Katulobotomia
03-30-2007, 05:38 PM
I´ve always thought games have never really gotten grenades accurate, and most of the time they are uber-effective. Like in BF2: PR (mod) the grenades have a very large insta-death range which is really weird. They can (in theory) kill someone from >30m away but that is only in theory if one of the sharpnels happen to have enough energy to severly wound a vital part.
This is why games render grenades too powerful, because most of the developers have not had any experience in the actual effective behauviour of grenades, so they look up the statistics and make them act accordingly.
In my experience, what I have heard personally from WW2 veterans or other people is that the grenades usually only wounded people if not hit directly.
A guy from Iraq that got trapped inside a building, told when he saw a grenade roll on to the floor next his leg he though he was dead. Second later he found him self on his stomach on the floor and got up but right after he saw another grenade bounce of the wall and he ducked and covered his head. After the explosion he lost his hearing and cocked his weapon and successfully killed 3 men coming from the corner. And later he was checked for injuries and his worst injuries were a concussion and some small penetration wounds on his legs, which were just patched up.
My (ex) GF dads dad is a WW2 veteran and fought off the Soviet invasion in Finland. He said their squad had to make regular stops and camps to stop and start picking of sharpnel from their skin and clothes. He was crawling next to an enemy tank when his squad-mate was forced to open fire on the tank with a Panzerfaust and it hit the tank when he was right next to it. He got injured but was able to get to safety and later that day he used small sticks and his fingers to pick the metal parts and sharpnell off of his body. Only the ones stuck in his head caused problems 40 years later :D
My trainer in army said that the ammunition used in WW2 was good, but actually you had to be lucky to get good results from them. Since most of the grenades fired from 81mm Grenadelauncher had so variable effective-range that sometimes hitting group of men straight in the middle only leaved 1 or none dead, and only a few wounded but still able to function.
I am sure the grenades have gotten a bit better those days, but my point is that in 1944D-DAY I would like to see some variety in the effectivity of grenades. For example a grenade blowing off 10m away from me wouldnt always result in insta-death or even an injury. Since the sharpnell isnt EVER disrtibuted evenly across the grenade.
PS: note that I do not try to be correct I just discuss about what I have heard, told to and experienced about grenades and in my opinion they are a lot weaker than in almost every game. :)
EDIT: http://www.yikers.com/video_terrorist_throws_grenades_during_funeral.htm l theres an odd video footage of someone hurling grenades at a crowd, the sounds are fake (because they usually fake the sounds in TV shows) but the footage seems credible. And the explosions are realistic to the ones I have tossed in the army.
This is why games render grenades too powerful, because most of the developers have not had any experience in the actual effective behauviour of grenades, so they look up the statistics and make them act accordingly.
In my experience, what I have heard personally from WW2 veterans or other people is that the grenades usually only wounded people if not hit directly.
A guy from Iraq that got trapped inside a building, told when he saw a grenade roll on to the floor next his leg he though he was dead. Second later he found him self on his stomach on the floor and got up but right after he saw another grenade bounce of the wall and he ducked and covered his head. After the explosion he lost his hearing and cocked his weapon and successfully killed 3 men coming from the corner. And later he was checked for injuries and his worst injuries were a concussion and some small penetration wounds on his legs, which were just patched up.
My (ex) GF dads dad is a WW2 veteran and fought off the Soviet invasion in Finland. He said their squad had to make regular stops and camps to stop and start picking of sharpnel from their skin and clothes. He was crawling next to an enemy tank when his squad-mate was forced to open fire on the tank with a Panzerfaust and it hit the tank when he was right next to it. He got injured but was able to get to safety and later that day he used small sticks and his fingers to pick the metal parts and sharpnell off of his body. Only the ones stuck in his head caused problems 40 years later :D
My trainer in army said that the ammunition used in WW2 was good, but actually you had to be lucky to get good results from them. Since most of the grenades fired from 81mm Grenadelauncher had so variable effective-range that sometimes hitting group of men straight in the middle only leaved 1 or none dead, and only a few wounded but still able to function.
I am sure the grenades have gotten a bit better those days, but my point is that in 1944D-DAY I would like to see some variety in the effectivity of grenades. For example a grenade blowing off 10m away from me wouldnt always result in insta-death or even an injury. Since the sharpnell isnt EVER disrtibuted evenly across the grenade.
PS: note that I do not try to be correct I just discuss about what I have heard, told to and experienced about grenades and in my opinion they are a lot weaker than in almost every game. :)
EDIT: http://www.yikers.com/video_terrorist_throws_grenades_during_funeral.htm l theres an odd video footage of someone hurling grenades at a crowd, the sounds are fake (because they usually fake the sounds in TV shows) but the footage seems credible. And the explosions are realistic to the ones I have tossed in the army.