Machine gun vehicles in the game!

[Sunland_2005_KZ]

I thought about some ideas for a while and remembered that in the game there are motorcycle units with a mounted machine gun, which are currently the only vehicle option in that squad.

I suggest expanding the motorcycle squad by adding light machine gun vehicles!

What would be the advantage of such vehicles compared to trucks?

Mainly: high mobility, low silhouette, good off road capability, ammo box, and most importantly — a mounted machine gun!

USSR

“GAZ-64” with a Maxim machine gun:

The first Soviet light off-road vehicle, created at the “Gorky Automobile Plant” in 1941.

Forward speed: 100 km/h

Reverse speed: 15 km/h

USA

“Willys MB” with a Browning M1919 machine gun:

The legendary and famous US military jeep, created in 1941 by “Willys-Overland” and “Ford”.

Forward speed: 105 km/h

Reverse speed: 10 km/h

Germany

“VW Type 82 Kübelwagen” with MG 34 machine
gun:

A German light military vehicle, developed on the “Volkswagen” chassis in 1940.

Forward speed: 90 km/h

Reverse speed: 10 km/h

Japan

“Kurogane Type 95” With Type 92 machine gun:

One of the first Japanese mass produced off road vehicles, created by “Tokyu Kurogane Industries” in 1937.

Forward speed: 80 km/h

Reverse speed: 10 km/h

And that’s not all, I also suggest adding “armored cars” as event vehicles!

USSR

“BA-64” with a DT-29 machine gun:

A Soviet light armored car with up to 15 mm of armor, created on the basis of the “GAZ-64” light SUV in 1942 as a replacement for the “BA-20” armored car.

Forward speed: 80 km/h

Reverse speed: 10 km/h

USA

Armored “Willys MB” with an M2 Browning machine gun:

A field modification of the “Willys MB” jeep with installed armor shields up to 10 mm thick and a heavy-caliber “M2 Browning” machine gun.

Forward speed: 80 km/h

Reverse speed: 8 km/h

Germany

“Sd.Kfz. 221” with MG 34 machine gun:

German light armored car with armor up to 8 mm, developed by “Auto Union” in 1935.

Forward speed: 80 km/h

Reverse speed: 15 km/h

Japan

“Type 94” with Type 92 machine gun:

Japanese light tankette with armor up to 10 mm thick, developed by “Tokyo Gas and Electric Industry” in 1932.

Forward speed: 40 km/h

Reverse speed: 5 km/h

Should add cars with machine guns to the motorcycle squad?

• Yes
• No

[GiltBurrito7238-live]

Yes. But.

These can be Rider vehicles

@Sunland_2005_KZ

“GAZ-64” with a Maxim machine gun:

@Sunland_2005_KZ

“Willys MB” with a Browning M1919 machine gun:

@Sunland_2005_KZ

“VW Type 82 Kübelwagen” with MG 34 machine
gun:

@Sunland_2005_KZ

“Kurogane Type 95” With Type 92 machine gun:

@Sunland_2005_KZ

Armored “Willys MB” with an M2 Browning machine gun:

But these would be combat vehicles. The Japanese vehicle here is literally a tankette, not a car. As for the others, they do not fit the mechanical dragoon role of Riders.

I do think it would be nice to add a bunch of low tier combat vehicles like the Panzer I.

@Sunland_2005_KZ

“BA-64” with a DT-29 machine gun:

@Sunland_2005_KZ

“Sd.Kfz. 221” with MG 34 machine gun:

@Sunland_2005_KZ

“Type 94” with Type 92 machine gun:

[ErikaKalkbrenner]

love the additions. and would love to see them in enlisted as rider type II.

however, a couple of changes.

Us does have armored cars, such as:

M20 Armored car based on the m8 chassy

M1 Armored car:

and more iconic;
M3 Scout car

Also worth to mention; British had a jeep conversion, and did had some armored cars of their own:

Jeeps with Vickers K

British Lachenster Armored car:

---

Japan had Type 93s “chiyoda” armored cars:

Italians had more armored cars than most nations:

Fiat SPA Autoprotetto:

Italian IZM Armored car:

Autoblinndo Lancia Lince ( literally a copy of the dingo lol. different weapon though )

[GiltBurrito7238-live]

I could see the M20 and M3 as APCs

[ErikaKalkbrenner]

… but those are armored cars.

not transport vehicles.

