you can’t always outplay a well positioned Tiger, sometimes you just need a strong tank to push through and to fight it head on, I know it’s a piece of work modelling a Pershing and making all new costumizations for it, but as versatiles as Shermans are, sometimes they just don’t cut it, especially in Provance, and playing on European maps with the Americans feel stagnant with just Shermans and Greyhounds.
Americans need the heavy tank to compete, and while we are at it, would it really be too much work to create Sherman Skink anti air? you already have the Sherman body, just replace the hull and copy costumizations from Valentine AA and Flakpanzer.
In full combined arms maps (infantry + tanks + planes) the Americans have a superior air to ground power that eats tiger tanks for breakfast
.
Unless that changes in a future patch then it might be that they were trying for asymmetrical balance, in which case they messed up a bit in the planeless maps.
.
That said, I do not get the appeal of the heavy tanks. They are big targets with encumbered movement. In BFV tanks I consider the good mobility to be the best thing you can have to survive since a mobile tank can hit and run before if can be destroyed while a big slow tank will get hit more easily and get slowed even more from engine and tracks damage.
.
A case example was a frontlines round in Twisted steel where my friend was using a Tiger tank and a certain guy with a Greyhound would circle around the map and always get him from behind at the right moments and speed away before the rest of the team could react. He got him like 6 times that way, I get that he is not that brilliant of a tanker but I still find the heavy tanks overrated by some
The whole point of heavy tanks, especially Tiger, is to fight at long range, since because they’re so slow and have terrible maneuverability. The Tiger was the answer to the T34 and the KV-1 tanks and the eastern front had lots of space for tank fights.
I don’t blame anyone who plays with a Tiger like that. I also take advantage of the good range capabilities of it. And even light tanks who outrun you are barely a problem. Try to keep up spinning with the whole tank and the turret and give him some nice AP shells to the side.
Even if they give us the valantine tank and or archer would be nice. Having the AA to pick from on Provence is stupid. Don’t understand why US gets 3 tanks while the Germans get 5-6. Not to mention they replaced my beloved t38 and staghound for the puma/greyhound from most maps. The turning radius on the new vehicles is just atrocious
Or add a firefly, reskinning the 6pdr Sherman and adjusting the turret shape slightly.
Also, for aa could drop an lvt aa turret with 4 mmgs on the Sherman for the Canadian Skink.
Also there’s no much work needed, since we have already the 17 pounder in the game.
The only question is, how will that be balanced against the Type 97? We can’t forget that.
If DICE could do anything, they could probably add the Churchhill Mk VII tank to the American faction. Maybe add the LVT and Valentine Mk III as well. That way the US gets a heavy tank plus another medium and light (amphibious) tank to use against the Germans. I agree the US needs more variety of tanks to choose from, and if it’s in the form of recycled assets, then I’ll accept it. I’d take what we can get at the moment.
The LVT’s could’ve been added when the update first released as they were also used in Europe to cross swamps and rivers. Even though the bodies of water on maps like Twisted Steel and Panzerstorm aren’t deep, I’d add the LVT anyway just for additional choices to have.
At Twisted Steel, there’re parts of the river deep enough to take advantage of the amphibious capabilities of the LVT. Those are also good to flank, otherwise you have to drive through the swamp at D or the bridge to C.
