German infantry AT grenades

[zmoney]

Oh how I long for grenade bundles and other assorted anti-tank grenades that German infantry carried in CMBB. I know BFC said that they could not model them as a separate grenade model and that it was abstracted, but I haven't had any luck getting my infantry to attack the commie tanks with anything but shooting at them even if they are buttoned.

So I'm asking if anyone has had any luck ko'ing a Russian tank with infantry grenades? This is far from a test but I had five t-34's surrounded by buildings in a town. In these buildings I had un-spotted infantry laying in wait for their fearless leaders (me) command to attack. I gave the order and they very bravely albeit stupidly started shooting at the buttoned tanks. Not even one grenade was thrown. It was about a platoon of infantry all about 5-20 meters from the tanks.

So may be a bug if German infantry is meant to be carrying hand placed AT mines.

[womble]

Hopefully the inclusion of the Russian AT grenade is going to be a step towards the explicit modelling of other "desperation" AT measures as were, from time to time, employed by infantry of all nations.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Infantry in buildings will not use thrown weapons against vehicles unless the vehicle is open-topped. This is true of all nationalities.

AFAIK the only special grenade-type weapons German troops carry are satchel charges, but if you move the infantry outside the buildings they should be able to close assault even without them.

[Baneman]

I think there's something about being in buildings ( can't find other thread on it ).

I can confirm that infantry in trenches/forests etc. can and do hurl "abstracted AT grenades" which have immobilised and KO'd T34's.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I've seen in one of many casual tests a ISU-152 being KO'd by a grenade, I thought that a single hand grenade couldn't just destroy the vehicle, but I wasn't aware of this abstraction concerning boundled nades.

[zmoney]

Ohhhh, OK I do remember now reading about them having to be outside. Dang it, I wish I had remembered that instead of seeing my poor pixel troopen being destroyed.

And yes BFC had replied to me a couple months ago that the AT mines and grenade bundles were abstracted. I would like to know if German infantry is more lethal against tanks than their Soviet counterparts.

I wonder if it is possible to one day have them modeled separately again. I believe I read or saw a show about how German paras threw AT grenades on passing Sherman from inside buildings in Italy. It was possible because the grenades had magnets on them which stuck them to the tanks.

[Fizou]

I would like to know if German infantry is more lethal against tanks than their Soviet counterparts.

If we are talking just the abstracted gear, portrayed as ordinary grenades, Im pretty sure that the lethality is equal for all nations. Id be very surprised if it wasent.

I wonder if it is possible to one day have them modeled separately again.

I would love this.. the new Russian AT grenades sure is a step in that direction.

[YankeeDog]

Oh how I long for grenade bundles and other assorted anti-tank grenades that German infantry carried in CMBB.

AFAIK, the older German IAT weapons like the Panzerwurfmine and Hafthohlladung were pretty darn rare by Mid-1944, having been supplanted by the Panzerfaust, which was pretty widely distributed by this time. I'm sure you can find some accounts of improvised IAT weapons like grenade bundles and teller mines being used by German troops in extremis late war, but it's such a rare thing that I don't think it's really worth the time to do an explicit modeling of this, and in any event I think the present abstracted close assault routine works just fine for infantry assumed to be close assaulting with desperation weapons like grenade bundles, mines, molotovs etc. If anything, actually, the in-game chances of close assault success improvised IAT weapons is pretty generous.

Things may change as we move earlier war, before the Panzerfaust and when weapons like the Panzerwurfmine were more common. Early war tanks were also more vulnerable to some thrown IAT weapons like molotovs.

So I'm asking if anyone has had any luck ko'ing a Russian tank with infantry grenades?

Yes. Not all that difficult, actually. IME, if a T-34 is stupid enough to stumble into spitting distance of a good-order German infantry squad, the squad has a pretty decent chance of knocking it out, even if it has no Panzerfausts.

This is far from a test but I had five t-34's surrounded by buildings in a town. In these buildings I had un-spotted infantry laying in wait for their fearless leaders (me) command to attack. I gave the order and they very bravely albeit stupidly started shooting at the buttoned tanks. Not even one grenade was thrown. It was about a platoon of infantry all about 5-20 meters from the tanks.

