hand granades immobilized tracks

[Jorge MC]

is that a brit hand granade, or something biger?, I dont play brits much,

2nd time they immobilized a tank track check were it hits, this a bug?

[womble]

Infantry close assaulting. It can, if you're fairly fortunate or have excellent positional advantages, destroy the tank, but usually results in track or other 'exposed' equipment damage. I'm more astonished that the TC hasn't had his head blown off.

It may appear graphically is if it's a single lone thrown grenade, but that's a visual abstraction for sticky bombs and getting up close and popping the pineapple between the road wheels and all sorts of other desperate activity that would require man-years of work to get to look right and even then only in some cases.

[LongLeftFlank]

Never thrown a hand grenade or seen one detonated, but I always wondered whether one was really powerful enough to sever a track link or disable a road wheel. It's fairly clear that it isn't the fragmentation that does that; is it a thermal or blast effect or what?

[Baneman]

Did the German Army by this stage of the war stop making/using grenade-bundles that we used to have in CM1 ?

Perhaps this is meant to abstract the use of those ?

[ASL Veteran]

Is that a British leg poking out from under the tank?

[sburke]

Is that a British leg poking out from under the tank?

LOL eeewwwwwww a squishy. Now who's turn is it to clean off the treads?

Maybe that is what immobilized it and not the grenade....

[Vanir Ausf B]

Could be a German mechanic changing the oil.

[YankeeDog]

Never thrown a hand grenade or seen one detonated, but I always wondered whether one was really powerful enough to sever a track link or disable a road wheel. It's fairly clear that it isn't the fragmentation that does that; is it a thermal or blast effect or what?

Yes, a hand grenade can be powerful enough to immobilize a tank if it detonates in the right place. If you read through first-person AARs and other sources like MoH citations, you'll find a number of incidents where someone manages to cause enough damage with a hand grenade to immobilize a tank.

Probably not an easy thing to do by any means (as indicated by the fact that guys who succeed at it often get a medal). But possible enough that soldiers tried it, and succeeded at least once in a while.

Not sure of the mechanism of damage. My SWAG would be that if the grenade actually rolls in amongst the roadwheels, or under the track, the tight space will concentrate the blast energy in a very small area, making disabling damage to a track link or roadwheel more likely.

[womble]

The tankers who've posted on here have been at pains to point out that the caterpillar tracks of a tank are actually fairly vulnerable to damage. I'd imagine the metal's undergoing some serious strain already, and the confined blast of a grenade could push it over the edge as easily as say an unfortunately-protruding rock.

[PzKpfw 1]

A German report on examination of destroyed Soviet tanks, that were examined to determine cause of destruction, from Jan - April 1944 credited hand grenades with the destruction of 22 Soviet tanks.

Regards, John Waters

[John Kettler]

sburke,

My now retired-more-or-less-in-one-piece brother (was nearly blown to bits on several occasions in Iraq) used to be in Scouts, mainly Bradley CFVs, and he informed Dad and me that infantry was called crunchies by the armor troops. This was apparently the sound they made when run over. He regaled us with the story of a guy who got run over, at night, by an M113, while in his sleeping bag during maneuvers at the NTC. Apparently, the AFV was repositioning, didn't see him, and that was that. This was NOT terribly reassuring, seeing as how we were visiting my brother at NTC while his unit was there for training vs. OPFOR.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Jorge MC,

Here's a nice analysis of satchel charges. It indicates the smallest explosive charge carried by infantry was 100 grams/3.5 ounces.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Makes_A_Satchel_Charge

The standard British grenade, the No. 36 M Mk1 and 2 Mills Bomb (shown here in profusion), had a charge of 2 ounces, 2 drams (60.2 grams) of Baratrol .

http://www.millsgrenades.co.uk/No36%20M%20Mk%201%20Grenades1.htm

Explosive fill, quantity and type

http://wiki.battlegroundeurope.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=No.36M_Mk_I_Mills_Bomb&oldid=11061

Baratrol described

http://books.google.com/books?id=4J1rYxczTEAC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=baratol+explosive&source=bl&ots=WGgkjxV8Y5&sig=z4sCCsjzRMbGZneGP8wjBzQtzaU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wPJoUM6hNeqY2AWHiYD4DQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=baratol%20explosive&f=false

Am still looking for the explosive force required to break a tank's track.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

"you'll find a number of incidents where someone manages to cause enough damage with a hand grenade to immobilize a tank."

