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.