Tank immobilized by hand grenades | Realistic?

[ridethe415]

I've had this happen a few times.

AFV gets too close to enemy units, a slew of grenades get thrown at it (desperate times require desperate measures I guess) and lo and behold, the tank (Churchill in one case, Panther in another) is immobilized.

How realistic is this? Hand grenades screwing up tank tracks? Just wondering...

[Apocal]

I've had this happen a few times.

AFV gets too close to enemy units, a slew of grenades get thrown at it (desperate times require desperate measures I guess) and lo and behold, the tank (Churchill in one case, Panther in another) is immobilized.

How realistic is this? Hand grenades screwing up tank tracks? Just wondering...

As it was explained to me, it is an abstraction of various means (including mines and AT grenades) of immobilizing or disabling a tank via close assault.

As for the realism of it? According to one account:

"Of course, we knew we were almost doomed - we had no AT-guns, no machine-guns - we were almost hopeless against the tanks. We had the grenades, but it is very hard to knock out a tank with a hand grenade!"

...

"The problem is that a tank is made of steel, and you are not. It fires its main gun and machine-guns at you. It can also squash you. It is very hard to knock out a tank in general, but it is especially hard to knock it out with a hand grenade. If the crew is "green", then you still have a chance, but if there are vets in the tank, it is utterly impossible. Unfortunately, you only learn this when the tank suddenly turns and squashes you. Or kills you with a machine-gun. By the way, what do you mean - to knock out? We had the anti-tank grenades, but they were useless against heavy tanks. It is not every grenade that sets tank on fire! It takes training, coolness and experience. You do not have many chances to get close to a tank, but you have even fewer chances to get away from the tank if you failed to knock it out. In most of the cases we would try to damage the tracks. Then you could try the satchel charge. The crew does not necessarily abandon the immobilized tank, it can stay and continue to fight. You should always burn the tank."

"That time we did not even have the bottles ("Molotov Cocktails" - Valeri). We only had hand grenades, and most of them were "pineapples". At that moment some people appeared on the ridge - they were running towards us as fast as their legs would carry them. That meant that our defenses were completely broken and avalanche of tanks and Panzergrenadiers was about to descend on us."

The picture he paints is fairly clear, even with heavy AT grenades, their preferred target was the tracks to immobilize the tank, then later you could improvise some means of setting the tank on fire. Pineapples (hand grenades) are implied to be useless.

[c3k]

^^^

That.

[ridethe415]

So then it's highly random.

When you can achieve this it's awesome, when it happens to you it's WTF?

[$Pec5]

Touche to whoever your opponent was that immobilized two of your tanks on separate occasions.

That is a very difficult task for infantry

[poesel]

Depends on the circumstances (I'm talking about CM):

If the tank has no infantry support you first have to kill the TC to button it up. Repeat if possible. Then you CRAWL up to it - preferably from behind - with a unit with lots of grenades. On average 3-4 grenades will immobilize the tank. At around 10+ grenades you knock out the tank.

The assaulting teams will all die (except for the last maybe) because the tank crew will spot you very soon after you start to throw grenades. CM does not honour gun depression so the tank has a full 360° kill zone for any distance. There is also no way to order the team to throw grenades so you can not time a fast retreat.

For some reason an attacking team will not throw it's last grenade but you can buddy aid them back. Buddy aiding does not cause much attraction and can be executed next to a buttoned and reduced tank.

Difficult business and quite unnerving but great fun!

[John Kettler]

ridethe415,

While I broadly agree with the information presented here, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the infantry Apocal cited is Russian, which had very poor antitank close combat weapons. The main Russian antitank grenade was essentially an oversized hand grenade optimized for blast. Later came the RKG series, which were shaped charge munitions. The Germans had something similar, Teller mines, magnetic antitank grenades, explosive charges of various sizes, Molotovs and more. YT has lots of goodies on German close combat against tanks, and it gets personal in a hurry. Jam the tracks, wedge the tank turret, block the periscopes, pry the TCs hatch open and toss in a grenade. My personal favorite is beating on the barrel of the bow MG, bending it to uselessness. Such tactics were helped greatly by poor Russian use of armor in penny packets, often sans infantry support.

