Tripwire Interactive Forums

Go Back   Tripwire Interactive Forums > Red Orchestra 2 / Rising Storm Forums > RO2/RS General > Ideas and Suggestions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-05-2012, 01:19 PM
ro2player's Avatar
ro2player ro2player is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 881
Default antitank grenade

Make the antitank grenade more powerful : it need to kill a tank in 1 explosion - not 2.
It will be more realistical.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-05-2012, 03:10 PM
Unterscharfuhrer's Avatar
Unterscharfuhrer Unterscharfuhrer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 1,067
Default

The german one is build to push it into the tanks armor not to throw it against it maybe thats the reason you need two
__________________

Playing HOS as "Lizard-King"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-05-2012, 03:25 PM
M-A M-A is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ro2player View Post
Make the antitank grenade more powerful : it need to kill a tank in 1 explosion - not 2.
It will be more realistical.
But the at-grenade does destroy tank with one explosion. You need only 1 at-grenade for that. Or did I misunderstand something?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-05-2012, 03:39 PM
PeteAtomic PeteAtomic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 566
Default

Normally I can kill a tank with just one. I've found throwing it right on top of the tank is the most effective. If you throw it against the side armor, it doesn't seem to always kill the tank.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-05-2012, 03:48 PM
M-A M-A is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteAtomic View Post
Normally I can kill a tank with just one. I've found throwing it right on top of the tank is the most effective. If you throw it against the side armor, it doesn't seem to always kill the tank.
Yup, throw the grenade on top of the engine (behind the turret on tank's body) to be sure of the result.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-05-2012, 04:09 PM
ross's Avatar
ross ross is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-A View Post
But the at-grenade does destroy tank with one explosion. You need only 1 at-grenade for that. Or did I misunderstand something?
A direct hit to the top armour on the engine deck will kill it with one hit, otherwise it takes two.

Also, seeing the HHL behaving as it should - a time-delayed magnetic mine rather than thrown impact-fused weapon - would be a big plus.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-05-2012, 04:26 PM
M-A M-A is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ross View Post
A direct hit to the top armour on the engine deck will kill it with one hit, otherwise it takes two.
So you'll throw it on the engine deck then I've destroyed tanks by throwing the AT-grenade at their nose -then again it could have taken some hits before that? Also the grenade on turret has destroyed the tank with one charge. I'd say with my not-so-great experience that if the AT-grenade falls on the roof section, the tank is gone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ross View Post
] Also, seeing the HHL behaving as it should - a time-delayed magnetic mine rather than thrown impact-fused weapon - would be a big plus.
That'd be nice.

Well, I understand your points of view but in my opinion it is good that you need to hit the weak spot of the tank to be certain of the kill and are not able to destroy it always with one shot -for me they almost always blow up with one at-grenade anyway but perhaps I've been just lucky.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-05-2012, 04:45 PM
Clowndoe's Avatar
Clowndoe Clowndoe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,096
Default

Well if you want it to be more realistic (not "realistical"), Russian grenade shouldn't kill tanks at all unless thrown on the engine deck, or track them if lodged in the right place.

RPG 40 (the Russian one): "This effect enabled about 20 mm of armour to be penetrated"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-40

As for the Hafthohllandung (the German one), it had over 100 mm of penetration, but it required to be stuck on the tank up-close and personal.

The important thing is that with this type of attack there's a lot of luck and placement involved. You can throw an RPG on a tank but it has to knock out some engine component to have done anything, which is never certain. The hafthohlladung on the other hand is like a tank shell, you can penetrate a tank 100 times but if none of the shrapnel hits something important you're no closer to destroying a tank.

Last edited by Clowndoe; 05-05-2012 at 04:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-05-2012, 05:07 PM
M-A M-A is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowndoe View Post
The hafthohlladung on the other hand is like a tank shell, you can penetrate a tank 100 times but if none of the shrapnel hits something important you're no closer to destroying a tank.
The tank is filled with people and ammunition so the hollow charge does very much damage inside the small tank interiors. If the armor is penetrated the damage is very severe.

Last edited by M-A; 05-05-2012 at 05:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-06-2012, 12:13 PM
c200k c200k is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Saarland, Germany
Posts: 185
Default

Is there any explanation why we have to throw the "hafthohlladung"? maybe a game engine limit, that makes it impossible to dock objects on others or something?!

