Battlefront.com Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 The most correct historical reaction to an enemy tank rumbling in close is to run away. Period. No matter what weapons are in hand. The second possible historically correct action is for exceptionally brave individuals to use their last-ditch AT weapons on the tanks and then run away. The third, and least probable, historical result would be to close assault a tank with a full Squad and only standard fragmentation grenades. And that's because realistically, very few of those 12 men would have the balls or the stupidity (depends on how you want to think of it) to go up against a tank without a proper chance of taking it out of action. Now, this is not to say that regular units didn't close assault tanks with fairly mundane stuff. They did, but it was the exception and not the rule by any measurement you care to make. There was an example of some shell shocked American soldier, somewhere in Normandy IIRC, who just saw a Tiger kill most of his platoon when it collapsed a building on them. Dusty, bloody, and pissed off he ran over to another unit, grabbed a Bazooka and some rounds, and chased after the Tiger. The Germans weren't expecting this, so when he rounded a corner and found the Tiger they weren't ready. He fired one round and it exploded on the Tiger, killing a couple of the infantry that were accompanying it. He survived, but I don't remember if he actually killed the Tiger or not. Regardless, even in his dazed rage the guy didn't go after the tank with a couple of frag grenades. The point is this sort of "bravery" was usually ended, quite early, by some MG fire from the tank or from concentrated fire from either another tank ("hosing off") or supporting infantry. Soldiers aren't stupid, they know this. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 Yankee Dog, At the least, WWII-era armor lacks infantry spotting gizmos like IR optics, so even without any other changes to the game engine, infantry should survive for a little longer when close assaulting armor in CMBN than they typically do in CMSF. Possibly. But WW2 era tanks often have a bow MG gunner as well as the coax. Against a modern tank you only have to worry about the arc of the turret, but in WW2 it is the arc of the turret and the arc of the hull front. Which might very well be two different things. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 I posted this in Elvis' AAR thread because some similar questions came up. Figured I should repost here: I want to draw some attention to this shot in particular: Full size As a reminder to you CM v1.06 and later CM:SF/CM:A players, and something for you non-CM:SF/CM:A guys, there's a lot of infantry detail going on in this shot that wasn't possible in CMx1. Here are two that struck me: 1. Look at the detailed terrain and think about what this means in terms of unit position. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, check out the guy furthest to the left. He is exposed to fire from places (i.e. off to his left) that the other three guys to the right are not. In CMx1 your whole unit was either exposed to fire or safe from fire from any one specific direction. This means the guy on the left could be hit from some enemy that would have ZERO chance of hitting the other 3 guys. 2. Height of a soldier matters in CMx2, it didn't matter in CMx1 because there was no concept of variable height. Everything was at the same height, all the time, every time. Not so with CMx2 since v1.06 (IIRC). Those soldiers are kneeling in tall grass. If they were to drop prone they would disappear from view from most angles. But not necessarily that hill off to the right. Hard to tell if there is good LOS there or not from just this screenshot. Regardless, the point is that concealment (in this case cover isn't a significant factor) changes depending on what the INDIVIDUAL soldiers are doing. If 3 drop down on their bellies, and 1 continues to kneel, then 1 remains potentially visible to the enemy. What an enemy can't see they can't shoot at (well, except with blind Area Fire, of course) with small arms fire. This means, again, that exposure to observation is similar to exposure to fire... it's individual. For you guys who haven't played a lot of CM:SF/CM:A... a word of warning. If you decide to go and play someone who has had a lot of experience with the new engine, you might want to set low expectations for your chances of victory. No disrespect intended... just say'n Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymaxx Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 ...but in WW2 it is the arc of the turret and the arc of the hull front. Which might very well be two different things. Steve Speaking of arcs. Is there a safe zone around the tank where infantry can not be hit by the main gun and coax mg? In Elvis´ DAR a tank fires at a Schreck team at very short (too short?) range. http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories/CMBN/Elvis_vs_JonS/11-11.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Speaking of arcs. Is there a safe zone around the tank where infantry can not be hit by the main gun and coax mg? In Elvis´ DAR a tank fires at a Schreck team at very short (too short?) range. http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories/CMBN/Elvis_vs_JonS/11-11.jpg Oh yes, that was some kind of problem in CMSF ! Tanks could fire unrealistic high and low because there was no real gun elevation limit IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryphonne Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 The most correct historical reaction to an enemy tank rumbling in close is to run away. Period. No matter what weapons are in hand. The second possible historically correct action is for exceptionally brave individuals to use their last-ditch AT weapons on the tanks and then run away. The third, and least probable, historical result would be to close assault a tank with a full Squad and only standard fragmentation grenades. And that's because realistically, very few of those 12 men would have the balls or the stupidity (depends on how you want to think of it) to go up against a tank without a proper chance of taking it out of action. Now, this is not to say that regular units didn't close assault tanks with fairly mundane stuff. They did, but it was the exception and not the rule by any measurement you care to make. There was an example of some shell shocked American soldier, somewhere in Normandy IIRC, who just saw a Tiger kill most of his platoon when it collapsed a building on them. Dusty, bloody, and pissed off he ran over to another unit, grabbed a Bazooka and some rounds, and chased after the Tiger. The Germans weren't expecting this, so when he rounded a corner and found the Tiger they weren't ready. He fired one round and it exploded on the Tiger, killing a couple of the infantry that were accompanying it. He survived, but I don't remember if he actually killed the Tiger or not. Regardless, even in his dazed rage the guy didn't go after the tank with a couple of frag grenades. The point is this sort of "bravery" was usually ended, quite early, by some MG fire from the tank or from concentrated fire from either another tank ("hosing off") or supporting infantry. Soldiers aren't stupid, they know this. Steve This reminds me, what kind of last ditch weapons are available to the Germans in CMBN? Tellerminen, molotovs, panzerwurfmine? Gryph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 