Man vs Tank

[db_zero]

In other CM games infantry with no AT weapons have a good chance of disabling and destroying tanks with grenades. Sorta like caveman vs Woolly Mammoth.

Is that the case in Black Sea?

[agusto]

Yeah, good question. What about the anti-tank handgrenades we have seen in CMBN? Will there be similar weapons in CMBS?

[Jargotn]

The grenade throwing represents the infantry assaulting the tank. I don't know how todays infantry handles close armour contact while lacking AT-weapons.

I could imagine that Battlefront will do the same it did in shock force.

Were there grenade/tank battles in shock force?

[db_zero]

I really have a hard time seeing infantry assaulting a modern battle tank. Grenades? C4?

I've seen youtube vids of insurgents using old surplus Russian AT grenades. Other lighter stuff doesn't seem like it will be that much easier.

[agusto]

Were there grenade/tank battles in shock force?

No. But that also wasnt necessary, AT weapons are abundant on the modern battlefield. IIRC a squad of US Marines in CMSF usually carries approximately 5-6 unguided AT weapons. They have the M136 AT-4, a one-shot AT missile launcher. All Syrian squads have at least 1 RPG-7 + some ammo or better, all platoons have at least 2 additional dedicated RPG teams IIRC. Both the US and the Syrian weapon system are effective up to approximately 150-200m, much more than the old WW2 Panzefaust we know from CMBN. I ve never felt the need for some sort of close-assault anti tank option in CMSF.

[antaress73]

I destroyed a M1A2 in shock force with an infantry assault with grenades once .. so yes.. lot's of places where a bunch of grenades would effectively disable a tank and force the crew to abandon instead of waiting like canned rats in a disabled tank. Optics, tracks, squeeze some between the turret and the hull (disabling hydraulics or electric systems)... engine... even putting one through the gun barrel

I've seen all sorts of stuff .. even spraying paint on the optics would effectively blind a tank and obtain a mission kill LOL

[DMS]

Militias had a lot of molotovs on roadblocks. I had never seen reports about using it.

[Skwabie]

I ve never felt the need for some sort of close-assault anti tank option in CMSF.

It does happen, still remember the CMSF Dutch campaign mission "Heartland".

Dense urban map, a mass of T-72s appeared against my mech inf. The inf was in the buildings, they shot their AT rockets, knocked out 2 tanks. The follow on tanks spotted them, rotated to face them frontally, AT rockets all failed to penetrate. Then the inf was outta rockets, and cut to shreds by T-72s.

I had to replay the mission. Knowing where the T-72s will spawn I placed my inf accordingly — In fairness twas just a gamey approach to get through the mission.

In the campaigns that come with CMSF modules, especially NATO, the OpFor is often quite competent actually, unlike TF Thunder...

[Kraft]

The grenade throwing represents the infantry assaulting the tank. I don't know how todays infantry handles close armour contact while lacking AT-weapons.

Not really "todays military" but If you don't have other options I can very well imagine "todays" soldiers doing the same thing.

[dan/california]

Sooner or later their will be an emergency override on the APS to discourage swarming crunchies. Slap the big red button and claymore the immediate surroundings. It will be the first thing installed if their is ever real fighting in a third world mega city.

[agusto]

Not really "todays military" but If you don't have other options I can very well imagine "todays" soldiers doing the same thing.

That tank is probably not active. In the full video you can clearly see it is inactive, the engine is off, it sits motionless for almost 5 minutes before the insurgents blow it up. Additionally there was a guy with the group carrying an RPG. That he didnt use it further strengthens my believe that this tank was not operational at the time of its destruction.

But great footage anyways.

Sooner or later their will be an emergency override on the APS to discourage swarming crunchies. Slap the big red button and claymore the immediate surroundings. It will be the first thing installed if their is ever real fighting in a third world mega city.

That sounds like a great idea. I am sure the militaries of the countries fielding APS are currently considering this.

[womble]

That tank is probably not active. In the full video you can clearly see it is inactive, the engine is off, it sits motionless for almost 5 minutes before the insurgents blow it up. Additionally there was a guy with the group carrying an RPG. That he didnt use it further strengthens my believe that this tank was not operational at the time of its destruction.

Along the same lines, the breech must have been open for the blast of the grenade to do anything to a weapon that's built to contain the forces necessary to accelerate an AP round to Mach 3+. Do tanks ride around with their breeches open as SOP?

[Kraft]

I watched the full video, there was an engine sound, although not very loud so it could've been from a different vehicle. There was no reaction from the tank after the first grenade so I guess it was really abandoned.

the breech must have been open for the blast of the grenade to do anything

Haven't thought of that thank you

[agusto]

Do tanks ride around with their breeches open as SOP?

I think i remember that in the US Army it is SOP to go into combat with a HEAT round loaded because a HEAT round is effective against all sorts of targets: buildings, personell and armored vehicles. If a target is encountered that requires APDSFS, the HEAT round is fired at the target, an APDSFS round is loaded and then the target is reengaged. The goal of that tactic is to ensure that your guys get to shoot at the enemy first.

I dont know about the Syrian Army, maybe their T-72 go into battle without a round loaded and then load the appropriate ammunation as the different targets appear. But who knows, maybe the breach was open to help ventilation. I ve read that Syrian tankers go into battle bare feet and in underwear due to the excessive heat inside their vehicles.

[Apocal]

I think i remember that in the US Army it is SOP to go into combat with a HEAT round loaded because a HEAT round is effective against all sorts of targets: buildings, personell and armored vehicles. If a target is encountered that requires APDSFS, the HEAT round is fired at the target, an APDSFS round is loaded and then the target is reengaged. The goal of that tactic is to ensure that your guys get to shoot at the enemy first.

AFAIK, the round battle-carried is situational; if there is the possibility of encountering enemy tanks, battle-carry sabot. If something is too light for the sabot (which works against APCs/IFVs just fine), then its probably vulnerable to the coax instead.

Getting the first shot off only matters if its an effective shot.

[womble]

I think i remember that in the US Army it is SOP to go into combat with a HEAT round loaded because a HEAT round is effective against all sorts of targets: buildings, personell and armored vehicles. If a target is encountered that requires APDSFS, the HEAT round is fired at the target, an APDSFS round is loaded and then the target is reengaged. The goal of that tactic is to ensure that your guys get to shoot at the enemy first.

I dont know about the Syrian Army, maybe their T-72 go into battle without a round loaded and then load the appropriate ammunation as the different targets appear. But who knows, maybe the breach was open to help ventilation. I ve read that Syrian tankers go into battle bare feet and in underwear due to the excessive heat inside their vehicles.

So if there were a HEAT round "up the spout", would a grenade shoved in the muzzle have enough impulse to detonate it in the breech (does the fuse have a distance safety? Would the warhead filler detonate from the grenade's shockwave?)? And while I can certainly see a Monroe effect jet being fired off where it didn't orter be doing the tube no good whatsoever, would it breach the breech containment? I'd suppose, from my very layman(table) ignorance, that it wouldn't, but of course could be wrong.

[ChrisND]

Off the top of my head I don't think that infantry have much chance of successfully close-assaulting tanks in Black Sea without explosives of some sort. Tank protection has advanced quite bit since WW2. However, this isn't really much of an issue considering how modern infantry are bristling with anti-armor weapons. In this day and age, if your plan depends on your infantry trying to chuck grenades down hatches, you've already lost.