it would be great to replace the PIAT with the M1 bazooka since it wasn’t used in mass by US troops. adding the Thompson to the game early since it was in use before the M3.
allowing players to pick up ammunition from dead allies or enemies if it is the same caliber.
allowing people to pick up AT launchers or flame throwers from dead bodies
possibly adding the m2 canister shot to the Stewart
No.
We’ve been asking for this for a long time.
This is neither COD for fortnite.
No.
Also no
i think the british guns are going to be replaced as for thompson it will cime but no it shoudl be higher level than m3 is was clearly the superior gun both in reality and in game
all of my suggestions are historically accurate and have been done on the battlefield in real life.
What??? Why are you so against historically accurate changes and things that would make the game better or more interesting? Like picking up certain weapons or ammo of the caliber you need? That doesn’t seem like that bad of an idea. And the M1 Bazooka was in the game already before the PIAT I believe. So why wouldn’t you want the M1 Bazooka to be given to the US instead of the PIAT?? I’m sure once they add the M1 Bazooka they’d give Germany the Panzerschreck anyways. So what’s the issue here?
I’m against anything that wants additions only to one faction while ignoring another entirely.
PIAT should stay, having it is both realistic and normal as a first addition to AT, minus the detpacks which play both AT and anti-personnel. Having it replaced by the M1 bazooka is moronic, not to mention it would simply be way too strong. As for the M1 thompson, we’ve been asking for it for some time now.
For the second suggestion, again, this is not COD, of fortnite, or battlefield. No soldier will randomly stop over a dead body to search for ammo in the middle of a fight, this is neither realistic nor fun. Neither is randomly being gifted ammo by valhalla because you walked over a corpse.
For the third suggestion, see point 2.
For the 4th suggestion, first of all “Stewart” doesn’t exist, the tank Stuart does however, and tanks don’t use canister shots. Those are kept for artillery only. It was used in the pacific afaik, not in europe. Edit: After checking several sources, canister shots were used only in the pacific, not europe. Ergo, NO.
The problem with his suggestions, is that he’s a complete tool, his statements that these are historically accurate is plain wrong, so is the “have been done on the battlefield in real life.”
I believe the M1A1 Bazooka and M1 Thompson are going to be sloted in later for the normandy campaign.
Giving the Stuart canister shot might be a bit overpowered and I think it would comfortably overshadow the Scott. (as an aside if the devs do put in canister shot I think the best way to balance it would be limit the player to maybe a dozen or so shells)
Regarding the possible removal of British guns I’ve seen people say that they’re staying others that they’re being tested for the Tunis campagin so I can’t give a definitve answer to that
Well now that you’ve went into more detail I think I actually agree with you here for the most part. On all the last points you got some good points regarding “realism” and actual historical accuracy. But I still find myself disagreeing about the M1 Bazooka. I say this actually for historical and “realistic” reasons. Since the PIAT was used by the Brits on that day, and the M1 by the US. Buuuuuut, I do see where you’re coming from since the Germans would need a weapon of equal capability for balance reasons. And that’s what the Panzerschreck is essentially, so yeah I suppose until they add the Panzerscheck as well, the M1 should stay out in favor of the PIAT. Buut I still don’t like that idea either for historical reasons and whatnot.
The Stuart cannister was not very good - it made a reputation in Guadalcanal where Japanese repeatedly charged directly at 1 anti-tank gun that mowed them down - in Europe it was not regarded as useful - much like the stuart as a whole
Flame / derailing comments hidden… stay constructive guys, do not break the rules.
Gun Jesus want’s a word with you
You’re just displaying that you got no idea, Thompson has a vastly superior firerate, the US just wanted something cheaper for production cause the Thompson was expensive as fuck, when it came to performance M3 is just more friendly to a newer shooter, the Thompson was loved both by the Americans and the British and preffered by the troops from the M3 and the Sten i think the soviets gave a few to their guard units btw and the M3 was just easier to clean and better fit for paratroopers due to it’s compact design besides the cheap part
I would sign this. But let’s put a weighing pan in here.
For example: let the PIAT be the basic AT weapon or historicly correct inaccurate rifle gerandes with 40mm pen. As an Upgrade then the Bazooka M1 with 2,3" M6 - not M6A1 or even M6A3 - rockets.
Would it be to strong? The PIAT has a muzzle velocity of ~75m/s The M6 rocket 80m/s.
The PIAT has a theoretical penetration capability of 100m the Bazooka with M6 rockets 70-76mm penetration. Even if somebody with his mind in place would ask for a M9 Bazooka with M6A3 rockets it still would only have 102mm pen. The same value as the PIAT.
To compensate for that the Panzerfaust 30 could be added. If the M9 instead of the M1 would be added in consequence the Panzerfaust 60 would be the appropriate version vor July '44. The former has 140mm of penetration the latter has 200mm of penetration.
Actually you could search the dead body for say 5sec by pressing the F button. We have engineers who are building spawn points for 30 seconds in the middle of a fight so why not?. I wouldn’t advice to do so while under fire but there are many occations where this is viable.
