17pounder
-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 17pounder
-
-
5 hours ago, user1000 said:
Nope, German AT grenades were not heavily used in the west, they stopped making them before the allies landed in favor of the panzerfaust and kept the remaining stockpiles on the eastern front. . The soviets encountered more of these German AT grenades from German occupied trenches and holes on the push westward across the large open fields, west front allies encountered minuscule to none.
Might be lighter but grenade use against a tank is more dangerous and harder to hit than a launched weapon, the faustpatrone is the lightest and could be carried by an mg crew assistant. The grenade bundle (geballte Ladung) would only knock off tracks or immobile a tank if it landed on top of the engine, after all it is just HE. To do that the soldier would have to be right near a tank with no troop support. The allies learned quickly to protect their tanks with troops as they didn't in the beginning.
You're restricting yourself FAR too much on your interpretation of AT grenades; bundles of grenades tied or strapped into a bundle were not termed AT grenades in stores lists but were very effective when lobbed onto the engine decking of a Sherman, or any other tank for that matter, but especially a Sherman. Would this be listed as an AT grenade - no. Would it take out a Sherman in a bundle - yes.
Unlike you I'll also give references; in "The encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of WWII" by noted EXPERT on anything weapons - Ian V Hogg, he actually talks of the Steilhandgranate "being tied into bundles and routinely used against armoured vehicles when other weapons were not at hand".
Also don't forget the Heft Hohladungranate 3 Kg magnetic grenade; Hogg explicitly says "The magnetic grenades were used to good effect against Russian tanks and later against British and US tanks in Normandy". Page 171 in the Grenades section. So yes.
-
On 11/28/2016 at 3:49 PM, user1000 said:
Germans had way more types of AT grenades and thrown devices on the eastern front than western. On the western most likely a faust or panzershrek if it was from an mg team.
Not necessarily, it was just that Russian tanks were far more numerous and regular on the Eastern Front, and in addition often rolled up to the trench lines/foxholes where they were vulnerable to infantry assault - both AT grenades, regular grenades in bundles and AT mines, as well as rockets later. Units routinely switched between fronts and most weapons and tactics were interchangeable also. There was no hard and fast rule and both types of weapons would be handed out to infantry where enemy tanks were likely to attack. So AT grenades and mines were also used heavily in the west, whilst fausts etc. also in the east. Like the 88 gun, Tiger and the rocket firing Typhoon, the panzerfaust/schrek has also entered into the world of legend, and many kills were attributed to them erroneously.
Also the US sector in the bocage was perfect for such tactics. It's just as conceivable that an MG42 team, weighed down with their weapon, tripod ammo etc. would be just as likely to carry grenades or mines as a panzerfaust, and even a bundle of regular grenades tied together would prove fatal to the Sherman which on the British/CW front was called the "Tommy cooker" for good reason. Certainly haven't seen many photos of MG42 HMG teams with panzerfausts, but of course the game might well have modeled that. Was it an MG42 LMG or HMG team that made the kill?
I've watched a British airborne squad ambush a German AFV from a hedgegrow with grenades very effectively in this game (MG). But of course it's impossible to tell without a proper replay.
-
Wilco, I'll try that.
-
Maybe the crew had bundled grenades and lobbed them on to the rear decking of the tank - happened routinely on the Eastern Front.
-
Hope there's no sneaky guys hiding in the hedge with a panzerfaust - only with recent politics anything could happen!
We had a similar ride from here to the WWI memorial and Somme battlefield, which was very well publicised and attended. Nice way to commemorate the fallen.
-
Forgot to mention - yes I know rockets are not particularly accurate, but I've also had the same problem with other artillery as well, and keeping an obo on the target with LOS can be like a separate little battle all on it's own!
But I'd like to say I appreciate all the comments and advise given here.
-
18 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:
Spot on. Combined arms is the way to go.
Not sure how much of the above is frustration or serious. In CMRT aircraft are roving so I also don't rely on them. I'm afraid they may hit friendly troops.
Only HQ teams, Forward Observers and some XO teams have the ability to call for artillery. All other teams are denied. I only mention this because in CMBS, on the US side, almost every fire team can call for artillery. Maybe you were expecting the same behavior in CMRT? (Not being snarky, trying to be helpful) I will also add that the ranking officer in the HQ, XO, and FO teams must not be KIA. If they are KIA the team will lose the ability to call for artillery. It does not matter if these teams have a radio or not. On map mortars must be in C2. Off map mortars & arty are always considered in C2.
Target Reference Points (TRPs) are very useful. In the attack I place them to support my scheme of maneuver. On the defense I place them on likely OpFor avenues of approach. No line of site needed, no spotting rounds to warn the OpFor and the fire for effect is quicker. I also use a low rate, low tube, maximum time, fire missions and adjust as necessary.
The above works for me and about the only time I see "denied" is if the team officer is KIA. Hope that gave you some ideas.
I'm always happy to get advice from vets! I tend to be less reliant on my tubes than some, maybe because I've suffered too much friendly fire. I also enjoy the more even battle of flanking AT guns or using a specialist infantry team on them if I can, perhaps in coordination with HE tanks (the bigger the better, if infantry are covering those guns) - tends to be a lot quicker and precise I find, if it's possible.
