Mahon the painter | 16 Mar 2007 3:39 a.m. PST |
I've been playing Combat Mission (the computer game) quite a long time ago, and now I returned to playing this fine game. Re-reading the manual of the second part of the game (Barbarossa to Berlin) I found such a paragraph: "Infantry smoke grenades, a source of smoke commonly found in other WWII games is not available in CMBB. Our research shows little credible evidence that this type of smoke was used regularly at the squad level in WWII for tactical purposes. Instead, it appears to have been used for signalling mostly, and we have therefore decided to exclude it from CMBB to prevent its potential unrealistic overuse." As I lack knowledge in this respect, I would like to ask the more knowledgeable of you if you know anything more about it. In fact I can't remember having read or even seen smoke handgrenades used to screen one's advance or withdrawal. Smoke shells – yes, but grenades – not really
But they are featured and even recommended in tactics for various WW2 games
Any ideas about the historical accuracy of such approach? cheers mahon |
Mobius | 16 Mar 2007 5:40 a.m. PST |
I haven't researched this but I know that part of the equipment photographed of Russian sniper equipment included several smoke grenades. |
Martin Rapier | 16 Mar 2007 7:56 a.m. PST |
The British March 1944 Infantry Fieldcraft manual recomends the use of smoke grenades when an instant screen is required for the final assault on a suppressed enemy position as they build up far more quickly, but for more general use the bombs landed by the 2" mortar are better as they produce a screen lasting for a couple of minutes per bomb. The specific criticism in CMBB relates to Steel Panthers where mass use of smoke is de rigeur, as it is to a lesser extent in Close Combat. Few of these games (SP apart) consider that the vast majority of smoke on the battlefield is generated by artillery barrages as artillery is 'boring'. I hate CMBB, it promises so much but in fact it just a really cr*p implementation of Squad Leader for people who like to micro manage, being penalised for planning moves ahead really gets my goat. |
jeffreyw3 | 16 Mar 2007 9:09 a.m. PST |
Speaking of old WW2 tactical computer games, "Close Combat" made extensive use of smoke. jeff |
Frontovik | 16 Mar 2007 9:21 a.m. PST |
The Red Army did have smoke grenades, see the bottom of this page link but I dontl think they saw much tactical use. I'll check the instructions for the infantry when I get home tonight. |
jgawne | 16 Mar 2007 10:08 a.m. PST |
I think they are sort of right in the spirit of things. While The americans did have smoke greandes, and smoke rifle greandes. they put down only a small area of smoke considering the size of a battlefield. So what do you do as a soldier when you see a reasonably small area of smoke in front of where you think the enemy is? You lay down a curtain of fire into it
and if it is windy, its pretty useless. Smoke is very good for signaling- note the use of purple smoke at Omaha to signify the demo guys were going to blow the obstacles. A former pilot told me that a smoke grenade to them acts as a but figer in the sky pointing to a specific point. So yes, they did have smoke, and yes it could be used as a smoke screen, but you have to ask how effective is this scalewise- compared to a few salvos of smoke or- even better WP- which not only makes smoke but has a pretty good kill zone as well. |
Blind Old Hag | 16 Mar 2007 1:40 p.m. PST |
Here is part of the ammunition returns for the US First Army for Aug 44 through Feb 45: Grenade m14 Incendiary 30,110 Smoke M8 HC 9567 Smoke WP (white phosphorus) M15 83533 Smoke WP M19 1970 Smoke Colored M16 red 4887 Orange 2878 Green 4700 Violet 4548 yellow 31284 Thats about 160,000 smoke producing grenades. Note that the predominant single grenade used was the M15 WP grenade followed by yellow smoke. |
Mahon the painter | 16 Mar 2007 4:46 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the explanations and all the information! You're very helpful :) |
Guards | 16 Mar 2007 5:53 p.m. PST |
British soldiers and airborne were issued with smoke, offen for signaling (so most likely issue for platoon commander up), but sections were issue white phosphorus and many accounts (especially Arnhem/oosterbeek) mention using white phos for smoke, this way the grenade had a triple role (smoke, incendiary and anti-personel. There is also the stories of Canadian soldiers using white phos as smoke screens and in turn setting entire fields of wheat alight south of Caen..doh. James |
