Just out of curiosity, why do zooks need to be as bad as they are currently? Is it for fear of rifle blobs being too good against all targets? I find them to be ok at killing light vehicles like Pumas and half tracks and what not and when combined with at guns they are mildly effective at discouraging flanks from medium tanks but they're not even remotely scary for anything bigger.
Even then, they seem to miss and bounce off of p4 frontal all of the time. Putting a zook on anything but an RE gives up a lot of AI power and currently the trade off seems really underwhelming. When I put a shriek on a volks, I always feel it's worth it, when I buy a zook I often feel I wasted munis.
Historical basis probably. Unfortunately CoH tanks lack the attributes that made bazookas effective against them. Tigers are mass produced and a panther's side armor is half frontal half rear while the turret is never hit.
It's actually kind of the embodiment of why US AT has a hard time (and axis against soviet heavies to a lesser extant). There's a mechanical bias towards things like heavy tanks that emphasis their strengths (1280 KT health pool!) and outright ignore their flaws. Flaws that allowed shermans to be 8.4 times more effective than a panther when on the defense for example.
You would be correct about the two, the puma variant however didnt leave the factory though if I remember right. However the 5cm gun is capable of penning 69mm at 100m. The Sherman had 51 mm of hull frontal armor. Either way, the Sherman was too thin and the German guns could pen it. The hellcat can only pen so much and the panther was one of the heaviest armored tanks in the war.
Wikipedia quotes spielberger that there were 101 5cm pumas built compared the the 89 pakwagens built.
The sherman actually had pretty significant frontal sloping, about equivalent in effective armor to the T-34. The 5cm realistically had little effect on the T34 and sherman and was quickly abandoned because of that.