Infantary against tanks

[lcm1947]

Seems to me that the question could be answered if one knew just how powerful a hand grenade was. I mean the original question was about troops knocking out the tank mg42gunner already said it was immobile.

As far as sticking a rifle or pistol through the vision ports wouldn't they have some sort of door? Anyway, good question and I would like to know if it would be that easy. I think not but then again never tried it.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Seems to me that the question could be answered if one knew just how powerful a hand grenade was. I mean the original question was about troops knocking out the tank mg42gunner already said it was immobile.

As far as sticking a rifle or pistol through the vision ports wouldn't they have some sort of door? Anyway, good question and I would like to know if it would be that easy. I think not but then again never tried it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grenades aren't powerful at all. Coincidentally, I am going to the grenade range this weekend - of course, the ones we use today are a little less potent than the WW II pineapple or Mills bomb, but no hand grenade will lift the turret of a tank off its ring like Sgt Rock's used to (unless it sets the ammo off inside).

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Williams:

So, Mr. Johnson and JasonC, you contend that 40 combat infantrymen armed with rifles, automatic weapons, and hand grenades, and swarming all over a tank have virtually no chance of doing any damage to it or it's occupants? If that is actually the case, then CM does indeed model close infantry assaults correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which raises the question of how often 40 combat infantrymen swarmed over tanks.

Answer: not very.

The general reaction of infantry when confronted with a tank is Be Elsewhere. You don't have to read too many histories to realise that for most soldiers tanks are very scary things. Not least because while the 40 infantrymen are trying to climb on the tank the tank is trying very hard to not be climbed on. It will fire machines guns, unload some HE, grind a few guys to paste, and various other amusing party tricks.

Now a situation with an artificially immobilised tank is - well - an artificial situation. I'm not surprised that CM doesn't do a good job of simulating a tank stuck in the middle of a 20x20 patch of grass in the middle of the forest, because CM is not a tank stuck in the middle of a 20x20 patch of grass in the middle of the forest simulation.

This is one of those fringey things that the game engine will struggle to deal with because it was not as common as portrayed in books, comics, films and such.

Overall I've been pleasantly surprised how easily my infantry have killed tanks. I can think of two occassions off the top of my head where infantry without AT weapons took out Panthers. So maybe some of the differing perceptions comes from different experiences of the game. For me it's more common than I'd expect, but maybe you haven't had the same sort of luck.

[Andreas]

Brian, good point well made. Now, how about for one of those boring RL examples?

5th DCLI, first move into the line, Normandy July 1944. Battalion HQ is overrun by six Panthers without infantry support. The Panthers shoot up a moving 17-pdr troop, generally cause mayhem and havoc and are just behaving in a plain anti-social way.

There were more than 40 infantrymen around for sure, but they were too busy getting out of the way of the Panthers to contemplate how to take them out with a combination of bad attitude, a nail-clipper and the scissors of the BN barber.

Instead they picked up PIATs and manhandled a 6-pdr in place and disabled 5 out of 6 Panthers that way, afterwards chasing and killing most of the crews. The 6-pdr brewed one Panther frontally at 100 yards. The officer commanding 5th DCLI was killed in the engagement, IIRC.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Brian, good point well made. Now, how about for one of those boring RL examples?

5th DCLI, first move into the line, Normandy July 1944. Battalion HQ is overrun by six Panthers without infantry support. The Panthers shoot up a moving 17-pdr troop, generally cause mayhem and havoc and are just behaving in a plain anti-social way.

There were more than 40 infantrymen around for sure, but they were too busy getting out of the way of the Panthers to contemplate how to take them out with a combination of bad attitude, a nail-clipper and the scissors of the BN barber.

Instead they picked up PIATs and manhandled a 6-pdr in place and disabled 5 out of 6 Panthers that way, afterwards chasing and killing most of the crews. The 6-pdr brewed one Panther frontally at 100 yards. The officer commanding 5th DCLI was killed in the engagement, IIRC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regina Rifles faced a similar situation at Bretteville. In real life, the battalion CO knew that he had a half dozen 6-pounders in his hip pocket, and each platoon had a PIAT. In CM, if you are using unrealistic force mixes, you do not have that knowledge.

