I may be mistaken but it is already a weakspot isnt it? I remember being taught to shoot there as i do to this day with lower pen cannons (IS-2, Panther, ect)
it is on some of them but for example on T34 and T32 and it’s variants it’s missing
ah so thats the case? That is so strange to see. Tho if modelled, i believe it would still eat shrapnel as Panther does.
Depends on which “Pershing”.
Regular Pershing can be hammered on the gun mantlet or turret cheeks reliably with anything that has over 180 mm pen with the minimum being around 160 mm.
Super Pershing’s mantlet is virtually invulnerable, but the turret cheeks are completely exposed and can reliably be penned with 160 mm pen.
Jumbo Pershing has a volumetric hell of a mantlet. Some specific parts can be penned and actually be crippling, yet some either will be absorbed by the breech or simply do nothing. However, the neck can be penned reliably with 160 mm pen, minimum is 100 mm. The forehead can also be reliably penned, but the actual penetrable part is difficult to see due to the tarp covering it up.
T29 series’ mantlet can be penned reliably with 230 mm pen, the neck is even more vulnerable being easily penned with 180 mm pen.
T32 series’ mantlet on the other hand is near immune to APHE, the only real weakspot is the angled roof bits and the cupola.
Well there are only one Pershing ingame, and its M26. M46 is already Patton, and other have their own nicknames - Jumbo Pershing, Super Pershing.
Then. the T serie tanks (T29/T30/T34) the guy ment must have that optics as far as i know, but peole say it is different with different machines
TLDR HOLY COPE ISSUE! @AurenKarach this guy is literally coping and looking for any type of approval why are you entertaining him?
1 Like
I eventually did figure it out and stopped – better late than never!
2 Likes
the only cope here is not modelling weakspots because US players couldn’t bear it.
I mean they are all evolved from the same chassis, I admit it’s not entirely accurate but calling them pershings ISN’T wrong either.
It’s entirely wrong. The T29 Heavy Tank series is not really that related to the M26’s. Like, for the most part, they have nothing to do with each other
the only relation I could find is the T29 series’ hull being based on a heavily modified T26E3. That’s not really enough to warrant calling it a “Pershing”
1 Like
‘‘the only relation I could find is the T29 series’ hull being based on a heavily modified T26E3. That’s not really enough to warrant calling it a “Pershing”’’
it is perfectly sufficient for calling it a pershing, it has the same hull layout and it’s based on a pershing hull, only uparmored and lengthened.
Well yes the chassis of Pershing was in fact a base model to T serie tanks, but then it was to Patton serie tanks, but we dont call them Pershings. Tho i see what you come from here
Let’s be honest here, I’m not gonna bother writing out all the models every single time.
well not really. thats like saying a moth is a caterpillar because its an evolved(heavily modified) caterpillar
What the f…, mate where did you even go to school? a caterpillar isn’t a different species, it’s a lifestage of the same species.
The T tanks are pershings because they are related to it from development, they all come from the same chassis only with different turrets and hull modification but it is all based on the pershing, literally go read about their development why do you even argue about this when you can find what the T series were based on?
Just like how a moth is a development of a caterpillar using your logic. Can you cut the BS? It’s not a pershing.
it’s literally an elongated T26E3 hull, like a jagdtiger is still a tiger 2 derivative. Also the moth and the pupa are literally still the same species, what pershing is to T32 and later is a genetic ancestor but still close enough it can be called a pershing.
No, you just got beaten down by empirical evidence so hard you decided to give up