Jackson TD

Hey guys new to the forum.. I think. Might've had an account before, but I don't rememeber.

Anyway I was rewatching a great video by TheChieftainWoT and in the video "Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015" at the 12:20 mark he goes into the role and the field manual of a TD. What's interesting, and I find very true even with this game, is that the manual basically says the TD shouldn't go and attack unless it is in an armored division. The main role of the TD was to stay and defend and try to ambush the attackers. Which makes sense especially in this game. Way too many times do I see people charging in their Jackson just to get that one last shot off, but then as soon as it hits another tank with full health and some shrecks it's all lost for the Jackson. With that I've actually been keeping my Jackson back a lot and when I'm attacking I'm relying on my AT and shermans to take care of armor, however if the enemy ever decides to rush his tanks to flank my offense then I'll bring up my Jacksons to flank his flank... flankception.

With that I'm also thinking that the Sherman (much like in CoH1) should have an option to upgrade it's gun to have a little more punch to it. I'm not saying the equivalent of a Jackson, but a little stronger so that the Panther just doesn't steamroll over the Shermans.

Mind you I mainly play 4v4, but in a 1v1 situation I would probably do the same thing unless a situation calls for my jacksons to move forward.

What do you guys think?

EDIT: Of course if a KT, Elefant, Tiger, etc. get called in and they're almost dead I'll rush in to kill it, but against a Panther? Not worth it IMO.

i find at guns much better than jacksons to protect your rear/flanks, building such a expensive unit to just keep it in the rear doing nothing feels like a waste of resources, at guns do the same and are cheaper

While you are very correct in that they are effective as a defensive unit, the real meat of it is that they're effective when they have a screen. Remember that the vehicle AI will target the closer tank unless given a direct command by the player, but that command stops the tank from moving. So if an Axis player wants to try and attack your Jackson over your, let's say, Sherman, they have to stop moving (if not move forward), which allows your sherman to continue to advance, flank, and even block from the rear of your target.

The M36 Jackson also has two crucial benefits that does allow for it to be used without support offensively: range and sight. It has better range than most enemy units, but more importantly it has better sight. A couple Jacksons can be extremely powerful with a slow approach. As long as you don't attack directly head on, and try and get as much of an angle as possible, your targets may not even be able to fire back before you fade back out of sight. (Of if you manage to approach from the rear, or flank an unturreted vehicle, kill them outright.)

A similar game can be played as either Axis faction using the Puma, though this is much more dangerous, though you have better sight. (50 instead of 40.)

Keep in mind though against ostheer that pioneers have 42 sight, 2 more than the Jackson. So be wary of that if you're hunting repairing vehicles. Also, spotting scopes.

i find at guns much better than jacksons to protect your rear/flanks, building such a expensive unit to just keep it in the rear doing nothing feels like a waste of resources, at guns do the same and are cheaper

I agree they are expensive hence even more the reason not to commit them fully to an attack. No good Axis player will let their tanks go unsupported with shrecks and AT. I was thinking about this and I guess (which most people know, but don't really do I think) is to take out the PAK and inf first then move in your tank at an angle.

While you are very correct in that they are effective as a defensive unit, the real meat of it is that they're effective when they have a screen. Remember that the vehicle AI will target the closer tank unless given a direct command by the player, but that command stops the tank from moving. So if an Axis player wants to try and attack your Jackson over your, let's say, Sherman, they have to stop moving (if not move forward), which allows your sherman to continue to advance, flank, and even block from the rear of your target.

The M36 Jackson also has two crucial benefits that does allow for it to be used without support offensively: range and sight. It has better range than most enemy units, but more importantly it has better sight. A couple Jacksons can be extremely powerful with a slow approach. As long as you don't attack directly head on, and try and get as much of an angle as possible, your targets may not even be able to fire back before you fade back out of sight. (Of if you manage to approach from the rear, or flank an unturreted vehicle, kill them outright.)

A similar game can be played as either Axis faction using the Puma, though this is much more dangerous, though you have better sight. (50 instead of 40.)

Keep in mind though against ostheer that pioneers have 42 sight, 2 more than the Jackson. So be wary of that if you're hunting repairing vehicles. Also, spotting scopes.

Agreed and definitely new insight having Jacksons shoot then scoot back. Which is exactly what Shermans did in the war since they were the only tanks to have stabalizers I think.

I say this cause I always see USF players deciding to run their Jacksons into the enemies line and trying to kite a unit they think is alone. I don't think anyone is denying that the Jackson is a great tank, but I wanted to see what other people thought if they would rather have a tank with a tank with stronger armor or an upgradable option for a better gun for the Sherman.

I say this cause I always see USF players deciding to run their Jacksons into the enemies line and trying to kite a unit they think is alone. I don't think anyone is denying that the Jackson is a great tank, but I wanted to see what other people thought if they would rather have a tank with a tank with stronger armor or an upgradable option for a better gun for the Sherman.

