Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

MATV Survivability vs Explosives
Reviewed, NormalPublic


The light vehicles we have in the alpha are obviously designed to be resistant to explosives, even of the shaped charge variety. Here are some tests I ran with different explosives on the Hunter MATV:

    Anti-Tank Mine: When driven over, blows out tires, and disables vehicle for five seconds prior to secondary explosion (rendering said vehicle into junk).
    Explosive Charge (C4): When detonated beneath it as it is driven over, same result as Anti-Tank Mine. Except damage is more critical and the vehicle detonates with fatal force before I can get away.
    Explosive Satchel: Same result as the Anti-Tank Mine. Except that this time, when I hit Eject, I got run over by the Hunter. Then when I laid there injured, it blew up, killing me.
    APERS Mine: Dinky. Ineffectual against the vehicle. Zero damage.
    APERS Mine (Bounding): When driven past with the Hunter, it sprang up and did damage to the tires. Still Combat-Effective.
    M6 SLAM Mine: Negligible Damage to the Hunter.
    Claymore Mine: No Damage. (Well duh, it's ball bearings.)

I think that the MATV's bomb resistances need to be adjusted. My recommendations:

    Anti-Tank Mine: Needs to do damage to the engine and hull, while not damaging the tires. AT Mines are directional shaped charge explosives.
    Explosive Charge (C4): It's a concussive blast, so it should do light damage to the engine and severely damage the tires (as they are inflated with air), but still have at least some tires remain operational so that the vehicle can be driven out of the blast zone.
    Explosive Satchel: Same as the Explosive Charge, but with definitive disabling damage (blown tires, critically damaged engine).

My main gripe with the MATV and the higher end explosives is that despite their obvious explosive-resistant designs, the vehicles are disabled far too easily. And my biggest complaint is how they explode so soon after being completely disabled. This, to me, feels inappropriate for a vehicle that does not typically carry large amounts of explosives.

We have seen MRAPs in Iraq and Afghanistan survive explosions that left massive craters in the highway, and they were immobilized, but still combat effective (they have CROWS turrets) that enabled them to defend themselves in a heavy combat engagement.

Therefore, I offer a solution: It would make more sense if the vehicle simply caught fire when its health reaches zero, and burned itself out over a period of time (five minutes?). This would require the use of fire extinguishers to save an MATV from total destruction, and the availability of an Engineer to repair it back to combat effectiveness.

What do you think? Is this a workable solution?

(Originally from the Forums: )


Legacy ID
Feature Request

Event Timeline

NKato edited Steps To Reproduce. (Show Details)Mar 6 2013, 1:49 AM
NKato edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
NKato set Category to Feature Request.
NKato set Reproducibility to Always.
NKato set Severity to Tweak.
NKato set Resolution to Open.
NKato set Legacy ID to 2647907761.May 7 2016, 10:42 AM

Great testing, suggesting and information. Kudos!

I don't agree about the recommendation with the AT Mine - they explode when driven over, i.e. the tire is on the mine; usually they also "only" immobilize tanks, but obviously have a more devastating effect to lightly armored vehicles, so the effect you observed seems about right.

Thales added a subscriber: Thales.May 7 2016, 10:42 AM

This suggestion was processed by our team and will be looked into. We thank you for your feedback.

I am not sure which version this test was conducted, but in the current build 2 APERS will consistently give yellow wheels and engine, while 4 disable wheels.

1 Claymore will likewise give yellow wheels, while 2 will disable wheels.

I cannot agree to the top part of your suggestions. MRAPs are meant to protect the passengers from the mines, but not survive the explosion itself.

However the part about the short time from disabled vehicle->exploded vehicle if very valid. Vehicles should not be exploding all the time, and should most of the time just be replaced by a fire which consumes the vehicle within 5-60 minutes depending on the severity.

b101uk added a subscriber: b101uk.May 7 2016, 10:42 AM

A small or medium size Anti-Tank Mine NOT damaging the tires! LOL

They will quite happily sever an MBT track and take out one or more idler wheels and suspension units and if the tank was moving at >10mph on relatively soft ground it would probably end up with the remaining wheels partly sunk in the ground, yet you think a tyre will hold out or would still be connected to the vehicle.


you should note that most mine-resistant vehicle designs that use wheels, they are designed to be relatively easily repaired and parts like the drive shafts, suspension, hubs and the wheel assemblies are designed to be sacrificial, as engineered weak-points are used so hull/chassis etc and their connection points remain undamaged, this can lead to perceivably weak wheel/suspension mountings in comparison to the overbuilt nature of conventional axles and their fixings to chasses on e.g. trucks