As noted, infantry will not attempt to close assault fully armored vehicles from inside a building; you have to order them outside. Also, NEVER give infantry a TARGET order if you want them to close assault. the TARGET order tells a unit to use whatever weapons it has against the target, regardless of effectiveness. This can be useful, e.g., when you want a unit to shoot small arms at a tank from one direction to distract it, while another unit ambushes the tank from another direction. But the close assaulting unit should be left to make its own targeting decisions. Possibly a short cover arc to prevent it from engaging other, more distant enemy, but nothing more than this. Generally speaking, as long as an infantry unit is in good order and has hand grenades, it will use them quite willingly on any armor that stumbles into grenade range.

[James Crowley]

If anything, actually, the in-game chances of close assault success improvised IAT weapons is pretty generous.

I would venture to suggest overly generous; to the point of turning almost every good order infantry unit into a tank killer/immobiliser. The notion that every section/team had improvised AT weapons is, IMO, a gross exaggeration.

IME, if a T-34 is stupid enough to stumble into spitting distance of a good-order German infantry squad, the squad has a pretty decent chance of knocking it out, even if it has no Panzerfausts.

Generally speaking, as long as an infantry unit is in good order and has hand grenades, it will use them quite willingly on any armor that stumbles into grenade range.

I have no problem with the abstraction of improvised AT weapons sometimes being used on tanks to which the infantry is adjacent but, too often, I am seeing tanks being KO'ed and immobilised by a frag grenade or two being thrown from 10 to 30 metres away.

In those instances, and unless the grenade is a Soviet AT grenade, I would suggest that the thrown grenades are indeed only grenades and, as such, would have almost zero chance of damaging a tank.

For the grenades to abstractly represent improvised methods, the attack should have to be at extremely close quarters, say within a few metres, to represent the placing of the IED on the engine deck or into the track area. Successfully throwing from a distance should be almost impossible as the likelihood is that the device would simply bounce off and explode harmlessly nearby.

It certainly would nice to have those Soviet AT grenades handled as a separate inventory item. At the moment, any Soviet squad listed with grenades has the potential to have some of them actually be AT grenades and, thus , the AT threat value of those squads is exaggerated.

[poesel]

Infantry in buildings will not use thrown weapons against vehicles unless the vehicle is open-topped.

Won't they throw on unbuttoned tanks, too?

And what was the reasoning behind the not-from-buildings limitation? I can remember the discussion but not that bit.

[freeman2344]

Won't they throw on unbuttoned tanks, too?

And what was the reasoning behind the not-from-buildings limitation? I can remember the discussion but not that bit.

I could be wrong, but I remember reading that infantry throwing grenades on tanks is supposed to represent some kind of "close assault", which would naturally be hard to do from within a building (no matter how abstracted). It does, however, beg the question why this is possible from 30m out (probably a design error, as 30m is also the range at which infantry generally starts chucking nades at the enemy).

I did a number of semi-isolated tests with a couple of infantry squads on either side + some rather uncautious T34s for the soviets. Whenever the T34 ventured too far in front - or I managed to sneak up on it with a German squad - it was generally incapacitated after just 2/3 grenades thrown from fairly far away. I think we can all agree that this is not really what the designers had intended and that the ranges at which this phenomenon can occur have to be somewhat decreased.

[James Crowley]

Just had a buttoned Mark IV KO'ed, travelling at Fast speed, by a Russian team throwing two frag grenades from 30 metres. Seems to me an event that is highly unlikely in RL.

[Fizou]

Just had a buttoned Mark IV KO'ed, travelling at Fast speed, by a Russian team throwing two frag grenades from 30 metres. Seems to me an event that is highly unlikely in RL.

Abstracted AT assets.. they rushed up and put a AT mine in front of it.

[snarre]

remember guys , nades means all sou at nades in list , thous are not separated, like it was in cmb;bb but effect and backround egine still do it like real at nades and mangned mines. you tjust see infantry drow normal nade.

