Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm playing a PBEM game in CMBN as the Germans.  I had two infantry crawl up to within 4 or 5 meters of a Sherman hoping to maybe pick off the commander if the hatch was open.  My infantry threw two grenades, both of which exploded underneath the Sherman.  To my amazement those two grenades knocked out the Sherman!  They had three grenades and there is nothing in their description to indicate that they had some anti tank capabilities.  I've been playing CM games since the first series and have never seen this.  Seems unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not meant to be taken literally but rather it represents "Infantry Close Assault". Disregard the animations in this as the game was not designed to display the precise actions that take place in this sort of attack on a vehicle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Canuke, this happens all to often in CM...

I understand, Bud Backer, But it still only took 2x individual Infantry Close-Assaulting and KO'ing a Tank. You'd think it would take at least a Fire-Team/Squad to properly coordinate to take out a Tank (being stationary for several seconds/1-2 minutes). 

I have always thought that BF's use of 'Close-Assault' against Armor is way too faced-paced and generic...Then again, most everything in CM is often too faced-paced.

Edited by JoMc67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who’s to say one grenade didn’t go down a hatch? Then all it takes is one man, not a fire team. Given it’s fairly difficult it is to close Assault a tank in general, I don’t see a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CanuckGamer, Armor is very Fragile in CM when being Close-Assaulted by any sort of Infantry (Inf, Scouts, Hvy Weapons, the Ammo Bearer, the Piss Boy...doesn't matter) especially in built-up areas...So, just take a Squad located in a Village/Town and break it down to several smaller Teams, and go out and destroy a Platoon of Armor...It's as easy as taking Candy from a Baby.

Edited by JoMc67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armour without good infantry support is extremely vulnerable in built up areas or any terrain with excellent cover for infantry. This is historically true, which is why you shouldn't use armour that way.

Combat Mission handles close assault pretty well, given the potential complexity of the variables involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another forum thread going that generally claims WW2 tanks are overpowered.  To include the claim that tanks are overpowered vs infantry close assault.  I thought it might be interesting for anybody following this thread was not aware of the other thread.  See link below.        

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite interesting to contrast the CM way of doing this compared to Graviteam Tactics. In CM, if you can get infantry close to a tank, there's a good chance they will take it out. I've even lost King Tigers this way. In GT, infantry is often completely powerless against tanks rampaging through them. Even scout cars can drive straight up to trenches and gun down the defenders.

I think CM mainly makes infantry stronger against tanks for gameplay balance purposes - CM can be played against a human opponent, GT cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer historical accuracy and rather lean towards how BF/CM is handling things. In alot of tactical wargames infantry is reduced to "nice to have them around but not really threatening or battle decisive" when tanks are present aswell. Drive them up to the inf and blast them into pieces. In CM on the other hand you need to excercise the combined arms approach and thus protect your tanks from infantry and locating infantry can be difficult depending on conditions and environment aswell.  

Having enemy infantry swarming your tank was one of the worst situations a tank crew could find itself in. Some tanks came with close defense system such as dedicated mgs or firing ports but AFAIK they never prove to be an effective deterrent and even less a proper replacement for infantry support. There is a reason why some German tanks installed sohisticated solutions like  the "Nahverteidigungswaffe" which tried to protect their heavy tanks from infantry attacks by launching explosives, its quiet interesting to see it in action in CM. If infantry swarming them wouldn´t be a threat to their Tigers/Kingtigers they wouldn´t bother with it.

In the beginning the effectiveness of grenades also wondered me but when someone on these forums came up with the explanation that it represents an abstraction of the various close infantry attack tactics that were used against tanks and that the generic grenade counter/throw also represents an abstraction of various dedicated or DIY AT ordnance such as dedicated/improvised mines, charges, liquids, throwables it started to make sense to me. If true putting an explanation into the manual could avoid alot of the confusion. 

Interesting are also the results. I had Medium Tanks such as the T-34 knocked out after 1-2 grenade/close infantry attacks and I had T-34 that survived 12 of them and kept me constantly on the run. Something gave me the impression that there might be some hidden values running under the "grenade count" hood but on the other hand I don´t want to know in order to keep the "magic" which makes every close infantry attack exciting about what might happen. 

