Inf hopeless vs. tank?

[ElGuapo]

Here is the situation:

1 or more squads are near an enemy tank. They are completely out of AT icons (no fausts, rifle grenades, etc.). They are all there is between victory and defeat, as there are no other AFV or AT capabilities, even arty, available.

The question is: does this type of infantry have any chance of killing a well-armored tank? I have been in situations where I sent 3 full American Rifle 44 squads up behind a Tiger (from a woods), only to have them driven off in subsequent rounds. I watched all three full squads get chewed up as the tank turned to face them, then they broke and fled.

Is there any way for "unarmed" squads to take out a tank, or should they just run and hide, the highlander way? Does it depend on the tank, and if so, how? Open topped suseptible and closed topped not?

(P.S. Obviously this exempts HT and other light armor, as it CAN be taken out by BARs, grenades and such).

[Desdichado]

A close assault can still work but a Tiger is a tough customer on account of its Nah-thingy.

[Scipio]

You have always a chance. But to be true, without AT weapons you better run for cover. With some luck you can maybe immobilize the tank or damage the gun with handgrenades, but you risk to loose several men for this.

[The Commissar]

I was always confused on how exactly CMBO modeled tank assaults.

First of all, I always button the tank being assaulted up, so it has trouble seeing me. Second, I try to rush from behind, and nearly always get "right on top of it", meaning my infantry icons are right on top of the tank icon, even at the "realistic size" setting, which is as close to perfect as I can get them.

Then the tank fires its MG's and my squad breaks and flees.

Hmm. Now, can someone explain to me how exactly can a buttoned up tank dislodge a squad of infantry which is crawling over its hull, with its MG's? One is in the hull pointing forward, the other is a coaxial, which as far as I know, can't be used most of the time. I also figured that had I been one of the unlucky few chosen to assault a tank, I'd try to dislodge the coaxial MG with my rifle butt in case it was remote controlled. Some tanks also have a third MG in the turret, pointing to where the gun is, but that doesn't help much.

So, is the Nebelwarfer (or something) just not shown? Is it actually blowing up my guys crawling on the tank's hull (how?! I was under the impression that the things killed infantry in front of the tank, not behind its turret) or is this just something not fully modeled in the game? I would be very interested if BTS found the time to respond, because Ive been wondering for a while now. Thanks.

[MikeyD]

What's the terrain like? If you've got lots of cover you might be able to outmaneuver him, give hime nothing to shoot at and still achieve the objective. I've seen quick-footed infantry in built-up areas chase a tank out of town out of sheer exasperation! If he's got a second tank giving covering fire or infantry support, and you've got little cover your best hope is he'll get cocky and accidentally bogg himself while killing you all off. Some situations just ain't winnable.

[offtaskagain]

The Nahverteidgungswaffe thingy can be aimed by the crew which would explain it's ability to chase the infantry off the tank.

Commissar, the coaxial MG is the one mounted co-axial to the main gun. Almost all tanks have one. The one on the commanders cupola is referred to as an AAMG which many allied tanks have, but was generally only fitted on TDs by the Germans.

[RMC]

The rounds from the nahverteidigungswaffe are shown. I think they are overpowered as they were originally thought to be 92mm where as they actually only 27mm and BTS never got around to fixin it. Nevertheless, as I understand it, if you don't see little grenades popping out of the tank, then it isn't being used as some sort of magic defense factor.

[YankeeDog]

Would the nahverteidigungswaffe have a minimum range?? I'm no expert on them, but I've heard them described as a small, low velocity mortar. This makes me think that while they might be able to be aimed at infantry near the tank, infantry actually on the tank might be immune, depending on the range of travel of the aiming mechanism (after all, if the weapon could be aimed straight up, the projectile would drop back down onto the tank, which would kill mounted infantry, but even the thin top armor would be protection for the crew against a small anti-personnel charge).