Example; last week I made a QB (my favoured way of playing this thing). Russian assault on a German position behind a river (all random/automatic selection). My force was mostly Su-76's which was not ideal. So I recce'd with scouts and came under fire from woods on the edge of one side of the target village. Considering my lack of heavy armour (just one 152) I thought ok job for the tubes. Katyusha was the card I'd drawn. Plotted a fire mission using my forward op - soon reduced to one thanks to a pesky and very accurate mg34. Asked for max and emergency. Goddam it was a long wait and I was on a 1 hour mission deadline (or the gulag for me). I wasted quite a significant amount of time waiting for that barrage and when it finally arrived it missed the wood almost totally!
Cut a long story short I took the entire village without using any tubes by utilizing coordinated infantry assaults from every ford on that river. These exposed the mg's and my sp guns dealt with them quickly, I lost three Su-76's in quick succession to hidden AT guns but soon switched my infantry to suppressing each one until my remaining SP's could silence them. I used the 152 as if my life depended on it, always using cover and constantly edging forward and reversing. I covered it with a DP mg and coordinated his LOS with the 152 at all times. The assault was moved along with heavy suppressing fire on all suspected enemy positions before receiving fire for them. At no time was a unit in solitary contact with the enemy - it always had fire support from nearby units. Within 45 minutes all VP points were under my control.
One of the main points here is that the assault moved so quickly that to register artillery would almost certainly have caused friendly casualties and also conceivably because of delays prevented my capture of all 3 widely spaced target zones.
-
19 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:
"artillery" ... "DENIED" .. "nine times out of ten".... Sounds just a tad unrealistic. Unless you are really that bad at managing your assets.
See my answer to sburke - ok I exaggerated, but the general point is very valid inasmuch as relying totally on your artillery will mean unnecessary delays, long waits for comms and potentially an inaccurate barrage at the end of it (just like it really was), the other big drawback is you can't safely move your troops forward whilst waiting for it, unless you want friendly fire casualties. The allies in 1944-45 on all fronts were deadly to the Germans with their massed artillery, but they usually didn't have an exact time limit to fight to - or someone coming round in an hour to watch the footie!
-
19 hours ago, sburke said:
Yeah It sounds a bit like a lack of attention to c2 and are the mortars deployed. 90% is a ridiculously high denial rate. Something is not being handled right if that is an actual rate versus just an expression of frustration.
Ok I exaggerated, but the general point is valid - you can't always rely on your artillery in this game because it's denied a significant amount of time when you actually need it, and also often very slow arriving - I've had this with all forms of barrage too. Hanging around whilst the clock ticks down on your attack waiting for some tubes to come online, is not my favoured approach, though of course everyone has their own preferences. In addition it's not instant gratification either as it's not always accurate (just like real life). I wonder how quickly the Germans would have reached Dunkirk had they relied on textbook artillery barrages going through France?
Yes it's a part of combined arms for sure, but just one contributory factor, and perhaps for a certain style of play.
-
18 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:
And if your scouts find ATGs, then it's time to call for some indirect fire weapons, whether on-map mortars or off-map arty. Of course all this is just Combined Arms Tactics 101.
Michael
I did that for a reason; I would have mentioned artillery/air strikes in any other tactical WWII game, except in this game it's "DENIED" nine times out of ten when you need it (presuming you're even given any). Moving a mortar up into LOS is not remotely an option either IMO. If your fighting a timed battle as is so often the case, then hanging around for a fire support mission is not reallyon. It's also not a good idea to over-rely on artillery for the reasons above.
-
I think the biggest and best way to defeat any defensive force, including AT guns, is to always apply a "combined arms" approach. That way you should be able to overcome any defence if you use each arm intelligently. Suspect AT guns or AT infantry? Send infantry recon forward to find out. Your scouts find dug in MG's? Then its armour forward, and so on. If defence was that easy then no battle would ever end!
-
Battle Academy 1 & 2, John Tiller Campaign Series, Company of Heroes 1 & 2, Men of war assault squad 2, il-2 Sturmovik 1946 modded, il-2 Battles of Stalingrad and Moscow, Wings of Prey, Battle Fleet 2, Atlantic Fleet and Victory at Sea.
-
The CMBN bundle which includes CW Forces and Market Garden is probably the best buy and will keep you busy for months. You can select your own small battles in QB feature too. Loads of mods out there too.
-
If you can only buy 1 game now then my advice would be Red Thunder, at least you'll get a whole new army and style of warfare to play with. A lot of the OOB's in CMFB/CMBN(MG) and CMFI are quite similar, okay you get the flip-flopping Italians in CMFI - but believe me the Red Army is in a different class in 1944!
-
Yeah start with the Quick Battle feature - don't go straight into scenarios/campaigns. Set the QB so that you start as defender which is a good way to learn the workings of a WWII battle and will also teach you about the use of ground. When you routinely win at defensive battles next increase the attacker by 25 - 40%. Still winning? Okay go to the attacking force but give yourself the advantage and repeat until you're on level terms. This has the advantage of building confidence and also getting familiar with your forces. Defending first will also give you a good idea when attacking of the traps to expect.
