The USF would be much better served by the Jumbo76 than the Pershing and it would make more sense historically and gameplay wise.
1. The Americans are a SHERMAN army. The M4A3 is the base tank. The Jackson and Wolverine use the Sherman Chassis. The 105 and E8 are Shermans. The whole advantage of the Sherman and the American army in tanks was this standardization. Everything is a Sherman on some level and that greatly greatly simplified logistics. It doesn't matter if 2 armored divisions facing off both have 200 tanks. What matters is how many of those 200 tanks show up to battle and how well they can repair damaged tanks after the battle. American tanks had this huge advantage with rigid standardization.
I don't know if you're trying to argue on the realism/ gameplay side. This point doesn't help either though. That the M36 and M10 were derivatives somehow reinforces the "they're all Shermans" argument is nonsense. You might as well say the Soviets were a T-34 army. They weren't in real life, and not the case in the game either. That they greatly simplified logistics is also an exaggeration: there were more differing variants of Shermans than there were different vehicles in the US Army in Europe, and many of them with their 75mm guns were thrown to the rear lines when it was made apparent they sucked hard against German armour. There was considerable problems trying to find new ways to use these tank variants that they spend a lot of time finding upgrades that brought new turrets and new guns. The single chassis allowed for some simplicity, but also greatly reduced the adaptability of the Americans. The "All Sherman" army concept is just plain false, it was not a doctrine but a reality they had to live with.
2. The Pershing is a mediocre run of the mill heavy tank. The 90 was between a tiger and panther gun. Armor? About equal to a panther. Mobility? About equal to a tiger. This thing is generic. The Jumbo's 76mm gun was good enough to fight a tiger but it was loaded full of armor. Panther couldn't get close. It had 102mm of armor sloped at 47 degrees from the vertical, giving it between 150 and 180mm effectively. That means it can stop Panzershreks sometimes. It was made to take a TON of hits and survive.
Before we can discuss the merits of each unit, we need to cone to a consensus of just what functions these units should perform. Most see the Pershing as the equivalent to the Tiger in characteristics and role; depending on which version of the Jumbo you want, that role and function is debatable.
In short, it has advantages and disadvantages that make it complimentary the USF tank force, while the Pershing would be a run of the mill heavy tank stuck in there "becuz 'murrika needs heavy". It will require micro and positioning to be effective and will offer the USF a badly needed tank for pushing, while still being effective in a tank fight with the 76mm gun.
I find it amusing you're writing as if you made a compare and contrast between the two units, when in reality you just described vague benefits of one.
Anyways I agree with the sentiment that both can be presented in the game in different commanders. I'd say a Jumbo should start off with the m3 75mm gun but can be individually upgraded to the m1 or m1a2 76mm gun (the latter portrayed on the Easy Eight). It should be noted though that the original historical purpose of the Jumbo was that it sucked against contemporary anti tank weapons, especially from tanks, and should be depicted as such: infantry engaging a Jumbo should be tantamount to infantry engaging Tiger- tough nut to crack.
As far as I am concerned the Pershing would be the USF of the IS-2, a good balance of armour firepower and mobility at the cost of late game access and expense.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
