The pershing turret was originally for the sherman, more of a way to add a 90mm gun on the sherman and the US figured out that they should make a new hull for it instead
Yeah, I have read somewhere that it was perfectly fitting for the Sherman hull they could just bolt off the 76/75 and mount up the 90mm. I was really hoping it would see combat but ended up to be just a prototype
@@dannyjayke8695 Even if you got lucky and landed on a different map, it's definitely of those maps in which one side has a better spawn than the other.. honestly I'm sick and tired of Tunisia and Frozen pass
The turret of this tank looks like it could hold both the 90mm and the 105mm gun. Which would be funny, America creating the ultimate medium tank. A tank that needs very little done to it to make it effective in battle.
@@Ili_asser I get them 90% of the time in those brs, for what ever reason I have been getting lots of down tiers in Japan 7.3. IDK but it gets old fast!
@@michaelstjohn6086 Yeah, I personally do not like USSR or Japan because the play style of the tanks is dull they all play the same.. I like the US and German lines better but playing those is 100% uptiers Good to see you btw, hope youre having a great friday
The M4-T26 is my most successful Sherman variant. Having the 90 at it's br is great! You then move up to the Pershings and realize that the 90 is no longer potent and you can't engage shit from the front while not having the mobility to flank nor the armor to stand up to shit. Fuck Pershings. Me and all my homies hate Pershings.
@@ISTHATAJOJOSREFERENCE I very much prefer it, but my only wish is taking it out from 6.0 to 5.7 because you get the M36B2 with the same gun + HEAT-FS sitting at 5.7 which is kind of a way better tank.
@@ThekeiGooferNoodle T26E5 Was really awesome, one of my favourite and my only reasoning to not use it was because it is too OP Honestly the Super Pershing isn't bad either
@@jimwolaver9375 I love Hogan's Heroes!! Now I can't unsee that I do sound like sgt Schultz.. he's a legend though, thanks to you I'm rewatching the whole thing
Nah that is fair, I am down to reply to every question possible. The answer is: - My gameplay generally is always creating an objective that that I decide to secure/push, I do try to look after my team unless they aren't nearby since you know, war thunder players have a hive mind of spawn camping/not playing objectives. - For the games I record, I play total of 10 games per recording. For this video, I picked the first three games that I played, but I still played 7 other games. I like it that way because then I get kills for montage if I decide to make one. A lot of the later games were dull, one of them I got 0 destroyed tanks while others ranged between 3-10 kills. In one of them I got a nuke, but the gameplay was so bad because the enemy team was literal bots. I only upload videos that reflect the AVERAGE gameplay of the tank if played CORRECTLY, not if the enemy team is completely garbage which is 1% chance of happening.
It's understandable to why every US main hates this tank, it has a good gun but the armor is the same as the second sherman, it's armor is extremely horrible, like what was the US thinking? I don't know but they really like using the same armor for basically every sherman they made.
I mean... it's a fucking amazing vehicle for it's battle rating. If you're really relying on armor so much that the armor of a M4A2 (which is resistant to most small caliber cannons and autocannons) is inadequate for how unsafe you're playing, then you really need to play more passive and/or smarter. The tank survivability onion is the best guide for what you should be doing. (I'm going to exclude the first level of the onion, however, because it is the complete antithesis of War Thunder's gameplay. It's "don't be there," by the way.) Don't be seen > Don't be acquired > Don't be hit > Don't be penetrated > Don't get killed. If you want to survive in War Thunder, this is the most important resource that you have access to. When you rely on armor to keep yourself from dying, you are skipping FOUR levels of the onion and your chances of death increase tenfold. The most important factors for a tank in War Thunder are as follows: mobility, armament, survivability, armor. Unless your armor is so absolutely ludicrously thick for it's battle rating that it can only be penetrated by specific dedicated antitank weaponry, it is NEVER a good idea to present yourself as an easily acquirable target instead of either ignoring the enemy to reposition yourself or waiting until he is preoccupied, which lets you strike in coordination with a teammate.
