i know, but it’s the best way to represent the other combatants without it getitng confusing which is why germany has italian guns
yeah it may be called that but again think of the balance since the tiger 1 only counter in game is plane bombs, dem packs, and the PIAT since the jumbo ingame has the common 75mm m3 cannon
Ok if you guys badly don’t want to see Germans Have their tiger then add panther instead
1 Like
panther is just as armored if not more so than the tiger 1 with about as much armor defeating capabilities. for historical record the reason why the pershing was armed with a 90mm AA cannon was because of the armor of the rare big cats, also the panthers and tigers were much rarer than you think they are with the most common tanks being the panzer 3 and panzer 4
Pretty sure the Panther wasn’t there either
to get technical The Panther was a compromise. While having essentially the same Maybach V12 petrol (690 hp) engine as the Tiger I, it had more effective frontal hull armour, better gun penetration, was lighter and faster, and could traverse rough terrain better than the Tiger I. The trade-off was weaker side armour, which made it vulnerable to flanking fire.
1 Like
you need to flank the tiger anyways the the 75mm m3 guns anyways so not much differences, and yes no american tank has the 76mm anti tank gun ingame yet though when m10 is introduce it might have it
You guys really hate Germans which is something the pains me a lot as an axis supporter 
1 Like
The biggest issue with the tiger is that most tanks available to the allies right now would not be able to penetrate it, even from the sides or rear. At least with the Jumbo it can be easily penned from its sides and rear. My issue with the panther is that it can pen the jumbo from all sides, but the jumbo cant pen the panther from the front. Not really a good balance tbh. Jumbo should probably be removed
i want balance more than anything, if m10 squads added then there can be talks of tiger 1
1 Like
No, it’s the 75mm variant.
Also, it should be removed, and Tiger 1 should never be added. Too powerful. We need stuff that a Stuart of Puma can deal with. Nothing stronger than that.
False. Please, enlighten yourself:
Also:
1 Like
i’m aware that the sherman could be used for AT duties, but it wasn’t usually since the 75 m3 cannon was better for HE than the 76 m1 since the common enemy was infantry , the fault on my end was that i said it wasn’t used at all but america did have dedicated tank hunters as seen by this training video HOW TO DESTROY GERMAN TANKS WWII WAR DEPARTMENT TRAINING FILM 25804 - YouTube
No, the 75mm HE was better because the 76mm HE needed a thicker casing to handle the higher velocity, resulting in less TNT filler.
I am perfectly aware of the American tank destroyers. However, you assume for whatever reason that the Sherman would retreat whenever it would see a German tank. It would not. USA TDs were solely for defense. If the Germans attacked en masse with tanks, they would be brought in to counter the attack.
On offense, the Sherman would take care of enemy tanks.
i knew that 75 m3 was better for HE, but not the reason for it
though you run into the issue of what tank would replace jumbo
Well since we are getting so many brittish stuff anyways, we could consider a Churchill Mk3 (probably too strong), Cromwell, or Firefly.
ah ok
Or a 76 mm sherman. Trading out anti infantry effectiveness for better effectiveness against tanks would also work
Firefly would do this in a more balanced way. The 17-pdr HE is a tiny bit weaker, and you are trading in explosive filler for armor penetration with it, instead of becoming almost strictly better. Also firefly would have weaker turret armor than the 76mm Sherman.
Replace it for what? It was a nonsensical addition to begin with. M4A3 and the Panzer IV were perfect as the top tanks.