panzerwurfmine? Is that the dog-mounted one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 You are thinking of the panzerwoofmine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krilly Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Panzerwurfmine Panzerwoofmine :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achtung Baby Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 What about the Blendkorper or is that a Fascist coffee company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Regardless, I have seen squads take out IFVs (not MBTs) with hand grenades in CMSF, although it happens rarely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 What about the Blendkorper or is that a Fascist coffee company? http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/german-glass-smoke-grenades.html Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Oh yes, that was some kind of problem in CMSF ! Tanks could fire unrealistic high and low because there was no real gun elevation limit IIRC. No they did not change this. The required time to program an AI to understand these limits would not be worth the investment. Although I have often felt that we should live with the lack of an upper limit (not a huge deal) but maybe we could put in a lower limit and if the AI ran into this limit (close assaulting troops) it could just pop smoke and reverse until it was in safety or had a line to the troops with its MG. Better than nothing. Kinda the same logic when it gets hit with AT missles now in CMSF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 Correct, there is no chance of us (likely ever) simulating elevation angle limitations. At least not directly. The primary problem is it being too difficult to program AI and TacAI to handle this, then come up with adequate UI and safeguards so players don't get bit in the butt by it. Considering how few times this comes up as an actual problem vs. theoretical problem, it's simply not worth investing the time. There's plenty of other things we can add to the game for better overall effect. We are looking into the ability to restrict primary weapon fire at very close ranges. So far, though, it hasn't come up as an issue during CM:BN testing. Therefore, at the very least there's not some sort of extra source of concern due to CM:BN's environment vs. CM:SF's. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Another Allied infantry weapon that was used successfully at close range against German tanks was the white phosphorous grenade, it could brew them up. Obviously not used very often but it would be nice to know that occasionally ordinary infantry could disable a tank at close range in CMx2. Of course with the phosphorous grenade we would want to see the accompanying fiery spectacle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 How would WP brew up a tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7thGalaxy Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I guess that if you popped one into a tank it would cause the crew to bail out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 A normal grenade would do that, I guess the advantage of WP is that it produces a short lived but instant smoke screen. Forced to button, up the crew would be visually blind and scared that a tank hunting team would attack after the grenade, or use the concealment to get into an ambush position. An added advantage is that you would not have to target any part of the tank and a near-miss would have exactly the same effect. The burning fragments could also set alight any stowage and woe betide any crew members caught exposed! You can still fight the tank with grenade splinters pepppering non-vital parts of your body, but phosphorus fragments keep burning until cut out and affected clothing would have to be removed as it would smolder and then ignite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 A normal grenade would do that... A normal grenade would probably incapacitate the crew, rendering them unable to evacuate, at least any time soon. Something that I recall reading about WP was that the smoke, which is pretty caustic, would get drawn into the interior of the tank, making the crew believe that they were on fire whether they actually were or not, thus causing them to bail. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 Emrys beat me to it. The smoke produced by a WP grenade was really nasty. Tanks have air intake systems so the crews don't die from all the various fumes that get into the vehicle compartment. Under the right conditions the WP smoke could get sucked in and the crew would have no choice but to bail until it cleared. Now, how frequently did this happen? I'd say so infrequently that it counts as a statistical outlier in the overall scheme of things. The more likely result of a smoke grenade being thrown onto the vehicle is it might: 1. Temporarily blind the crew. This would mean moving the tank and that is quite dangerous if you can't see where you're going. 2. "Trick" the crew into thinking their tank was on fire and that they needed to abandon before it brewed up. Crews don't have the luxury of figuring out if they should bail or not because they have sometimes less than a few seconds before turning into badly burned pop-tarts. An experienced crew may even decide to play it safe. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 There was the British Gammon AT grenade which I believe the US used sometimes. Funnily enough, these Gammon bombs were modelled in the 1st game- CMBO but not in the 3rd game of the Cmx1 series- CMAK. I never understood why that was so. The other close assault weapon the German infantry had available in their kit bag was the trusty old grenade bundle. Sort of like a poor mans satchel charge I guess. Regards KR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 How would WP brew up a tank? There is a bit about it in Antony Beevor's D-DAY, the battle for Normandy, he mentions an incident where one underneath and one on top resulted in a brew up. I hope there is some recognition in the game of infantry being able to disable tanks, cause retreats or abandonments. Obviously it did not happen very often but its the occasional factually possible incident in a game which helps make it unpredictable and therefore aids realism. Nothing kills a game more than predictability. And infantry going to ground all the time as is happening in the feature AAR saga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 And infantry going to ground all the time as is happening in the feature AAR saga Elvis just had a tank hit with a grenade. Mord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Elvis just had a tank hit with a grenade. Mord. That's a but no effect, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 This question has probably been asked, if so apologies. It also may be a very stupid question but im no grog like the majority on here. anyway, do the troops have varying heights/sizes/shapes? if not is this impossible to programme into the game? or is it something thats just not that important? cheers ps as i understand it there are several different soldier models for each side. Is it possible to slightly change the height, size and shape of each model. That way there would be less uniformity across the models. If it is possible but BF haven't done this could modders do this? Again, if it's stupid question apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts