Why has the USF regular sherman become so bad...

Those are countered just fine by both Panthers. In fact, I don't think it is a good idea to build stugs to counter those units if they come in number, Jpz4 is probably better in that way but that's an other topic.



Agree with you to a certain point but Lvs or not Ostheer and OKW always have access to pak/raketen to support their Pz4s so I find it questionable that Pz4s became better AT than the sherman over the time when they have all support access from previous tier + the possibility to build a dedicated medium counter.

As for buffing the Ostwind, I'm not against but who would build a Ostwind over a Pz4 if not by itself OP in a sens that the Pz4 is already strong vs infantry and strong vs Armor. Say you put the ostwind to Sherman HE level, people will still prefer the Pz4 for its AT capability and still good AI capability.

First of all, i dont agree at all the way you mix arguments with excuses, since you do not only not care about how the other faction manages to react to any USF offensive but you deny the fact that such play done properly should be ablo to stop you from gettinv your objectives. Its a double fallacy. Its like sayin "if you raketencheese with 4 or more you instakill a sherman, and still i dont understand why raketen can cloak and kill tanks" this kind of sentences are in the far espectrum or logic arguments agreeable to others PoV.
Lago laid out the situation in a neutral PoV, and he tried to explain why pz4 have an edge in AT, sooner or later OST vs USF needs it to keep balance. As for oswind to be a inf counter it would be very healthy for the sake of the game variety, but thats offtopic.
Again shermans afe not meant to be superior since USF have either better options in the same time mark or for lategame, they still set the pace of the matchup, since riflemen can put so much pressure and a stuarts just boosts that power. Shermans are more like a reactive play and a neutral one rather than being still aggressive.
If shermans were to be ablo to keep that USF pressure power they must be HP nerfed, acc nerfed and become a risky choice rather than a safe one as it is right now

Agree with you to a certain point but Lvs or not Ostheer and OKW always have access to pak/raketen to support their Pz4s so I find it questionable that Pz4s became better AT than the sherman over the time when they have all support access from previous tier + the possibility to build a dedicated medium counter.

USF has access to AT tools too: a Sherman does just fine against a P4 if you give it some backup.

On paper, the Sherman's great: it's got standard medium tank anti-armor performance, and can toggle into one of the best anti-infantry tanks in the game.

But in practice?

30 FU more gets you a dedicated tank destroyer that'll go toe to toe with a Panther and clobber anything weaker. USF tends to have a strong AI presence on the field in this timing window, so the Jackson tends to get deployed instead. It's a much safer choice.

The Panzer IV, however, doesn't really have a competitor in its tier. The Ostwind and StuG don't have much of a performance advantage in their specialist area, so for your first tank you almost invariably wait 30 FU for the generalist.

The OST p4 vs Sherman in my experience is more of a coin flip than anything else, Considering the sherman is cheaper that's pretty good. It also has the best AI of all mediums and its not really that close. It has 3 MGs like a p4 but also gets the HE shells that absolutely shit on infantry.

The Sherman only really struggles to fight the OKW p4 since that tank has a lot of armor but it also costs a lot more so it would be ridiculous if the Sherman could 1v1 a okw p4.

Where it is right now, The Sherman is in a solid spot. good AI, with slightly inferior AT.

I'd personally like to see a stock upgun option, trading better AT for worse AI. But Honestly, this is slightly redundant, as; if I wanted to do that I have the E8 or the 76mm, and would probably require adding a new entry to coh2, which relic just doesnt have the time or the money for.

On the other hand, remove the E8 from Rifle company, replace it with a Pershing or Priest, or even a strafe call in, add the E8 turret to the existing Sherman, as a side tech, tune it according to cost, remove the ability to swap shells (after upgrading, becomes permanently locked on AP). But this'd never work, too many moving parts and sheer amounts of reworking. Plus, there would be no reason to use the 76mm, as it already does a decent job at chasing P4s away for an additional 15FU.

But none the less, the Sherman is in a good spot, but I personally would like to see some form of upgunning, even if its just the the hell of it.

Edit; one final note:
I DO indeed like where the Sherman is, but I don't like the idea of having to go for a separate commander or spend an addition 30FU to reliably contest a stock vehicle. But that is the reality, the Sherman M4 was never initially meant to be an Anti tank-vehicle, and was designed as an infantry support tank, before undergoing serious changes to adapt to the battlefield.

Troll thread

The sum up the thread, the Sherman is good, but the Jackson is better. So people end up getting the "better" option. If you're ahead in the fuel race, the Sherman is the "better" option though. Gives more shock value than the p4 due to its best in class HE rounds.

Sherman's AI is a whole different level on its own, especially when you get 2 Shermans, the party gets real. Yeah, sometimes you might hit a squad and it won't lose much hp (been there, done that), so i'm trying to figure out if it's more effective to target attack at the squad or attack ground. Against P4 it's pretty solid i can say. In my opinion and experience it's a 50-50% chance to win. The only thing i would like to have improved at this bad boi, would probably be the smoke. Maybe be able to fire it on the move, that's it. But in general it's a good choice.

i mostly build 1-2 shermans with HE and 2 jackson and its really easy to rolfstomp most fights with this.