Does CM actually model a SPR-style close assault where the infantry is actually climbing on the tank?? In other words, does the chance of a close assault (for a unit without satchels, fausts, or rife grenades) succeeding go up when the assuaulting infantry goes from being very near (say within 20M or so) to actually being on top of the tank?? I don't really know, but I suspect not. Obviously, the tank would have to be moving very slowly or not at all for this to happen, but rough terrain does at times slow AFVs to walking speed or less. I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a statement without any actual evidence: It seems to me pretty obvious that infantry that actually managed to get onto, or right next to a tank in a close assault would (1) have a much higher chance of survival, as return fire from the tank crew would be limited to small arms and hand grenades through view ports unless the assaulting infantry was really stupid and stood in front of one of the MGs, and (2) would have a much improved chance of at least causing serious damage to the tank - heck, even just stuffing a hunk of wet cloth into the exhaust mufflers would stall out the motor from excess back pressure, and as mentioned above, I'm sure whacking the crap out of the barrel of an MG34 with a rifle butt does wonders for its accuracy. Of course, it would take infantry with cool heads and lots of balls to actally pull of an assault like this. Not to mention a really stupid OPFOR commander to leave his AFV hung out to dry...

I should mention that, IMHO, this is not high on the priority list of 'fixes' for future versions of CM. I find it pretty rare that I get infantry within spitting distance of any hostile vehicle, even when playing against the AI. Would it be nice if CM modeled a 'pigpile' style infantry close assault in situations where it would be appropriate?? Yes. There's just lots of other things I'd like to see first.

Interesting discussion, though. Got me thinking about what exactly one does if one is sitting on the back of an enemy tank with no explosives. Maybe a can opener would help??

:confused:

[JasonC]

Just because you see your squad marker on or right near the tank does not mean they are literally on the tank. A squad is a large item, with up to a dozen men in it. They are spread out around the location of the squad icon. They are not geometrical points in space.

Coaxial MGs are certainly effective at close assaulting infantry. The tank just points the gun and squirts. It can spin the turret rapidly, hosing in every direction. Tanks being assaulted also do not sit still - unless previously immobilized. They move, and turn violently. The treads will kill any man they "catch"; the turning barrel will break bones if it hits somebody; and it is not exactly easy to keep footing on a turning tank. I know Bruce Willis only needs two fingers to hold himself against the forces created by pitching aircraft or what have you, but that is not exactly real life.

Infantry has a decent chance of KOing a buttoned tank they can get close enough to, only with special equipment for the job. That can be as simple as a molotov cocktail, or as elaborate as a Panzerfaust. But harsh language is not going to do it. Crowbars and bayonets and single hand grenades are Sgt. Rock comics, not anti-tank weapons. A whole grenade bundle might get an M-kill if placed on the engine deck - or might not.

That's reality; then there is CM. In CM your are well advised to bring an anti-tank weapon to the party. A rifle grenade from flank or rear will do as long as the tank isn't a Tiger, and any Faust will do. Demo charges and gammon bombs have to get closer and are less certain, but can do the trick.

Just using naked squads against topped AFVs, even with several of them, will usually get a lot of men killed, make the tank squirm and try to get out of there, but that is about it. It is not worth the losses you will take attacking a buttoned, topped AFV with plain infantry. You will be better off not running up the enemy VP score for kills.

Fortunately, infantry can usually hide from the critters. Just pick a piece of cover big enough to block LOS clean through it and go inside. Stay on the right side of that cover - the side it can't see - and you are fine. Tanks can't go everywhere - that is the defense infantry has against them in extremis.

[Jarmo]

"Plain" infantry does have a chance to kill a tank. Not a big one, but it's there. Usually immobilization comes wasy, actual killing is harder.

I have mixed feelings of how difficult it is and should be. Killing open topped vehicles, like halftracks is IMO too hard. I've had a scquad firing and tossing grenades for a few minutes from a second floor to a halftrack right below them. The HT was not firing back, and in the end just drove away.

But killing tanks in CM is not too hard by any means. Finns killed a lot of them in winter war with satchel charges, but mostly during the night and even then only the ones separated from infantry.

