Tank armament effectiveness vs infantry

No, no
as I have wrote, I served in mid 70s. But our poor army used much old materials, and because there were many SC 50s left over from WWII we used them to simulate small aerial bombs and to study their effects.

But we, in 70s, were trained to fight against at least 3:1 superiority. Mission always were "Powerful enemy tank forces were attacking from yyy, Your mission is to stop it/ delay it 5 hours at the line xxxx" or "Strong enemy forces with heavy tank support were at..." And never any talk of possible air support, after all at that time FAF didn't have any ground attack capability. And not much talk on own tank support.

And yes, the will of defend our country was and IIRC still is extraordinary high here, even if posiible fight seems rather hopeless. One of my friends have noted that we Finns are not very capable to count odds or IMHO when we are angry or feel that we are treated unfairly we just don't mind the odds

Juha

Stalingrad was shot to bits and pieces (the least by bombers), allowing the Germans to conquer 90%. Stalingrad was not lost due to urban fighting against Russians barricading in buildings, but due to supply not available after the city had been encircled by the Russians. The initial German Stalingrad attack even proves again that barricading soldiers in buildings do not have a chance against tanks, mortars and artillery.


I agree that Stalingrad was not lost due to urban fighting, but i would also say that the germans were unable to take it, because of the urban environment. Everywhere that they attacked, whether that be a destroyed part, or a relatively intact part, the Soviets used the cover provided by buildings to great effect. Certainly the committment of 4th Panzer Army's tanks to the battle made little difference. The germans were forced into a costly battle of house to house fighting. Why might this be so? Because even though artillery could destroy buildings, this could not dislodge the tenacious Soviets from their positions. The Soviets were addept at urban warfare, they would for example use the sewers to infiltrate into areas previously thought "cleared by the germans. This was a tactic repeated in other places, in particular the Warsaw Ghettos in 1944.

Armoured formations time and again in the war were shown to be less than ideal in urban warfare. Capture of a city was always a tough assignment, whoever was undertaking the assault. They were always viewed as major obstacles. Starting with Warsaw 1939, where more than 80 tanks were lost in two weeks of fighting, against an enemy with virtually no dedicated AT defences, the Tanks found it virtually impossible to move through the baricaded streets, and in fact the buildings offered ideal cover for the infantry to stalk and destroy many AFVs. The Germans could only take the city after the tanks were pulled back, a proper artillery bombardment prepared, and a fully supported Infantry assault with full combat engineer support provided. And this was not an isolated example. It happened time and again right through to the final battles in Berlin. So I hotly dispute that Tanks hold the advantage in a city assault. Maybe this is what is taught in the german army today, but if it is, it just confirms that after 60 years, the Germans still have a lot to learn about urban warfare. Similar circumstances exist incidentally in mountains, or even forested areas. Tanks are only in the advantage in open rolling plains IMO, and even then they still need strong Infantry and air support in order to survive. Proof of that can be found in the way the US despatched the iraqi armour in the recent invasion of iraq. Iraqi tanks, outgunned, unsupported, without proper fire support teams to protect them, and without aircover were massacred.

Deighton in his book "Blitzkrieg" argues that even though Tanks with armament as small as 20mm could be fitted with HE rounds, the blast effect of any gun smaller than 75 mm was really inneffective against any soft target. This includes targets within buildings. Implicit in this appraisal is that you really need a gun bigger than 75mm in order to be effective. This explains the relative effectiveness of the 88s of the late war heavies, and the 105s and 125s of modern armour, in taking out buildings. It also explains why the germans found it necessary to start developing a heavy armoured siege train during the war


As you might know, Hitler had the fanatic Idea of declaring cities as a fortress upon the allies entering Germany (meaning the barricading of troops inside the city) – which was sharply objected by the military commanders. Not a single city managed to hold out against allied artillery bombardment, mortars and tanks for more then 3-5 days, such as Frost, despite most cities already heaving been destroyed up to 40-60% by previous allied bombing raids. If actually the Germans could have used these forces outside the cities as forwarded by the Army commanders, resistance would have been far more effective and much less costly on behalf of civilian lives.