[Slapdragon]

One thing also that people in games forget is that in real life, you would disengage and fall back in order rather than let the bastards roll you up, unless you had a real good reason to hold that position at that very minute.

Forces did a lot of tactical disengagement. Tanks rumbling down the road? Try for it with the Piats, then get the heck out and hope Battalion has those 6pdrs set up.

The same thing with attacks that run into sudden horror shows. Your infantry are presented with 1000 meters of open ground, and a town with an equal number of defenders in it, along with some bad assed tanks you have no ability to fight. You probe and give it a try, but unless command says take it or die trying, you are not going to give up your battalion in the attack -- you are going to call in every bit of the artillery you can get, lay down, and hope they send you some fireflies to deal with the heavies.

[CombinedArms]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

The same thing with attacks that run into sudden horror shows. Your infantry are presented with 1000 meters of open ground, and a town with an equal number of defenders in it, along with some bad assed tanks you have no ability to fight. You probe and give it a try, but unless command says take it or die trying, you are not going to give up your battalion in the attack -- you are going to call in every bit of the artillery you can get, lay down, and hope they send you some fireflies to deal with the heavies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly right. Because it's a game and you don't want to lose--and because nobody's actually going to die-- you don't disengage in an attack that you know is doomed to fail, as one often would do in real life.

In one PBEM attack against a fortified position that I recently played, half of my AFVs bogged before reaching the launching point and two hit mines and died or were imobilized. I found myself having to attack, over open terrain, a well positioned force that had superior firepower. In real life I would have pulled back and awaited reinforcements--here I had to plow ahead knowing I was doomed to fail. (When it was too late, I worked out a strategy that MIGHT have succeeded.)

But that's part of what makes the game interesting; you have to deal with luck and unfavorable circumstances and make the best of it.

[Doug Williams]

Brian,

I understand what you're saying, but the reason I suggested trapping the tank in a 20x20 area was to give the infantry some small chance. With this type of situation, one can observe turn after turn of the infantry platoon close assaulting the tank until, finally, the tank kills enough of them so they surrender.

If you want a more "realistic" scenario, simply design one with a few tanks facing off against a bunch of infantry on a random map. Take away the infantry's AT weapons (the supply convoy got ambushed or something) and see what happens.

You say you have killed tanks with infantry who had no AT weapons. I have never managed to do this during an actual game. Every time I've tried, it's a massacre. Now, if my guys have panzerfausts or rifle grenades, that's a different story.

As for the explosive power of a hand grenade, I remember being very impressed with them when I went through basic training back in the '80s.

Anyway, like I said earlier, it's not really a big deal during an actual game, because you almost always have some sore of AT asset available.

Also, as was mentioned earlier, if armor seems a little too invulnerable to infantry close assaults, open top vehicles are much worse. It really shouldn't be that hard for an infantry platoon to KO a halftrack.

This has all been gone over before, and Madmatt even ran some tests, etc. I believe the final word came from Charles, who said he wasn't going to change it. Perhaps it will be tweaked some in CMBB.

[RMC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

the Medal of Honor citations say volumes about how anti-tank feats were performed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. I accept this as a good point, but does it not assume that all such successes would be rewarded with the MOH?

It would be interesting to compare MOH citation with those of Iron, Knight's, and Victoria's Crosses to see differences. As pointed out the Germans did make an effort to train infantry to attack tanks without benefit of a schreck or faust. Smoke grenades, magnetic mines, teller mines, geballte ladungen etc.

{edit}

Wait a minute. What is the significance of US soldiers getting the MOH for gallantly dispatching a tank with or without an AT weapon and the german institution of the tank destruction badge? This just occured to me after looking at what I wrote above. A german wouldn't necessarily get one of the higher awards for KOing a tank so comparisons of the award citation might not be as fruitful as I thought.

I've got the INfantry Aces of Reich book that has citation for the Cross winners. Does anybody have something that details tank destruction badge citations?

