SU-76 issues

the SU-76 doesnt need nerfs for doing what it was meant to do end of story

the SU-76 doesnt need nerfs for doing what it was meant to do end of story

Same could be said about any overperforming unit.

I guess the old Tiger Ace was fine because it did what it was meant to do; or the old flamer HT

Why do you think the Panther is OP? It does what it's meant to do

the SU-76 doesnt need nerfs for doing what it was meant to do end of story

Errrrr..... no

Sov industry was fine back in the day when you can pump out a T-70 in 4-5 minutes, it was doing what it was meant to do.

End of story.

(FTR, shit like that was what caused me to quit for a year, I'm not suggesting this is anywhere near as bad but just a counter example)

Personally, I think the SU-76 has to be reworked in a long range AI, early-midgame AT unit. Then it'll fit in with the tech tree a lot better.

They could make the SU-76 like the pre-patch StuG G, which would actually be reminiscent of it's real-life use. I don't think anyone would use it then though, because it'd overlap with the T-70 and Quad which are both already hard AI.

M4A3 (75mm): Unable to stand up to late-war German tanks, but kept in service by stubborn Army officers. After they failed make a dent in the Ardennes Counteroffensive, High Command ordered all new Shermans to be 76mm armed.

They couldn't really replace tens of thousands of Shermans in service overnight. The 75mm shermans were supplemented by 76mm right from the start of the invasion of France, which seemed like an appropriate solution given that the 75mm had superior performance vs soft targets, which is what they spent most of their time fighting, infantry, bunkers, at guns etc. 75mm did just fine against the assault guns and PIVs and what not. Panthers were the only common vehicle that a 75mm has trouble with, but even a 76mm has difficulty penetrating that frontally unless they're using the HVAP rounds that were not commonly distributed to non-TD units until very late in the war.

Decision makers were getting conflicting information from units based on experience in Italy and North Africa, some saying that they didn't think they needed heavier TDs and what not. It's pretty complicated I guess. Wasn't until they started encountering tons of Panthers that they really started rushing the 90mm stuff into service.

I guess it's a question of whether you consider something obsolete when there is something that can decisively outclass it, even if it's relatively uncommon or other factors dilute its impact. The 75mm Sherms were doing fine on average, even if we now tend to have a warped perception of these helpless American tankers getting slaughtered en masse by Big Cats.

I guess it's a question of whether you consider something obsolete when there is something that can decisively outclass it, even if it's relatively uncommon or other factors dilute its impact. The 75mm Sherms were doing fine on average, even if we now tend to have a warped perception of these helpless American tankers getting slaughtered en masse by Big Cats.

That's not what I meant to imply. The 75mm Armed Shermans did fine when used in the roles you described. Most Armies used Tanks to fight other Tanks, the US Army felt that this was the role of Tank Destroyers, and thus despite the introduction of the 76mm Shermans, the Army felt they were unnecessary. The Army felt that a Tank could choose to attack wherever it wanted, and that a Tank Destroyer would respond to enemy attacks.

It wasn't until the Battle of the Bulge that the Army realised the Tank Destroyer doctrine was flawed, and that a sudden blitz through their lines left them unable to effectively fight back with Infantry and Shermans. It was after this realisation that the Army ordered all future Shermans be 76mm, and that 75mm Shermans will no longer be accepted.

That's not what I meant to imply. The 75mm Armed Shermans did fine when used in the roles you described. Most Armies used Tanks to fight other Tanks, the US Army felt that this was the role of Tank Destroyers, and thus despite the introduction of the 76mm Shermans, the Army felt they were unnecessary. The Army felt that a Tank could choose to attack wherever it wanted, and that a Tank Destroyer would respond to enemy attacks.

It wasn't until the Battle of the Bulge that the Army realised the Tank Destroyer doctrine was flawed, and that a sudden blitz through their lines left them unable to effectively fight back with Infantry and Shermans. It was after this realisation that the Army ordered all future Shermans be 76mm, and that 75mm Shermans will no longer be accepted.

Yes, I believe thats true. The reasons the Shermans were kept with the 75mm I believe was due to the insistence of the General of the Artillery who also slowed down M26 development.

In CoH2, the Shermans (excluding the E8) can do AI efficiently and AT as efficiently as a Pz 4 H, but struggles against Panthers, Tigers and Elefants, as they should.

As you find in CoH2, save certain exceptions like Pumas, AT Guns (the latter which I'm fine with because there's a far greater risk in fielding AT guns than there are vehicles), most vehicles end up playing out reasonably truthfully to history, aka, the kind of performance we'd expect out of them. The only big gaping exception at the moment - is the SU-76.

And if the SU-76 can deal with German Midgame units, I'd definitely build it, it would easily shut down Pz 4 options that they otherwise could bring along and thats a big thing as it forces people to tech to Panthers.

Same could be said about any overperforming unit.