Later when soviet tanks stopped roaming around alone during the nights, killing them became almost impossible. And thats against T-26's and other weaklings, with proper satchel charges.

Surely a few were killed with logs or other strange methods, but those were the very weird incidents, not the norm.

[RMC]

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

Would the nahverteidigungswaffe have a minimum range?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. The crew can't really aim the thing. It rotates through 360deg but there is no sighting mechanism. The loader was usually the one to operate it and would have to take directions fom another crew member posibly using the typical clock system. The munition is a 27mm timed-fuze (1 sec) round fired from a modified signal pistol. It shoots up into the air and explodes over and to the side of the tank hopefully sending fragments into the attacking infantry.

[Windopaene]

Ahh that this takes me back...

To the Demo days, when I was playing Chance Encounter as the Germans. Had several squads in the woods on the American side of the road, the hill on the americans right. Several of the Shermans were camping out up in there. Moved the squads to the attack. Watched as a little black ball floated from a squad towards the Sherman...

Boom! - Knocked out.

So it could be done in the Demo...

[YankeeDog]

I agree that being on top of a hostile AFV isn't a rosy place for infantry to be. My main point was that being on top of it might be somewhat better than being, say, 15 meters away (assuming you're exposing yourself to assault said vehicle and not hiding, of course).

Of course a tank able to move with any speed at all would be virtually impossible to assault in this fashion, even if the infantry managed to sneak up and climb aboard while the tank was standing still. I do stunt work in film and television and I am well aware of how difficult it is to ride on the exterior of a moving vehicle even on a nice, smooth asphalt surface. I am sure staying on the deck a tank moving cross-country while trying to avoid coming into the line of fire of the coax MG, getting swept off the deck by the barrel of the main gun, or getting your foot chewed into hamburger by the tracks and at the same time stuffing a grenade into some handy orifice would be a feat for the Medal of Honor if ever there was one. However, in situations where the tank was immobilized or close to immobilized with a speed less than 3-4mph, such as when climbing a steep slope, partially bogged, or negotiating very rough terrain, I think infantry would have a good chance of staying on the tank if they managed to somehow get there. against someone this close to the tank, the coaxial MG would be worthless, because a human crouching a few feet from the tank would be shielded by the body of the tank itself from the MG's line of fire.

I have a question about the whole 'rotating barrel breaking bones' thing. This website URL=http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm]here lists the maximum turret slew rate on a Tiger I as 360 degrees in 60 sec. This doesn't strike me as fast enough to break bones at all. I know that Tiger Is have a rather slow turret compared to other tanks, but turret slew rate would have to be alot faster than 6deg/sec to be able to cause a serious blunt force injury. . . Is the website wrong??

Again, not arguing that close assaulting a Tank with only small arms and a few hand grenades wouldn't suck. Just arguing that maybe the squad right on top of the tank might have a bit better odds than the squad 15 meters away - IRL, anyway. Like I said, I have no idea whether CM models this, and I can think of no really efficient way of testing it. . .

RMC - thanks for the reply on the nahverteidigungswaffe - this gives me a much better idea of what the weapon was and how effective it was.

Cheers

[Warmaker]

Infantry aren't hopeless against armor, but without the proper tools it becomes quite difficult and definitely hazardous to the health of your men. Unless there is absolutely no other way and defeat is imminent without sending the grunts on such a crazy assault then I'd prefer to keep my men in one piece and avoid the tank. Sorry guys, Tom Hanks isn't leading my platoon.

A platoon type that does wonders against armor without the use of 'zooks/PzSchreck/PzFausts are engineers. Those charges do wonders, esp. in an ambush!

BTW, assaulting a Tiger I/II with improperly equipped infantry or using unsound tactics is a recipe for disaster. As a frequent flyer for the Tigers Is, I can attest that the deadly combination of close defense mortars, MGs, and thick armor on all sides makes it tough to infantry assaults. If German infantry are anywhere nearby, don't even think of assaulting it without the proper forces.

