Login

russian armor

M26 Pershing/Calliope Debate

PAGES (12)down
9 Aug 2015, 12:40 PM
#101
avatar of Chunkeemunkee88

Posts: 40

M4A3E2 AKA Sherman Jumbo would be a better bet. Pershing is awesome and all but ...SHERMAN JUMBO!!!!!


My logic is flawless...
10 Aug 2015, 03:04 AM
#102
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

I initially disliked the idea of the Pershing because I was maining axis at the time, so typical axis fanboy behaviour, but since then I think it's more a case of USF need more variation and not bigger things to run away with. The lacking Riflemen vet, small core and even doctrinal infantry variety makes for predictable plays and the small size of WFA commander pools all contribute to USF being a one dimensional faction. I don't think I want a Pershing that will just spawn USF early dominance into stall for Pershing call in.
10 Aug 2015, 04:02 AM
#103
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2015, 03:04 AMSwift
I initially disliked the idea of the Pershing because I was maining axis at the time, so typical axis fanboy behaviour, but since then I think it's more a case of USF need more variation and not bigger things to run away with.


I don't want one because a Sherman Jumbo would actually be a unique take on the "Heavy" Tank, rather than a copy of the Tiger or IS-2 like the Pershing will probably be. That and the Jumbo actually had an effect on the outcome of the war, while the Pershing showed up at the very end and did nothing spectacular, other than show the Soviets our most recent advancements in tank development right before our alliance was over (not that this mattered either!).

254 Sherman Jumbos officially produced, unknown number of custom conversions (tank crews salvaging armour from dead tanks and welding it to theirs), saw productive use in the Battle of the Bulge. Compared to 20 M26 Pershings (still known as T26E3 upon their arrival to Europe), a fraction of which saw action.
10 Aug 2015, 04:11 AM
#104
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470



I don't want one because a Sherman Jumbo would actually be a unique take on the "Heavy" Tank, rather than a copy of the Tiger or IS-2 like the Pershing will probably be. That and the Jumbo actually had an effect on the outcome of the war, while the Pershing showed up at the very end and did nothing spectacular, other than show the Soviets our most recent advancements in tank development right before our alliance was over (not that this mattered either!).

254 Sherman Jumbos officially produced, unknown number of custom conversions (tank crews salvaging armour from dead tanks and welding it to theirs), saw productive use in the Battle of the Bulge. Compared to 20 M26 Pershings (still known as T26E3 upon their arrival to Europe), a fraction of which saw action.


we all know the ostwind, 251/17, and sturm tiger are what nearly won the war for the germans.
10 Aug 2015, 04:24 AM
#105
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

we all know the ostwind, 251/17, and sturm tiger are what nearly won the war for the germans.


The Ostwind should have been a Wirbelwind, only because the Möbelwagen would need a set-up and tear-down time, which doesn't fit the role of a mobile anti-infantry weapon. Rather, it would be temporary static-defense.

251/17 should have been the 251/21 Drilling, but Drilling didn't need to 'setup' because it had fixed panels, so the unit would function more like the Soviet Quad, which may have been too similar.

The Sturmtiger gets a pass solely because there is nothing else like it that could take on the function it has in-game, but I still think it's a silly unit and hard to balance.

I have similar feelings about the Jagdtiger, would have preferred a Jagdpanther instead.
13 Aug 2015, 22:55 PM
#106
avatar of The Big Red 1

Posts: 758



The Ostwind should have been a Wirbelwind, only because the Möbelwagen would need a set-up and tear-down time, which doesn't fit the role of a mobile anti-infantry weapon. Rather, it would be temporary static-defense.

251/17 should have been the 251/21 Drilling, but Drilling didn't need to 'setup' because it had fixed panels, so the unit would function more like the Soviet Quad, which may have been too similar.

The Sturmtiger gets a pass solely because there is nothing else like it that could take on the function it has in-game, but I still think it's a silly unit and hard to balance.

I have similar feelings about the Jagdtiger, would have preferred a Jagdpanther instead.

if they are in there then the M26 should be in there too its no fair that the axis get all cool looking hard hitting toys while the USF is given short-end-of-the-stick, hand-me-down hardware
13 Aug 2015, 22:58 PM
#107
avatar of BeefSurge

Posts: 1891

I want the USF to get a super Pershing ace equipped with Caliope rockets. Vehicle crew all have assault rifle variant M1 Carbines and incendiary grenades.

14 Aug 2015, 06:49 AM
#108
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think more Jagdtigers were built than Ostwinds.