( even though the M20 could carry up to 7 soldiers, and the M3 scout car 8. )

i wouldn’t blurry the lines either.

after all, there are way more APC to introduce rather than making others vehicles into one.

( sdkfz 250, Sdkfz 251 Ausf A / C, M3 Halfrack, M5 Halftrack, Soviets protos, Japanese Tank destroyer without the gun etc also moar trucks.
since that was already enstablished. )

[GiltBurrito7238-live]

@ErikaKalkbrenner

( even though the M20 could carry up to 7 soldiers, and the M3 scout car 8. )

That was my exact point. Also the British and Soviets did use the M3 as APCs because it could carry a good amount of soldiers

I look at it like this. Rider is based off of the German and Soviet motorcycle troops that basically acted as mechanical dragoons. It is basically a meme class but I still like them. They are basically an Infantry class. I would give them the standard cars like jeeps and kubelwagens because they don’t really fit as APCs because they have very limited space, so fine they get an alternate vehicle with an extra soldier

I look at APC as any vehicle designed to to carry soldiers. There are true APCs but there are some various other vehicles that also helped carry troops. Personally I don’t know about having a Rider vehicle with about 8 soldiers (the M20 and M3) so I think it fits better as an APC. Since it basically carried extra soldiers besides the crew. Otherwise then what’s the difference between Rider and APC.

Rider is a small infantry squad, and APC is any vehicle that could carry troops

[I_Einar_I]

I would love a Kübelwagen or Jeep for the rider class

[ErikaKalkbrenner]

@GiltBurrito7238-live

That was my exact point. Also the British and Soviets did use the M3 as APCs because it could carry a good amount of soldiers

that’s not how APC works though.

as of yet, are personell carriers and sometimes truck
( with the exception of the 251/9. which it’s not an APC in any shape or form. but i guess was done so that it wouldn’t become underused as a TD … speculations though )

@GiltBurrito7238-live

I look at it like this. Rider is based off of the German and Soviet motorcycle troops that basically acted as mechanical dragoons. It is basically a meme class but I still like them. They are basically an Infantry class. I would give them the standard cars like jeeps and kubelwagens because they don’t really fit as APCs because they have very limited space, so fine they get an alternate vehicle with an extra soldier

no idea what mechanical dragoons are.
and i don’t think it means what you think it does.

but no.
bikers are not a meme class.

And no. they are not an infantry class either.

They are sub section of motorized infantry.
which their primary role was to achieve a couple of things which can do in the base game too:

• reccoinissance ( though, kinda useless in enlisted )
• harass enemy infantry from the sides and exploits weaknesses in enemy lines
• Enstablish Communications ( kinda useless .but rally point to some extent is even better in this aspect )
• Logistics ( while they couldn’t carry much, in enlisted, they can. ammo boxes, now medkits etc )

so space has nothing to do.

it’s kinda the opposite.

given that motorized infantry had trucks, cars and armored cars, they could furfill much more. and be an alternative from APC rather than just become yet another apc.

since you’re kinda attached to historical context ( which no offense, but has to do very little in enlisted anyway ) armored cars did not always transported troops on the field.

which as far enlisted goes, they could still be just a 4 / 5 men class.

and be an alternative to apc to get the job done.

but riders do more than apc.
( even if the average joe doesn’t get it. and just full send to the cap point just to be mowed down and calling the bike bad lol )

as such,

• logistic vehicles with ammo or medkits configurations
• armored cars to provide anti infantry support
• AAs ( which should be transfered to riders. not tankers. but i can see the flakpanzer being ambigues. and definitely the new tank AAs. those shall remain there. but wheeled ones, should be riders instead )

@GiltBurrito7238-live

I look at APC as any vehicle designed to to carry soldiers. There are true APCs but there are some various other vehicles that also helped carry troops. Personally I don’t know about having a Rider vehicle with about 8 soldiers (the M20 and M3) so I think it fits better as an APC. Since it basically carried extra soldiers besides the crew. Otherwise then what’s the difference between Rider and APC.

