Currently Tanks are useless in the game; apparently made of Papier-mâché . In other games World of Tanks/ modern tanks, serious caliber 90mm / 120 mm cannons have to take a Shot on the sides or rear to create damage & repairs can happen from inside to a degree.
I have a replay of a Bazooka shot " with magical aiming." — taking out a Pz4, from more than 50 yards— and the kill player could only see the cupola; bc the vehicle was covered by walls and rubble from both sides ?? Aiming took, 2 seconds ; reloading another 2 seconds to hit another tank 80 yards distance, " surprisingly , that vehicle was only disabled.
Perhaps, the modern drone & missile age has infected the historic depiction – of Tanks. in WW2. During that conflict and only now in the Gulf war and 2021 have missiles & drones diminished the battle status of tanks. It seems the Arcade – emphasis and enhancement perks have unbalanced the game. [ i.e. players jumping 10-15 feet in the air-- with a full load. ??] Tanks were hard to kill in WW2. ; the Germans had to develop the German 3kg Magnetic Anti-Tank Mine in 42, due to the fact that the 37mm - anti-tank gun, { not in the game ?? or the magnetic mine] were useless against the T-34 and later tanks.
As to tanks exploding , when not occupied. In real life tanks and artillery can be disabled ,… to a large degree by removing the — Optical aiming sights. The barrel can still fire – but aiming is done by looking into the breach and guessing? Perhaps this feature can be added and the sights of specific tanks could be carried by special Engineer tankers - to revive abandoned tanks… Reasonably, surviving crew should have to fix or exit the tank in 2 minutes? In any event the shrinking moving battlefield – that offers little time for strategy will remove any bandwidth load issues when the death cloud moves away.
Again my suggestion is that – there be a realistic Enlisted Site; and the Arcade money maker can continue with some historical connection.
Perhaps this feature can be added and the sights of specific tanks could be carried by special Engineer tankers - to revive abandoned tanks… Reasonably, surviving crew should have to fix or exit the tank in 2 minutes? In any event the shrinking moving battlefield – that offers little time for strategy will remove any bandwidth load issues when the death cloud moves away.
no this is not battlefield
standard game play both sides get 2 tanks
option a
team a can still deploy 2 tanks team b now has three tank
option b
team a now only has one tank and team b has three tank
option c
team a has one tank team 2 has two tanks
Not useless just theoretically incapable of destorying it, but it can still damage it’s tracks, possibly even optics, turret ring, gun ect… And still widely useful against less armoured vehicles, not armoured vehicles and infantry.
But theory aside, most T-34 were of so bad quality (especially early war ones) that in 1942 about 20% of T-34 knockouts were reported by Pak36 guns.
As for the current state of tanks in game, it’s realistic that rockets can destroy tanks quickly, during the war tanks had to adopt to these weapons in terms of protection upgrades and tactics:
Staying out of their range, always having friendly infantry nearby and equipping tanks with sandbags, cope cages and armour skirts, all of which increased the tank’s survival against HEAT based weapons.
The only thing I would change is the detpack, it’s stupid that every single soldier can carry enough explosive to destroy a tank. Kinda beats the point of having an AT gunner.
And having a tank for every 20 to 45 soldiers defeats the purpose of this being a WW2 game when it’s closer to 500 to 1500 soldiers per tank. Maps are just too small for tanks and infantry. Having the entire map in gun range means if the enemy has line of sight they can kill you. Yes if we had better maps then we could limit tank killing to at soldiers. But with tanks using there gun and he as all range infantry killer. Sorry but if my infantry is literally touching your hull you should not be able to shoot a shell close enough to kill me. I call it the sneeze of death between it and the gray death zone tanks are strong enough. Tanks can already rack up some of the highest kill counts in the game. You take away the ability of most infantry classes to kill them and they break the game.
Its arcade game, it should be just as easy to kill the tank as its to kill with it.
Detpack’s the poormans AT weapons are imo just fine and in low br’s often the most solid option.
