![]() |
![]()
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Old friend of the forums
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In the DC-3,before the jump
Posts: 71
|
Will the grenades be effective against tanks or armored vehicles?
In Battlefield1942 you can easily destroy a tank by using 3 grenades. In Cod,you CAN'T do this. How it will be in BiA?? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Solar System
Posts: 2,110
|
Don't expect that You'll be able to stop tank by grenades in BIA.
Patriot |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
find me a shrubbery!
|
actually i think i read that in early beta stages that was the case (that you'ld need grenades to kill a tank) but i hope that's out of the way now. killing tanks with grenades is rediculous
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Swede living in Canada
Posts: 6
|
Actually, grenades can be used to take out tanks. You just have to have the right kind...
No.82 Anti-tank Grenade The No.82 is a bag set with an igniter, it is filled with 0.7kg of explosive, several charges can be combined to increase the blast. In use it is thrown onto the rear deck, into the tracks or under a vehicle. Generally this weapon was used to blow off a track or damage the engine of a tank. It was also known a Gammon bomb and was commonly issued to British Paratroops. When used as a demolition charge it has a DP:4, the penetration varies if thrown onto the deck or under the vehicle Pen is 4C, if it is thrown under the tracks Pen increases to 7C. No.75 Antitank grenade The No.75 is a high explosive grenade with a pressure trigger, it is basically a small mine. The grenade is thrown into the path of an armored vehicle to blow off a track. It is also known as the Hawkens bomb. Many of these grenades were left behind at Dunkirk and the Germans used them in the Atlantic wall defenses as the Panzerabwehrmine 429/1(e). Source: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Come...rtweapons.html If you read the book called "D-day" by Stephen Ambrose you will find plenty of accounts where such grenades were used both by British and American troops to take out tanks. Depending on the model of the tank, the results seem to vary from nearly total destruction to partial disablement. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Solar System
Posts: 2,110
|
Quote:
However developers said it will be changed and We'll not be able to take down tank with grenades in BIA. @Hultberg, Welcome to GB forums, it is an interesting post of yours and many people might find it very informative. Patriot |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
*clever title here*
|
i really dont think the normal paratrooper is gonna have those though, plus you forgot the insinerary(spelling) grenade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Swede living in Canada
Posts: 6
|
Actually, like explained in the book I mentioned, some paratroopers did in fact carry such grenades. I think it was the Gammon to be specific. According to the book, it was very appretiated by the American soldiers since they themselves didnt have any grenades of that sort (or atleast not as good).
"The British-made device known as the 'Gammon Grenade' was a mixed blessing. The cloth bag was stuffed with varying amounts of composition C-2, an early form of plastic explosive. This could create a blast comparable to an exploding 105mm artillery shell. The user would hurl the grenade, holding onto the strap, which armed the device as it flew through the air. Although these grenades had a devastating effect on the target, they were almost as hazardous to the user. The fulmonite of Mercury detonators were highly unstable, and many instances of accidental detonation took place. Lt Robert Pick, an S-2 officer of the 502 PIR, was seriously injured in England during the summer of 1944, while demonstrating a Gammon Grenade. An 82nd Airborne trooper accidentally dropped one in Normandy while marching. It exploded, killing him and wounding several of his buddies." Source: http://www.101airborneww2.com/equipment.html |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
*clever title here*
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Swede living in Canada
Posts: 6
|
I am no expert, and I can be wrong, but there is some indication that plenty of US paratroopers had them.
"They didn't even hit the ground. They hit the telephone poles--Lieutenant Cadish, H.T. Bryant, and Laddie Tlapa landed on telephone poles down the street, and it was like they were crucified there. Coming down, one fellow had a Gammon grenade on his hip, and I looked to my right, and I saw the guy, and instantaneously, I looked around and there was just an empty parachute coming down. He was blown away." Source: http://www.britannica.com/normandy/pri/Q00255.html (As described by a para from the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment) "Fitting the fuses into Gammon Grenades prior to the Normandy drop. Each crate contains 40 Gammons, according to the stencil on the side. The man second left appears to be holding a chunk of Composition C." Source: http://www.504th.freeserve.co.uk/gammon.htm (Website dedicated to US airborne troops in Europe WWII) "A paratrooper was a walking arsenal. He had everything that he needed to survive. He carried two fragmentation grenades, one smoke grenade, one antitank mine and one antitank Gammon bomb made of plastic explosives. He also had a weapon, either a rifle, carbine, pistol or submachine gun with ammunition." Source: http://www.freeessays.cc/db/43/sxg141.shtml "At Spanhoe just before take-off a Gammon grenade carried by one of the men of the First Battalion Headquarters Company exploded. Four were killed in the C-47 of Flight Officer Harper of 43 Squadron, USAAF, fifteen were wounded, one being the aircraft's radio operator. The only man unharmed was Corporal Melvin Fryer, who, not wanting to be left behind elbowed his way on to another plane. He was killed twelve days later in Normandy." Source: http://www.leicesterandleicestershir...d_Airborne.htm These are all sources that lead me to believe that the Gammon was quite common among US paratroopers. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
*clever title here*
|
it would sound so, i just didnt think so because you never really hear about them. good find.
p.s. you just got to remember though although it sounds like there were a lot, you cant forget that there were over 13,000 airborne troops which seems like that it would make those kind of scarce. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|