WWII Panzergrenadier with Hafthohlladung-Panzer Knacker vs T34/76 + some Tiger Bonus - YouTube
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-06-2012, 01:09 PM
Nikita's Avatar
Nikita Nikita is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c200k View Post
Is there any explanation why we have to throw the "hafthohlladung"? maybe a game engine limit, that makes it impossible to dock objects on others or something?!

WWII Panzergrenadier with Hafthohlladung-Panzer Knacker vs T34/76 + some Tiger Bonus - YouTube
I recall a dev saying that it would require some new object interactions that would be time-consuming.

Now, I have no experience modding or coding, but I've had this idea where if you just coded the HHL-3 like a satchel charge, made it as 'sticky' as possible, cut the throwing range to about a meter, set the timer to three seconds, and decreased the blast radius while vastly increasing damage output, it would work fairly realistically

While the RPG-40 was impact-sensitive and could therefore be used against enemy personnel, the HHL-3'd directed plasma jet, while deadly, was far less useful against infantry. The changes above would reflect that quite well and prevent German engineers from running around using them to clear rooms...
__________________

Classic forever.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-06-2012, 01:17 PM
Cwivey's Avatar
Cwivey Cwivey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: In the hills! (of England)
Posts: 2,425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikita View Post
Now, I have no experience modding or coding, but I've had this idea where if you just coded the HHL-3 like a satchel charge, made it as 'sticky' as possible, cut the throwing range to about a meter, set the timer to three seconds, and decreased the blast radius while vastly increasing damage output, it would work fairly realistically
While I would like it to work in this way, the issue with doing a quick fix with this method would be that you'd end up with the things landing upside down quite a number of times.

It's one of those, lesser of two evils things.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikita View Post
While the RPG-40 was impact-sensitive and could therefore be used against enemy personnel, the HHL-3'd directed plasma jet, while deadly, was far less useful against infantry. The changes above would reflect that quite well and prevent German engineers from running around using them to clear rooms...
With both of the AT nades, you still have to land the thing practically on the player's face, they have a very small range as is. Would make more sense to up the blast radius of the RPG40, but then you'd end up with Ruski engineers running around attacking infantry with them primarily.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-06-2012, 02:05 PM
Nikita's Avatar
Nikita Nikita is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cwivey View Post
While I would like it to work in this way, the issue with doing a quick fix with this method would be that you'd end up with the things landing upside down quite a number of times

It's one of those, lesser of two evils things.
Maybe not, seeing as it's only being thrown for a meter. And even if so, it is indeed the lesser of two evils.
__________________

Classic forever.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-06-2012, 05:01 PM
ross's Avatar
ross ross is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c200k View Post
Is there any explanation why we have to throw the "hafthohlladung"? maybe a game engine limit, that makes it impossible to dock objects on others or something?!
Apparently not, since satchel charges stick to tanks really well!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-06-2012, 10:57 PM
Cpt-Praxius's Avatar
Cpt-Praxius Cpt-Praxius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canadian in Australia
Posts: 3,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteAtomic View Post
Normally I can kill a tank with just one. I've found throwing it right on top of the tank is the most effective. If you throw it against the side armor, it doesn't seem to always kill the tank.
Same here... more often than not I get them in one hit, but once in a while I need two.... so long as you toss it at the engine area and make sure it hit's the top area of the engine, you'll almost always blow em up with just one.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-07-2012, 05:30 PM
ro2player's Avatar
ro2player ro2player is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteAtomic View Post
Normally I can kill a tank with just one. I've found throwing it right on top of the tank is the most effective. If you throw it against the side armor, it doesn't seem to always kill the tank.
Ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ross View Post
A direct hit to the top armour on the engine deck will kill it with one hit, otherwise it takes two.
Ok. It explain why I need often time 2 antitank grenade.
then antitank grenade can kill in one kill WITH A GOOD THROWING IN WEAKPOINT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ross View Post
Also, seeing the HHL behaving as it should - a time-delayed magnetic mine rather than thrown impact-fused weapon - would be a big plus.
"a time-delayed magnetic mine" : So the antitank will be use look like satchel or grenade cooking.

