handgranades and tanks

[dogbadger]

And like others said, tanks are too vulnerable. Satchels and so on...

Aint that the truth- a Satch shouldn't blow tanks up and kill the occupants in the first place, unless the tank were to be sitting directly on top of it. Otherwise they should take out the track from sides, maybe blow the engine from close behind, and at most wreck the barrel from the front.
Satchels should be capable of doing little more than what this thread suggests 'nades should do.

However a 'nade though an open driver's hatch, (phaps left open after he's shot)- now thats a different matter. Or land one through the commander's cuppola from downtown for the big 3-pointer...

 

[HansGering]

I still think it could be used.
was never thinking of it as efficiant as an charge. But such as.. 1 out of 20, or 1 out of 30 chance... working every time would have been too imba..

 

[Kipper]

I'd rather just see AT mines to replace the satchels as the AT weapon of choice.

 

[Nugetti23]

I think it would be great if I can destroy tankbelt and thatway stop tank at nade.

 

[Wolfsglen]

When nades could damage tanks a long while back, the amount of complaints about it was incredible (i was one of the ones hated it too) I think ya would be better off nagging the mapper to add some satchels or 'fausts than wanting nades doing that again.

Would be great to see some proper anti-tank charges/'nades to make that easier though

 

[angelangel]

I'm still wanting a AT Grenade...

 

[Xendance]

that is Smolensk, i played that version to, im not sure if it is the mapper or the server who did this.
really annoying, that stug3 has nothing to fear and just runs around on the map, it makes you realise how powerless the infantry is, being able to damage them with grenades would be helpfull

Rofl. Where the hell did you play that? It wasn't even in the 1st beta. Some moron apparently ripped the alpha test version off the Core #1 server AAAAGES ago. Someone tell the admin to get it off rotation and get the newest one.

As the author of that map: Get the alpha version of the map off rotation!
I don't like people saying that it ****s (well it does, it wasn't even supposed to be released) when they base their opinions on the alpha version of the map.


All I can say is: ****ing nubcaek admin.

 

[3rd Reich Mike]

lol...there's 2 situations when I lob grenades at tanks: 1.) if I'm close enough to see tank crewmen with their heads out and I don't have a rifle; 2.) If I want to shake them up a bit to draw their attention from something.

I've come across many people panicking inside their tanks once things start going off around them. Not to mention rifle rounds sound pretty close to Russian AT Rifle rounds when hearing it from the inside of a tank...especially if the Russian AT Rifle guy doesn't know what he's doing and shooting at a bad angle. Something to ponder on...man I love this game!!!

 

[niklas627]

I’m a bit against that a grenade should have the possibility to damage a tank. I understand that it is possibly damage a tank with a hand grenade.
The only possibility to damage a tank with a grenade is to be really lucky.

You must be aware that a tank can take a direct hit from HE guns like howitzers.
A hand grenade is nothing more than a HE shell.

Maybe if the grenade is landing on the top you have a chance to damage the tank, or if the hatch is open you are even able to take out the crew.

How ever, it is much better to throw a grenade than to do nothing and be over run.
You have the possibility that the grenade damage some thing, like the sight, or distract the tank crew.

cheers/
niklas

 

[mon amour]

effect of grenades ...

effect of grenades ...

actually it is not possible to destroy a tank by using a grenade .
the small amount of explosive of a grenade is purpose to eject with high velocity small pieces of metals to kill or more nasty now to wound or injured a
soldier ..
the mass of high explosive that contains a grenade will never be able to perfore a tank armor ..
whatever the only possiblity to damage the tracks of a tank will be to attach few grenades together and then fixes them and press them in between the trackmotion and the tank making it very tight , in purpose to create the maximum stress to be released by the high explosive ...

but in the reality , the one who has had the oportunity to see ,hear,and feel for REAL a heavy tank close , these ones knows that the only think that's possible against a heavy tank is : Runninggggggggggggggggggggggg !!!!

 

[Ranari]

You could destroy tanks with grenades in Battlefield 1942, and I always thought it was lame. I say no thanks! Tankers already have to be on their toes against infantry with Panzerfausts, PTRDs, or Satchel charges. Even a well crewed tank has a hard time engaging determined infantry. The only thing I see happening with having grenades damage tanks is a sense of fearlessness in the infantry combating them.

 

[Gunfan9x19]

I think that you should be able to. BUT, the infantryman would have to hit the tank in such a way that, if this were not a game but real-life combat, the resulting effect would occur to the tank. For example, if a tread is inside the blast radius, but the grenade isn't in the treads or isn't within a foot of the tread, the tread would not be disabled, but would be damaged. If the player is able to get a grenade on top of the tank, it would damage the armor, and that part of the tank.