What for me is left to debate is if effect on enemy tanks is achieved too fast, if despite mobility killing them they had the means to completely knock out heavier tanks that fast or at all, force the crew outside, and if so many infantrymen would have the knowledge, guts, and equipment to undertake such an endeavour. Pretty sure there are some of these that can be at least partially answered with "not really" but I guess some of this might be tied to 1) current engine limitations 2) limited development resources, and balancing 1) and 2) out with the other aspects of the game in order to still offer the best historical accuracy possible.

But nevertheless I still think CM has one  of the - if not the - most authentic Infantry vs tanks warfare representations.

There are even ideas to go farer as somebody mentioned the idea to allow infantry to use their explosive ordnance/close infantry attack ability from buildings which I think is not that bad of an idea but might end up absolutely over the top with infantry occupied build-up areas becoming apocalyptic for tanks to drive through and on the other hand would neglect the exposure of infantry as they wouldn´t have to leave the safety of the building for that. Perhaps thats was the decision-making reason why the ability is denied from interiors.

Edited by Aquila-SmartWargames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Aquila-SmartWargames said:

I prefer historical accuracy and rather lean towards how BF/CM is handling things. In alot of tactical wargames infantry is reduced to "nice to have them around but not really threatening or battle decisive" when tanks are present aswell. Drive them up to the inf and blast them into pieces.

Yes, I prefer an infantry focus too. It's pretty obvious that GT was built on a tank simulation, with the infantry added mostly so that tanks have something to shoot HE at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and understand Armor w/o Inf Support (especially in built-up areas) can be detrimental to its health...

I just wish Infantry in same/adjacent Action-Spots would take a little longer to achieve good Close-Assault results. Maybe something to the effect of how long Infantry is present, Terrain, type and size of Infantry/armor, etc...Just seems it happens too quickly, and all within a quarter of turn, instead of 1-2 minutes that it would take to execute due to decision & preparation, etc.

 

 

Edited by JoMc67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aquila-SmartWargames said:

What for me is left to debate is if effect on enemy tanks is achieved too fast....

I believe to remember, that a long time ago one of our CM friends with practical experience said, that action in CM is in general about 4x faster than in RL.

Such acceleration would explain an increased effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The level of realism would depend on the type of grenade used, and the type of damage inflicted. A powerful explosion beneath a tank can cause catastrophic damage to both tank & crew. Think of a big IED that explodes with great force, and breaks the commander's neck. Tracks gone, systems damaged, crew bails -- tank knocked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience with a lot of time in urban maps in no way supports it is somehow easy to take out armor with infantry. While I can, it is far from assured and if that armor has any support at all I am toast. Keep in mind CM doesn’t reflect at all the constraints armor would face. Inability to turn turret due to barrel., incredibly reduced visibility etc. in my eyes quite the opposite. Armor is pretty unfettered in urban space compared to reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is much closer to my in-game experience than a squad taking a platoon of tanks out. While it is possible, it’s not something I would like to count on, even 1 time in ten. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2020 at 8:57 AM, JoMc67 said:

Armor is very Fragile in CM when being Close-Assaulted by any sort of Infantry

 

15 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

There is another forum thread going that generally claims WW2 tanks are overpowered.

 

Wait, which is it - too fragile or too powerful.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because wether every soldier being able to do the close assault or not was mentioned in this thread. From the German Wehrmacht field manual comic about close assaulting tanks I´ve posted in the competition thread @MOS:96B2P linked here, these bits might be interesting:

"Das Pänzerknacken muß jeder Soldat beherrschen wie seine Knarre. Ganz gleich, welche Waffe, gleich ob Grenadier oder Feldbäcker."

Basically: every soldier needs to know how to knock out tanks no matter what branch, no matter if rifleman or baker.

"Jeder muß das Knacken können. Seid nicht stur! Drängt Euch dazu, das Zeug zu sehen und zu lernen! Schafft Nahkampfwaffen und Nahkampfmittel bei oder macht Euch selber welche! Und laßt sie nicht verrotten, wenn einmal eine Zeitlang nichts passiert. Vor allem Zünder, Zündladungen und Zündschnüre gut aufbewahren. Zu jeder Minute müßt Ihr auf Panzer gefaßt sein."

Basically: Everybody needs to learn and know about knocking out tanks. Get (anti tank) close assault ordnance and means or make sure to create your own. Maintain them even when no tank threat presents itself for a longer time. Every minute you must be ready for tanks.

http://pbc.gda.pl/Content/57971/Der Panzerknacker.pdf

Edited by Aquila-SmartWargames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Aquila-SmartWargames said:

Because wether every soldier being able to do the close assault or not was mentioned in this thread. From the German Wehrmacht field manual comic about close assaulting tanks I´ve posted in the competition thread @MOS:96B2P linked here, these bits might be interesting:

"Das Pänzerknacken muß jeder Soldat beherrschen wie seine Knarre. Ganz gleich, welche Waffe, gleich ob Grenadier oder Feldbäcker."

