Kanonier Reichmann

Well, if he's not on the payroll and doing all this work for free then I suggest he should change his moniker to Abnormal Dude! Regards KR

How you get away with being so snippy and sarcastic when responding to John's reasonable questions is beyond me. Regards KR

I especially liked this one. It's now incorporated into my signature. Regards KR

BTW, trying hard not to point out the bleedin' obvious but this actual wartime manual on the Panzerfaust 100 (i.e. the most powerful Panzerfaust) dispels the myth that the training manuals expressely forbid the firing of the weapon from buildings. Clearly you don't want to be anywhere near the rear of the weapon when it's fired but with the manual stating you only need roughly a metres clearance to the rear to avoid harm to the firer it seems clear that the blanket banning of the weapon being fired from within non pillbox structures is fundamentally flawed. Regards KR

There's also a very good depiction of firing a Panzerfaust within a building in the classic 1950's anti war film Die Brucke. In it, a very young combatant fires the Panzerfaust at a Sherman tank from within a room without realising there was a civilian standing behind him at the time. Suffice to say it didn't end up well for the civilian but the room itself hardly collapsed all around him and appeared to be pretty much unscathed. Admitedly this is all from a film but it was made relatively soon after the war and appeared to be using the real thing, much along the same lines as the film you referenced. Regards KR

Yes, very useful thanks John. Regards KR

John. Surely the fact that both the Panzerfaust & PIAT use ignition of black powder as the propulsion charge is a fairly glaring commonality? Regards KR

I'll state it again. The Panzerfaust uses black powder ignition to propel its HEAT round and not a rocket motor. If you seriously think that 2 oz. of black powder (or even 4 to 6 oz. of black powder for later models) being ignited is going to repeatedly cause some catastrophic negative effects within a normal sized room then there's something seriously awry with your reasoning. The only thing I can think of that could happen is that a timber walled structure could possibly catch alight from the back blast but that would surely be an exception rather than a rule. Regards KR

The funny thing is, I'm not actually arguing over allowing Panzerschreks to fire from within buildings as these were launchers which used rocket propellled HEAT warheads to achieve their mission. I'm arguing over Panzerfausts which weren't rocket propelled and thus, represented far less risk to occupants within a building when fired from within it. As per this post from akd in the thread I previously referenced the workings of both the PIAT and the Panzerfaust were quite similar when it came to the initial propelling of the warhead (although the PIAT also had a spigot arrangement in that design). I'm at a loss to understand why a PIAT is all fine and dandy to use within a building (as it should be) yet the Panzerfaust with a similar use of black powder to propel the HEAT round is absolutely forbidden. Sure, I wouldn't want to stand behind a Faust when it's fired as you'll certainly cop ignition burns but to flat out forbid all use of the weapon withina structure makes no sense at all. Regards KR Both would create some amount of overpressure if fired in a confined space, as would any firearm. The question is of degree.

You get a ballroom dance with vehicles as the guests? Regards KR

In a lengthy thread posted around this time last year a poster by the name of Argus Eye unearthed this little gem from a US Army field manual. It's all contained in this thread with particuklar reference to page 5... http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100839&highlight=Backblast&page=5 The main point that I gained from it was that a study that stikkypixie quoted from in a link he provided confirmed that RPG7's could and were fired from enclosed spaces and its ejector charge is stronger than that of the Panzerfaust. Game over man. Game over. Regards KR

What I was hoping to see was John Kettler vs Mike Tyson. Now that will definitely be worth viewing! Regards KR

Riders of the Apocalypse I presume? Regards KR

I was wondering whatever happenned to the updates on this AAR? It was just getting to the exciting conclusion then went all quiet! Regards KR

Your description of reality certainly corresponds more with how the likes of CMBB & CMAK handled the dispersal of artillery and mortars. I'm not claiming it was perfect by any means but at least you saw a decent spread of shells when the metal started falling and the resultant casualties, especially from on board mortars, appeared much more realistic. 60mm mortars were not the harbingers of doom like they are modeled in CMx2. Regards KR

Fokking grog! Regards KR

Bravo Jason, well said. Regards KR

There is no version 1.04 for Chris Hare's database as there's no need for it. Version 1.04 only patched video related issues and had no impact on unit stats. Regards KR

Well your above statement is particularly disingenuous over what I allegedly agreed to in the referred thread in terms of poor scenario design followed up by the allegation that I went quiet after "proven wrong"! I note that my 2nd post on that thread was made on the same day as the penultimate one, which tends to disprove your statement about going quiet. As for poor sceanrio design, where did I agree that this was the root of the problem? I indicated that part of the problem could be the way the AI reacts when troops are under fire, by not hiding them or attempting to crawl them away from the impact zone rather than have the troops sit there like stunned mullets. The other major part, in my opinion, was the over modelling of the effectiveness of light mortar fire in terms of causing casualties. Sure, they should cause the odd few casualties here and there but their major effect should be supression rather than downright slaughtering. 93 troops rendered combat ineffective by the game AI taking pot shots at the approaching troops that weren't funnelled in any way due to terrain (according to Paper Tiger), without the player actually ordering that one 60 mm mortar to do so, was patently bullsheit. Lastly, your analogy in that thread of saying it would be similar to pitting a platoon of Tiger tanks against a company of Stuart tanks with predictable results was not a fair comparison to the situation depicted. Bear in mind it was just the one light mortar that caused all these casualties against a battalion forrmation, a proper analogy would be one Tiger tank against a company of Stuarts on a billiard table. I would be more than happy to take those odds as the Stuart commander, especially with the slow traverse rate of a Tiger's turret. Regards KR

Don't take it personally, he does it to everybody! Regards KR

To confirm how ridiculously overpowered light mortars are, refer to this thread here... http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105659&highlight=60mm&page=2 It's a pity the picture from Paper Tiger's posts has disappeared but it showed that this one on board 60mm mortar crew was able to cause over 90 casualties against a German Battalion, effectively routing the entire formation. If light mortars were historically as effective as this then there would have been no need for other forms of indirect fire weapons to be made. Simply equip each squad with a 60mm mortar and the war is over in 6 months of fighting against this uberweapon. Regards KR

I assume you're not referring to the King in that reference! Regards KR

Beautiful! That is a fantastic sight for sore eyes. Regards KR

Because it raises the inevitable comparison of the oft portrayed barbarian Germans for targeting population centres in the Battle of Britain compared with the responsible, 'refined' Allies. Regards KR

I imagine it's rarely brought up because to do so would justify Germany's bombing of London and other English population centres. Not something one would wish to do I would think. Regards KR