MG 42 credited with Sherman kill?

[LC-]

I tried to save a screen shot but didn't paste in any of my folders for some reason, story is, playing the Barkmanns corner battle that comes with CMBN, Sherman comes about 20m away from a MG 42.  Don't see what happens but at end of mission looking at the stats for each unit I see the MG got credit for the Sherman kill.  How did that happen?  Anyone have anything else similar to this happen?  I didn't recall seeing any 'fausts in their inventory but maybe they did? 

Wish I could have noticed it and seen it in the replay

[A Canadian Cat]

At 20m the mg crew probably close assaulted that tank and used grenades.

[Warts 'n' all]

A shame that you missed it. That would have been a fun replay.

[user1000]

what's hard to believe maybe the crew had a faust?

[LC-]

Ahh didnt think of that.  It would make the most sense about close assaulting the tank. 

 

@user1000; I guess its hard to believe for me because I haven't seen a MG crew with a faust in all my games.  I'm not saying they didn't or don't carry them In game, they probably do and I am just not noticing it because of several reasons, most of them being that they die way before a tank rolls up because of my horrible ability at this game

[17pounder]

Maybe the crew had bundled grenades and lobbed them on to the rear decking of the tank - happened routinely on the Eastern Front. 

[user1000]

Germans had way more types of AT grenades and thrown devices on the eastern front than western. On the western most likely a faust or panzershrek if it was from an mg team.

Edited November 28, 2016 by user1000

[17pounder]

On 11/28/2016 at 3:49 PM, user1000 said:

Germans had way more types of AT grenades and thrown devices on the eastern front than western. On the western most likely a faust or panzershrek if it was from an mg team.

Not necessarily, it was just that Russian tanks were far more numerous and regular on the Eastern Front, and in addition often rolled up to the trench lines/foxholes where they were vulnerable to infantry assault - both AT grenades, regular grenades in bundles and AT mines, as well as rockets later. Units routinely switched between fronts and most weapons and tactics were interchangeable also. There was no hard and fast rule and both types of weapons would be handed out to infantry where enemy tanks were likely to attack. So AT grenades and mines were also used heavily in the west, whilst fausts etc. also in the east. Like the 88 gun, Tiger and the rocket firing Typhoon, the panzerfaust/schrek has also entered into the world of legend, and many kills were attributed to them erroneously. 

Also the US sector in the bocage was perfect for such tactics. It's just as conceivable that an MG42 team, weighed down with their weapon, tripod ammo etc. would be just as likely to carry grenades or mines as a panzerfaust, and even a bundle of regular grenades tied together would prove fatal to the Sherman which on the British/CW front was called the "Tommy cooker" for good reason. Certainly haven't seen many photos of MG42 HMG teams with panzerfausts, but of course the game might well have modeled that. Was it an MG42 LMG or HMG team that made the kill? 

I've watched a British airborne squad ambush a German AFV from a hedgegrow with grenades very effectively in this game (MG). But of course it's impossible to tell without a proper replay.

Edited November 29, 2016 by 17pounder
forgot info

[user1000]

Nope, German AT grenades were not heavily used in the west, they stopped making them before the allies landed in favor of the panzerfaust and kept the remaining stockpiles on the eastern front. . The soviets encountered more of these German AT grenades from German occupied trenches and holes on the push westward across the large open fields,  west front allies encountered minuscule to none. 

Might be lighter but grenade use against a tank is more dangerous and harder to hit  than a launched weapon, the faustpatrone is the lightest and could be carried by an mg crew assistant. The grenade bundle (geballte Ladung) would only knock off tracks or immobile a tank if it landed on top of the engine, after all it is just HE. To do that the soldier would have to be right near a tank with no troop support. The allies learned quickly to protect their tanks with troops as they didn't in the beginning.

Edited November 30, 2016 by user1000

[17pounder]

5 hours ago, user1000 said:

Nope, German AT grenades were not heavily used in the west, they stopped making them before the allies landed in favor of the panzerfaust and kept the remaining stockpiles on the eastern front. . The soviets encountered more of these German AT grenades from German occupied trenches and holes on the push westward across the large open fields,  west front allies encountered minuscule to none. 