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: RMC ]

[xerxes]

I've had plenty of infantry KOs at close range against open top AFVs. In fact that's my standard approach and I've had consistently good luck with it.

-marc

[Skipper]

Just today M.Svirin wrote that there was a case near Moscow where "two medium tanks (probably, Pz-38t) were stopped on a bridge without any weapons at all. Viewing ports were closed with mud, engines stopped by throwing sand into the air intake, a hatch was pried by a crowbar taken from a tank and three tankers taken POW". Given Svirin's credentials, this probably is a real story (albeit wild beyond belief).

[Doug Williams]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've had plenty of infantry KOs at close range against open top AFVs. In fact that's my standard approach and I've had consistently good luck with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The infantry probably had panzerfausts or rifle grenades.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: Doug Williams ]

[tss]

RMC wrote:

Hmm. I accept this as a good point, but does it not assume that all such successes would be rewarded with the MOH?

Certainly not. As a practical example (though from Finnish army) Vilho Rättö got a Mannerheim's Cross for destroying four Soviet tanks (with an AT gun) in one combat. Few days before that two Finnish AT gun crews had destroyed a full BT-7 company, 12 tanks, in one ambush at Koivikkomäki. No crosses.

It would be interesting to compare MOH citation with those of Iron, Knight's, and Victoria's Crosses to see differences.

Here's some data on Finnish awards for tank killers. Finnish army awarded a total of 191 Mannerheim's Crosses during the war. Of these, 19 were awarded for tank killers. The citations mention:

- AT guns 11 times

- Panzershrecks 3 times

- Panzerfausts 3 times

- demolition charges 3 times

- commanding AT units 3 times

- ATRs 3 times

None of the citations mention any improvised AT weapons, and only three cases mention demolition charges. In one case it is explicitly mentioned that demolition charges couldn't knock out enemy tanks (T-34) out, and in another the tank killer had to use two charges.

Another data point is tank destruction badges that awarded to men of Jääkäriprikaati (Jäger Brigade) in 1944. The brigade commander wanted to award it to 34 men (or to be exact, for 34 cases since in few cases there were more than one suggested recipient), but the division commander accepted only 24 cases. The recommendations are distributed (roughly) as follows:

- 16 for AT gunners

- 8 for Panzerfaustmen

- 6 for Panzershreckmen

- 1 for using Molotov coctails

- 1 for a close attack with hand-grenades (not awarded)

- 2 for AT minefields (not awarded)

If someone is interested, I can post a more detailed description of the tank-killing Mannerheim's Crosses.

- Tommi

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

One thing also that people in games forget is that in real life, you would disengage and fall back in order rather than let the bastards roll you up, unless you had a real good reason to hold that position at that very minute.

Forces did a lot of tactical disengagement. Tanks rumbling down the road? Try for it with the Piats, then get the heck out and hope Battalion has those 6pdrs set up.

The same thing with attacks that run into sudden horror shows. Your infantry are presented with 1000 meters of open ground, and a town with an equal number of defenders in it, along with some bad assed tanks you have no ability to fight. You probe and give it a try, but unless command says take it or die trying, you are not going to give up your battalion in the attack -- you are going to call in every bit of the artillery you can get, lay down, and hope they send you some fireflies to deal with the heavies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, do you think we need a CAMPAIGN LAYER?

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC:

Hmm. I accept this as a good point, but does it not assume that all such successes would be rewarded with the MOH?

It would be interesting to compare MOH citation with those of Iron, Knight's, and Victoria's Crosses to see differences. As pointed out the Germans did make an effort to train infantry to attack tanks without benefit of a schreck or faust. Smoke grenades, magnetic mines, teller mines, geballte ladungen etc.

{edit}

Wait a minute. What is the significance of US soldiers getting the MOH for gallantly dispatching a tank with or without an AT weapon and the german institution of the tank destruction badge? This just occured to me after looking at what I wrote above. A german wouldn't necessarily get one of the higher awards for KOing a tank so comparisons of the award citation might not be as fruitful as I thought.

