Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 FNG

About rule303

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

860 profile views
  1. Americans are a rare exception, as the USA had a strong gun culture that the European powers did not share. The American military also had an obsession with precision marksmanship over practical battlefield performance, especially the USMC. However, the mechanical accuracy of the M1 and the No. 4 are for all practical purposes the same, and the M1D did not have any improvements in terms of mechanical accuracy of the other rifles of the era before better production techniques came into place. What made the M1 Garand and No. 4 so easy to shoot accurately was not the gun itself being more accurate, but the sights being much easier to acquire and line up thanks to them using aperture sights.
  2. I am also a professional shooter and can achieve similar feats and did many shooting competitions here in Australia and I'm telling you that you are not coming from the perspective of a Second World War Era shooter. They were very poorly trained in marksmanship compared to modern standards and did maybe only one or two shoots and went through very little ammunition before being sent to the front. Their rifles had horrific mechanical accuracy (4-6 MOA was considered acceptable for issue.) They were getting fouled up with the elements (WW2 era rifles aren't as good at keeping the elements out of the action as say any M16A2 onwards) and were going through much more horrific battlefield conditions than more modern combat operations tend to do. Trust me, the accuracy and sway and performance and training all makes sense for rifles. Even then, I have absolutely no problem with accurate iron sighted rifle shooting out to 400m+ with the sway anyway in this game because I've had plenty of practice and mostly used to play infantry in game over the past 8 years - seems to me just your bad aim is the issue here. The sway and accuracy makes perfect sense in historical context. You try and be a marksman on the battlefield if prior to combat your only experience shooting was maybe 30-40 rounds fired at most.
  3. Just look at the Germans and marksmanship training during the wars lol. You basically took 5 shots and got to pick the best of 3 in the slightly wider than normal torso width black at 200 or sometimes 100 yards depending on the year and desperation for manpower and you were good to go. If you watch the video from about 49:12 onwards they start delving into this. They didn't give two craps about how good a shooter you were as a rifleman, what they really cared about is how many ammo tins can you carry around for the MG34 or MG42 which was expected to do all the fighting and killing.
  4. I'm going to have it as a guess that somebody here hasn't been shooting before. The sway is VERY realistic given how much physical activity (running and sprinting and diving) that you do as an infantryman in this game, combined with the adrenaline you will have, and the fact that you are using iron sights that require multiple points of reference to line up exactly at the same time, unlike with say modern red dots and combat optics. And yes, being prone whilst does reduce your sway and improve your accuracy, also makes a rifle bolt harder to cycle and increases recoil, but you don't see that happen either do you? But that's exactly what shooting a bolt action or even a high powered semi automatic rifle is like. It's not like an assault rifle where good enough is acceptable, because you get extremely fast follow up shots. With a bolt action, every new shot IS a new shot due to the manipulation of the bolt and/or the recoil throwing off sight picture, meaning you have to reacquire the target and go through the process all over again. Keep in mind also that marksmanship training in WW2 was minimal at best. Soldiers may only train for a month or two with one or two shoots during that training period before they were off to the frontline. Most recreational shooters of today would easily be able to outshoot WW2 era standards of marksmanship or proficiency.
  5. I don't see how Engine RPM makes a difference, let alone would be irrelevant if it were true because you can thereotically just max out the RPM by putting the engine in neutral. Also interesting to note though that a Tiger can still pivot on the spot in neutral unlike many other tanks, and was a lot easier to steer thanks to using a steering wheel rather than twin brake levers.
  6. From what I've read, it actually only takes about 18-19 seconds to rotate a Tiger turret 360 degrees.
  7. Yes please, will also stop this ninja tank nonsense AND is realistic.
  8. " A squadron in air force, army aviation, or naval aviation is a unit comprising a number of military aircraft and their aircrews, usually of the same type, typically with 12 to 24 aircraft, sometimes divided into three or four flights, depending on aircraft type and air force. Land based squadrons equipped with heavier type aircraft such as long-range bombers, or cargo aircraft, or air refueling tankers have around 12 aircraft as a typical authorization, while most land-based fighter equipped units have an authorized number of 18 to 24 aircraft. " Air flags have way way WAY too many planes. They are clearly stated to be squadron sized, yet have 60-80 fighters alone stationed. Fighter and bomber numbers need to be severely reduced, with bomber flags only getting 8-10 fighters in total for escorts with fighters being 1 tier behind, and fighter flags should only get fighters, tank busters and fighter bombers, and should not get any dedicated bombers. It really feels like victories in the air war except in very small niche situations has no effect on the enemy.
  9. I don't even know why F2P can't have trucks. Sure, I can understand no FMS/ML, but no trucks period? Like what? They only just provide support to move infantry or ATGs...
  10. I've honestly had no problem with Tigers playing Allied this campaign. Let the [censored]ers get into town and ram a few 57mms up their asses from depot. The Sherman M4A3 has absolutely no problem at typical combat distances at penetrating frontally (the British with the Churchill is a different story though, but I've had no problem taking them out again just through smart positioning.) The Tiger is slow as [censored]. It's got an extremely distinct engine sound that alerts everybody that it's coming and where to focus attention to. It's gun is extremely loud compared to the 76.2mm. Axis still get less Tigers than Shermans. And to attribute the Westwards push to the Tiger is completely laughable. The Allied offensive was halted and turned around in Tier 2 before the Tiger was even introduced. The Allies have been falling apart not because of Tigers, but because of Allied saltiness, unwillingness to play as soon as the going gets a little bit tough, and because the Axis outplayed them and punished their mistakes. The answer to Tigers isn't to sit here and whine about them, it is to change tactics to counter them, just like the Allies in reality did. They're not invincible, and have some really obvious weaknesses (tank busters, infantry, being flanked.) Just stop treating them like every other tank in the game which Allied armour in most Tiers absolutely dominates. Besides, everybody complains about the Tiger yet nobody complains about the STUG, which is way more numerous than the Tiger and HARDER to penetrate frontally. That makes absolutely zero sense to me rationally. And if somebody shouts back and says it's easier to flank than the Tiger, I'm going to slap a [censored] because the Tiger is just as vulnerable to Tier 3 Allied tanks with flanking shots as is the STUG lmao.
  11. Second accounts takes more effort to setup, or can outright cost your money, that I imagine that you'd only have to worry about serial spies. At least will remove some of the problem of small timers. If people seriously though think side locking for a campaign is too extreme though, at least make the lockout timer much longer than 15 minutes so that people can't switch sides mid battle. Needs to be at least several hours.
  12. I've been saying this for years. It will significantly reduce issues with spies, and more importantly stop people from switching sides when the going gets tough so that they can keep winning and instead encourage people to stick it out to the bitter end. Only F2P should be able to switch sides mid campaign. There is no reason to continuously allow side switching mid campaign to the point it doesn't cause more issues than it fixes, and the vast majority of the playerbase that remains that pays for this game, is side loyal, at least per campaign.
  13. I for one would actually prefer keep gear tables and such completely historically realistic regardless of balance and let people learn and play to their side's strengths and weaknesses in game and formulate actually realistic strategies, rather than give everybody the exact same balanced setup.
  14. Good times. <3
  15. I joined in late 2010. My first squad I played with was very briefly the ANZACs (I first played as British), I believe under the alias Fusil1886. I didn't actually however seriously engage in squad play until I joined the 85th Flying Fallschrimjager in 2012 and became a dedicated Axis player.