@@NotHonoredHim it's surprisingly not that bad, it depends on playstyle though. I find it very responsive and quick enough to be a menace that's all I look for in a tank. But objectively speaking, for the general audience it is by default a bad tank.
They used the same armor for ever Sherman because they were designed to be mass produced, resistant to the Panzer IVs upgraded 75 and most small arms fire and AT guns, while retaining good mobility and firepower. If the US went balls to the wall and mass produces the M4A3E2 Jumbo and Jumbo 76 then they would've likely had way less tanks during the invasion of Europe and therefore even though they were heavy tanks, the german guns would've been able to ambush them easily since they were on the defensive and take shots at their sides. Saying "what was the US thinking?" when talking about keeping the same armor thickness for every Sherman, the shorter explanation is it was cost effective and was combat effective enough. It's like saying the USSR has an IS-2 and saying "What was Germany thinking, not making a tank more armored than the Tiger I" well they did, and it drained their resources hard and then they lost.
@@oz314 depends really. They're equally on the same level of being bad but the difference is that the M-51 can front plate anything and everything using HEAT whereas this thing sits at the same BR with nothing impressive. A lot of people on the forums judged it without having the crew leveled up (especially targeting because then your dispersion is GARBAGE at 0) as it was a relatively new tank. But if we put both of these tanks at 0 crew levels the M-51 is much better in terms of usefulness
@@oz314 absolutely agree with you. I don't get how the 400mm of pen sits at 6.0... I promise you the only reason it's at that BR is because gaijin nerfed HEAT and decided to call it "balance"
I haven't used this much but your gunner from what I've seen in my experience, get's taken out so much that it's just annoying to me after a while. The M36 and M36B2 imo are better because you get pretty much the same firepower at a lower br and HEAT-FS. The M26 is just bad but the T26E5 is a menace lol
I have not found one singular soul that plays the regular M26.. regular armor, same gun, higher BR than the M4/T26 And as you said there is the M36B2 sitting at lower BR with the same gun + HEATFS. I do not understand how they balance the tech tree for the US but it is all over the place. IMO the M4/T26 should be 5.7 at best.
@@devlintaylor9520 good question actually, I have been doing a little bit of reading on this thing and the only reason it is higher br is: - Not open top - slightly better armor especially on the turret - slightly better terrain resistance But I still don't think all that warrants it to sit at 6.0
The pershing turret was originally for the sherman, more of a way to add a 90mm gun on the sherman and the US figured out that they should make a new hull for it instead
Yeah, I have read somewhere that it was perfectly fitting for the Sherman hull they could just bolt off the 76/75 and mount up the 90mm. I was really hoping it would see combat but ended up to be just a prototype
I swear there’s a million maps but you literally get given 4 of them
@@dannyjayke8695 Even if you got lucky and landed on a different map, it's definitely of those maps in which one side has a better spawn than the other.. honestly I'm sick and tired of Tunisia and Frozen pass
Thats one tall pershing
@@logicmaster756 it's a Pershing that was over compressed in a RAR file 😔 pray for his recovery
Its criminal you dont have over 10k subs
get better soon man. I would love to see a 76 Jumbo video in the future
@@CanadienCat-fs8cw I'm going to do it after WaffleTrager video 🫂 you got it brother
The turret of this tank looks like it could hold both the 90mm and the 105mm gun. Which would be funny, America creating the ultimate medium tank. A tank that needs very little done to it to make it effective in battle.
Up tiers are ridiculous....
Are they more frequent recently between 5.7 and 7.0 or am I just unlucky?
@@Ili_asser I get them 90% of the time in those brs, for what ever reason I have been getting lots of down tiers in Japan 7.3. IDK but it gets old fast!
