the Americans are in dire need of M26 Pershings in European maps

«1
Tactical_wizzzeR
351 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
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.

Comments

  • Hawxxeye
    7480 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 1
    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
  • Terminator000001
    977 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 1
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    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. 🦆


    Killed enough of those guys like that.🦆
  • Hawxxeye
    7480 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    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. 🦆


    Killed enough of those guys like that.🦆
    Interesting idea.
    However the odds are that either the turret or the tracks/engine is already disabled by then.
  • fragnstein
    790 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    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
  • CT1924
    1266 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    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

    Tiger 2 shots shermans with Heat rounds. 3 if they quick repair. And that's to the front.
  • CT1924
    1266 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think having the Sherman Jumbo version from 1944 would answer this need without having to add additional vehicle assets into the game.

    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.
  • CT1924
    1266 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
  • Terminator000001
    977 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 1
    CT1924 wrote: »
    I think having the Sherman Jumbo version from 1944 would answer this need without having to add additional vehicle assets into the game.

    Or add a firefly, reskinning the 6pdr Sherman and adjusting the turret shape slightly.

    I think that's what he meaned. 🦆

    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.
  • GenesisMD5745
    535 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    We won't be getting new assets. I doubt we would.

    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.
  • Terminator000001
    977 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    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.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2231 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Weren't tigers actually faster than Sherman's?
  • emerson1975
    565 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Weren't tigers actually faster than Sherman's?

    Yep
  • CT1924
    1266 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    CT1924 wrote: »
    I think having the Sherman Jumbo version from 1944 would answer this need without having to add additional vehicle assets into the game.

    Or add a firefly, reskinning the 6pdr Sherman and adjusting the turret shape slightly.

    I think that's what he meaned. 🦆

    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.

    Limit to Europe. Firefly stayed there
  • Hawxxeye
    7480 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Weren't tigers actually faster than Sherman's?

    Yep
    Basically the ingame tigers are a lie?
  • DukeSan27
    1297 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CT1924 said:
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    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

    Tiger 2 shots shermans with Heat rounds. 3 if they quick repair. And that's to the front.
    And one shots a Greyhound, again from the front.
  • Hawxxeye
    7480 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    CT1924 said:
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    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

    Tiger 2 shots shermans with Heat rounds. 3 if they quick repair. And that's to the front.
    And one shots a Greyhound, again from the front.
    Damn I gotta try that. I always went the path of the AP rounds.
  • CT1924
    1266 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Damn I gotta try that. I always went the path of the AP rounds.

    Yeah, don't do that.
  • Hawxxeye
    7480 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CT1924 said:
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Damn I gotta try that. I always went the path of the AP rounds.

    Yeah, don't do that.
    But that parrot wrench .....
  • Terminator000001
    977 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    But that parrot wrench .....

    Better than Field Repair 🦆
Sign In or Register to comment.