Killing a tank without panzerfaust or similar

[redbull2580]

Shouldnt it be realistic that when you trow a nade to a tank, that the tank his
"wheels" are broken so the tank need to stand still?

Maybe you can force the entrance (shooting on it) and throw a nade in it.

Because now, when you are close to a tank without panzerfaust or boompackage, you're almost lost...

What do you think guys?

 

[Monkwarrior]

Because now, when you are close to a tank without panzerfaust or boompackage, you're almost lost...

Not almost, you'r lost.
That's exactly how it should be.

 

[mat69]

Generally grenades were not that strong against tanks, they were intened in use against infantry --> so not a small concentrate explosion, but a huge effect by fragments eg. That is why AP grenades were developed. Look at pictures of the real wheels. They are huge and massive, as the tracks are.

And how you'd want to "force entrance" is still a miracle to me.

 

[SasQuatch]

Generally grenades were not that strong against tanks, they were intened in use against infantry --> so not a small concentrate explosion, but a huge effect by fragments eg. That is why AP grenades were developed. Look at pictures of the real wheels. They are huge and massive, as the tracks are.

And how you'd want to "force entrance" is still a miracle to me.

/me knocks on hatch.

'Police! We need to see your registration and drivers lisence! Open up"

 

[JudgeMental]

Getting technical for a minute.
The purpose of hatch catches is to STOP peeps being able to open them from outside the tank. As the catches are on the INSIDE of the hatch and thus behind armour they are difficult to force. Now before anyone tells me "you can force a hatch", yes you can, I know and have done it (long story) but its not something you can do in a few seconds.
Now as far as using grenades to damage suspension/wheels etc:
We used to use explosives to cut tracks for recovery of vehicles but that was a shaped charge and needed, preparation to do. NOT the sort of thing you'd do off the cuff. As someone has already posted, grenades etc spread their force and shrapnel over a large area. In order to do MEANINGFUL damage to a tank you'd need a bundle of greanades or a sizeable charge. Again it would be a deliberate (as in slow) action to disable a vehicle.
Now I know that this is opening the floodgates for peeps to send in documentary evidence of tanks being disabled by infantry. I'm not saying for a minute that they can't be, what I'm saying is, the odds are stacked against the infantryman armed only with an IED (improvised explosive device).
Finally have you ever been NEAR a tank manoeuvering? I have and its a scary place to be even when you're on their side! Infantry DO get squished even during training exercises with tanks. Anyone who in a wartime enviroment climbed on a moving AFV to plant a charge or disable it has my respect.

 

[Strout21]

While there are cases of grenades that have indeed immobilized a tank, its few and far between. Simple physics states that an explosion will take the path of least resistance, therefore blowing away from a tank, not into it. That's why shaped charges were developed.

It's almost the same philosophy of the magic BB. On its own a BB wouldnt cause more than a nuisance to a person, but if I shot enough of them, I could eventually kill someone with one. Same deal with grenades immobilizing tanks.

I think the balance of tanks vs. infantry is perfect, if not favorable to infantry. Tanks were designed to assault infantry positions, and pretty much destroy infantry. As infantry, you should stand a slim chance against one.

 

[[RMC]Riggs]

it is a good suggestion, but the satchels are there as a kind of coverall weapon to the countless and sometimes undocumented different ways sappers and infantry dealt with tanks and armoured vehicles......

agreed with judge and strout........


and there is a way to kill someone in a tank with a grenade! Just throw the nade ontop of the drivers side of the tank, usually people drive with their heads out and boom! there goes there head.........i took on 3 tanks while on foot and disabled them all...........2 with satchels because they were so close, then hide behind one of them and tossed nades at the approaching 3rd tank, which somehow, to his and my disbelief, killed the driver!

And then i ran to the next objective and promptly got killed lol

 

[[VFD]HH]

The problem atm is in the attitude we have in respect to using tanks, infantry, etc.

If a tank dies atm, it comes back about as fast as a dead rifleman to the front lines, in many maps faster.

IRL, during WWII (especially for the germans) this would be completely silly. While people would certainly not want to lose a rifleman, a lost tank would in every way be for them. Hell, if you lost a single tank cause you ordered it to drive into an infantry trench alone without infantry support, you would probably get court marshaled.