@@michaelstjohn6086 Yeah, I personally do not like USSR or Japan because the play style of the tanks is dull they all play the same.. I like the US and German lines better but playing those is 100% uptiers
Good to see you btw, hope youre having a great friday
LOVE THE VIDEOS👏
Imo the m4t26 is actually evil asf if played right and imo the best ambushing tank
Very dependent on the player's playstyle, I personally love it but I get why people hate ittt
@@Ili_asser true plus it also depends on the map too
The M4-T26 is my most successful Sherman variant. Having the 90 at it's br is great! You then move up to the Pershings and realize that the 90 is no longer potent and you can't engage shit from the front while not having the mobility to flank nor the armor to stand up to shit.
Fuck Pershings. Me and all my homies hate Pershings.
@@ISTHATAJOJOSREFERENCE I very much prefer it, but my only wish is taking it out from 6.0 to 5.7 because you get the M36B2 with the same gun + HEAT-FS sitting at 5.7 which is kind of a way better tank.
Most of the Pershing's are bad but the T26E5 is a damn menace lmao
@@ThekeiGooferNoodle T26E5 Was really awesome, one of my favourite and my only reasoning to not use it was because it is too OP
Honestly the Super Pershing isn't bad either
When you say, "back back back back," you actually sound like Sergeant Schultz. Look it up, you can use the laugh!
@@jimwolaver9375 I love Hogan's Heroes!! Now I can't unsee that I do sound like sgt Schultz.. he's a legend though, thanks to you I'm rewatching the whole thing
Pocket size tank yes
With a forehead massive enough to foresee what is going to happen the next day
@@Ili_asserIght dude that’s actually funny respect bro
@@LordKimaris Good to see you still here man, you're a real one bro
@@Ili_asser as long as you’re still making content I’ll always be here XD
I hate it, I can basically only make it work as a hull down ambush tank, which makes it very boring to me.
I just realized something bro that you always play one man army, is it same for you in every game? sorry to ask just curious
Nah that is fair, I am down to reply to every question possible.
The answer is:
- My gameplay generally is always creating an objective that that I decide to secure/push, I do try to look after my team unless they aren't nearby since you know, war thunder players have a hive mind of spawn camping/not playing objectives.
- For the games I record, I play total of 10 games per recording. For this video, I picked the first three games that I played, but I still played 7 other games. I like it that way because then I get kills for montage if I decide to make one. A lot of the later games were dull, one of them I got 0 destroyed tanks while others ranged between 3-10 kills. In one of them I got a nuke, but the gameplay was so bad because the enemy team was literal bots. I only upload videos that reflect the AVERAGE gameplay of the tank if played CORRECTLY, not if the enemy team is completely garbage which is 1% chance of happening.
@@Ili_asser Based + Chad thank you bro that was very well detailed I kind of realized the pattern. 17:30 makes more sense now lol
It's understandable to why every US main hates this tank, it has a good gun but the armor is the same as the second sherman, it's armor is extremely horrible, like what was the US thinking? I don't know but they really like using the same armor for basically every sherman they made.
I mean... it's a fucking amazing vehicle for it's battle rating. If you're really relying on armor so much that the armor of a M4A2 (which is resistant to most small caliber cannons and autocannons) is inadequate for how unsafe you're playing, then you really need to play more passive and/or smarter.
The tank survivability onion is the best guide for what you should be doing. (I'm going to exclude the first level of the onion, however, because it is the complete antithesis of War Thunder's gameplay. It's "don't be there," by the way.) Don't be seen > Don't be acquired > Don't be hit > Don't be penetrated > Don't get killed. If you want to survive in War Thunder, this is the most important resource that you have access to. When you rely on armor to keep yourself from dying, you are skipping FOUR levels of the onion and your chances of death increase tenfold. The most important factors for a tank in War Thunder are as follows: mobility, armament, survivability, armor. Unless your armor is so absolutely ludicrously thick for it's battle rating that it can only be penetrated by specific dedicated antitank weaponry, it is NEVER a good idea to present yourself as an easily acquirable target instead of either ignoring the enemy to reposition yourself or waiting until he is preoccupied, which lets you strike in coordination with a teammate.