Really?

Grenade *bundles*, sure. The German stick grenade was even designed to "rose" up to 6 charges on one stick, which basically delivers a total of about 1 pound of TNT. But a single ordinary fragmentation grenade would be extremely unlikely to cause any serious damage to a fully armored tank. (Open topped and get it inside, also effective for sure).

In Pz Is citations, I am fairly sure they are talking about the grenade bundle, multiple charge affair, not one stick frag.

There were also some specifically AT grenades, with shaped charge rather than HE or fragmentation designs, which might be effective. Smoke grenades were used by all parties to both blind tanks and try to smoke out the occupants or fool them into thinking their vehicle was on fire (tossed on the engine deck in that case). Americans like to use one or more 5 gallon cans of gasoline applied manually to the engine compartment, if they could get that close. Or sizable plastic explosive charges applied anywhere. But an ordinary frag just doesn't have the explosive "oomph" to seriously hurt a buttoned tank.

[JasonC]

I haven't gone through every citation (yet), but here is my exploration of the citations for all awards in WW II with last names starting with A through F, in which action against enemy tanks was involved in the award -

Bazooka to track, SMG vs dismounters

Directed artillery fire at, tank withdrew

SMG & WP grenades vs accompanying infantry, only

Bazooka damaged tank, rifle vs dismounters

Bazooka to track, second bazooka to turret, pistol vs dismounters

Died heroically

Bazooka malfunctions, "all the grenades he could carry", "inflicted heavy causalties" on accompanying infantry

MG gunner faces down Tiger, hoses down accompanying infantry

Died heroically SMGing accompanying infantry

Bazooka KOs tank. BAR vs accompanying infantry. AT rifle grenade barrage persuades tankers to abandon their vehicles. 'track MG vs dismounters

Saved the wounded during a tank attack, wounded himself doing so

2 pre-dawn grenade duels with German infantry at close range, undeterred by their supporting armor.

treated the wounded and manned MG vs accompany infantry

Saved the wounded

Only one case involved grenades inflicting any result on tanks rather than accompanying infantry, and the grenades involved were AT rifle grenades, and the effect of a shower of them was to persuade crews to get out of the vehicles and flee into a building. All the other mentions of grenades refer to using them on accompanying infantry. Bazookas are the common way of hurting the enemy tanks themselves - but more of the citations are about fighting the accompanying infantry without being suppressed by the presence of the enemy tanks, or other leading by example affairs (saving the wounded, dying heroically, etc).

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

I meant to say the German stats presented earlier do not indicate what kind of grenades, nor how the tanks were destroyed by same. The German close combat with AFV training film would indicate the preferred method was prying open the TC's hatch and throwing in a grenade. That's hardly the same as throwing a Mills Bomb into the tracks.

As for bazooka performance, I recently read an account in which a soldier fired some four rounds at a target, not one of which detonated.

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

So should close assault by infantry on tanks be removed? Did it simply never happen? Not even with satchel charges and ATgrenades?

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

Here is a nice overview of the bazooka's development and combat performance, together with a number of assessments. I also found a grenade kill--thermite--after gas was first poured on the tank (January 17, 1944).

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2012/06/bazooka-magnificent-weapon-or-crapshoot.html

Marine PFC Kahn won the Silver Star on Saipan for close assaulting a Japanese tank and killing it with a hand grenade. The team of which he was part got two bazooka kills before truly desperate measures were required.

http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_bazooka.htm

If you think Rudel's tankbusting was insane behavior, read about the Piper Cub with multiple bazookas!

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/104944-bazooka-charlie-lt-col-charles-carpenter/

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

This isn't a combat account per se, but it, together with that pic of the tank with all the bazooka strikes on its glacis, does give some idea of the power of a bazooka shell--if you happen to be close to it at detonation.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/bazooka.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[PzKpfw 1]

"you'll find a number of incidents where someone manages to cause enough damage with a hand grenade to immobilize a tank."

In Pz Is citations, I am fairly sure they are talking about the grenade bundle, multiple charge affair, not one stick frag.

Uknown the report does not identify the grenade type. IMHO Panzerwurfmine, or stick bundle. Also an grenade in the fighting compartment would qualify as an destruction in that the tank was recovered & examined by the German inspection teams.

The Germans trained their infantry in a number of ways to KO tanks by close assault, and awarded tank destruction (Panzervernichtungsabziechen) badges for single handed destruction of an tank with hand held weapons, Ie, grenade, magnetic mine, satchel charges, Panzerfaust etc. I, Silver for 1 tank desruction & gold for 5 tank destructions. The most awarded German infantryman of the war for tank destructions was Knights Cross holder, Obersleutnant Gunter Viezenz of Gren. Regt 7, with 21 confirmed TDs. He was awarded 5 gold & 1 silver TD badges.

Regards, John Waters

[nachinus]

AFAIK, CM does not specifically depict AT grenades or close assault devices, and I believe that this is abstracted somehow with the use of hand grenades against tanks. I guess that this is what we are seeing in this particluar case.

[womble]

AFAIK, CM does not specifically depict AT grenades or close assault devices, and I believe that this is abstracted somehow with the use of hand grenades against tanks. I guess that this is what we are seeing in this particluar case.

Wow. You think? Second post, I said this.

Infantry close assaulting...It may appear graphically is if it's a single lone thrown grenade, but that's a visual abstraction for sticky bombs and getting up close and popping the pineapple between the road wheels and all sorts of other desperate activity that would require man-years of work to get to look right and even then only in some cases.

Somewhere, BFC said that this is the way it is. Subsequent discussion has all been about how it was done in real life.

[JasonC]

JK - the Japanese tank on Saipan was unbuttoned and the kill was made by putting 2 hand grenades down the hatch, not by anything a single hand grenade could do to a full tank from the exterior, whether to tracks or otherwise.

A thermite grenade as zippo lighter isn't a grenade kill either - it is the gasoline poured over the engine deck that is the KO instrument in such a case. A thermite grenade can do some damage on its own, if applied to the right location - they are used to spike guns and such for example. But the full KO is the gas, not the grenade.

On German AT means, they designed their hand grenade to be a small bomb delivery system for a reason, and there is likewise a reason they thought they needed 6, not 1, to do any serious damage to either a tank or a serious structure. One hand grenade has only sufficient explosive to disperse its casing as shrapnel at dangerous velocities - it is not an anti-material weapon. A pound of TNT can be, which is what you get from the German "rose" stick.

My favorite infantry AT example is from the US medal of honor citations during the battle of the Bulge. It features a sergeant with balls of brass and a tommy gun getting a full kill on a tracked AFV. It was night and the vehicle was driving across a bridge, and he shot the driver who was exposed out of his driver's hatch to see where he was going, and the tank then went over the side of the bridge into the stream below.

That is how Sergeant Rock does it. (The Finns use large toothpicks as we all know). But once a war outliers are not the capability of weapon systems, and the reality shown in even such medal reports is that it was dedicated infantry AT devices that killed armor when infantry did kill armor - and that was not very often, even with such dedicated weapons.

[MG TOW]

We used beer bottles as targets on the grenade range. We would toss the grenade near the bottle, then view the explosion through the ballistic viewing glass built into the throwing pit. After the dust cleared the bottle was still there, barely moved and ready for the next grenade. Eventually the blast would destroy the bottle and we would place another one for target. So grenades, very deadly to soft tissue, but conditions have to be just right to destroy or disable vehicles.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

I know they're not grenade kills in the normal thrown sense, but they were as close as I could get in the time I spent digging for certain bazooka data. By CM Close Assault standards, though, both would qualify. Were they Germans, both would receive tank destruction badges, too.

Just to clarify, the U.S. and British hand grenades are grenades which kill primarily by frag effect, whereas the German grenade, as designed, kills by blast. In the right place, at the wrong time, it could be most hurtful. As a Geballte Ladung, it could be devastating.

The U.S. still teaches the use of hand grenades against tanks and other AFVs. Please see 3.9 here. Again, the methods defined fall under BFC's own Close Assault definition.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-23-30/ch3.htm

The Italians seem to close assault tanks much like the Germans did, albeit not as creatively. Still, this shows the concept very well.

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675043456_Italian-troops_throw-hand-grenade_tanks-advance_soldiers-come-out-of-foxholes

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sublime]

verry interesting actually. that says quite a bit.

like today in my war on vietnam class, i mentioned the US pulling the mid range nukes outta turkey post cuban missile crisis and an old vet (vietnam) mentioned to me "bull****. I was in turkey in the 70s and we still had nukes there. we just said we took em out."