It seems that you don’t know how to fight a Jumbo with a Panzer 4, the weak point of the Jumbo is in the turret of the front armor of the chassis, it’s not the tank’s fault, it’s your fault for not knowing where to shoot and before you say something more, I play with both German and American armies.
Please add the M20 Bazooka, T26E1-1Super Pershing and M26 Pershing for the western allies post-merge
Yes fighting Jumbo with a Panzer IV is tough. BUT, german players unlock a some weapons (Panzerfaust) and Tanks (Panther/Tiger) that can deal with the Jumbo consistently. This is not the case with the US regarding Tiger II H.
3 Likes
Yes, but you have to take the time to aim to hit it, but the panzer 4s take heavy damage with a average hull shot anywhere from the 75. This will be even worse if the add the 76 jumbo
“Lol learn to flank and aim for pixle”.
3 Likes
The M20 did no see any action in WWII as its mass production started in 48 as a premium or gold order weapon it would work
No, mass production for the M20 started in 1944, however it did not see service in WW2 for logistical reasons. However, that means it falls well within the dev’s rule of “If it existed during the war we can add it”. Seeing as the US doesn’t really have anything on par with the Panzerfaust 100 in game right now, the M20 is only logical as it is the direct successor to the M9s.
4 Likes
I don’t were you got your sources for that claim but its wrong as the M20 did not ever wide scale until 1950 prior to the start of the Korean War and by the way the US troops in Korea found their M9A1 bazookas were not that effective against North Korean Tanks and that reason is Louis A. Johnson Defense sectary would lunch a series of budget cuts due to the US have a monopoly on the A bomb and in 48 their was a budget increase due to the Soviets developing their own A bomb and if you want something to compete with the Panzerfaust then give them it as a number would be the Panzerfaust as the M20 was essentially described as a Panzerschreck or maybe give the M9 the better M6A3 rocket which had 120-126mm pen I am more in favor of brining the M18 recoilless rifle in the game not for AT proposes as it was horrible at that job but as an anti infantry weapon as its he round was considerably good at dealing with German hard point in the Po valley and the Ruhr
it already uses m6a3 rocket, but they used 100mm pen that was used on 30° testing as 0° pen value.
2 Likes
This is pretty much my thoughts as well
2 Likes
well that sounds like it should be fixed then
problem is that most books have varied values with unknown method of testing.
idk if it was reported, but i think one helper passed the word.
While yes the M20 never saw any action in WW2, the Americans were indeed beginning to producing them in limited quantities by late 1944. We know this because it gets officially accepted by the US army and given the designation of M20 during this time period. However as I said earlier, logistical issues and the quantity and quality of tanks troops encountered by 1945 meant there was not any reason to ship them to either theater. However, we do know M20 were in Pusan during the Korean war, which means American Bazooka operators had access to the M20 even before the M9 was discovered to be obsolete. This means that M20s were produced to a significant quantity between their introduction in 1944 and 1950 and seeing as how you have demonstrated the US slowed down arms production between 1945 and 1948, the bulk of these bazookas would have to have been made between 1944-45 and 1948-50. I’m not going to say the majority were produces between 44 and 45 because that would be dumb, but you have to see that a significant amount would have to have been made in that time period. That quantity produced is more than enough to get it added to the game according to the devs rules of adding equipment, so I don’s see why it shouldn’t be added as a TT weapon.
Also about the M18 recoilless, it preforms about as well as the M9 except with a lighter shell so in game it would be a sidegrade not an upgrade to the M9, leaving the Americans still with no match for the higher level AT weapons like the Panzerfaust 100s or Ofenrohr. M20 recoilless also doesn’t seem to have a way to be shoulder, meaning M20 bazooka is really the only option for US AT weapon progression.
3 Likes
the 1944 production of the M20 was the prototype scale of production as if it was the actual full production of the M20 they would have seen front line field trials like what happed with the M2 carbine at the end of the war and to let you know the first M20s to reach Korea it was a batch of 20 that were flown in from the US
No, there was no need to field the M20s so for logistical reasons they held them back during WW2. Introducing an entirely new supply like causes issues even for the United States, just look at the issues they had with the long 90mm tank gun ammo. The M2 Carbine is different in this case because it used a pre-existing ammo type, and could be converted from weapons that were already in the field, rendering many of the logistical issues moot.
touché the M18 Recoilless rifle would be better as their production started in October 1944 and they managed to see action in 1945
The issue is the M18 is about on par with the M9, meaning it would be a sidegrade, not an upgrade. The M20 is really the only thing that can be added that is a direct upgrade from the M9.
I am not saying it be used as an AT as it would be more a downgrade but as an anti infantry weapon as the HE round was liked for taking out entrenched Germans and Japanese forces as some would call it “pocket artillery” so I would see it as a make up for not having a better AT weapon as this one would be able to be used against infantry which would be a majority of the forces you would be fighting
Ah so you want a more RMN-50 like weapon? Devs might do that, but who knows.
3 Likes
yep essentially a human portable support gun
I have to admit, I do want the M18 recoilless rifle to replace paratrooper AT kits.
M1 bazookas are…
Laughable.
3 Likes