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[tss]

Jarmo wrote:

Later when soviet tanks stopped roaming around alone during the nights, killing them became almost impossible. And thats against T-26's and other weaklings, with proper satchel charges.

I've posted before two examples of Finnish infantry close assaults against KV-I tanks (in 1941-2), but I couldn't now find the threads with the search engine.

Anyway, in the first case a platoon of KV-Is broke through Finnish front line and advanced along a road to rear where they encountered a sapper platoon. In the resulting combat that lasted for several hours, Finns lost a light AT gun, one ATR, and several men. Soviet losses are not known but two tank crews probably had trouble with their hearing for several days afterwards. Those tanks got two direct hits from demolition charges (exploded on the deck), several near misses, and also few Molotov coctail hits. All managed to retreat to safety. Note that for a while a KV fought alone, buttoned-up, in covered terrain, and with no infantry support against veteran sappers, and survived.

In the other case the KVs were advancing along a power line. When the tanks couldn't be destroyed by demolition charges, sappers then mined the line behind the tanks by improvised "super-mines" where several demolition charges were put together and hidden in snow. With these they managed to destroy two KVs and stop third from escaping. That last KV was then captured intact.

- Tommi

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Coaxial MGs are certainly effective at close assaulting infantry. The tank just points the gun and squirts. It can spin the turret rapidly, hosing in every direction.

That works only if the infantry men play ball and do not run around from cover to cover. Or stay put so the tank can not see them.

Tanks being assaulted also do not sit still - unless previously immobilized. They move, and turn violently. The treads will kill any man they "catch"; the turning barrel will break bones if it hits somebody; and it is not exactly easy to keep footing on a turning tank.

That is why you want to spring the assault in a place where the tank does not have any room to move - on a bridge, a piece of road covered by dense forest in both sides etc.

Infantry has a decent chance of KOing a buttoned tank they can get close enough to, only with special equipment for the job.

The tank does not have to be buttoned up. To bag you a TC in the process is a bonus that will usually freak out the rest of the crew. Unlike in CM you can also get a mobility kill by killing the driver.

But harsh language is not going to do it.

Then again you can drive one off with a side arm.

Crowbars and bayonets and single hand grenades are Sgt. Rock comics, not anti-tank weapons.

Yet it does not hurt to try them out if things look particularly bad. And occasioanlly you can get lucky with a log.

Stay on the right side of that cover - the side it can't see - and you are fine.

Only it does not quite work that way in CM. You know that the squad is safely out of LOS but the poor saps decide they are better off in the woods next to the tank. Preferably the route there takes them across the front of the tank.....

Tanks can't go everywhere - that is the defense infantry has against them in extremis.

Identifying "tank safe" terrain is indeed important when designing your defences.

[Tero]

Originally posted by tss:

Note that for a while a KV fought alone, buttoned-up, in covered terrain, and with no infantry support against veteran sappers, and survived.

Just goes to show how important proper tools are.

With these they managed to destroy two KVs and stop third from escaping. That last KV was then captured intact.

I wonder if there will be a possibility in CMBB during the game to have sappers/engineers use such makeshift deviced made out of the assests they have at hand ? Or regular (veteran) infantry make makeshift grenade bundles ?

BTW: can you tell when did the "37mm AT round through the KV's drivers visor" incident take place ?

[tss]

tero wrote:

Just goes to show how important proper tools are.

And the sappers thought that they had proper tools. After all, 4kg demolition charges and Molotov coctails had worked reasonably well before.

I wonder if there will be a possibility in CMBB during the game to have sappers/engineers use such makeshift deviced made out of the assests they have at hand ?

Actually, that particular combat took hours of real time. I don't remember exactly, but the KVs waited for their infantry to catch for ~3 hours before they decided to retreat back.

BTW: can you tell when did the "37mm AT round through the KV's drivers visor" incident take place ?

