# Anti tank grenades are ridiculous **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [June 13, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928 "2016-06-13T14:37:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Benny9393](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/benny9393/32/101317_2.png) [@Benny9393](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Benny9393)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/1 "2016-06-13T14:37:00Z")
This isn’t a realism discussion, I’m simply saying that as a game mechanic this is stupid. If they’re available to every class it’s just a worse version of the awful class balance present in BF4 where pretty much every class can fight vehicles and nobody has to role play anymore. Also this would suggest that vehicles engagement distances are going to be severely reduced, which also means it’s going to be incredibly easy to take them out because they’ll be forced into CQB. I have no faith in DICE not to make this game a pure infantry playground. Between this and an anti tank rifle there’s going to be no need to actually aim when shooting at vehicles. ---
**Author:** ![VenomRTX](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/venomrtx/32/103986_2.png) [@VenomRTX](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/VenomRTX)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 2:47pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/2 "2016-06-13T14:47:00Z")
Yeah, I had the same impression. Guess we’ll have to use the Beta to provide them with feedback about balance. I couldn’t form a clear impression of how powerful vehicles are, but the AT options certainly felt more powerful than I’d thought at first. ---
**Author:** ![B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/b3antown_b3a5t/32/101262_2.png) [@B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/B3ANTOWN_B3A5T)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 2:53pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/3 "2016-06-13T14:53:00Z")
I was under the impression that only the assault class had the anti tank nades. They did look very powerful though. ---
**Author:** ![Benny9393](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/benny9393/32/101317_2.png) [@Benny9393](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Benny9393)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/4 "2016-06-13T15:03:00Z")
If it’s only one class that’s not so bad. Even so, 1 grenade destroying an almost full health armoured car seems excessive. Did like 85 damage if I saw correctly. ---
**Author:** ![B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/b3antown_b3a5t/32/101262_2.png) [@B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/B3ANTOWN_B3A5T)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/5 "2016-06-13T15:11:00Z")
> [@Benny9393](#): > > If it’s only one class that’s not so bad. Even so, 1 grenade destroying an almost full health armoured car seems excessive. Did like 85 damage if I saw correctly. Yeah as an avid tanker I was paying close attention to the tank damage/armor. The tanks seemed to pack a pretty good punch and I like the different designs, but none of that will matter if they’re made of paper, forcing tankers to hang way back instead of punching through enemy defenses. ---
**Author:** ![34343223](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/3/c4cdca/32.png) [@34343223](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/34343223)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/6 "2016-06-13T15:19:00Z")
They do about 20 damage. I think it’s bit ridiculous that tanks being under powered when we suppose to fear them. ---
**Author:** ![YOURDRUNKDADDY](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/yourdrunkdaddy/32/104168_2.png) [@YOURDRUNKDADDY](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/YOURDRUNKDADDY)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:25pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/7 "2016-06-13T15:25:00Z")
so, we’re commenting on things we have no idea about yet? perfect… ---
**Author:** ![Benny9393](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/benny9393/32/101317_2.png) [@Benny9393](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Benny9393)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/8 "2016-06-13T15:30:00Z")
> [@YOURDRUNKDADDY](#): > > so, we’re commenting on things we have no idea about yet? perfect… I’m commenting on what I’ve seen. I forgot that forums aren’t to discuss opinions, sorry I’ll pay better attention next time. ---
**Author:** ![doctorrocktor](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/doctorrocktor/32/101751_2.png) [@doctorrocktor](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/doctorrocktor)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/9 "2016-06-13T15:35:00Z")
> [@Benny9393](#): > > > [@YOURDRUNKDADDY](#): > > > > so, we’re commenting on things we have no idea about yet? perfect… > > I’m commenting on what I’ve seen. I forgot that forums aren’t to discuss opinions, sorry I’ll pay better attention next time. yes commenting on what you seen pre alpha gameplay,not the full product.maybe dice did this just for the show to show it off. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/10 "2016-06-13T15:35:00Z")
