76mm gun upgrade for the sherman

#1
3 years ago
The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 674


the sherman while a good infantry support tank it performs mediocre to average against panthers or even worse the tigers unless it flanking which is not always possible. this is why i still champion the 76mm gun upgrade for sherman so that it can have a somewhat decent chance against these massive monstrosities. aside from the MG upgrade it already has the 76mm upgrade should be "in there" as well so that players can mix and match/tailor their armor to their own play style

Comments

  • #2
    3 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    Shermans have been damn effective ever since they got a 20 pen buff a while ago and is meant to flank. If you can't, you have Jacksons. There's no need for the 76.

  • #3
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 674

    Aqua said:
    Shermans have been damn effective ever since they got a 20 pen buff a while ago and is meant to flank. If you can't, you have Jacksons. There's no need for the 76.

    you should know that some if not most of the poor map designs make flanking not always practical or possible not to mention axis's wide variety salad buffet of AT options they have so sometimes the only way around is forward...

  • #4
    3 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    Then that's an issue with map design, not unit design.

  • #5
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 674

    Aqua said:
    Then that's an issue with map design, not unit design.

    well imo if usf armor dies fast they shud at least be given hard hitting power stats like axis before going down...

  • #6
    3 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    I know, if only Shermans vaporized infantry and Jacksons could 6-7 shot a KT for less then half the price.

  • #7
    3 years ago
    solowingsolowing Posts: 50

    The Sherman's fine the way it is. It's not meant to do much of anything by itself, that's why the US made 40,000 of them. If you want to kill tanks, use bazookas and/or jacksons. The Sherman's there to give your infantry more staying power, and take shells to the face so your jacksons can live to kill another day.

    You want a Sherman that can actually competently take on Axis tanks? You've got the Easy Eight. There's your 76mm gun.

    @The Big Red 1 said:
    the sherman while a good infantry support tank it performs mediocre to average against panthers or even worse the tigers

    I know we're not catering to historical accuracy here, but that's exactly how it was IRL.

  • #8
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    1) If Shermans with 76mm is remotely good against heavy tanks, then the M36, AT Gun and M10 are rendered redundant.
    2) If Shermans with 76mm remain poor against heavy tanks, then there is no point getting the upgrade in the first place, people would just ignore it.
    3) Shermans being sucky against heavy tanks is realistic and part of the faction design. Even Wolverines and Hellcats historically performed poorly against Panthers and Tigers.
    4) There is Easy Eight and Pershing for tanks being great against other tanks. For everything else, you got Bazookas AT Guns and Jacksons.

  • #9
    2 years ago
    SilleSille Posts: 70
    edited December 2016

    @comrade_daelin said:
    1) If Shermans with 76mm is remotely good against heavy tanks, then the M36, AT Gun and M10 are rendered redundant.
    2) If Shermans with 76mm remain poor against heavy tanks, then there is no point getting the upgrade in the first place, people would just ignore it.
    3) Shermans being sucky against heavy tanks is realistic and part of the faction design. Even Wolverines and Hellcats historically performed poorly against Panthers and Tigers.
    4) There is Easy Eight and Pershing for tanks being great against other tanks. For everything else, you got Bazookas AT Guns and Jacksons.

    1. M10 is a doctrine i never use and u doubt that many use is it. At guns still would have their early game role but late game they already redundat sicne they are not mobile and it is very is to counter them with a stuka that the usf cant counter themselfs. I hate the m36 for me it is always performing bad with misses and bounces, not to mention the 3 hits that kill it
      =( The usf needs a mobile unit that does not die very fast and can scare the the panthers a bit, and it should not be doctrine.
    2. if it can act as a shield to your m36 and be better than a pz4 but slightly worse than a panther it would not be useless.
    3. Historically german tanks where not very reliable due to mechanical overstress, they had a lack of airsupport, and seasupport. I bet the QQ would be endless, on B17 carpet bombing not mention nukes, p47 rocket/bombing runs, battleship support, the long tom and so on. If the germans tanks could just suddenly brake down or run out of fuel....
      History is fail to give perspective on balance since it generally only takes a tiny part of the picture.
    4. Easy eight and Pershing are doctrine, and hte pershing is worse than a king tiger and its compareble to a panther but you can only get 1.
      Infanty and at guns are to slow for late game. Not mention i seen tiger and panthers 1 shoot entire squads.
      M36 in my opionen is just to weak, in most 3,4vs4 game there is no space for flanking action making this unit redundant. If i could i would rather had the m10 and base over the m36 as the game is now.
  • #10
    2 years ago
    ThatguyThatguy Posts: 41

    @Sille
    1. The M10 is actually fairly popular.
    2. The quality of a tank's gun does not matter if you are merely using it as a meat shield (unless you are also suggesting an armour upgrade).
    3. history does not bind faction design, though coh2 follows history better tan most games. That fact aside, axis heavy armour in coh2 does follow historical weaknesses. Two notable things to exploit are cost and movement speed, back-cap your enemies with units that can outrun their slow tanks and starve them of the precious resources they need to build more. if you do this successfully you can simply outnumber your opponent by such a ridiculous margin that you flat out win any engagement, heavy tanks or not.
    4. Both the Rifle Company and Heavy Cavalry are good doctrines, if you are an even remotely competent player you should have one of them in your active commander slots at all times. Yes the Pershing is only comparable in most stats to a panther, but it is by far the fastest heavy tank in the game, imagine a panther with the movement of a 222, is that weak in your mind? Infantry and AT gun mobility is just fine. Do you use cover? If so I find it hard to believe that a PANTHER (almost incapable of AOE damage) consistently wipes your squads in ONE HIT, as it is even a difficult feat for the King Tiger, the most powerful tank in the game to pull off, at close range, in the open, during the span of a day, let alone a single game. M36 is bae, end of discussion. Your tanks will be outclassed in city maps (that is what you're talking about right? If not I don't know what the hell you mean by "not enough room"), as there is little room to move but your opponents' tanks are limited to the same paths. Mines and AT guns become your best friends as they do crap-loads of damage, rarely have to turn (as the armour can only follow a few corridors) and have lots of cover (we are talking about city maps, right?). Kill zones are easy to create and generally need call-ins to beat, funny how you think AT guns are useless and german armour is OP. By the way, didin't you say you never use the M10?

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.