Right now the M10 Ersatz only has one option for paintjobs, which is not very pleasing. It would add unique flair to the squad if it was able to use the camo options that the US faction typically has access to.
That’s it, that’s the suggestion. Please give me more reasons to throw money at you, Darkflow.
The funny thing is… Soviet Sherman, M3 Lee and Valentine already have such option.
And tbh, I don’t like it. And I don’t think ersatz should get US camos either.
But if it’s gonna make you happy…
Well, the Ersatz is supposed to be a German tank in disguise, I think it makes perfect sense to be able to apply US camo patterns to it. If you don’t like them, that’s okay, you can keep using the default paint it comes with
If anything, putting German camo patterns on a tank supposed to mimic a US tank would be way more… weird
No, it doesn’t.
It’s like saying that it makes perfect to german crew of that tank to have access to any US uniform. Which simply isn’t the case.
You’re comparing apples to oranges with that, why would they get infantry uniforms? It makes sense that a tank, with the purpose of being an allied tank in disguise, could be painted like an allied tank. The german crew has access to stolen allied tanker uniforms, so its not that much of a stretch they stole some paint along with them.
In any event, this would be extra options that nobody is forced to use, it is providing more variety to something that is lacking it
well, the thing is.
it doesn’t make sense for US vehicles on the russian side to have had us camouflages.
that, i agree.
but it is different with the panther m10.
as it’s literally ( a warcrime ) meant to be disguising as the enemy, it should get access to the paint camouflage.
in reality, it would seem half assed to just put the markings and not try a little harder by actually using camouflages.
in reality, they actually did.
they used the base olive camouflage and the " sprinkled " white camouflages.
resembling the actual us used during the battle of the bulge pattern scheme ( which was used through out the war ).
they never used other paint schemes because turns out the americans weren’t fool enough to fall for it. ( even though some friendly fire accident did happened because of them ) and truth be told, such panthers were ever only used in the battle of the bulge.
so, as far as enlisted goes, this panther does not fight only in the battle of the bulge. hence, it makes sense to get access to other camouflages for other maps as well. same paint scheme of the US.
which, at the end of the day, all this disguise isn’t really effective because of markers on the head, and well, still looks like a panther. but it’s for the settings reasons. it’s unique and did actually happened.
so it should be replicated as follow.
except… they do have access to US tanker uniforms. because also historically they had access to those. ( granted, enlisted ones are actually unique and different. not just a copy and paste )
so i’m not sure what are your gripes about.
it’s not a matter of just to make OP happy.
it’s about common sense and consistency.
That’s very long way how to argue with something I have never said.
it’s called an observation based on the history of where and what was used, the game environment, and above all, justification + points to prove why that should be a thing 
it’s not really about who likes what.
P.s. i don’t even own this tank.
nor planning on ever getting one. ( that is, as of yet )
but i do recognize what it’s supposed to have. and see the argumentations in favor to it based on the historical facts and " ifs " based on the game.
Yeah
Because they once used a tank with American camouflage. So that’s enough of an argument for them to magically be able to any American camo ever made.
I’ve already said something to that effect.
It is a historical fact that the Germans used American uniforms in the Ardennes.
But that doesn’t justify suddenly picking any American uniform.
It’s a classic example of “yeah, there’s a one photo here of something which is somewhat resembling the thing I would want in a game… Then I’ll base my entire argument for something I want to see in the game on that. Even if it doesn’t make any sense.”
And in doing so, we’ll further destroy any integrity of the factions in the game.
There is not a single shred of evidence regarding Ersatz M10 ever having any other camo.
And there’s not a single reason why he should get one. Regarding the completely irrational “because I want it that way, because the Germans used other vehicles with enemy camouflage, because the Soviets already have this nonsensical option” arguments.
No, I just don’t like it. And I see your arguments as completely misguided. Moreover, you were trying to refute something I never even suggested as an issue.
As long as you write a super long wall of text about it.
But whatever, If someone is willing to pay for this nonsense. I couldn’t care less. I just said I don’t like. That’s all.
it’s not magically.
its logically.
you can bet they would have used it in other theaters as well if it pooved to be effective.
( which, albe it, not widely effective, it still caused some friendly fire incident on the ally side ).
as, it’s primary function, was to deceive.
hence, in order to effectively deceive one would do anything if possible.
which logically it includes using the same paint scheme of the opposite nation among all fronts and enivroments.
that’s why they do come with american tanker uniforms.
as tankers had their own tank uniforms.
only exception, were units with m8 greyhound.
which used american infantry units.
but… that’s not the case.
so, not sure why you are bringing it up.
like, there could be an argument if they had access to those uniforms.
but based on pictures and what not, they only have customization of fake us tanker uniforms.