I guess the old Tiger Ace was fine because it did what it was meant to do; or the old flamer HT

Why do you think the Panther is OP? It does what it's meant to do

by simply killing its counters? the panther is op cause it outclasses heavy tanks and tank destroyers alike for the cheap cost of 490 mp and 175 fuel(heavy tanks cost much more),and its non doctrinal and its not limited and has a pop of 16,thats OP.

the su-76 on the otherhand is not,tell me is it op to have a frigale tank destroyers that does 120 damage??
not thats not OP its a unit that you must bring in numbers to make it effective,by reducing its penetrattion you make it useless against tanks and punish the soviet player for making them.

i never spoke of those units but if you really want an answer that ok here is my answer.
the tiger ace was op cause it outclassed the tiger 1(came at the same time but didnt cost fuel only mp and was already at max vet)
the old flamehalftruck instawiped infantry and by the time it arrived there was no counter to it so it was OP

the SU-76 which you wanted to compare with those units is nothing like them,it doesnt outclasses a single su-85 or the at gun ZIS-3,it arrives when counters exist to destroy it and doesnt instawipe alone tanks(try killing a panzer 4 with 1 su-76 and tell me how well it went)

1. by simply killing its counters? the panther is op cause it outclasses heavy tanks and tank destroyers alike for the cheap cost of 490 mp and 175 fuel(heavy tanks cost much more),and its non doctrinal and its not limited and has a pop of 16,thats OP.

2. the su-76 on the otherhand is not,tell me is it op to have a frigale tank destroyers that does 120 damage??
not thats not OP its a unit that you must bring in numbers to make it effective,by reducing its penetrattion you make it useless against tanks and punish the soviet player for making them.

3. the tiger ace was op cause it outclassed the tiger 1(came at the same time but didnt cost fuel only mp and was already at max vet)
the old flamehalftruck instawiped infantry and by the time it arrived there was no counter to it so it was OP

1. Outclasses its counters? It's a tank hunter that costs a significant amount of fuel more than other TDs. It's not meant to be countered by tanks (although SU-85s/Jacksons can fight it just fine; not on their own though), just use ATGs, mines etc.

IS-2s can fight Panthers and have way better AI. I don't know what your problem is.

2. Did I say that its stats were the problem? No, but it's too effective for its cost.

3. Those units did what they were meant to do. So they were fine by your definition.

1. Outclasses its counters? It's a tank hunter that costs a significant amount of fuel more than other TDs. It's not meant to be countered by tanks (although SU-85s/Jacksons can fight it just fine; not on their own though), just use ATGs, mines etc.

IS-2s can fight Panthers and have way better AI. I don't know what your problem is.

2. Did I say that its stats were the problem? No, but it's too effective for its cost.

3. Those units did what they were meant to do. So they were fine by your definition.

tell me where it says both in real life and ingame that it says its a tank hunter and i will accept it

the is-2s have good AI????where did you saw that??have you ever used that unit??that thing is pure rng when it fires

2.you just said its stats are the problem for its costs,do you even think when you type??

3.those units did what they were meant and more thats why they were overpowered and were nerfed,the su-76 does what it was meant and nothing more so quit whining

1. Outclasses its counters? It's a tank hunter that costs a significant amount of fuel more than other TDs. It's not meant to be countered by tanks (although SU-85s/Jacksons can fight it just fine; not on their own though), just use ATGs, mines etc.

IS-2s can fight Panthers and have way better AI. I don't know what your problem is.

2. Did I say that its stats were the problem? No, but it's too effective for its cost.

3. Those units did what they were meant to do. So they were fine by your definition.

Don't bother talking to this guy, he's just toxicity on wheels, cherrypicks history and examples in games and is soooooooo passionate (ahem abusive) of certain units in the game.

He has an over 10k ranking anyway while trying his very best to make us think he has a under 1k.

Don't bother talking to this guy, he's just toxicity on wheels, cherrypicks history and examples in games and is soooooooo passionate (ahem abusive) of certain units in the game.

He has an over 10k ranking anyway while trying his very best to make us think he has a under 1k.

Nice flame. 10/10. Would forum again. Keep up the helpful discussion.


SU-76 is fine I think, if you build it after quad I believe it comes out just before 1st opposing Ostheer T3 unit. Counter heavy soviet T3 with heavy Ost T3 with Stug Gs especially. If the Soviet players stay T3 the Ostheer T3 will overwhelm them once you have several tanks out, in my experience anyway.

Oh man I've been spamming Su76 in my last couple of 2v2 games and fuck do you even need any other units? I thought people were exaggerating when talking about King Tigers getting taken out by SU76s, but it turns out I just wasn't building enough of them

I actually think the root problem is not so much its stock effectiveness (although that is very good) but it vets up super fast on account of its low cost. I'd probably be happy with a slight increase in vet requirement and maybe 5 fuel increase.

I had a 2vs2 yesterday with a vet5 panther. Not a single shot from every su76 could penetrate that panther.
So get a panther on vet5 and you will never have problems to deal with su76

I had a 2vs2 yesterday with a vet5 panther. Not a single shot from every su76 could penetrate that panther.
So get a panther on vet5 and you will never have problems to deal with su76

Yet it pens the Kt easly...

I had a 2vs2 yesterday with a vet5 panther. Not a single shot from every su76 could penetrate that panther.
So get a panther on vet5 and you will never have problems to deal with su76

Elite Troops OKW OP OP