Pershing ?

Considering that Tiger crews were usually experienced veterans and aware of the box design, you would most likely face a Tiger in Mahlzeitstellung. This explains why it was still a threat later in the war.



I would call the 76mm Sherman a tougher opponent though, because the Russian T-34 (even in the 85mm version) lacked pretty much anything that lets your crew perform up to the task.

Tbh: I think giving the Amis a better medium tank in form of a 76mm Sherman upgrade and a Jumbo as a heavy would have been sufficient. Maybe a Hellcat for doctrines.

Here Katikoff

All these shots appear to have been fired at 90°, whereas the Tiger's manual specifically asked their crews to position their hulls always at 45° during engagement

And how do you position your hull against 3 or 5, or any other number of tanks more than one, for optimal 45 angel for each enemy tank, rotate hull for every shot from other direction?

Sure, but the t34/85 could not penetrate the front of the tiger at a range exceeding 300-400 meters. Just because Fury and other Holywood fables togheter with Coh2 show you something, doesn't mean it is true.

Numbers from German historian from post #236.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/soviet-union/guns.asp

Sure, but the t34/85 could not penetrate the front of the tiger at a range exceeding 300-400 meters. Just because Fury and other Holywood fables togheter with Coh2 show you something, doesn't mean it is true.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Sure, the T34/85 may have had a hard time dealing with a tiger, but behind the T34 was an assault gun/ anti-tank detachment with su-100s, {i}su122s, and isu152s.

Unfortunatly, COH2 is a very narrowly focused game, and without access to all the units armies would have had to counter each other, certain units have to take up roles they never had in real life. This is why historical arguments are meaningless in terms of balance in COH2, and why we have tanks like the T34/76 somehow being used as a main battle tank in 1944. (In reality it had the role of a valentine/ stuart at this point in the war)

Sure, but the t34/85 could not penetrate the front of the tiger at a range exceeding 300-400 meters. Just because Fury and other Holywood fables togheter with Coh2 show you something, doesn't mean it is true.

I would like to point out that Fury showed a single Tiger nearly solo a Sherman platoon before being taken out by an ace crew, and none of the frontal shots penetrated it whole it got death crits on every Sherman.

So... Shouldn't that support your argument?

Arguing over penetration In a vacuum is pointless. The tank that has the element of surprise wins.

Arguing over penetration In a vacuum is pointless. The tank that has the element of surprise wins.

This^ And accounting for angling is also pointless since its not represented ingame IIRC even a Regular M4A3 Sherman Could Bounce 88 shells if angled properly.

People keep talking about angling tigers like it was some super awesome feature that no other tanks ever had.

And while the tigers strong side armor allowed it to angle its armor, and therefore let it still remain a relatively well protected heavy tank even late in the war, this isin't something special.


For example, the t-34 could also be angled, more so than the tiger, because the t-34s side armor was almost just as strong as it's frontal hull armor. Which means that angled at 45 degrees it would become very tough.

Same thing can't be said for the panther and sherman, however, because their weak side armor meant they could not be angled effectivelly.


And honestly, i don't see a problem with the pershing.

Whether the pershing is OP or not will depend on what else the doctrine has to offer. If the doctrine is pershing + some more lategame orientied abilties but no early game boosts, then it will be fine.


Knowing relic it will probaly be rangers, calliope, pershing, LMG rifles and butterfly bombs from AA all in 1 doctrine

I would like to point out that Fury showed a single Tiger nearly solo a Sherman platoon before being taken out by an ace crew, and none of the frontal shots penetrated it whole it got death crits on every Sherman.

So... Shouldn't that support your argument?

I refered to the fact that the tiger tank made the most stupidest move by getting out of concealment. A move that was only done to give brad pitty in his tanki a chance.

People keep talking about angling tigers like it was some super awesome feature that no other tanks ever had.

And while the tigers strong side armor allowed it to angle its armor, and therefore let it still remain a relatively well protected heavy tank even late in the war, this isin't something special.


For example, the t-34 could also be angled, more so than the tiger, because the t-34s side armor was almost just as strong as it's frontal hull armor. Which means that angled at 45 degrees it would become very tough.

Same thing can't be said for the panther and sherman, however, because their weak side armor meant they could not be angled effectivelly.


And honestly, i don't see a problem with the pershing.

Whether the pershing is OP or not will depend on what else the doctrine has to offer. If the doctrine is pershing + some more lategame orientied abilties but no early game boosts, then it will be fine.


Knowing relic it will probaly be rangers, calliope, pershing, LMG rifles and butterfly bombs from AA all in 1 doctrine

To be honest, I am not looking forward to it being doctrinal. Pretty much done with doctrines to be honest

I refered to the fact that the tiger tank made the most stupidest move by getting out of concealment. A move that was only done to give brad pitty in his tanki a chance.