@@NotHonoredHim it's surprisingly not that bad, it depends on playstyle though. I find it very responsive and quick enough to be a menace that's all I look for in a tank. But objectively speaking, for the general audience it is by default a bad tank.
They used the same armor for ever Sherman because they were designed to be mass produced, resistant to the Panzer IVs upgraded 75 and most small arms fire and AT guns, while retaining good mobility and firepower. If the US went balls to the wall and mass produces the M4A3E2 Jumbo and Jumbo 76 then they would've likely had way less tanks during the invasion of Europe and therefore even though they were heavy tanks, the german guns would've been able to ambush them easily since they were on the defensive and take shots at their sides.
Saying "what was the US thinking?" when talking about keeping the same armor thickness for every Sherman, the shorter explanation is it was cost effective and was combat effective enough.
It's like saying the USSR has an IS-2 and saying "What was Germany thinking, not making a tank more armored than the Tiger I"
well they did, and it drained their resources hard and then they lost.
Just unlocked it pens vickers at 100 metres i know have achieved t34-85 level confidence of engaging
British vehicles are sad enough because of gaijin don't bully them some more
Vickers is basically a leo 1 it depends wholly on not being shot
M51 W is the most hated from what I've seen in the forums
@@oz314 depends really. They're equally on the same level of being bad but the difference is that the M-51 can front plate anything and everything using HEAT whereas this thing sits at the same BR with nothing impressive.
A lot of people on the forums judged it without having the crew leveled up (especially targeting because then your dispersion is GARBAGE at 0) as it was a relatively new tank.
But if we put both of these tanks at 0 crew levels the M-51 is much better in terms of usefulness
@@Ili_asser M51 should be 7.3 7.7 alongside m48 imo, it has no business facing tigers and IS 2.
@@oz314 absolutely agree with you. I don't get how the 400mm of pen sits at 6.0... I promise you the only reason it's at that BR is because gaijin nerfed HEAT and decided to call it "balance"
I swear I am more competitive with the M4A3 than this even when I fight tiger 2s.
Stabilizer helps a lot to be honest, you can barrel and track more efficient + on the move
I haven't used this much but your gunner from what I've seen in my experience, get's taken out so much that it's just annoying to me after a while. The M36 and M36B2 imo are better because you get pretty much the same firepower at a lower br and HEAT-FS. The M26 is just bad but the T26E5 is a menace lol
I have not found one singular soul that plays the regular M26.. regular armor, same gun, higher BR than the M4/T26
And as you said there is the M36B2 sitting at lower BR with the same gun + HEATFS.
I do not understand how they balance the tech tree for the US but it is all over the place. IMO the M4/T26 should be 5.7 at best.
What advantage does this tank have to make it a higher br than the m36 jackson?
@@devlintaylor9520 good question actually, I have been doing a little bit of reading on this thing and the only reason it is higher br is:
- Not open top
- slightly better armor especially on the turret
- slightly better terrain resistance
But I still don't think all that warrants it to sit at 6.0
bro talking about the Shershing
SHERSHING LMAOOOO
I get Hürtgen Forest all the time haha. But it is better that that stupid arctic map or Vietnam imo
FINALLY, someone who agrees that the Artic map is stupid. I never really hate things but that map I HATE IT
I hate any poland maps
Oh my god man literal trauma. Poland and that stupid Artic map are top priority in my ban list
@@Ili_asser for real man, I always hate it, yo dude I've got a question, wanna play together sometimes?
@@Ili_asser you seem a very chill and fun guy to be around with
@@LiquidsSploitsReview Yes of course, why not! You can add me on WT
@@Ili_asser nice, what's your discord