Isnt that pretty much the case ? Sure, with critical hit you can kill fair share if not all the tanks with 1 shot but thats technically comparable to headshots and works just fine.
Obviously, well aimed shots should be rewarding.
You can defend the tank as infantry, done it many times.
Sure, il admit that this doesnt happen outside of playing with friend, ever.
But I dont see it as anykind of justification to nerf AT weapons as tanks still can wreck havoc regardless the teamplay aspect is nowhere to be found in average enlisted game.
Not really. If shot penetrates, you are pretty much dead. And unless you use AT rifle, pen in not an issue (or at least I haven’t noticed any).
Personally I just shoot center of mass without much aiming and majority of tanks get cooked off. There are some stubborn exceptions to this though.
And if they don’t cook of, they are out of combat waiting to get finished off.
I once posted a video of me driving my tank with an enemy on top of it in front of 2 friendly squads that did nothing. (Of course it’s just one quite extreme example but you get the idea.)
Infantry defending tanks sits firmly between Santa and tooth fairy.
Got to admit my previous tank experience is with pz3J1 & that 150mm what ever sturm sofa it is.
Especiatly with Pz3J1 ive got more than often a hit on ammo rack and still required another 2 shots to get anything done.
According to forums it indeed does aphe, but for some reason it works like regular AP 90% of time.
And might be another extreme case but sovjet t-60 did deflect ~3 shots from my 150mm armored sofa. Close range.
And lets pretend we remove the detpacks, then what ? Tanks roam entirely freely thru out maps, someone might bomb it with plane, someone might kill it with a tank but the from infantry aspect theres probably 1-2 ppl max who are capable to take it out even less in low BR games.
And obviously games where theres absolutely no one who has AT.
Considering the greyzone in fair share of maps is in such a advantageous place, I highly doubt they would move anywhere.
From long range its by far easier to control larger areas than in CQC with super narrow view.
Exception probably being the KV that can roflstomp in BR2. Absolute troll tank bullying new players which shouldnt be the case, ever.
Well, I meant mostly infantry weapons Vs tanks (except AT rifles that suck hard). Tank on tank violence is a different story and I have to agree with you here.
Imo removing detpacks won’t affect the game balance in any meaningful way. I basically haven’t use them since the merge and I manage perfectly fine.
There are just so many other options to fill this role.
But tbh I’d like them to be removed because they are some made up Deus ex machina BS that imo negatively affects the feeling of the game. Using smoke, moly and TNT plunger (I’d prefer satchel charge but oh well) is far better gameplay.
What I meant is that making tanks harder to kill (especially in CQC) will allow to force them out of gray zone. If you remove gz camping in the current state, you may as well make tanks throw d10 every 20s and if below 8 they explode on spot.
Tbh I like KV being hard to kill, issue is that it gz camps. It actually feels like defeating a tank instead of some tin shoe box.
This is from infantry perspective. In tank Vs tank it’s always pain in the ass but if it doesn’t gz camp I can at least try to flank it. We really lack any meaningful way to flank with vehicles.
Im quite sure anyone with bit higher IQ than theyr shoesize can deal with tanks.
Ive got plane for that task in murrican BR5 lineup, ive got AT soldier in every each one of my infantry squads.
But we’re speaking of the average joes here. If such simple task as building radio, protecting tank, attacking the cap point or defending, seems to be overwhelmingly difficult task for them how are they supposed to deal with tanks ?
Currently, id say fair share of those average joes doesnt even have the detpack but the idea of enemies having the detpack is enough to keep the tanks away from cqc.
Aka if we cant expect the players to protect high value tanks in cqc with what logic we could expect them to bring in AT soldiers ?
Especiatly with extremely limited F2P players slot options.
I must disagree here, I find it completely fine that taking out tank is easy as killing with tank.
This is as said arcade game that has little to none teamplay.
So expecting teamplay from average joes, even if it was simple as bringing AT soldier in infantry squad is just as much asked as ppl defending the tank.
Just not happening often enough.
