anti-tank smoke grenades -1 reply

Please wait...

charlesbian

I follow teh Moo!

50 XP

9th October 2005

0 Uploads

661 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

yea i know the title seems crazy but during ww2 there was widespread use of smoke grenades against tanks. when infantry would get within close proximity of a tank, they sometimes climbed on top to where the air vents were and crack open smoke grenades over them to fill the cabin with smoke, thus either knocking the occupants unconcious or making them eject from the vehicle. it was more portable than a zooka/faust or a welding kit, and pretty effective. i would like to see these put into FH2, probably mostly in the eastern front. it could be given to lets say the officer class (or whatever), and it would require that the player stand on top of the tank and throw it, and it would sap at the vehicle occupant's health until they exited the vehicle or drove to a certain speed to escape the smoke. just wondering what you guys think!




(CZ)Cookies

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

10th November 2005

0 Uploads

22 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

I agree but only on early tanks, the late war tanks had special measurments (filters, etc.) to prevent this.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago
charlesbianyea i know the title seems crazy but during ww2 there was widespread use of smoke grenades against tanks. when infantry would get within close proximity of a tank, they sometimes climbed on top to where the air vents were and crack open smoke grenades over them to fill the cabin with smoke, thus either knocking the occupants unconcious or making them eject from the vehicle. it was more portable than a zooka/faust or a welding kit, and pretty effective. i would like to see these put into FH2, probably mostly in the eastern front. it could be given to lets say the officer class (or whatever), and it would require that the player stand on top of the tank and throw it, and it would sap at the vehicle occupant's health until they exited the vehicle or drove to a certain speed to escape the smoke. just wondering what you guys think!

I doubt this is true. In real life tanks where supported by infantry and trying this kind of thing was suicidal. So its just probably one of the myths of WW2. Welding kit? Are you joking? Where did you get that kind of nonsense from? Pretty effective? Bullshit.

The whole AT smoke grenade seems like fiction to me. Tell me where did you get this from?




pvt. Allen

I would die without GF

50 XP

20th July 2005

0 Uploads

5,654 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

Altough this would be effective as (CZ) Cookies said tanks most often were supported by infantry so I doub it was a popular methood. And even if someone was lucky enough to get on enemy tank and the hatch was open he would more likely throw high explosive or fragmentation grenade inside rather than important for cover smoke grenades. Besides smoke grenades would most likely kill someone from the crew since the evacuation would be rather slow so it wouldn't be used as not deadly weapon too.




[nl]Invincible

FH Betatester

50 XP

29th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,437 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

i have a book wher you can read about a sherman firing smoke grenades to knock out a tiger, and it workes.(tankdrivers her bacame green of the smoke, hospital nurses loved it :P hahah) I thought it was caled The Tigers of Massa Lombarda.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

Well regardless of whether they were used actively against tanks, smoke projectors on tanks to lay down smokescreens (so I guess passive anti-tank) would be awesome, realistic, and welcomed...




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

pvt. AllenAltough this would be effective as (CZ) Cookies said tanks most often were supported by infantry so I doub it was a popular methood. And even if someone was lucky enough to get on enemy tank and the hatch was open he would more likely throw high explosive or fragmentation grenade inside rather than important for cover smoke grenades. Besides smoke grenades would most likely kill someone from the crew since the evacuation would be rather slow so it wouldn't be used as not deadly weapon too.[/quote]

Err..... ;)

[QUOTE=FuzzyBunny] Well regardless of whether they were used actively against tanks, smoke projectors on tanks to lay down smokescreens (so I guess passive anti-tank) would be awesome, realistic, and welcomed...

Can't agree more, Fuzzy. This would improve gameplay alot.

But wouldnt a smokescreen produce alot of lag though? Because im kinda worried about that.




Lt. Leroy

The forum won't promote me

50 XP

27th October 2004

0 Uploads

178 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago
FuzzyBunnyWell regardless of whether they were used actively against tanks, smoke projectors on tanks to lay down smokescreens (so I guess passive anti-tank) would be awesome, realistic, and welcomed...

Exactly what we need, some good smoke cover for infantry and tank movements. This really should be implemented into FH2.




J-Beckers

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

21st August 2005

0 Uploads

26 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago
PietjeErr..... ;) Can't agree more, Fuzzy. This would improve gameplay alot. But wouldnt a smokescreen produce alot of lag though? Because im kinda worried about that.

if they use the smoke from BF2 and maybe customize it a bit then it won't lag at all. the BF2 smoke looks good and doesn't lag




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago
J-Beckersif they use the smoke from BF2 and maybe customize it a bit then it won't lag at all. the BF2 smoke looks good and doesn't lag

Thanks for answering my question. I was kind of curious seeing as smoke in COD2 for example my computer lag like hell.