you’re mischaracterizing a vehicle to fit and be something entirely else.

it’s kinda like the Ab41, the daimler armored car, sdkfz 234s, m8 etc.
( which should be changed )

those vehicles are not tanks.
those are armored cars with anti tank weapons that were given to motorized infantry.
not tankers. ( except the daimler actually. not entirely sure. mixed reports about that one )

but are under the tanker umbrella instead of being their own separate class
( but… to their credits, riders weren’t a thing when most of these vehicles were introduced )

and as explained, there are many more IFV, halftracks or trucks to fill those shoes.

but we’re getting side tracked from the main thread.

[CapitanRastrero]

This might blur the line but since your suggestion included the Type 94 you cannot forget about the L3/35, my beloved:

[GiltBurrito7238-live]

@ErikaKalkbrenner

that’s not how APC works though.

as of yet, are personell carriers and sometimes truck

The Sd.Kfz.7 is a prime mover and not an armored personnel carrier, but it is still an “APC”. That’s why I prefer the term Transport because APCs were specific vehicles

But the point is that it is a vehicle that carries a substantial amount of soldiers

@ErikaKalkbrenner

( with the exception of the 251/9. which it’s not an APC in any shape or form. but i guess was done so that it wouldn’t become underused as a TD … speculations though )

It should most definitely be overhauled to being a combat vehicle

@ErikaKalkbrenner

no idea what mechanical dragoons are.
and i don’t think it means what you think it does.

Mechanical dragoons as in they are a small infantry unit that rides ahead of foot infantry and dismounts for combat, like the original horse dragoons. It’s how vehicles replaced horses.

@ErikaKalkbrenner

but no.
bikers are not a meme class.

Barely anyone uses them. I like and use them for variety but the bikes are gimmicky and you can barely drive without getting stuck on a pebble. They’re fun just for riding around a little bit

@ErikaKalkbrenner

And no. they are not an infantry class either.

They are sub section of motorized infantry.

That is true but I view them as infantry because they are intended to mostly fight on foot. Sure ride the bike to get their, but that’s why they can have multiple other classes like APC. They are infantry classes with a vehicle sprinkled in

@ErikaKalkbrenner

given that motorized infantry had trucks, cars and armored cars, they could furfill much more. and be an alternative from APC rather than just become yet another apc.

I somewhat agree with you. If they just made Motorcycles a light “APC” there wouldn’t be so many debates about them. But I like it because they do represent Germany and SU that mass used motorcycle infantry so alas

@ErikaKalkbrenner

AAs ( which should be transfered to riders. not tankers. but i can see the flakpanzer being ambigues. and definitely the new tank AAs. those shall remain there. but wheeled ones, should be riders instead )

@ErikaKalkbrenner

you’re mischaracterizing a vehicle to fit and be something entirely else.

it’s kinda like the Ab41, the daimler armored car, sdkfz 234s, m8 etc.
( which should be changed )

those vehicles are not tanks.
those are armored cars with anti tank weapons that were given to motorized infantry.
not tankers. ( except the daimler actually. not entirely sure. mixed reports about that one )

but are under the tanker umbrella instead of being their own separate class
( but… to their credits, riders weren’t a thing when most of these vehicles were introduced )

and as explained, there are many more IFV, halftracks or trucks to fill those shoes.

That is a huge and complicated debate about vehicles which is why I prefer my simple organization. Riders are Motorcycles, APC are Transport vehicles, and Combat Vehicles are any vehicle that supports infantry. Simply, let me be the judge

It’s like the Panzer IV, Stug A, Sd.Kfz.251/9, Sd.Kfz.234/3. All have the same exact gun and the only difference is what they are. Yes they were used in different unit types but I think it’s a little pointless if we start divvying them up. Just let the player choose whatever vehicle to support the team and go

Personally I’m fine with my simple system of how I think the game should be organized. I know it’s not perfect, but I think it’s ideal. My only wish was the game was larger and there could be a lot more vehicles on the field. With more than 2 slots, let’s say maybe even 10, it doesn’t matter if 3 players are Flakpanzers and 2 are Stugs, and 1 is a King Tiger.