Dont agree with part of this statement. During the collapse Of AGC, it was the fortified zones in the cities that held out the longest. What might have worked better was the adoption of a flexible mobile defence, rather than a fixed defence. However, the germans were so short of transport, even horse transport in 1944, whilst the russians were much more mobile (thanks in part to US Supplied vehicles) that this was not really an option either. The Germans were really given no option but to stand and fight, and the best place to stand was within the cover of cities. The problem with hitlers orders were that they were issued far too late to allow the cities to be fortified even a little. They were without proper supply, and without proper building preparation

I will not say that a single shoot of a 75mm (or 20mm HEI) will cause a house to collaps, but I would not categorically out rule it. Fact is however that infantry in generall buildings have no chance against artillery, mortars and tanks. Their survival chance in trenches and dug out emplacments is far higher, since we already established that the main gun of a tank or a bomb is not such a serious threat to entrenched or dug in infantry.

But historically they did, and historically also most commanders saw cities (especially those that had been properly prepared) as the most secure anchoring points for any given line. Facts are also that it required a Heavy siege train (ie bigger than 75mm) to reduce the defences of a city or other urban area.

I found this site, which discusses the problems and advantages of using armour in an urban environment

The role of Armor in Urban Combat

The salient points of the article are as follows:

Even though armored, tanks and mechanized infantry units also face dangers in confined urban areas due to limited all-round observation and restrictions to maneuver capabilities. This places them at an especially severe disadvantage when operating alone. During urban encounters by US armored elements in Iraq, troops reported several effective tactics used by insurgents, including sniping and dropping grenades from rooftops or upper floor windows, in an attempt to attack vehicle crews and commanders through open hatches. Other tactics included simultaneous attacks on both flanks from alleys, allowing the insurgents to fire RPGs from close range at these relatively weak areas of the tank's armor.

Tanks and other armored vehicles are not invincible, especially in urban terrain, where they are vulnerable to attacks from close range by man-portable anti-tank weapons such as RPGs. Since the urban scenario has no "frontline", attacks can come not only from the front, where the tanks are heavily protected, but also from above, and from the flanks or the rear, aiming at the vehicle's weak spots. Attacks by IEDs and mines can also come from below the surface.

Although urban warfare is not exactly the tanker's dream, a significant number of future battles will inevitably take place in this environment. The value of tank support cannot be underestimated in this high-risk environment, in which a commander wishes to use all available combat elements in order to reduce casualties. Modifications to tanks for use in urban combat conditions will continue to make them indispensable partners in the future warfighting team.

To me, the most interesting thing about the question raised in this discussion is the incongruous situation where a state of the art AFV like the M1 tank, with a turbine engine, infra red sighting devices, fin guided depleted uranium projectiles fired from a smooth bore gun, sophisticated armor, etc. still has as one of it's principle and most effective weapons the M2 MG in .50 BMG, designed by that genius, John Browning, almost 100 years ago. That weapon is effective against targets more than a mile away and can disable many forms of military transport. It has been used by infantry, armor, warships and air craft. I wonder how many of all the different models based on that design have been manufactured since it's inception? Has there ever been another military weapon designed that has had a longer active life?

The 50 cal is indeed a great weapon. I remember how effective it was when I was assigned to our Northern patrol (chasing drug runners, and illegal fishermen). You could always depend on the 50s to do their job.

The 50 is also able to fulfil a multitude of roles, from AA right throgh to AT (against light vehicles). An excellent design, by any standards

Parsifal,

All you have brought up is LARGE buildings being either hit by "SOMETHING" or falling apart because of SOMETHING, which is in no way supportive of ANY of your claims, just another one of your feeble attempts at stirring things up.

You keep dodging the issue all together as me an Kruska were from the start talking about an ordinary two storey house, which most likely WILL collapse after a single hit by a 75mm HE round. But as usual you twist this into involving large shopping complexes and banks in an attempt to support your already crumbling case, realizing full well that what Kruska and I are saying is true.

As for the handgrenades, again have you ever actually thrown one or seen the effects of one Parsifal ??? So far you're not convincing with your ridiculous claims and lies about others.

In your usual way you attempt to twist what others are saying, one example being the below comment:

Parsifal said:

"No, the US TM states lethal to 5 metres, and likley to cause casualties to 10 metres. Soren claims that a grenade is deadly to 230 metres, although as usual his posts are cryptic, and he will no doubt go into denial about this.

Click to expand...

That's not what I nor the US manual says, the US manual says that the Kill radius is 5m, which means that if you're within 5m of it going off, you're dead! While the casualty radius is 15m, which means that if you're within 15m of it going off, you're going to be seriously wounded! Furthermore it is noted that shrapnel can disperse as far away as 230m from the site of the explosion (Hence the long safety range!). These are not bloody toys Parsifal! There's a good reason that soldiers are standing behind concrete protective walls while throwing these things at targets 20 - 30m away!

