Hand grenades K.O.ing buttoned tanks.

[womble]

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.

Doesn't have to be crossable by the troops. Just their munitions. They're still close enough to assault the tank.

[Other Means]

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.

Loving, and stealing, the terminology.

[Jock Tamson]

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

I was being sardonic. It's a British thing.

The point is that if the abstraction for close assaulting a tank is that the assaulters are sticking a mine in front of it, putting a grenade bundle on the engine cover etc , being able to cross an impassible terrain feature to do this seems like a functional defect in the abstraction.

Can infantry close assault a tank from the other side of a high wall?

[Michael Emrys]

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

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

Bingo.

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

"...against armoured fighting vehicles or other armoured targets, the bag could be completely filled up with explosives, making an unusually powerful grenade which could only be thrown safely from behind cover." [emphasis added]

Michael

[c3k]

The tank: was it really rendered hors de combat, or were the crew so shaken by being attacked (even ineffectually) by hidden infantry, that they bailed out? Just a thought.

I'm, obviously, okay with the abstraction. Perhaps Jenkins was able to worm through a hole in the bocage after shrugging off all his kit and uniform, and place a charge on the road. With a stick. Whatever. Then he rejoined his mates.

Tall wall? I don't know if it is possible. If it is, good. If not, also good.

This abstraction is only for 1 AS, I think.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I doubt it would work though a tall wall since that would block LOF/LOS, unlike bocage.

[James Crowley]

Doesn't have to be crossable by the troops. Just their munitions. They're still close enough to assault the tank.

I can't see that. Surely to close-assault a tank, in the manner that has been suggested, would require being able to touch the tank.

If bocage, as modelled in CM, is impossible for infantry to penetrate, then how can they possibly get their munitions through? Unless they chuck them over the top, which takes us right back to the beginning. Can ordinary grenades KO a buttoned tank?

And I believe that they are ordinary grenades. I cannot recall BFC ever saying that soldiers carried other, unspecified equipment such as specialised AT mines; only that close assault is an abstraction of troops closing on a tank and placing demo charges and/or grenades into favourable locations on the vehicle. Having a detailed list of equipment and ammunition, down to the last bullet, would be essentially pointless if there were other items also available but not listed.

The abstraction, as I understand it, is in not actually having the drawn figures shown climbing onto or being on the tank, not, as some seem to be interpreting it, the use of a mishmash of unlisted ordinance which, even if it were the case, would require intimate contact with the tank.

And, if they are indeed ordinary grenades, then their ability to KO a tank should be zero - cause the crew to bail, fine. Maybe cause a immobilisation as an outlier. But no way a KO unless the tank is unbuttoned.

I agree that this is an anomalous situation brought about by the 'action point' and that, as Jack Tamson described it, a functional defect in the abstraction. Given the high incidence of bocage in CMBN and thus the potential for that defect to occur many times, surely it is worthy of another look.

[Doug Williams]

Thank you, Jim.

This forum is full of (I hate the term fanbois) persons who will defend BFC to their last breath.

Infantry being able to knock out a tank via close assault (in CM2) is a good thing. I remember one of my early arguments on these forums regarding CM1 being the fact that any even slightly armored vehicle (including halftracks) seemed to be virtually invulnerable to infantry close assault. I was poo pooed even when I provided evidence that an entire squad of WW2 soldiers seemed to be totally unable to knock out a halftrack that they were right next to.

I was very happy to see, with CMBN/CMFI that infantry could effectively close assault an armored vehicle, even though it was "abstracted".

Now you have found a fly in the ointment. The coding doesn't seem to take into account bocage when it comes to infantry close assaults of armor.

I, for one, can live with that. This is a computer game, and even one as ambitious as CM has to incorporate a certain level of abstraction.

[c3k]

I've read a lot of accounts of infantry close assaulting tanks. Most of them were Germans, in the early/mid East Front period. (There are obvious reasons for that.)