[ErikaKalkbrenner]

@GiltBurrito7238-live

The Sd.Kfz.7 is a prime mover and not an armored personnel carrier,

that’s partially false.

While it was used to carry artillery pieces, it was also used as personell carrier

more so the americans versions with HMGs and what not.

@GiltBurrito7238-live

It should most definitely be overhauled to being a combat vehicle

… i’m afraid it’s a bit late now.
but i more or less agree and understand.

@GiltBurrito7238-live

Mechanical dragoons as in they are a small infantry unit that rides ahead of foot infantry and dismounts for combat, like the original horse dragoons. It’s how vehicles replaced horses.

Except the bike is literally the tool of bikers.

if you take that away, what are you left with.
an underpowered infantry squad?

and why?

Fun fact. Dr. Hugh Cairns, noted that motorcycles had the highest casualty and fatality rates per vehicle in service.

For good reasons too.

but dismounting wasn’t always done.
it could be done.

and as far enlisted goes, it’s tipically if you lost your bike or if you are placing a bike to then swing away.

@GiltBurrito7238-live

Barely anyone uses them. I like and use them for variety but the bikes are gimmicky and you can barely drive without getting stuck on a pebble. They’re fun just for riding around a little bit

because most enlisted players are the W hold LMB kind.

Bikers are certainly a stiff class and unusual from the usual gameplay.
but not a gimmick at all.

i personally love them and are my top 1 favorite class due to the sheer amount of things can do, and even better, COULD BE / DO.

• support for ammo and medkits ( there’s also the radioman or medics )
• place down rallies
• flank and take down infantry or other rallies
• extreamely versatile with specializations
• take down enemy armored threats with the the AT trooper
• speed to get just about anywhere

while the physic is not the best for such vehicles, as long you use the throttle right and not full speed, you can just about traverse most terrains.

but just because barely uses them, doesn’t mean they are bad by default.
as they say, " a bad craftman blames his tools ".

and the bikes definitely is one of the best tools out there to cover a wider range of duties.
EVEN if they are extreamely fragile.

but, that’s kinda the whole stick.
No risks, no rewards.

with that being said, to cover the potential aspects, i’m sure vehicles with more than 3 crew for higher brs could have their spot light.

but generally, add ww2 vehicles such as armored cars and jeeps, by all acounts, falls under riders for what they do and can be.

it doesn’t have to be just bikes per say.

@GiltBurrito7238-live

That is true but I view them as infantry because they are intended to mostly fight on foot. Sure ride the bike to get their, but that’s why they can have multiple other classes like APC. They are infantry classes with a vehicle sprinkled in

80% of the time will be spent on the bike for mobility.

cause it’s still an infantry game. and the main machinegun on the bike can take care of that.

20% will be spent dismount to perform specialists actions ( such as placing down medkits, or take out enemy vehicles with the at gunner )

@GiltBurrito7238-live

I somewhat agree with you. If they just made Motorcycles a light “APC” there wouldn’t be so many debates about them. But I like it because they do represent Germany and SU that mass used motorcycle infantry so alas

why would you want sudden troops appear out of bikes or cars?

that doesn’t make sense

@GiltBurrito7238-live

That is a huge and complicated debate about vehicles which is why I prefer my simple organization. Riders are Motorcycles, APC are Transport vehicles, and Combat Vehicles are any vehicle that supports infantry. Simply, let me be the judge

i don’t want 3 classes to grind where there can be just 2.

Apc and infantry motorized vehicles.

one pops out out of thin air soldiers, the others make sure to kill and hunt said vehicles.

cat and mouse.

not… cat and mouse… and… dog?
( technically, the tanks are already the " dogs ". so no need for something else entirely )

@GiltBurrito7238-live

It’s like the Panzer IV, Stug A, Sd.Kfz.251/9, Sd.Kfz.234/3. All have the same exact gun and the only difference is what they are. Yes they were used in different unit types but I think it’s a little pointless if we start divvying them up. Just let the player choose whatever vehicle to support the team and go

yes but not.

while it’s great to use said vehicles to support the team, context and feasability matters.

the stug is a tank(destroyer)

the 251/9 and sdkfz 234/3 are not.
hence, should be riders ( beside ,you can easily destroy them unlike tanks even if they camp in the gray area ) but that can be controversial.

i’d be fine with adding more suitable nations variants for all factions though.
so it’s not just germany.

