It’s not so much that it’s a slower projectile (though it is), but the projectile of the Piat is both heavier and lacks the bazooka’s greatest advantage - meaning to aim the Piat you’re dealing with a heavy arc.
Meanwhile the bazooka, is rocket propelled, and follows a very flat trajectory, meaning it’s far more accurate, and also due to this, as it follows a straight line more or less instead of a high arc, the 10m/s speed advantage of the projectile ends up reducing time to target by about half at most ranges.
In addition, later models of the Bazooka had the same or more penetration than the PIAT, which was rated for 4" of armor penetration, the M9 Bazooka with M6A3 HEAT had equivalent armor penetration, and was the main version of the Bazooka in production by early 1944, and should be what we’d get for the Normandy campaign. So in effect, what we should get with the Bazooka is a far easier to aim weapon with the same penetration as the PIAT.
Well more or less. 80 m/s Vmax doesn’t create a laser but compared to the PIAT it’s very straight.
80m/s vs. 76m/s. I’m very curous about the math behind “half the time” even if we include the more ogive flight path of the PIAT.
4" PIAT 3,5"-4" M6A3. Still an edge for the PIAT. But given the “optimistic” values for the M6A3 are the same pen as the PIAT.
[quote]
and was the main version of the Bazooka in production by early 1944, and should be what we’d get for the Normandy campaign.
[/quote] Delivered to the troops in August '44. But with Darkflows “year counts not date of operation” special treamtment which is already used for the Jumbo and M24 it is possible. For the game you are correct for actual D-Day it wasn’t there and the M9 was only produced in fairly low numbers compared to the M1 and M1A1 so a lot of guys had to keep their M1 for a while. That changed with the M9A1. Production of the M9A1 started autumn '44 and was the most produced.
Yes, possible. My objection was mainly about the widespread image of the Bazooka with a high expectation for more penetration. An other objection in the back of my mind is that the Germans are still running around with the Sturmpistole which is even worse than the PIAT. Both are unreliable at the moment but the trajectory of the Sturmpistole is even worse than the PIAT and the PIAT does a lot more OHK if the grenade isn’t eaten by the void. So it couuuld trigger a Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck as a compagnion for the Bazooka. The same arguments for the M6A1 used in case of the Panzerfaust opens the door of Panzerfaust 60 or Panzerfaust 100.
Predicted result: More and
Maybe an unpopulair opinion but Both Pz4’s are way better than the Sherman. You have no clue how to play if you think otherwise no matter how many times you say
To yourself in the mirror.
The ammount of posts on this forum that keep saying X or Y is op is getting ridiculous.
The game is not meant to be a mirror match of exactly the same tools. If you want that go play pong
I like the M4A2 and with the better round, I dont see why the Jumbo is even needed. The Jumbo is just odd being in the game with only facing off against what Gemany has in Enlisted.
It is a weird dynamic and I would much rather seen the Hellcat or M10 for the 76mm.
Presumably you mean the sdKfz 234/3 with the short 75mm L24 rather than the 234/4 with the L46 Pak 40? Neither of which were in service on D-day of course - the /3 started productoin in June 44, and /4 in december 44… not that that is actually important of course
Both seem eminently reasonable.
Nah - IMO there is no need to proliferate the number of AFV’s - ther should be a minimal number available for infantry support and all these are not a good fit for the game
IMO the Panther is in no way and “equivalent” to the Jumbo - the Panther and Jumbo have no equivalents to each other at that time - I’d be happy to remove them both.
Yeah, I’m aware that the 234/3 wasn’t in service on D-Day, but with the way Enlisted is being set up, and all… well, yeah.
I agree on the TD’s, but the M7 and Wespe, and M16 MGMC and Sd.Kfz.251/21 have clear roles that would be good for the game, the former having an anti-infantry role, the latter being reasonable counters to the current air domination.
The panther I said is the /closest/ equivalent to the Jumbo. Neither has a clear equivalent in service, but it’s the closest you’d get. And this is A: a gaijin equivalent, and B: the Jumbo is already in the game. So… While I would like them to not be in the Normandy campaign, somehow I think they’re here to stay regardless of our balance concerns.
its more historical accuracy. US had the Bazooka and the Brits had the PIAT. right now the bomber squad is an American battalion so it should have American weapons.
Do you have the impression Darkflow thinks historical accuracy is a striking argument?
Well if it comes so and historical accurate the Germans will get Panzerfaust 60/100 and/or Panzerschreck…i hope I get the Jumbo a bit in advance to have some fun with it before it becomes an endangered species.
doesn’t really matter on pumas. i use HE at times blasting them above the front wheel where ammo is. My problem comes with P3 or P4s where indicator says my shell would pen but it bounces off.
You mean that stuff that is completely disregarded in Enlisted, where all weapons operate at their maximum potential, not counting for damage model bugs or nerfed shotguns?
You mean the same heavy arc as the Sturmpistole? The arc that makes them skill-based instead of no-brain?
PIAT and Sturmpistole are fine. All they need is consistent damage models for the vehicles.
Yup.
Lmao so if someone disagrees they are wrong automatically? That shit is not objective. The sherman has thick enough armor to survive a shot from a Puma if angled, and then we’re not even talking about the Jumbo.
Yet this game is meant to be as realistic as possible, as advertised by the developers themselves. And the Jumbo is a magic tank from the future from Normandy. It wasn’t used in Normandy at all.
Even then, Stug3A exists, even tho outdated surely a handful would still be around. M8 Scott isn’t exactly common either.
Also a tiger and panther and even a tiger 2. Normandy is the one campaign where you do not want to include every tank that was there.
It’s very funny to see, how much my post blowed up the Forum damn cruel
@49801926 Oh man…I was really waiting for that kind of " smartass, and blaming comments" what I mentioned…
The only ridiculous thing in forum, when guys, like you blame others and send them to “go play CS or something…” instead of make counter-argument to confirm their right, and not agree with Nerf or change something ingame…
If you wanna know “how I play” ask summary statistc from developers and talk after that dude…
You are the biggest smartass on this forum. You are a blamer yourself but to narrow minded to see this. You are just a troll trying to stirr things up. I am never going to respond to you again.
If you think that the Sherman is op and needs a nerf you are wrong and there is no need to be objective about it. So yes if someone disagrees with me about that topic they are 100% wrong.
You and many others keep wrangling the forum over this for a while already, no it was not used there, should it be there? No, but it feels balanced so keep it there tbh.
“as realistic as possible” that is exactly what they do. It is a attempt to keep it realistic, not a time machine to go back to the past. The game is quite arcady and balance in the game is more important than historical accuracy. I would love to have both but I have the game installed to play a game and not read a book or watch a docu so getting as close as the devs can with a cool game is what I ask for tbh.
and 