Brad Pits Tank could have taken out that Tiger I with a Frontal Shot from that distance.

I refered to the fact that the tiger tank made the most stupidest move by getting out of concealment. A move that was only done to give brad pitty in his tanki a chance.

IT WAS A MOVIE!

And a pretty dumb one at that. With all the hype about how much realism was incorporated about all they really did was to use (or make it look like they used) the real things.

The US soldiers did not fight that way. Waffen SS did not fight that way.

And the dumbest, stupidest, silliest part of the whole thing. The part that made me endure the rest in pure pain, was the choice by an American unit to stay and fight a desperate/lost battle in April of 1945. By that time the US knew the war was over and it was a matter of only days or weeks. No one was volunteering to possibly be the last man to die. And the reason for the hatred of the Hitler Youth and the Waffen SS was that despite the obvious upcoming loss they were endangering the lives of guys who knew they were weeks away from a surrender/conquest.

The crew would have left the tank, found some way to get back to another unit with a working radio and obliterate the whole area with an air strike or artillery. By this time the planes and guns were both well stocked and short of targets.

IT WAS A MOVIE!

And a pretty dumb one at that. With all the hype about how much realism was incorporated about all they really did was to use (or make it look like they used) the real things.

The US soldiers did not fight that way. Waffen SS did not fight that way.

And the dumbest, stupidest, silliest part of the whole thing. The part that made me endure the rest in pure pain, was the choice by an American unit to stay and fight a desperate/lost battle in April of 1945. By that time the US knew the war was over and it was a matter of only days or weeks. No one was volunteering to possibly be the last man to die. And the reason for the hatred of the Hitler Youth and the Waffen SS was that despite the obvious upcoming loss they were endangering the lives of guys who knew they were weeks away from a surrender/conquest.

The crew would have left the tank, found some way to get back to another unit with a working radio and obliterate the whole area with an air strike or artillery. By this time the planes and guns were both well stocked and short of targets.

But not in the hollywood world

Oh God please don't let Relic put Pershing in a shitty commander.

IT WAS A MOVIE!

And a pretty dumb one at that. With all the hype about how much realism was incorporated about all they really did was to use (or make it look like they used) the real things.

The US soldiers did not fight that way. Waffen SS did not fight that way.

And the dumbest, stupidest, silliest part of the whole thing. The part that made me endure the rest in pure pain, was the choice by an American unit to stay and fight a desperate/lost battle in April of 1945. By that time the US knew the war was over and it was a matter of only days or weeks. No one was volunteering to possibly be the last man to die. And the reason for the hatred of the Hitler Youth and the Waffen SS was that despite the obvious upcoming loss they were endangering the lives of guys who knew they were weeks away from a surrender/conquest.

The crew would have left the tank, found some way to get back to another unit with a working radio and obliterate the whole area with an air strike or artillery. By this time the planes and guns were both well stocked and short of targets.

Dude, who gives a shit?

With making a movie you have certain limits in what you can do. The film depicted the general feel of the whole ordeal well enough, and that's what it's about. You can nitpick shit all you want but that's not the point.

+88

I refered to the fact that the tiger tank made the most stupidest move by getting out of concealment. A move that was only done to give brad pitty in his tanki a chance.

You could argue that since it was 1945, the crew of the Tiger Tank was inexperienced conscripts and thought the Sherman was trying to escape, therefor tried to chase them through the smoke.

But not in the hollywood world

Hollywood has also made some very good/accurate war movies.

While some "patriotic" films are more realistic than others usually the enemy is an amorphous blob. But many are still good and tell stories we might not have otherwise known from at least one side. (Examples: Go for Broke)

The big and accurate historical films can be a bit dry because realism takes precedent over art and motivation. It is hard to properly depict the depth of the characters in The Longest Day or Gettysburg or Midway when the story tries to follow dozens of them. Band of Bros worked so well because they did this over 10 hours giving us a chance to get to know some of the characters and how they changed over the year. But The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, Midway and Gettysburg all try to show accurate portrayals of the enemy. And they are all still VERY Hollywood.

Also great hollywood films with realistic depictions of war: Twelve O'Clock High, Best Years of Our Lives, Battleground (best example of the Paramount Platoon ever). These were not patriotic chest beatings and yet they came in the years just after the war. In many of them you don't even see much of an enemy. Which is mostly accurate for many military of that time.

Why are we talking about fury in a bloody pershing thread? Back on topic plz gents

I don't know why all the fuss. Quite simply we don't yet know how it will be implemented. And anyone who does know isn't talking.

It might be good, it might be crap, the commander might be the new P2W, or it might suck and people use it once in a while to see how the Pershing works

Maybe not recrewable? Or maybe it comes with a vet3 Ranger squad equipped with stolen LMGs and panzershreks?

We just don't know and won't until release.

Janne252 is the only one who would know, and he hasn't said anything about it.