You have to wait the progression devblog for the BR weapon list, in meantine go to check what helper already said on this matter, you can always open a topic
But i doubt the answer change from what i said already
I hope this is last time, seriusly dude
If you don’t have a list of weapons that will be allowed, or a list of weapon BR, then don’t lecture me on something that you don’t even know about.
So the rational thing to do here, is just assume all current campaign weapons will be allowed, plus some that rolled over to Tunisia. Because neither you nor me will know what it looks like.
What you said yada yada, just remember what i and the other already said wen the update come and dont get disappointed
I’m not going to be disappointed. I could care less if M2 carbine is removed. I’m just thinking rationally, and getting tired of people talking like they know exactly how BR will work. When none of us do.
Im repeating what helper said as Veekay45 already do
If helper said nothing, you have rigth to say this
But they said This
So i have the rigth to believe that is exactly how is writted here
“Japanese no sufficient firepower” so can play only aganaist low-Mid BR allies player until further armory expansion
And believe it or not M2 is already the counter of the FG so is certain a high-end BR gun
Nah. Jumbo is def low BR tier. Ha Go only needs to aim for mg port and other one pixel of turret ring.
Yes, I saw that. That doesn’t explain BR tiers, that just gives a rough idea of what it’ll look like.
So do you know exactly what tier the M2 will be at? The Sherman? Drum Thompson? If the the answer is no, then all you can do is speculate.
Again, neither you or me knows exactly what qualifies as low to mid BR. I would consider stuff like the Johnson, BAR M1A1 and M1C sniper to be high BR but not only do I have no way of confirming that, I also see no reason why those weapons would be removed.
It’s pointless to argue about this when both you and me could very easily be wrong.
Nope. The M2 carbine is not equal to the FG42. The M2 carbine is an automatic carbine that functions like an SMG, while the FG42 is a battle rifle leaning towards LMG. They’re very different weapons. The problem is that they are allocated for riflemen, which is the only thing that makes them exceptionally strong.
I would agree with you that it probably shouldn’t be in the pacific yet, but it is. Which is why I don’t think US will be the pushover many people think it will be.
So MKB can go away from Stalingrad too, nice 
Sure, I don’t care. But the AVT needs to go too then.
Of course, I don’t care what equipment of other factions gets removed as well for balance together with MKB that was never there and too revolutionary to be there.
no they dont. most often authors are quoting some earlier source or book and everyone accepts it as a fact unless that source or book is proven wrong. there have been scientific studies that have all quoted one faulty research or books written on premise of accepting that research as a fact only to be proven wrong decades after when someone actually checked that original research.
book is usually taken as a credible if author has done his research and has written his source of information.
overall source is
M. Kolomiets, “Bitva za Moskvu”, Frontovaya Illyustratsiya/Frontline Illustration, No 1, 2002
i have not found any western source that confirms this, neither any other source dating before 2002. it would be good if someone checked sources in that book cause i am still not convinced that t50 was in moscow.
btw from that topic
Peer review. The more people have read it and checked it, the better.
not infallible. think that last big fail of peer review was serotonin research on depression. everyone quoted original research that was made in 50s or 60s, countless books were written and when you tracked sources in most books they would all point to that 1 research. it was taken as an established fact in psychiatry, just to be proven wrong after 60-70 years.
That is true
always hurt my soul to see a low batch production item (in this case a tank) destroyed in flames 
And your source is?
And this is supposed to prove most book sources are wrong ?
most book sources arent wrong. but there exists bad habit in scientific community of crossreferencing books/researches that all point to one source and/or that source isnt checked for correctness of information. doesnt matter if it is book or research.
e.g. this meta analysis made shock waves when it was published.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0
here is conclusion
Our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on serotonin shows there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity. Most studies found no evidence of reduced serotonin activity in people with depression compared to people without, and methods to reduce serotonin availability using tryptophan depletion do not consistently lower mood in volunteers.
imagine prescribing wrong medicine for ~60-70 years based on faulty research/theory.