Has Infantry Been Boosted vs Tanks?

[db_zero]

Since upgrading to 3.11 it seems that infantry is more potent against tanks. I've had a few of tanks easily immobilized by grenade chucking infantry.

I've also managed to immobilize then kill a Tiger with grenade tossing infantry. I may have immobilized more tanks, but can't verify at the moment.

[JoMac]

Yeah, and been having this problem ever since v2.0.

It seems just a few Inf with hand grenades can take out a Tank on a regular basis with no problem.

BF said they fixed the problem in previous patches since then, but I don't see it, and neither do many others.

Other people say that throwing Hand Grenades represent Inf Close Assaulting a Tank, but I think it's way overmoddled and simply ridiculous.

It got to the point where in every Battle I played in an Inf Platoon would easily run around the Battlefield and hunt down a Tank Platoon and take it out in short order.

In one Battle, an Inf Squad throw a Mortar Barrage worth of Nades within 10 secs when a Tank approached within 25 meters of them.

Joe

[LukeFF]

Placebo effect, as usual.

[weta_nz]

I think it works o.k. I'm pretty sure most of the time tanks should have some sort of support so infantry can't close assault without taking casualties, getting pinned and wiped out. I'd imagine a lone tank sitting in a field with no support is probably just a

blind steel box waiting to blowup in ww2. Unless the tank is named fury of course

[Baneman]

It may be overmodelled a bit, but a tank should be at risk when close to infantry.

If your tank is within 30m of enemy infantry and has no supporting infantry of its own, you've already "done it wrong"

Showers of grenades may seem odd, but I can live with "abstracted close assault". The chucking of lots of grenades can easily represent the process of creating grenade bundles etc.

[Macisle]

I really like the way infantry has a decent chance against AFVs with close assault. That is one of the things that has always bugged me in other games--infantry being nearly impotent against armor, even at very close range. I hated that in the Close Combat series and it's also a problem in GTOS.

I think the current CM series gets it right.

[JoMac]

A decent chance is one thing, but this happens on a near constant basis.

Having Inf supporting Armor is irrelevant to this thread and another matter altogether.

I don't mind the abstraction, if done right...It would be better to have a Unit spend a couple/few turns within Close Assault Range getting ready in order to be affective ( akin to setting-up Heavy Weapons ). However, just having Armor & Inf bump into each other and having the Inf Auto Nade ( auto Close-Assault ) is still ridiculous.

So now, you don't need Engineers when you have plain jane Inf taking out Armor willy-nilly...Why, because Engineers take to long to take out Armor, you know, like it's suppose to.

It's simply to easy to Split a Squad and have each Team hunt down Armor.

There is a reason why those other games make it hard to Disable/KO Armor with Inf, because it was...I still think CMx1 had it right.

[Macisle]

...Having Inf supporting Armor is irrelevant to this thread and another matter altogether...

???

Not having friendly infantry supporting your armor when it's in the close combat range of enemy infantry is irrelevant?

I've been playing CMBN since it came out and have upgraded immediately each time an upgrade package comes out and I almost never lose armor to actual close assault. It sounds like you're taking way too many risks with your armor and paying the price. Other games get it wrong because they know most players love armor and infantry mostly provides extra targets when no AFVs are in LOS. Armor is usually way over-modeled vs. infantry in most games. If WWII had really been like that, a company of German tanks could have cleared out Stalingrad.

Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that WWII tanks that found themselves isolated and surrounded by enemy infantry at close assault range were in a very dangerous situation indeed.

[A Canadian Cat]

Not having friendly infantry supporting your armor when it's in the close combat range of enemy infantry is irrelevant?

I agree with @Macisle - it is entirely relevant. If you want to stop loosing tanks to close assaulting infantry, stop loosing tanks to close assaulting infantry. It is entirely up to you. Every single time I have lost a tank or done in a tank by close assault, it was an entirely preventable mistake on someone's part. A mistake I try hard not to make any more.

Other games get it wrong because they know most players love armor and infantry mostly provides extra targets when no AFVs are in LOS. Armor is usually way over-modeled vs. infantry in most games. If WWII had really been like that, a company of German tanks could have cleared out Stalingrad.

Yeah, there is reason Tankers don't just drive around on their own when in contact with the enemy.

[womble]

A decent chance is one thing, but this happens on a near constant basis.

As it ought, if the crunchies are given the plum opportunity to crack an unsupported (blind, deaf) AFV at close assault range "on a near constant basis".

I don't mind the abstraction, if done right...It would be better to have a Unit spend a couple/few turns within Close Assault Range getting ready in order to be affective ( akin to setting-up Heavy Weapons ). However, just having Armor & Inf bump into each other and having the Inf Auto Nade ( auto Close-Assault ) is still ridiculous.

So the infantry had no idea that a massive, snorting behemoth was near their location, and had no chance whatsoever to prep their abstracted "desperation measure" AT weapons (PzWurfMine, Gammon Bomb, Grenade Bundle, whatever)? Are they as blind and deaf as the armour?

