Should the USF AT gun recieve a buff?

increase gun penetration
Make AP rounds guarantee a hit (cost i don't care, but they're AP rounds for a good reason - they're meant to penetrate!

and......


Move to HQ (riflemen, rear echelon building) so i don't always have to pick captain to get some half decent fuel-less AT.

Make AP rounds vet 0.

They already are.

Make AP Rounds 10 Munitions.

I would think this as a fairly simple solution. Keeps its normal combat weaknesses of poor pen without AP rounds and 4-man crew, strengths of excellent vet 1 and best fire-rate by a bit, just reduces the redonk muni bleed the unit inflicts has to inflict just to be used past mid-game.

Make AP rounds vet 0.

They already are, actually.

They're just going to cost you all of the munitions with how much you'll have to use it.

I would think this as a fairly simple solution. Keeps its normal combat weaknesses of poor pen without AP rounds and 4-man crew, strengths of excellent vet 1 and best fire-rate by a bit, just reduces the redonk muni bleed the unit inflicts has to inflict just to be used past mid-game.

I'd just lower the cost of AP rounds, or trade damage for penetration, or both. They could cost 5-10 Muni instead, or even be free with or without a cooldown.

If it's just a flat out Pen increase with removal of AP, it just becomes essentially the same as the 6 Pounder / Pak 40.

No i dont have any fav. animation on it.But i love two quote of it,
Right on front! and Enemy Armor knocked out!
Seriously i dont have any problems on that at gun.I dont try the penetrate enemy tank on front,i flank it and target the rear armor.

Smart move, since it can't penetrate reliably on the front. But what does this statement of yours mean? an AT gun needs to flank to even have a change of doing damage? An AT gun, a weapon a tank should fear and avoid, is needed to flank in order to even damage a tank, what a weapon! A tank won't fear that at gun if it needs to flank to even stand a change of damaging it. No other AT gun apart from the pathetic 45 mm Soviet little cute at gun has this problem, heck sometimes the little 45mm can penetrate more reliably than the USF at gun xd.

Even the AP round is lackluster. It is disturbing but actually kind of funny as well, fighting it still makes me chuckle with laughter

To emphasize my point, a documented fact about Micheal Wittmann: "Wittmann marked every tank he destroyed, but he rated every anti-tank gun he destroyed twice as high. He hated these concealed nests, which he called the hiding places of death. He derived a special satisfaction when he destroyed an anti-tank gun. By the time of autumn 1943 Wittmann professed that enemy tanks ceased to be a strain on his nerves and only the anti-tank guns still made him uncomfortable"

Mind you, he drove a Tiger I tank and even he feared at guns. Do you see how pathetic of an excuse the USF at gun is, not even tanks should fear it.

Source:

Referred lines start at 25:50

Smart move, since it can't penetrate reliably on the front. But what does this statement of yours mean? an AT gun needs to flank to even have a change of doing damage? An AT gun, a weapon a tank should fear and avoid, is needed to flank in order to even damage a tank, what a weapon! A tank won't fear that at gun if it needs to flank to even stand a change of damaging it. No other AT gun apart from the pathetic 45 mm Soviet little cute at gun has this problem, heck sometimes the little 45mm can penetrate more reliably than the USF at gun xd.

Even the AP round is lackluster. It is disturbing but actually kind of funny as well, fighting it still makes me chuckle with laughter

To emphasize my point, a documented fact about Micheal Wittmann: "Wittmann marked every tank he destroyed, but he rated every anti-tank gun he destroyed twice as high. He hated these concealed nests, which he called the hiding places of death. He derived a special satisfaction when he destroyed an anti-tank gun. By the time of autumn 1943 Wittmann professed that enemy tanks ceased to be a strain on his nerves and only the anti-tank guns still made him uncomfortable"

Mind you, he drove a Tiger I tank and even he feared at guns. Do you see how pathetic of an excuse the USF at gun is, not even tanks should fear it.

Source:

Referred lines start at 25:50

Yeah its unbalanced but still i love it Thanks for reply

Yeah its unbalanced but still i love it Thanks for reply

Good for you!

They already are.

Wait what when did this change?

...

I think the best way is for take aim at vet 1 to be removed entirely, and vet 0 ap rounds ability made permanent at vet 1.

The question isnt if you like it or not, the question is if it should be buffed or not

Wait what when did this change?

You are confused by M10/M36 AP rounds which are unlocked with vet.

Either AP rounds need to be cheaper so they can be used every engagement or the USF AT gun needs greater pen so that AP rounds are more of a bonus instead of a necessity when fighting heavy armor.

Personally I favor just increasing the pen on the gun since making AP rounds cheaper with the assumption that they will always be needed just represents unnecessary micro every fight and could cause the AT gun to overperform if the ability is cheap enough.

Wait what when did this change?

They've always been.

Honestly lets just make take aim! A vet 0 ability, and remove ap rounds.

4 -> 5 men

No more received accuracy (this should apply to all AT guns).

AP rounds are free but come with a longish cooldown

They've always been.

Unless things were different in the alpha which I didn't play.

4 -> 5 men

No more received accuracy (this should apply to all AT guns).

AP rounds are free but come with a longish cooldown

It'd still be worthless.


Buff the pen, it should be able to damage tanks..

Wait what when did this change?

Never, they always been there.

It'd still be worthless.


Buff the pen, it should be able to damage tanks..

Alternatively you could raise the cost and do those things + increase in basic pen.