Most of the behavior was complex. One (or more) would blind the tank. Smoke grenades tied with comms wire would be draped over the gun barrel. (Tossed, bolo style?) Some men would use crowbars to smash the machinegun barrels out of straight. Others would pour gasoline over the engine vents. (Doubly dangerous, that.) Some would attach 6 grenades around a single one with a stick, pull the cord and wedge it under the turret overhang. Placing an antitank mine on top of the track so it will fall right in front of the tank was a method also used. Engineer demo charges were used, as well. Then, jamming a good chunk of wood into the drive sprocket was also used. Opening hatches and tossing in grenades, or spraying smg fire about was a technique. Pulling antitank mines on a string (or board) from hiding into the path of a tank was a bit more refined, and rare, but still seen.

Now, of the above, how should it be coded? I'd -love- to see some or all of these. Does each squad need a designated crowbar man?

Should one man rush out, or two? Would the odds of successful attack increase with more men? (I -assume- we agree that abstracting the actual attack mechanism is okay. The goal is to SHOW that a man (men?) must touch the tank to damage it.

What if a squad is tucked up behind cover. Should the player have to order "ok to assault" or its opposite, "don't leave cover", to ensure a man (or men) won't rush out when they hear tracks?

None of the above is meant in "fanboi" mode. Nor is it tongue in cheek.

How should the game show the attack?

Ken

Edited to add: A lot of the above is meant to be thought about from the TacAI perspective. If you play WeGo, think how it should work in RealTime. If you RT, what about WeGo? If a human controls the squad or the AI? Either way, the TacAI has to perform the action.

Other thoughts: perhaps multiple grenades should be used as the abstracted attack mechanism. A minimum of 7, to use the German concentrated charge technique. What if a squad had 6? What if a squad had 8, but an enemy scout appeared and the squad threw 2 of them (reducing themselves to below the minimum number), just seconds before the tank were attacked?

If a team is present, should it split off a single man? How would that work? (An unsplittable tactical element, splitting.)

There is a LOT that would go into changing from the abstract.

[YankeeDog]

As others have already noted, there are multiple abstractions going on in the situation at hand. It's not logically valid to look at the infantry close assault abstraction in isolation without considering the other relevant abstractions.

The OP does have a point -- Even if we assume that infantry might have access to improvised AT weapons not specifically represented in their ammo counts like grenade bundles, land mines, daisy chain explosives, molotovs, etc, unless they have a ranged AT weapon (even short-ranged such as a Pz-30), logically they shouldn't be able to close assault across impassible terrain.

However, one of the other game abstractions important to the instant situation is that in CM, bocage is completely impermeable to infantry -- others have already mentioned this.

IRL, bocage isn't some kind of magic force field that is passable only in specific, defined locations; it's a mostly natural formation with a lot of variability. There would be a wide range of "permeability" to bocage. Certain sections might effectively be totally impassible, but some sections would probably allow slow passage by crawling or otherwise worming through. And of course in some places there would gaps wide enough to allow easy passage.

So what we have here in the game is two pretty major game abstractions interacting: an Infantry close assault vs. armor abstraction that allows infantry to "project" their close assault ~1 action spot from their current location, and a bocage abstraction, that represents bocage as an impermeable barrier in the absence of specific, defined gaps.

So, in total, I'm OK with the abstraction that infantry can "project" their ability to close assault a short distance, and even effectively "warp" through some obstructions such as bocage to do so.

Is it perfect? No. Is it a reasonable abstraction? IMHO, yes. Maybe someday, we'll get something better. But this is an abstraction that's been around since CMBO and I suspect we're going to have to live with it for at least a while longer.

Maybe in CMx2 6.0 er sumfink we'll get a higher high-fidelity representation of infantry vs. armor close assault. I doubt it, but no harm in daydreaming...

[Freyberg]

...multiple abstractions...one of the other game abstractions ... bocage isn't some kind of magic force field that is passable only in specific, defined locations; it's a mostly natural formation with a lot of variability. There would be a wide range of "permeability" to bocage.

Yes. Exactly.

[gunnersman]

Well stated YankeeDog and c3k.