Also, I think that a lot of the people who are complaining that it would be too easy for an infantryman to become a tank killer have failed to take into account that the tank can defend itself very well from infantry. When was the last time YOU ran toward an enemy tank without having the onboard MG/cannon mow you down?

 

[_MB_]

I like the ideas of grenades doing something to pester tanks.

Absolutely no way should any number of grenades do any kind of penetration damage to a tank's hull.

Damaging tracks should be extremely rare. One in every thousand grenades rare.

I'm more interested in grenades going off against the hull being very noisy to disorientate the crew, maybe temporarily reducing volume for the crew and blurring vision - like 5 seconds maximum.

 

[Bobdog]

Let grenades damage tanks' tracks, but ONLY their tracks. Also, make it so it does not succeed the majority of the time. You could make a few small hitboxes; one of which the grenade would have to land inside to be successful, or you could simply make it percentage based, so it only succeeds 8 or 10% of the time.

Infantrymen will have a somewhat effective weapon to disable tanks without making every grunt a tank-killing machine; tank crews will still be safe as long as they stay buttoned up. Problem solved.

 

[RedGuardist]

I think that you should be able to. BUT, the infantryman would have to hit the tank in such a way that, if this were not a game but real-life combat, the resulting effect would occur to the tank. For example, if a tread is inside the blast radius, but the grenade isn't in the treads or isn't within a foot of the tread, the tread would not be disabled, but would be damaged. If the player is able to get a grenade on top of the tank, it would damage the armor, and that part of the tank.

I think that we should stick with the partial realism we have now and not lame it.

Handgrenades damaging or even destroying tanks would be far too gamey. And terribly unrealistic.

Because if we go with that bolded text, you would have to shovel the nade through cannon barrel before anything damage happens to tank. Or put the nade between track and trackwheel and beg for jesus, or what ever makes you feel warm inside.

I think that you all know that tanks are made of steel and not of tin foil. And about 100 grams of TNT or hexatol or whatever that explosive material in handgrenades is, will never be able damage tank effectively.

Because if it would, would they have invented different kind of infantry AT nades, magnetic mine and stuff like that, if handgrenades worked. No, they would have not.

I rest my case.

 

[xka]

I think a balanced solution could be this:

Russian engeneer soldier
Posibility of choosing Satchel or AT magnetic mine.

Russian Antitank soldier
The awfull at rifle, and AT magnetic mine

German antitank soldier
it could use a stick granade cluster. In WWII germans called "Geballte Ladung " (concentrated charge), to attack tanks.

 

[RedGuardist]

I think a balanced solution could be this:

Russian engeneer soldier
Posibility of choosing Satchel or AT magnetic mine.

Russian Antitank soldier
The awfull at rifle, and AT magnetic mine

German antitank soldier
it could use a stick granade cluster. In WWII germans called "Geballte Ladung " (concentrated charge), to attack tanks.

Sort of good idea. BUT...

Problem being only that, that soviets did not have magnetic AT mines.

Weren`t they exlusively german used weapon? And the irony is there that only germans used Zimmerit to protect tanks from magnetic mines and their enemys did not even use magnetic AT mines. I`m not 100 % sure though.

AT grenades for soviets is a good idea and been discussed a lot. Same with Geballte Ladung and magnetic AT mines for germans. They would satisfy me.

 

[HansGering]

When did suddenly people come up with the idea of penetrating the armor? .. I never said anthing about penetrating tank armor... Just the chanse of immobilize them... ofcause a small chanse, but if it is one out of a hundred or two hundred it would be really nice if there actually where a slightest chanse.

 

[Eater1]

I'm still confused as to why people have some strange perception that tanks could not be harmed by infantry. Given enough time, a single guy with a screwdriver could probably disable a tank if he got close enough. Tanks were powerful machines because infantry could rarely touch them at range, while they could pick off individual soldiers. Some of the highest tank casualty rates (today as in WW2) occur when tanks drive through cities and get ambushed.

 

[Ranari]

And I'm still confused as to why all the sudden people want to disable tanks with grenades. Do you not like to feel powerless when a hulking 40 ton behemoth comes treading your direction? Hey, I don't either, but whether you realize it or not, it actually promotes coordination and teamwork to help knock it out. Interdependancy of classes is a great thing for this game. It's something other first person shooters/simulators don't have (*cough* DoD *cough*).

And also, most tanks are going to be supported by infantry to help cover their flanks. The chance of anyone scooting up to a tank and dropping a pack of explosives in the wheelwell is going to be slim to none (though it did happen). Since infantry rarely actually support tanks in this game, giving tanks that small, minor freebie of not having to worry about getting disabled by hand grenades probably works out to the enemy's advantage - At least you're not being fired upon by BOTH the tank and infantry support.