Now let's have a look at what I said:
As for disputing the US Training manual on the M67, I aint, it says itself that it is dangerous even at 230m! Why the heck do you think the guys are standing behind protective concrete walls whilst throwing these things ??! For fun ??! Because they're all a bunch of pussies ???! Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel.

FYI the reason frag grenades are classed as defensive grenades is because their effective casualty radius is greater than the distance they can be thrown.

Kruska
if You want to understand Finnish psyche and thinking of the Finnish Army up to 80s, the Winter War had a strong impact to both, one easy way to do it is to watch Pekka Parikka's film Talvisota/Winter War. A trailer can be find here (hopefully):
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ELfMprEbrI

It told a historically accurate story of one Finnish infantry battalion. which at first fought at Taipale and later at even worse place, Äyräpää.

And so this message isn't altogether off-topic, from the following link one hopefully can find a rather realistic representation of Soviet attack with tank and artillery support against Finnish MLR, if that line is worth of that term, at Taipale: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO535fTIgnM

And to prove that in Finnish war films one usually got rather realistic impression what artillery strike means to those who had not got some military training, the subject of that film is the battles of Summer 44: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvK1Xx9vA08

Juha

Hi soren

Good to see that you have been away working on your charm and powers of persuasion as usual.

You keep dodging the issue all together as me an Kruska were from the start talking about an ordinary two storey house, which most likely WILL collapse after a single hit by a 75mm HE round. But as usual you twist this into involving large shopping complexes and banks in an attempt to support your already crumbling case, realizing full well that what Kruska and I are saying is true.

No, i am not dodging the issue at all. I refer to my original comments viz a viz attacks on buildings. They are contained in Post 34, and read as follows

As for the effect of artillery against Infantry in buildings, well, history shows that this only tends to increase the protection for the Infantry. the Infantry simply take cover in the rubble, which provides a great deal better cover, and virtually an instant entrechment to hide in. This was proven a hundred times over in wwii, from Stalingrad to Caen


Please take note that I did say that the Infantry takes cover in the rubble. Both you and Kruska chose to ignore that bit….

Your reply to that was contained, which provided the following informative argument

That's complete bollocks Parsifal. Ordinary buildings are about the worst place to seek cover against artillery. If artillery strikes a building with people in it, those people are almost surely going to die.

Now AFTER the building has been turned to rubble, it will provide good cover for infantry, but not while it is still standing.

Obvious that you didn't read the original post properly.

As you can see, from the very beginning I was referring to buildings in built up areas, and the problems tanks have in this sort of terrain.

Of course, we have not even considered the issue of mobility, a city that is reduced to rubble is basically impassable to tanks

Anyway, my position has always been this….the survivability of a building depends on its size, and context. You should refer to my post number 41, which in part said

Agreed, but the issue is whether Infantry within a building before it is demolished will survive. It depends on the size of the building, the type of construction, the explosive capability of the round and whereabouts in the building the Infantry is when the round hits.

Your rejected that, but failed to provide any supporting evidence to that effect. You simply said that artillery fire into un-demolished buildings was a deadly effect.

This seems very odd, and unconvincing to me. Lets look at just one example In 1945, the Soviets poured more than 7000000 artillery shells of 76mm and over into an area of central Berlin, measuring 7 miles by 2 miles, They then poured elements of two complete Soviet Fronts into that area. They still suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties at the hands of the defenders. Whilst there was a fearful toll on the civilian population a lot of then even survived. And whilst Berlin had been heavily bombed, it was not a total ruin, so it is invalid to try to argue that all of the city was in ruins. There were still many buildings in the centre of Berlin still intact before the Soviet bombardment. The germans fought from virtually every building whether it was a ruin or not. Sort of disproves your assertion in many ways.

Please note my earlier comments….the effectiveness of buildings in providing effective defence depends on its construction, and its context. Context can clearly mean that it is located in a built up area. Your position has always been, basically that context didn't matter, if you entered an undamaged building you were toast.

There is one other thing to consider. If Infantry is in a building, that is in urban context, you have no real way of knowing which building they are in. One of the biggest problems for tanks in cities is mobility, if you start to indiscriminately knock over buildings, pretty quickly you will lose your mobility and not be able to move at all. So unless your enemy is pinned, and unable to move, or your tank crews are supermen and able to fire as quick as like wyatt earp in a gunfight, you are going to render your tanks ineffective very quickly by your own hand.