[simmox]

storm in a tea cup

currently reading some exploits of german troops climbing the bocage to drop explosives on the troops on the other side.

theres even a team that used poles/fence posts to push explosives through the bocage similar to a bangalore,as vehicles pass by

humans are ingenious creatures when they need to be

interesting that this has come up,should we assume you shouldnt be able to shoot through the bocage either?

are realism facts/fiction starting to affect gameplay?

moving vehicles along the bocage was bloody dangerous and in game your crazy to do it without screening the area

it gave/gives the normandy defenders excellent cover concealment and ambush opportunities.the hedgehog wasnt designed for no reason.

on a side note,i just finished a game where a single remaining member of a US 60mm mortar crew,with nothing but 2 grenades in his arsenal and an empty tube,close assaulted a stug as it tried to drive over him.

was a great gaming moment to watch and he was awarded the silver star for his action,posthumously of course,as the crew bailed and promptly killed him:)

Good show wot?

[db_zero]

Take a look at this training film. Rockets intended to be fired from a bazooka could also be used as IED's

In a perfect world I too would love to see AT grenades and other IEDs modeled in CM, but given the fact BF is a relatively small company with limited resources I can understand why things are abstracted.

Grunts may not have college degrees, but they aren't idiots and have been known to improvise and demonstrate remarkable creativity and ingenuity when it comes to blowing up and destroying things.

Perhaps one day BF will open up the entire code and allow unlimited modifying and once the power of coders is unleashed we'll see all sorts of goodies like molotov cocktails, IED's and other stuff we'd like to see, but until then we'll have to live with what we have,

[James Crowley]

on a side note,i just finished a game where a single remaining member of a US 60mm mortar crew,with nothing but 2 grenades in his arsenal and an empty tube,close assaulted a stug as it tried to drive over him.

was a great gaming moment to watch and he was awarded the silver star for his action,posthumously of course,as the crew bailed and promptly killed him:)

Good show wot?

Was the Stug buttoned-up and was it KO'ed?

If it wasn't buttoned there would certainly be a chance to get a grenade into an open hatch. But, in that case, it seems hardly likely that the crew would survive.

If it was buttoned and the crew panicked and bailed, fair enough.

But if the Stug was buttoned and is shown as KO'ed, I would be interested to know how a few ounces of blank fire powder managed to achieve such a feat.

An abstraction is fine if it reflects at least a level of reality but, it seems to me that having a man near a tank with a few grenades too easily spells doom to the AFV. Fine in a Sgt Rock comic but not, IMO, representative of the reality of the situation.

[James Crowley]

So, in total, I'm OK with the abstraction that infantry can "project" their ability to close assault a short distance, and even effectively "warp" through some obstructions such as bocage to do so.

Is it perfect? No. Is it a reasonable abstraction? IMHO, yes. Maybe someday, we'll get something better. But this is an abstraction that's been around since CMBO and I suspect we're going to have to live with it for at least a while longer.

Good points but in CMBO, at least, it was possible to traverse bocage, albeit very slowly. In CMBN bocage is, in effect, a force field.

So the abstraction is that; at any point where a vehicle is present behind bocage, soldiers can somehow worm their way through to close assault it (armed it seems with little more than ingenuity and a few grenades) but the same soldiers can't figure out how to get through bocage anywhere else, at any time, other than through a physical gap?

And, having done that they can do more damage with a few ounces of explosive than can usually be achieved with a direct hit by a 75mm HE shell travelling at a vastly higher velocity and packed with a 10x plus explosive?

Hmmm.....great abstraction.

I would be really interested to see if anyone can point to a real life example, from June '44 onwards, of anyone KO'ing a buttoned AFV (not open topped) with hand grenades alone.

[Fizou]

Well James, as written before.. the close assault is not only ordinary grenades. Its grenade bundels, at-mines etc. Im not gonna go look for the thread where this was mentioned but Im sure it has been mentioned by BFC before. Very curious if Steve will set us straight.

As an abstraction I feel its ok and gameplay works good. I would like to see special at munitions tracked but there are a lot of other things with a higher priority IMO.