( boots are a dead give away )
so far, you are the one complaining that it doesn’t make sense just because it wasn’t widely used.
in the grand scheme of things, and as far as the game goes, makes perfect sense to be using the enemy camouflages for the right enivorement as this game depicts " ideal " of ideals.
neither the ho ri actually existed outside a mockup and drawings.
neither the fg 42 was widely given like candies.
yet, here we are.
does two wrongs make one right?
no. perhaps not.
but it does set a precedent for content.
and i’d argue, a camo would do no harm in this case.
especially for such a minor thing that can be easily “fixed”.
well yes.
but by deduction of what it was supposed to do ( and partially did in the real life war )
it’s not rocket science that if used eariler or somehow later, they would have without a shadow of a doubt, used opponents camouflages.
yes there are.
again, to deceive.
the sole purpose of the tank.
sounds more like you don’t want them because apparently the concept it self doesn’t convince you 
i never claimed you did?
i just said how it would be an actual factor that comes to play.
which you either ignored on purpose or did not genually considered.
somewhat " fair " opinion,
but i would like to reminder that you started with:
which to follow through, that’s unironically what they partially did.
and if you bet they did it on uniforms, while also did it on tanks, they would have gone far.
it may sound an " if ".
but i digress.
oh its a warcrime - that should give double reason to buy that vehicle muhahaha
I think it should only use the camos that were actually used on the real vehicles, which I guess was only plain army green, so that, well… it would actually be seen by Allied troops to begin with. So I think they had no camo on purpose right?
Also, it is very unlikely such program would have been used again to trick the enemy, this was a one time attempt at fooling the US, and it pretty much failed as we know…
it was a bit disingenous of me to call them war crime.
now that i realized it.
well, in reality, and historically,
The disguised Panthers did not engage in combat while wearing enemy markings, so they were not considered war crimes
because such panthers were used in the operation Greif using the ruse de guerre tactic (a legitimate military deception tactic)
it crosses into perfidy (treachery) and becomes a war crime if used during combat. but ultimately, most of them were destroyed before even reaching the rear US lines.
in enlisted however, such tanks with disguised uniforms to commit the act of perfidy by dusguising as the enemy and actively taking part of the battle are considered actual war crimes.
with that aside:
i’m not going to start the whole veekay kaboozle with you.
but just because it didn’t happened, it doesn’t mean in enlisted wouldn’t happen.
i kinda see ( similar to devs ) enlisted as an alternative history.
one where apparently ho ri production and protototyes were aknowledged.
one where apparently fgs were the main battle rifle of the german army ( and apparently can be given to everyone ). one where guerillas apparently can do the things they do. ( aka active combat other than disrupt enemy lines ) one where apparently paratroopers can carry heavy machineguns with them and drop with most of their gear on the person )
so, as you probably guess where i’m going ( and where you’ll probably heavily disagree ) enlisted is not historically based. nor historical accurate to the reality of our actual history. nor how things went in our " time line ".
with that being said, i did used historical basis to lay out the theory of possibility.
which it’s (mis)used in enlisted on many cases.
the difference with this one, is that it actually has some grounds.
because:
the ezrath panther did used both base green/olive paint, and the winter camouflage ( replicating the sprinkled white on olive scheme that they also used. )
so, if we have to argue about semantics, the germans did used enemy camouflages.
and i’d argue if they did it in the snow ( because foundamentally it’s where they found them selves trying such tactic ) they would most likely have done it too in other enivorements.
and you can’t really exclude such possibility with just " it didn’t happened ".
because such argument does not hold for pretty much the rest of oddities enlisted has compared to real life event and cases.
hence, it’s why the panther even though it didn’t used camouflages of other enivroeemnts ( due to not being used there ) in enlisted is pretty much safe to assume that they would.
as, again, those panther do not only end up in the battle of the bulge, but in normandy as well ( and also berlin and stalingrad. but the idea of the ezrat panther was not to fool the soviets… but americans ).
you see where i’m going with this?
i guess agree to disagree.
but again, not to sound right or " you are wrong ".
within enlisted frame, it would be logical to use other camouflages despite it’s real life inspiration. that it’s pretty much somewhat irrelevant as the game likes to remind us it’s just resemblances. but after all, the panther does not only fight in the battle of the bulge.
Well I think this is a good argument in the end, but I would even go further and say “a fake M10” fighting in Berlin is 20 times more ridiculous than a fake M10 with US camo.
So yeah
