Grenades vs. armor

[Dietrich]

Am I misinterpreting the simulation, or are Marine infantry (and, for that matter, Stryker infantry too) equipped with some sort of anti-armor grenade? (I don't recall seeing such a type of grenade listed in the field manual....)

In one of my many attempts at cracking "USMC The Old City V1" (my company suffered nearly 40% casualties in my one "victory" to date in that scenario), a Marine squad on the 2nd floor of a building spotted a BMP-3 on the street below; then they lobbed half a dozen grenades down onto it, and the BMP just started burning.

In playing a meeting engagement between opposing armored recon platoons racing to capture a small farm in mountainous terrain (I forget the name of the scenario), I made the mistake of rushing all my Strykers into the walled enclosure of the farm, leaving my vehicles and troops with hardly any room to maneuver. I dismounted my squads and rushed them into the two buildings for cover before the Syrian BMP-2s arrived. The farm's walled enclosure had only two entrances/exits; the first two BMPs to try entering the enclosure got knocked by one squad's AT4, and a third evidently suffered enough rifle grenade and point-blank 50-cal. fire from one of the Strykers that its crew decided to bail out. I had two of my Strykers pop smoke, and with that concealment I sent two of my squads running to take cover among the trees in which the Strykers too were hiding. As soon as the smoke cleared, the squads had LOS to the fourth BMP; then they rained grenades on it (just a few rifle grenades, as I recall), and it started burning.

Is this a case of overoptimistic simulation (which I don't necessarily think it is), or are grenades supposed to be this effective against light armor? (I haven't had occasion to test regular grenades versus actual tanks; in fact, I've only had the game since last Thursday, so I have much to learn yet.)

[Flanker15]

Yeah I'd like to know what's going with nades too. I had a Stryker ambushed by a single soldier, he threw a nade at it which landed on the roof and killed almost the entire squad in it, the gunner and knocked out the Stryker. They can't be that good, no way.

Also they are fantastic at disabling vehicles which seems odd, military wheels are supposed to be able to resist small explosions and shrapnel.

[Dietrich]

I don't know the thicknes or quality of a Stryker's roof armor, but I don't suppose a mere standard-issue frag grenade's blast would be able to penetrate it.

According to the CMSF manual, a Stryker can travel short distances with all eight wheels flat, thanks to the run-flat core of each tire.

[flamingknives]

The HEDP grenades from the M320 are good for two inches of armour or thereabouts, and the earlier BMPs doesn't have anything like that side and rear.

The hand grenades may have significant effect if you can get them into the vehicle, otherwise they ought to be ineffective.

[Apocal]

I've gotten T-55 crews to bail just from having two squads of infantry rain grenades on them. On one hand, I don't see why the crew would get out when doing so exposes them to the blast, frag and incoming rounds. On the other, I realize there is a hazy area the game doesn't simulate with regards to the kinds of shennigans that very close-in infantry can inflict on AFVs.

[cmfan]

As Flamingknives states the HEDP 40mm grenades in the game *can* penetrate the armor on older BMP from the flanks, rear and top. BMP-1 and even BMP-2 armor is pretty thin. Even the BMP-3 has thin armor compared to something like the Bradly. I'm sure a lot of variables determine actual penetration rates but it is possible. The Stryker also has very, very thin armor so I wouldn't be surprised if a 30mm grenade aimed at an area not protected by the cage could do some damage inside.

Not sure how well hand grenades should do against either the BMP or Stryker. I suppose if you pop one inside an open hatch whoever is inside is going to have a bad day - however a grenade going off outside shouldn't be too bad considering it's designed as anti-personnel fragmentation weapon and not an anti-armor weapon.

As for crew bailing out under grenade fire... the only thing I can think off is that the game is simulating their moral breaking. This result in them abandoning their vehicles. The problem is that the AI, once moral breaks, does not make any distinction between being hit by an 120mm Main gun, autocannon, a bunch of hand grenades or small arms fire at long range.

[Secondbrooks]

Me makes forest map. Put in trenches in side forest. Put infantry in trenches. and have T-72 M2001 models to drive over trenches.