As for the handgrenades, again have you ever actually thrown one or seen the effects of one Parsifal ??? So far you're not convincing with your ridiculous claims and lies about others.

In your usual way you attempt to twist what others are saying, one example being the below comment:
Soren, why do you think that I have lied? I have been trained to use handgrenades (real ones too) because I had to learn small arms drill in order to lead boarding parties against drug runners and illegal fisherman. Ever been a member of a boarding party. it can be nasty, and can include the use of grenades, although I confess we never had to actually use them while on operations. I have used my sidearms in anger, and yes I have been in harms way soren. I would like you to be specific please when you say that I am lying, so that I can respond properly to the accusation. At the moment you have just said I am a liar. In my country that is a pretty serious accusation to make.

That's not what I nor the US manual says, the US manual says that the Kill radius is 5m, which means that if you're within 5m of it going off, you're dead! While the casualty radius is 15m, which means that if you're within 15m of it going off, you're going to be seriously wounded! Furthermore it is noted that shrapnel can disperse as far away as 230m from the site of the explosion (Hence the long safety range!). These are not bloody toys Parsifal! There's a good reason that soldiers are standing behind concrete protective walls while throwing these things at targets 20 - 30m away!

Now let's have a look at what I said:
As for disputing the US Training manual on the M67, I aint, it says itself that it is dangerous even at 230m! Why the heck do you think the guys are standing behind protective concrete walls whilst throwing these things ??! For fun ??! Because they're all a bunch of pussies ???! Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel.

Yes, and your post is insinuating an effective range of at least 50 metres, and possibly 230 metres. I know they are not toys, which is one of the reasons I no longer touch guns or grenades. You don't need to tell me about weapons not being toys, but thankyou for the reminder.

I do stand corrected however. In my reply to Kruska, I had mistakenly stated that the casualty range of these things was just 10metres, my mistake.

I still cannot see ANY supporting information to support your position, namely, that buildings will normally collapse when hit by a single round of 75mm or less.

parsifal said:

Hi soren

Good to see that you have been away working on your charm and powers of persuasion as usual.

Click to expand...

Parsifal I have other things in my life to attend to than this forum. I write on this forum when I feel like it, not when someone else feels like it.

At the moment you have just said I am a liar. In my country that is a pretty serious accusation to make.

Click to expand...

Funny you should say that because so it is in my country, and if I'm not mistaking I seem to remember you saying this:

I have never discouraged reasoned and respectful discourse about any subject, but I will not tolerate disrespect and straight up lies from anyone. soren has been caught repeatedly doing this, not just to me, but to a lot of people. And he gets away with it a lot.

Click to expand...

Which funny enough is a straight out lie by you Parsifal.

Yes, and your post is insinuating an effective range of at least 50 metres, and possibly 230 metres.

Click to expand...

No it isn't that's just you twisting stuff as usual. What I am saying is, and I quote: Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel.

I know they are not toys, which is one of the reasons I no longer touch guns or grenades. You don't need to tell me about weapons not being toys, but thankyou for the reminder.

Click to expand...

Well seeing you think its safe to be within 15m of one going off I'm afraid you must think of them as toys suitable for crowd control.

I do stand corrected however. In my reply to Kruska, I had mistakenly stated that the casualty range of these things was just 10metres, my mistake.

Click to expand...

Well do you understand what it means ?? It means that if you're within 15m of one going off without cover you're in seriously bad shape!

I still cannot see ANY supporting information to support your position, namely, that buildings will normally collapse when hit by a single round of 75mm or less.

Click to expand...

Well perhaps thats because you AGAIN twist what both Kruska and I have been saying. I for one don't remember me or him ever mentioning anything about shopping complexes or banks, which usually are several to hugely many times larger than a normal house.

So now read this very carefully this time: What Kruska and I have been saying from the start is that an ordinary two storey house will most likely collapse after a hit by a 75mm HE shell. Also we explained that seeking cover inside a building during an artillery attack is one of the worst things to do and that soldiers are taught this (Atleast where we come from). The reason for this is that it takes very little in the way of high explosives to make the whole house come down on top of you. So while a building and a house is very effective as cover in smallarms firefights it is a very vulnerable place to be if artillery or tanks show up.

