then complain to Relic about how panther is med or heavy:
Don't put any stock into Relic's descriptions. Half of them are inconsistent or wrong.
The Panther is only a medium tank because the Germans classified it as such. It weighed as much or more than most heavy tanks of the time with similar or better frontal protection. It's also technically a heavy in game, because it has heavy crush.
wasn't that because it made the Tiger an all-purpose god? AT guns would be forced to move, and then get shot due to arti.
This, and the Sturmtiger doesn't have any animations for it. And as I've said before, the real heavy that comes with Elite Armor is the fully pimped Tiger II, which can make excellent use of the Panzer Commander as it gives it self spotting by default (45 sight for 45 range main gun) and up to 68 sight range with Spearhead on.
Thanks for the info!
Without having the test done myself and just judging by your info, I'd say the Panther is sufficient to hold the IS2 back until vet2, after which you probably need some additional AT source. Or what would be your conclusion from this?
Same conclusion. Which is fair, as the Panther costs significantly less so there should be room for other stuff to start backing it up before the IS-2 hits vet 2.
You also need to deduct one shot since the first shot in the engagement does not need a reload cycle prior to shooting it
Technically yes, and normally I do, but it only makes the calculation more complicated while it does nothing for this comparison as they have the same reload.
I am also sure your numbers are wrong. Even with the classic TTK and neglecting accuracy I get 73 secs for Panther to kill the IS2 and 43 secs for IS2 shooting the Panther. At vet3, Panther needs 55 secs to kill the IS2 and 33 the other way around
You are right, I redid the calculation and the TTK (with accuracy absent) is more in favour of the IS-2.
All vet 2
Panther vs IS-2:
7/(220/340)x6.65 = 72s
IS-2 vs Panther
6/(210/289)x6.65 = 55s
Ingame test however shows that out of 32 match ups, the IS-2 won 16 fights decisively (320-480hp left), 4 barely (160hp left), and lost 10. Both vet 2, at 50 range.
So the IS-2 definitely has the edge in the vet 2 match-up, as I stated it did, but it is not as big as the TTK makes it seem because the Panther's accuracy does seem to compensate.
Uh what? You can't simply put IS-2 with Pershing bro. IS-2 is way better than Pershing and with vet it only gets better unlike the former. Panther cannot take on IS-2 since IS-2 has 340 frontal armor as compared to 220 penetration of Panther at far range, 1 on 1 IS-2 will always come out on top which cannot be said for pershing which was a heavy tank IRL and could reliably deal with panthers.
The Panther has 10 more range, it can easily fight an IS-2 until that one gets vet 2. At which point it becomes a roughly even fight slightly in favour of the IS-2 with a TTK of 53s vs 58s, though this is disregarding accuracy, which is going to be in favour of the Panther.
Tank classification has no universal parameters and completely depended on the owning army's own parameters. Its RL classification serves no point in these discussions. It was reclassified a medium within a year of service anyway.
I am sorry but I don't get this line specifically if panthers penetration is not high pen for you but Allies TDs have high pen, could you please explain to me why all the TDs have penetration value similar to panther? [...] Your argument of high pen is incorrect since they all have the same pen of panther (only Su85, M36 increases with vet)
Do note my express use of the combination of 60 range and high penetration. The Panther has high pen but only 50 range. The other Axis TDs have 50 or 60 range but only 170 penetration. Only the Allies get the high pen long range combo on their TDs. And the Panther never gets above 220 pen anyway, while the Firefly has 1000 pen Tulips and the SU-85 and Jackson get up to 264 and 300 pen with vet and HVAP respectively.
and these TDs are facing heavy frontal armor, unlike the light frontal armors faced by axis.
This is a myth. The Axis do have a few outliners (Tiger II, Jagdtiger and Elefant), but otherwise the Allies are just as stocked when it comes to medium to heavy armor values. The only difference is stock versus doctrinal availability, but that is why the Allies get 60 range high pen TDs while the Axis do not. See below.
Of course it can. Same for the IS-2. The Panther is the Axis' top tier stock AT vehicle.
If it couldn't, how would you suggest Axis deal with the Pershing or an IS-2 without being forced to pick a Tiger or Elefant/JT doctrine? Unlike the Allies, they have no high pen 60 range TDs. Allied TDs can zone out Axis heavies just as well.
Armies are supposed to have the means in their stock arsenal to deal with most threats, otherwise we would have even less commander diversity.
Why does Axis rocket arty need to be able to wipe better?
Multiple people have explained that this is not the case. The Katyusha and the Calliope are on par with the Panzerwerfer in terms of wiping potential. The Land Mattress and Stuka have their own functionality and the Stuka is not necessarily better at wiping than anything else. That you apparently choose to ignore this does not mean people did not answer your question.
For the record I think Calliopes are devasting just like all rocket arty, but unlike Axis rocket arty it is DoT (in theory, in practice not as much) and does not wipe as reliably unless you factor in retreating units
The Calliope is meant to be used at close to medium range. Not from long range. It is not DoT, it is the ultimate shotgun unit. That is why it has higher durability than other rocket arty. It's the most reliable at wiping when you use it right.
If you think I have done something wrong here, you are more than welcome to provide more tests here. After all, sample size is too small. But we can clearly see that AI is even(or worse) to the Tiger.
I just gave many reasons why a stationary test is likely to be highly in favour of MG damage, when real match conditions are likely to be against it. Obviously the latter is impossible to objectively test though.
Better AOE on the main gun has many advantages over relying more on the MGs, that are not included in a stationary test at medium range.
I do however like the idea to buff the MGs a bit to match the DPS the Tiger and especially the IS-2 get with their respective pintle mounts. Right now the Pershing is pretty bad by 50% or more at any range in that regard
Isn't its AOE significantly better than the Tiger's?
Serealia gives it an AOE score of 28 vs the Tiger's 21.
The MGs are not that reliable in a real match, as they will lose significant value when moving, with other damage sources (where the AOE instantly killing damaged models will surprise your enemy more), with alpha strikes being more dominant over prolonged stationary engagements, and when enemy infantry vets up or the battlefield becomes light cover. They also have less range (35 vs 45 of the main gun) and no possibility to micro for better results unlike using attack ground with the main gun.
I would personally rather have a reliable and strong main gun over stronger MGs.