RPG-7s are worhtless in those conditions... Handgrenades are not Well they are costly way to cut tanks tracks (and hope for crew to bail out), as usually squad can call it self lucky if even half of men are in fighting conditions after that.

If that wouldn't be there tank would just halt over trench and kill all of them with MG fire... Handgreandes can also be seen as somesort improvised explosives crafted from something found somewhere. I quite usually run into situations where AT-weapons have just been depleted and BMPs/Strykers drive across city streets as if infantry in buildings couldn't hurt them.

[birdstrike]

First, handgrenades are of course useful to damage the "soft" spots of tanks, like sensors. But leaving that aside, I think I seem to remember that after the initial release of the game, handgrenades were (realistically) modeled as being worthless against tanks - resulting in people wanting back a way to close assault armored vehicles similar to CMx1.

That's why it *could* be that at some point the effectiveness of handgrenades against tanks and such was increased to abstractly simulate that - I could be totally wrong, though.

[Falconander]

Anyone remember the WWII battle where the German tankers committed suicide inside their tanks rather than take the continual bomardment from the allied forces.

Even though they were relatively safe inside of their armor, the precussion(sp?) and the terror of being trapped under the barrage was enough for them to finish themselves.

I remember reading the story in my younger days but can't recall the details now.... One of the deciding factors that made me go into the infantry rather than Armor...

So a gernade/rpg just has to damage the equipement, penetrate to the interior or rattle the crew enough to disable the tank.

[cmfan]

When I was in the army we were told that if we wanted any chance of damaging or even taking out modern MBT with an AT-4 we needed to fire in volleys. Preferably at a weak spot.

If we didn't have an AT-4 or heavier then we should use grenades and whatever else we had to destroy the vision blocks, sensors and tracks on the tank. There wasn't really any mention of effectively getting at the crew inside with concussion from grenades. Perhaps with heavier weapons, who knows. I do remember reading some fms on field expedient anti-tank explosives that might get crews to bail out like: impromptu satchel charges and a nifty incendiary device you made out of an ammo can, gasoline, a thermite grenade, and a few other things. I don't think any of those are modeled as being in your squads' inventories!

[Falconander]

When I play with my son on war games, he can never understand why the crew bails as they are sure to get cut down. But I guess better to have some chance of survival than being caught in the wreckage as it catches on fire.

CM Fan, I remember that doctrine of 10 years past. Volley fire and pray that you wounded the beast.

I still remember snaplinking to an M1 Abrhams and barreling down a dirt road deflecting overhanging branches with my M60 so as not to get hung up in the trees and ripped to pieces as the tank went one way and the tree the other way.

[Dietrich]

As Flamingknives states the HEDP 40mm grenades in the game *can* penetrate the armor on older BMP from the flanks, rear and top. BMP-1 and even BMP-2 armor is pretty thin. Even the BMP-3 has thin armor compared to something like the Bradly. I'm sure a lot of variables determine actual penetration rates but it is possible. The Stryker also has very, very thin armor so I wouldn't be surprised if a 30mm grenade aimed at an area not protected by the cage could do some damage inside.

In both the examples I cited in my first post in this thread, neither squad fired rifle grenades; they simply lobbed handgrenades onto the BMPs.

Not sure how well hand grenades should do against either the BMP or Stryker. I suppose if you pop one inside an open hatch whoever is inside is going to have a bad day - however a grenade going off outside shouldn't be too bad considering it's designed as anti-personnel fragmentation weapon and not an anti-armor weapon.

There was no indication that the BMP was unbuttoned.

Indeed, blast overpressure would enhance the lethality of a grenade going off inside a tank or APC (to say nothing of the explosion causing the vehicle's ammo to cook off).

As for crew bailing out under grenade fire... the only thing I can think off is that the game is simulating their moral breaking. This result in them abandoning their vehicles. The problem is that the AI, once moral breaks, does not make any distinction between being hit by an 120mm Main gun, autocannon, a bunch of hand grenades or small arms fire at long range.

If I were in a tank that took a hit and started burning, I'd definitely rather bail out than stay in the tank and either burn to death or simply get blown up when the ammo started cooking off.

Seems to me that it doesn't matter whether it's hit by a cannon, an MG, or just a volley of grenades, the interior burning tank is no place to linger in. You don't need to have your morale shattered to realize that.