-
It does seem a shame that the earlier battles weren't chosen first, it would have been great to start with Barbarossa and work through such great campaigns as Stalingrad, the various Kharkov's and of course Kursk. But I can kind of see why the devs went for Bagration as they had virtually all the German late war stuff already done, and at the end of the day it's a business for them.
One reasonable request though; please put the Pz. III into this game from MG/FI - at least that will help in mocking up earlier scenarios.
-
Ooops - just the way my keyboard is set up! Anyway the panzer between 2 and 4...
Sorry guys I really f'd up this post, apologies.
-
There is snow business like snow business I snow... Perhaps BF could employ some of the expert modders out there kind of like Oleg Maddox did with Team Daidalos over at the il-2 combat flight simulator?
-
If only Ihad the time and the skills :-) I suspect the next CMRT Module is likely to cover the winter of 1944 - 5 and will include snow. Just no Panzer IIIs which were largely out of service by that stage :-). Besides, we all want to see a real Kursk game and for this to include 3rd Kharkov. A none too subtle hint for the Battlefront team :-)
Yes Kharkov without Pz.111's would be like Normandy without Panthers! BUT there is a nice Pz.111 over in CMMG - perhaps those nice guys that can tinker under the bonnet would see it possible to migrate that tank over into the next module for CMRT whatever it might be? After all I'm sure there were some training cadres east of Berlin that used Pz.111's for gunnery, driver familiarisation etc. I'm sure the new tankers coming in from the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine etc. wouldn't be let loose with a King Tiger to start with...
Would certainly make a HUGE difference in any Kharkov mod wouldn't it?
-
Some have mentioned the Battle of France in the context of this thread on CMRT/CMRT part 2 (or the muddy and slushy variant perhaps?), whilst I can see where those comments are coming from, but BOF was a unique one-off campaign as were the other blitzkrieg campaigns; different opponents, different AFV's and different scenery. So no real comparison there.
Still, I'm sure whatever we get it will still seem worth it. Just a pity that I might not be around for Kharkov, Kursk and Stalingrad !!
-
@17pounder I apologize for slight hijacking of your thread. I will create a new thread for a CMRT Charkow '43 Mod project. Best wishes and so long!
No worries mate.
-
Most definitely would be. The war was so much more in the balance in the winter of 1942-43; there was a still a serious doubt over which side would be victorious, whereas by the winter of 1944-45 it was just the final death throes of the 3rd Reich. The final year in the east was really a succession of very similar operations - patched together German battle-groups facing massive Russian artillery bombardments followed by unstoppable (mostly) waves of expendable Infantry and tanks, the whole lot supported by wave after wave of ground attack aircraft. Ok occasionally there were local successes thanks to elite units acting as fire brigades, but essentially it was one way traffic. Yes there were a handful of Hitler-inspired nutty offensives hardly worth the name, but nothing like the Ardennes offensive in the West.
I must admit I would MUCH rather go backwards in the war than forwards to winter 44-45. Ok of course I will buy it regardless, but if BF were to break the mould and do Kharkov, Kursk or Stalingrad next instead, then it would be mega exciting. I also think they'd sell a heck more units too, after all those battles are far more well know generally. I'd of thought put CM with those names say on steam, and people would buy. Once they'd got into CM I'm pretty sure most would realise just what quality this series really is, and compensate BF for the slight change in direction.
-
-
Yes and there is a likely chance that Soviet lend lease equipment from UK/USA will show up on their roster; think I'd rather stick to Russian vehicles though....reckon they should have supplied us - those big gun beasties would have been mighty useful in Goodwood and Epsom !!
MG 42 credited with Sherman kill?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted · Edited by 17pounder
I had to go out before I'll properly finished (I enjoy a bit of WWII research, but prefer published authors in books to the web),and my post above won't allow an edit?
Anyway as Hogg says, a bundle of regular (Steilhandgranate39) grenades tied/strapped together, could take out a tank. The Sherman was a highly flammable beast and if the bundle was lobbed onto the engine decking then it's the engine that would receive most of the blast not the tracks. With regard to the effect Hogg writes:
"It was also used as an anti-tank and anti-emplacement charge by lashing six grenade heads around a complete grenade to act as the detonator for all, producing considerable blast effect".
As I said the Heft Hohladung granate (granate=grenade) 3KG was just one of a number of series of grenades produced of varying sizes, but the 3KG was the most commonly encountered. This weapon could be thrown onto a passing tank, or if the user felt especially brave he could place it. Hogg goes onto say:
"These grenades were exceptionally effective and could defeat the armour of any tank" As I already quoted Hogg clearly describes their use in Normandy against British and US tanks as well as in Russia.
If the MG42 team was in a hedge and a tank passed by that close, a grenade attack, AT or otherwise, would work just fine and also had the advantage of not immediately giving away their position (presuming thrown/lobbed), also less likely to cause harm to the MG team.
Hope that helps.