one more thing to boot: jumbo is an assault tank so it has good frontal armor but weak side armor, while tiger is a proper heavy tank so that has good armor all around
2 Likes
Simply solution, remove Jumbo, replace it with 76 mm Sherman. Do not add Tiger, 75 mm gun is hopeless againts it. Most maps dont allow you to flank. For example Tiger spawning on first D-Day point would be killable only by plane.
I would reserve Jumbo for something like Operation Cobra or Battle of Bulge.
2 Likes
so, you are suggestion to replace an howitzer with a tank hunter / anti tank tank?
because, the m10 is no where near a PZ III N.
which to point out, the german counter part Jagd PZ IV L48 have been already confirmed:
so, i donāt think that the m8 should be replaced by a M10 for sureā¦
disparity? you get jumboā¦ you tell to the devs that americans have disparty?.
above all, you get two airplanes.
" we " ?
i donāt know about you, but the jumbo needs to go to solve all issues. and no one wants tigers or panthers if m5s and m8s cannot perforate them. itās just going to reverse the issue. itās not actually fixing it. historically speaking, tigers were no near present the americans lines.
it does make sense, and can easely replace the jumbo.
the 105 could work as well as you correctly said.
i donāt think itāsa good idea.
again, you can put another sherman. iām struggling to understand differences, but i thought you were going to send a sherman 75 against the ( or the 105 ) PZ IV H, and keep the first sherman that americans get against the PZ IV J. which would make sense.
but again, for no reasons PZ III M should be compared to M10. americans gets already power vehicle.
i wouldnāt include them at all.
because again. whatās the point of increasing struggle for tank to tank combat?.
that way, you are not balacing anything. but just putting problems on top of others.
with this saying, i donāt wanna accuse anyone, and i donāt preted to be good at all. but, m8s are well capable of penetrating PZ IV H, PZ IV J, and PZ III M.
i donāt know if you do this as well, but the majority of people with the m8 tends to rush. and thatās just dumb. because howitzers tanks are not supposed to rush towards the infantry. but shoot from distance.
and by keeping the distance, you get pretty good results if you have visual on enemy tanks. i know this, because i used it and experienced at first hand during the CBT.
with this being said, you canāt expect to rush, and do all the work if you end up being knocked out.
just like the puma ( when it will get fixed ), you have to use common sense and a bit of tactics. such as hide whenever you can, pop out to shoot, and reposition your self avoiding frontal contact with enemy tanks.
but iām sorry to say that what you are proposing, itās not a balance at all.
2 Likes
forgot to mention, i didnāt spoked about british vehicles because not everyone likes them. iām neutral about them, so i wouldāt discuss them until british forces will be introduced in normandy ( which itās just matter of time )
The M10 is slower than the M8, has similarly thin armor, is open top (leaving the crew vulnerable in urban environments and to standard grenades, like the M8), and has less HE filler in itās rounds. I compare to the 3N as a possible alternative as I would argue such would be balanced.
Regardless, as I stated, it would not be my first choice for a replacement. The M4 with a 105 would be a better direct comparison to the 3N as a howitzer vehicle. However, the M10 would be a better comparison to the 3N in capability, if weāre speaking on real life capabilities in an infantry heavy environment. With the 3N having considerably more anti-infantry capability and defenses against infantry, while the M10 as greater anti-armor capability. However, the lack of armor on the M10 means the 3N would be quite certainly able to combat it effectively. Which is why I suggested it as a possibility - though again, not an ideal one, still better than the M8 with historical vehicle performance.
And while I donāt personally want the Panther or Tiger, as stated I am working on the assumption they will ultimately be added regardless. Because I know they way that Gaijin and itās affiliate companies tend to do things, I make assumptions therein, and make suggestions to try to make things work out as best as would be plausible. The introduction of the Jumbo would largely suggest such would be added eventually, given Gaijin passed over other potential vehicles that would better act as equivalents to the Pz IVH that the allies had at Normandy.
I would say, regarding the jumbo and the potential for German big cats, that the ideal solution to that concern would be the removal of the jumbo and itās replacement with an M4A2 76 or a Firefly, and we never see the big cats ever. I just unfortunatly rather doubt that will happen.
1 Like
armor value does not match at all.
let alone reload speed.
again, just because they furfill a similar ājobā, doesnāt mean that itās ok if they are much better by overclass all itās different and technical aspects of the german counter part. having differences itās ok, but not at the point where itās striclty better.
not if we can stop them about it.
just like the tanks in the first alpha, they got removed for issues and above all, the unbalance situations that caused.
this could work, you know, the game is still under development desptie being named as a beta. which itās ok if i have to be honest. but nontheless, not impossible.
and i agree. no need for bigger cats just to reverse the issue towards american tanks.
i donāt see why they keep adding tanks over tanks when thereās an entire world of armored car and light vehicle that could be introduced.
(stats from warthunder as itās easier to compare and should be more accurate to the real life vehicles [and to the vehicles in practice assuming Enlisted is indeed taking damage models from Warthunder as Iāve been lead to believe] than the stat cards in Enlisted)
Panzer 3N vs M4A3 105mm vs M8 Scott:
Frontal Armor: 81mm/85mm vs 85mm/100mm vs 35mm/65mm (upper/lower effective)
Side Armor: 35mm+ (spaced) vs 38mm vs 28.5mm
Turret front: 50mm vs 88mm vs 15mm
Turret side: 38mm+ (spaced) vs 50mm vs 25.5mm
Reload time: 4.3s vs 13s vs 3.8s
Top speed: 33mph vs 26mph vs 43mph
Explosive mass: 5.75kg vs 14.85kg vs 6.3kg
AP (HEAT) round penetration: 100mm vs 130mm vs 89mm
Turret rotation speed: 8.3 deg/s vs 5 deg/s vs 6.1 deg/s
Coaxial Machine gun ammo: 5450 rounds vs 3000 rounds vs none
Seems to me that they compare reasonably well, in the context of enlisted, with the 105 sherman having more punch per shot and being better armored, and the Panzer 3N having faster reaction time and being more forgiving. The M8 Scott has a faster top speed and marginally fastest reloading gun, at the expense of armor and having no coaxial MG to deal with infantry, unlike the 3N and sherman.
