Of course it can. Same for the IS-2. The Panther is the Axis' top tier stock AT vehicle.
Unlike the Allies, they have no high pen 60 range TDs. Allied TDs can zone out Axis heavies just as well.
Uh what? You can't simply put IS-2 with Pershing bro. IS-2 is way better than Pershing and with vet it only gets better unlike the former. Panther cannot take on IS-2 since IS-2 has 340 frontal armor as compared to 220 penetration of Panther at far range, 1 on 1 IS-2 will always come out on top which cannot be said for pershing which was a heavy tank IRL and could reliably deal with panthers.
If it couldn't, how would you suggest Axis deal with the Pershing or an IS-2 without being forced to pick a Tiger or Elefant/JT doctrine?
How does USF deals with JT or Elefant? Exactly that.
Unlike the Allies, they have no high pen 60 range TDs. Allied TDs can zone out Axis heavies just as well.
I am sorry but I don't get this line specifically if panthers penetration is not high pen for you but Allies TDs have high pen, could you please explain to me why all the TDs have penetration value similar to panther? Also I was referring to 1 on 1 situations, 60 range TDs cannot self spot the tiger, even in 1 on 1 tiger vs self spotting SU-85, the tiger can easily push and kill it. Your argument of high pen is incorrect since they all have the same pen of panther (only Su85, M36 increases with vet) and these TDs are facing heavy frontal armor, unlike the light frontal armors faced by axis.
Armies are supposed to have the means in their stock arsenal to deal with most threats, otherwise we would have even less commander diversity.
Yet the USF and UKF armies lack any blob control.No balance discussion pls.
You notice how Tiger plays all the roles on the field right? Pershing should play the same roles too but with better AI. But if the people balancing the only USF heavy, wanna play god and fancy their biased views; I see no logical reason as to why these two heavies should cost the same.