In RO, I see in maps like Leningrad and Berezina tanks driving into areas irl they would not even go in modern combat, just so they can kill a single person.

The other problems is that on tank+infantry maps, there is an absurd amount of tankers per infantry, such things would only happen if we were looking at tank armies (which would have supporting infantry, but they often would not get directly involved in a masse tank vs tank fight. This makes Arad completly silly, while in a map ogledow, there would be plenty of infantry already in the defensive positions (if they were present) probablty with somewhat more AT weapons since they knew they were going up against tanks.

A ratio of 2 or 3 PTRDs to 12 German tanks would not have put the fear in them. Probably 1 or 2 PTRDs, plus some AT guns, all of this very well camouflaged, per german tank (and not absurdly easy like everything is to spot while being a tank commander) would make tanks more reluctant to drive in without infantry support. I'm not sure about the actual numbers, but thats probably closer to reality of a german tank brigade (attached to a german infantry division) vs a Russian infantry division.

As for a german tank div fighting a Russian infantry division, well the tanks would be there only to achieve breakthrough (or they are being used completly wrong) which both in game and real life they could achieve really easily. It would be a silly thing to model.

As for Germans fighting Russian tanks, panzerfausts are freaking everywhere and very powerful, which probably gives them too much AT capability if anything.

 

[[RMC]Riggs]

A ratio of 2 or 3 PTRDs to 12 German tanks would not have put the fear in them. Probably 1 or 2 PTRDs, plus some AT guns, all of this very well camouflaged, per german tank (and not absurdly easy like everything is to spot while being a tank commander) would make tanks more reluctant to drive in without infantry support. I'm not sure about the actual numbers, but thats probably closer to reality of a german tank brigade (attached to a german infantry division) vs a Russian infantry division.

As for a german tank div fighting a Russian infantry division, well the tanks would be there only to achieve breakthrough (or they are being used completly wrong) which both in game and real life they could achieve really easily. It would be a silly thing to model.

As for Germans fighting Russian tanks, panzerfausts are freaking everywhere and very powerful, which probably gives them too much AT capability if anything.

ive come across lots of evidence and after action reports of AT groups, namely PTRD rifle fire teams consisting of 4-5 guns per group and there being 4-5 groups per sector that isnt being covered by AT artillery. The guns would wait until the tanks closed to 150m preferably, but could engage at 200-300m depending on the target. All 4-5 gunners would fire at one time to maximize the effect. This would result in either a tank leaving or being disabled.......or enough time for tanks to be redirect to deal with the tanks that have encroached.

The infantry were trained that in a defensive position, if tanks moved in to hide in their trenches. Once the tanks had passed overhead they were to take out the accompanying infantry and then proceed to destroy the tanks AT ALL COSTS.

The russian defensive scheme wasnt based on numbers of AT guns and PTRD rifles per german tank, it was organized into defensive sectors accompanied by combat engineers and supported by 2-3 rings of defense consisting of mines, AT guns, tanks and roving bands of Combat engineers that were formed into tank hunting groups and were responsible for their sector of defense. This included laying new sets of mines in the path of the advance by the enemy.......

alot of this info is already in this thread:
http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21228

and alot of information can be found on:
http://www.lonesentry.com/

 

[[VFD]HH]

Tanks are also designed to do more than just kill tanks, so in that aspect even if the tiger is equal to the several allied tanks of equal cost (or maybe even better) in a tank vs tank fight, they are still overall better.

Combine that with the main job of tanks is to be mobile, and the huge lack of mobility in tiger's compared to say T34s, and overall imo its clear which tank is better.

Anyways, back on topic, the best way to look into adding it would see how people are adding KV1s and KV2s, since they are in similar boats.

 

[Funker42]

Well there should be more anti-tank methods than satchels and panzerfausts like magnetic AT mines attached to the sides and of course Molotov cocktails

But simple grenade wouldn't take out a track.

 

[Drapan]

Wouldn't a grenade be able to take out track if it was jammed in between the chassis, "wheels" and tracks? Know what I mean

(Not saying this would be anything to put ingame)

 

[D3terioNation]

I wonder if a tank wheel can crush a grenade, rendering it useless?

 

[Strout21]

A tank could render a grenade useless by running it over. all tha has to happen is the fuse must be removed from the explosive core.