I'm firmly convinced tanks have way too many advantages in game they didn't have in reality. Here's what one person with direct experience in a T-34/85 said about buttoned up vision from inside that tank, which was head and shoulders of the T-34/76.

http://spprojectblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/inside-a-t3485/

He concludes that wargame rules for buttoned up tanks probably need further restrictions on a tank's ability to see and respond to infantry threats. The Germans thoroughly mapped the blind spots for the early model T-34/76, and it's revelatory. Once inside a certain distance, the tank can't shoot infantry with either main gun or coax MG, which is when the infantrymen can have their way with the buttoned tank. And they did. In CMx2, tanks have unholy levels of situational awareness which, when coupled with the poor modeling of real tank limitations (e.g. no depression limit modeling at all, for starters), make tanks both more survivable when attacked and far more lethal to the would-be attackers. If you watch some of the FSAA vs Syrian Army footage, you can see that buttoned tanks, even with vastly better vision capabilities than in WW II, are pretty much lunch on the table for insurgents on the ball.

Regards,

John Kettler

[bisu]

ridethe415,

In CMx2, tanks have unholy levels of situational awareness which, when coupled with the poor modeling of real tank limitations (e.g. no depression limit modeling at all, for starters), make tanks both more survivable when attacked and far more lethal to the would-be attackers.

+1

And on top of that Pzfaust and Pzschreck shots from interiors are not allowed at any circumstances. Fixing the tank awareness issue would be first on my personal priority list.

[womble]

I'd also say that the Panther's Nachverdienungwotsit is grossly overmodelled, as it's basically a port to fire a flare gun out of. Getting one shot out a second, which is the sort of thing I think I've seen on the few occasions I've seen it employed, would be frankly impossible.

[John Kettler]

womble,

Tut! Tut! You really do need to read the intel bulletins. Captured German documents indicate this thing is referred to as the Naverboogie. (Translation appended).

"The Jagdpanther unbogged, and so far has survived a hail of fire against it while reversing through the scattered trees. Sadly, no Naverboogies have fallen on the tormentors."

Note: Translators suspect some sort of garble, in that the Naverboogie is the launcher, yet the Naverboogies are projectiles. Intel ultimately concluded the device was the Nahverteidigungswaffe and its projectiles were flare pistol grenades. It thinks.

(End translation. End Note.)

To a few of the CMx1 vets, the Naverboogie may seem familiar. It was from my 9-01-2001 fight in the Invitational Tourney vs Jarmo. You may recall him as the man whose sig became "Rockets! Kettler's firing rockets all around!" after I unleashed an exciting (but unfortunately ineffective) rocket attack upon him.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kwazydog]

One thing I never realised (nor had particularly thought about hehe) about tanks before making 3D models of them is just how vulnerable their engines are due to the need to cool them.

Check out the rear deck of a Tiger or Panther in a photo and you will see huge open slats allowing for this. I had always assumed that there would be some sort of further armor plate below these, in the darkness, but there is not...in the case of the Tiger tank directly below either of these vents are the radiators, fans and fuel tanks for the vehicle, all of which would be highly vulnerable to shrapnel.

Even the moder M1 Abrams has a similar spot to its rear, where the slatted armor allows air into the cooling system, which has proven very vulnerable to RPG fire and has prompted armor upgrade in this area.

Dan

[c3k]

The slats have staggered second layers: that protects against direct entry. Still, upper engine decks and rear facings are less well armored than any other part.

[Seedorf81]

I often wondered if a tank could be disabled relatively simple and cheap with paint. I mean, if you cover the periscopes and optics with paint, through some kind of paint-launcher or a serious paintball-gun, wouldn't the tank be pretty useless?

Certainly the ww2 tanks didn't have wipers on their periscopes, did they?

[womble]

I often wondered if a tank could be disabled relatively simple and cheap with paint. I mean, if you cover the periscopes and optics with paint, through some kind of paint-launcher or a serious paintball-gun, wouldn't the tank be pretty useless?

Certainly the ww2 tanks didn't have wipers on their periscopes, did they?

Perhaps that's what Odball was trying to do?

[Seedorf81]

Perhaps that's what Odball was trying to do?

Sh#t, I thought I thought of it first! Saw myself getting immensely rich, because of huge world wide sales of revolutionary RPP (Rocket Propelled Paint) and even cheaper APPP (Air Pressured Propelled Paint).

Another dream in shatters :mad:.

[c3k]

I often wondered if a tank could be disabled relatively simple and cheap with paint. I mean, if you cover the periscopes and optics with paint, through some kind of paint-launcher or a serious paintball-gun, wouldn't the tank be pretty useless?

Certainly the ww2 tanks didn't have wipers on their periscopes, did they?

