Infantry VS Tank?

Hypno Toad · Feb 7, 2011

That's a good question.

If somebody pops out of the hatch to use their binoculars, and you pop them from behind, it'd be nice if you could climb on top of the tank and toss a grenade down the hatch. It'd be a rare occurrence, but you'd certainly be deserving of such a kill if you could manage to shoot the commander at close range and actually climb on top of the tank.

RedGuardist · Feb 7, 2011

Hypno Toad said:
Nitpicking at my post. [...]

Sorry, I just can

DarkFlame7 · Feb 7, 2011

Wait, so there are actually Molotovs in the game?

RedGuardist · Feb 7, 2011

DarkFlame7 said:
Wait, so there are actually Molotovs in the game?

Not yet in the initial release. They might be implemented later.

slavek · Feb 7, 2011

Would be an interesting weapon. Can't imagine it being a "rare" weapon considering the simplicity of it.

Hypno Toad · Feb 7, 2011

As with all anti tank weapons in ROOST I'd use them against people more than I use them against tanks

PTRD: greatest sniper rifle of WW2.

Merin Redplate · Feb 7, 2011

Hypno Toad said:
As with all anti tank weapons in ROOST I'd use them against people more than I use them against tanks

PTRD: greatest sniper rifle of WW2.

Well, if your intention is to rid your foe from the face of the earth, then sure.

choolio · Feb 7, 2011

"Haftladungen" and "geballte Ladungen" would be awesome. More than that, it would be realistic to have them implemented, indeed.
As far as I know the geballte Ladung was "invented" at the front to gather up some more firepower to get tanks blown apart by regular infantry or even if soldiers ran out of "proper" equipment.

So, how about the ability to assemble grenades of at least 2 comrades to create them in the field. Nevertheless they got only the firepower to cut through lighter tanks.

I think this feature would be nice, so the regular soldier(s) wouldn

choolio · Feb 7, 2011

What about the ability of wraping up "geballte ladungen" in the field by assembling spare grenades.
This wouldn

Apos · Feb 7, 2011

choolio said:
What about the ability of wraping up "geballte ladungen" in the field by assembling spare grenades.
This wouldn

choolio · Feb 7, 2011

I understand your point, but ... it would be a "long way" to even get a tank harmed if you know what i mean. You would need, most importantly, a certain amount of grenades, then time to assemble them, and finally ... you need to get near a tank to get a chance of blowing it, and only if it would be a light one.
Nevertheless, you didn

=GG= Mr Moe · Feb 7, 2011

Apos said:
I disagree. Regular soldier has nothing to say against tanks. If there is tank around he should take cover, call AT soldier or engineer and support him. Cover him from enemy infantry fire (suppress them) when he's trying to take down enemy tank.

Once he died, take his PTRD/satchels and finish the tank.

I agree. You really can't have everyone be a all inclusive one man army.

DiedTrying · Feb 7, 2011

=GG= Mr Moe said:
I agree. You really can't have everyone be a all inclusive one man army.

on occasion satchels and mines were available in defensive positions, if you wanted to grab one and run out and blow up that tank out there, nobody would stop you saying "hey, that's the engineers job!"

Felix Ostheim · Feb 7, 2011

Hypno Toad said:
As with all anti tank weapons in ROOST I'd use them against people more than I use them against tanks

PTRD: greatest sniper rifle of WW2.

IIRC the PTRD was used by the North Koreans as a telescopic sniper rifle in the Korean War.

<animal>INSTINCT · Feb 7, 2011

When faced with a tank, having no anti-tank weapons of my own, the first thing I do is...

Burny · Feb 7, 2011

i dont know if you watched the videos on youtube i posted
that is the original wehrmacht training video summer 1942 for the ordinary soldier
so not only engineers or anti tank soldiers were a threat to tanks

an as i said...a tank does not have to be blown up

and just as an information...the "geballte ladung" was not intended to destroy the tanks
but it was used to destroy for example the canon of the tanks and kill the engine if the top armor on the engine was thin enough
but it didnt kill a tank as many guys might think

choolio · Feb 7, 2011

Burny said:
i dont know if you watched the videos on youtube i posted
that is the original wehrmacht training video summer 1942 for the ordinary soldier
so not only engineers or anti tank soldiers were a threat to tanks

an as i said...a tank does not have to be blown up

and just as an information...the "geballte ladung" was not intended to destroy the tanks
but it was used to destroy for example the canon of the tanks and kill the engine if the top armor on the engine was thin enough
but it didnt kill a tank as many guys might think

I can

Apos · Feb 7, 2011

Burny said:
i dont know if you watched the videos on youtube i posted
that is the original wehrmacht training video summer 1942 for the ordinary soldier
so not only engineers or anti tank soldiers were a threat to tanks

an as i said...a tank does not have to be blown up

and just as an information...the "geballte ladung" was not intended to destroy the tanks
but it was used to destroy for example the canon of the tanks and kill the engine if the top armor on the engine was thin enough
but it didnt kill a tank as many guys might think

You misunderstanding the point. Regular soldier had knowledge how to use properly anti-tank weapons or grenades, however regular soldier didn't have such equipment. Only designated members (usually one) of squad or infantry section had AT grenades.

Burny · Feb 8, 2011

Apos said:
You misunderstanding the point. Regular soldier had knowledge how to use properly anti-tank weapons or grenades, however regular soldier didn't have such equipment. Only designated members (usually one) of squad or infantry section had AT grenades.

every soldier had the chance to get explosives.
they could go to the engineer companies and get some explosives (as mentioned in the video, too)
its not like they said..."hey! we are the engineers....only we use the explosives...die if you encounter a tank"

end especially the geballte ladung wasnt a big thing....every soldier could do it on his own....and grenades were easy to get. many times they had more than they could throw.
and molotov coctails are even faster to make.

and the thing about "only designated members of a squad"...well, every soldier was the designated one...if he was crazy/brave enough and if he was in the right position to the tank.

Musa · Feb 9, 2011

Athough every infantryman had/should have some AT capabilities like covering visions with mud, throwing grenade inside hatch or sticking log of wood between road wheels, it is still a game so I'm against giving every infantry AT capabilities and leave it only to specyfic members. What I mean, that those AT capabilities IRL were exeptions and sign of great bravery/being extraordinary dumba*s (delete unnecessary), in game it will be quickly abused and those actions will be regular way of playing (since you don't care about your life in game - suicind just to blow up a tank won't be huge deal). Tanks should rule battlefield and strike fear into infantry not vice versa. I've seen too many FPS online shooters where actually tanks had to hide from infantry pushing their role into some kind of odd gadget to new players and free frag to vets.
So AT weapons only to engineers and AT soldiers

Infantry VS Tank?

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Member

Grizzled Veteran

Grizzled Veteran

Member

Grizzled Veteran