Also, a grenade could destroy the treads of a tank if it was timed just right and put in the exact place on the gears or treads so the path of least resistance would be the tread, and nothing else. Given the range of fuses for even the same exact type of grenades (for example modern U.S. grenades have a fuse of 3-5 seconds, which is a pretty big gap) this would be almost impossible to replicate with any type of consistent success in battlefield conditions.

So long story short, yes a tank can render a grenade harmless, and yes a tank can be rendered immobile by a grenade. Both would be very, very rare though.

 

[Tanuki]

Early in the war the Germans used a bundle of grenades together as an improvised anti-tank weapon. Even against the early war tanks this was fairly inefective, though yes it was sometimes able to damage a track and thus imobolise a tank. However in reality the ocasions when this happend seem to be few and far between, with it being more comon for a tank to throw a track of its own accord due to wear or minor damage, coupled with rough terain.

Later on shaped charge hand grenades were developed as a pre-cursor to the panzerfaust. Though these would probably be more aptly described as a magnetic mine, with which it was required to place the charge on vulnerable parts of the tank such as the engine compartment. The fact that the German forces saw fit to develope such weapons would seem to indicate that the earlier cluster grenade aproach was inefective.

Also as [VFD]HH points out Tanks would rarely be used in the manner they are on a lot of RO maps. More often than not if you as an infantry man are facing tanks, your team will also be equiped with tanks. The maps are designed to be balanced and to encourage team play. If every soldier could take out a tank, what would be the point of the AT classes, or even the tanks for that matter?

Remember as a general infantry man you job is to take and hold ground. One enemy tank trundeling around in a cap is not going to achieve much if its infantry cant get up to the cap with it. Call in support from your armour or At infantry and get back to your job of stopping those rifle men, if the map is well balanced they should be well equiped to deal with its threat.

 

[Tripper]

Press <Ctrl>S to remove your socks and <Ctrl>P to pack the sock with C4.

Because this is a game, the socks are assumed sticky. Axel grease realism freaks will have to wait for the next patch.

Anyway, at that point you should see your avatar holding a black (brown for Soviets) sock in their right hand.

You then have to throw the sock at a tank by pressing your primary attack button.

That's how you do it.

 

[Athena]

Press <Ctrl>S to remove your socks and <Ctrl>P to pack the sock with C4.

Because this is a game, the socks are assumed sticky. Axel grease realism freaks will have to wait for the next patch.

Anyway, at that point you should see your avatar holding a black (brown for Soviets) sock in their right hand.

You then have to throw the sock at a tank by pressing your primary attack button.

That's how you do it.

lmao

Been trying to save Ryan one too many times, eh?

 

[slyder73]

Wouldn't a grenade be able to take out track if it was jammed in between the chassis, "wheels" and tracks? Know what I mean

(Not saying this would be anything to put ingame)

No, the force would still spill out to the sides. Unless you had a shaped charge directing the force in one direction you aren't going to be taking the tracks off a tank with much less than another tank round, large explosive etc. Even the shaped charges and Panzerfausts and armour piercing bullets from the PTRD rifle were designed to be used against the crew cabin/fuel/ammo areas, not the tracks.

To hit the area on the track with those smaller weapons is a much much smaller target (hitting the "link" where it would seperate). The rest of the tank is a large target and getting that white hot spall of burning gasses and schrapnel through and onto the crew with an AP round is much more effective at stopping the crew from repairing the tank or jumping into a different one that simply taking the track off.

 

[Soziopath]

Since when are tanks living beings with the ability of getting killed? You don't kill tanks, tanks kill you. They're insane murderous machines designed to take out humans and to destroy, destroy and destroy.

But... that sockbomb idea is quite intriguing. Couldn't be there a server side option to enable sockbombing, combined with severe trench feet that keep your soldier scratching his feet instead of holding his gun?

The only thing being nice would be the ability to shoot through a tank driver's hatch - (the peephole he's looking through, not the one being used to get in and out) but since I'm a RO tank driver myself, I wouldn't like that at all.

 

[odin1899]

The only thing being nice would be the ability to shoot through a tank driver's hatch - (the peephole he's looking through, not the one being used to get in and out) but since I'm a RO tank driver myself, I wouldn't like that at all.

AFAIK almost all featured tanks in RO have either reinforced glass there or use a periscope construction.