True I forgot the better ammo, most 76 US tank have M62 shell, but HE is still weaker.
Jumbo 76 is fun if you face Tiger I spammers, you can troll them.
For tank hunting Jumbo 76 is better than Pershing, no question about that, but overall I think that the Pershing is more versatile.
Especially if you have covered the MG weakspot with foliage like I did.
I don’t know. I was honestly quite disappointed with Pershing.
And since I already have firefly (for scenarios in which high penetration is truly needed) in my lineup, it was nobrainer for me to choose Jumbo over Pershing.
So basically no weakspot while Pershing does have a few, despite being a heavy tank it’s armour is pretty mid for BR5.
Probably the most counter productive thing about Pershing that you think you can tank shoots like the Tiger II, but you cannot.
Yeah, I think any BR3 Pz IV can easily destroy it with one shot to the front plate.
Plus, I really don’t like that you can’t even use personal weapons and binos.
I personally just feel like Tigers struggle much more to penetrate not only Jumbos - but also IS2 and Pershings, Panthers can fight them quite well.
Yes, Panthers have many issues - however firepower and frontal armor are simply the most important characteristics in a direct tank to tank duel.
Maybe Panthers acceleration could be nerfed a bit more considering they had problems with their transmissions and had reliability issues.
Well the Pershing was pretty much just a US Panther, which makes you think how bad Shermans were outmatched against German late war vehicles.
Panthers would be considered a heavy tanks by pretty much anyone other than the Germans.
(Since Panther is heavier than Pershing)
Panther was a medium tank based on its role and ease of production.
Panzer IV actually required more hours of work by skilled workers than Panther which is why Germany only produced 8000 Panzer IV through out all of the war while spammed out 6000 Panthers in a few months, if not for allied bombing campaign getting successful in 1944,the Panther would have been the most produced German tank of the war.
Already done, Panther A and d (which isn’t in enlisted) used to run at high RPM with a higher max speed limit than the Panther G which has a governor installed (50/55 kmph vs 46 kmph). Now in Enlisted Panther A has the same max speed as the G 46kmph and runs at 600hp.
I know. It was just an attempt to make a joke. Whatever.
Tiger I is better against almost all Soviet tanks and any Allied tank except for the Jumbo. Fillers mostly OHK tanks and HE is better.
If angled, 76mm Shermans struggle hard against it and also the 85mm T-34s are struggling.
Side Armor is really strong so HA clowns struggle with PTRS and low BR launchers that for whatever reason made it to BRV. EP also cannot pen you from the side. It is also faster in reverse modd.
Panther is better for heavy tank encounters and the mantlet is a love hate relationshio because you cannot hide it and imo its easier to hit with a 76mm cannon than the Tiger mantlet but sometimes the best game of the world does funny stuff with armor values and it just consumes the shell.
The biggest issue with German tank production in WW2 was the number of variants and lack of communication between designers. Most tank variants didn’t share interchangeable parts, often using expensive and selective parts, making them more expensive and harder to maintain, unlike the inferior, but easier to mass produce, Sherman.
Best game in the world? Are you talking about rdr2?
That’s a myth, and its been busted by Military History Visualised in his Panther: The most Controversial Panzer video.
To summarise it was a Heavy Tank and was even classified as such even by the Soviets post their assessment of the captured vehicles at Kursk, since it was in the same weight class the KV-1 and IS-2.
Doctrinally, it could be argued that it was the first “main battle tank” specifically designed to fight other tanks and was to be issued as a heavy tank into medium tank companies. So effectively in the role of the tank destroyer that was already being filled by AT guns both towed and SP…
In contrast, its purpose was quite different from that of the Tiger, which was designed as a “breakthrough” heavy tank from the ground up, and so saw a different armour configuration and a larger caliber gun with better HE performance against AT guns and emplacements.
The video also looks to clarify the reliability issues of the Panther which came down to an overstressed final drive, but this is a post war observation in hindsight. Wartime assessments of reliability of the Panther highlighted the increased wear and tear on the final drives but this was also significantly influence by the terrain into which the Panther was deployed, as well as the degree of crew training for this vehicle. The peak performance records are from 1944, so reliability improved post initial introduction into service, and then plummeted as the supply chain was strained and crew quality plummeted.
What is relatively well known and the video highlights it further is that the development and introduction into service of the Panther was one of the fastest in history, and so bares out both the good and bad design decisions. I particularly enjoyed the Chieftain’s video’s on the vehicle, where he highlighted some of these design flaws, but also pointed out that this was a tank designed for very experienced crews, and which was less forgiving on inexperienced crews as seems to be historically borne out particularly in the battles for Normandy, where the close terrain and narrow avenues of approach tended to favour lighter and more versatile allied tanks which ultimately prevailed despite any apparent paper disadvantages based on a characteristics for characteristics assessment.
As a USA players, if facing 76 shermans, panther is better, if facing 75 shermans, tiger is better. 76 will pen the sides any how, so not penetrating the front is better. 75 will not pen the sides of the tiger easily, while it can tear through the panther
Its a joke.
I don’t know about that, I couldn’t even finish that game.
It’s a great game, but I haven’t finished epilogue.
What does the Soviets have to do with German tank designations?
Every nation designated their tanks based on different criteria.
Weight might have been the most common but that was entirely a failed concept because the weight of tanks increased intensely with war time experience. Based on weight and gun even the StuG could be designated as a tank, but it’s not, the StuG is a SPG.
You also had gun based criteria like Hungary designated any tank with a 75mm gun or bigger as a heavy tank. It has the same problem as before but it’s a little bit more logical since it was based on experience, a 75mm gun is the minimum you need to fight both armoured targets and field guns.
Role based designation proved to be the most effective and logical option which is actually still used today (MBTs fulfill all functions of light, medium and heavy tanks).
tiger bcoz of the gun and reverse speed,
