It is!!
I do it with ease.
Hit the slow tank twice with rockets and throw a dynamite or blow on it.
I’m looking at from a tanker and assault player POV!
Yes you could take out that Tank but also could he. here the Assault has the bigger Advantage in almost every scenario. They peckaboo you to death without you being able to do anything.
“too many anti tank weapons”
Has to disagree, Medic and Recon can’t do crap seeing a Tank unlike BF1 with every class have a tool to destroy a tank.
And the Assault is given not only panzerfaust but dinamite too, not to mention the support. Why the hell DICE give so much explosive power in one class?
Infantry vs. Tank gameplay is so broken, Tanks don’t stand a chance…
Today as an assault player it’s like this: "oh a tank… meh… I quickly laser snipe the MG Top Gunner with my Gewehr 43 and then just quickly sprint to the tank without limitation (because for some reason infantry has unlimited sprinting stamina) plant some TNT and blow it to hell. And if TNT will not do it I just use my up to 3 Panzerfausts which for some reason do more damage than a regular tank shell. The tank cannot hit me anyway with his gun because he has no splash damage and its probably out of ammo anyway because he only gets like 18 shells…
Unless the tank sits on the edge of the map and just farms infrantry it requires ZERO tactical gameplay or skill to destroy a tank in this game. Any noob who just picked up the Assault class can do it… why even have other classes at all, the Assault is the jack of all trades. He can do close quarter, he can snipe, he can blow stuff up… I hate how OP the assault class is in this game
Don’t forget the tiger uses 88mm shells, and the staghound will sit there and absorb those all day long. I’m glad they adjusted the Panzerfaust so it doesn’t cripple a tank in one shot.
I think an improvement to the exposed gunner position would help tanks out. if the gunner can better defend its tanker then smiley faces all around. that seat is so exposed no one likes to use it and if you do, unless you got all kinds of support, you’re going down as soon as you come up. the gun itself is OK I guess. it does murder folk but I guess I miss the far superior weaponry and tanks from WWI. advancements in weaponry effectiveness go backwards in the battlefield series
Main issue I see is that the main cannon from all tanks are very weak against infantry. If it is infantry in the open, then most of the main guns are actually impractical in my opinion. The only main cannon that is a valid option there is the 20mm autocannon you can put on the the light tank/recon car. But even there you get more consistent results switching to the machine gun. The main cannon is only good at taking out buildings. You will do your 50-60 damage on the infantry and then additional damage from the building collapsing.
I would like to see a skill tree option for tanks that give them a main weapon that is actually effective against infantry in the open. Obviously this should be at the expense of the effectiveness against other tanks. r
the poor gunners need a bulletproof dome to be able to contribute.
Would it though? TTK2 was supposed to solve the camping issue but did it? No, of course not.
lets be honest, in spite of all its wrongs, there were fewer people hiding in corners last week
First, there are no tanks with 75mm guns in BFV so far, unless you count the Churchill Gun Carrier with it’s 3" gun which is one of those exercises in fiction DICE loves so much (only a handful were built and apparently none were used in combat). Second, the Panzerfaust modelled in the game could penetrate 200mm (eight inches) of armor plate which is considerably better than any 75mm tank gun except for the gun on the Panther which could almost achieve that armor penetration at point blank range using special (and rare) ammunition. So from the realism position there is no reason for infantry AT weapons not to be at least as effective as they are in BFV. Of course this is a game rather than a realistic simulation, so for purposes of gameplay it usually takes several Panzerfaust hits to kill a tank and that seems reasonable, otherwise nobody would ever get in a tank. But you are right in that the effectiveness of tank guns on other tanks in this game is odd, it almost seems like every tank has effectively equal firepower and armor protection and I don’t see how that improves gameplay. A Valentine with a 2lber gun should not win a shootout with a Tiger or even a PzKpfw IV F2, but DICE feels otherwise for reasons known only to them. I’ve been in a Tiger destroyed (from the front) by a 20mm AA gun some distance away, and IMO that isn’t good game design because it’s just too fictional, it both puts tanks at too much of a disadvantage and ruins immersion by being too unbelievable.