The rounds went through BMG mount. It happened during summer '44, I can't remember exact date or location. The event is mentioned in the first of Käkelä's books ("Laguksen miehet"). However, given the accuracy of Finnish reports about attacking tanks, it may have been any heavy tank with a BMG. (Soviets had also Churchills in the area as well as IS tanks).

For those who haven't already heard about the occasion: a Finnish 37 mm ATG (Bofors, I think but am not certain) opened fire against an enemy heavy tank, and the first round hit the BMG mount knocking it loose. Apparently it also stunned the crew since the tank stopped. Then, the gunner fired one or two more shots through the opening, destroying the tank.

- Tommi

[Tero]

Originally posted by tss:

And the sappers thought that they had proper tools. After all, 4kg demolition charges and Molotov coctails had worked reasonably well before.

IIRC that was the first time they went againts KV's for real. I have not seen any reports of them being encountered in this manner during Winter War.

Actually, that particular combat took hours of real time.

It would be nice to know how long it took them to set the devices up.

The rounds went through BMG mount. It happened during summer '44, I can't remember exact date or location.

I have always been under the impression it was in 1941 and the round went through the drivers visor. I'll have to look up the histories of the Finnish KV's up because supposedly the KV was captured.

The event is mentioned in the first of Käkelä's books ("Laguksen miehet").

I'll have to look it up. It has been eons since I read through it.

However, given the accuracy of Finnish reports about attacking tanks, it may have been any heavy tank with a BMG. (Soviets had also Churchills in the area as well as IS tanks).

Since ALL heavy tanks were KV's at the time it may well have even been a IS-2.... but that one does not have a BMG.

For those who haven't already heard about the occasion: a Finnish 37 mm ATG (Bofors, I think but am not certain) opened fire against an enemy heavy tank, and the first round hit the BMG mount knocking it loose. Apparently it also stunned the crew since the tank stopped. Then, the gunner fired one or two more shots through the opening, destroying the tank.

There is no logic in the überFinn wonder tales: 3 rounds of 37mm ammo to take out a "KV" while up to 20 75mm or 40 50mm rounds to take out a single T-34 (in two separate incidents).

[Rodimzew]

I've made a strange experience in a game vs. AI, where an american rifle plt has surrounded a Ktiger. The Tank was aiming at a platoon, which closes from the side. I think the CMG was firing first and reduced the squad to 7 guys. After closing further, the tank used its main gun and microseconds after hitting my guys within about 15m distance, the tank was destroyed. because there were no hardhitting weapons around, i assume that the tank has blown itself up to heaven by firing HE. Sound strange, but i have no other explanation. However, the squad panicked.

[MikeyD]

I'm confused. The German roof mortar can't be 27mm, I was under the definite impression it was more like 88mm. it was at least bigger than the Allied internal smoke mortar (40mm?). It'd be laughable if the Germans had mandated the expensive installation of a puny 27mm mortar in the roof.

[OstFront6]

I too at times have seen a tank "blow itself up" by firing at crunchies that were too close to the tank. Maybe a gamey way of defeating a tank in CM though.

[JasonC]

Someone mentioned MofH for close assaulting tanks, and it occurred to me that the citations might provide a sense of this whole subject. Of course many people tried to CA tanks and didn't get a MoH for it, and obviously most MoH were for other things. Even in the case of MoH awards to men who took out tanks with infantry weapons, they generally did other things as well to win the award, often in the same action. But what struck me was that the number of cases is pretty small, and generally does involve AT equipment, especially bazookas.

What I did was go through the WW II MoH citations, full text, searching for the word "tank" and reading the passages to see which had to do with this sort of thing.

I found all of 20 related awards. Six or seven of those did not result in KOed tanks, and one that did was in the Pacific. It is also notable that one was to a captain, 2 were to PFC zook operators, and all the rest went to sergeants - T/Sgt, Sgt, or SSG grades. The most common and telling comment is "armed himself with a bazooka..." or "seizing a bazooka..."

