• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Suggestion for PTRD

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sichartshofen

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
1,410
99
0
33
What's next? People shouldn't die from a non-lethal but incapacitating wound in infantry vs infantry combat (in RO)? Just because that is unrealistic too?
That already does happen.

Ok Sichartshofen, please try to explain why the Russians did use the PTRD untill the end of the war and against heavy tanks to boot.
I never said they didn't use them to shoot optics/vision ports. I find the idea that tanks should explode because their optics are shot out is ridiculous.
 

Rrralphster

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 4, 2006
1,411
106
0
47
Nederland
That already does happen.


I never said they didn't use them to shoot optics/vision ports. I find the idea that tanks should explode because their optics are shot out is ridiculous.

Yes that (non-lethal wounds) allready does happen... That's what I'm saying all the time.
The same should go for tanks when they recieve a non-lethal but incapacitating shot (destroyed optics, panzerglass, tracks). They die, like a soldier who just recieved a non-lethal but incapacitating shot.
But in the game it is displayed with an explosion.
 

sander

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 24, 2006
635
0
0
30
The Netherlands
My 2 eurocents:

-Make the PTDR weaker so it can only DISABLE the heavier tanks (the RUssians used them at the end of the war against the tracks, not to kill an panther!)
-give the Russian AT guy an rifle or SMG
-give the Germans the Russian PTDR for <44 maps (they used a lot captured ones)
-Make the Panzerfaust stronger (one hit kill at most points)
-Only one Panzerfaust for the German AT guy
-Make some new AT weapons like tellermines, hohenladungen (magnetic), AT grenades for the Russians etc

Maybe also something so that Russians can't use the Panzerfaust, I haven't heard from them using the Panzerfaust (if they did than I've said nothing!).
 

Mormegil

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
4,178
574
0
Nargothrond
That is the stupidest idea ever. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to hit something as small as the optics. Because a tank gets its optics shot it should explode, yeah right. :rolleyes:

That's the stupidest thing I've read in this thread so far. NOBODY is suggesting that shooting out optics should blow up a tank.

If they did, please quote it.

We want optics to be shot out and become...broken optics. Meaning, you can't see with them anymore.



Sich, I'm sorry you have to be realistic (in the sense of business and gameplay). If you make the game realistic in one respect without balancing it with realism in another or helping to balance the gameplay, you'll end up with a game few will want to play.

It goes back to my realistic stick vs realistic gun analogy. Just because it's realistic doesn't mean people will want to play it.
 

Crim

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 6, 2006
297
0
0
Why do people think the Panzerfaust weighed so much? It weighed 6 kg. The PTRD weighed 16 kg.

By the way, people definitely ARE suggesting that a tank losing its optics should explode because it 'can't be used anymore' because, realistically, the crew would be forced to bail.

Show me an account where the crew was forced to bail due to PTRD fire.

If a tank was in danger of getting its viewports shot out, the driver would simply slide down the armored hatch that usually covered the viewports and navigate via periscopes and the commander's orders.

The crew wouldn't immediately bail due to a single PTRD crew shooting at the frontal armor of their tank.

Yes that (non-lethal wounds) allready does happen... That's what I'm saying all the time.
The same should go for tanks when they recieve a non-lethal but incapacitating shot (destroyed optics, panzerglass, tracks). They die, like a soldier who just recieved a non-lethal but incapacitating shot.
But in the game it is displayed with an explosion.
The tank combat system should not be as simple as the infantry combat system, you idiot. I have no problems with calling you an idiot, because thinking like that probably means you're an idiot.

By the way, Mormegil: You played Leningrad this weekend. Ever notice how easy it was for us in the Panzer III to be killed by a PTRD shot to the front?

The PTRD is over powered. Fact. It needs to be far less effective, because right now, it is the most unrealistic weapon currently modeled in game.
 

Mormegil

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
4,178
574
0
Nargothrond
I think we've definately established that we can argue until we're blue in the face, without changing anybody's minds.


Ultimately, it's up to TW or someone in the community to write a Mutator to deal with the situation.


Oh, and the argument that shooting optics = tank exploding, because you leave the tank, so it explodes doesn't hold water in my opinion. You can always stay in the tank. Nobody is forcing you to leave. Sure it won't let you spawn a new tank, but the same thing can be said about any disabled tank. They blow up due to gameplay. If they didn't blow up, you won't get a new spawn...and guess what? Spawning is also unreastic. This is still a game, so we'll have to keep with the spawning and exploding abandoned tanks until the hardware lets us have dozens of immobilized tanks littering the battlefield.


And one more off topic thing. I'd like to know if it's realistic or not realistic to have guys running around with 3 panzerfausts. Did that really happen anywhere besides maybe Berlin? Does anybody have any references showing soldiers carrying 3 fausts into battle?
 

BeserkWraithlor

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 3, 2006
461
0
0
Arizona
Why do people think the Panzerfaust weighed so much? It weighed 6 kg. The PTRD weighed 16 kg.