I've got the INfantry Aces of Reich book that has citation for the Cross winners. Does anybody have something that details tank destruction badge citations?

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: RMC ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panzerfausts were allowed in the calculation of Tank Destruction Badges.

The one VC given to a Canadian for tank busting went to PIAT gunner Smokey Smith. Who used a PIAT.

[RMC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Panzerfausts were allowed in the calculation of Tank Destruction Badges.

The one VC given to a Canadian for tank busting went to PIAT gunner Smokey Smith. Who used a PIAT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but the point I was after is that the Germans instituted this badge to reward their guys, but the allies were issuing higher awards. This almost implies that infantry popping tanks was more common for the Germans and rather rare/unusual for the Allies. Does this indicate that German infantry were more proficient in tank busting aside rom the fact that they had the panzerfaust?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mg42 gunner:

Hey guys justa couple questions about this. I think unarmed infantary are to weak agaist tanks unarmed mean no charges zook or rifle grenades. for example a imoblie tiger in open flat ground two full regualr rifle 45 squads surrounded it at point blank there was no incomming fire on them. They threw grenades at it all day no knoc kout where has in real life climb on top and stick the grenades or fire into open tanks slots killing vre you guys agree. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well not to be wise, but i dont think panzer crews would leave the top hatch open when disabled to allow infantry to lob grenades at their leasure inside the tank, also, alot of late war german tanks actual had he explosives on the outside armor in wich the crew inside the tank could detonate to remove infatry

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC:

Yeah, but the point I was after is that the Germans instituted this badge to reward their guys, but the allies were issuing higher awards. This almost implies that infantry popping tanks was more common for the Germans and rather rare/unusual for the Allies. Does this indicate that German infantry were more proficient in tank busting aside rom the fact that they had the panzerfaust?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the Germans faced more tanks than the other way around - right? For every Panzer (including halftracks) built, Detroit or Moscow put out 10 tanks.

[RMC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I think the Germans faced more tanks than the other way around - right? For every Panzer (including halftracks) built, Detroit or Moscow put out 10 tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that by itself would probably lead to an increase in tanks killed by infantry - more tanks = more tanks killed by infantry, even though as a ratio of total tanks killed it might actually be the same.

I just thought it odd that tank killing might warrant a MOH for the US but after 42 the German would probably get the tank destruction badge and nothing more.

How is CMBB going to represent the early years (read: pre-schreck and pre-faust) Will there be ATMM and teller mine icons to show which squads have a chance going up close against tanks?

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Williams:

Brian,

I understand what you're saying, but the reason I suggested trapping the tank in a 20x20 area was to give the infantry some small chance. With this type of situation, one can observe turn after turn of the infantry platoon close assaulting the tank until, finally, the tank kills enough of them so they surrender.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did understand why you did this, as a controlled experiment. The point I was trying to make is that the situation it is trying to create is basically so unusual that the CM team wouldn't have it as a high design priority.

The reality is that troops without AT weapons just generally didn't try to take out tanks, and those are the sorts of battles CM is trying to simulate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If you want a more "realistic" scenario, simply design one with a few tanks facing off against a bunch of infantry on a random map. Take away the infantry's AT weapons (the supply convoy got ambushed or something) and see what happens.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again I'd suggest that the infantry would stay low or bugger off, not prosecute the attack. Indeed I've read several cases of troops with AT weapons who couldn't get the courage up to take a shot for fear of the tank retaliating- eg in "Roll Me Over" by Gantner (sp?).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You say you have killed tanks with infantry who had no AT weapons. I have never managed to do this during an actual game. Every time I've tried, it's a massacre. Now, if my guys have panzerfausts or rifle grenades, that's a different story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The two I can recall are in one of the Bulge ops (frankly surprised the hell out of me - I thought they'd die a horrible death) and The Last Defense scenario.