Basically: every soldier needs to know how to knock out tanks no matter what branch, no matter if rifleman or baker.

"Jeder muß das Knacken können. Seid nicht stur! Drängt Euch dazu, das Zeug zu sehen und zu lernen! Schafft Nahkampfwaffen und Nahkampfmittel bei oder macht Euch selber welche! Und laßt sie nicht verrotten, wenn einmal eine Zeitlang nichts passiert. Vor allem Zünder, Zündladungen und Zündschnüre gut aufbewahren. Zu jeder Minute müßt Ihr auf Panzer gefaßt sein."

Basically: Everybody needs to learn and know about knocking out tanks. Get (anti tank) close assault ordnance and means or make sure to create your own. Maintain them even when no tank threat presents itself for a longer time. Every minute you must be ready for tanks.

http://pbc.gda.pl/Content/57971/Der Panzerknacker.pdf

That sounds like pretty wishful thinking. I wonder how many people would remember such advise when the heat is on.

The part about DYO-ordnance even sounds a little desperate. Along the lines: “We can’t give you the tools, but feel free to build some.”

I was about to call it  “Propaganda stuff”, but then remembered, to have read similar over-optimistic non-sense even in Bundeswehr field manuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

That sounds like pretty wishful thinking. I wonder how many people would remember such advise when the heat is on.

The part about DYO-ordnance even sounds a little desperate.

Its up to you to believe that instructing soldiers is pointless as you think they will forget everything in the heat. 

There was not much left for them other than wishful thinking and desperation as the war at this point was lost beyond recovering. If writing manuals for soldiers in order to continue an auto-destructive and pointless war fits your propaganda definition well then I have nothing to add.

2 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

Along the lines: “We can’t give you the tools, but feel free to build some.”

To adapt despite the equipment you´re supplied with is nothing new and IMO not different for a today´s soldier. Stuff like creating DIY explosive ordnance or booby traps isn´t taught anymore that much or even forbidden today among our Western armies - at least as far my insight goes -  but back then it was taught not only to Axis but to Allies soldiers aswell to a more or less extent. 

2 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

but then remembered, to have read similar over-optimistic non-sense even in Bundeswehr field manuals.

Again up to you to wether the content of this close anti tank assault document is nonsense or not. Two absolute contrary threads alone show that there are many different opinions about this topic.

For me the GER ZDVs are designed similar to the US FM with some differences, which would make sense as the US assisted in build-up of the GER BW but I am not a ZDV history buff. However not one of the ZDV I know of is written in this style. There is alot of unintentionally amusing and silly sections to be found in them and there are better and worse.

But hinting a comparison between Bundeswehr ZDVs and 3rd Reich Propaganda here indicates me that you no really know what you´re talking about and furthermore don´t really understand the purpose and limits of these field manuals. Every competent commander and soldier is taught and understands that not everything what you see in a tactical ZDV should be applied blindly while neglecting practicability and adaptability.

 

We´re in off-topic territory lets go back

Edited by Aquila-SmartWargames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2020 at 7:21 PM, IanL said:
On 2/9/2020 at 2:57 PM, JoMc67 said:

Armor is very Fragile in CM when being Close-Assaulted by any sort of Infantry

 

On 2/10/2020 at 3:41 AM, MOS:96B2P said:

There is another forum thread going that generally claims WW2 tanks are overpowered.

 

Wait, which is it - too fragile or too powerful.

:D

It's very possible for tanks to be both too strong at a distance and too weak up close. I'm not saying they are, but we cannot conclude that it is an example of the stereotypical "stupid customers don't even know what they want".

Edited by Bulletpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

 "stupid customers don't even know what they want".

Yeah, *that* is not at all what I said or meant. We do however see a large spread of opinions about what is working and what is not - which clearly means that there is no way to satisfy everyone no matter what choices BFC made. Which is why it is a good thing that BFC's default is to make decisions that *they* feel are the best ones and only tweak things if someone actually shows evidence that they got things wrong in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, not everyone is equally adept at handling infantry to attack tanks, nor tanks to defeat infantry. So single-instance anecdotal information does not a crisis make. 

Edited by Bud Backer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...