So now, you don't need Engineers when you have plain jane Inf taking out Armor willy-nilly...Why, because Engineers take to long to take out Armor, you know, like it's suppose to.

Engineers aren't "supposed" to take out armour. They're "supposed" to breach hedges, walls and other fortifications. That the automagic "demo charge" can morph into a hand-placed (or chucked from 30m - how's that for abstract?) land mine on the engine deck is just a happy convenience. Or, conversely, the fact that a TH team's "satchel charges" can just as easily become a 50kg hedge-buster, or a frame charge for a door, is the same convenience.

It's simply to easy to Split a Squad and have each Team hunt down Armor.

Then someone, somewhere, possibly the Poor Bloody AI, is "doing it wrong", because those teams should just get shot to bits by the supporting infantry before they get into CA range of the armour. They're too big to stay hidden. Your AT team, that might manage it, because they're a pair, and they get all the grenades if they're the first-split.

There is a reason why those other games make it hard to Disable/KO Armor with Inf, because it was...I still think CMx1 had it right.

There is a reason that so many other games give unsupported armour massive penalties in urban terrain, is because armour was vulnerable to infantry that could get close. See, that argument cuts both ways. Stupid argument anyway: basing assessments of verisimilitude on what other games did is going to get you nowhere. And if you want to do some research on comparable real life situations, you have to find times when the tanks were operating without infantry support.

On the whole, I expect you see tanks trolling around amongst enemy infantry without their own crunchies to scratch their backs orders of magnitude more often in CM situations than you would in WW2. Because the tankers knew it was a bonehead maneuver IRL, so they avoided such situations.

[db_zero]

I've been trying this out in my games. Whether its overdone or not, I like it as is.

[Warts 'n' all]

I rant and rave at my comp when "my" tanks get their tracks ruined by one infantryman with a single grenade. And, I cheer like crazy when "my" men do it to the enemy.

Tanks getting disabled or knocked out by hand grenades isn't down to bad game design. It is down to "us" not using our tanks properly. Remember the bocage country was a rotten place to fight in, especially for tank crews who didn't know what was on the other side of "that hedge".

So, "if in doubt, flush 'em out", with your infantry.

[Pak40]

Don't forget that all US squads carry the M9A1 rifle grenades. I've knocked out a few tanks and lighter vehicles with these in CMBN. These were quite effective from what I've read, penetrating up to 102mm (Army TM 9-1300-214). A 30-40 yard range, like most of you are mentioning, would be an easy shot to hit a still tank. "Effective Range" is listed at 100m by one source but I'm sure that's a low probability to hit. Max range is about 260-280.

[macjimm]

This type of thread is great. Thanks for your insight as to the relative effectiveness of infantry up close with armor.

It reminds me of the frustration I experienced during my first CM2 missions getting slaughtered by mortars. I was irritated at my own impotence and the disappointment wth my opponent's skill with indirect fire. I'd never seen a game where the mortars and arty dominated the battle so decisively. I thought that it had to be a game flaw so I endeavored to search for topics regarding the accuracy and rate of fire for WW2 mortars. Dam those mortars in WW2 were lethal ... and quick.

Suppose it may be the same for some gamers when infantry gets up close and personal with their AFVs.

[Rinaldi]

Baneman:

Showers of grenades may seem odd, but I can live with "abstracted close assault". The chucking of lots of grenades can easily represent the process of creating grenade bundles etc.

I cannot stress this enough; its a clever bit of game design that is firmly rooted in reality - wholly acceptable abstraction. It also saves some poor sod from being hounded to death from making some minute model that will go un-noticed 3/4s of the time.

Warts n' All:

Tanks getting disabled or knocked out by hand grenades isn't down to bad game design. It is down to "us" not using our tanks properly. Remember the bocage country was a rotten place to fight in, especially for tank crews who didn't know what was on the other side of "that hedge".

Ding ding ding.

The bottom line remains that if you drive unsupported armor into a treeline; you're taking a risk, and if there's concealed infantry in that treeline, you're going to have a bad time. Who cares how it happened; the truth remains that it should happen.

Sometimes when enemy fire is too intense to get friendly infantry to keep pace with the tanks, I attempt to use rifle and MG area fire to screen my tanks and push them through such danger areas - sometimes it works, more often than not, it fails. Its the reality of attempting to push through buttoned armor into 'infantry' terrain - which in case you haven't noticed, NW Europe seems to be abundant in

[Pak40]

*Also, I forgot to mention that U.S. Airborne units carried Gammon bombs, at least in Normandy and maybe even in Market Garden. I'm not sure if these are in CMBN or if it's maybe abstracted in any way. Of course we all know about the improvised "sticky" bombs. Many paratroopers in D-Day dropped with a TNT block and sometimes extra 60mm mortar rounds that would be handed off to appropriate crews once on the ground.

[Rocky Balboa]

Sounds like the OP is just deploying single tanks with no support. You should never have armor alone without some kind of support. Even a pure Armor formation should have tanks supporting one another. Sounds like the OP has neither which will get you killed sooner than later.

