I could see if it was planted on the tank but these things are being tossed METERS away and destroying even the most heavily armored tanks. This is rediculous. Explosive power means nothing to a tank unless it's directed ON the target. I know this has been brought up before, but I don't want to let this die. Can a dev chime in on this as why they are so deadly to armor at range?
So why are high explosive satchel charges destroying tanks?
- Thread starter Harry S. Truman
- Start date
Post sources???
You do realize to cut or penetrate metal with high explosvies, say demolishing a building, the explosve charge MUST be in contact with the item you are trying to destroy. Unless it's a REALLY big explosive charge, like a 1000 kg bomb, then the blast wave can knock over things, but we are only talking about 10kg of HE. Hell, pick up any army engineering guide (today or WWII) and it shows how you have to put the blast into contact with the item you are wishing to destroy. An explosion is nothing more than expanding gasses. 10 kg of HE would have zero destructive power on an armored tank if it was just tossed onto open ground nearby.
I don't need sources. It's simple physics and chemistry.
Upvote
0
Both the Faust and the PTRD are adequate against most armored vehicles.
There are plenty of other things they can give infantry to fight them as well.
The satchel charge is simply too powerful against AFV's right now. On late war tanks, the effectiveness would be even less unless placed in a vulnerable area.
Upvote
0
I've seen a tank being destroyed by a satchel charge that was 2 meters away and still blowing up the tank. The radius and damage against tanks is way too much.
Upvote
0
And even though satchels kill tanks from many meters away, I have threwn 2 satchels ON a single tank and it didnt get destroyed, many times.
Upvote
0
Satchel charges in game are 3kg, actually. The high explosive round of an IS-2 weighs somewhere in the area of 22kg.
A satchel placed on top of or beside a tank wouldn't do much. Most of the blast energy is expended upwards. Instead, placing it underneath the tank would do the most damage. Even then, it probably wouldn't destroy the tank, because it's only 3kg worth of explosives.
However, the crew wouldn't be in very good shape after getting satcheled, and the tank probably wouldn't function properly depending on where the satchel was placed. This needs to be modeled, rather than outright destruction.
I'd say more, but I'd just be saying what I've already said many times before.
A satchel placed on top of or beside a tank wouldn't do much. Most of the blast energy is expended upwards. Instead, placing it underneath the tank would do the most damage. Even then, it probably wouldn't destroy the tank, because it's only 3kg worth of explosives.
However, the crew wouldn't be in very good shape after getting satcheled, and the tank probably wouldn't function properly depending on where the satchel was placed. This needs to be modeled, rather than outright destruction.
I'd say more, but I'd just be saying what I've already said many times before.
Upvote
0
Yes, Crim tends to have a lot to say in that regard...
I would be in favor of a system like WWIIOL, where you had to plant the satchels on certain parts of a vehicle in order to disable or destroy it. A disabled tank is just about as good as a dead tank, and your own team's tanks would have to finish the job.
I would be in favor of a system like WWIIOL, where you had to plant the satchels on certain parts of a vehicle in order to disable or destroy it. A disabled tank is just about as good as a dead tank, and your own team's tanks would have to finish the job.
Upvote
0
I guess this is meant to be a stop gap untill they put in magnetic mines. The devs have said IIRC that they plan to implement magnetic mines. So I guess the satchel is there in place of it for now.
Upvote
0
Yeah this problem can easily be fixed, just make it so they have to be tossed underneath the tank. If placed there they would either take out a track, or damage crew or disable the engine.
ADD DAMAGBLE CREW!!!!
ADD DAMAGBLE CREW!!!!
Upvote
0
Good question, O.P.
This is one of the niggles in the game that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
This is one of the niggles in the game that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Upvote
0
Probably the best unoffical reason.
And before anyone forgets, satchels were first added to take out objectives. Not tanks.
Upvote
0
What I'd suggest is that to destroy a tank, the satchel must be placed:
A) On top of the tank's rear deck,
B) Under the tank, or
C) In the treads, between the wheels.
This would be relatively realistic and would also require a certain amount of skill on the part of the guy tossing the satchel, but I wouldn't think it would be too difficult.
A) On top of the tank's rear deck,
B) Under the tank, or
C) In the treads, between the wheels.
This would be relatively realistic and would also require a certain amount of skill on the part of the guy tossing the satchel, but I wouldn't think it would be too difficult.
Upvote
0
yes this happens to me alot in a tiger one time the charge was 3 metres away and it blew my tiger up
like a bomb from a aircraft
Upvote
0
Are you for real???????? cmon dude, pussy tankers teleport in nanoseconds with pp****s when the infantry is trying to knock em out, I totally agree with you about track destruction/imbobilized tank, IF the devs add some "realistic" bail delay or something like that, nothing fancy, just the right seconds it takes to bail out.
God I hate those kind of tankers, plz just die in your tanks.
Upvote
0
I agree with you. That would be good with exit anim. or delay. However you can still surprise them and shoot them as soon as they get out.
Upvote
0