Bad players are doing that all the time and are bad because of it, they don't know how to use them efficiently, even if it works ( ie: playing vs worst players). Good players are doing that when they lose their nerves or because there is nothing else to do, what we usually call a all-in.
If you want a better sherman, use the infantry company. However the modding team is changing the role of the Jackson, check the FALL mod patchnote.

Bad players are doing that all the time and are bad because of it, they don't know how to use them efficiently, even if it works ( ie: playing vs worst players). Good players are doing that when they lose their nerves or because there is nothing else to do, what we usually call a all-in.
If you want a better sherman, use the infantry company. However the modding team is changing the role of the Jackson, check the FALL mod patchnote.

I checked out the Fall Patch Preview. I haven't played it, but I did read through the notes.

I really don't know how I feel about this change. Correct if I'm wrong they're essentially also making the Jackson be able to be a dive in unit. They've given it buffs and the only "debuff" they've given it is being more expensive?

Also, I don't like the M10 change. Doesn't seem very necessary. The price jack to 450MP???? That's crazy! That's 900MP if I want 2! Hell might as well just get a Jackson. The Sherman Dozer change is great! Finally, something to be somewhat like the Brummbar. Don't get me wrong the mortars and howy are great, (the mortar carriage is something I don't find very impressive) but I think this was much needed.

For the most part these changes seem fine to me when it comes to the USF, but we'll have to see.

I agree they are expensive hence even more the reason not to commit them fully to an attack. No good Axis player will let their tanks go unsupported with shrecks and AT. I was thinking about this and I guess (which most people know, but don't really do I think) is to take out the PAK and inf first then move in your tank at an angle.



Agreed and definitely new insight having Jacksons shoot then scoot back. Which is exactly what Shermans did in the war since they were the only tanks to have stabalizers I think.

I say this cause I always see USF players deciding to run their Jacksons into the enemies line and trying to kite a unit they think is alone. I don't think anyone is denying that the Jackson is a great tank, but I wanted to see what other people thought if they would rather have a tank with a tank with stronger armor or an upgradable option for a better gun for the Sherman.

I think everyone makes the mistake of doing this, it's just a bit more punishing for the jackson since it doesn't have very much health and is meant to be supported by spotting/screening infantry. In 1v1s, I usually just spam jacksons unless I'm really ahead and feel like a sherman (or shermans) will end the game. My reasoning is that seeing as I mostly go lieutenant tier and get a M15 and .50 cal and have 3-4 squads of bar riflemen (counting an officer squad), I usually have enough anti-infantry firepower that I don't need the HE capabilities of the sherman or scott, but I am very vulnerable to enemy armor. I'll just stick the jackson like 30 meters behind my other forces wherever I'm expecting armor and whatever is in front (usually rifles of course) will spot for the jackson and protect it from at infantry and tank dives. And then of course the jackson will be able to take another hit from all tank/at guns with the FBP. I didn't know they were making the M10 450mp though. That's a bit insane, considering a comet is 500, but that's offtopic anyway.

I checked out the Fall Patch Preview. I haven't played it, but I did read through the notes.

I really don't know how I feel about this change. Correct if I'm wrong they're essentially also making the Jackson be able to be a dive in unit. They've given it buffs and the only "debuff" they've given it is being more expensive?

Also, I don't like the M10 change. Doesn't seem very necessary. The price jack to 450MP???? That's crazy! That's 900MP if I want 2! Hell might as well just get a Jackson. The Sherman Dozer change is great! Finally, something to be somewhat like the Brummbar. Don't get me wrong the mortars and howy are great, (the mortar carriage is something I don't find very impressive) but I think this was much needed.

For the most part these changes seem fine to me when it comes to the USF, but we'll have to see.

Double scotts are actually a bit insane, especially against four man squads, as they have very fast projectile speed and won't get stuka/pwerfer'd like pack howies and are pretty mobile. They can also take 3 hits from pretty much all hard at sources (tanks, at guns). The only problem is taht getting a scott means you're 75 fuel farther from getting a normal tank. I only make mortars when I'm really really desperate for some indirect.

I think everyone makes the mistake of doing this, it's just a bit more punishing for the jackson since it doesn't have very much health and is meant to be supported by spotting/screening infantry. In 1v1s, I usually just spam jacksons unless I'm really ahead and feel like a sherman (or shermans) will end the game. My reasoning is that seeing as I mostly go lieutenant tier and get a M15 and .50 cal and have 3-4 squads of bar riflemen (counting an officer squad), I usually have enough anti-infantry firepower that I don't need the HE capabilities of the sherman or scott, but I am very vulnerable to enemy armor. I'll just stick the jackson like 30 meters behind my other forces wherever I'm expecting armor and whatever is in front (usually rifles of course) will spot for the jackson and protect it from at infantry and tank dives. And then of course the jackson will be able to take another hit from all tank/at guns with the FBP. I didn't know they were making the M10 450mp though. That's a bit insane, considering a comet is 500, but that's offtopic anyway.

