I'm confused about this "jackson is the only AT for USF" Are soviets and brits any different? Their TDs are the only heavy AT lategame. Or are we also talking about AT guns? The M1 has the best RoF and arc of any AT gun and with sabot it has the best pen of any AT gun. Yes it costs munitions, but after you bar up your rifles you start floating munis as USF. Either for p47 rocket straffe or grenades.
the soviet have the isu-152 and the is2.
the british have the comet and the churchill. (although they took a nerf hammer to the face)
the USF have the weakest tank arsenal in entire game, including the doctrine tank. There's also the fact the Jackson was basically the USF's best anti-tank weapon in the war. The pershing was fielded in very small number. There's nothing else to give to the USF beside the super pershing.
So you are proposing a unit with self spot, self repair, great mobility, good accuracy/penetration at long range and on the move and smoke with low HP.
What in your opinion would be proper Ostheer and OKW counter that vehicle?
The jackson would be a Puma with a better gun and slightly worst survivability, that's it. the Puma is hardly immortal, and the jackson need to punch above its weight.
is the axis that scared of a super-Puma?
The wehr puma get 50 sight by default and another 10 at vet 2. Jackson with 45+5 would be puma with a stronger punch, but still benefit from proper scouting.
|
Are you saying that it would be fair and balanced when no rounds penetrate it?
Its armour is at 290 right now, almost equal to tigers and panthers. Do you consider those having low armour?
both the croc and the standard churchill should get:
target size to 22 (it wasn't a big tank. no reason why it's 26)
armor to 320 (panther)
hp to 1280 (king tiger).
maybe a slight rof buff to their main gun. |
|
OKW puma's manpower is a too high, and the building itself is crippled by the lack of healing.
lowering the manpower cost to 300-290 mp would make the unit itself more attractive. Also replace the kind of useless passive sense for +10 sight.
the mech building itself would be improved by swapping out the stuka for the jp4. This make it a viable second building after medical truck, by allowing the okw to relies on the jp4.
or swap the jp4 and pz2 and unfuck the pz2 build time. |
OKW is totally dead in both 2v2 and 3v3.
Their infantry sucks, their tanks are too expensive, no AT, MG sucks, Kubel nerfed, infantry gun nerfed. Maybe you can choose Defensive commander for Pak43, but thats it.
Allied AT guns and MGs simply shut OKW down
The only thing they got is the early Flak Track, it can set up fast, but its damage was reduced, so its a wash. Most of the time I find myself wishing I had the damage back, I can position it fine.
All I can say is, don't play OKW right now. Every game I lose as Ost is because of a OKW partner that cannot pull his weight.
axis won 3-0 in the finales game this past weekend.
reality disagree with your assessment.
the game in question:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/234766263 |
OK, IMO
Flanker - Ok, while it does have speed and sight to move on the flanks fast, the puma is a bit weak when on its own. It is useful late game for hunting down rocket artillery, but you will probably lose it in the process.
Kiter - Good, Despite its low accuracy (which can somewhat be negated by issuing a stop command before firing) and pen, it works pretty well as kiter. I would only really call it good once it gets to vet 2/3 when it gets it accuracy and damage bonuses.
Recon - OK, while it does have a 50 sight range to match its 50 gun range, I wouldn't classify it as having good recon abilities. It still is outraged by at guns which can fire out of its sight and it's far too valuable to waste on scouting for units, especially when vet 1 kuebels and IR halftracks are available. Also its detection was recently nerfed to only detect vehicles; I have never seen this have a noticeable effect.
Tank hunter - Good, it can use its mobility range and smoke to put pressure on most medium tanks that are harassing your capping units. In essence it can harass it back, either killing it while it is unsupported or forcing it to stay where it has support.
Tank destroyer - OK, when it comes to destroying tanks I find the puma sometime lacking, especially when it comes to heavier vehicles. While yes it is able to put the hurt on medium tanks, it is far too risky for it to actually dive in and ensure the kill.
Sniper Counter - OK, I included this one as well. The puma's vet one aimed shot is OKW's only real sniper counter (other than map dependant soft counter JLI).
The puma is an expensive light vehicle with that has great utility and veterancy, but has bad accuracy, good range and low pen. It can scale well into the late game, but out of the gate, it isn't that much stronger than the 50 fuel AEC or the 60 fuel (iirc) stuart, units that have much better AI ability. IMO its a good unit to get, if a light vehicle is built. If not it kinda wastes the mid game doing little damage, and when a medium tank gets out, struggles since it lacks the mid game vet it would have gotten from fighting light vehicles to be wholly effective. All in all I would say the Puma is one of the last cost effective OKW units that remains to have good 5 vet levels that are actually better than allied counterparts.
the AEC is 60 fuel and the stuart is 70 fuel.
|
Unless you least all changes in your suggestion from the current live with an estimation of values it is hard to comment on the suggestion.