But since you insist upon talking about large apartment buildings or shopping complexes, let's address this issue;

Let us say a firefight is going on between 20 soldiers fortifying themselves inside a large 6 story apartment building and 20 or so soldiers seeking cover behind destroyed vehicles and rubble. In the smallarms firefight taking place the apartment building provides both excellent cover and defensive positions to shoot back from. However now a tank shows up, and it sends a 5.75 kg HE shell into the building: Here's what most likely would happen =

Let's say the first shell strikes the middle of the building, right beside a window where two soldiers are firing from. These two men die instantly, the huge blast of the explosion ripping the room apart and seriously damaging the structure of the front facade to the degree that huge parts of it from several storeys come falling off the building. Furthermore the storey below and above the arpartment hit are gone (Upper: Collapsed. / Below: Hit by the two upper collapsing apartments.) and the men in them either dead or seriously injured.

Now it could be even worse as the HE shell could've gone through a window and struck a supporting collumn, in which case large parts off of the building to half of it or even the whole building could come down.

Do you understand now why soldiers a taught to get the heck out of a building when either a tank or artillery shows up???

Soren
"Let's say the first shell strikes the middle of the building, right beside a window where two soldiers are firing from. These two men die instantly, the huge blast of the explosion ripping the room apart and seriously damaging the structure of the front facade to the degree that huge parts of it from several storeys come falling off the building. Furthermore the storey below and above the arpartment hit are gone (Upper: Collapsed. / Below: Hit by the two upper collapsing apartments.) and the men in them either dead or seriously injured."


I posted a photo in which a building hit by some 14 10kg HE rounds from 8.8cm SK L/30 and its facade is still in place, now what you have to prove your claim?

Juha

Persifal
thanks for Your comment!
Long time ago, when I and my friends still were reservists and Soviet Union behaved somewhat aggressively we talked that it was pity that we couldn't just up anchors and row Finland somewhere near Australia away from cruel world.

Juha

yes,i would not care 2 b 30-40 germans in a pill box on d-day,at gold beach,hiding from the royal navy and r.a.f,suddenly confronted by a few churchill tanks,sprayiing me with m.g fire and then a flying dustbin coming my way.yes,that would be effective.starling. . .

Juha said:

I posted a photo in which a building hit by some 14 10kg HE rounds from 8.8cm SK L/30 and its facade is still in place, now what you have to prove your claim?

Juha

Click to expand...

That's no apartment building, and like I said the round most likely just went straight through. How do even know they were HE rounds ?

Soren
4 things
a) as I have wrote, I have seen a photo which shows the back side of the building, only one exit hole to see, very high up.
b) M-boots were not designed to fight armoured ships. Why to store APHEs inside them?
c) I don't think that the German naval gunners were incacpable to choose the most effective ammo available when they were giving fire support to their camarades.
d) this page German 8.8 cm/30 (3.46") SK L/30 knows only HE shell to 8.8cm SK L/30.

BTW if You choose the last link in my message #108, You should find a clip on the right side which shows 2 Finnish Army StuG IIIGs driving, that might intrest You.

Juha

Looked at the page Juha, and the 8.8cm shell for the SK L/30 contained only 1.42 kg of explosives. As I thought this is because of its thick metal walls, made like such to penetrate hulls and then explode, typical naval projectile of the period.

That having been said, have you got pictures from inside the building ? Despite only contaiing 1.42 kg of explosives I'm sure that the inside of the that building was in a pretty bad shape.

Btw, about the Finnish film. What I like about it especially is the realistic look of the explosions, I've never seen a Hollywood made film with such spectacular explosions. This should be the benchmark for future war films. The artillery barrages are VERY impressive!

Hello Soren
IMHO 1,42 kg bursting charge is rather big. I'm a bit hurry but tried to find the size of the bursting charge of Sprgr for 7.5 cm Pak/KwK 40 but didn't succeed, penetration figures are much easier to find. Anyway 7.5 cm HL/C-Ausführung had 0,56 kg explosives, best I could find in a hurry.

And the bursting charge of the Sprgr of 5.0 cm PaK/KwK 38 was only 170g (that of Pzgr. was only 17g).

On photos, no I haven't see pictures inside on the damages, should be substantial. There might be some, but as I have wrote i'm rather ignorant on what happened in 1918. I know only that the building has been at least from early 60s normal dwelling house.

Also here some directors, mostly leftist, are much too eager to use napalm (it's look so spectacular, they think) and the explosive experts are sometimes very desperate because of that.

Juha

Hello parsifal,

Please take note that I did say that the Infantry takes cover in the rubble. Both you and Kruska chose to ignore that bit….

No sorry, the other way around. I forwarded that it is understood that survivors or reinforcements will take cover in the rubble, which now provides excellent cover.