[James Crowley]

Abstracted AT assets.. they rushed up and put a AT mine in front of it.

An acceptable abstraction would be that they were either next to or extremely close to the tank and that there was a small chance of them doing that.

Throwing from that distance is not an acceptable abstraction because it completely breaks the WYSIWYG that, for the most part, is what the CM engine is about.

In your interpretation, they abstractly jumped up from a prone position, ran thirty metres, planted a mine or whatever, then ran back to where they started. All the while immune to all the individually tracked bullets, shells and shrapnel that are integral to the engine.

If this was a exceptional, once in the blue moon occurrence it might, just might, pass muster. But it is not. It is a regular, almost IME the norm, when tanks are attacked by infantry and it just does not look or feel right.

[Snowbart]

remember guys , nades means all sou at nades in list , thous are not separated, like it was in cmb;bb but effect and backround egine still do it like real at nades and mangned mines. you tjust see infantry drow normal nade.

Please forgive my asking, just trying to get a firm understanding of this. Are we saying that German Inf in fact does have AT grenade bundles such as were in CMBB, it is just that they are not monitored and measured(and shown in the squad special weapons section)? If so, then:

-does this mean each squad does in fact have the ability to destroy tanks as they will have 'some' AT grenade bundles?

-is there a max # of AT grenades assumed to be carried by a squad?

Im quite sure the last question wont effect my gameplay as you are mostly to only throw 1, I was just curious

[sburke]

An acceptable abstraction would be that they were either next to or extremely close to the tank and that there was a small chance of them doing that.

Throwing from that distance is not an acceptable abstraction because it completely breaks the WYSIWYG that, for the most part, is what the CM engine is about.

In your interpretation, they abstractly jumped up from a prone position, ran thirty metres, planted a mine or whatever, then ran back to where they started. All the while immune to all the individually tracked bullets, shells and shrapnel that are integral to the engine.

If this was a exceptional, once in the blue moon occurrence it might, just might, pass muster. But it is not. It is a regular, almost IME the norm, when tanks are attacked by infantry and it just does not look or feel right.

Your norm is infantry tossing grenades 30 meters at a fast moving tank and KOing it? Seriously?

[z-warfare]

It's likely most of you have seen this, and it's been mentioned elsewhere on the forum, but it's a reminder of what they're "supposed" to do:

The "Manner Gegen Panzer" training film, in 3 parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8thWxRiALM

[LukeFF]

Your norm is infantry tossing grenades 30 meters at a fast moving tank and KOing it? Seriously?

I've seen it happen, yes. It's quite a stretch to call this an acceptable abstraction.

[James Crowley]

Your norm is infantry tossing grenades 30 meters at a fast moving tank and KOing it? Seriously?

To be fair, I was referring to the ability of infantry to regularly immobilise or KO tanks from a distance greater than 10 metres as per my post no. 9 above and should have expressed that more clearly.

And I would say that, yes, that is the norm for me in the games that I have played. I cannot recall a situation where a tank or SP has got within the 10 30 m distance from infantry and not been immobilised or KO'ed by 'grenades'

For this type of abstraction to work in a realistic and believable manner, IMO, the infantry group should have to be within 8-10 metres, an action spot, of the target tank. Anything further strains the boundaries of my credulity, at least.

[Fizou]

Please forgive my asking, just trying to get a firm understanding of this. Are we saying that German Inf in fact does have AT grenade bundles such as were in CMBB, it is just that they are not monitored and measured(and shown in the squad special weapons section)? If so, then:

-does this mean each squad does in fact have the ability to destroy tanks as they will have 'some' AT grenade bundles?

-is there a max # of AT grenades assumed to be carried by a squad?

Im quite sure the last question wont effect my gameplay as you are mostly to only throw 1, I was just curious

Yes Snowbart, all units, as long as they have grenades have the ability to take out tanks. This is an abstraction that simulates a myriad of AT weapons/capabilities. Think grenade bundles, magnetic mines, AT mines, sticky bombs, molotovs.. what have you. So once they run out of grenades, they also lose their AT capability (unless they have zooks/schrecks, fausts obviously ).

