• 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/

Just an idea for increased AT

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
R

rmrusher

Active member
Apr 16, 2010
27
1
#1
How hard would it be to make an anti-tank gun like a Pak 40?
It could be used to ambush tanks... just a thought. I saw them all over in RO:Ost, but they were always just like props. I see them in some places in HoS too, but again... just props. It would be awesome to see these things actually work. Even if they are just stationary, it would still be awesome.
 
#2
rmrusher said:
How hard would it be to make an anti-tank gun like a Pak 40?
It could be used to ambush tanks... just a thought. I saw them all over in RO:Ost, but they were always just like props. I see them in some places in HoS too, but again... just props. It would be awesome to see these things actually work. Even if they are just stationary, it would still be awesome.
Click to expand...

It would be pretty interesting to have them in the game working..... but then they'd be more of a death trap than the existing stationary MG's.... people would just constantly target them and wait for someone to try to use them.

Unless there was some way to add some sort of cover..... but it'd also be a nice bonus for people with satchels to blow up.
 
Upvote 0
#4
Right, AT guns are absolutely a must for serious tank combat. But they must be really well camouflaged, not like HMGs we have now in game...
In each map there should be quite a few places where an AT gun can be deployed. A team of two or more AT gunners should be able to move the gun some tens of metres and redeploy it as needed.

Maraz
 
Upvote 0
#6
As I remembered TW added a mixed infantry/tank map latter on in RO1, which had AT-guns on it, can't remember the name though. I think the AT guns and tanks were pretty balanced there. If the other team head bad tankers you could totally take them out with AT guns as they came around the corner, but you couldn't just camp it out by thew AT gun for the entire match.
Anyway I hope they add something simmilar to RO2.
 
Upvote 0
#8
2Lt.Horvath [6th AB] said:
Great idea but they should also add more rocket anti tank. The Germans weren't using anti-tank rifles like the Russians, they had early versions of the panzer faust and i'm sure there was some sort of panzer shreck as well...screw balancing, histotrical accuracy and realism all the way.
Click to expand...

as i recall they Had an AT-Grenade Launcher. It was the Soviet Union who received a small number of early Lend lease Bazooka's from the US. As far as i know, it was as much giving the Russians a weapon to fight the Nazis as it was a way to test the gun.
 
Upvote 0
#11
gimpy117 said:
as i recall they Had an AT-Grenade Launcher. It was the Soviet Union who received a small number of early Lend lease Bazooka's from the US. As far as i know, it was as much giving the Russians a weapon to fight the Nazis as it was a way to test the gun.
Click to expand...

The GrB 39 was the German AT rifle converted to fire AT and AP grenades. See the link below for a thread on it.

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=68933

As for lend lease Bazookas... some were sent in late '42 or early '43. Unsure if any made it to Stalingrad, and I recall reading that the Russians didn't really like them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#12
Proud_God said:
It would be nice if the platoon commander can choose where to deploy stationary guns (HMGs and the suggested anti tank guns) before a round starts. There should be alot of possible location 'slots' that can be selected.
Click to expand...
I actually disagree with this. If the Commander can pick where to place HMGs, then what happens is there will be only one or two right places to put it. If such a thing were to occur, then they may as well hard-code the locations of the HMGs and not make them random.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Cpt-Praxius said:
It would be pretty interesting to have them in the game working..... but then they'd be more of a death trap than the existing stationary MG's.... people would just constantly target them and wait for someone to try to use them.

Unless there was some way to add some sort of cover..... but it'd also be a nice bonus for people with satchels to blow up.
Click to expand...

When AT guns were introduced to Ostfront and appeared in the mods, they typically had a degree of cover from small arms fire with the frontal shield, and additional cover for the gun was usually provided by the mapper in the form of a low sandbag wall or a pit.

It worked out alright, especially when the randomization variable allowed it to spawn in various areas of a map to make it more difficult to predict where you'd come across one when you're familiar with the map. Much like the mounted MGs in RO2.
 
Upvote 0
#16
gimpy117 said:
as i recall they Had an AT-Grenade Launcher. It was the Soviet Union who received a small number of early Lend lease Bazooka's from the US. As far as i know, it was as much giving the Russians a weapon to fight the Nazis as it was a way to test the gun.
Click to expand...

Whilst i'm not saying this isn't true, would they really have been in the numbers required to make it a common weapon on Stalingrad? I say this from the prospective of realism and historical accuracy rather than gameplay.

As for the HE grenade launcher, same question really. Though it is a nice idea.

I really think AT mines and guns would be a great addition to the larger maps but for now, the tiny CoD MW2 maps really hinder any progression.

Making the AT more realistic (for now) would be the best option, i.e. the magnetic ...thingy...that the Germans used. I can't remember the name.
I just feel that Balance is a horrid stab in the face of historical accuracy. Yes there has to be some, but sometimes you can even things out through ticket ratios. Be it tanks or infantry. Or both...
 
Upvote 0
#17
2Lt.Horvath [6th AB] said:
Whilst i'm not saying this isn't true, would they really have been in the numbers required to make it a common weapon on Stalingrad? I say this from the prospective of realism and historical accuracy rather than gameplay.

As for the HE grenade launcher, same question really. Though it is a nice idea.
Click to expand...
Each infantry division was supposed to have 81 GrB 39 launchers. I couldn't find any info on how many were actually used in Stalingrad, but I'd bet there were enough that it should be in the game. It certainly deserves to be there more than the MKb 42 in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0
#19
theta123 said:
typically to see only GERMAN suggestions and not anything russian
Click to expand...

Because the best the Russians could muster was a catapult and some sticks.

I joke but really they were hard pressed when it came to advanced weaponry seen with the Germans. Unless you coun the...katyusha? The truck with rockets on the back. That rocks.

I feel some of their weaponry for anti tank was possibly stolen from the Germans anyway, or just low-tech or out dated things like the anti tank rifle. Could a PTRS really take down a Panzer 4? Unless you're a luck SOB and got it through the little hatch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lyosha
Upvote 0
#20
theta123 said:
typically to see only GERMAN suggestions and not anything russian
Click to expand...

There is no question that the Germans simply had a technological advantage in WW2. Should this be ignored for some arbitrary "balance"? Their disadvantage was the cost, and complexity of manufacturing these weapons, but that is outside the scope of a tactical game. Just be happy that the real Wunderwaffen didn't come until later in the war. Imagine going up against IR sights, surface to air missiles, air to ground (and air) wire guided missiles, etc.

However if larger "fixed" crew served weapons are added, then I do suggest that the Ampulomet would make a fine addition to the Russian side.
 
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