It's interesting also how people's expectations influence their perceptions - my first reaction when my zook-free GIs killed a Panther was that I'd found a bug. I had to have it explained to me that this was deliberate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As for the explosive power of a hand grenade, I remember being very impressed with them when I went through basic training back in the '80s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have the real-world experience advantage on me there. But given tanks are 60mm mortar proof doesn't it follow they'd be grenade proof? Or would you argue that in the latter case there is more discretion in where the grenade is placed?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Anyway, like I said earlier, it's not really a big deal during an actual game, because you almost always have some sore of AT asset available. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Also, as was mentioned earlier, if armor seems a little too invulnerable to infantry close assaults, open top vehicles are much worse. It really shouldn't be that hard for an infantry platoon to KO a halftrack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not something I've really noticed, but I agree with your logic here. A grenade inside an open top could make a mess of the controls, to say nothing of the crew.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

This has all been gone over before, and Madmatt even ran some tests, etc. I believe the final word came from Charles, who said he wasn't going to change it. Perhaps it will be tweaked some in CMBB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which gives us all something to look forward to.

[Dogface21]

I played a LAN game against my roomate about a month ago, after having a discussion on this matter. On a randomly generated map I had a company of veteran SS and a company of regular pioneers, going up against 5 vanilla M4s, 3 TDs, and 3 Stuarts, no infantry. We just wanted to see how this turned out. The first 5 minutes were the only ones that I could 'out manuvre'(sp) the AFVs, because he rushed to a open field and made a sort of wagon train, with LOS 360 degrees. Luckily, a faust tagged a TD from behind-pure luck. It was slaughter. I had no choice but to rush the group, I came from 3 directions with everything that wasnt pinned, ordering everyone to move in and fire. I was able to get the equvelant of a platoon in between the tanks, and surround them, but my men were being cut down and blown up, it was like an auger in that mess of action. Anyways, all said and done, I was able to knock out all the TDs, 3 of the sherms, and all but one of the stuarts. My roomie and I had a helluva time yelling taunts back and forth and spilling beer everywhere. All I had left was a tattering of broken troops, being mowed down as they ran.

The only reason I think I was able to get that many tanks was the Vet SS, and my roomie being pretty new, as well as alot of dumb luck, lotsa luck. The TDs were all killed before anything else was, I saw alot of grenades tossed at them as soon as they were in range. I think, given the open top, they were hard to kill, but then again, if I was in that position, my aim would be off too. The shermans were immobilized, then abandoned, and man, bailing out of a tank with a bunch of crazy Germans running around, is not a good idea. I was particularly drunk that night, and took great satisfaction in seeing those crews get burned.

This doesnt prove a thing, just an anectdote about whatcan happen in CM.

[JasonC]

Actually the Allies only outproduce the Germans in tanks by about 5 to 1 overall, not 10 to 1. Not counting halftracks as tanks, either.

Single grenades are not effect AT weapons, even just trying to get an M-kill by disabling a track. In fact, anti-tank mines often got M-kills rather than full KOs, and they used 5 kg of explosives, while a grenade only had about 165 grams or 1/30th as much.

German engineers, occasionally others, sometimes used 7 grenade warheads on a single stick as a demo charge, which gets you up to about 2.5 lbs of explosive, but that is still on the low side for AT work, and few kills are credited to them in reports that break out infantry AT means.

The Germans were supplied with infantry AT weapons of many different types in enourmous numbers over the course of the war. People know about the fausts and rightly so, because they were more effective than the other types, and especially so for the later, longer range models that came out in the last year of the war. But there were many weapons issued before those.

They tried small AT grenades fired by flare pistols. A clumsy and innaccurate weapon with small charges only, but they still provided 800,000 of them. Far more common were AT rifle grenades - they made over 23 million, of which 18 million were used up during the war (there were 1.5 million launch adapters for them). Then there were 700,000 hand thrown AT grenades, with shaped charges but delivered just by tossing them; uncertain impact angles and small charges to keep them light made them relatively ineffective. There were 550,000 magnetic mines, 1-3 kg, which had the shape charge power to kill just about any tank but had to be placed by hand, in contact with the vehicle. Then there were 2 million schreck rounds (for 289,000 launchers), and 4 million panzerfausts (excluding leftovers at the war's end, and rejects). Not exactly infantry AT weapons but able to be used as such in a pinch, there were also 29 million AT mines. Anyone interested in the subject should be sure to visit the "Panzerfaust" site, which has a wealth of data on all of these items.