By the way, people definitely ARE suggesting that a tank losing its optics should explode because it 'can't be used anymore' because, realistically, the crew would be forced to bail.

Show me an account where the crew was forced to bail due to PTRD fire.

If a tank was in danger of getting its viewports shot out, the driver would simply slide down the armored hatch that usually covered the viewports and navigate via periscopes and the commander's orders.

The crew wouldn't immediately bail due to a single PTRD crew shooting at the frontal armor of their tank.

The tank combat system should not be as simple as the infantry combat system, you idiot. I have no problems with calling you an idiot, because thinking like that probably means you're an idiot.

By the way, Mormegil: You played Leningrad this weekend. Ever notice how easy it was for us in the Panzer III to be killed by a PTRD shot to the front?

The PTRD is over powered. Fact. It needs to be far less effective, because right now, it is the most unrealistic weapon currently modeled in game.
Ironic how you are calling a person an idiot, but you say PTRD is overpowered. Stop being an asshat, use constructive critisism, not flaming.
 

Crim

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 6, 2006
297
0
0
It's not realistic, and instead most soldiers on the German team should have a single panzerfaust that will kill any Russian vehicle in a single hit in post-1944 battles.

I like how you artfully abandoned your "nobody's saying the tanks should explode!" stance and adopted an easier-to-defend one instead, and then immediately accused the way Panzerfausts are represented in game of being unrealistic.

To the (idiot) above me: ptrd is overpowered lol

To the (idiot) below me (same idiot as above me): yes I was talking to Mormegil.
 
Last edited:

Mormegil

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
4,178
574
0
Nargothrond
This arguement, is literally going in circles.

Wheee!



Anyways. I agree with Crim on the Fausts. More lethal, but carry one at most.

I mentioned the fausts, as off topic, and they had been mentioned before. Sorry to go off topic.

And as far as "abandoning" my "nobody said optics should explode argument" - I don't know what you're talking about, as I have in there. I just continued my post with a different topic.
Me said:
Oh, and the argument that shooting optics = tank exploding, because you leave the tank, so it explodes doesn't hold water in my opinion. You can always stay in the tank. Nobody is forcing you to leave. Sure it won't let you spawn a new tank, but the same thing can be said about any disabled tank. They blow up due to gameplay. If they didn't blow up, you won't get a new spawn...and guess what? Spawning is also unreastic. This is still a game, so we'll have to keep with the spawning and exploding abandoned tanks until the hardware lets us have dozens of immobilized tanks littering the battlefield.
I'd like to add that Sich seems to agree with me on this point by his quote of:
Sichartshofen said:
Actually no, a disabled tank in RO will sit there until the crew abandon it. By this retarded logic, when I shoot the tracks off an angled IS-2 it should automatically explode.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I'm still waiting to see a quote where someone suggests that hitting the optics should blow up the tank.

By the way, if PTRDs were so useless, why were the skirts put on tanks(granted on Panzer IVs)? I understand initially to defend against ATRs, not HEAT rounds. Am I wrong?

Somebody please answer me. Do you guys deny that they could damage vision slits, periscopes, tracks, suspension, MGs?


Oh, I'm still working on finding an account of tanks being abandoned due to ATR fire - unfortunately, Babelfish seems to be broken right now, and I don't read Russian.
 

Crim

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 6, 2006
297
0
0
Germans also covered some of their tanks in anti-magnetic paste, in order to prevent the attachment of magnetic mines.

They were the only nation to have widespread use of magnetic anti-tank mines in the war.

They liked to be careful.

Yes, they could damage all of those. However, since none of those in the game, that use of the PTRD should not be simulated in game by blowing up the entire tank in a single shot, nor should it be simulated by making the entire tank weaker to incoming enemy tank rounds.
 

Teufel Hund

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 31, 2006
261
21
0
Somebody please answer me. Do you guys deny that they could damage vision slits, periscopes, tracks, suspension, MGs?
I don't believe anyone is saying that the PTRD could not damage these things. However, they are VERY small targets, and in the case of the periscopes, vision slits, optics, etc. could only be targeted from the front. Do you really want to be the one to carry that big huge rifle right in front of a tank close enough that you could hit those targets? :eek:

Like I said earlier, I have no doubt that the PTRD could disable a Tiger or Panther, and I'm sure that it did happen at least once. But I doubt very much that it was a common tactic to attempt to shoot at out periscopes or optics.

Can anyone actually come up with more than two or three seperate documented cases of this happening? Because surely if this was such an easy and effective thing to do with the huge number of PTRD's in use this would have happened many times.

The PTRD was still used until the end of the war for the simple reason that it was still very effective against the many armored cars, and half-tracks that the Germans used. Not because it was so effective at disabling mid-late war tanks.

I still say the best answer is to fix the PTRD so that it's realistic, and give the Germans a couple of sdkfz 251 variants and a sdkfz 222. Then the PTRD will have some historically accurate targets for it to shoot at.
 

