most structure houses on the japan maps are wooden
so then they would have to add completely new animations for burning huts as i believe there isn’t any already… taking further dev time for something that is only a gimmick.
again… i dont even know how this is something that can be suggested or defended… so if lets say my AP shell doesnt have enough explosive filler why dont we just artificially give it some more becasue thats more fun and effective.
its not really a gimmick if it can be applied to all flame related weapons
the only use for it would be burning buildings, no.
They can give also some special radio operator squad with San-shiki-dan
San Shiki (anti-aircraft shell) - Wikipedia
Will be something similar to napalm bomb strike.
You are implying it did something it did not… that is a fabrication of what it is.
Whilst I believe a significant calibre illumination shell would work really well for the intended application of an ampulomet for Japan I would like to bring your attention to what I believe might be a potentially more suitable candidate.
That being the Type 94 (90mm) mortar removed from its baseplate.
In theory you could loosen the traversal knob and secure the front legs with sandbags to allow a similar range of motion to the ampulomet. Holding the weapon would be very precarious as you’d have to set of grip the yoke slide from the top and bottom, towards the very bottom without overhanging your fingers for when the recoil cylinder and mortar body move rearward.
Most of all I make this suggestion due to the fact that there’s a dedicated incendiary shell for this weapon.
Another option could be the Japanese knee mortar in game, with the bottom leg held by a sandbag whilst the soldier holds the mortar body.
Of course with incendiary shell
6 Likes
as usual beautiful
2 Likes
Incendiary mortars launched from someone’s greyzone and makes the objective unplayable, no thanks.
But Atleast you actually presented something that was real and not a fabrication… as illumination rounds would not function even nearly the same as an ampulomet… about the only thing it has in common is that it would start a fire, a very very small one that could spread I guess… but then they’d have to also create new fire spreading mechanics just in the effort to make this fabrication usable.
↓ not what I suggested.
This is to function as an ampulomet as I wrote out and specified the use of sandbags to mount them.
Ordinarily yes. But the Japanese used quite a bit of White Phosphorus it would be able to stand in well enough to suit the purposes of an “Ampulomet” just have it set the area on fire and add some other bits of visual flair like bright bits of burning magnesium and some smoke.
3 Likes
Once the illumination round lands, it will stay lit for its remaining burn time.
Although its radius is smaller than the Ampulomet, it still inflicts a certain degree of blinding effect on anyone looking directly at it.
Here’s how an illumination mortar round looks like.
1 Like
atp just give the type 89 mortar incendiary since it was able to use that and japan only has one mortar in their tt and could allow for more upper BR playstyle
1 Like
Yeah , I think the sandbag for Type 89 could be as small as the AG-2.
Maybe we can also use the Type 99 rifle with incendiary rifle grenade that you suggested. We can just mount its monopod on the sandbag.
2 Likes
A solution like that wouldn’t be a bad idea. Although I think that old suggestion of mine would now work well as an analogue to Zuckerman launcher the Soviets have.
The M1 Pack Howitzer would be cool to see too.
1 Like
You genuinely hate fun don’t you?
1 Like
Don’t engage with him if it’s not for the Germans and it’s not OP like a Jagdtiger he won’t have anything positive to say about it.
No, I don’t like made up functions of a weapon… what Aussie tachanka suggested is perfectly fine.
Your assumptions about me are hilarious… I’d advise to you to check some of the votes I engage with if you care so much, no… I don’t like low power slop that’s just for “fun”
Fun is subjective… and low br crap is not fun for me… I will vote no on almost every BR1 or 2 addition for that reason.
I play Br III mostly because I don’t think V is fun to play, I don’t enjoy the Adderall kid gameplay but I don’t dog on Br V suggestions just because they are Br V suggestions, I will usually have an “actual reason” to dog a suggestion other than I don’t like the br or I personally think X piece of equipment is weak or fake so it shouldn’t be added.
1 Like
If you don’t want something then it’s reasonable to vote no, I voted no because I don’t want this… I don’t understand how you are so baffled at that… really I mean the only time that is justified when it’s a no brained qol change.
1 Like