It’s unfair to exclude a single camp when all of them should have a common project
Anti-tank rifle grenades can be used by infantry and anti-tank soldiers
It is the most widely used main weapon against transport vehicles and non-light tanks.
All anti-tank grenades currently have an armor-piercing capacity of approximately 50MM
Just right for fighting almost all tanks below level 3
Even the Japanese could easily penetrate the sides of the Sherman’s turret
in addition
The type of gun used in the grenade launcher body will never affect the strength of the grenade itself.
Even the Garand doesn’t gain much advantage just because it’s a semi-automatic
And he has been classified in the level 4 development tree
This means the US military needs to spend more time developing him
If they spend a lot of time developing the same weapons as other factions
However, it can only be used in more advanced environments and it is difficult to exert its performance, which is a considerable negative feedback for the gaming experience.
in conclusion
When other factions have general anti-vehicle means that are low-level and environmentally friendly
It is absolutely unfair that only the U.S. military is restricted to high-level environments
There is no reason to prohibit the US military from obtaining the same universal anti-vehicle weapons as other factions.
Only US gets nuke launcher tank with actual BR3 armor, this is also unfair
When you see other people posting similar balance complaints, and you say “learn how to play the game, not being a crybaby”, does that also apply here?
(Don’t complain and cry about the enemy, you should understand the strengths and weaknesses of the camp and take advantage of it)
I guess you didn’t think about the meaning of this sentence or twisted it with an extreme prejudice.
Things that meet the above conditions (including but not limited to)
50MM long tube against KV1
Use smoke to cover friendly forces
Point explosives and anti-tank rifles at the right location
Differences in advantages between German aircraft and US military aircraft
Use anti-tank rocket barrels and engineering guns from a distance to snipe the vital points of tanks or destroy gun barrels and tracks.
But when (all camps hold weapons of the same class and performance), only weakening a single camp obviously does not comply with the original meaning of this sentence.
This is just pure camp discrimination
(Just like the performance of Japanese tanks is a joke
The only tank that can easily penetrate the Sherman is a convertible placed at the end of level 4)
Perhaps it is difficult for extreme people who only use narrow views to discriminate against different ideas to understand the difference.
But I believe many players can understand the essential difference between these two things.
I guess you forgot
German N3 75MM rapid-fire gun
The Soviet 45MM tank gun against all level 3 tanks and the T28
Japanese 120MM iron coffin
in addition
I don’t know if you have studied the performance of the 105 tank.
There are always complaints about his caliber and infantry threat capabilities
But forget that it is just an anti-infantry vehicle without armor-piercing ammunition and only standard Sherman armor.
Even if you want to use pressure attack, it is very dependent on the enemy’s tilt angle and armor thickness.
Therefore, they cannot fight against the main tank force in most environments and can only attack anti-infantry.
And you only need to use anti-tank rocket launchers and fortifications or tanks with sufficient armor-piercing performance to easily destroy this anti-infantry vehicle that is difficult to fight against enemy tanks.
How did you become so narrow-minded that you were able to completely ignore the strengths and similar projects of other factions and pass them off as victims?
