• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

New Weapons Discussion (Merged)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#521
And why on earth would the Russians want to take the time to convert a Tommygun to their own PP calibre when they've got the PPSh-41, which was, in all respect, infinitely superior to the far heavier, more expensive, less accurate and less dependable Tommygun? That just makes no sense at all.

Also, try and not get your information (only one out of three soldiers in Russia was armed) out of movies like Enemy at the Gates (or whatever it was called) as this is the only reference I've EVER heard use this. It is complete bull. Russia had an advanced army, especially towards the end of the war, and they would never ever send 66,7% of their troops into battle unarmed. Please do a bit of research before you blatantly quote Hollywood movies as fact.

Russian material was deemed as probably on par with German material, surpassing it here and there as well. The United States was a clear underdog as far as quality went in World War Two. The Russians had amazing aircraft and tank designs and brilliant firearms.
 
Upvote 0
#524
THe more weapons, the more variety in game, as long as it doesn't ruin the balance i can even have all the WWII and pre war guns :p

I don't know how often (if ever) Fallschirmjagers were used on eastern front, but implementing them would be cool.
Imagine this, commander gets the coords, gets the radio and you get to choose to spawn (once) as a paratrooper with a FG42
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#526
FG42 was not used on eastern front AFAIK and was extremely rare even on the western front where it DID serve. It really does not belong in ROOST.

ROOST is all abour realism, and placing the uber-rare FG42 into the game would steer it's development into the direction of fantasy rather than historicaly correctness. That is not a road that ROOST should be travelling down IMHO.

And there are plenty of weapons that WERE very proliferant on the EF that could be added that make much more sense yet are still not in the game.

Why waste development on something that really should not be there?
Short answer: You shouldnt.
 
Upvote 0
#527
Well personally I think Tractor Works has shown that AT guns can be done well, let's see the Ruskie 76.2mm AT gun and the various German PAK guns.

Emplaced Maxim's would be nice too, like imagine a stalingrad map where the intial Russian defense point has a well emplaced maxim and the Germans have to take it on using smoke and a bit of flanking.

Also a full complement of SPG's would be nice, especially for the Ruskies as right now they only have the SU-76 which was relegated mainly to infantry support after better SPG's became available. In fact having an SU-76 putting about in an armoured confrontation in mid-late maps like Ogeldow instead of an SU-85 or SU-122 is just ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#528
I don't think we really need lend-lease weapons and vehicles in this game. Despite how little (or how much) they were used.

It'd be nice to see a stationary MG like the Maxim for the Russians and maybe a Lafette tripod mounted MG 34 or 42 for the Germans to even it out (by all means the tripod mounted MGs were portable but the Lafette tripod was heavier and more complicated and suggests that it would be used in a more static position).

MG34.jpg


The MG34 MMG with tripod alongside the MG34 LMG which we currently have in-game.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#530
RedStorm said:
And why on earth would the Russians want to take the time to convert a Tommygun to their own PP calibre when they've got the PPSh-41, which was, in all respect, infinitely superior to the far heavier, more expensive, less accurate and less dependable Tommygun? That just makes no sense at all.

The United States was a clear underdog as far as quality went in World War Two.
Click to expand...

I agree with some of the statements made in the PPsH statement but labeling the US a clear underdog? This is obviously not true since we held off elite SS divisions with actually very reliable equipment at the Battle of the Bulge and other battles. I don't think that the weapons used between the Soviets, Axis, and Americans were really so different to call our main weapons superior to one another. We all had semi auto rifles, heavy tanks, dive bombers etc. all with comparable attributes and roughly similar charachteristics.

I agree that it's funny how some Americans base everything they see off of movies, but the way Europeans scoff at the American military and nitpick out the inferiorities of it is equally comical I think. Perhaps I should be calling the Dutch military and their weapons clearly inferior if I wish to act like you!:rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
#533
Sure, the T34 was better than the M4 Sherman. Sure the PPSh-41 owned on the Tommygun. But as far as I know, the M1 Garand far outstripped the SVT-40 and the bazooka (M1A1 or M9) was MUCH better than any antitank rifle you care to name. The western Allies had a great deal of equipment that was superior to Soviet creations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#534
soviets had no need for equipment. They had mass of humans.


to be serious. If the allies would not have been somewhere equal in technology and tactic with the germans, they would not have won the war.

Allies have managed to optimise there own military and economy in short time together, to fight against germany. Thats the real outstanding effort if you ask me. germany had between 6-7 years time to develop many tactics for there military as whole and the right use of the units and to adjust there economy for a more or less "short" war, plus they learned the right lessons from WW1 cause they loost it. Nations like USA and Sovietunion, managed this in the war directly, of course often after hard looses.. Not to forget the "last man standing" from the United Kingdom. They have been more then one time (France, Africa, Norway, see fight in the atlantic) on there own against germany. Also germany had the suprise effect at the begining of the war on there side. Poland, france, yugoslavia, had not even a chance to adjust there military and economy against the "blitzkrieg".

Russia did a amaizing change during the war with there economy and military with support from the other allied nations, which was a sheer strenuous effort of human power. USA also showed that they have been able to "learn" from the enemy and there own foult in short time (Battle of the Kasserine Pass).

Why germany lost the war. Cause they have not been able to stand econimcaly against that many different nations. It was not military or technology that broke in the end german defences that fast in fact even to the end of the war, the Wehrmacht, never totally colapsed. The war, was also a war of economy "who can produce better and faster", and against 2 of some of the largest nations at that time, germany would have to loose sooner or later. USA is the best proof, with there fight against Japan, Germany supporting the other allies with weapons/wares AND developing the nuclear bomb.
 
Upvote 0
#535
Tomcat_ha said:
You americans and brits faught 20% of the entire german army. The rest was all at the eastern front.
Click to expand...

And...your point is?

Well, this actually proves my point even more. Our technology was so good that even the apparently small amount of combat that you try to denote that the U.S. saw we still didn't need to undergo drastic changes to our equipment because it worked so well. :p
 
Upvote 0
#536
Roman Elite said:
And...your point is?

Well, this actually proves my point even more. Our technology was so good that even the apparently small amount of combat that you try to denote that the U.S. saw we still didn't need to undergo drastic changes to our equipment because it worked so well. :p
Click to expand...
And not to forget, all of us in the West turned back the Japanese, captured Rome, opened Stalin's long-requested second front, and kept Hitler from getting the Middle East oil he needed...though Germany's forces were undeniably broken on the Eastern front, things could have been decidedly different without Allied efforts elsewhere.
 
Upvote 0
#537
Kaneohe said:
And not to forget, all of us in the West turned back the Japanese, captured Rome, opened Stalin's long-requested second front, and kept Hitler from getting the Middle East oil he needed...though Germany's forces were undeniably broken on the Eastern front, things could have been decidedly different without Allied efforts elsewhere.
Click to expand...

true. No one could say what would happend without the eastern front or the effort from ALL allied nations

in a secret note to zhukov, stalind said once if i rember right, that without support, they (russia) would not had stand up against germany.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#538
Kaneohe said:
Sure, the T34 was better than the M4 Sherman. Sure the PPSh-41 owned on the Tommygun. But as far as I know, the M1 Garand far outstripped the SVT-40 and the bazooka (M1A1 or M9) was MUCH better than any antitank rifle you care to name. The western Allies had a great deal of equipment that was superior to Soviet creations.
Click to expand...



Yeah, but the germans on the other hand had a MP40 what was better than the tommy and Panzerschreks owned em all ;) plus the king tiger..............:rolleyes: well I dont even need to say what it did.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu