I think these mines and other anti-tank weapons would be a better option than the already repeated explosive package.
Hafthohlladung - Germans
RPG-43 Soviet Unión
Anti-tank grenade No. 74 - English
12 Likes
nice but it would make using of vehicle in here even more useless 
unless it would be either expensive or limited to use
Ain’t those that explode on impact?
Hell no i only accept them if they’re only usable in the mine slot
1 Like
Considered it in my Stalingrad rework.
2 Likes
Why would we need those when we have the TnT mines, just apply them to all the other campaigns.
because dynamite should not even be used as an anti-tank weapon. The only reason it is in the game is because the developers were lazy to implement anti-tank grenades to each of the factions in the game. I’m not saying that dynamite wasn’t used to immobilize a tank, but that this was uncommon, and besides, the game doesn’t even implement the correct method that was used back then.:
The high-powered dynamite was placed inside a thick sock, which was covered with grease and placed in a can. He took off his sock, lit the fuse, and threw himself against the side of the tank’s turret in the hope that it would stick until the explosion. If successful, it caused an internal chipping of the armor plate, killing or injuring the crew inside the tank.
3 Likes
Firstly, the reason the game doesn’t implement proper AT grenades because every nation did AT grenades and placeable mines differently, with that sock method you described being a British method. American troops were known to place dynamite and manually detonate it as tanks drove by and Russians had their suicide dogs. As for the shaped charge mines, you have everything from the Japanese lunge mine to the placeable ones with timers the Germans made. to Furthermore, the Dynamite in this game is representative of everything an individual infantry can do to a tank, and it’s crudeness is emblematic of that.
2 Likes
My mistake in forgetting the TNT of Stalingrad. I thought you were talking about dynamite, and then I remembered. I don’t play that campaign much and I don’t speak English so it’s hard sometimes to understand.
You hit the nail right on the head there. Its an analog to all the different ways that we could take out tanks.
I’ve learned to accept it, because the alternative would probably be that tanks would rule the roost even more.
I would like to see national versions of Anti Tank weapons, the H3 would be really wild to finally use.
And the panzerwurfenmine.
1 Like
After playing a bit of warthunder and realizing the time it takes to repair on that game, dynamite should mainly cause component damage such as tracks and engines (+fire). If repair time is slightly increased then tankers can’t just jump out instantly and repair quickly.
Adding actual AT grenades should be the instant killing technique.
Cause currently TNT does seem silly to insta kill a tank even though it can’t insta kill T-34s and KV-1s (Russian bias perhaps?) Anyway if a tanker successfully defends himself from 4 to 5 detpacks, it should be over for that squad, not another 5 or even 10 or 15 to go.
2 Likes
Yeah, this game would be a whole hell of a lot worse for tanks if infantry were allowed to smash vision ports.
2 Likes
Oh it can insta kill T-34s and KV-1s, you could also argue German bias since you can easily fail to insta kill a Tiger. It’s more on the fact there’s more armor / you’re throwing it at the strongest part of the tank. (Tip: Throwing a cooked explosion pack underneath is basically always a guaranteed kill)
““spalling””
The advantage of replacing the silly detpacks with MMs is in the nature of their effects.
In most cases the MMs were designed to immobilise / disable a tank given their shaped charge effect.
If a soldier got lucky and there was a flashback that could ignite ammo which might have been a catastrophic brew up, but in most cases mine placement determined the outcome. The most common placement was around the engine compartment and the most desired effect was immobilisation, with an an added bonus of an engine or transmission fire because that would cause the crew to bail out. Once a vehicle was immobilized additional mines and satchel charges could be used to convince the crew to get out.
In Enlisted, the designers should really want the same effect.
You want to force the crew to bail out and then rain a hail of hand grenades and direct fire on them.
Catastrophic kills should really be occurring from AT Gun or Tank or Tank engagements.
I think that would actually provide more margin for error and time for a team to defend their tanks, which become disabled when overrun.
Most players will have equipped multiple soldiers in a squad with mines so burning 3-4 “attacks” on an immobilised / disabled vehicle is less of an issue particularly as you can selectively disable key components of the tank when its stationary.
It also provides more incentive for tank crews to carry more repair kits given the higher chance of disabling effects. This is then a nicer driver for the ingame economy as repair kits become more useful and some thought is therefore required as to how you optimise your troops.
2 Likes
I dont mind replacing detpacks with actual AT weapons as long as theyr available to all, like detpacks.
But from those 3 first suggestions 2 are throwable and 1 requires to be planted so they aint exactly balanced in that sense.
Ofc H3 could be replaced with that grenade bundle, but then ur looking at detpack on steroids.
lol, have you tried T-34 in Moscow?
Also nice post, but gameplay wise taking out tank shouldn’t be so complex as to forcing the crew out. There’s a good point in this thread about Expack being an analogue of all means infantry could do against tanks.
And what about pressure-effects of MM’s to the crew during a breach?
I’m not sure what you mean…
I wouldn’t mind if they went for this level of complexity, especially that they have started to water down their analogues by modifying the explosive effect, and the key difference between WT and Enlisted is the scale of the engagement which would benefit from this level of detail.
Which then nicely flows into your suggestion, with which I completely agree, and more importantly is entirely implementable given the imposition of concussion and shock, which could also be combined with some level of abstracted damage as your tankers nose and ears begin to bleed post pen. They could even vary it by explosive content, but I suspect that would be beyond the “good enough for government work” approach that Gaijin Devs apply to their coding. 
H3 would cause enough pressure for the tank crew to have a nose bleed in the afterlife.
Anyway, Enlisted 10v10 is so fast paced that nobody would even have the time to sit and wait for the tank crew to start crawling out. This isn’t RO2 or anything close like it, and adjusting tank modularity on H3 damage to that level of detail isn’t really worth it compared to everything else.
Enlisted focuses on ground combat but this isn’t exactly Squads, or even Project Reality, or even RO2.
That kind of complexion would be unnecessary and harmful for the rest of the gameplay, unless
all of the gameplay is tuned to the same level, ieg something like Operation Flashpoint.
Only thing that scales with WT here seems to be the map.
Well WT maps are much larger so I was suggesting that as the maps get smaller the opportunities for detail increase. God knows they clutter up the maps a hell of a lot more than they do in WT.
At this point it would look it would be easier to make a completely new game for that level of detail tbh. Like… HLL anyone?