Hand grenades K.O.ing buttoned tanks.

[James Crowley]

In a recent game I had a British section knock out a MkIV with three hand grenades.

The tank was buttoned, so this was not an instance of a grenade going down an open hatch.

The section were positioned behind a stretch of bocage bordering a road (and thus were not 'close assaulting' as such) and threw the first grenade from a short distance of around 3-4 metres. It exploded near the tracks. The second and third exploded on the hull. After about 6 seconds the hatches popped open and the crew bailed.

I don't have too much of a problem with the crew panicking and abandoning the tank and might accept, as a outlier, the grenade damaging the track and immobilising the tank. But this was flagged as a K.O.

I would maintain that it would be well nigh impossible for a mills bomb (or the German and US equivalents), with its small charge and designed primarily fragmentation effect, to kill a buttoned tank. Even several of them, tossed separately.

Certainly the Germans tied five or six of their stick grenade heads around a single stick and, used as a bundle, had some success when tossed onto the engine deck of tanks but that was far from a guarantee. Thrown as single entities, no way IMO.

I even find it hard to see that a grenade could do significant damage to the running gear of a tank unless, by pure fluke, the grenade happened to explode in the running gear, as opposed to near it. But accepting, and welcoming, occasional outlier results, this would still only cause immobilisation or abandonment, not a K.O.

[Oddball_E8]

Infantry throwing grenades at tanks is an abstraction of infantry close assaulting tanks in the game.

So they are not actually throwing the grenades at a buttoned tank, they are running up to it, shoving nades down the exaust pipes or engine compartment or whatever.

[Fizou]

Grenades in this instance are also an abstraction of other hand held AT weapons such as grenade bundles, magnetic mines, panzer wurfmine or what have you..

[Oddball_E8]

Grenades in this instance are also an abstraction of other hand held AT weapons such as grenade bundles, magnetic mines, panzer wurfmine or what have you..

yeah, i forgot to add that...

[James Crowley]

Infantry throwing grenades at tanks is an abstraction of infantry close assaulting tanks in the game.

So they are not actually throwing the grenades at a buttoned tank, they are running up to it, shoving nades down the exaust pipes or engine compartment or whatever.

Not in this case. The infantry section were on one side of the bocage which, as we all know is not traversable by vehicles or infantry, and the tank clearly on the other side. Never the twain to meet.

If that is an abstraction, it is an abstraction too far and goes completely against the grain of WYSIWYG. Frankly it would make a nonsense of the bar on crossing bocage.

[James Crowley]

Grenades in this instance are also an abstraction of other hand held AT weapons such as grenade bundles, magnetic mines, panzer wurfmine or what have you..

British infantry sections did not have these and they would be listed under their equipment if they did. This was not a close assault because the infantry had no direct access to the tank because of the bocage.

[AttorneyAtWar]

Not in this case. The infantry section were on one side of the bocage which, as we all know is not traversable by vehicles or infantry, and the tank clearly on the other side. Never the twain to meet.

If that is an abstraction, it is an abstraction too far and goes completely against the grain of WYSIWYG. Frankly it would make a nonsense of the bar on crossing bocage.

In that case than they are throwing improvised explosives, grenades ETC.

[Oddball_E8]

Not in this case. The infantry section were on one side of the bocage which, as we all know is not traversable by vehicles or infantry, and the tank clearly on the other side. Never the twain to meet.

If that is an abstraction, it is an abstraction too far and goes completely against the grain of WYSIWYG. Frankly it would make a nonsense of the bar on crossing bocage.

An abstraction is, by definition, not going to be 100% accurate in all circumstances.

The close assault abstraction does not take into account unpassable objects like bocage or something else like that, it simply lets infantry within a certain distance assault a tank.

[Oddball_E8]

British infantry sections did not have these and they would be listed under their equipment if they did. This was not a close assault because the infantry had no direct access to the tank because of the bocage.

The only 3 things listed as extra equipment on infantry that I know of is: Panzerfausts, rocket launchers and Demolition charges.

Other equipment like AT grenades and the like are indeed abstracted it seems.

[SpeakEasy]

James Crowley,

If you want 100% realism, the game has given it to you. It has realistically enforced the tactical mistake of placing a buttoned tank up against a bocage with no support infantry scouting to see what is on the other side of that bocage.

[gunnersman]

Unless a specific antitank weapon was used in their inventory, this seems like an over abstraction to me. I was always under the impression there is in a minimal amount of abstraction in the CMx2 series.

[Oddball_E8]

Unless a specific antitank weapon was used in their inventory, this seems like an over abstraction to me. I was always under the impression there is in a minimal amount of abstraction in the CMx2 series.

Minimal, yes.

Nonexistant, no.