To be fair, I was referring to the ability of infantry to regularly immobilise or KO tanks from a distance greater than 10 metres as per my post no. 9 above and should have expressed that more clearly.

And I would say that, yes, that is the norm for me in the games that I have played. I cannot recall a situation where a tank or SP has got within the 10 30 m distance from infantry and not been immobilised or KO'ed by 'grenades'

For this type of abstraction to work in a realistic and believable manner, IMO, the infantry group should have to be within 8-10 metres, an action spot, of the target tank. Anything further strains the boundaries of my credulity, at least.

Not in my book. Programming the TacAi to do this in a believable manner would take a lot of recourses and it will probably never happen in CMx2. To handle it in WEGO is very hard to say the least. Infantry needs to have this flexibility as they are very flexible on the battlefield.

Further, I have not seen the immediate KO/immobilization of tanks that move that close to infantry. It happens but not all the time. I think it feels about right.

What could be done, is to add more traceable inf AT assets, grenade bundles, mines etc. Thrown like grenades and once used the unit has all but lost its AT capability (grenades could then be nerfed down). Spread so that maybe not all units have them.

You seem to take the WYSIWYG too literally. There is and will always be some abstractions in CM. Micro movement, micro terrain etc.

[A Canadian Cat]

Not in my book. Programming the TacAi to do this in a believable manner would take a lot of recourses and it will probably never happen in CMx2. To handle it in WEGO is very hard to say the least. Infantry needs to have this flexibility as they are very flexible on the battlefield.

Further, I have not seen the immediate KO/immobilization of tanks that move that close to infantry. It happens but not all the time. I think it feels about right

This how I view things as well. We know from the historical record that tanks were very hesitant to just drive around where there could be enemy infantry - without their own infantry. We need this kind of abstraction to keep that balance. The reduced ability for tanks to spot infantry certainly helps but I think that currently it is probably still to easy to drive tanks wherever you like. I don't think there is a modeling issue though it is more of a command issue. We, the god like player, are happy to order tanks to go off ahead of protecting infantry but real life tank commanders would be less eager to do that. Not because it was likely they would get immobilized or killed but because it could happen.

We have the same issue with our command of infantry. We, the god like player, are happy to tell our squad that just lost two guys - keep going you guys I need you to get to that next objective. Where as in real life the squad leader and or platoon commander would be less inclined to just keep pressing. Again we have rattled and broken morale status to help mitigate that so it is a command issue not a modeling issue. It is after all still a game and we need to have fun.

[wolf66]

Now that we should have fire, actually I never really saw real fire ingame yet, only some teeny bits of it inside buildings, we should have Molotov Cocktails too, like in CMBB - that sound of breaking glass alone was worth the price of admisson - Ahh sweet, sweet memories !

Maybe in a game down the road dealing with russian front in '41

[LukeFF]

You seem to take the WYSIWYG too literally. There is and will always be some abstractions in CM. Micro movement, micro terrain etc.

Sure, but when every infantry unit on the map has the capability to take out a tank - no matter the weaponry they have on their person - it stretches the limits of what is and should be plausible.

[sburke]

Sure, but when every infantry unit on the map has the capability to take out a tank - no matter the weaponry they have on their person - it stretches the limits of what is and should be plausible.

Man BF can't win. First we complain that armor is too invulnerable to infantry. So they adjust and make infantry have better ability of close assaulting and we complain that now ALL infantry have an ability we want limited to just guys with specific weaponry so now we want BF to add......

In my world we call this project creep.

Is it better than it was - yep

can it get better - yep

will it get better - yep

patience. I am all in favor of having some more detail, but am also mindful to watch what I ask for. How much micro management do you want? Do we then have the ability to acquire specialized AT weapons, buddy aid them, share? And now the new guys have still another thing to check, oh crap I ordered them to attack that tank and they don't have anything to attack it with!

Part of abstracting it is to note that there is a wide range of possible options and potentially even some spontaneous stuff like finding a crowbar or shoving a potato up the tail pipe. Okay I made up the bit about the potato, but you get the idea.