Or let’s say 3sec per magazine since a soldier doesn’t have to search the underwear of is dead comrade for ammo but must open an ammo pouch take a mag out put it in his own pockets and repeat. In a game envoronment 3 seconds should be OK per mag when I can do that in 5-6 seconds in real life.
for everything else - NO.
Never said that I have an idea. My full auto experience is limited to my draft time; 5.56/7.62/9mm. No experience with the M3 neither the Thompson neither any other .45 ACP in full Auto.
But if people with a huuuge expertise on all sort of full auto guns are of the opinion that the M3 is the better gun, then I’ll give some credit to it. And “these people” aren’t Machinegun Joe making youtube videos in his Barn but people like Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn and to a degree Ian McCollum. Old dude Hackathorn had a lot of opportunities to speak with people who used both in WWII and/or Korea and it seems like the Thompson wasn’t queen of the hearts.
But maybe they are just wrong and a high rate of fire in .45 ACP , together with a buttstock which is not in line with the recoil force and such leading to pivoting forces…maybe these are the attributes that make a
1921 design so great.
Don’t blame me, blame the gun guys and the Vets for putting the M3 above the Thompson.
I have a number of family members who served in the infantry/sapper units during WWII/korea and they universally hated the grease gun.
My grandfather, rest his soul, traded his for an M2 cabrine in Korea.
The grease gun is a “better gun” when it comes to cost since it only cost around half of the Thompson’s production cost.
Just wait. They’ve said that there would be more than just 26 levels.
bro, the M3’s advantages were very different, for example the FBI or CIA used the Thompson not the grease gun till the 70s because the Thompson was better based purely on it being a more powerful faster fire gun with the best pistol cartrige round and good controlability, on the other hand the grease gun had low rate of fire a rather rocky start in ww2 which made them modify it both in the field and rush an upgraded version to the field due to problems, it was cheaper to manufacture it so it means more guns with less cost in a faster production time, no when it came to the soldier use the m3 was just easier to maintain and not nearly as heavy, that basically comes down to the soldier if you are willing to cope with carrying a heavier gun and take more time to keep it clean you’ll have the clearly superior firearm, also take into account that it really depends on the unit for example the guy who is fighting in the pacific will obviously have more problems with the Thompson than the guy fighting in Europe due to cleaning it, the US’s choice to make a replacement was purely based on logistics/simplicity but in the firefight the Thompson is the superior gun, btw i can recall cases of british commando units being ordered to give up their thompson and take the sten and then outright saying that they will leave the unit and go back to their original if they are not allowed to keep em, also in the case of intelligence agencies again these guys used the thompson purely for firefights they didn’t think about having to carry it around all day nore parachute with it, a gun being newer doesn’t make it better especially during war time
Surprisingly high i am pretty sure the grease gun was way cheaper compare to the Thompson
Keep the “Bro” for other consoleros in your age please.
Your first example, the FBI - which was still the BOI when they made their own Thompson orders, makes totally sense. First of all when they ordered their Thompsons, the gun was SOA. The early 20 barely half a decade after Schmeissers pathbreaking MP18 came into service. At this time the Thompson one of the peak designs. Cost wasn’t really a factor siince the amount needed was limited, weight was no factor since an agent would barely carry one for more than a mile and other design features which where suboptimal for a full auto weapon like an SMG were not yet fledged out in a manner like they were 15-20 years later.
But in the 1940’s the Thompson was not only expensive but also outdated. First let’s get the price tag off the table: in the early '40s a Thompson was worth three M1919A3 in $$$. One SMG for the price of three full fledged Machineguns.
But that wasn’t the only reason why the Army searched for an alternative since the late '30s:
You mentioned the high ROF as an advantage but it was seen as a disadvantage because it made the gun very hard to controll in full auto. Compare it’s ROF with other SMGs in .45 ACP: M2 Hyde:520; Reising M50/55: 550/500; HK UMP: 500, M3 450. The '21 prewar Thompsons had a rof of 900, the '28 was already down to 750-800 and the wartime M1A1 sat at ~700 rounds per minute.
Despite what is said about it the shown trend to get the cyclic rate of .45 ACP SMGs considerably down
should be a good indicator that a high rof is nothing desirable when shooting .45 in full auto (le raison d’être for solutions like the KRISS Vector). And this problem was increased by the placement of the buttstock which increased the pivoting forces.
And you can clearly see the problems of the Thompson if you compare it to the SMGs which were supposed to replace it. There was the M2 Hyde which was theoreticly adopted but was only produced in tiny numbers and then there was the Thompson T2. Both guns adressed exactly these problems and neither llooked like, and I’ll quote gun Jesus here, a plumbing tool.
Then go on and hear what people have to say who have actually shot that ugly giant syringe called M3.
One thing will be common between all statemnts: the low rof makes it possible to stay on target. and that not only for expert shooters but for the aferage trained draftee, too.
And your second example, the CIA. Well that’s a topic initself but the all time high for CIA operatives being active as “combat personal” in a warzone was probably the Vietnam war and during that time probably the most used, not standard issue SMG aong the agency’s operatives was the m/45. A 9x19mm gun.