They didn’t “fail”, they just weren’t as effective as they’re portrayed in game, and were quite effective at disabling or destroying tanks when properly used.
Do you even understand the statement here “when properly placed”. Do you know how tiny an area that is for most tanks. Once again I stated this time and time again… your complete refusal to read and lack of knowledge on this topic is stagger.
“how tiny an area for most tanks” You mean the literal entire bottom of the tank and roof of the tank, that make up roughly half of the surface area of the vehicle?
Sure, it’s hard to hit if you’re throwing a grenade from a lengthy distance, but that’s not a “tiny area” nor were the charges IRL a failure in any sense of the word, with the M7 charge (or rather, clones of it) still being in use today in an anti-vehicle role. They are not a “failure” as you have stated, therefore, I would argue.
I think the issue here is rather than a lack of comprehension, or my lack of reading, is a distinct disagreement in interpretation. I see these high-explosive munitions as being successful in their roles historically, whereas you do not. I feel that while they are over-performing in game, that as a mobility kill IRL would be an effectively killed vehicle, as would any penetration or injured crew member of a tank generally leading to the bailing of the crew, it’s not particularly stretching to leave them performing as such they are in-game. Whereas you would rather they not lead to such.
We also seem to be at a disagreement in regards to the difficulty in detonating charges on the roof or below a vehicle, given I already aim to do so in-game with regular success with my explosive charges.
There’s also your disregard for the CDC and historical statistical evidence for the lethal radius of explosives in real life, and ignoring the fact that the explosives we were talking about weren’t the sort that would be dug into the ground on account of being hand grenades, but that’s less on topic for the game proper.
2 Likes
Yeah thats not how it works. First of penetrations doesn’t mean damage. Second in order for either of those (top or bottom) basically must be place on the armor in order to get that and placed properly. Just tossing them on it unless a near perfect throw is not going to cut it. Its why anti-tank mines were effective vs just about every tank because the underside was only between 10-15mm of armor and you could get contact or near contact combined with directional force from the mine.
That whole argument of them being useful as “mines” just goes to debunk your whole argument. They can’t penetration crap.
Further anti-vehicle is not anti-tank. You keep trying to shift things around and trying to repost my words and claim them as yours.
I literally have read army reports from WW2 on arty, HE, anti-tank, penetration, etc on how explosives work vs armor. Further I have experience using explosives in real life. Your hollywood history is BS.
Since hollywood is the only thing you trust heres a mythbuster epic that covers a bit of this. They use a cast iron 1in sewer. 9 sticks and a car is basically undamaged.
“hollywood history”
I’m sorry, but what? I admit to not having hard-world experience with explosives, but I do take pride in my scholarly pursuits and my historical book-based knowledge. I don’t base things off movies or bullshit like that, but historical records and non-fiction books accounting for things, and more than a good amount of time on google looking for additional details about things on a very regular basis. I dedicate an average of 12 hours per week towards reading history books or articles, the majority of which being military history, and 20 hours per week reading non-fiction overall, including medical journals. So please, take your insinuations of my being a malinformed individual who knows nothing beyond mass media elsewhere.
I also fail to see how explovies being useful in a mine-type role debunks my argument in any fashion or form.
I’m also aware that anti-vehicle is not anti-tank. I’m also well aware that tanks have changed in design since WW2 and they have much better mine and explosive protection than they had at the time. Hence why such charges are no longer used with the intention of being anti-tank - a charge that would have killed a Panzer IV in WW2 won’t do anywhere nearly as well against an M60, Abrams, etc.
I I also have not tried to shift things around to claim they are my own words rather than yours, rather I have disagreed with your stance on various points.
Again with the “hollywood” bullshit, get the fuck out of here with that strawman.
the neck snapping is sorta…dubious. At the time, among soldiers at least, and especially US G.I.s, there was a very real concern, however unmerited, that if you were say, riding in a jeep or halftrack, and an explosion went off nearby, the shockwave would catch your helmet and break your neck (or at least hurt it).
How I assume that’s supposed to come about is not that the helmet ‘catches’ the shockwave like wind or something, but that the force of the shockwave tries to fling the helmet upwards or sideways, which, since it’s not actually connected to you, it can do. The helmet, being sorta heavy, and now moving at speed (for a very short distance) will suddenly be stopped by the chinstrap, and will dump all its energy into your head and neck.
I don’t believe this was a major issue, but it was a large enough concern among US troops at least that the army procurement made a new buckle strap that would release when struck by the overpressure of an explosion.
“Secondly, many men incorrectly believed that a nearby exploding bomb or artillery shell could cause the chinstrap to break their neck when the helmet was caught in its concussive force, although a replacement buckle, the T1 pressure-release buckle, was manufactured that allowed the chinstrap to release automatically should this occur. In place of the chinstrap, the nape strap inside the liner was counted on to provide sufficient contact to keep the helmet from easily falling off the wearer’s head.”
So it’s sorta fake, but a historical note either way.
1 Like
Molotovs against early tanks, 6kg “satchel charges” became later which was sufficient to destroy any tank if blown above engine.
same shockwave effect on tanks that get hit by explosive shells of all kinds. Even grenades have concussion effect
At the beggining of WW1 hats were part of the combat uniform.
Soon, artillery and grenades started to be used on a very large scale. Introducing steel helmets for everyone resulted in a significant drop of head injury caused by flying elements (metal, rocks, wood,…) during an explosion. It’s not a guess, it’s not fashion, it’s a fact.
Of course a helmet can’t stop everything and an explosion can be deadly in many ways. But there’s a reason helmets were introduced. Not because it’s fashion. Armies didn’t wait for helmets to put fancy stuff on their heads to be pretty, recognizable or to display ranks.
1 Like