Please Put Infantry Smoke In CMx2

[Col Deadmarsh]

Por favor...

I want the use of smoke grenades in at least a small supply to use for cover. I think it is one of the major things missing in this game.

Steve, I'm beggin' here...

AN-M8 HC Smoke Grenade

The AN-M8 was the standard U.S. smoke grenade during World war 2. It has a cylindrical body and is a burning type smoke grenade, the smoke is created by burning a chemical composition. This is a safer type of grenade than white phosphorus type grenades and produces a longer lasting smoke screen.

M15 White Phosphorus Grenade

The M15 was used primarily for creating smoke to screen troop movement, the effect of the white phosphorus however also gave this grenade a useful anti-personnel and incendiary effect. As with other white phosphorus munitions this grenade was often called "willie peter" after the letters WP.

M18 Colored Smoke Grenade

The M18 was introduced in 1942. It is similar to the AN-M8 but produces brightly colored smoke, it was generally used for signalling or target marking purposes, although it is fully capable of being used to screen troops like other smoke grenades. The M18 is available in Red, Green, Yellow and Violet.

U.S. Infantry Grenades During WWII

.....

"The Germans have been conducting experiments to test the effect of smoke weapons used at close quarters against tanks. No information is available as to the type of tank and the type of grenade employed in these tests. However, it is known that the results convinced the Germans that smoke can be an important factor in combatting tanks."

Use Of Smoke On Tanks

.....

"Of the other types of hand grenades issued to GIs in Europe, the two most common were smoke and phosphorus grenades. Both these grenades were used to mask movements or mark artillery and ground-support aircraft targets."

Smoke And Phosphorous Grenades

.....

"By World War II, the grenade inventory expanded to include smoke grenades for signaling and screening, phosphorus and fragmentation grenades to produce casualties, and gas grenades for both casualty and riot control effects."

More About Grenades

[ September 05, 2005, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Moon]

Smoke does not give cover. At most, it can give concealment. But I wonder how concealed you are when you advertise your "hidden move" with a huge smoke cloud... let's do a test. You throw a smoke grenade and run back and forth behind it, and I fire a few salvoes from a machinegun, shall we?

Martin

[Soddball]

Are you saying that we will be able to fire through concealment with machine guns or other weapons in CMX2?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Por favor...

I want the use of smoke grenades in at least a small supply to use for cover. I think it is one of the major things missing in this game.

Steve, I'm beggin' here...

They were mostly used for battlefield signalling; as Moon indicates, they don't give cover, and at worst they simply advertise your position.

[flamingknives]

I want the offensive properties of White Phosphrous modelled. There's plenty of evidence that it was carried and used in WWII.

Of course, this assumes that WWII is the timeframe...

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Moon:

Smoke does not give cover. At most, it can give concealment.

Cover, concealment...you know what I mean. Damn you grogs are nitpicky...

But I wonder how concealed you are when you advertise your "hidden move" with a huge smoke cloud... let's do a test. You throw a smoke grenade and run back and forth behind it, and I fire a few salvoes from a machinegun, shall we?

As it is right now, the game engine doesn't allow you to shoot through smoke, which is my point. It's abstracted to make it difficult for the enemy to get a clear shot on you.

Also, if infantry smoke wasn't used for concealment, then arty smoke differs in what way?

[ September 05, 2005, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[flamingknives]

More of it, further away from the units who want to use it.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

They were mostly used for battlefield signalling; as Moon indicates, they don't give cover, and at worst they simply advertise your position.

Well, that would be true only as far as the US and CW troops are concerned. :mad:

Just to remind you, in CMBB there is no smoke for the Finns because the Finnish arty was not tasked to deliver smoke, it was the task of the infantry.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

As it is right now, the game engine doesn't allow you to shoot through smoke, which is my point.

It's abstracted to make it difficult for the enemy to get a clear shot on you.

As things stand you can not fire beyond LOS no matter what.

Also, if infantry smoke wasn't used for concealment, then arty smoke differs in what way?

Arty deployed smoke has more volume, is less accurate and can not be used as effectively against point targets and is more prone to athmospherics.

