New USA/UK anti-tank weapons for "historians"

I am well aware of the Marine Corps, however they did not have M1918s, and they would have had M1918A1s at worse.

I see you pulled this quote off of Wikipedia, so let me clarify it for you. The 1918s were sent to be converted to 1918A2s, while the limited run of 1918A1s were used to fill the gaps in the US Arsenal. As a result, the Marines got the A1s at the start of the war, and the stock BARs were converted to A2s.

That was my point. the stock BAR meets DF’s requirements as well as the Federov however, it doesn’t have nearly as many complaints as the Federov. Why is that? Because it’s mostly balanced.

Honestly I don’t know how more people aren’t complaining about it. It’s an absolute BEAST of an auto rifle and it gets the job done. Love that thing

At BR 3, it’s matched against things like the the Type 96, Sig M1920, Beretta M1, MG 34 and Flamethrowers. Hell, the other two BAR variants are at the same BR for the same price and are also seen as mostly balanced, so it’s mostly overlooked.

Heh, those poor suckers. Having to fight against the superior BAR

Well, it has the worst dispersion of any BAR variant in the game, so…

1 Like

Still, the BAR suits my playstyle the best. Which is to push hard and keep pushing. Doubt I can do the same with the MG’s

Fair, just saying the A2 has superior stats to the stock BAR in every way. Also Type 96 is like a BAR but has more ammo per mag and a bayonet, at the cost of 10% less movement speed so give that a try as well.

Oh yeah I exclusively use the A2. Love the Slow Auto and it has better irons in my opinion. I just refer to them all as BAR’s. Also, praise Browning. Greatest firearm inventor to ever exist

Where is it then?

I literally provided a link to prove one of my points previously. You have provided nothing of your own.

Here are four links of people liking captured weapons to your one supposedly disliking it

For the record I don’t advocate for the addition of captured weapons but I can’t stand it when people use “most players” and “majorty of playerbase” to make their point as if they actually made a poll.

Especially with claims like apparently “most like time travelling weapons”

Again for the record: many men, many minds, but “most players”? There was no poll.

3 Likes

And here are links that prove people dislike soviet panzerfaust.
Soviets panzerfaust - Mess Room - Enlisted
¿Soviets using panzerfaust? - Suggestions - Enlisted
Remove PanzerFausts from Soviets! - Suggestions - Enlisted
Remove panzerfaust from Soviets in Berlin - Suggestions - Enlisted

However, you are right to an extent, comparing anecdotes proves nothing and since now it’s actually a comparison due to you finally providing some, let’s try something else to get the point across. I have argued that no one cares about historical accuracy when it actually serves the sake of balance, so I’m going to give you a chance to disprove it. Find me any examples of anyone complaining about the lack of historical accuracy for any of the Japanese equipment I have previously listed. If you can find just one, I’ll concede this point.

1 Like

And the reason they have it is their high teir AT weapon of soviet origin besides AT rifles sucked they got lend lease piats and M1 Bazookas they tested against their own prototype AT launcher weapons along with captured German AT weapons at the time and the Soviets found their AT weapons were sorely lacking even compared with the early Bazooka also the M20 is not equivalent to the Panzerfaoust but the Panzerschreck as that is what pushed the M20 development

Nice try with “find me X and then I’ll consider”. Yeah, no.

You prefer time travelling weapons for balance. I prefer captured weapons over time travellers.
Simple as that.

There is no “most players”.

If you want to play “find me X” then go find me some quotes of people praising the lack of historical accuracy for any equipment first.

Ok, here you go. These people were directly asking for the Chi Nu and Type 4 before they were added to Japan, and if directly asking for it is not endorsing it, nothing is.

Also, go look at all the proposals for Pacific campaigns prior to the addition to the Pacific, almost all of them have at least one of the tanks or guns I have referenced previously. I’ll provide a few here.
Suggestion for Pacific Campaign: Philippines campaign 1944 - Suggestions - Enlisted
Suggestion for pacific campaign: Battle of Tokyo - Suggestions - Enlisted

Now you provide any evidence that literally anyone has complained about the historical accuracy of any of the Japanese weapons I have brought up. If you need a reminder, I’ll list them all again. Type 4 rifle, Type 4 rocket launcher, Type 5 rocket launcher, Ke Ni, Ho I, Chi Nu and Na To.

No, the M20 is a completely American initiative to be able to deal with the big cats, it took almost nothing from the Panzershrek because the American bazooka and the Panzershrek’s lineage split off at the M1. the M20 is an upscaled M9 which in turn is an upscaled M1A1 which was the American way of improving the M1, the same way the Ofenrohr was for the German.
Also, the point of what I said was that M20 is to the M9 what the Panzerfaust 100 is to the Panzerfaust 60, and that comparison wouldn’t work for the Panzershrek/Ofenrohr because A) We don’t have Panzershrek yet B) Panzershrek didn’t change much from the Ofenrohr other than ergonomics and saftey. Meanwhile both the M20 and Panzerfaust 100 are basically upscaled versions of their respective base launchers, so for this purpose, it makes more sense to compare these two than to use the Panzershrek/Ofenrohr.

2 Likes

Yes but also but the M20 development was pushed further by the successes of the Panzerschreck

lmao what’s going on

1 Like

Forum war. Not the first and definitely not the last, at least on this post. Which is funny to me because I started it with the suggestion to add M20 Super-Bazooka.