Thus I would argue there is considerably less of a difference between the 3N and 105 sherman than there is between the 3N and M8 Scott.
1 Like
they said jumbo wonāt be removed as for the 76 on the downside that thing will delete Panzer IV H on sight
itās quite ironic. because the PZ III N is not a tiger.
it has a frontal armor of 53 mm.
30 from the side,
53 in the back.
the turrett turrett is 50.
side, is 30.
and back is 30.
speed is not accauntable as maps are designed for infantry. for experience, they tweaked vehicles speed in order to prevent being too much faster ( at least of a 15%/20% ). which has been adressed in the last Q & A.
the reason why you included higher value, i suspect due to sloped armor. which in enlisted, unlike war thunder, the map is no near flat to count those. as such, even the slight bumb or hill can help you out in both occasions.
point is, a sherman, along side the m10, you donāt need to watch their status as itās uite obvious to understand that the first is a medium tank. and the latter a tank hunter.
by 1943, the PZ III N was a support infantry tank vehicle. it wouldnāt be fair if ends up facing m10s or 108s.
as itās supposed counter part. thatās why the M8 is more than capable. it just suffers from weaker armor like the Puma against the M5.
i guess itās a good trade off.
your ideas are horrible get over it
god youāre like an amoeba, you do understand that thereās no BRās right? Itās not war thunder for godās sake
really?
what a brilliant planā¦
The M4 105 is also an infantry support tank vehicle.
Again, the M10 was only a suggestion as far as vehicles the US had at Normandy, which would be more capable than the M8, and would be better at being a rough equivalent of the Pz 3N in overall capability. (Assuming the 105 sherman wasnāt an option for whatever reason, and limited to vehicles that have a Warthunder model available) I do not think that the M8 is more than capable, quite far from such actually. The fact that speed was nerfed for infantry-centric map design hurts the M8 far more than it hurts the 3N.
And yes, I included effective thickness due to the angling of the armor. While yes, hills will help or harm depending on such, itās going to be a more accurate equivalent than the statcard values, if the vehicle/damage model is the same, and should translate better to overall expectation.
1 Like
Iām well aware there are no BRās. Tell me, why are you so hostile as to the mere discussion of such alternatives to the M8?
I donāt think you quite understand that I am, in fact, taking into consideration the most major difference between Warthunder and enlisted where tanks are concerned - that being infantry, and the ways that infantry can destroy vehicles. Which is all the worse for open-top vehicles, especially in urban environments (which we see a lot of in the Normandy campaign), but also in open environments when you get sneaky / cheeky people like me who will sneak up on a camping tank, climb on top, jump on the turret of the tank for a bit, troll the crew inside some, then prime explosives to blow up said tank. (because itās fun) The thing is, the M8 does not require you to have an explosives pack. Regular grenades will do, and you can eliminate much of the crew with any old rifle if you can get a shot on it from above.
1 Like
There is literally no reason why the Jumbo should be in Normandy to begin with,
Just add a standard Sherman with a 76 mm gun and all is fine.
I really think Pz IV vs Shermans is the way to go in the Normandy campaign, no need to even add Panthers and Tigers.
I think to make the campaigns feel different towards each other a historical āTierā lvl would be enough to balance the game.
Like hereās what I think should be the final campaign lvl vehicles:
Moskau: Pz III vs russian early tanks (no t34)
Normandy: Pz IV H vs Sherman 76mm
Berlin: Panther and Tiger I vs IS-2, ISU-152
and maybe even a SU-100 vs Jagdpanzer IV ( Jagdpanther might be too much?)
also Note Tiger II shouldnāt be added for the same reason why an IS-3 shouldnāt be added, would be impossible to balance them without breaking realism.
Tunis: early German and Italian tanks vs early US and British tanks
---->and for later campaigns"
Stalingrad: Panzer IV F2 vs T-34
Battle of the Bulge, or maybe Market Garden or even Italy:
Tiger and panthers vs Jackson, Jumbo and Firefly or even churchill.
2 Likes
sadly yeah, made peace with it personally since it does have some logic unlike his suggestions
āi am well aware there are no brs but i am going to act like it and keep bringing up WTā
and again the M8 is fine itās literally a you problem
ALSO: in regards to M8 Scott vs PzIII N:
why not switch the PzIII N with one of those pumas with a 7.5 cm infantry gun, pretty sure they were actually a thingā¦
1 Like
You guys know a single soldier boi can flank and put an explosive pack underneath right?
This is the way this game is supposed to be, combined infantry, tanks and aircraft.
I think panthers/tiger 1s should be added along with hellcats and sherman (76)s
what i think should be done to increase american tank crews to 3 and germans stay at 2 with only 1 tiger/panther being active at anyone point and with the other crew can get lower tier tanks.
but its just my opinion
M8 is a good tank iāve been one shot by them multiple times in my pz4, just learn the weak spots.
The thing with the flanking infantry is true of course, however keep in mind that doesnāt mean the tank to tank combat needs no balancing.
The main complaint here seems to be that a M8 has difficulties dealing with the Pz III, which seems to actually be the case since the Pz III has overall better armor compared to the Pz IV, since the Pz IV has poor turret armor.
1 Like