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Moon:

Smoke does not give cover. At most, it can give concealment. But I wonder how concealed you are when you advertise your "hidden move" with a huge smoke cloud...

Martin

Smoke grenades are not used to cover "hidden moves" They are used when the enemy has the bead on you already, and you pop smoke to conceal your movement. Its used a lot in real life close combat. I had to rely on smoke a lot in my experience. Its better to have a cloud of smoke between you and the enemy, than nothing, especially if you are pinned down

[Nadir_E]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Smoke grenades are not used to cover "hidden moves" They are used when the enemy has the bead on you already... snip... Its better to have a cloud of smoke between you and the enemy, than nothing, especially if you are pinned down

Amen to that. Smoke is frequently identified as having been used to break contact as well as to screen short movements (e.g. city-fighting).

I can understand if coding it is too difficult, but otherwise I'd vote for including infantry smoke capability.

[Peter Cairns]

AS I recall the main problem with smoke im CM was a fear that people would abuse it like they do in "Movies" .

My solution would be to simulate it on a scale with the Puff you get from a 2' mortar but to make it a "feature" like grenades rather than a "weapon" like a Piat.

So in close combat situations troops either offensively or defensively would "pop" smoke, but it would be controlled like grenades are in CM1, but the tacAI as "Eye Candy",

It's a compromise but it allows close in use of smoke without it being abused or distorting play, as it's effectiveness can be tightly modelled to prevent it becoming a distortion.

Peter.

[stoat]

Smoke grenades for infantry would be useful much as smoke dischargers are for tanks. If you are taking fire or moving across an open space, a smoke grenade could offer some concealment until you reach cover. And if not offer total concealment then at least slow down the speed at which said unit is spotted.

[SgtMuhammed]

I would much rather have someone bindly firing in my area rather than tracking me as I try to relocate. Smoke isn't much but it can give you just enough of a chance to live.

[pad152]

I agree infantry use of smoke grenades should be included, but at the cost of frag grenades. In other words, if your infantry squad is carrying smoke grenades they should carry fewer frag grenades.

This is the type of thing that would fit in nice with an infantry editor where squads could be equiped for the mission.

[Peter Cairns]

I would be carefull about editing down to the last grenade, I better system would be a sort of "high" setting for Ammo that set it above the norm, for something like an assault, without people being able to pick and mix.

In real life you may have a plan, but if something unexpected happens you could find yourself with the wrong stuff. The reality is troops tend to grab what they want and what they can get there hands on, and the idea of a company commander issuing a set amount out to each of his 120 men to equip them for his "Plan" is just unrealistic.

Again I'd like to see smoke in, but you should no more be able to determine how much or how often a team uses it, than you can control the fire of the M1 carbine over the two Garands....

Peter.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

one think in which infantry smoke would add a lot, is infantry AT tactics. infantry used smoke to blind the tank before going for the kill. as is now, the tank isn't blinded before the kill and infantry attacks often fail just because the target tank can see the infantry around it.

[YankeeDog]

A suggestion to all those who would like to see infantry smoke in the game:

BFC researches their stuff pretty carefully. They have repeatedly stated that their research indicates that infantry smoke grenades were rarely, if ever, used to generate cover for movement in WWII, but rather were mostly used for signalling.

SO, if you want to see it in the game, prove them wrong. Go dig through old training manuals, first-person accounts, and make a cogent supported argument, that infantry smoke grenades actually *were* used as concealment on a regular basis.

BFC has shown themselves more than willing to make changes in the game based on well thought-out, *supported* arguments posted here on the forums. I recall, for example, big debates back in the CMBO days about the lack of canister for the US 37mm (on the Stuart and elswhere). BFC's initial research indicated that the canister rounds were used almost exlusively in the PTO. Someone (I don't remember who) found concrete evidence that canister was, in fact, used in the ETO/Med/East Front, and whaddaya know, in CMBB canister showed up in the Stuart's load out.

So if you want it in the game, prove that it should be there, and I'm sure BFC will listen.