*Axis Fanboyism* WE NEED MORE WT AUF E100s with autoloaders *end Axis Fanboyism*
17 Aug 2015, 12:32 PM
#109
avatar of Trubbbel

Posts: 721

Keeping Pershing and Calliope in CoH1 secures good reasons to backtrack. Go Coh1 as well as Coh2!

I want the USF to get a super Pershing ace equipped with Caliope rockets. Vehicle crew all have assault rifle variant M1 Carbines and incendiary grenades.


17 Aug 2015, 13:14 PM
#110
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

Calliope would be very welcomed for me. I feel like some of USF late-game struggles comes from their lack of real artillery so its very difficult to clear out an Ost. player who has dug in somewhere with MG42s and Paks especcially on certain maps like when you spawn South on Langresaya :(
17 Aug 2015, 13:42 PM
#111
avatar of IGOR

Posts: 228

Calliope would be very welcomed for me. I feel like some of USF late-game struggles comes from their lack of real artillery so its very difficult to clear out an Ost. player who has dug in somewhere with MG42s and Paks especcially on certain maps like when you spawn South on Langresaya :(


yeah axis retardboys compare a m8 scott to a stuka or katyusha, that makes me so
17 Aug 2015, 15:16 PM
#112
avatar of AsmallChicken

Posts: 11

Wouldn't the Sherman Jumbo just be a glorified KV1? Nothing to be too excited about.
17 Aug 2015, 15:48 PM
#113
avatar of Hogman512

Posts: 168

The point I think some are missing, is that the USF are probably designed to work better alongside the UKF than alongside the Soviets. It seems that UKF will be bringing the better armour to the field, and the USF will be a very good complimentary faction to that one, even in its current form.

There is no denying that some further reworks are needed to all factions even when discounting the balance issues. And I would hazard a guess that Relic will do this with the commander rework etc which cant be too far away now.
18 Aug 2015, 00:08 AM
#114
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Wouldn't the Sherman Jumbo just be a glorified KV1? Nothing to be too excited about.


And the Pershing would just be a copy+paste IS-2. So interesting.

Besides, the Jumbo had superior performance to the KV-1. Armour was better, and they could be armed with 76mm guns.
nee
18 Aug 2015, 02:43 AM
#115
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216



And the Pershing would just be a copy+paste IS-2. So interesting.

Besides, the Jumbo had superior performance to the KV-1. Armour was better, and they could be armed with 76mm guns.


You know, you still haven't actually defined your idea of what a heavy tank is. Also, calling Pershing a Tiger/IS2 copy paste is, well, like saying Obama's a Muslim.
18 Aug 2015, 02:55 AM
#116
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Aug 2015, 02:43 AMnee
You know, you still haven't actually defined your idea of what a heavy tank is.


What is this even supposed to mean?
nee
18 Aug 2015, 03:26 AM
#117
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216

It means you're throwing that term around without actually telling us what it is, and when I asked you to define that term you ignored that request.
18 Aug 2015, 03:44 AM
#118
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Aug 2015, 03:26 AMnee
It means you're throwing that term around without actually telling us what it is, and when I asked you to define that term you ignored that request.


I ignored it because it wasn't relevant.
nee
18 Aug 2015, 03:48 AM
#119
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216

Then you're speaking nonsense when you insist things are heavy vehicles and not even bothering to explain why. Jumbos, for example, are the closest to what US troops had to heavy tanks, because they had no actual heavy tanks outside of the M26. Closest to heavy =/= actual heavy.
As for comparing M26 to IS-2, your comparison relies entirely on the presumption that it WOULD be the same as the IS-2, whereas not everyone has made such claims. I for one would not want the 26 to be "USF IS-2". Again, whatever that means, but I'll assume you won't bother elaborating on that either.
18 Aug 2015, 04:05 AM
#120
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Aug 2015, 03:48 AMnee
Then you're speaking nonsense when you insist things are heavy vehicles and not even bothering to explain why. Jumbos, for example, are the closest to what US troops had to heavy tanks, because they had no actual heavy tanks outside of the M26. Closest to heavy =/= actual heavy.


You're not telling me what I'm supposed to explain, you're asking "What is a Heavy Tank" and withholding any other relevant information, probably trying to get me to say something incorrect so you can "prove" me wrong. Why does the definition matter so much as long as the unit performs well? A Jumbo Sherman would give the Americans a more durable tank whilst also being unique compared to the Tiger or IS-2.
PAGES (12)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

616 users are online: 616 guests
0 post in the last 24h
2 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49388
Welcome our newest member, KETTA
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM