Grenades vs tanks again

[PoorOldSpike]

We've discussed this before, but it sticks in my craw because it seems grens in the game are too powerful.
PIC 1- My infantry run out of a house with the intention of chucking grenades at that Sherman.
Question- would infantry really do that in real life given that typical pineapple grens would have very little chance of damaging it?
[img]https://i.ibb.co/kg4wJPR/Inf-grens-v-tank1.jpg[/img]

PIC 2- These options below come up.
In real life even if the gren was aimed at a specific part of the tank, it'd simply uselessly bounce off before it explodes wouldn't it?
I should think that in real-life the grenade-chuckers would try to roll the grenades UNDER the tank to blast upwards through the thin belly armour?
[img]https://i.ibb.co/286XNNL/Inf-grens-v-tank2.jpg[/img]

PIC 3- the grenades immobilise the tank and kill a crewman, that'd never happen in real life, what do other players think?
[img]https://i.ibb.co/k1WRdNq/Inf-grens-v-tank3.jpg[/img]

SUGGESTION to devs- completely re-write the whole grenades vs tanks thing.
Firstly, do away with the 'Accuracy' options, and simply assign a 'damage probability percentage rating' for every tank and vehicle in the game thus-

40% TRUCKS and JEEPS- the gren fragments would shred the tyres, fuel tank and occupants.

30% OPEN-TOPPED AFV's- slightly harder to hurt than trucks and jeeps but there's always the chance a grenade will be lobbed into the open top, shredding the crew.

20% CLOSE-TOPPED ARMOURED CARS- slighty harder to damage than open-tops, but their tyres are their weak point.

15% LIGHT TANKS- Harder to hurt than armoured cars

10% MEDIUM tanks- very hard to hurt.

5% HEAVY TANKS- almost impossible to hurt.

Those percentages could be automatically dropped by say 5% if the target vehicle was moving.
Post your comments, suggestions, death threats etc in this thread.

[Grimfang]

Just as an aside, I recently played 'Path less trodden' skirmish as the Allies defending. To my amassment, the AI sent armour in a column of march along a road past a building. My infantry (USING GRENADES) and anti-tank unit had a field day... four kills - the armour was hampered by limited LOS and movement options. They then retreated before German infantry arrived (the Germans were then wiped out by Allied infantry in the adjacent buildings across the road).

https://ibb.co/c1k1cX2

Lesson: do not send unsupported armour in column of march along a road without infantry support.

[PoorOldSpike]

Originally posted by Grimfang:

..Lesson: do not send unsupported armour in column of march along a road without infantry support.

Haha yes, the Troop AI is great in some ways but not so great in others, and any wargamer can regularly beat it unless he gives it some help.
Its main goof when attacking is to be too spread out in dribs and drabs instead of being in a solid concentrated spearhead like Gen.Guderian said-
"Schlagen Sie mit der Faust und nicht mit gespreizten Fingern"
("Punch with your fist and not with spread fingers")
[img]https://i.ibb.co/NK93rK3/punch.jpg[/img]

[thyge]

I actually think that the AI has gotten much better supporting each other. just last night I played a game where the AI had 2 jg.pant right next to each other and a nother place they had 3 panthers side by side, and that tactic actually was the reason I lost

[Grimfang]

Originally posted by Grimfang:

Just as an aside, I recently played 'Path less trodden' skirmish as the Allies defending. To my amassment, the AI sent armour in a column of march along a road past a building. My infantry (USING GRENADES) and anti-tank unit had a field day... four kills - the armour was hampered by limited LOS and movement options. They then retreated before German infantry arrived (the Germans were then wiped out by Allied infantry in the adjacent buildings across the road).

https://ibb.co/c1k1cX2

Lesson: do not send unsupported armour in column of march along a road without infantry support.

In fairness to the AI, this map (Path less trodden) has limited approaches (the AI had a two spearhead advance concentrating forces on his left and right flanks). I counted on this in my deployment and had troops deployed up front (this skirmish scenario allows a huge deployment option). My deployment paid off allowing me to wallop the AI right from the outset, wiping out his right flank and halting his left flank almost from the outset.

[Tom]

We have simplified the grenades vs armour system recently and the result is that it is harder to hurt armour with them (on paper). I suspect more adjustment is needed, particularly when they are used at range (2,3 tiles).

At point blank, grenade use vs vehicles basically represents infantry swarming the vehicle and I think there need to be so decent chance that will result in damage or some kind. But at from a distance probably not.

One thing to note is that if the target vehicle is open at the time of attack then the potential damage can be much higher.

[jptenn]

If you are in an armored vehicle it can be difficult to know if what just exploded outside your iron coffin. It could be a missed HEAT round or even mortar fire. Either way, tanks typically move away from the area. Grenades at a distance should at least have a chance to make the target back up a bit.

[PoorOldSpike]

WIKI-
"Regular fragmentation grenades were ineffective against tanks, so many kinds of anti-tank grenades were developed. These ranged from hollow charge designs (e.g., the British No. 68 AT Grenade), to ones that simply contained a lot of explosive (the British No. 73 Grenade). To increase their effectiveness, some grenades were designed so that they adhered to the tank either through an adhesive (sticky bomb) or with a magnet. The Germans used a magnetic grenade, the Hafthohlladung to ensure that the shaped charge would fire at the optimal 90° angle to the armor."

So in Troop, I suppose we could assume that WW2 infantry carried a mix of anti-infantry frag grens plus AT grens, and that they use their anti-inf grens against inf, and their AT grens against armour, so on second thoughts Troop simulates that okay, and no tweaks are necessary?..:)

[thyge]

Originally posted by PoorOldSpike:

WIKI-
"Regular fragmentation grenades were ineffective against tanks, so many kinds of anti-tank grenades were developed. These ranged from hollow charge designs (e.g., the British No. 68 AT Grenade), to ones that simply contained a lot of explosive (the British No. 73 Grenade). To increase their effectiveness, some grenades were designed so that they adhered to the tank either through an adhesive (sticky bomb) or with a magnet. The Germans used a magnetic grenade, the Hafthohlladung to ensure that the shaped charge would fire at the optimal 90° angle to the armor."

So in Troop, I suppose we could assume that WW2 infantry carried a mix of anti-infantry frag grens plus AT grens, and that they use their anti-inf grens against inf, and their AT grens against armour, so on second thoughts Troop simulates that okay, and no tweaks are necessary?..:)

this topic has come up before. its called (grenades vs tanks) this is what tom wrote

Look for "AT charge" as a weapon. Will be found on German pioneers and Brit tank hunters.
Basically demo charge/magnetic mine for Germans and gammon/sticky bombs for Brit.

[PoorOldSpike]

Originally posted by thyge:

this topic has come up before. its called (grenades vs tanks) this is what tom wrote
Look for "AT charge" as a weapon. Will be found on German pioneers and Brit tank hunters.
Basically demo charge/magnetic mine for Germans and gammon/sticky bombs for Brit.

Yes I know, but i'm talking about real-life ordinary frag grenades which had zero chance of hurting medium and heavy tanks.
Perhaps in Troop they also carry some AT grens to use against tanks, and I'm okay with that..:)

[Rittersporn]

Ordinary frag grenades are useless even against light tanks.
German grenades were thin walled contrabtions with marginal splinter effect but an amount
of concussion effect to stun infantry in trenches (a WW I design).
American grenades were somewhat better, their effect was practical "bird shot" pellets over
some (call it 3m) radius. No "light tank" is so light that you can damage it with "bird shot".
If the hatch is open it´s something else if the grenade falls in.

[Tom]

We wish to simulate the general effect that infantry of the period could often find ways to damage or neutralise tanks once they got right on top of them. This might be daisy chained grenades wedged under turret overhangs, smashing vision blocks or even stuffing flaming bed blankets into air intakes (it happened).

The "AT charge" equipped units are a different matter, they have proper dedicated AT weaponry or demolition equipment of some kind.

[Tom]

That said I'll have a look into the current effectiveness ratings of infantry "grenades" vs armour

[Combat_Bob]

Hmm. If the units with "AT Charges" are supposed to represent things like the No.68 AT grenade, No.74 "sticky bomb", hafthohlladung, panzerwurfmine, RPG-40, various satchel charges, etc., maybe it should be an option for any nonspecialized infantry formation instead of a dedicated unit type, just like frag grenades are?

While we're at it, speaking aesthetically I'd personally like a little frag grenade icon on the unit marker for units equipped with them, and maybe a little shaped charge icon for units with AT grenades instead of the "T", etc.

ADDENDUM- While reading up on the sticky bomb just now I learned that it wasn't just a sticky bomb. The explosive was soft so that it deformed out into a flat blob against the armor before it detonated, sort of like the more modern HESH tank rounds, and proved to work on light armor better than anyone had anticipated though in most circumstances they were better off hand-placed than thrown. Tommies did tend to get them stuck to their uniforms after pulling the pin, though, so there is that.