Source that it even happened?
Yes, which would be the ones that should be added, imo.
I know how casting works. However, as far as I know at least, the turret front of a T-34 is rolled.
So add t-34 but make it useless?
It wouldn’t be useless. It just would be more difficult to aim with it.
I realise PZ.III have 2 MGs firing at once. Its a little to much btw.
1 Like
on top of German tank MGs have much lower TTK, unlike Russian coaxials needing a good 3 hits with low RoF.
2 Likes
Yeah, they need to buff russian MG
1 Like
You would still find plenty of use for explosive shells.
I would much rather see a T-28 than introduce the T-34’s level of armor.
The Panzer II’s is trolly enough as is, the T-34 would be even worse.
Granted I need to stress I would rather see Panzer IIs made reasonably killable by antimaterial rifles before any of these.
We need to remember that the more that tanks get buffed, the more man-portable AT loses out when it’s weak as is.
This seems pretty much unavoidable regardless as the game lacks, if you will, a ton of light vehicles.
Well let’s add those instead of heavy tanks.
Not really, every vehicle currently in Moscow is “light”, then in Normandy you get panzerfaust and bazookas which have no problems dealing with Panzer IVs and Shermans.
My point is to not add tanks too heavy to penetrate with what infantry have.
The tanks will need to have more parts that can be damaged and destroyed without the use of the best portable anti-tank weapons of the entire war. The Germans will have access to them, and I guess the Americans have at least something similar if not quite as potent, but can the PIAT even compete with them? What about the Soviet equivalent, if such a thing exists?
PIAT is just as effective as a bazooka, just lower velocity.
Soviets have lend-lease bazooka.
PIAT has almost double the effective range of the Panzerfaust (not saying a lot lmao), and higher explosive mass, so it’s good enough.
Looking it up, the Soviets still used the PTRD and PTRS and didn’t retire the PTRS until Korea, using it mainly to wreck suspensions (I need my suspension damage) and shoot through vision ports.
Otherwise they used thrown AT grenades, HEAT grenades from the mosin’s grenade launcher, lend-lease bazookas and PIATs, and a…
what the fuck…
2 molotov launchers, one set up like a mortar, the other rifle mounted
Ampulomet - Wikipedia
Бутылкомёт Цукермана — Википедия (wikipedia.org)
HIGHLY doubt that. The panzerfaust had an effective range up to 100+m, PIAT was like 30m iirc. Which makes sence, knowing it is literally a spring-powered nerf gun that shoots a HEAT round.
Panzerfaust is 60m, PIAT is 110m; it’s not spring powered either, it was functionally a direct-fire mortar. The spring was just to cock the firing pin that launches into the mortar rather than dropping the mortar onto the pin.
The panzerfaust is a rocket launcher. With the lighter projectile, it gets much longer range with the rocket propellant. We also have the 100mm variant of the panzerfaust, not the 60mm. They have range indicators up to 200m.
The PIAT is spring-powered. Sure, it has a blank charge as well, but the spring was 100% contributing to launching the projectile. Ian from forgotten weapons mentions it has a max range of 100 yards, but ideally more like 50 yards, or 45m. This is both due to the lack of accuracy coming from the lack of a barrel (only had an internal guiding rod), as well as the inconsistent velocity from the blank + spring.
The Ampulomet sounds like a really interesting addition, hopefully it was present in sufficient numbers to justify adding it to the game. It would require fire damage to be more effective against tanks to fulfill the intended purpose, however. If that is not an option, bazookas will have to do just to keep the Soviet anti-tank squads relevant. Seems like the practical effective range of the PIAT is under some contention, some saying 100 yards and other 50 yards, so perhaps the weapon can be modelled after the more optimistic estimates to keep it competitive with the actual recoilless guns.
2 Likes