Here are some engagement details, stripped of wider context and other actions related to the awards.

3 Tigers face 1 zook operator in woods. He M-kills one with a zook to a track. The other two go around a flank. The crew of the tank left behind attempts to bail, and he KOs the crew with his tommy gun.

Burns an unspecified make of tank with a zook round. KOs bailing crew with his rifle.

Pz IV immobilized with 1st zook hit at 20 yards. Ignited with second hit, to the turret, at 10 yards. Crew attempts to bail but first guy is shot with the same guy's pistol. This leaves the hatch open and he gets a grenade down it; the resulting explosive finishes the tank.

A staff sergeant fights off enemy tanks with a bazooka, and after running out of rounds, with an armful of anti-tank grenades. Number of kills not specified, but stopped the enemy armor singlehanded.

A Pz IV was immobilized by accompanying Stuarts. Crew tries to bail and awardee gets two of them from within 25 yards. Hatches left open. He gets two grenades inside, finishing the tank.

A staff sergeant KO'ed a tank with rifle grenades (among other things).

Another sergeant zooked a light tank (again, among other things).

PFC zook operator faces full tank platoons three times in a row, and each time KOs the lead tank and escapes safely. At least one a Panther.

Another PFC zook operator gets two tanks.

A captain takes a zook and gets two tanks.

A sergeant KOs 5 tanks with 6 zook rounds along a wooded road.

A T/Sgt immobilized one tank with a zook, among other things.

A T/Sgt climbs atop a Japanese tank and KOs it with a WP grenade he somehow got into the turret.

A 57mm ATG commander, in the process of being overrun, KOs 3 tanks. Then for good measure he bagged an exposed tank commander at 5 yards with his pistol.

The Sgt Rock award has to go to this one. At 30 yards at night, a sergeant takes on the moving lead tank of a German column with his tommy gun. He KOs the exposed driver and commander, and the out of control tank falls off the side of a bridge into a stream.

A zook damages two Pz IVs, but their skirts save them. They still withdraw.

Another zook operator damages one of two tanks and both withdraw; he dies of his wounds.

Another T/Sgt with zook forces two tanks to withdraw.

A Sgt gets a zook and crawls within 25 yards of a supported tank, but the zook malfunctions. He uses grenades on the surrounding infantry. The tank withdraws.

The A for effort award must go to this one. A SSgt with only grenades rushes a King Tiger accompanied by 25 infantry. He uses the grenades on the infantry and bags at least half of them, and the rest scatter. The unsupported tank withdraws, but kills the SSgt with its main armament in the process.

14 out of 20 involved zooks, and 1 an anti-tank gun. Grenade KOs usually involved open hatches (although the Japanese WP case is unclear on that point), often already mobilized by other means, or anti-tank rifle grenades in a couple of cases. Several involved exposed or bailing crew, often but not always as a result of immobilization. Forced withdrawls are also common, from the threat of AT weapons or from KOing escorting infantry. 60% involved killed tanks, with an average of 2 from many 1s mixed with a few higher totals.

A squad of men jumping on the back of a buttoned, mobile tank and KOing it without special AT equipment, is nowhere to be found. The only case even close is one WP grenade getting a Japanese tank, and it is not even clear that one was buttoned.

These 20 cases are out of a total of 440 MoHs awarded in WW II, 301 of them to Army and 81 to Marines. You can find MoH details at the U.S. Army Center for Military History, at this URL -

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm

For what it is worth...

[JasonC]

To MickeyD - the hole in the roof was larger, but there is no gun behind that hole. It is just a channel to throw something out of the tank. Its original intention was merely to allow "popping" smoke to be carried inside, instead of outside, since smoke on the outside could be set off by enemy rounds that hit but did not penetrate. So a sort of flare gun with the smoke round could be stuffed down this channel in the roof instead, when needed. Once it was there, it was an obvious adeptation to use that hole to effectively throw a grenade outside if under close assault - using the same sort of flare pistol, but with an HE round. The round itself is basically just a grenade.