Now AFTER the building has been turned to rubble, it will provide good cover for infantry, but not while it is still standing.

Exactly.

Of course, we have not even considered the issue of mobility, a city that is reduced to rubble is basically impassable to tanks.

Says who? Absolutely wrong – any photos of especially American forces entering German cities will prove you wrong.

Agreed, but the issue is whether Infantry within a building before it is demolished will survive. It depends on the size of the building, the type of construction, the explosive capability of the round and whereabouts in the building the Infantry is when the round hits.

Before it is demolished? If we do not talk about a bunker, no matter what building, a single storey, double storey or six storey building will and can be shot at with artillery, mortars, hand grenades, small arms fire and by tanks. And now as to stay with Soren, any donkey that will be in that building, in a room, facing towards the outside and as such recognized by the enemy is dead meat if the 75mm HE shell goes in. And a normal house might even collapse, or major parts of its structure might collapse.

But this collapse issue to me is of absolutely no concern: As the attacker I am interested to eliminate the recognized or suspected enemy and if this requires me to shot into a building with my 75mm, I will love to do it, because the donkeys inside are meat. And if the house should collapse, well good for me – more donkeys dead or injured.

Your rejected that, but failed to provide any supporting evidence to that effect. You simply said that artillery fire into un-demolished buildings was a deadly effect.

Off course it is, what do you think it would be? Tennis balls bumping around? I mean seriously now, anyone who has served in Army combat units besides maybe – the company idiot (every company has one) - has seen the live impact of artillery, honestly what is there to be questioned about? Did you have a look at the 2omm photo I posted? post 91.

The germans fought from virtually every building whether it was a ruin or not. Sort of disproves your assertion in many ways.

Off course they have, and everyone who didn't get out in time or held a white flag died.

There is one other thing to consider. If Infantry is in a building, that is in urban context, you have no real way of knowing which building they are in. One of the biggest problems for tanks in cities is mobility, if you start to indiscriminately knock over buildings, pretty quickly you will lose your mobility and not be able to move at all. So unless your enemy is pinned, and unable to move, or your tank crews are supermen and able to fire as quick as like wyatt earp in a gunfight, you are going to render your tanks ineffective very quickly by your own hand.

If enemy infantry is barricaded in buildings and opens fire at you, your own infantry will know exactly where the fire comes from (sniper is a different story) they will suffer tremendous losses to annihilate them, so you will use mortar, hand grenades, bazookas (super effective), artillery and tanks to take them out. I am not talking about "Save Private Ryan" where Tigers enter in a straight line without even taking a main guns effective distance into account, acting as rolling MG bunkers and infantry walking beside them. Total rubbish this movie besides the first 15 minutes.

Sorry to say Michael, but you are ignoring war history, especially the total part of WW2.
Besides Stalingrad were different factors applied, or Leningrad and Moscow were the Germans didn't even get to the city boundaries or Arnheim were the British could not even reach the place or vice versa Bastogne, please name me just one city, one mouse trap in WW2, where the attacker Germans or Allies failed to take it based on even odds or superiority by the attacker, just one

Please name me the hundreds of open terrain attacks where the attacker failed due to not being able to overcome dug in field positions on even odds or even despite numerical superiority.

So if you are the defender, you want to be in the field or in buildings in a city which provide such fantastic cover? Also let me ask you please, if the Tanks and artillery, mortars and bazookas couldn't hurt anyone in buildings then how were these cities conquered?

Yes, and your post is insinuating an effective range of at least 50 metres, and possibly 230 metres.

A splinter which penetrates your eye at 230m can't be out ruled can it? I agree however that the mentioned 230m have no account on this hand grenade issue. A German HG51 is absolutely lethal within 10m does not need to be discussed, I have been long enough in the Army and been using them to know what I am talking about.

Gentlemen there is too much, of turning around others words and deliberate misinterpretation on this thread which makes this debate meaningless if it continues in this manner.

Just an example in regards to twisting of words:
Kruska: Michael do you agree that the lethal range of a HG51 is easily 50m plus in the open?
Michael: No maximum 8-10m
Kruska: how much do you want to bet?
Michael: everything I have
Kruska: deal, please move forward 50m
Michael: I am there
Kruska will call his comrade Werner (This guy can throw like hell), Werner will lob the HG51 even 5m behind Michael making it 55m and poor Michael lost his bet and life.
Kruska to Juha: told you 50m plus lethal range.

Regards
Kruska