The vehicles in Battlefield 6 are too weak.

All of these goobers claiming that the current state of tanks and ifvs is realistic, or balanced, are entirely delusional and know absolutely nothing about tanks. And yes, the main gun is in fact used to engage infantry. What do you think HE rounds are for? They aren't there for fun.  Im a real tanker. I served in Iraq as an abrams commander. I am also a warthunder player, and they get a lot right as far as the fundamentals go. if you want to actually learn about tanks and how they work, give it a try. So does enlisted, warthunders game that has infantry. Or try gunner heat pc, another tank game that gets it right. In fact its the most accurate of the bunch.  First of all, it is not balanced at all. You get 3 kills and then die instantly from 3 or 4 rpgs and have to waite 3 minutes to come back. If an engineer gets 5, they can instantly obliterate any tank they see. And for those claiming that's realistic, or who want vehicles to feel like they look in ukraine, ok! Then they have to make the rpg do 0 damage. Thats right. 0. The rpg-7 is completely ineffective against modern tanks, like the m1a2 abrams. Its only effective from the roof or rear.(if you let infantry get to the rear of your tank, something went very wrong.)  And even then, the damage would be incredibly limited at best. The rpg today is only used to engage lightly armored vehicles and infantry hiding in structures or fortifications. Today, the rpg-7 can't even engage most ifvs due to newer ifvs using era and composite NERA(non-explosive reactive armor)  armor, leaving rpgs entirely useless. So if you want it to be realistic, great! Than tanks would be nearly immortal because the engineers only effective option ingame would become entirely useless. Why is it useless, your may ask? Because modern chobham armor in the abrams is both anti kinetic and anti chemical(The rpg falls under the chemical weapons class as do most shaped charge weaponry) they incorporate special rubbers that are designed to nullify sabots and completely stop heat rounds when working in tandem with du plates, or for non-abrams tanks like the leopard 2a7, working with tungsten carbide plates. And the abrams has over a meter of this armor in the front. Even if that armor was simply steel, the rpg can only pen 330 mm of RHA. Not a meter of it. But it isn't simple RHA. Its composite armor, which as far as the abrams is concerned, it uses a mixture of du plates and special rubber plates designed to nullify both chemical and kinetic munitions. And most tanks have era on the side nowadays, which also completely nullified the rpg. Even if they didnt, the abrams has no critical components to hit by engaging the side except the driver. And even then its unlikely the driver would be hit. You be hitting air most of the time. And the side of the abrams turret is incredibly armored unlike the hull, because that's where most of the crew is. The side of the abrams turret has over 200mm of composite armor on the sides. Which is enough to stop just about every MANPAT weapon out there (man portable anti-tank) and btw, the m1a2 sep v3, the current serving abrams, has era on the side of the hull. 

Its the same with Russian tanks. They do use a much simpler and more dated composite armor layout thats less effective than chobham, and the UFP uses a lot less armor than most western tanks, but its still effective, and they make up for its weaknesses and thinner plates by slathering their tanks in giant era bricks. They use a mixture of composite steel and laminated ceramic plates for their composite armor, which also nullifies both kinetic and chemical weapons, although it is dated, and much less effective than chobham armor. But still effective nonetheless. And it still nullifies most manpats entirely. On top of that, modern Russian tanks are covered in relikt era, which is VERY effective at stopping chemical weapons, and decent at stopping kinetic weapons, and it makes up for the rather weak armor of the t80 bvm and t90m and t72b3. 

Now to the "guns are meant to dig into armor not kill infantry" nonsense. That is so laughably incorrect. First of all, APFSDS doesn't dig into armor, it cuts through it. Like a giant needle. Because that's what it is essentially. With a du core as far as the abrams is concerned. It uses the m829a4 APFSDS rounds. The leopard 2pl in bf6 uses the dm63 apfsds round. Just a fun little sidenote. Second, yes, the main gun on a tank is in fact used to engage infantry. Thats what he rounds are for lmao. The abrams uses the m830 HEAT MP-T round, which is used mainly in an anti personnel role. Yes, thats means its mainly used against infantry. It also serves as a heat rounds just in case you need to engage an enemy vehicle on the spot.  The m830 when used against infantry is programmable and it can air burst at a set distance,(set by the laser rangefinder) covering a large area in shrapnel and producing a massive lethal overpressure wave(what gamers call splash damage). And it is typically used to engage large masses of infantry, or infantry hiding in a fortified positions like a building.

So yes, the main guns primary role is engaging infantry. In fact, engaging enemy vehicles is its secondary role. Thats what we are trained. Its primary role is engaging fortified infantry and large masses of infantry.

The coaxial machine gun, and the commanders gun(the machinegunner you are referring to) are only for engaging small skirmishes of infantry. Not large groups. Thats what the main gun is for. 

As for other tanks, they use standard he, nothing fancy like the abrams, but still very effective. 

The t 72, t80 and t90 use an HE-FRAG round out of the 2a46 l48 125mm gun designed entirely for anti personnel purposes. Its the 3OF-26 HE-FRAG round. 

The leopard uses DM11, an he round also designed for...you guessed it! Anti personnel uses. 

So yes, they should have much much more splash damage. How much? We'll you guys seem to love realism right! So let's do a realistic lethal range. M830 has a lethal fragmentation range of about an average neighborhood block. Over 100 METERS. But most of the people who would be neutralized by it will be within 60 meters. Which is still INCREDIBLY far away as far as many of the bf6 maps are concerned. It would be very very op if they made he realistic in bf6. 

Are you sure you guys want tanks to be realistic? Because they would be stupendously op if they were in game. Lmao. You'd quickly find out why they aren't obsolete. They'd be unkillable and they'd massacre lobbies easily. 

We just want them to be playable in game and not feel like they are made of cardboard and protected by hopes and dreams. We just want them to be like they were in bf4, aka PLAYABLE. 

And as I've proven, no, they are far from realistic in their current state. You think what we are asking for is op? We'll you guys want realism so bad. That would make tanks overpowered beyond belief lmao. And even if they somehow added fpv drones, they still wouldn't be effective, because most western nations like the usa have very sophisticated jamming networks than can disable entire legions of drones, making entire hundreds mile areas into no fly zones for drones. This is a capability that neither Russia or Ukraine have, which is why drones are so effective there. Many forget that the us pioneered drone warfare with the american switchblade fpv drones being available for decades before the Ukraine conflict even broke out. So they also developed a counter. 

But anyway, yes, tanks are very unbalanced and weak in game, and very unrealistic in their current state. We simply want vehicles to be playable. Thats all. We aren't asking for much.