Yes, they did have wipers. (Some.) They found them handy for dust and other obscurants. As well, they started using drip shields over them for run-off.

German "technique" for close assault included tying two smoke candles together and having one guy toss the pair over the gun barrel. That kept the smoke billowing about the turret while another guy came up with the explosives. (Or crowbar and proper glowering expression.)

Big balls.

[mjkerner]

Seedorf, Oddball never patented it, though, because Moriarity's negative waves put him off the idea. There's your opening....

[Seedorf81]

Seedorf, Oddball never patented it, though, because Moriarity's negative waves put him off the idea. There's your opening....

Well, if some clever entrepreneur starts manufacturing those RPP's and APPP's without my consent, this thread proves his idea wasn't original. I can always try to sue..

[Freyberg]

I understood unsupported tanks were extremely vulnerable to infantry up close - that was certainly the Germans' experience in Stalingrad wasn't it?

[womble]

I understood unsupported tanks were extremely vulnerable to infantry up close - that was certainly the Germans' experience in Stalingrad wasn't it?

Historically, they were vulnerable, to "properly equipped" troops with the stones to risk the horrible consequences of getting it wrong and being spotted. "Properly equipped" would generally mean more than a couple of hand grenades: grenade bundles and other handheld AT as have been mentioned in the thread; ad hoc measures like sticky bombs or molotovs. And it was still risky.

The equipment is abstracted in the game, and it's arguable that tanks see too well, especially up close.

What's the point you're trying to make?

[dieseltaylor]

Some German ideas

http://archive.org/stream/1943-07IntelligenceBulletinVol01No11/1943-07%20Intelligence%20Bulletin%20Vol%2001%20No%2011_djvu.txt

(7) Signal Rockets. — Signal rockets shot into open hatches with a Very pistol may set the tank afire. c. Explosives (1) Hand Grenades. — Hand grenades detonated in the muzzle of the cannon (see figs. 9 and 10) yield excellent results. GERMANY TANK HUNTING 27 (2) Blasting Slab. — A slab of explosive weighing 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds), when placed on top of a tank, has about the same strength as a concentrated charge of seven hand grenades and can give the crew a severe shock. Two such concentrated charges can damage the turret hatch considerably, and for a short time leave the crew unable to fight because of the powerful concussion. Two or three such charges combined into a multiple charge, and tied on a curved board to be slid over the ground (like a ski) , can damage the tracks so severely that they will soon break under use. Machine-gun and cannon barrels can be destroyed by two 1-kilogram charges tied together, hung like a saddle over the top of the barrel, and detonated. (A cannon barrel will be so bent that an attempt to fire the gun will completely destroy it.) (3) Concentrated Charges. — The bodies of seven stick grenades are tied together securely with wire. Only the middle grenade is fitted with the usual handle, which has an internal igniter. This charge is ineffective against the armor or tracks of heavy tanks. But when it is exploded on top of the tank, its concus- sion is so great that the crew is knocked out temporarily. The concentrated charge of 3 kilograms, which is found ready for use in the infantry engineer platoon, infantry engineer platoon motorized, engineer companies, and engineer battalions, will pierce about 60 mm of armor. It is best to place the charge over the engine or the driver's seat. The crew will be wounded by small fragments of the inner walls spattering off. Moreover, the concussion is unbearable. A combination of several 3 -kilogram charges is even more effective. The throwing radius for a concentrated charge is 10 to 15 yards. When throwing the charge, the soldier must consider the length of the fuze (about V2 inch burns in 1 second). The thrower aims at the tracks or at the belly of an approaching tank.

[JasonC]

"extremely vulnerable to infantry up close"

The evidence is actually against this. When the infantry has modern AT weapons (HEAT charge rockets) or abundant explosives, kinda sorta, is about the most that can be said.

As one check on the fantasies of infantry tank killing and sergeant rock comic books (or hollywood), I tried looking through all the US medal of honor citations from WW II, which contain brief descriptions of especially heroic actions, usually by infantry and sometimes against tanks. There is a single account of taking out a German tank with a Tommy gun, by shooting the hatch-open driver as the tank was crossing a bridge, causing it to drive over the bridge side and fall into the stream below - so they are not lacking in hollywood episodes. But its is very, very rare to hear anything about tanks KOed by infantry using anything but a bazooka.