First, handgrenades are of course useful to damage the "soft" spots of tanks, like sensors. But leaving that aside, I think I seem to remember that after the initial release of the game, handgrenades were (realistically) modeled as being worthless against tanks - resulting in people wanting back a way to close assault armored vehicles similar to CMx1. That's why it *could* be that at some point the effectiveness of handgrenades against tanks and such was increased to abstractly simulate that - I could be totally wrong, though.

I think it would be reasonable to simulate using handgrenades and other man-portable explosives to harm tanks -- a satchel charge wedged under the turret overhang to damage the traverse mechanism or thrown into the running gear in hopes of blasting off a road wheel, etc. It stands to reason that the crew of a modern tank has at least somewhat better visibility of their immediate surroundings than a WW2-era tank (which typically was blind as a bat, so to speak, when buttoned up), but a reasonably daring infantryman with some sort of explosive has at least a few options to give a tank a hard time. But to have a tank or APC simply brew up at a volley of grenades? *shrug*

[SlapHappy]

I agree with the "raining down of grenades from on high" as probably being ineffective against even light armor. That being said, I wish there were some animations and such for infantry doing things like close assaulting a tank and trying to disable or bail the crew.

[Dietrich]

I agree, SlapHappy.

trying to disable or bail the crew

As in climbing onto the tank, yanking open a hatch, and hauling out a guy by the scruff of his neck, a la Chewbacca in Return of the Jedi? =P

Seriously, though . . . I think having a volley of grenades from a nearby infantry squad equal instant brew-up for a tank or APC is not the best reasonable simulation. What about like in CMx1, where you might see a squad throw a single grenade at tank, you hear an explosion, it says "Hit", and the tank is immobilized?

Speaking of explosives, when a squad is executing a Blast command, why is there no cry of "fire in the hole!" or some such? Isn't it standard operating procedure to give some warning when explosives are about to be set off, even if said explosives are at some distance?

[John Kettler]

Unless things have changed, Soviet era armor and maybe even later Russian stuff has a toxic fire extinguishing system, as in, the good news is the fire is out; the bad news is that the AFV's air is now completely unbreathable. This might explain at least some of what's being seen. I strongly suspect, too, that abstraction is being factored in, rather like it was for close Assault in CMx1. I remember during the late Seventies and early Eighties when the U.S. Army was so desperate for a viable individual antitank weapon, the LAW having been found useless frontally, that we were building our version of the East German AZ-100 HAG, a hand-thrown HEAT grenade, itself a loose copy of the Soviet RKG-3M, rated at 125mm penetration at normal, and being remarkably and uncoincidentally similar to the WW II German Panzerwurfmine. If that sounds crazy, please bear in mind that our ribbon bridge is a copy of the Soviet PMP, the one that bridged the Suez in record time during the Yom Kippur War.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Apocal]

Unless things have changed, Soviet era armor and maybe even later Russian stuff has a toxic fire extinguishing system, as in, the good news is the fire is out; the bad news is that the AFV's air is now completely unbreathable.

The air would be unbreathable anyway due to smoke from the fire. The solution is the same either way, open a hatch.

[Chainsaw]

May I add that western tanks firefighting system isnt a **** betther?

I forgot the name of the gas, but its a gas that consumes all air within a second or so, quickly killing the fire in the tank.

but it also means the crew must react quickly.

We had a incident with our PBV302 where a driver managed to reach and pull the fire handle so the whole crew had to bail and the APC had to stand in the open with all doors/hatches opened to ventilate before the crew was allowed to enter it again.

so its not only russian tanks that have that lethal fire extinguisher.

[Apocal]

I forgot the name of the gas, but its a gas that consumes all air within a second or so, quickly killing the fire in the tank.

Some flavor of Halon, yes?

but it also means the crew must react quickly.

We had a incident with our PBV302 where a driver managed to reach and pull the fire handle so the whole crew had to bail and the APC had to stand in the open with all doors/hatches opened to ventilate before the crew was allowed to enter it again.

so its not only russian tanks that have that lethal fire extinguisher.

Yeah, Halon is some nasty ****. The only reason we use it is because the alternative of burning to death is (we think) worse.