I know, I wrote exactly that only a couple of sentences before the quoted section. It was a huge benefit back when you had to shell out 55 fuel for the officer. But the better availability has diminished that. I am not saying there is no benefit anymore, but the main selling point of this commander has been reduced quite a bit.
I also noted that in the late game, a lost Riflemen squad can be decently replaced with the second officer for back tech. At least I regularly do that when I am floating a bit of fuel but don't have much MP. At this point both weapon drops are not worth it instead of just one. Again, all this is team game perspective of 2v2 and 3v3, 1v1 surely looks different.
These are small points, but in sum all the USF tech changes have indirectly hurt this commander, while other USF commanders could now rely on a complete team weapon roster. The benefit of choosing this commander over another one has reduced, that probably sums it up the best.
I know, I thought about addressing that but left it out. This is basically intended cheese. Team weapons are build around main line infantry screening for them. That the commander lets you circumvent this need is less of a strong point for it, but more an example of weak design.
This is basically the main issue I have with airborne now. Having flexible access to stock team weapons is no longer as attractive a choice over having something USF actually lacks like a flamethrower, various call-in vehicles, or rocket artillery.
That and P47 rocket loiter issues.
The Pershing is fine. It's got great penetration, good speed, and very good HE.
Not worth it over jackson + sherman anymore. That will be a much more efficient use of your fuel than a pershing since the heavy nerf.
Relic Entertainment
Heartless Jäger 