Plenty of those, to be sure. And plenty of other citations of MOHs awarded to infantry fighting against tanks, using hand grenades and SMGs - but all they ever do with those is break the accompanying infantry. There is one report of showering tanks and light armor with rifle grenades - but lots of them - in addition to bazookas - about it. Mostly, when an enemy tank appears in a MOH citation it means either (1) the MOH awardee takes out a tank with a bazooka, (2) the MOH awardee heroically strips the infantry with MGs, SMGs, and grenades, but the tanks he cannot hurt at all, or (3) the MOH awardee heroically exposes himself to save the wounded and the tanks kill him. Occasionally it is mix and match in various orders.

Already immobilized tanks taken out with entire jerry cans of gasoline occasionally happen in other AARs. Engineer demo charges, occasionally an immobilization (only) inflicted by grenade bundles (entire knapsacks worth as an improvised demo charge, not thrown grenades) - about it. All of those very rare.

[ASL Veteran]

As one check on the fantasies of infantry tank killing and sergeant rock comic books (or hollywood), I tried looking through all the US medal of honor citations from WW II, which contain brief descriptions of especially heroic actions, usually by infantry and sometimes against tanks. There is a single account of taking out a German tank with a Tommy gun, by shooting the hatch-open driver as the tank was crossing a bridge, causing it to drive over the bridge side and fall into the stream below - so they are not lacking in hollywood episodes. But its is very, very rare to hear anything about tanks KOed by infantry using anything but a bazooka.

After a rigorous five minute search, I managed to find a few individuals who took out tanks singlehandedly without using a Bazooka.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Destruction_Badge

[akd]

"extremely vulnerable to infantry up close"

The evidence is actually against this. When the infantry has modern AT weapons (HEAT charge rockets) or abundant explosives, kinda sorta, is about the most that can be said.

As one check on the fantasies of infantry tank killing and sergeant rock comic books (or hollywood), I tried looking through all the US medal of honor citations from WW II, which contain brief descriptions of especially heroic actions, usually by infantry and sometimes against tanks. There is a single account of taking out a German tank with a Tommy gun, by shooting the hatch-open driver as the tank was crossing a bridge, causing it to drive over the bridge side and fall into the stream below - so they are not lacking in hollywood episodes. But its is very, very rare to hear anything about tanks KOed by infantry using anything but a bazooka.

Plenty of those, to be sure. And plenty of other citations of MOHs awarded to infantry fighting against tanks, using hand grenades and SMGs - but all they ever do with those is break the accompanying infantry. There is one report of showering tanks and light armor with rifle grenades - but lots of them - in addition to bazookas - about it. Mostly, when an enemy tank appears in a MOH citation it means either (1) the MOH awardee takes out a tank with a bazooka, (2) the MOH awardee heroically strips the infantry with MGs, SMGs, and grenades, but the tanks he cannot hurt at all, or (3) the MOH awardee heroically exposes himself to save the wounded and the tanks kill him. Occasionally it is mix and match in various orders.

Already immobilized tanks taken out with entire jerry cans of gasoline occasionally happen in other AARs. Engineer demo charges, occasionally an immobilization (only) inflicted by grenade bundles (entire knapsacks worth as an improvised demo charge, not thrown grenades) - about it. All of those very rare.

That's not surprising since US infantry probably had the fewest opportunities to close assault German armor, and when the opportunities presented themselves, were liberally equipped with a weapon that minimized the need to conduct a close assault.

After a rigorous five minute search, I managed to find a few individuals who took out tanks singlehandedly without using a Bazooka.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Destruction_Badge

I think that award could be given for destruction of a tank with Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck as well, but I'm sure more than a few were awarded before 1944.

[ASL Veteran]

I think that award could be given for destruction of a tank with Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck as well, but I'm sure more than a few were awarded before 1944.

Yes that's true (Panzerfaust anyway - not sure about Shrek), but that's not why I posted it. If the basis of Jason's debating point is that US Medal of Honor award winners is the primary means of determining how often close assaults on tanks took place, then surely a listing of German winners of an award specifically for tank destruction by an individual with hand weapons that aren't bazookas would be the logical counter for that. If Jason decides to delegitimize the German award winners as representative of close assaults on tanks taking place, then he undermines his own position since using Medal of Honor award winners to prove they didn't would be an equally worthless measure.

You see, I didn't post it because I wanted to prove something. I posted it because I wanted to put Jason in a debating headlock. If he ignores it and tries to delegitimize the German award winners without acknowledging the resulting weakness of his own position he just looks like a fool. Over to you Jason ....