Sichartshofen

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
1,410
99
0
33
And as far as "abandoning" my "nobody said optics should explode argument" - I don't know what you're talking about, as I have in there. I just continued my post with a different topic
This is wonderboy's post.

Question is "did they use them just to annoy?"
No.
They forced tankcrews out of their tanks because they couldn't drive anymore or they couldn't see anymore.
It's not too hard to imagine how this works in RO.
Tank = damaged beyond use ---> "BOOM" just like a non-lethal shot in infantry vs infantry ---> "DEATH"

So a frontal shot on a Tiger simulates taking out the optics (panzerglass and/or gunoptics).
This results in an explosion (in RO) because the tank is useless.

hard concept to grasp.
 

Maus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 8, 2006
294
0
0
www.norml.org
I don't believe anyone is saying that the PTRD could not damage these things. However, they are VERY small targets, and in the case of the periscopes, vision slits, optics, etc. could only be targeted from the front. Do you really want to be the one to carry that big huge rifle right in front of a tank close enough that you could hit those targets? :eek:

Like I said earlier, I have no doubt that the PTRD could disable a Tiger or Panther, and I'm sure that it did happen at least once. But I doubt very much that it was a common tactic to attempt to shoot at out periscopes or optics.

Can anyone actually come up with more than two or three seperate documented cases of this happening? Because surely if this was such an easy and effective thing to do with the huge number of PTRD's in use this would have happened many times.

The PTRD was still used until the end of the war for the simple reason that it was still very effective against the many armored cars, and half-tracks that the Germans used. Not because it was so effective at disabling mid-late war tanks.

I still say the best answer is to fix the PTRD so that it's realistic, and give the Germans a couple of sdkfz 251 variants and a sdkfz 222. Then the PTRD will have some historically accurate targets for it to shoot at.
Good post!
 

Zbojnik

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 30, 2006
670
0
0
Chicago
Maybe also something so that Russians can't use the Panzerfaust, I haven't heard from them using the Panzerfaust (if they did than I've said nothing!).
Hi. Using the Panzerfaust was an incredibly easy task. The instructions were printed on the label. But often soldiers(non german speaking. Finns or Italians) would put it on there shoulder like a rifle and get burned badly.
 

Mormegil

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
4,178
574
0
Nargothrond
Like I said earlier, I have no doubt that the PTRD could disable a Tiger or Panther, and I'm sure that it did happen at least once. But I doubt very much that it was a common tactic to attempt to shoot at out periscopes or optics.
I disagree. Here's why, straight out of the PTRD manual
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=280&Itemid=123
PTRD manual said:
Vulnerable spots on tanks (armored vehicles)

The most vulnerable spots of tanks are: their flanks (fuel cells), drive sprocket, sights, vision devices, and rear hull (engine compartment); of armored vehicles - the engine, located in the forward portion of the vehicle.
When firing at the tank T-III aim as shown in figure 2.
Here's a couple of accounts on PTRDs being useful (someone asked for an account)

From http://www.sudden-strike.ru/history/detail.php?ID=2754&print=Y
August 24 1942, Stalingrad (consider early or late war? Dunno tank type unfortunately)
Four tanks down by PTRD used by untrained soldier (radioman or political officer)

"here Yevtifeyev took aim, went
down cock. Shot occurred, but front tank did not stop. For
the second time took aim. Shot burst out, tank began to rattle,
smoke released, and then it stopped. - it lined... it lined... -
soldiers joyfully addressed... Still they gave two shots, and
two additional tanks lined. On the fifth shot the oversight
left. Did not fall Yevtifeyev. It hurried. By the
sixth cartridge Of evtifeyev nailed to the earth the fourth tank."

Tiger vulnerable
"During January 1943,
attempting to close the breach of Soviet troops at the Volkhov Front,
Germans threw in the battle the newest tanks T -.VI"Tigr". These
machines then there were the schitannye units. They underwent
troop tests, so that it would be possible to consider experience of
their operating and combat use in the construction of series machine.
And here with this "tiger" entered the single combat the
antitank riflemen of Volkhov Front. By well-aimed shots they
derived from the system all inspection systems of tank. Crew
stupefied by this ran, after throwing almost proper machine.
Without desiring to leave it in the hands of the Red Army,
Germans opened fire on their machine and undertook even several
attacks. But our repulsed tank and drove away to show it
specialists. After several months to the Kursk battle all
vulnerable places of "tigers" were known."


By the way, I can't find any post by a "wonderboy" supporting hitting the optics should blow up tanks.
 

Rrralphster

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 4, 2006
1,411
106
0
47
Nederland
A fact people seem to miss, which I already stated in another thread (I don't exactly recall which one), is that 30% of German armour was disabled* by AT-rifles. Something I read in several books from the Russian point of view.

[sarcasm] So you can see clearly that AT-rifles ****ed and had no use at all.
During the end of the war they only used them to annoy the Germans and to put themselves at risk and maybe use up all the surplus ammo they still had. [/sarcasm]



*disabled= Not destroyed per se but made unusable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.