Vanir Ausf B

I haven't checked the source, but if that is accurate it makes for an interesting comparison with the B-10 recoilless rifle footage I posted earlier in the thread. ArgusEye states the B-10 propellent charge is "821 gram of nitrocellulose/nitroglycerin" which is basically Ballistite (it's more likely Cordite, but they are both double-base propellents) That makes for a nice apples to apples comparison with regards to propellent. So in terms of pure energy output the B-10 is producing about 13x the energy of a Bazooka.

Battle damage tends to expand the size of rooms

People do this. It works. I wish it didn't.

He and Bil did for their first AAR. IIRC they had to spend at least half of their points on infantry and there were no Panthers or Tigers allowed.

Gun elevations are not going to be changed. We know that. The current restrictions on firing from buildings are already a-historical. That is not debatable. Even BFC has acknowledged that. So in the question of which flavor of a-historicalness we want I do prefer the one that more closely maintains the overall real-world dynamic between armor and infantry. In my book that is a net gain in realism any way you slice it. And don't call me Shirley

IMO the only mistake GaJ made pre-game was choosing to defend. The default points ratio for Attack games is 1.65 to 1 and there is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that this favors the attacker unless the map is very defender-friendly. Probes are a more even contest. Plus, in the battle of Mandatory New Stuff To Show-Off Elephant > AA vehicle But I agree that who wins and loses isn't important.

When even smiley faces fail to convey non-seriousness the terrorists have won.

IIRC this is usually caused by installing the 2.0 upgrade without first installing the 1.11 patch.

No gun elevation/depression limits, so tanks can shoot their guns at infantry anywhere, most importantly at troops close assaulting them. Infantry cannot use building corners as cover to shoot around as they often do in real combat. BFC has ruled-out any changes to gun elevation/depression limits and shooting around corners would require new TacAI and animations. There is a serious disconnect with reality in the current implementation outside of the specific issue of shooting from buildings and it favors armor is every aspect. We can argue back and forth about the when, where and why soldiers used these weapons in reality, but IMO in the game infantry should be given the benefit of the doubt even if it is not strictly realistic in every circumstance. And it's the only change available that is currently possible in the game engine.

The 30m clearance behind the shooter is for personnel behind the shooter, not the shooter himself. Stuff flies out the back end of any recoilless-type weapon for more than 10 feet. I can get 10 feet of clearance out of my 2 bedroom apartment without even using the balcony. But no matter how tiny European houses are, houses are just one type of building. Are rooms in public and commercial buildings similarly diminutive?

What "heavy" restrictions, specifically? The only one mentioned is a 10 foot clearance. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM23-30.pdf Bazooka field manual, February 1944. On page 183 it states that it is "not desirable" to fire a Bazooka from a vehicle due to backblast, but there is nothing about firing from buildings.

That is true of one of the B-10 videos, but not of the other. But even in the video you refer to the room is nevertheless quite narrow. This isn't in dispute. We know that careless handling of these weapons can lead to disaster in any situation. I recently saw a video of a man seriously injure or kill himself (it wasn't clear if he survived) when he fired his RPG into the wall in front of him he was trying to shoot over. And this was outdoors. I've seen another video of a man similarly hurt or killed when he walked directly behind a RPG as it was fired. Again, outdoors. The case could be made that there should always be a small chance of someone getting injured any time one of these weapons is fired, outdoors or indoors. The question isn't if there is zero risk. In combat there is some risk inherent in almost any action that involves engaging the enemy, and it boils down to weighing the risk/reward. Shooting at a tank is a risky proposition in any circumstance, not just from in buildings. But if shooting from a building gives you a tactical advantage you take that risk. To me the relevant questions are is it feasible and was/is it done in practice often enough for it to be allowed in the game. I think the answers to both of those questions is yes. EDIT: I referenced this video above. Here's what can happen if you get careless with backblast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Berlin source given is: Beevor, Antony (2002). Berlin: The Downfall 1945

1954 to be exact. That is not universally true. You are forgetting that WW2-era AT rockets had much shorter range than modern weapons. For example, I have read that the initial charge on the RPG-7, which is designed to be fired from buildings, is more powerful than the charge in a Panzerfaust-30. The RPG-29 doesn't have an initial charge; it burns it's entire charge before leaving the tube. Simple. They don't. They don't account for it now. Just allow it for every building instead of banning it for every building. That isn't completely realistic, but it is closer to it than the blanket ban (except for PIAT). Why would they need to be 8mx8m? Where did you get that requirement from? And I am not assuming a zero risk. I'm assuming a small one that would be dependent on training, i.e. Experience rating in-game. Assuming the room is large enough to begin with, the preparations are opening the doors and windows. Then good luck on finding some, because there appears to be very little out there. And I will reiterate that the only instances of injury when firing from structures presented so far are clear example of soldiers making a careless mistake. That proves it's possible to get hurt doing it but says little about how likely that is.

I don't recall that there was any chance of injury in CM1. I think the unit was just given a lot of suppression, which usually resulted in it becoming pinned for a short time. And yes there was a chance of the building catching on fire, which is probably not very realistic but it did add to the risk/reward dynamic they were going for. As for requiring a moral check, I think that running out into the middle of a street to shoot at a tank is far more dangerous than shooting a rocket at one from inside a building. Same goes for close assault, but we don't require a specific moral check for those actions.

Oh, really? Are you under the impression that soldiers in WW2 were physically more susceptible to back blast than soldiers post-WW2? Wrong. 2 of those videos are of a B-10 recoilless rifle firing which has over 10 times the back blast of a Panzerfaust 100. People are still made of flesh and blood, womble. And you are ignoring the US Army tests. Heck, you are even ignoring the Field Manual that ASL Vet posted that flat-out states that they can be safely fired from indoors if some simple precautions are taken. Very convenient of you. You are assuming the back blast was the reason for not manning it in person. Have you considered that it may be because cellars are easy to get trapped in, and the boody-trapper didn't want to be around when the first grenade rolled in? You are ignoring that the two examples given were of a soldier firing the weapon with the breach up against a back stop, i.e. he was doing it wrong. Of course that is going to hurt, just like if a soldier is standing right behind the weapon he's going to have a real bad day. You seem to be assuming that this type of mistake was a common occurrence. What evidence do you have that it was? No is no evidence that when there is a moderate amount of space behind the shooter that these weapons pose a large risk of death or serious injury to anyone not standing behind the weapon.

But then why was the interleaved design also used on German halftracks?

I believe what the evidence supports. Unlike you.

+1 ................

15' by 12' is the size of a typical bedroom. 17' by 24' is a typical living room.

Actually, scratch that. The manual doesn't even contradict my point. In fact, it supports it. So according to the manual a vent area of 20 ft² is considered "safe" as long as the doors and windows are open. That is not a particularly large room.

Oh it's a myth alright. In both of the two examples you site the weapon was fired with an obstruction directly behind the firer. All that you have proven is that the clearance needed is greater than zero. But that was not in question. Hmm, field manual vs. video evidence. I'll take the video evidence.

I will! As soon as I find him...

Budapest: The Stalingrad of the Waffen-SS By Richard Landwehr, pg 106 I think that simply being in close proximity to armed men trying to kill you is in extremis enough to risk a scorched uniform

In extremis is not an uncommon situation in combat.