These are new bazookas that should be added to the Research Tree. I feel a faction’s standard issue equipment should be in the RT and as someone who loves historical immersion, I would love to have all the models in game as they should
M1A1 Bazooka- The original M1 Bazooka had many flaws and issues so the M1A1 had improvements. It entered service in July 1943.
M9 Bazooka- While you may be saying “Hey we already have the M9”, the “M9” in game is actually the improved M9A1 (They should fix the name to be correct). It entered service in October 1943. It was a true major overhaul with a trigger magneto generator instead of batteries and could be easily disassembled in two.
M20 Bazooka- The Germans made the Panzerschreck to counter the Bazooka and it was larger and more effective against Allied armor, so America developed a larger and more effective Bazooka to counter the Panzerschreck and heavier German armor. Development of the M20 began in October 1944 and was basically complete near the end of the war in late 1945 but never saw service. The M20 would finally see service in the Korean War
Now I know some of you hate prototypes and technically post-war stuff, I too have my criticisms, but I tolerate prototypes and I have my exceptions as long as they meet certain criteria. The M20 was developed during the war, it’s highly potent rocket was tested during the war, it was intended to fight in the war; it’s good in my book
Well, honestly, there’s nothing good about this topic except M1A1.
M9A1’s downgrade, M9, is a problem, but it doesn’t make sense unless the penetration is increased.
In the case of the M20, the launcher has been developed
But the high penetration 280mm rocket that we know was developed during the Korean War, it doesn’t even have a prototype during World War II, and finally the 280mm penetration is OP.
So it’s better to put the M20 on hold until it expands to BR6 after the release of the Korean War.
Then, is there no other option for the U.S. anti-tank firearm that lacks penetration?
T59 rockets that can be loaded into M9A1 have already been prototyped during the war.
The penetration is 230mm, which also solves the problem of lack of penetration of the Ofenrohr. (That means can penetrate Ferdinand and Ho-Ri from the front.)
The last thing the US needs right now is the M9A1 Bazooka loaded with T59 rockets.
I would let the devs get into the technicals. Since it’s all about progression it’s as simple as making the M1A1 slightly better than the M1, and the M9 slightly better than the M1A1 (but worse than the M9A1), and we all know the M9A1. We can also look at the historical technical details of each model to best present their stats. For example making the M1A1 shoot and reload faster than the M1
Either way I want them first and foremost because I think standard issue stuff should be in the RT, and second for me personally I make my loadouts chronologically because I like a little historical immersion. You can bet I’ll certainly use the M1A1 and M9 in my 1943 loadouts just because. At least I have a use for them!
One thing is for sure though, while there is some debate over the M20 I definitely think the M1A1 and M9 should be added because they were fully standard issue
Still good enough in my book
I’ve read various places that said some prototypes were tested, but even with this conflicting information there is the one constant that at least the launcher itself was tested and thus see above
More penetration is never a bad thing! Also I believe eventually we will get some really heavy hitters like the Sturmtiger or Maus so eventually the M20 would have its place.
Even then I never liked the Allies getting the Panzerschreck so I’d rather they get this
I have thought we could tweak the current RTs as well as future additions to have a BR 6
I don’t know. We likely won’t leave WW2 for a long time if not never.
This is sort of good argument for my M20 though. We could either get a special M9A1 or we could get the M20 that was built specifically for the role. There’s just 50mm difference of pen between them
Because of the difference in penetration, it has the performance to match BR6, not BR4 or BR5.
The 280mm penetration force had the penetration force to penetrate any current tanks from most angles.
That’s why this is extended to BR6 and added when the battle tank dealing with has to deal with a battle tank like IS-3 or Maus.
Also, if the US gets this, it’s an additional matter
There’s a problem that other factions can’t get any of that.
Only US having a BR6 AT alone is very balance-wise fatal as well.
That’s why this should be extended to BR6 after the release of the Korean War and added when we have to deal with Maus and IS-3.
I don’t want OP.
I just want an even balance.
I agree with your information on the wrong M9 in the tech tree, that means it also had the wrong stats. That’s another reason they should have added the correct name and stats to the already existing weapon in game, then to go that extra mile add in the exact weapon they’re changing the name from. We could folder this in just to help cut down on some of the grind to the end of the tree, It would still be worthwhile to unlock.
I know many people would be happy to grind for another bazooka, especially if they had the correct names and stats to justify it’s inclusion.
I hear you but I think it’s tedious, since the M20 was the next step up anyway. One thing is for sure the M1A1 and M9 should definitely be in game
Even then, even if you disagree with the M20 it’s good to support the post as a whole so if the devs see it they will at least see the M1A1 and M9
I’ve read conflicting information but if we all can agree that at the very least the launcher itself was done I am willing to accept it in game. It was basically 90% complete project
But at the same time we could get the M20 that was meant to do the same exact job
Or add both, or make the M9A1 an event squad. Once we got an event Soviet AT squad with a limited anti-tank rifle