Close assaults against tanks by infantry is abstracted. AT-mines, improvised explosives and the likes are abstracted.

That is how it works, whether you like it or not.

[Jock Tamson]

Guys, James has discovered what would be regarded as a corner case in most software development houses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case

I think we all accept that the bundled grenades etc are abstracted, but basically what James has described was probably not intended to happen - the bocage is impassible. Which means it is not part of the abstraction.

However, whether this corner case is worth the dev resource to fix is something only Battlefront can answer.

But it is, in software terms, probably a functional defect.

[ASL Veteran]

What James has discovered is that AFVs within one action spot of infantry can be attacked by grenades and he is angry about losing his tank. The fact that bocage is involved is functionally irrelevant because in no case do the infantry in game physically climb upon the vehicle in order to attack it, therefore the implication that the vehicle should not be attacked because the infantry can't climb on the vehicle is meaningless since the infantry do not climb on the vehicle in game under any circumstances as it is now. Perhaps James would prefer to return to the days when infantry were not allowed to attack vehicles with grenades from within buildings the next time an enemy tank parks next to his troops who are inside one?

[Jock Tamson]

since the infantry do not climb on the vehicle in game under any circumstances as it is now

Yes they do. It's abstracted.

And that's the point, isn't it? We all have our own sense of what is being abstracted. It seems reasonable to me that knocking out a tank over a 20 foot built up hedge with an improvised device and little visibility of the target is an unlikely scenario IRL.

But only Battlefront actually know if this is intended behaviour.

Speaking as a software developer, I suspect it is an understandable oversight.

[Waycool]

Perhaps one of the grenades was a Gammon bomb, officially known as the No. 82 grenade loaded with explosives was tossed?

[Oddball_E8]

Yes they do. It's abstracted.

And that's the point, isn't it? We all have our own sense of what is being abstracted. It seems reasonable to me that knocking out a tank over a 20 foot built up hedge with an improvised device and little visibility of the target is an unlikely scenario IRL.

But only Battlefront actually know if this is intended behaviour.

Speaking as a software developer, I suspect it is an understandable oversight.

I honestly don't think it is an oversight, but rather an accepted extreme circumstance that is not worth the trouble of coding a solution for.

[James Crowley]

What James has discovered is that AFVs within one action spot of infantry can be attacked by grenades and he is angry about losing his tank.

I was playing the Brits, so not my tank.

[James Crowley]

I honestly don't think it is an oversight, but rather an accepted extreme circumstance that is not worth the trouble of coding a solution for.

Extreme? In a game largely dominated by bocage, as CMBN/CW is? Hardly.

As for the trouble in coding a solution, I really wouldn't know, in common with the majority of posters, I suspect.

[ASL Veteran]

I was playing the Brits, so not my tank.

Good for you. Maybe you weren't aware, but infantry have been able to close assault tanks across bocage since CMBN was released - so it has been that way for several years now. Now that you have discovered this game feature you can use it to your advantage more often.

[ASL Veteran]

Yes they do. It's abstracted.

Abstracted when there is no bocage but not abstracted when there is bocage? A little consistency goes a long way

[James Crowley]

Perhaps one of the grenades was a Gammon bomb, officially known as the No. 82 grenade loaded with explosives was tossed?

Not sure if they were still using these in Normandy. I certainly can't recall any reference to them in my reading.

The PIAT had become the primary infantry AT weapon by then, the other AT grenades, only ever issued in very small numbers, 73 Thermos, 74 Sticky and 75 Hawkins were largely deemed ineffective. The Hawkins was more usually deployed as a laid mine and even then was only effective against lighter AFV's.

[James Crowley]

Good for you. Maybe you weren't aware, but infantry have been able to close assault tanks across bocage since CMBN was released - so it has been that way for several years now. Now that you have discovered this game feature you can use it to your advantage more often.

Sounds as if you are a gamer who needs to win. I prefer realism; to each their own.

Just because it is a 'feature' that has been around awhile doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed. That is how many facets of the game have been polished and improved over time. But you carry on winning and let those who have more of a care for realism do their thing.

[LukeFF]

I would like to hear Battlefront's take on this, because AFAIK they have never said one way or the other whether this is the sort of AT behavior they intend infantry to have.

[Oddball_E8]

Not sure if they were still using these in Normandy. I certainly can't recall any reference to them in my reading.

The PIAT had become the primary infantry AT weapon by then, the other AT grenades, only ever issued in very small numbers, 73 Thermos, 74 Sticky and 75 Hawkins were largely deemed ineffective. The Hawkins was more usually deployed as a laid mine and even then was only effective against lighter AFV's.

Gammon bombs were used up until the 50's IIRC.

Mainly by special forces like the airborne, but still...