely misses "reliable" for 310 armour).

If we look on the other side of the argument we see that the Zis gun penetrates a Tiger reliably at 60%. By these standards the us atg is the only dedicated at to not reliably penetrate at 38% (however it does have the special ability to help it and it is cheaper, although teching for it is more expensive fuel wise). All allied at is unreliable against anything heavier than a tiger (KT, Elephant, Jagdtiger).

The Racketenwerfer is also "reliable" against everything smaller than an IS2.

If we take the panther's chance of penetration of the is2 as a benchmark all stays completely the same with the exception of the USF dropping out and having no reliable counter to Panthers and bigger tanks.

In summary if we compare the tiger and its counters to the is2 and it's counters we do see that both teams have "reliable" counters (only in mixed teams though). However to compare the tiger to the is2 seems somewhat odd since the armour disparity is rather significant and it would be more adequate to compare it to the KT. If measured against an imaginary tank which has the same armour as the IS (Ele, JT and KT have more armour) the allies only have the doctrinal ISU152 as a "reliable" at option at their disposal (by Jackson standards, unreliable by panther standards).

Please note: I did this as a little thought experiment because I was bored. I'm not making any remarks regarding if something is good or bad, balanced or not.

All calculations were done for frontal armour and penetration at max distance.

Well written and factual response. However, I think the last part is somewhat misleading. If we take the Jackson's chance of penetration as reliable at 53% and go as far as to describe an almost 5% difference to the panther as "almost exactly the same" then there is in fact only 1 allied thank that is not reliably penetrated, which is the is2. The pak40 has a 51% chance to penetrate which is "almost exactly the same" as the Jackson but since we draw the line of reliability at the Jackson's level, it misses the criteria. All other Soviet call-ins have a chance of above 60% to be penetrated by a pak40 (52% by Schrecks, which barely misses "reliable" for 310 armour).

If we look on the other side of the argument we see that the Zis gun penetrates a Tiger reliably at 60%. By these standards the us atg is the only dedicated at to not reliably penetrate at 38% (however it does have the special ability to help it). All allied at is unreliable against anything heavier than a tiger (KT, Elephant, Jagdtiger).

The Racketenwerfer is also "reliable" against everything smaller than an IS2.

If we take the panther's chance of penetration of the is2 as a benchmark all stays completely the same with the exception of the USF dropping out and having no reliable counter to Panthers and bigger tanks.

In summary if we compare the tiger and its counters to the is2 and it's counters we do see that both teams have "reliable" counters (only in mixed teams though). However to compare the tiger to the is2 seems somewhat odd since the armour disparity is rather significant and it would be more adequate to compare it to the KT. If measured against an imaginary tank which has the same armour as the IS (Ele, JT and KT have more armour) the allies only have the doctrinal ISU152 as a "reliable" at option at their disposal (by Jackson standards, unreliable by panther standards).

Please note: I did this as a little thought experiment because I was bored. I'm not making any remarks regarding if something is good or bad, balanced or not.

I like the post and I think it does a good job of summarizing what I've been trying to get across. When comparing the Jackson and Panther their performance at penetrating opposing enemy heavy armor is pretty much equivalent, despite people constantly complaining about not being able to penetrate with Jacksons... but never complaining about not being able to penetrate with Panthers.

I used the Tiger vs IS-2 because they're both doctrinal heavy tanks and perform basically the same role for their perspective armies, and they are significantly more feasible to field in a 1v1/2v2 than a KT, which is generally a super super super late game unit (as other heavies probably should be), or used to finish off a stomp.

I think USF's main issue is their lack of a reliable AT snare because let's face it... that rifleman AT nade is just super awkward - and they don't have as easy of access to mines. However, if they were given a snare the Jackson would have to be considerably toned down. Jacksons are just harder to use than Panthers, not trying to sound like an elitist prick by saying this but... a lot of people simply cannot handle the increased amount of precise micro required to utilize the Jackson to its full potential. I do think zooks should only cost like 5 fuel, or maybe even no fuel to unlock. They're already crazy munitions intensive, having to pay fuel on top of that can be really rough. Maybe limit them to 1 per squad at that point or something, to try and prevent too much zook spam.

despite people constantly complaining about not being able to penetrate with Jacksons... but never complaining about not being able to penetrate with Panthers.