[Doug Williams]

Like several have pointed out, the close assault abstraction isn't supposed to represent just throwing hand grenades.

On a side note, I think hand grenades may be a bit more powerful than you realize, James. I don't know your military experience, you may be retired infantry for all I know, but when I went through basic training in 1983, we got to throw several live grenades, and I recall being very impressed with the explosive force they generated. It seemed to me at the time to be far more powerful than what I was used to seeing in old WW2 films.

[ASL Veteran]

I would be really interested to see if anyone can point to a real life example, from June '44 onwards, of anyone KO'ing a buttoned AFV (not open topped) with hand grenades alone.

An excellent point. Considering that infantry in CM have nothing but ordinary hand grenades as equipment then whether or not the infantryman is physically standing on the vehicle or not is really irrelevant. In FM 21-75 on page H7 it lists several weak points on a tank that are suitable for infantry close assault. The turret ring, engine compartment, suspension system, ammunitions storage (inside the turret), and fuel tanks (external ones like Soviet tanks have). If you subtract the fuel tanks and the ammunition storage (behind armor) then you are left with the turret ring, suspension, and engine compartment. In no case does the Field Manual make a recommendation that a simple hand grenade be used to attack those weak points. Let's have a look at these weak points shall we?

If a soldier stands on the engine compartment and places a hand grenade on it, would that be any different than if a soldier tosses a hand grenade onto the engine compartment? No, no difference at all unless there is some sort of a special location where the soldier can wedge the grenade into (and hope it doesn't roll off). Even then though a tossed grenade could end up in the same location without physical placement. So for that weak point it makes no difference whether the grenade is tossed or placed.

For the suspension system, once again whether a grenade is placed or tossed would make no difference. In fact if the tank is moving it may very well be impossible to physically place a grenade somewhere in the supension system without losing part of your hand.

What does that leave us with then? The turret ring. In most cases there isn't any sort of a gap large enough to actually wedge a grenade into the turret ring, especially from the front or the sides. Some tanks have a turret overhang in the rear for ammo storage like the Pz IV for example. Even in that case it's not entirely clear that the gap is large enough to wedge a grenade into. The presence of turret skirts also complicates matters since the soldier would have to reach past the skirts somehow. Suffice to say that wedging a grenade into a turret ring would be a challenging proposition unless the grenade itself had a means of sticking to the location that the grenade was placed. In most cases the likely result is that the grenade would just roll off the tank as soon as the soldier let go of it.

The only thing soldiers are carrying in Combat Mission are hand grenades - no gasoline, no molotov cocktails, no crowbars, etc. Nothing other than hand grenades. If we make an assumption that hand grenades are not powerful enough to destroy tanks then the obvious conclusion would be that infantry in Combat Mission shouldn't have a close assault ability at all. The absence or presence of a wall, bocage, or any other intervening terrain is functionally irrelevant because whether or not the soldier is physically standing on the tank or not is also functionally irrelevant.

[Michael Emrys]

This forum is full of (I hate the term fanbois) persons who will defend BFC to their last breath.

No, it is not a matter of defending BFC to the last breath. It is a matter of trying to ensure that a question has been considered from all sides. This usually comes up when a player has seen something that he doesn't like or doesn't understand and immediately jumps to the hasty conclusion that the game has got it wrong. After further discussion, it may prove that he is right, but far more often it turns out that he is ignorant to a greater or lesser degree of what the real conditions were and the game has it more or less right. This is a pattern that I have seen repeated more times than I could possibly count.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

An abstraction is fine if it reflects at least a level of reality but, it seems to me that having a man near a tank with a few grenades too easily spells doom to the AFV. Fine in a Sgt Rock comic but not, IMO, representative of the reality of the situation.

If this sort of thing was happening routinely in the game, I would agree 100% with you, James. Something would be wrong and it would need looking at. But if it is a one-off experienced by a player maybe once in his entire career as a CM player, then I'm not going to sweat it.

Michael

[simmox]

Was the Stug buttoned-up and was it KO'ed?