I's always better to have a mixed force if possible, especially if you are unsure what you will be facing. There is a reason why a combined arms doctrine is so effective.

This is why I like CMx2 because it forces you to use realistic tactics.

[aleader]

It always amazing me in this game how everyone blindly defends it. We all know that lone tanks are vulnerable to infantry and it isn't a good idea. I think what someone needs to do (and it hasn't been done yet in this thread) is reference real-world WW2 effectiveness of grenades against armour...that's the question here.

Everyone just flames him for not supporting his tanks and forgets about the question as though Battlefront is too exalted to ever be questioned. I've also often wondered if simple grenades were really that effective against armour (not Gammon bombs, grenades).

And I have seen my own infantry throw what looks like 10 or 20 grenades at a single halftrack. In that case, I would expect it to be knocked out of course, but why the need for so many grenades in this case? Wouldn't one or two into the HT suffice?

[db_zero]

Sounds like the OP is just deploying single tanks with no support. You should never have armor alone without some kind of support. Even a pure Armor formation should have tanks supporting one another. Sounds like the OP has neither which will get you killed sooner than later.

I's always better to have a mixed force if possible, especially if you are unsure what you will be facing. There is a reason why a combined arms doctrine is so effective.

This is why I like CMx2 because it forces you to use realistic tactics.

Actually no I wasn't deploying tanks in closed terrain without infantry support, but oftentimes you will find tanks alone due to the circumstances. Artillery and small arms fire can kill off supporting infantry quickly and leave tanks alone.

I wasn't complaining about infantry killing tanks, just asking about it.

I've had tanks killed by infantry and once I learned more I tried it out in some h2h games against my opponent and discovered it works quite well so I'm going to change my tactics accordingly.

In the past when infantry was pretty impotent against tanks you used them differently. The one thing I do question is I'm seeing tanks immobilized by the first grenade that explodes near their tracks. I can't say that for sure, but I had 2 tanks immobilized this way and I've killed 4 opponents tanks-Tigers, Panthers and a Mark IV with infantry hurling grenades and it looked like they were immobilized quickly, then finished off with grenades.

1 of the Panthers killed by 2 sections with a total of 3 troops were Polish infantry.

This may also have implications for my h2h games in Italy too.

[AttorneyAtWar]

It always amazing me in this game how everyone blindly defends it. We all know that lone tanks are vulnerable to infantry and it isn't a good idea. I think what someone needs to do (and it hasn't been done yet in this thread) is reference real-world WW2 effectiveness of grenades against armour...that's the question here.

Everyone just flames him for not supporting his tanks and forgets about the question as though Battlefront is too exalted to ever be questioned. I've also often wondered if simple grenades were really that effective against armour (not Gammon bombs, grenades).

And I have seen my own infantry throw what looks like 10 or 20 grenades at a single halftrack. In that case, I would expect it to be knocked out of course, but why the need for so many grenades in this case? Wouldn't one or two into the HT suffice?

It seems like you didn't read through very carefully...remember the "grenades" represent the act of close assaulting, IE using all of the weapons you just mentioned, and other actions like climbing on the tank ETC. Its an abstraction and honestly an acceptable one, if you don't want to lose your armor to infantry don't send it alone into dangerous areas where it is vulnerable to such a thing.

[Skwabie]

I do think it's weird that every infantry grenade has AT capability in the ww2 titles... pretty sure in CMSF there's only ATGM and AT-rockets, when those are spent infantry is defenseless. When on the receiving end of those situations I do wish for a squad of CM ww2 super-soldiers.

[womble]

I do think it's weird that every infantry grenade has AT capability in the ww2 titles...

They don't. The whole grenades-throwing thing is an abstract visual representation of all the desperation close assault tactics that infantry were taught. That they are employed at all is a comment on the evolutions that resulted in tanks being in a position to be close assaulted (whether that be AI weaknesses or player... exuberance), not on the efficacy of close assault.

[JoMac]

You got that right , Skwabie...If CMSF doesn't have an effective 'Close Assault' mechanism, then the WWII titles shouldn't have it either, and even more so.

[AttorneyAtWar]

You got that right , Skwabie...If CMSF doesn't have an effective 'Close Assault' mechanism, then the WWII titles shouldn't have it either, and even more so.

It was explained multiple times (too many in fact, are you being ignorant or willfully ignorant?) that it is an abstraction, what should it do instead of what is shown already?

I am not a fan boy but honestly I don't know what you guys want the close assault animation or action to be, instead of complaining about it come up with ideas.

:confused:

[Alan8325]

The balance used to be too far in the other direction with tanks being able to stroll into dense urban areas and clean out all the hidden defenders. They were able to quickly spot infantry even in buildings and shoot even below gun declination limits. They've been balanced now to be much weaker against nearby infantry and it seems to me to be the right balance for WWII titles.

Once we get back to modern combat with CMBS we should see the fancy sensors on AFVs provide much better situational awareness. It would be fun if one could detonate an Arena or Trophy charge in the direction of close assaulting infantry.