It would be rather hard to balance a kiter unit that is faster then most axis counters.
hp down to 480 (3 shots)
native sight to 45 + 5 at vet 2.
rotation to 32 (same as panzer4)
get smoke by default.
gun remain the same.
Something that people forget when mentioning reload, is that it's not the only factor in RoF. Jackson with PV n Su76 (can't remember if any other tank) have wind up/down.
This is the current RoF:
there's also the fire aim time but they are usually all identical at .125 |
Where do I even start?
This was the number of tanks used in the attack on france:
Panzer I : 523
Panzer II : 955
Panzer III : 398
Panzer IV : 280
Panzer 38t : 228
Panzer 35t : 118
So NO the main battle tank of the attack on france was NOT the Pz38t but Panzer II and III.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfeldzug#Deutsche_Panzer
Now regarding the T34. It was just as unreliable as the Panther/Tiger. More than 50% of T34s broke down with mechanical failures in the first months of their service. They even had to carry a additional transmission around because the transmissions were so poorly designed.
"Our armored forces and their units frequently suffer greater losses through mechanical breakdowns than they do in battle. For example, at Stalingrad Front in six days twelve of our tank brigades lost 326 out of their 400 tanks. Of those about 260 owed to mechanical problems. Many of the tanks were abandoned on the battlefield. "
"Soviet tests on newly built T-34’s (15) showed that in April 1943 only 10.1% could complete a 330km trial and in June ’43 this went down to 7.7%"
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.de/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html
The Germans also didn´t lose the war because of the Panther. They lost it despite the Panther.
the number you posted is for tank composition on jun 10, nearly at the end of the campaign. The numbers and composition would be different at the start of the campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_35(t)
the 6th is stated to have 132 pz35t at the start of the compaign, but their number would slowly dwindle.
In any case, the panzer 3 during the battle of france didn't have much advantage over the pz38t. The p3 was still using the 37mm and wearing the early 30mm armor during france. It wasn't until after France that they received armor and gun upgrade.
and I will admit I was mistaken about the t-34's reliability. I had thought the t-34 was as reliable was the sherman, cromwell, and comet.
|
I understand your idea of making the jackson the last hope in terms of AT for the USF. But the fact is that USF always has a lot of AT in their infantry, plus a well balanced AT gun, plus almost always floating on resources (specially in team games).
Jackson doesnt need to be that powerfull to snipe KT or JT, because you invalide all of the others axis tanks aswell, specially OST: Panther, Tiger, P4, Stugs.
the US 57mm isn't suited to fight heavy tanks. Their base penetration is much lower than the pak40 and only a bit better with the Tungsten round.
and the bazookas are not schreck. 110-130 penetration is not going to deter axis german heavy.
Historically the 90mm was already the most powerful gun field in large number by the US. Unless the US get the super pershing (only 1 was ever used), the jackson is the best the US have.
Like I said, the AP rounds will help with that. (Back to the I don't know what people expect part) I will not build an M1 to hardcounter a JT but I will gladly use a vetted up one with AP rounds ability clicked beforehand to make a dent to it and make it vulnerable to snares or Jackson-in-a-good-spot flanks with Thunderbolts (that will do heavy damage to a heavy tank on the first pass which is almost impossible to shoot down in time) It's main duty then is to scare away the axis mediums giving Jacksons the opportunity to focus on heavier priority targets.
" M1 isn't ultimate answer for everything mechanized, so don't try to use it against everything, jacksons are supposed and intended counter for JT, not the other way around." This seems fitting here.
57mm with tungsten: 195-210-225. reload time 4.05
pak40: 190-200-210 reload time: 4.55
You will drain your munition if you try to use the tungsten every time an axis tank get in range, and it's hardly a sure-pen against the big cat anyway.
|
Any issues Panther might or might not have does not change the fact that the Panther changed the Tank warfare landscape and made "infantry support tanks" and "heavy tanks" obsolete.
medium tank were already getting generally heavier, with progressively more armor and heavier gun onto better Powertrain. All the german did was overshooting the capability of their powertrain.
Heavy tank was basically a sacrifice of reliability and logistical capability in exchange for better combat power. The various armies eventually realize the reliability problem was not worth it.
The notable exception to the reliability issue was the is-2 series, and even in the MBT era they maintained a "two tier" tank concept. |
You can't really make reliability comparison unless both vehicles receive the same level of service and usage.
Panther and Tiger had great K/D ratios vs Shermans, they where reliable.
the panther's final drive was a known issue never fully fixed. The french used the panther post ww2 and noted its poor reliability.
|
Firesparks
CPU - Easy
Firesparks
Relic Entertainment