This is a dumb argument, because they’re one of the ONLY ways in the game you can destroy tanks as infantry. Sorry - but unlike other BF games, this era of warfare doesn’t have rocket launchers. So far all we’ve seen to destroy tanks is the anti-tank grenade, the anti-tank sniper rifle which does less damage than the grenade, the “rocket rifle” for the Assault class that requires you to be prone while firing (very situational), and dynamite, which is just as situational as C4 in any other BF game. We don’t get RPGs and SMAWs, mounted guided rocket launchers, etc. There has to be SOME WAY to make up for infantry not having those tools, otherwise tanks would completely dominate the Battlefield with less in their way than there is now. The grenade does 20 damage to a tank and it appears as if you can only hold ONE of them per life. It’s like having an RPG in BF4 that has significantly less range and is limited to one rocket. I seriously don’t know what the problem is. ---
**Author:** ![KetchupNCake](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/ketchupncake/32/102493_2.png) [@KetchupNCake](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KetchupNCake)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:36pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/11 "2016-06-13T15:36:00Z")
Perhaps there is some game balance we haven’t heard of yet. Also, I think there are three types of tanks, i’m sure the ‘heavier’ versions will be much more difficult to take down. Here’s some in game footage with tanks: [![Video: BATTLEFIELD 1 GAMEPLAY MULTIPLAYER TANK BF1 Gameplay E3 2016 EA play](https://battlefieldforum.co/uploads/default/original/3X/1/6/16f4e1df575a673f57af7fc3d72f4312ba2869c0.jpeg "BATTLEFIELD 1 GAMEPLAY MULTIPLAYER TANK BF1 Gameplay E3 2016 EA play") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNb9I9vy_gE) ---
**Author:** ![zePokar1](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/35a633/32.png) [@zePokar1](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/zePokar1)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:40pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/12 "2016-06-13T15:40:00Z")
#hottakes lol. ---
**Author:** ![theONEFORCE](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/theoneforce/32/103797_2.png) [@theONEFORCE](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/theONEFORCE)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/13 "2016-06-13T15:44:00Z")
> [@Loqtrall](#): > > This is a dumb argument, because they’re one of the ONLY ways in the game you can destroy tanks as infantry. > > Sorry - but unlike other BF games, this era of warfare doesn’t have rocket launchers. So far all we’ve seen to destroy tanks is the anti-tank grenade, the anti-tank sniper rifle which does less damage than the grenade, the “rocket rifle” for the Assault class that requires you to be prone while firing (very situational), and dynamite, which is just as situational as C4 in any other BF game. > > We don’t get RPGs and SMAWs, mounted guided rocket launchers, etc. There has to be SOME WAY to make up for infantry not having those tools, otherwise tanks would completely dominate the Battlefield with less in their way than there is now. > > The grenade does 20 damage to a tank and it appears as if you can only hold ONE of them per life. It’s like having an RPG in BF4 that has significantly less range and is limited to one rocket. > > I seriously don’t know what the problem is. It will be harder to go 50 and 1 if the infantry has a chance to blow up the tank. ---
**Author:** ![B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/b3antown_b3a5t/32/101262_2.png) [@B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/B3ANTOWN_B3A5T)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:48pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/14 "2016-06-13T15:48:00Z")
Just found this video. I must say my fears have been put to rest. With a good tank crew the heavy tank looks to be quite powerful. [![Video: BATTLEFIELD 1 GAMEPLAY - "HEAVY TANK 32-0 BEAST MODE" (Battlefield 1 Multiplayer Pre-Alpha Conquest)](https://battlefieldforum.co/uploads/default/original/3X/6/8/685080d9978fd77c475793af1c300426a4586ed2.jpeg "BATTLEFIELD 1 GAMEPLAY - "HEAVY TANK 32-0 BEAST MODE" (Battlefield 1 Multiplayer Pre-Alpha Conquest)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUogI1oGNh8) ---
**Author:** ![B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/b3antown_b3a5t/32/101262_2.png) [@B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/B3ANTOWN_B3A5T)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/15 "2016-06-13T15:51:00Z")
> [@Loqtrall](#): > > This is a dumb argument, because they’re one of the ONLY ways in the game you can destroy tanks as infantry. > > Sorry - but unlike other BF games, this era of warfare doesn’t have rocket launchers. So far all we’ve seen to destroy tanks is the anti-tank grenade, the anti-tank sniper rifle which does less damage than the grenade, the “rocket rifle” for the Assault class that requires you to be prone while firing (very situational), and dynamite, which is just as situational as C4 in any other BF game. > > We don’t get RPGs and SMAWs, mounted guided rocket launchers, etc. There has to be SOME WAY to make up for infantry not having those tools, otherwise tanks would completely dominate the Battlefield with less in their way than there is now. > > The grenade does 20 damage to a tank and it appears as if you can only hold ONE of them per life. It’s like having an RPG in BF4 that has significantly less range and is limited to one rocket. > > I seriously don’t know what the problem is. No I saw people throwing multiple tank nades, one after another. I think that the tanks looking weak could just have been a product of the stream jumping around and catching the tanks getting hit with the final kill shot or two. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:52pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/16 "2016-06-13T15:52:00Z")
