If someone does not want to see the m20, add a panzerfaust/ Panzerschreck
7 Likes
Why would anyone be against the M20? Sucker’s incredible
3 Likes
“Historically inaccurate”
4 Likes
That is also a viable Idea. They could add the Ofenrohr or PzF as the “required” research and the T74 in the folder so those who would not like to research/play with it wouldn’t have to since they could just skip it.
- Originally a larger version of the M9A1, designated M20 in late 1944
7 Likes
and never saw combat until Korea
4 Likes
Half of Russia’s crap never saw combat at all
Your point?
8 Likes
Yep and they should only be premiums
3 Likes
Seeing combat has never been a prerequisite of if something should or should not be added. The rule has always been “If it existed, we can add it” and if required for balance (or if the devs feel like it), it can go in the tech tree. Otherwise, Japan would need to be hard capped to BR 2 for tanks and BR 3 for infantry weapons.
5 Likes
I’d rather have m20, because it wouldn’t be yet another bland copy paste…
I like new stuff.
(Also, got fond memories of Kubel hunting with it, in H&G)
9 Likes
not even mentioning japan
1 Like
you forgot the reason they got all that those prototypes the Japanese had no equivalent infantry weapons to rebut what the US did at the time to deal with automatic rifles and high capacity SMGs and heavy armor in my opinion they should have been caped off at tier 3 and when I am talking about Soviet equipment I am only talking about the AS44 which some how made its way into the base game despite it being a premium originally and not to mention unnecessary as the Fedorov was already a better gun
2 Likes
You can make the same argument you make for Japan as you make for the US here, they have no counterparts to things like the Panzerfaust 100 that saw service, and so they need prototypes and service weapons that didn’t see combat. Furthermore, the M20 was already in production by the end of the war as a direct successor to the M9 so it’s the logical development of the AT line. There is no argument against adding the M20 because the US does need top-tier AT weapons and it was already the M20 by 1944, meaning it absolutely existed before the cutoff date and seeing as it did see service later, would make far more sense than something like the M18 which had it’s order cancelled by the end of the war.
3 Likes
1 Like
I think all factions should get access to Panzerfaust100 for historical accuracy - but also each faction should get their own big launcher as a side grade which for Germany would be the Panzerschreck and for the other factions could be their own prototype launcher.
That way each faction has something unique - but you would still see historical weapons in the mix.
1 Like
Origin
United States
Type
Rocket launcher (reloadable)
Entered service
1950
4 Likes
Here’s a little rundown of how the US designation system works. X is for experimental prototype. Like mock ups or rough drafts. T is for the prototypes for testing. Take for example the T20E1. It’s a prototype. Now the M designation, well, M is production model. So the M20 was designated as such in 1944, meaning it was in production in late 1944. Regardless of when it “entered service,” it was in production in wartime
1 Like
But still saw production in late 1944
M20
3 Likes
That’s the most important milestone - when something entered service.
Otherwise, technically speaking, Me 163 Komet first flew in 1941 - should Barbarossa era see jet planes then? No.
Technically speaking IS-3 was developed during WW2. Should it be fighting in Berlin? No.
Technically speaking the Nuke was used in WW2. So battle of Dunkirk Uno reverse card - the allies nuke Berlin? Obviously no.
The year/month something actually got adopted and entered service matters greatly and is exactly the reference point that allows continuity and iconic battles feeling.
3 Likes
BUT
Did any of those enter full scale production?