But all Tigers were fighting British, Americans saw Tiger only 3 times since Normandy landing and end of war in Germany.
Well, Americans had habbit of reporting Panzer IV H as Tiger =)
I know, they did that all the time, still they only meet them 3 times. And i would much more like to see Stug III than Tiger, even if that woudn’t be really an upgrade to Germans now, as it has same gun like Panzer IV’s.
Well. The BA, the Puma and the Panzer 38t surely have a word on that.
Is it deranged though? I don’t seem to recall any Jumbos being present at Normandy either. 
1 Like
Better armor
Low profile (ambusher?)
Sweet, rounded ass of the pz III
???
Stug life?
I mean in game, of course Stug Life is Stug life, but in game purposes, Panzer IV is almost same thing, but with turret, of course doesnt have that sexy ass. 
Only shame is if we will get Stug III, it will be early version without any MG, as in WT, there is only this model. I would much more like to see “pighead” late version with coax MG.
1 Like
Well, if Stug III is gona apperar in Normandy it should be StuG III Ausf. F/G with 7.5 cm StuK 40.
I meant Early G version, not L/24 version. Thats why i said i would rather see late “pighead” version. And only G models had those.
Nor were german planes, but we’re talking about balance here.
Not that you’d know anything about it, knowing you from WT.
How is the Jumbo balanced against the current available German armour at Normandy? Explain in your own words. This should be good! 
1 Like
Exept, Planes were presents?
They were just overrunned and had little impact.
But lots of FW, heinkers and bf109s were present nontheless.
You should perhaps consider the idea of at least inform your self with some knowledge before spraying false statements.
2 Likes
As far as I know and understand, the discussion is centered around D-Day Invasion map, in which case (irl) only 2 BF109’s made it to the beaches and strafed the Canadians a couple times before being shot down.
nope,
not at all:
and:
The Sherman tank had comparable burn rates to most German tanks in WW2, within a percentile of the PzIV (roughly 75% of destroyed tanks burned). Well below the burn rates of British tanks. (Which burned at a rate of around 85%)
This was before the introduction of wet ammo stowage, which brought the Sherman’s burn rate down to 34%, the lowest of any tank in the war that had more than 50 built.
Furthermore, the Sherman had a 3:1 kill ratio vs Panthers, was well loved by Soviet tankers, was majorly in demand by US infantry commanders to the point they literally could not get enough.
Also there is several points of documentation by the Germans in 1942 and 1943 that state the Sherman to have been the best Allied tank at the time, and considered it equal to the Panzer IV on the whole, with each having advantages and disadvantages. Even saying as much publicly in newsprint at the time, which is saying something, considering the usual points of propaganda.
Also it was the most comfortable tank to serve in, bar none, of all AFVs that saw combat in WW2. I’m talking about crew comfort here - space available for tankers, seat cushioning, ergonomics, etc. If you actually wanted to be stuck as a grunt in a tank at the time, there was literally nothing better.
So yes, the Sherman was a great tank. Outclassed by 1945, sure. But considering it was literally a rush-job done by necessity by a nation that didn’t even really have tank production even 5 years prior to it’s introduction, it was basically a miracle.
I mean, you can talk about it being undergunned, sure, but then you have the fact that the US was actively developing the 76 from before the M4 even entered service, and there were over a thousand armed with such sitting in the UK ready for D-Day, that were refused by tank commanders on the ground because they didn’t think they’d need the more powerful gun.
2 Likes
Nah, the later models were very different than the early versions. Not even the hull design remained the same, with casting vs welding etc, as well as different sloping for the frontal armor. It also gained a new turret, new gun, new engine, new transmission, new tracks, new suspension, new ammo stowage and a new radio.
I do agree with, had the same obeservations abut this tank.
Yeah, noticed the same but it’s not because of lack of penetration but because of stupid angles. This mechanics is coppied from War Thunder and as in War Thunder works weird. Even if it’s little tiny sheet metal on armour your shell can bounce because this sheet metal is under acute angle. The other problem with the cannon is that it has AP shells (without TNT within), while Pz III N has a APHE shells and despite lower penetration of the latter tank’s cannon it can way more easily one shot enemy tank than Pz IV J. The same problem has M4A2 lack of APHE shells is very annoying, I fell idiotically after constant shooting at Puma’s ammorack the tanks still not exploading, the shells are going yellow, then orange and then maybe finally explode.
This also ridiculous can’t keep up enemy troops with that slow rotation. I don’t know how is it after upgrades but hey, one package of tanks parts costs 2 silver weapon orders I (and I guess we) don’t that thgis much of them…
The Normandy campaign is very unbalanced. Its a big problem. Mid campaign allies are O.P
early and late campaign Germans and overpowered.
Are you retarded with this Panther suggestion?
Axis are allready steamrolling Allied forces in Normandy, Panzer IV J is fine vs Sherman M4A2.