On a side-by-side comparison, either the panzerfaust 60 has too much penetration for BR3, or the M9 bazooka has too little for BR3.
Since the Pfaust 60 is available to both the soviets and germans and potentially affecting handheld AT balance if they were moved up to BR4, the simplest solution is to move the M9 Bazooka to BR2.
The only thing M9 has going for is range, much more flat trajectory but that 102mm is barely enough for frontal attack against BR4-5 stuff.
personally I really like that AT weapons can reliably deal with tanks, M9 being in BR3 is gonna kill a whole lot of vehicles with ease specifically because of its extreme accuracy.
But then again, with practice the Panzerfaust 60 can pretty much do the same, its just harder to use.
Also I dont quite understand that chart, didn’t the M1 actually have 80mm of penetration? and didn’t the Piat have the power to pen Tigers? where is this chart comming from?
All their dispersions- Their accuracies, are identical.
The M9 only benefits from its simple sights and relatively flat trajectory.
A derivative of Euth’s datamine sheet.
The M1 never had more than 60mm of pen.
The PIAT is technically able to penetrate Tiger side armor, which is 80mm, but you need to be almost perpendicular to it.
so maybe a buff is in order, especially since German BR 3 has 80 - 50 mm of armor, so that you pick a M1 for longer ranges, and a Piat for better penetration.
I feel like I have to check real life penetration values out again, something seems to be wrong here.
PIAT has stronger penetration than the M1 Bazooka, but is harder to aim. Meanwhile, the M9 bazooka has plenty of penetration and is easier to aim. Personally I think that bringing the M9 bazooka down in tier is a mistake.
In comparison to the German options, which both of the panzerfausts are lob weapons (harder to aim, but ultimately more effective usually especially at range), The Germans don’t get a rocket type launcher until their final one.
I think the tiers they are at currently works just fine.
Especially when you consider that the AT Rifles are T1, it would be honestly quite dumb to have all of your AT launcher weapons available in such low BRs. (if the M9 was moved to BR2 like he is asking).
Tanks have enough issue trying to deal with explosive packs (which are severely overpowered IMHO) let alone dealing with a launcher that would be able to punch through even their front armor for the next 3 BRs.
Some SERIOUS balancing needs to be done in terms of tanks, AT weaponry, explosive packs, and the roles in which each soldier type plays.
Or you can just use a PIAT in both scenarios.
In that case, move the pfaust 60s up. Whatever it is, they shouldn’t be sharing the same BR given that one clearly has over 50% more penetration than the other.
The only thing that ultimately matters with AT weapons is how much penetration it has. The lower-velocity launchers may seem odd to aim, but once you use them enough with practice, it’ll be intuitive.
At that point, the skill necessary to use the weapon in the first place is higher, but the limit of the weapon’s performance is ultimately dictated by its technical attributes.
Seeing how the US has to constantly fight obscenely armored vehicles all the time, I honestly wouldn’t care much if they added one of the prototype Bazooka developments in order to mitigate the huge equipment gap shown here. The Panzerfaust is hilariously easy to use compared to either Bazooka.
Japs: launcher? Prototype?
*Type 4 and Type 5 tube showing up in the corner
They just need to fix all the Bazookas and give them back the ~20mm of pen they are all missing for no good reason, then they will be fine.
I disagree here, because Soviets and Germans have weak AT weapons up until panzerfaust.
The sturmpistole having 70mm of pen and the granatenbusche having 90mm of pen and adjustable sights not good enough?
For the record, the soviets can technically get lend-lease M1 Bazookas. I’m surprised they weren’t added along with the Stalingrad campaign.
Worst post pen damage of all BR2 AT weapons
Is fine, but far worse than PIAT and M1 as both are much easier to use and have better range.
Ptrs, which you forgot to mention is literally just an AT rifle.
Instead of comparing a fish to a shark, look at the gear other nations have in the same BR.
Let me shamelessly promote my other thread in response to the ptrs.
My point is, either pfaust 60s should go up or m9s should go down. The former leaves the soviets with only PTRS rifles for the BR1-3 bracket, so the only reasonable solution is to put the M9 to a lower BR.
By their technical performance, they shouldn’t be sharing the same BR.
One literally has over 50% more penetration, and can nuke jumbos and even king tigers from the front.
The other will struggle to frontally pen a panther, with the panther G variant being frontally immune to the M9 entirely.
