Kind of stupid 100rd magazine/box can hold twice as much, don’t you think?
1 Like
No need of third Stinger.
Listen to Forgotten Weapons - there were only 6 Stingers. And they gave each one gun to one platoon of Marines, not to single squad.
In game there are only two squads of Marines - 5th and 22nd Marine Regiments.
So - two Stingers for two squads of Marines 
It’s not like i will be using them all for a single squad they are too precious to give to a stupid bot that would die instantly.
I planned to use 2x MG squads and 1x APC squad where each squad would get one Stinger each. IRL
Availability is a poor excuse since only single Conders existed and yet we can have four of them.
i dont see a reason why it should reload on 100th round when it is declared as 200 round weapon.
2 Likes
When fixing work becomes a substantial nerf, it is necessary to reconsider game balance. As I advocated in the previous thread, if G43DFE has been fixed, then it shouldn’t stay at BR5 anymore.
Please fix the mistakes of G43 DFE and Gerät 03 - Suggestions - Enlisted
By the way, HVAR is not even the most powerful rocket, problem is that P47 can carry 10 rockets. But last time Devs decided to nerf P47, it faced strong opposition from community, which forced them to cancel the plan.
i will be glad if they introduce normal mg42 with 100 round belt
Thank you that would clear a lot of confusion
it faced strong opposition cause p47 was only thing that they had at the time that was worth it in tech tree. they had shit sights, no pershing, no t20. i think that nerfing p47 after introducing super pershing would go over a lot better than the first time they tried it.
I think HVARs are indeed a problem. Because they’ve been nerfed in a pretty weird way.
What they did is nerf their effectiveness against armored vehicles. But the pretty big aoe against infantry stayed the same.
So I disagree that the problem is quantity. You can still pretty easily wipe out a whole objective with just 2 HVARs.
What needs to be done is nerf the effectiveness against infantry (reduce the area of effect) and make them effective against armored targets again.
But I guess DF are of the opinion that being able to effectively annihilate armored camper in grey zone is not a good thing, while wiping out the whole objective without any effort is the way to go.
1 Like
And? The Maxin Tokarevs all went to Republican forces in Spain and China, yet it is a TT gun. The ASS rifle was field-tested in 1945, yet it is also a TT. The Fedorov was AT BEST used in the Winter War, yet it is a TT weapon. The FG42 was not a Wehrmacht rifle, yet everyone and his mother are using it as standard issue rifle in the TT.
3 Likes
T20, sniper StGs, auto Type Hei and lots of other prototypes were never fielded during WW2 either.
Every nation has such weapons, the rule that the devs made is if at least 1 prototype was built before the end of WW2 its fair game.
1 Like
I’m still very confused about the qualifications for putting weapon in game tbh
We can always make a super list…
point was just that this cant be a reason to not make it a TT if at the same time the Germans mass issue FG42s and the Americans and Russians have standardized field test guns and protos.
The logic of a “200rd” 100rd box can is NOT absurd to some but when you and I ask for 75-100rd belt for the MG34/42 we are mocked and ridiculed for asking.
Stinger gets 200round belt, MG34 gets 100rd belt and mg42 gets 150round belt. Standard.
Only 1 MP-43/1 was tested with a scope, exactly this one:
And later 10 more StG-44s were tested with a scope:
Both failed as the mounting point was not able to keep any sort of zero.
Gun jesus himself has made a topic on this, its an interesting video to watch.
But again:
2 Likes
Are you sure this is the same gun?
Both IJA and IJN have weapons called Type 1 MG.
RPM990 should be IJN’s Type 1 MG - copy of MG15.
Type 100 in game should be dual ver of IJA Type 1 MG.
No. It was added to editor much earlier.
