AT capability of non-AT teams

[Tuomio]

Is the CMSF interpretation of severe harm against armoured vehicles without AT weaponry too far fetched?

As it is now, even routed single conscript usually detracks/destroys any vehicle in the game when it gets to throw the grenade of doom at it. Whenever you pass enemy infarantry at relatively close distance (under 30m), its almost guaranteed that you lose that vehicle.

I know troops can carry antitank mines, but using using such methods out of their design envelope will precede legendary effort and a lot of planning, not something every soldier is capable of and i would imagine, in assault phase such opportunities would not be presented time-wise.

IMHO, the possibility of succeeding should also be heavily penalized by the relative experience between the vehicle and trooper. Should conscript soldier try to disable crack uparmoured hummer, success should be next to zero. I'm just saying that if you do not have the means (correct weapons) and/or training, you will die if you are stupid enough to try.

[hoolaman]

It doesn't always need crack troops, but I agree if there is no capability it shouldnt be possible

[Tuomio]

It doesn't always need crack troops, but I agree if there is no capability it shouldnt be possible

Thats similar to IED and should be abstracted in the same category. There are multiple ways of distrupting supply lines, but spearhead of combined arms is very different story. If you find enemy APC sitting next to you, the ones in grave danger can be found outside of the vehicle and not the other way as it is now. Unless you have the means of destroying it, which is something else than frags and 7,62mm ammunition. Right now pinned troops getting accurate coax fire from their target, can chuck frags at it and win.

[hoolaman]

I agree, especially for heavy armoured vehicles. There is just no way for infantry armed only with small arms or grenades to attack and destroy a vehicle that is designed to withstand 155mm artillery.

My link is to show a real example of amatuers doing serious damage to a Humvee. Real AFVs are not the same.

[c3k]

Link: those both had pretty good aim. It's very difficult to hit a moving target, even when close, without practice. The fact that both hit the Humvee is impressive. As far as the claim of "doing serious damage", well, that is not supported by anything in the link. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that what was thrown was a pair of incendiary devices, perhaps just petrol with an initiator of some sort. Visually impressive, but I see no support of fragmentation or blast damage whatsoever.

[SlapHappy]

Nope. RKG-3 anti-tank grenades. You can see the silhouette fairly clearly in one man's hand just before they launch them.

http://www.inert-ord.net/russ02i/rkg3_upg8/rkg3cut.jpg

[hcrof]

I was thinking RKG-3 too. It looks like they put too much spin on them though, the drogue parachute was unable to stabilise the grenade so the chances of a successful kill is low in that case.

I doubt they had any training in the use of the grenade, maybe their aim is good because they practised by throwing rocks at convoys?

[theFightingSeabee]

The parachutes looked good and they scored definite hits. Casualties are definitely possible there. Grrrr... I hate those guys!

[c3k]

Ahh, you are absolutely correct: they do, indeed, appear to be RKG-3's. That's what I get for looking at the video in such a small screen.

Ken