Double scotts are actually a bit insane, especially against four man squads, as they have very fast projectile speed and won't get stuka/pwerfer'd like pack howies and are pretty mobile. They can also take 3 hits from pretty much all hard at sources (tanks, at guns). The only problem is taht getting a scott means you're 75 fuel farther from getting a normal tank. I only make mortars when I'm really really desperate for some indirect.

I'm actually rethinking how I use Shermans and I find that their smoke ability is crazy nice. The range is great and can really stop the AT guns well. Which could help with Jacksons moving up a little bit. Also, agreed I do find that almost everyone does it.

The 450 is insane, but it costs that much if you don't get a major. Which I still disagree with.

I'll have to try the double scotts. Had no idea they were that strong against AT. Also, very true so many times have the enemy arty killed my howys and mortars. Another thing you mention yes the 75 fuel is pretty harsh. Not saying it shouldn't cost that much, but definitely a very heavy option to weigh.

I'm actually rethinking how I use Shermans and I find that their smoke ability is crazy nice. The range is great and can really stop the AT guns well. Which could help with Jacksons moving up a little bit. Also, agreed I do find that almost everyone does it.

The 450 is insane, but it costs that much if you don't get a major. Which I still disagree with.

I'll have to try the double scotts. Had no idea they were that strong against AT. Also, very true so many times have the enemy arty killed my howys and mortars. Another thing you mention yes the 75 fuel is pretty harsh. Not saying it shouldn't cost that much, but definitely a very heavy option to weigh.

Sherman smoke is actually very good. Don't underestimate rifleman smoke either though, a son it's even cheaper and you don't have to risk your sherman to deploy it. It gets very good range at vet3, especially if you use the grenade range bulletin.

Only if you don't get a major? I'm kind of fine with that, as right now its main use is to counter call-in cheese. Now it can just be a cheap diving tank, as it is pretty cheap.

Double scotts is mostly a teamgame thing, but I guess very late game in 1v1s it might be useful too. Just make sure to bring lots of at if you go that route though. Actually (never done this, and just thought of it) scotts make great m20 mine bait. If you lay them cleverly, you could potentially immobilize diving p4s or panthers that are going for your scotts, leaving them way behind enemy lines and pretty much screwed. Because when I think about it, the greatest (and most frequent) threat to scotts are diving tanks.

Sherman smoke is actually very good. Don't underestimate rifleman smoke either though, a son it's even cheaper and you don't have to risk your sherman to deploy it. It gets very good range at vet3, especially if you use the grenade range bulletin.

Only if you don't get a major? I'm kind of fine with that, as right now its main use is to counter call-in cheese. Now it can just be a cheap diving tank, as it is pretty cheap.

Double scotts is mostly a teamgame thing, but I guess very late game in 1v1s it might be useful too. Just make sure to bring lots of at if you go that route though. Actually (never done this, and just thought of it) scotts make great m20 mine bait. If you lay them cleverly, you could potentially immobilize diving p4s or panthers that are going for your scotts, leaving them way behind enemy lines and pretty much screwed. Because when I think about it, the greatest (and most frequent) threat to scotts are diving tanks.

Agreed and true riflemen smokes are great, but sometimes it takes a little for them to acutally throw'em. Definitely, the 7% increase of nade range is amazing.

I mean true I think I have a problem with the huge increase. Also, yes double M10's with one AT can take out any tang thrown at it. Except for a king tiger and brummbar.

I mostly play 4v4 and yeah double scotts do work wonders. Also, I could never find a good time to go lieu, so I never realy got M20's, but I should give them another try. Mines have saved my ass more than a dozen times. Especially love spamming them with rifles. The demolition with the assault engis are also OP... until the Axis decide to get mine sweepers.

Jacksons can work well with AT guns. I don't remember how it's called, but AT guns have an ability to extend their sight range. Putting 1-2 AT guns on the front and keeping Jacksons some meters behind can be very good to outrange enemy armor. And in order to be more effective, plant some anti tank mines on the ground. If the enemy decides to attack with only a tank, you can take it out pretty quick. It will step on a mine, get immobilized and then your Jacksons take action.

Jackson 2-1 : Reporting enemy armor destroyed!

Agreed and definitely new insight having Jacksons shoot then scoot back. Which is exactly what Shermans did in the war since they were the only tanks to have stabalizers I think.

In reality, the stabilizers did very little for firing on the move, next to nothing even. What it was helpful for was for reducing the time between the vehicle stopping (which it still had to do to hit anything) and firing, which is still technically a boost in mobility while firing -- just not the shooting without stopping everyone envisions. Even Cold War tanks couldn't reliably hit anything while moving until the 70's.

Nothing in WWII realistically helped being able to fire on the move, be it American stabilizers, Panther suspension, or otherwise. The only point in moving while firing is suppression, where they don't plan on hitting anything in the first place.