Might be lighter but grenade use against a tank is more dangerous and harder to hit  than a launched weapon, the faustpatrone is the lightest and could be carried by an mg crew assistant. The grenade bundle (geballte Ladung) would only knock off tracks or immobile a tank if it landed on top of the engine, after all it is just HE. To do that the soldier would have to be right near a tank with no troop support. The allies learned quickly to protect their tanks with troops as they didn't in the beginning.

You're restricting yourself FAR too much on your interpretation of AT grenades; bundles of grenades tied or strapped into a bundle were not termed AT grenades in stores lists but were very effective when lobbed onto the engine decking of a Sherman, or any other tank for that matter, but especially a Sherman. Would this be listed as an AT grenade - no. Would it take out a Sherman in a bundle - yes. 

Unlike you I'll also give references; in "The encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of WWII" by noted EXPERT on anything weapons - Ian V Hogg, he actually talks of the Steilhandgranate "being tied into bundles and routinely used against armoured vehicles when other weapons were not at hand". 

Also don't forget the Heft Hohladungranate 3 Kg magnetic grenade; Hogg explicitly says "The magnetic grenades were used to good effect against Russian tanks and later against British and US tanks in Normandy". Page 171 in the Grenades section. So yes.

 

[Nelson 1812]

Quite sure I lost a Sherman to MG42 fire some months back while playing against Meatgrinder. Just assumed the AP rounds shot up the engine.

This was at some distance to where I could locate his troops.

(Must have throw 6, 6's!)

 

[17pounder]

I had to go out before I'll properly finished (I enjoy a bit of WWII research, but prefer published authors in books to the web),and my post above won't allow an edit?

Anyway as Hogg says, a bundle of regular (Steilhandgranate39) grenades tied/strapped together, could take out a tank. The Sherman was a highly flammable beast and if the bundle was lobbed onto the engine decking then it's the engine that would receive most of the blast not the tracks. With regard to the effect Hogg writes:

"It was also used as an anti-tank and anti-emplacement charge by lashing six grenade heads around a complete grenade to act as the detonator for all, producing considerable blast effect". 

As I said the Heft Hohladung granate (granate=grenade) 3KG was just one of a number of series of grenades produced of varying sizes, but the 3KG was the most commonly encountered. This weapon could be thrown onto a passing tank, or if the user felt especially brave he could place it. Hogg goes onto say:

"These grenades were exceptionally effective and could defeat the armour of any tank" As I already quoted Hogg clearly describes their use in Normandy against British and US tanks as well as in Russia.

If the MG42 team was in a hedge and a tank passed by that close, a grenade attack, AT or otherwise, would work just fine and also had the advantage of not immediately giving away their position (presuming thrown/lobbed), also less likely to cause harm to the MG team.

Hope that helps.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by 17pounder

[user1000]

HE yeah, maybe to knock a track off. Wouldn't touch ammo stowage for a cook off.

Edited November 30, 2016 by user1000

[Michael Emrys]

20 hours ago, 17pounder said:

...but especially a Sherman.

Sounds like you have succumbed to the urban myth of Sherman special inflammability. This is usually attributed to the fact that all Shermans in Europe had gasoline engines. Well, duh, here's a flash: most tanks on the Western Front were gasoline powered regardless of nationality.

The early Shermans were vulnerable due to a poor arrangement of ammo storage, but that had nothing to do with what kind of engine powered them, and in any case had been largely addressed by D-Day.

Michael

[user1000]

I think mostly the crew could escape from an engine or gas fire or am I wrong? They must have had special fire extinguishers on board for gas fires? Escape hatch on bottom of shermans helped any? They would certainly not escape a hit to the stowage if that ever went up.

Edited December 1, 2016 by user1000

[Michael Emrys]

12 hours ago, user1000 said:

I think mostly the crew could escape from an engine or gas fire or am I wrong?

I think you have it about right. A favorite tactic of the Red Army was to throw a Molotov cocktail onto the engine deck, which would start it burning, and then shoot the crew as it bailed out.

Michael