Last edited by ro2player; 05-07-2012 at 05:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-07-2012, 05:38 PM
THunter's Avatar
THunter THunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 278
Default

The way the Hafthohlladung is portrayed ingame is wrong. It cannot be thrown in real life...It must be stuck to the side of the tank using its magnets. I think TW should replace the Hafthohlladung with the Panzerwurfmine. The Panzerwurfmine would be pretty neat as its a funky handheld panzerfaust warhead looking anti tank grenade that has fabric fins that expand when thrown. Or they could include a stick grenade bundle (multiple stick grenade warheads attached to one grenade)

Panzerwurfmine:


Quote:
The Panzerwurfmine (L) was a World War II anti-tank weapon developed by the German army for use by special tank-killer infantry sguads to provide them with a powerful standoff weapon that could be carried and used by one man. The Panzerwurfmine was a specialized form of anti-tank grenade that used a hollow-charge warhead to defeat the target tank armor. To ensure that the warhead was actually facing the target armor when it struck the tank, the grenade was fitted with a finned tail for stabilization and guidance.

The Panzerwurfmine was thrown at its target in a special manner. The grenade warhead had behind it a steel body attached to a wooden handle. The user gripped this handle and held it behind his back with the warhead pointing vertically upwards. When ready the user swung his arm forward and released the handle, As soon as the grenade was in flight four canvas fins unfolded from the handle for guidance and stabilization, and the drogue effect of these fins maintained the warhead in its correct forward position ready to have maximum effect as it struck. This sounds simple enough, but in practice the Panzerwurfmine was not an easy weapon to use effectively. For a start the maximum possible range was limited by the strength and ability of the thrower, and was usually no more than 30 m (32,8 yards) at best, and was frequently less. Accuracy could only be ensured by hard practice.

Nevertheless the special German anti-tank personnel greatly favored the Panzerwurfmine. Compared with other close-in anti-tank weapons used by the Germans the Panzerwurfmine was relatively small, light and handy. It was also potent, for the warhead was made up of RDX and TNT in equal measures and weighed 0.52 kg (1.146 lb). Combined with the hollow-charge principle, this usually ensured penetration of even the thickest armor of nearly all Allied tanks.

Specification

Type: anti-tank grenade Panzerwurfmine (L)
Origin: Germany
Body diameter: 114.3 mm (4.5 in)
Lengths: overall 533 mm (21 in); body 228.6 mm (9 in); fins 279.4 mm (11 in)
Weights: overall 1,35 kg (2.98 lb); warhead 0.52 kg (1.146 lb)
Neat Historic info on anti tank grenades if anybody wants to read:
Spoiler!

Last edited by THunter; 05-07-2012 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-07-2012, 06:16 PM
ro2player's Avatar
ro2player ro2player is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THunter View Post
I think TW should replace the Hafthohlladung with the Panzerwurfmine.

It was introduced into service in May of 1943 but proved rather impractical. Still, 203,800 were produced in 1943.
But Panzerwurfmine is a Late war period grenade and who not present in Stalingrad. (Produced in 1944)

So why not adding a Geballte Ladung ? (created in end 1941)

Quote:
Originally Posted by THunter View Post
The first special AT hand grenade was the Panzerhandgranate 41. It weighed 2kg and was effective against armor of up to 30mm thickness.
You talk about "Panzerhandgranate 41" it can be interresting to add it.

Last edited by ro2player; 05-07-2012 at 06:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-07-2012, 06:47 PM
ross's Avatar
ross ross is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 778
Default

Seems likely TWI wanted to include the HHL because of the tank attack scene in Stalingrad (which, to their credit, is exactly how I imagined anti-tank classes should be in RO2), but then wanted to make it balance out the RPG-40... which obviously breaks the HHL. Perhaps if the HHL was made to be more powerful it would justify the risk of getting right up next to the tank, or allow German engineers able to choose between a Geballte Ladung or an HHL by personal preference.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-07-2012, 07:08 PM
ro2player's Avatar
ro2player ro2player is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ross View Post
or allow German engineers able to choose between a Geballte Ladung or an HHL by personal preference.
or a "Panzerhandgranate 41" ...but somebody have news on this weapon please ?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2005 - 2014, Tripwire Interactive, LLC