If it wasn't buttoned there would certainly be a chance to get a grenade into an open hatch. But, in that case, it seems hardly likely that the crew would survive.

If it was buttoned and the crew panicked and bailed, fair enough.

But if the Stug was buttoned and is shown as KO'ed, I would be interested to know how a few ounces of blank fire powder managed to achieve such a feat.

An abstraction is fine if it reflects at least a level of reality but, it seems to me that having a man near a tank with a few grenades too easily spells doom to the AFV. Fine in a Sgt Rock comic but not, IMO, representative of the reality of the situation.

buttoned up tight,under lots of small arms fire,as it came around the building to get at my troops, ran right over the same action spot,a lone fella,as stated,took it out.

the crew bailed and a few seconds later the destroyed icon came up.

i'll just assume he lobbed the nades or watever he had into the engine bay,which i might add,the germans use petrol not diesel,and leak like sieves.it catches fire and burns to the ground.forcing the crew to flee the burning hulk.just as the fuel tank goes boom.

seems reasonable enough to me.

there was also a multitude of dead and dying fella's in and around the same area,so plenty of tank repellent tools lying around,quite reasonable,but,hardly a common event in game,thus why i enjoyed it so.

won the QB for me that guy.

lest we forget:)

im trying it on again in another QB as Jerry this time.ran a squad with no AT weapons showing in their inventory.ran em up to the bocage,with a cromwell on the other side.within a few seconds ,cromwells on fire and crew running.this time my guys gunned the crew down,for a nice change.

they had 6 grenades and used most on the tank and a couple of the crew as they fled.

no infantry supporting the tank is why i was able to pull it off

[Doug Williams]

No, it is not a matter of defending BFC to the last breath. It is a matter of trying to ensure that a question has been considered from all sides. This usually comes up when a player has seen something that he doesn't like or doesn't understand and immediately jumps to the hasty conclusion that the game has got it wrong. After further discussion, it may prove that he is right, but far more often it turns out that he is ignorant to a greater or lesser degree of what the real conditions were and the game has it more or less right. This is a pattern that I have seen repeated more times than I could possibly count.

I've seen a good deal of two types of threads here over the years. People coming on here whining about some minor issue and/or making unreasonable demands as well as people having legitimate questions/concerns then getting jumped on by the pack mentality mob of BFC-can-do-no-wrong'ers.

Thankfully, I haven't noticed too much of either lately, though my visits to the forum are spotty.

[Seedorf81]

I've seen a good deal of two types of threads here over the years. People coming on here whining about some minor issue and/or making unreasonable demands as well as people having legitimate questions/concerns then getting jumped on by the pack mentality mob of BFC-can-do-no-wrong'ers.

Thankfully, I haven't noticed too much of either lately, though my visits to the forum are spotty.

Though I do not totally agree, I do think you have made a legitimate point.

Newbies or forummembers with little or no understanding of ww2 (be it tactics or techniques, battles or uniforms and what not), of game development, of Battlefronts strategies and possibilities and limitations, and even of the English language, sometimes get very assertive and/or condescending reactions.

Maybe it's, like somebody once mentioned, "a forum/internet-thing one has to get used to", but I will always prefer courtesy.

[Oddball_E8]

Our dear Mr. Crowley seems to be completely hung up on the grenades point.

He does not accept that grenades are used to abstract various manufactured or improvised AT-weaponry like the gammon bomb or grenade bundles.

Why?

Well for the simple fact that he believes it would be accounted for in the inventory of the units if they were, in fact, present.

So let me ask you one thing then Mr. Crowley:

Have you ever seen a single piece of AT weaponry in the game beyond the 3 big ones? (that is Panzerfaust, Rocket Launcher (Zook or Schreck) and Demolition Charges.)

I believe the answer is no.

Now, do you also believe that there were no such weaponry present in the entire western theatre of operations during the period depicted in the game?

If the answer is that you do belive they were present, we must assume that these are also abstracted in the grenade allotment of the troops.

Especially since BFC has stated that the act of infantry throwing grenades at tanks and vehicles is an abstraction of them close assaulting the vehicles.