Someone used a search button, and gets flamed. If he wouldn't have used the search button, he would have been flamed anyways and people would tell him to use the search :rolleyes: But he does deserve to be flamed for the language he used :uhm: And what has BF:V got to do with AT-weapons :confused:
Well shit heads I was the 2nd post and the 1 who started most of what was talked about here. Also, if you think it's stupid why did you bother posting, your just as bad seeing as you didn't even have anything to what was being said, that's something the forum community calls "spamming". Plus BFv is a much better game so I thought I would just bring it up.
Cool down, there is no reason to talk like that.
ManiKUm excuse me, the 50. cal was a well used mobile weapon, albeit 30. cals were less cumbersome, but the 50.cal could rip through light armor, let alone a human being.
.50 cals were rarely used for fire and maneuver tactics given that they weighed around 130 lbs with the tripod, and even more for the large 12.7mm ammo, which would severely limit mobility and ammo capacity. Also, it wasn't necessary to have a .50 cal at infantry level, when a .30 worked just fine. .30 cals were the standard for infantry based MGs.
jmarsh20012001Well shit heads I was the 2nd post and the 1 who started most of what was talked about here. Also, if you think it's stupid why did you bother posting, your just as bad seeing as you didn't even have anything to what was being said, that's something the forum community calls "spamming". Plus BFv is a much better game so I thought I would just bring it up.
I did have a reason, I was replying to LordKaine's question. Oh and quit with the tard talk, calling someone a 'shit head' isnt going to get you anywhere.
And yes, I was just joking about raising the dead...er thread, so cool it..
In another post McGibs mentioned that the .50 cal with the ammo box was actually a .50cal and the .50cal were actually .30cal using the .50cal model since they dont have a .30cal model yet.
Or was it the other way around?
Anyhoo there is something coded for the .30cal in game but using the .50cal model. The difference is one has a ammo box and one doesnt.
I understand why FH nerfed the faust. In 0.5 on El Alamein it used to be common to see roving bands of thugs in Kubelwagens lurking outside the Allied base all armed with Panzerfausts and they would scream up behind you and jump out of a still moving vehicle to panzerfaust the back of your tank. Or the infantry guy charging across open ground bunny hopping and porposing only to fire the panzerfaust while jumping. Most of the battles known for tank battles became infantry dominated by the Kubelfausters and the bunny hopping infantry. It was a sad joke. There are still Kubelfausters that know the workariound
I do agree the nerfed cross hair centering time is too long but it should not be fixed to the point of encouraging the kubelfausters again. I was in Bulge map the other day and had a bazooka and saw a PzIV coming and laid down and waited for PzIV from my ambush position and waited for the the crosshairs to close...and waited....and waited... and the PzIV was out of range by the time I coudl fire.
There is a workaround for using the faust but most are reluctant to give out trade secrets.
Beast of War Maybe now you understand why 7.1 million panzerfausts were produced, and only several hundred destroyed tanks ever reported by them......
No disrespect...but please cite your "source". While it's true that in NW Europe after the landings...a rather smallish figure..I've seen 14% mentioned of Allied tank losses were attributable to panzerfausts, this is mainly explained by the more conservative tactics and better infantry co-operation adopted by the Western allies. In the East..it was very much a different story largely because of the bad infantry co-operation and crude breakthrough tactics employed by Russian armored units. I've seen pictures showing about 30 Russian tanks knocked out by Finnish units by panzerfausts over a few hundred meter section of the battlefront during the rather short battle of Tali-Ihantala. Likewise, when the Russians first stormed into Berlin they lost a very large amount of tanks to panzerfausts even though the city was comparatively lightly defended. Could look up the figure in Anthony Beever's book about the Battle of Berlin. This just to name a few examples. And when you take into account the entire Eastern front from Murmansk to Caucasus and from Volga to Berlin during the years the fausts were deployed, you are undoubtedly talking about thousands of Russian AFVs lost to panzerfausts alone. take care, LaDigue
If your source happened to be this page..http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust4.htm#Production...I would strongly suspect those figures. In the two war years that the faust was in intensive use, i.e. 1944-45, the figures must have been higher. If you look at March 1944, as an example, it is stated that the there were some 2660 Russian tanks during said month, the cause of destruction was only known for 1031. Thats 1630 tanks lost to "unknown cause" during that month. Assuming that 20% of this were tanks knocked out by fausts..and being conservative about it, we'd still be talkin about a total of some 380 tanks lost to faust (mainly the 30 model BTW) in that month alone. take care, LaDigue