andyoneill | 17 Mar 2007 4:45 a.m. PST |
Many computer games have too much smoke. Read enough about ww2 and you'll find a few incidents where infantry used smoke grenades for cover. Think about all those time though when smoke grenades WEREN'T used. In designing a simulation you want to cover the majority of situations and you probably want to discourage ahistorical usage. To my mind, excluding smoke grenades seems reasonable. It's one of my gripes about spwinww2 actually. The OOB still has smoke grenades for everyone and they comppletely stop you being fired upon for 2 turns. Very quickly the game board becomes covered in smoke. |
Mobius | 17 Mar 2007 7:11 a.m. PST |
It's one of my gripes about spwinww2 actually. The OOB still has smoke grenades for everyone and they completely stop you being fired upon for 2 turns. Well, talk about lack of realism. In most computer games you have to win in 20 minutes/turns or less. Two turns out of a 1440 turn day doesn't have much impact. Two turns out of a 20 turn game does. |
Frontovik | 19 Mar 2007 1:16 a.m. PST |
Well, checked the manual and there's no mention that i can see of using smoke grenades. Plenty about using dead ground and covered routes for your approach but no smoke grenades. |
Mahon the painter | 19 Mar 2007 5:24 a.m. PST |
Thanks lots. This only confirmed my assumption that using smoke handgrenades to provide cover would be wrong. Thanks a lot! |
Michael Dorosh | 19 Mar 2007 1:32 p.m. PST |
Commonwealth troops were issued smoke grenades also but they were rarely used in action; the 2-inch mortar held by each platoon could be used for smoke cover at least in theory. The infantry battalion's 3-inch mortar platoon could also provide smoke protection. I don't get the impression it was widely done in action as the smoke screens they created were too small to be of any real effectiveness. In urban terrain like Groningen and Ortona, where one might expect them to be most useful, I haven't seen much mention of them either. I think you would tend to draw fire with them more than anything, for example, trying to cross a street or long fire lane. I think Combat Mission has it right as far as their comments go – quite the opposite of the ASL Rulebook, then. |
Ditto Tango 2 1 | 20 Mar 2007 7:30 a.m. PST |
AFAIK, thye are specifically mentioned in German texts on tank hunting teams. Part of the team is called the "blinder" and he's suppposed to throw smoke to blind the target tank while the other(s) sneak up and drop mines or grenade bundles. |
Mobius | 20 Mar 2007 7:45 a.m. PST |
Here are a number of situations where smoke and smoke grenades are used. Germans made use of smoke in attacks on tanks and pillboxes. link link link link link Do a search for "smoke" at the Lone Sentry site and you find lots more. |
Michael Dorosh | 20 Mar 2007 8:42 a.m. PST |
The book God, Honor, Fatherland about Großdeutschland(actually, there are two – I refer to the pictorial history of the Division 1942-1944, not the history of the Panzer Regiment GD by Jung) has some good photos of the divisional anti-tank school run by Konopka (he with the many tank destruction badges). Smoke was indeed used to blind AFV crews in desperate cases of man against tank. The Germans seem to have been pretty aware of the necessity of infantry to fight tanks from the start of the Russian Campaign if not sooner. The use of mud and camouflage nets or tarps was also mentioned in official literature as a way of closing off vision ports. I can't speak to Russian practice, but by 1944 the western Allies at least knew of the importance of the combined arms team, meaning German infantry in theory weren't supposed to get that close to unsupported armour. If nothing else, the availability of short range anti-tank weaponry also made Allied tank crews wary of urban terrain and operating alone. |
Frontovik | 20 Mar 2007 8:57 a.m. PST |
"I can't speak to Russian practice
" Read this link |
Yellow Jack the Pirate | 20 Mar 2007 11:10 a.m. PST |
Frontovik, that be a fine link shipmate. Yellow Jack |
Michael Dorosh | 20 Mar 2007 2:04 p.m. PST |
Yarrrr
.indeed! Shiver me timbers but that was a good read. Vielen Dank, Frontovik. ;) |