Hand grenades K.O.ing buttoned tanks.

[Oddball_E8]

You may well be right, I don't know. It isn't mentioned in any documentation that I am aware of.

Knocking out a tank at the tactical level is a big deal, whatever does the job. A close assault, by it's very nature, is a really big deal. So surely any information pertaining to what weapons can be used to carry out that task needs to be documented?

A lot of posters are espousing on how close assaults work but I have yet to see any link or reference as to where this 'information' is coming from. I'm not trying to be a doubting Thomas but it's not unknown for some posters on these forums to get their 'this is how it all works' facts befuddled.

Mainly because this information comes from posts made by the devs on the forums in casual discussions, often in threads not specifically about AT-grenades or even infantry assaulting tanks, and nobody can be bothered to go through 2-3 years of forum threads to find snippets of information stated by them...

(as an example of how threads tend to derail here, I could point to my thread on how I had trouble finding FG42 rifles in FJ units, which derailed and became about the possibility of upgrading CMSF to 2.0, which has absolutely nothing to do with the FG42 in MG)

[James Crowley]

Mainly because this information comes from posts made by the devs on the forums in casual discussions, often in threads not specifically about AT-grenades or even infantry assaulting tanks, and nobody can be bothered to go through 2-3 years of forum threads to find snippets of information stated by them...

(as an example of how threads tend to derail here, I could point to my thread on how I had trouble finding FG42 rifles in FJ units, which derailed and became about the possibility of upgrading CMSF to 2.0, which has absolutely nothing to do with the FG42 in MG)

Fully agree, there must be a lot of information sloshing around on the forum that should be scooped up and put into the manual or a separate document. Must be very confusing for newbies; hell, a lot still puzzles me and I've been around CM since the CMBO alpha.

[Freyberg]

Infantry close assault was a common and effective tactic by the Soviets and Japanese. That there are few accounts the Allies in Normandy (or none that I can recall, or that came up in a quick Google search) probably had more to do with the high risk/suicidal nature of the tactic, and the relative abundance of infantry AT weapons, rather than it being an impossible undertaking for troops of the Western Allies, as well as the fact that both sides were aware of the vulnerability of isolated tanks and made an effort to ensure their armour was usually supported.

Isolated tanks should be vulnerable to any and all infantry. WWII tanks had open vision ports and their hatches didn't lock, and infantry were trained in the various vulnerable points on particular tanks. Specialist equipment wouldn't have been needed to knock out an isolated tank with limited visibility at close quarters. If it didn't happen historically it's probably because such a vulnerable vehicle could be KO'd by one of the many infantry AT weapons each side possessed, without the need for such a risky tactic.

But as we all know, in CM we love to use crazy aggressive tactics the real commanders didn't use. US, British and Commonwealth infantry were not typically expected to undertake suicide missions, but if the CM commander orders them to, it ought to be possible. If we want to play like Soviets, the game should allow that.

Close assault is still relatively difficult, particularly against a human opponent. The AI will often obligingly leave an unsupported tank in a position where infantry can sneak up close to it, but a good human opponent is unlikely to make this mistake. The only infantry tanks kills I've had in H2H play have been by engineers or AT weapons, and they've been hard to pull off, risky and usually resulted in the death of the assaulting infantry typically by those über tanks crews).

It's probably one of those things that BF will tweak over time, and I'm open to being persuaded that it's a little too easy now, but I'm glad that changes have been made to the game engine to allow for close assault.

The whole bocage thing is another issue of course...

[James Crowley]

WWII tanks had open vision ports and their hatches didn't lock,

I'm pretty certain that is not true in the majority of main battle tanks of the era.

But you got me to thinking and now I'm looking at diagrams of the Sherman, at least, that clearly show hatch locking handles in the turret cupola.

Again, I think most vision ports had some form of bullet-proof triplex glass fitted. The Tiger scene in Saving Private Ryan where a Thompson (I think) was fired into a vision port was a big faux-pas and has a lot to answer for.

[Michael Emrys]

But you got me to thinking and now I'm looking at diagrams of the Sherman, at least, that clearly show hatch locking handles in the turret cupola.

I think you are right. I'm pretty sure that in reading some first person accounts, the narrator mentioned dropping the hatch and locking it. Did all tanks have locks? That would be a pretty big claim to make. But it's possible that most of the tanks in Western armies had them by the start of the war.

Michael

[Freyberg]

You guys know more than me, so yeah, I'm sure you're right and I'm wrong - plenty of tanks would have had hatch locks. No doubt BFC will finesse the infantry close-assault thing over time.