@GiltBurrito7238-live

Personally I’m fine with my simple system of how I think the game should be organized. I know it’s not perfect, but I think it’s ideal. My only wish was the game was larger and there could be a lot more vehicles on the field. With more than 2 slots, let’s say maybe even 10, it doesn’t matter if 3 players are Flakpanzers and 2 are Stugs, and 1 is a King Tiger.

you kinda make it out to be the only solution.

which i’m sorry to say, but it’s rather flawed and vague with misconception about the class it self.
while trying to shuffle an entire section of vehicles under another that they werent supposed to in the first place.

[iso_seppo123]

I would also like to see these models added:

M3a3 recce

Vickers crossley

Daimler dingo

AS-42

T-37A

Sdkfz 231

Chevrolet 1533 SAS

Steyr 1500a with 20mm field mod cannon

[GiltBurrito7238-live]

@ErikaKalkbrenner

… i’m afraid it’s a bit late now.
but i more or less agree and understand.

They can leave the original event as legacy content, and re-release a new one. Properly

@ErikaKalkbrenner

but dismounting wasn’t always done.
it could be done.

The Rider is highly incentivized to dismount, thus why I say it’s basically infantry. I also want to give them an option to spawn on foot like Paratroopers and APC

@ErikaKalkbrenner

yes but not.

while it’s great to use said vehicles to support the team, context and feasability matters.

the stug is a tank(destroyer)

the 251/9 and sdkfz 234/3 are not.
hence, should be riders ( beside ,you can easily destroy them unlike tanks even if they camp in the gray area ) but that can be controversial.

Then we come to the argument, why should the Panzer 1 and 2 be tank slots, and the 251/9 and 234/3? The 1 and 2 are fully armored with an enclosed rotating turret, they are tanks by literal definition. So the halftrack and car which are better than them aren’t vehicles slots but the little Panzer 2 is? See my point, that’s why I prefer simplicity. I just say it doesn’t matter whether you spawn as the Panzer 1,2, 251/9,234/3, Tiger, Stug, Flammpanzer, etc. Just spawn and do your job

@ErikaKalkbrenner

you kinda make it out to be the only solution.

I am looking at the game overhead. Ok vehicles can be divided into 3 main family, fully tracked, half-tracked, wheeled. It gets more complicated. Some wheeled vehicles were designated tank destroyers and AA etc. Not all half-tracks were troop carriers, for example all the various 251 variants. Some fully tracked vehicles were used as APCs such as the British Kangaroos. So what we need to divide the vehicles into 3 groups and then double or even triple the amount of classes so we have

• fully tracked combat vehicles
• fully tracked transport vehicles
• fully tracked scout vehicles
• half-tracked combat vehicles
• half-tracked transport vehicles
• half-tracked scout vehicles
• wheeled combat vehicles
• wheeled transport vehicles
• wheeled scout vehicles

So what we just add over 6 total classes? That just starts getting convoluted.

This is all because people complain about “wasting a slot”. To me it seems their real problem is just with low tier vehicles so they make a big deal about it.

That’s why I think my system is best.

[King-E-73]

We CONTINUALLY ask for them…we got Saboteurs instead.

[King-E-73]

And honestly I don’t think is should be a Rider class…it should have it’s own class as there are entry level vehicles and then more heavily armoured and armed ones for class levels.
Riders ride…Drivers drive…the motorcycles need an overhaul to make them useful.

[Naohmcete]

I suggested this for rider class Rider Class Improve

[Pinguim01]

I don’t think armored vehicles for riders is a good idea. Even though tankettes are cool. I love vehicles but I think it would make the game too vehicle-centric.
But I think jeep-like cars with mgs are alright.

[Obi1Kenobi3359-live]

All I’d say is make the Kubelwagen’s gun the MG-42 mount, rather than the MG-34.