And I get the idea, but theres such a shitload of maps where the greyzone is in such advantageous spot top of a hill or something that its by far more efficient to camp there than push to cap point.
And even if it wasnt, I still consider tanking to be by far easier from the range than with slow tank in cqc with horribly narrow view.
And again we’re returning to average joe. Theres probably only few times against stacks that ive had difficulty to deal with KV.
But there are also more than several cases when ive literally havent given a whistling fk about the KV and let its do what ever it wants and as you may guess it simply just roflstomped the average joes.
Well, I’d argue that even someone with brain damage knows what bazooka is and that it shoots tanks. They will figure out the rest or die trying.
Also if they already don’t know how to deal with tanks, making it harder won’t affect them.
It’s this the goal? To move tanks from gz to cqc?
So you want tanks to remain easy to kill that causes them to hide in gray zone where they are harder to kill? I don’t think this makes sense but maybe I don’t understand something here.
Making tanks stronger in CQC should be made in tandem with forcing them out of gray zone. It’s not a nerf, it’s not a buff, it’s both, it’s an overhaul.
I guess? But current state is annoying both for infantry and for tanks (while planes shit on everybody from above) so I’m willing to make any move to start some change.
Well, I wrote that I like it as it’s rewarding to destroy. Not that it’s balanced.
Sure, could say also anyone who has graduated from elementary school and have seen picture from ww2 tank accompanied by infantry could figure out that its beneficial to protect the tanks.
But does that happen ?
Right, give the KV treatment to everyone and enjoy the sealclubbing ?
Wonderful solution.
I honestly believe that regardless even if there wasnt a detpack, majority would still choose to stay at GZ or long range due to it simply being by far more effective.
Exception being some city maps and KV sealclubbing BR2.
If people cant deal with GZ tanks, with what logic you expect them to deal with them in CQC ?
Its nothing but a buff for tanks.
Regardless, I still strongly believe that even if there wasnt detpacks, the tanks would still remain at long range due to simply being far more effective from there.
There is a difference between “I want cool gun” and using even the most basic tactics.
If they can’t defeat easy tanks, harder tanks make no difference. And they may at least try as the tank is close instead of gray zone camping (assuming things go well, they most likely won’t).
And those who know how to defeat tanks are apparently capable of learning so they will adapt sooner or later.
Yeah but that’s why I wrote about forcing tanks out of gz. I agree they won’t leave voluntary.
Dealing with tanks is easier in CQC. And if they can’t do either, nothing changes for them when it comes to destroying tanks but they will receive less HE as no gz camping (see above).
Only as long as maps permit that.
Most maps dont allow direct LOS into the enemy reenforcement routes from your own GZ as buildings/hills are in the way 80% of the time unless the enemy team actively choses to run out into the open and ignores the rally points their team has placed with a more proteced approach.
You really only need to place a RP in a place the camping enemy tank cant see and the camper has been made useless.
The few problematic maps (where those power positions with 100% LOS exist) are an outlier instead of the norm.
I think the current idea of detpacks existence is more deterrent than its actually being used.
Also the many times mentioned more beneficial to camp at long range than come to CQC.
But generally, you are revolving around the idea of people forcefully learning to teamplay while at same time acknowledging that they dont.
Expect ppl to play as team and bring in AT -/- Know for a fact that people dont play as team and protect tank.
Just drive the tanks to cqc ? I mean sure, once you wasted 800 tickets by driving the tank to cqc and dying the people eventually surely figure out that they are supposed to protect the tanks.
As mentioned earlier, Im quite sure the presence of detpacks is the bigger deterrent here than them actually being used.
KV being fair example, once theres little to none threat from detpacks you can practically park it to cap point, especiatly at low BR.
dont necessarily even need that, just clear sight to cap point.
Suits arguably most moscow maps, tunisia, hurtgen forest ? ( What ever the horrible map is )
Berlin / stalingrad with city maps having most exceptions of poor sight.
Applies to some normandy maps too while also having fair share of maps with long range capability.
