British AT men

[db_zero]

Some squads have men that have AT labels but are armed with just Lee Enfields. What AT capabilities do they possess?

[TrailApe]

Stiff upper lips?

Dunno - I've noticed that as well.

[akd]

British sections have on option for PIATs, so when that option is selected, the AT man should have the PIAT.

[YankeeDog]

If a soldier has the "Antitank" label this means he has some additional training in infantry antitank techniques, and particularly in the use of the IAT weapons relevant to that nationality (i.e., PIAT, in the case of Commonwealth).

If the team isn't presently carrying any AT weapons, this specialty is largely irrelevant. However, it can come into play if the team acquires an IAT weapon from a vehicle, or picks one up via Buddy Aid -- as long as there is an Antitank specialist in the team that acquires the AT weapon, the game will assign it to him.

Basically, any old GI/Tommy/Landser can use an IAT weapon, but the Antitank specialists are a little better at it.

Similar logic applies to "Gunner" and "Marksman" specialists. The soldiers with these labels are a little better at handling the weapons related to their specialties than plain vanilla soldiers. You can't acquire additional MGs or scoped rifles from vehicles, but if a specialist gets wounded and another soldier picks up the specialist weapon via buddy aid, he won't be quite as good at wielding it if he doesn't have the specialist label.

[John Kettler]

db_zero,

Am taking a flyer here, but the explanation might be one of these, the earlier than the U.S. M9 British version of a HEAT rifle grenade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._68_AT_Grenade

I could also be completely wrong!

Regards,

John Kettler

[db_zero]

It would be nice to see the CW troops use AT rifle grenades, but I can't recall seeing them equipped with em like American grunts. Other hand devices would also be nice.

I can't imagine an Eastern Front without them.

[akd]

db_zero,

Am taking a flyer here, but the explanation might be one of these, the earlier than the U.S. M9 British version of a HEAT rifle grenade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._68_AT_Grenade

I could also be completely wrong!

Regards,

John Kettler

You are completely wrong because those are not in the game.

[John Kettler]

akd,

According to the post below, for which I've provided no link, the British produced over 5 million No. 68 Grenades in 1942. Given that, I'd very much love to know why this useful item isn't in the game? Also, elsewhere I discovered the British produced a grenade, akin to the U.S. M9A1, which was called the No.85.

British Grenades of the Second World War

Written by David Boyd

Thursday, 01 January 2009 15:22

While rooting about, I also came across this topic (not a link) at Ben and Bob's Blawg.

Revisiting the Rifle Grenade

It's got some excellent stuff on U.S. use of rifle grenades in WW II.

Regards,

John Kettler

[YankeeDog]

You will also note that David Boyd's article states that the No. 68 AT Grenade was declared obsolete in 1942 and relegated to Home Guard use thereafter. This agrees with other sources I have read on the matter. The No. 85 Rifle Grenade was indeed a direct copy of the U.S. M9A1, but it didn't enter service with British units until the last few weeks of the war; I'm not even sure if it actually saw any action before Germany fell. So it's not relevant to CMBN's timeframe.

AFAIK, the PIAT was the only infantry AT weapon that saw widespread use by CW forces in the ETO; by mid-1944 it had pretty much completely supplanted the various rifle grenades, sticky bombs etc. that CW forces had been using prior (I'm not including AT mines such as the Hawkins mine in this calculus). I guess you could also include the Gammon bomb, which would be Paras only, but I think Gammon bombs are reasonably abstracted as the demo charges Para squads carry in CMBN -- the Gammon was basically a specially packaged plastique charge with an inertial fuse.

Once again, in CMBN the soldier "Specialist" labels in and of themselves say NOTHING about what the solder is carrying; they only tell you what specialized training the soldier has received (if any). If the squad does have any AT "specials", the Antitank specialist will usually be assigned the best AT weapon available, but you need to check other parts of the UI, and/or look at what the soldier is carrying on the game screen to get this info.

[womble]

AFAIK, the PIAT was the only infantry AT weapon that saw widespread use by CW forces in the ETO; by mid-1944 it had pretty much completely supplanted the various rifle grenades, sticky bombs etc. that CW forces had been using prior ...Gammon bomb, which would be Paras only, ...abstracted as the demo charges Para squads carry in CMBN...

I wonder whether different nationalities have different chances of a "basic" (no AT assets or demo charges in their listed inventory, just grenades) infantry team/squad successfully executing a close assault on armour. Some nationalities seem to have had more of the "grenade bundle, wurfmine, sticky bomb" kind of "improvisational"/stopgap AT gear, and equippage varied through the war. Does the game consider that?

[YankeeDog]

As far as I know, no. Other than demo charges, non-projected AT specials like sticky bombs, panzerwufminen, etc. are presently not modeled in CMBN any way. And I have never read nor seen anything in the game to suggest that any nationality or formation has a better abstracted "improvised AT" ability.

IIRC, weapons like this were pretty rare in the ETO -- by this time, most formations were pretty well equipped with bazookas, M9A1 RGs, PIATs, 'shrecks, and fausts (as applicable), so the use of completely manual AT weapons was pretty rare. You can always find the exceptions but I'm not sure explicitly modeling weapons these is really worth the effort for this particular theater and time frame. And if a scenario designer wants to model a formation with stronger "improvised AT" ability, he can always just add a couple of engineer or para squads with demo charges to the formation.

Now, in other time frames/theatres, the priority for modeling hand-thrown AT weapons might be different...

[womble]

As far as I know, no. Other than demo charges, non-projected AT specials like sticky bombs, panzerwufminen, etc. are presently not modeled in CMBN any way.

Explicitly, perhaps not, but there has to be some explanation for the results that troops achieve with "just grenades". Results that would be impossible to achieve without the "weapons of desperation"; I refuse to believe that so many tank crews forget to dog their hatches shut, which would prevent about the only way a "grenade or two" can get a kill on some of the heavier beasts. Was it not BFC who asserted that such desperate measures as grenade bundles, wurfminen and the other things that used to be explicitly tracked in CMx1 are "assumed" and "abstracted" into the CA process?

[YankeeDog]

Perhaps I was unclear -- I do think there is an "Abstracted Infantry Close Assault" mechanic in the game which abstractly represents the idea that any given infantry unit might have and/or improvise grenade bundles, hawkins mines, molotovs, etc. But AFAICT, this is a generic ability and no nationality or formation is inherently better at armor close assault than any other. AFAICT, morale, experience, etc. being equal, the only thing that seems to give a unit a better chance at armor close assault is demo charges.

[womble]

Perhaps I was unclear -- I do think there is an "Abstracted Infantry Close Assault" mechanic in the game which abstractly represents the idea that any given infantry unit might have and/or improvise grenade bundles, hawkins mines, molotovs, etc. But AFAICT, this is a generic ability and no nationality or formation is inherently better at armor close assault than any other. AFAICT, morale, experience, etc. being equal, the only thing that seems to give a unit a better chance at armor close assault is demo charges.

Ah, right. Gotcha.