What I find weird is that Relic went ahead and added the AEC Mk III with the QF 75 mm gun, same as the Cromwell Tank. But they didn't give it anywhere near the AI or AT performance, so why didn't they just make it an AEC Mk II?
Anyway, they should just improve the AI performance, that's the reason the QF 75mm was invented after all, because it had a better HE round than the 6 Pounder it was created from.
No, Tank Destroyers were meant to counter German tanks that broke through lines. One of its main criticisms was that it was much too defensive orientated, while the Allies were on the offensive and not encountering large concentrations of enemy armor anymore. And again, you seem to mostly be talking about Tank Destroyer/Tank Battalions that were attached to infantry divisions for support with breaking through enemy lines. My point is that the core of the Armored Division was the Sherman, but their role wasn't as narrow as just infantry support. Like I said, an Armored Division only had one Tank Destroyer Battalion semi-permanently attached to them. An Armored Division wasn't expected to counter enemy armor specifically, but Tank Battalions were expected to encounter it, and were not as narrowly focused on infantry support as Tank Battalions attached to Infantry Divisions were.
I don't know about that, that sounds like one of those 'tank myths' in itself. I find it hard to believe that we'd knowingly send hordes of Shermans (poorly armed for tank combat) into battle with no dedicated anti-tank support, and not even change our strategies until early 1945 when they got wrecked due to lack of anti-tank ability / support. Tank Destroyer doctrine was working good enough for the Army up until then, I doubt it was as restrictive and reckless as you claim.
I feel like usf should initially have just the base 75mm sherman, which you could later refit with 76mm turret, jumbo armor or 105mm howitzer (maybe even croc, calliope...) depending on your needs. would give some flexibility. Make the upgrade possible only in the base sector for the sake of "realism". Oh, and bring back the crab flail!
If you want to argue "realism" then you're doing it wrong, because 75mm Tanks were not up-gunned to 76mm or Jumbo, these were built that way in the factory and sent to Europe. Only the Jumbo could upgrade from a 75mm to a 76mm, because the original design called for 76mm guns and thus the turret was designed for them.
Funny people said the same thing about cons, but everyone says they are fine and should no get non doc weapons, now here we are with volks who have more utility than cons and people want to give them non doc upgrades
Selective hearing, you hear what you want to hear to fuel your own bias. Calls for a Cons upgrade have been going on for a long time and have been more common and more popular than any upgrade for Volks.
Actually the Army did expect Shermans to fight other tanks. Armored divisions were meant to be used for exploiting breakthroughs the Infantry Divisions made with support from Tank Battalions (in the Tank Battalion role shermans were used in the support role you describe). Whatever the Armored Division could encounter behind the lines while wreaking havoc included enemy tanks.
The point is, AT power wasn't a primary concern for the Army regarding the M4 Sherman. If it was, we would have started deploying a lot more 76mm armed Shermans a lot sooner. But it wasn't, we were more than content with our 75mm Shermans, and they could knock out a Panzer IV from medium range, so we were happy with them. We didn't expect so many Panthers when we invaded France, the British on the other hand did and prepared for it their own way, with 17 Pounder re-armed vehicles.
Armored Divisions usually only had one Tank Destroyer battalion attached to them, which couldn't possibly support all four of the Armored Division's Combat Commands properly. Tank Destroyers were supposed to be used defensively.
Tank Destroyers were used offensively, if Tanks were expected in an area, they sent them to cover the other forces. This is part of the reason the Army changed their minds after the Ardennes, because there wasn't enough Tank Destroyers to halt the German advance, and the Sherman was unable to defend itself effectively.
The Army also wasn't stubborn because they wanted tanks to fight in the infantry support role, they were stubborn because they didn't want to rush something that was half-finished to the front.
The 76mm Sherman wasn't half finished, it was completed and ready. The Army just rejected them because they valued their 75mm HE shell too much, and didn't consider better AT a worthy trade because they used Tank Destroyers.
And considering that the CoH2 timeframe has shifted to late-44 early-45, how is this not a reasonable suggestion? Even 50% or 33% or whatever of THOUSANDS is a lot. USF tech is stuck in 1943 basically, whilst all the goodies were deployed in mid-late 1944..
Uh, USF is late 1944. The US Army was very stubborn and refused to accept the 76mm Shermans as a replacement despite superior AT performance. In their minds, Shermans weren't supposed to fight Tanks, they were supposed to fight Infantry and Fortifications, and for this the Army kept using low velocity guns because of their superior HE round. They believed that Tank Destroyers were supposed to kill tanks, although this is poorly represented because the USF Tank Destroyers in CoH2 lack their real-life advantages.
The US Army didn't change their minds until losses incurred during the Ardennes Counteroffensive which were the result of Tank Destroyers being too few and Shermans being incapable of fighting Panzers efficiently. It was after this that Eisenhower finally gave the order to cease production and delivery of 75mm Shermans and send only 76mm Shermans.
Relic should break out the target tables and make certain late-game dedicated AT more reliable against them. Panther could kill them in 8 hits instead of 10, while Elefant and Jagdtiger kill in 4 hits instead of 5.
Honestly, I didn't like Ami as a caster. He talks over actual commentary and interjects with his own pointless narration. His co-casters try to do play-by-plays and he literally talks over them about how cool the trees are or something. We don't care about your self-appointed houses in Arhnem checkpoint! He zones out of the action to wistfully look at some insignificant detail for way too long! He reminds me of someone who's just bored of his job and tries to pass the time by doing literally anything but his job.
I love Ami and while I wouldn't be so blunt, it is kind of true. The game where Romeo and CieZ casted was probably the most informative game from a spectator point of view, Romeo and CieZ were ontop of things quite well important events were not missed. I like Ami's enthusiasm but it's frustrating as a viewer when something game-changing is happening but he's zoomed in on a soldier standing by a fence, or telling a story during a major push.
I also feel he comes off as rude at times, not intentionally, but when he made fun of Luvnest's accent and forced him to say words he couldn't pronounce so he could rip on him, it wasn't fair to Luvnest who just wanted to co-cast CoH2 and not be publicly insulted.