Note that, *assuming* the first release of the new engine is WWII (which seems likely, but not assured), in the case of Infantry Smoke, you need WWII-era evidence. I don't think anyone would dispute that US forces used infantry smoke in Vietnam for cover, for example -- I've had face-to-face conversations with Vets confirming this. But there were many things that were done differently in WWII. . .

I, for one, have never read anything that would support the idea that infantry used hand-thrown smoke grenades for concealment on anything more than a rare, improvised basis in WWII. But I have only read a tiny fraction of the source material out there, and I would love to be proven wrong on this one.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

German Infantry Handbook by Alex Büchner discusses, at least in theory, the use of smoke grenades when attacking tanks, as discussed above. Trouble is, when putting it into the game, there is nothing restricting you to using it against just tanks. This is one of those "gamey" uses that probably led to their bein excluded altogether.

"Popping smoke" when retreating is something I've never heard of done by an infantry section in WW II, though would love to be corrected. Seems impractical to cover 10 men with one tiny smoke grenade.

I do recall reading in Mowat's book about how his platoon pooled their Brens for a platoon withdrawal with wounded, and the 2 inch mortar was used to fire smoke shells to cover their retreat. No mention of smoke grenades.

[YankeeDog]

Good point. At least for Germans, I have read in the source you mention and elswhere of Infantry smoke being used for close-assaulting armor, so that use, at least, is in for the Germans. IIRC, there was even a special device that was basically two smoke grenades with a short length for rope between them (blendkoerper er sumfink?), that was designed to be thrown over the barrel of a tank.

So at least German infantry using smoke grenades when assaulting armor might be nice, though it's hardly a critical new feature as far as I'm concerned. . .

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Good point. At least for Germans, I have read in the source you mention and elswhere of Infantry smoke being used for close-assaulting armor, so that use, at least, is in for the Germans. IIRC, there was even a special device that was basically two smoke grenades with a short length for rope between them (blendkoerper er sumfink?), that was designed to be thrown over the barrel of a tank.

So at least German infantry using smoke grenades when assaulting armor might be nice, though it's hardly a critical new feature as far as I'm concerned. . .

Restricting AFV vision when buttoned up would be a better start; maybe make German smoke grenade use in such cases automatic, when present. Ie when using the ASSAULT command on a tank the German squad automatically uses a smoke grenade, if carrying. Don't allow the player to use a SMOKE command for infantry.

[Peter Cairns]

For me the issue is, should they be there as,

A) "Eye Candy" so that in close combat situations with or without armour, smoke ( and in the case of grenades Flashes), would appear every now and then as a visual effect with effects limited for the units engaged in close combat, or

A type of support weapon that can be "Fired" and targeted by order, under a players control.

Personally as I have said I am in favour of A, so that they can be in , but controlled to limit abuse or over use.

Peter.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

For me the issue is, should they be there as,

A) "Eye Candy" so that in close combat situations with or without armour, smoke ( and in the case of grenades Flashes), would appear every now and then as a visual effect with effects limited for the units engaged in close combat, or

A type of support weapon that can be "Fired" and targeted by order, under a players control.

Personally as I have said I am in favour of A, so that they can be in , but controlled to limit abuse or over use.

Peter.

Why would anyone use a smoke grenade in "close combat"?

[Peter Cairns]

What I mean is that in CM1 you see grenades thrown when units get close.

If as it seems that the only real use people made of them was well surprise surprise within the throwing range of a grenade, given that in CM1 that was about 10m or so, then that's about the range at which they should be used.

If as most people including yourself seem to think there was little evidence of them being used to screen movement or concealment as such, it would be most likely they were used if at all for close assault or as a last resort.

Hell close in people might have thrown them by mistake or because they were the first thing to come to hand. I had a fiend who saw a squadie concussed in training and sent to hospital becuase he got hit in the face with a "Dummy" grenade ( the thing was an old style "pineapple style which was being used to get the weight right).

Like I said I see them more as an effect more than a weapon, and if the only evidence we have for there use is close assault then thats when we should see them.

Peter.

[Panzer76]

As some have mentioned, CMx2 will perhaps not cover WWII, and will surely move to other timeframes later on atleast.

So, can we all agre that smoke is being activly used ny inf in more modern ages?

Should not then inf smoke be modeled?