No, the rocket on the Striker turret is already ignited once it leaves the barrel. Therefore, the rocket motor is at least contributing to the exit velocity. If the rear of the launch tube is closed, then the gasses either come out the muzzle once the rocket leaves, or is stored or vented off by some other means. There are vents on the back of the Striker turret. Or the gasses could be captured for some reason and used to compress some reloading mechanism, like on a gas-powered automatic gun. In none of these cases does the rocket launcher get any recoil, and nothing on the scale required to budge a tank or armored vehicle.

A. Rockets with hydrocarbons and oxidizer often will bond the hydrogen and oxygen while burning, resulting in (water) steam. This isn’t always the case, but I am a rocket and space person, and I want to clarify that it is possible to produce vapour. B. It’s just the settings, and how things are programmed. If you turn off dust, the smoke will not show up. I was just explaining why players who posted on this thread sometimes couldn’t see the smoke. C. There are ways to eject rockets from tubes with an increase in recoil, but soft launching doesn’t increase recoil. Besides, the rocket in striker already has a flame behind it when it leaves the barrel; there is no ignition delay, as there would be if you really wanted to conceal yourself or protect nearby infantry.

https://www.nakka-rocketry.net/th_pix/grains1.gif You can see the thrust vs. time graph; the thrust is very strong at the beginning with the multi-fin design. Acceleration of a rocket isn’t neseccarily steady. I don’t care if this counts as “steady combustion” or not; the point is it is typical and could provide a reason for the high barrel exit speed vs. low acceleration. From the Wikipedia page, and in the screenshot you show: “...the Javelin uses a soft-launch mechanism. A launch motor using conventional rocket propellant ejects the missile from the launcher, but stops burning before the missile clears the tube. The flight motor is ignited only after a delay to allow for sufficient clearance from the operator.” The soft-launch is a multi-stage launcher; first there is a strong, brief rocket boost/engine, then the flight engine lights a little ways later. It’s 100% rocket, and there is no recoil.

You seem to be bouncing back and forth between “recoil is realistic” and “recoil isn’t that realistic, but realism doesn’t matter in a game with anti-tank shotguns.” A. There are many ways to increase or decrease the thrust of a rocket motor throughout its burn. It could accelerate very quickly, and then have a little base bleed throughout the rest of the flight, depending on the design. If you used a star-shaped core, the rocket would burn very strongly the first 0.5 seconds, and then the thrust would decrease, as the surface area of combustion goes down. This is implemented in real rockets. B. The smoke trail only displays if you have “dust” turned on in the settings; it is very plausible the player you quoted doesn’t. Soft launching is a type of rocket, just multi-stage. Soft-launching has no recoil.

There aren’t any infantry in tanki; having a weapon system, with safety measures not implemented on real launchers even, to accommodate them is nonsensical. IRL rocket launchers on armored vehicles, which do cooperate with real humans, don’t need ejection charges. And soft-launch mechanisms don’t have recoil; they’re just short-duration 1st stage rocket engines, which burn, then pause, then the second stage ignites. A system built to withstand the stress (or dampen) recoil is so complex and trouble-prone, that it vastly outweighs any benefit of not having back blast.

The burden of proof's on you. Also, the kg is a meaningless unit Tanki tacked on to the specifications. It would more accurately be "an arbitrary but consistent unit of weight," just like a health point on a tank is a arbitrary but consistent unit of strength. A mammoth certainly weighs more than 4000kg, if one were ever built... The weight simply determines how the hull behaves if it gets impacted by something. It is proportional to the impact and recoil forces, and has been adjusted to get a good balance/"feeling." It isn't literally Kilograms, any more than the damage from turrets is the equivalent of some real-world system of hit points. For example, m0 wasp weighs half as much as m3 wasp. Why would this be, in the real world? It's nonsensical, and is meant to be balanced compared to other in-game items, not some real-world equivalent.

This is a circular argument. When I, or someone else, tries to demonstrate rocket launchers have no recoil, you say the only rocket launcher analogous to Striker is one that has recoil. This is not a falsifiable argument. You want something with a weight less than that of mammoth? We've shown you videos with people, who certainly weigh less than mammoth.

The winner of january’s Coloring contest added elements. Planets, to be specific.

What if we make multiple submissions?

There are flechette rounds for tanks. There are Churchill Crocodiles. So I have no problem with flamethrowers or shotguns. These are anti-personnel, but they could be anti-tank too. Because of the high acceleration but low top speeds these tanks have, we must conclude that they’re pretty lightly armored. A flamethrower might damage such a tank, and a big shotgun could too. There is some suspension of disbelief I use, sure. But whereas the other stuff contributes to a fun gameplay or are just reasonable things for a game, or involve somewhat sci-fi elements, giving a rocket launcher recoil has no balance purpose, and is not required for good gameplay. It is a simple parameter that is blatantly in contradiction with the laws of physics.