In the case of tanks in BFV they seem to want to force tankers to rely on teamwork, so they took away infinite ammo and make them slow enough and vulnerable enough that a tank rolling without infantry support is in trouble. I don’t think this was a bad plan, but it could use some tweaking. The Panzerfaust was a bit OP, they nerfed it (despite the brief frenzied claims they were buffing it) and maybe they could do a few more things. Close infantry support really helps, if your squad is backing you up you’re much less likely to get killed by Panzerfausts or PIATs, at least it won’t happen as often. Overall I think DICE is on the right track with vehicles in BFV, they just need to think it through a bit more.
From a historical perspective there is some justification for that, high-velocity guns on tanks were often not too effective when shooting at infantry because the bursting charge inside the armor piercing shell was tiny and the shell would often over-penetrate before exploding so it wasn’t close to the intended target, e.g. it would go through a house and then explode doing no harm to the targets inside the building. High explosive rounds were used to deal with infantry and unarmored targets but carrying them reduced the amount of AP ammo to deal with enemy tanks so it was a trade-off. In some cases like the 2lber gun on the Valentine there simple was no HE shell, it was a major tactical handicap. Of course whether DICE is actually modelling this in the game or they just screwed up again is unknown to us mere mortals.
I wouldnt say that inf. are too strong for tanks, but that the tanks are too weak for inf. Id rather buff the tanks splash dmg and general dmg on inf. than making the tank be able to take more dmg.
Jesus all I see for vehicle posts is whining about infantry taking them out. I guess vehicle need to sit back and just go 50-0 every game so you can buff up your weak Infy K/D.
I agree that they need a buff but NOT the main tank weapons. That is and should be for vehicles, not blasting ten feet from a player and blowing them away. A slight buff to the machine gun would do it. A tanker shouldn’t be able to just sit there and mow down players without any risk. I get blown up in a tank it’s almost always because I got careless, not because the assault class is OP
The game needs some vehicle tweaks, and not have them turn into map changers. Bombers are still too good and IMO shouldn’t even be in Operations or Breakthrough. They can literally change a game and that shouldn’t happen. With all the sniping nubs in large game modes if tanks are too good defenders won’t have a chance. No matter how many times they die to a tank a sniper isn’t changing their class to help out, they just move further back.
Too many players want tanking to be easy kills by the dozen instead of learning to conserve ammo and using position to their advantage. Tanks are almost perfect in this game in the risk reward category. Planes are still ridiculously OP and now we get a rocket nerf to like 70 damage for HITTING A PLANE WITH A ROCKET. I’ve hit like 3 this week without getting a kill. Dice has catered to snipers vehicles enough
Yes I think infantry is too powerfull against tanks. Tiger was WW2 beast even shermans didint get it down nicely. Tiger had only one weak spot, rear of the tank.
Well dang this is the best description of the current state of affairs I have seen yet. 100% spot on.
Yea, it wasn’t unreasonably hyperbolic at all.
Yes. This is so true. Tank blast damage is way too weak. If dice wanna be realistic they should improve some things on this game. Tiger is 88mm if you shoot with it near infantry everyone In 10-20m circle is dead that is true live with it.
I agree with basically everything you said, but the Pz. IV has a 75mm, as does the Churchill VII with the OQF 75mm (and oddly the Valentine’s cannon and muzzle brake looks more like the OQF 75mm on the Valentine XI than a 6-pounder!)
For sure, especially for APHE/ APCBC rounds with longer fuses. The PzGr. 39 (APHE/ APCBC) for the. Tiger I had 0.8 meter detonation fuse, whereas the Sprgr. 39 HE shell had a 0.1 meter fuse with about 7 times the explosive mass. The PzGr. 39 round was phenomenal against tanks, whereas the HE excelled against infantry. I’d love to be able to properly choose our ammo load out as we can in games like War Thunder. I’d only run PzGr. 39 and Sprgr. 39; I wouldn’t bother with APCR or HEAT.
It would be great be able to pen walls, etc. with splash damage on the other side!