> [@theONEFORCE](#): > > > [@Loqtrall](#): > > > > This is a dumb argument, because they’re one of the ONLY ways in the game you can destroy tanks as infantry. > > > > Sorry - but unlike other BF games, this era of warfare doesn’t have rocket launchers. So far all we’ve seen to destroy tanks is the anti-tank grenade, the anti-tank sniper rifle which does less damage than the grenade, the “rocket rifle” for the Assault class that requires you to be prone while firing (very situational), and dynamite, which is just as situational as C4 in any other BF game. > > > > We don’t get RPGs and SMAWs, mounted guided rocket launchers, etc. There has to be SOME WAY to make up for infantry not having those tools, otherwise tanks would completely dominate the Battlefield with less in their way than there is now. > > > > The grenade does 20 damage to a tank and it appears as if you can only hold ONE of them per life. It’s like having an RPG in BF4 that has significantly less range and is limited to one rocket. > > > > I seriously don’t know what the problem is. > > It will be harder to go 50 and 1 if the infantry has a chance to blow up the tank. That’s what I was assuming the basis of most of these arguments would be as well. Let us simply look at the fact that the ONLY celebrity player on the stream that got more than 2 kills was Zach Efron, and he was camping in a tank as a side gunner the entire time, and that before the stream, Zach didn’t know anything about the game and didn’t even know what team he was going to be on. A tanks incredible ease of use (in terms of killing) should be the trade-off for having infantry tools that allow them to somewhat destroy or disable said tanks. Tanks may be monstrous killing machines in real life, but this is a video game - you shouldn’t be able to kill everyone on the enemy team completely uncontested. Infantry should be able to take you out, and it will be harder to take out tanks in this game than in any other because of how physically close you’re forced to get with 99% of the tools made to destroy tanks. Tanks were so ridiculously unbalanced in BF4 it was insane. Not only did their armor regenerate as well as having the ability to have completely UNEXPOSED Machinegunners covering you while you repaire - but they had thermals as well. The tanks in BF1 looks a lot more balanced - still able to get a ton of kills with little to no effort, but not the unstoppable, thermal-vision monsters they were in BF4. I’m happy, because gone are the days of seeing thermal-tank campers sitting on hills and ending the game with 50 kills and maybe 1-2 deaths because anyone trying to kill them glows in the dark and they can simply have their squadie hop out and repair behind their armored behemoth to thwart any rocket damage. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/17 "2016-06-13T15:57:00Z")
> [@B3ANTOWN\_\_B3A5T](#): > > > [@Loqtrall](#): > > > > This is a dumb argument, because they’re one of the ONLY ways in the game you can destroy tanks as infantry. > > > > Sorry - but unlike other BF games, this era of warfare doesn’t have rocket launchers. So far all we’ve seen to destroy tanks is the anti-tank grenade, the anti-tank sniper rifle which does less damage than the grenade, the “rocket rifle” for the Assault class that requires you to be prone while firing (very situational), and dynamite, which is just as situational as C4 in any other BF game. > > > > We don’t get RPGs and SMAWs, mounted guided rocket launchers, etc. There has to be SOME WAY to make up for infantry not having those tools, otherwise tanks would completely dominate the Battlefield with less in their way than there is now. > > > > The grenade does 20 damage to a tank and it appears as if you can only hold ONE of them per life. It’s like having an RPG in BF4 that has significantly less range and is limited to one rocket. > > > > I seriously don’t know what the problem is. > > No I saw people throwing multiple tank nades, one after another. > > I think that the tanks looking weak could just have been a product of the stream jumping around and catching the tanks getting hit with the final kill shot or two. And my bad, the maximum is TWO - which IF you can manage to get both off on the same tank before getting killed, is only 40 damage maximum. Still weaker, more limited, and less ranged than rocket launchers in BF4. ---
**Author:** ![lancyuk](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/lancyuk/32/102608_2.png) [@lancyuk](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/lancyuk)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/18 "2016-06-13T15:57:00Z")
after seeing that video i dont think you have much to worry about. There will be tanks, there will be ways to counter and youll have to learn to get good. Sounds good to me. ---
**Author:** ![HaveThisRocket](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@HaveThisRocket](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/HaveThisRocket)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/19 "2016-06-13T15:59:00Z")
Perfect.Tanks are not OP for once since BF2.No more crutches ---
**Author:** ![B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/b3antown_b3a5t/32/101262_2.png) [@B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/B3ANTOWN_B3A5T)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928/20 "2016-06-13T15:59:00Z")
> [@lancyuk](#): > > after seeing that video i dont think you have much to worry about. There will be tanks, there will be ways to counter and youll have to learn to get good. Sounds good to me. Yeah that put my mind at ease a bit although he was playing against a lot of clueless people. That map looks tailor made for c4 traps, which is fine as tanks should have counters and be vulnerable in tight spaces. [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/anti-tank-grenades-are-ridiculous/101928.md?page=2)