Special units for the Red Army

THE RED ARMY NEEDS MG'S AND LONG RANGE UNITS! ;D
(Upgrading the PTRD to a PTRS could be good.)

Plus the Soviet Union was the FIRST to use paratroopers


A ROKS-2 FLAMETHROWER LOOKED LIKE A BACKPACK

(camo would be good for getting in close with emplacements and other buildings)

Last edited July 22, 2010 at 6:25 PM by Sgtraymond

Why?

That part about the paratroopers isn't entirely true as far as I know. They were the first to experiment with it (by having rails to hold on to on the wing and having infantry man laying on them during flight), the first to use paratroopers in battle however were the Germans, my guess would be during the invasion of the Netherlands, but that's purely a guess.

Cheers

Tico_1990 wrote:
That part about the paratroopers isn't entirely true as far as I know. They were the first to experiment with it (by having rails to hold on to on the wing and having infantry man laying on them during flight), the first to use paratroopers in battle however were the Germans, my guess would be during the invasion of the Netherlands, but that's purely a guess.

Cheers

I think it was Norway/Denmark, and it was the Soviets+Italians who expermented with airborne ;P.

SG-43, PTRS-41 + ROKS-2 get my vote.

Moonwalker wrote:
Why?

+1

Allied MGs were made to support infantry.
Wehrmacht infantry was trained to suported MGs.
Soviets also cant recrew.
Thats why they dont need MGs.

ROKS-2 comouflage?
Try being unseen with a heavy fuel tank on youre back and a little flame at the end of youre barrel.
Infantry flamethrowers were used when nothing else worked.

Soviets have Snipers and Tank hunters. They dont need PTRS.

Soviets have Partisants, Wehrmacht Stormtroopers while all other fractions have airborne. No need for more.
Also Soviet airborne were never as well supplied as US paras.

Paciat wrote:

Infantry flamethrowers were used when nothing else worked.

I dont want to have one of those pointless arguements, but Flamthrowers were really useful and was not to be used when nothing eles works. (USA in the pacific)

Mabey you talking about soveit flamers? Because alot of countrys made alot of use of some.

Again, dont make this a big deal.

Seeme wrote:

Paciat wrote:

Infantry flamethrowers were used when nothing else worked.

I dont want to have one of those pointless arguements, but Flamthrowers were really useful and was not to be used when nothing eles works. (USA in the pacific)

Mabey you talking about soveit flamers? Because alot of countrys made alot of use of some.

Again, dont make this a big deal.

Flamethrowers were usefull - thats why the army used them.
But using Infantry flamethrowers (exept urban warfare) was allmost a sueside mission. Thats why British made all kinds of AVRE vechicles and US used Crocks instead of infantry whenever they could.

My point is that Flame teams burned enemy soldiers in bunkers/caves that were allready suppresed by cower fire.
Flamethrower infiltration was imposible at day becouse the poor guy was a bigger and slower target. At night Ignition Flame was seen far away.

PzIII flame tank and disposable flamethrowers is what I want.

Paciat wrote:PzIII flame tank and disposable flamethrowers is what I want.

Cool! :D

Sgtraymond wrote:
THE RED ARMY NEEDS MG'S AND LONG RANGE UNITS! ;D

Plus the Soviet Union was the FIRST to use paratroopers

Basicly, this sounds like "MAKE THE SOVIETS EVEN MORE OP!"

sorry, but this is how it sounds ;)

Ok, didnt know.

ROKS-2 camouflage makes sense to an extent, or simply having them without the flame icon -so enemy players don't realise what they're being attacked by - and maybe not have the explosive critical hit; ROKS-2s were designed to look as much like a rifle etc. as possible, to avoid being sniped.

Nice :)

I took out over 55 conscripts in the middle of a street with one volks squad no lie) and the artllery firebase can't even knock out a freaking bunker with it. The ROKS-2 was made to look like a backpack and the nozzle of a service rifle. Just think of it... ever try to take a few flamethrowers to take out a defensive position and got sniped and mowed down by MG's? So then you take a crocodile or halftrack filled with pioneers and got smacked with an AT gun and you start crying because you just used all of you resources and start bitching about it the rest of the game? All of this is just a random example I made up. Just Think about it everyone and VOTE.

Edited out the crap flaming remarks. Discuss nicely and don't make personal attacks!
On another note you make too much theory craft and obviously do not know the game that well. Try watching some replays and learn some tips before complaining about 'ghost weaknesses'

Last edited July 22, 2010 at 6:26 PM by Sgtraymond

Before try to flame people, try to be a bit more constructive. I've never seen Venoxis or Paciat or anyone skilled and polite cry about problems which are not. Problems they have pointed out are founded on game experience and are real.

Well I am sorry to both of them I suggest that if there is a problem then state the problem and if you want to make a whole few paragraphs of reasoning then E-mail me ([email redacted]) and JUST PLEASE JUST VOTE! and also LOL WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO WEAR Red_Stinger!!! (wear a skirt I don't really care!)


The Panzerkampfwagen III *Flammenwerfur* tank sounds awe inspiring to mechanized players, but for me I choose infantry and the tactic of "wasting infantry, for there sacrafice shall not be in vain" tactic.

Last edited July 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM by Sgtraymond

don't know about those...but i'd like to see zis-41 !
for i know,it was only experimental,but still... :)
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/albums/SSSR_1918_1945_02/ZiS-22.jpg

Last edited July 25, 2010 at 3:32 AM by stalkiii

Soviets don't need anything new.

Yeah the soviets dont need anything new , just maybe some visual changes to some of the units and buildings , the bunker could become a maxim mg, the turret of the at could be longer and the base buildings could be changed , apart from that its ohk.

I saw on Discovery  that soviets sometimes had T-34 with flame throwers like sherman crocodile. Maybe it would be good special unit?

Give a a camo flamethrower to russians  ,and soon we will have our german players like GodLike Dennis , Hypersniper , werewolf etc cry out "OP" at the top of their voices , they will shriek their lungs out  ;)

The main problem i see with the Russians is that they must build the T-70 (or is it T-90?) in order to suppress German troop formations, and the artillery fire-base is that most useless investment ever. So while i send in waves of NKVD (or whatever they were renamed) conscripts, i must capture a point, hoping my conscripts are distracting the Easy AI computer. Then i need to repeat. i voted for the DSHK MG team, cause then you can give the Soviets an early game MG to suppress the enemy, and i voted for the PTRS-41 cause being able to fire more than one shot against enemy tanks would beneficial to the Russians, as the PTRD doesn't do much against the German tanks. Oh, btw, something needs to be done with the Russian fire-base to make it useful, three Katyusha rockets are way more useful than a fire-base.