I like the post and I think it does a good job of summarizing what I've been trying to get across. When comparing the Jackson and Panther their performance at penetrating opposing enemy heavy armor is pretty much equivalent, despite people constantly complaining about not being able to penetrate with Jacksons... but never complaining about not being able to penetrate with Panthers.

I think that the perception that the Jackson is less reliable than the panther manily stems from what they face in a typical game. If we go as far to assume that everyone always builds an is2 in 2v2s (meta) and assume that we always see a tiger from ostheer (because the jackson counters t3 very effectively and most deem t4 as too expensive) and panhters from okw (meta). Then the panther is confronting is2 (extreme case assumed with no t3 or t4), shermans, jacksons and everything bellow. The jackson faces tigers and panthers (no t3 from ost). The panther does very well penetration wise against everything smaller than the is2 (higher than 90%) and penetrates the is2 in 58% of all cases, while the jackson is facing panthers and tigers for which it has a chance of penetrating of 55% or 53% respectively.

It is like you state, the jackson is not a worse tank hunter but it is a bit harder to use and the current favourite strategy pits it almost exclusively against the hardest to crack tanks.

I think that the perception that the Jackson is less reliable than the panther manly stems from what they face up against in a typical game. If we go as far to assume that everyone always builds an is2 in 2v2s (meta) and assume that we always see a tiger from ostheer (because the jackson counters t3 very effectively and most deem t4 as too expensive) and panhters from okw (meta). Then the panther is confronting is2 (extreme case assumed with no t3 or t4), shermans, jacksons and everything bellow. The jackson faces tigers and panthers (no t3 from ost). The panther does very well penetration wise against everything smaller than the is2 (higher than 90%) and penetrates the is2 in 58% of all cases, while the jackson is facing panthers and tigers for which it has a chance of penetrating of 55% or 53% respectively.

It is like you state, the jackson is not a worse tank hunter but it is a bit harder to use and the current favourite strategy pits it almost exclusively against the hardest to crack tanks.

The reason for this is the Jackson is a excellent TD, It completely owns Wehr T3 and is strong vs Tiger I and Panthers.
If Wehr players thought they could have a chance to fight Jackson's with P4 they would. not to mention that Stug is just a joke when going up vs Jackson's

To be completely honest I would rather fight Jackson's with Panthers than a Tiger I but I guess that's just me preferring the better speed and armor of the Panther.

additionally, people often run Vs right up onto enemy tanks, either to try and circle or just because they do that. up close the V has very good pen against almost everything. the jackson has to stay at longer range, and is much weaker, which means that misses or bounces tend to be much more deadly for it. it is much harder to micro as well, both because it's weaker and because it's ideal range is from 51-60.

I think that the perception that the Jackson is less reliable than the panther manily stems from what they face in a typical game. If we go as far to assume that everyone always builds an is2 in 2v2s (meta) and assume that we always see a tiger from ostheer (because the jackson counters t3 very effectively and most deem t4 as too expensive) and panhters from okw (meta). Then the panther is confronting is2 (extreme case assumed with no t3 or t4), shermans, jacksons and everything bellow. The jackson faces tigers and panthers (no t3 from ost). The panther does very well penetration wise against everything smaller than the is2 (higher than 90%) and penetrates the is2 in 58% of all cases, while the jackson is facing panthers and tigers for which it has a chance of penetrating of 55% or 53% respectively.

It is like you state, the jackson is not a worse tank hunter but it is a bit harder to use and the current favourite strategy pits it almost exclusively against the hardest to crack tanks.

I agree. think the tanks are fine but the matchups between Allies and Axis tanks are different. Not fielding an ISU or IS2 means that Axis AT will penetrate most of the time.

I know you have been discussing a lot of the numbers on the tanks Ciez, but what do you think about Allied and Axis Tanks? As someone who is highly-ranked, do you think there are some imbalanced between Axis and Allied AT, particularly tanks?