Separate sub-forum for tanks and AT assets?

[SEAR]

It is just the impact (it is supposed to impact on vehicles ideally) and soft/fragile warhead does the trick. 112 grams is the powder filling and 40 grams is the rest of the mass. Less than the bigger paintball grenades.

[Seajay]

The problem with the idea is how scoring will work. The tanks generally have a target on them you need to hit, which isn't exactly easy with normal launchers. Something falling down or lobbed would be hard to track and score. Additionally for safety the hard targets are just that, hard, so top down might just be ruled unsafe because it is harder to control. A lot of vehicles just have the netting on top since you are not supposed to shoot paintballs at the gunners and drivers.

Some fields will even kick you off the field if you are more than 20ft from the tank, so you are going to need a good arm. Not so much the tank approaching your hidey hole, but if you run up to the tank and get close to it refs don't like that at all.

[SEAR]

Tanks may have targets for standard AT weapons on sides. These can simulate AT guns or "bazookas" hits - although for none of them any artificial targets should be necessary (in ideal world), just the amount of hits should count; but I understand the concept.
This AT grenade will attack from the top. And it had so much penetrating power (in reality), that any hull or turret hit was a straight kill even on heavy tanks. And the blue powder smoke should indicate the hit better than anything else. That is even if the rule was two AT grenade hits to destroy a heavy tank.

Yes, for tanks with netting on the top (which is kinda strange), it may not work that well. Still it will most likely work as it is very fragile and will just mess up the crew. 20 ft is unusable distance for this weapon, you need at least 40 ft to throw it semi-effectively. 20 m effective range = 65 ft.