Does "alterations" include visual alterations, such as XT's and shot effects?

Maybe the three-letter names are a sort of standardized call sign thing.

We’ve come full circle, folks!

^ Either get Thunder m1, or the destabilization alteration. Stabilizing isn’t all that great. The constant damage is pretty close to the average damage of railgun.

Recently, MU’s have had their prices decreased so that the sum of them was equal to the price of the next modification. No guide on MUs has been written since then...

HCR alteration (I think, but I can’t find any evidence) used to increase reload by 50%, and damage by 40%. Now it increases reload by 20%, and charging time by 50%. I don’t know when they changed it; probably during some patch that I can’t find. The original railgun had a 1.1 second warm-up, more impact, etc. With high-caliber, the warm-up is 1.65 seconds. And it still isn’t as powerful relative to other hulls, which have been buffed, particularly wasp. https://en.tankiwiki.com/Global_update_of_game_balance_for_Tanki_Online Here you can see how railgun was. M3 rail old average damage: 1365. Reload: 6.0 M3 rail new average damage: 1011 Reload: 4.35 M3 rail with HCR average damage: 1415 Reload: 5.22 + longer charge. It’s not all bad, but the lower damage and faster reload means you need to pop out from cover more often, and railgun is bad in terms of DPS.

FalCONitu: In the past 2 years, thay’ve changed railgun; the reload is shorter, and the damage lower. I remember back when a railgun had a chance of 1-shoting an equivalently ranked light hull. I have m3 railgun, and I cannot 1-shot even an m1 light hull, without double damage. I can sometimes 1-shot a light hull with the high caliber alteration or shell destabilization alt. At your rank, thunder m1 is really good if you’re short on crystals and can’t get an m2. On a different account, I played with thunder m1 as my main turret well into the first lieutenant rank.

^Yup, the effects of recoil would be indiscernible, the tanks are just too massive, and rocket launchers have little or no recoil to begin with.

I was thinking about that today. But... Say mammoth is 6.5 meters long. An M1 abrams is 8 meters long. Viking (5.2m) is shorter than a suburban (5.6m). It’s hard to tell the size, but I think the tanks in Tanki are smaller than their real-world counterparts. Also, the Stryker is 7m long, and mammoth 6.5, so the Stryker should be bigger in that image you have. Tanki X is better about the scale thing, but it feels weird. Many of the buildings in TX’s Iran, for instance, are 2 stories high where they are 1 in tanki.

Can I write on MUs and alterations? They are both a kind of upgrade.

Alright, I can’t find any good videos of the MATADOR firing that show whether or not there is recoil, and you claim not to know the physics, so I don’t know. I strongly feel it makes no physical sense for the MATADOR to have recoil, you probably are feeling the exhaust from the missile hitting you as it flies in front of you, away from you. If the plastic countermass doesn’t quite balance the blast of the launching mechanism, there might actually be recoil. During the launch portion, the MATADOR acts as a recoilless rifle; the rocket part lights later.

It’s entertaining. And mechanical debates are my favorite kind, because of the rather objective nature of things.

Ok. You may be right about the RPG-7 using a powder charge for initial expulsion; I can’t access the Wikipedia sources though. I still think it is a sort of gunpowder rocket, propelled by the backwards expulsion of gasses from the combustion of the powder. But you brought up the scenario of powder-charged rocket expulsion, as a means of explaining recoil. It could work, but I don’t think it exists in reality. You still have yet to list a rocket, expelled by some pressureized gas or powder charge, and that creates aforementioned recoil. Because that is why you brought up the powder-charge-scenario in the first place. Naval torpedos often use pressure launch systems, but rockets are good at accelerating themselves. I can see some benefit to launching with a charge, but I don’t think such weapons exist, or have ever been produced in sizable numbers, on an anti-armor scale. All land vehicle-mounted rocket weapons, that I have seen, have no recoil whatsoever. Why shouldn’t Striker follow the same pattern? The MATADOR acts as a recoilless rifle at the launch, to reduce backblast, and has a countermass and no recoil. (Then the rocket part ignites). The ejection charge fires, and accelerates plastic pellets in an opposite direction to counteract the recoil. This still doesn’t provide a reason for Striker to have recoil.

You brought up powder charge to explain recoil. When asked to name a rocket that exemplified that, you picked one that had no recoil. Can you name a rocket launcher that has recoil, due to a powder charge or otherwise? The rpg-7, IF it has a powder charge, is a semi-recoilless rifle. And not a submarine launched ICBM.

Zloy; yes, itis boosted by gunpowder, but it's a gunpowder rocket stage. It still has a significant back blast, look in the picture you yourself posted. And no recoil. The backwards acceleration of exhaust propels it out of the tube, not the build up of pressure. It's just a rocket that happens to be fueled by gunpowder. Just like most 18th-19th century rockets.