All told there were more than 25 million infantry AT "rounds" and as many more AT mines. That means 100 of each for every tank in the Allied arensals. Yet infantry AT got relatively few kills, compared to AFVs and towed guns. In periods for which there is data, you see figures like 100 per month by infantry AT for the whole Russian front, at a time when overall Russian tank losses were running 100 per day.

There were lots of weapons out there that could kill tanks if they could get close enough. Infantry did kill tanks, and the numbers KOed were significant in the last year or so of the war, when the best weapons were out. The Germans issued something like 16,000 tank killer awards, enough to account for ~7% of Allied tank losses. But since that means there were more than 1500 infantry AT weapons issued per award issued, it is unlikely any large number of the kills were made without the aid of some sort of dedicated AT weapon, if only an AT rifle grenade. It wasn't the AT weapons that were scarce, it was opportunities to get close enough to use them, without getting killed first.

For what it is worth.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Doug Williams]

Brian,

Good points. As for hand grenades, I only threw one (or two?) live one(s) in basic training. Not saying they could take out a tank, but someone else said they were "weak". That wasn't the impression I got. I threw it as far as I could, and remember the ground shaking when it exploded. :eek:

JasonC,

Thanks for the great info. It makes me wonder if German infantry should get some sort of bonus when close assaulting AFVs.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Yet infantry AT got relatively few kills, compared to AFVs and towed guns. In periods for which there is data, you see figures like 100 per month by infantry AT for the whole Russian front, at a time when overall Russian tank losses were running 100 per day.

Looking at the total kills/cause known figures in the site you mentioned you leave out the rather pertinent fact that full 35% of the kills can be attributed to "causes unknown". The high mark was ~50% of the kills attributed to causes unknown.

The Finnish analysts calculated during the war that to kill a tank you had to plant 1 000 (one thousand) AT mines. And even then it was theoretical because most of the time you had to rely on the laws of statictics.

The Germans issued something like 16,000 tank killer awards, enough to account for ~7% of Allied tank losses.

Care to ellaborate: did one kill mark equal one kill ? Or were these awards awarded to 16 000 indidual men ? Were there any provision for a kill mark for men who killed more than one tank ? Are these multiple kill awards figured in in the total number of awards given ?

It wasn't the AT weapons that were scarce, it was opportunities to get close enough to use them, without getting killed first.

Or getting killed after making the kill.

If the Japanese had had these the USMC would have been hard pressed to use its armour in close support.

[JasonC]

The Japanese were hopelessly outmatched in every respect. They made up for it somewhat in the depth of their bunkers and caves, and the relative lack of cover for men above ground on many of the Pacific islands also helped. But they still suffered a colonial era loss ratio of 10:1 against. It wasn't tanks that did that, either, it was overwhelming fire support.

As for unknown cause kills, there is no reason to expect them to break out particularly different from the known ones. You can prorate them over the known causes, of course remembering there is some room for error in all such measures. As for multiple kill awards, they are possible sure, but all kills are rare enough (for the number of weapons fielded, or men trying, etc) that the excess is probably quite small. If one person in your platoon got one, in the whole war and including all its personnel turnover, that was par for the course.

The rate seen in early 1944 is low enough it leaves plenty of room to jump in the last year of the war and still reflect only one KO per award. And it is just as likely that 2-3 people got an award together for killing (or overkilling and both claiming) a tank, as that many of the awardees ran up large scores. The real number KOed might be 10K and it might be 25K, but that is only going to put a +/- 2-3% after the already approximate 7% figure I gave.

Most tanks were KOed by other tanks or by towed guns. The reason is obvious - they have the range to KO most things they can see, while the infantry AT weapons mostly force enemy tanks to stand off somewhat (and thus certainly help keep the infantry alive), rather than killing lots of them.