akd

To be clear: the RPG-7 projectile is propelled from the launcher by an explosive charge, exactly like a panzerfaust. This charge gives the 2.25kg warhead a muzzle velocity of 117m/s. Compare this to 30m/s at the muzzle for the Panzerfaust 30's 2.9kg warhead. The big improvement in the RPG-7 over the Panzerfaust and RPG-2 systems is that at 11m from the muzzle, a rocket motor at the base of the warhead ignites, boosting the projectile to 294m/s. The panzershreck and bazooka are both pure rocket weapons. A rocket motor in the tail of the projectile is ignited electrically, accelerating the projectile down the length of the tube while the exhaust vents out the back. Ideally the rocket motor would be spent by the time the projectile reaches the muzzle of the tube, but as can be seen with the Panzershreck's blast shield, this was not yet perfected in these types of weapons.

That is what is happening. The spotter needs to be able to see the impact point for the spotting rounds and it sounds like in this case he is not able to due to very marginal LOS to the area.

True dat...but lower trajectories also exaggerate range errors, no?

Dispersion will continue to increase with range for on board assets. Try shooting at 2000m meters and this will become very apparent. You are correct that dispersion for offboard assets does not change as they have no variable range. At some particular range (probably between 500m-1000m) the dispersion for an onboard and offboard asset will be roughly the same (although pattern will vary). The stepping you observed is interesting. Had not noticed this before. Some would be expected as propellant charges were added requiring a significant change in trajectory, but you would also expect some gradual increases with increasing flight time.

Pure speculation. 60 per company would allow for every pure rifleman in the parachute rifle squad to be carrying belted ammo.

If you issue a target order on structure from within grenade range, grenades will be used. A pause of 5-10 secs combined with the "target" order before entering a structure will fairly reliably use a grenade or two.

I really, really hope not. But yes, very stylistic.

Typically turret facing determines the direction the smoke goes when "pop smoke" is ordered, so you can also just use a cover arc to turn the turret before giving the order.

Please ignore MikeyD. I don't think that is the core issue. There is a bug with HT movement across rubbled wall sections that should be addressed in the next patch that may be contributing, but regardless all those converging "fast" orders over rough terrain is asking a lot of the AI and may be causing pile-ups regardless of the pauses issued. As for the bazooka, no way to tell exactly what the problem is with a single anecdotal situation. There will be occasional extreme outliers given CMBN's complex spotting system. Did you consider setting up a test in the editor to try and reproduce the spotting problem? Can you retry the move with the movement waypoints plotted further away from the cliff edge?

Not a bone. Simply what Steve has already said.

Panzerfaust has no rocket propellant either. PIAT uses a small propelling charge, probably about 1 oz. blackpowder. It is not a recoilless weapon, but a spigot mortar. Part of the recoil force from the explosion is absorbed by the resetting spring, but some is imparted to the shooter/baseplate. The smallest panzerfaust uses a somewhat larger blackpowder propelling charge (around 2 oz.) However, it vents the force of the explosion to the rear and is thus recoilless. Both would create some amount of overpressure if fired in a confined space, as would any firearm. The question is of degree.

No, there was an explosive propellant charge in the tail of the PIAT round. The charge detonated instantly when the spigot rod slammed forward under spring tension, propelling the round and resetting the spigot rod spring.

The series that includes the photos of the bandaged Max Wunsche, is I believe, all of 15. Kompanie / 25th PG Regiment (the regiment's organic recce unit) with officers from other elements of the division visiting. Not sure if the young MGer in the dot peas uniform is part of that series, however. Series can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/spzabt/5341221597/in/photostream/

There is, but you cannot set it for a specific unit while excluding others.

Hmm..not the same thing really, although I guess frequently used interchangeably. The ammunition issue would be muzzle flash and smoke obscuration, rather than muzzle blast (overpressure created by the escaping gases which can kick up dust and debris). Makes more sense if smoke obscuration was the issue, but again, I doubt there was anything special about the 76mm other than it using than lot more propellant than the short 75mm. If Allied ammunition was the issue, we would expect similar problems with the 17 pdr., 90mm, etc., although barrel length in combination with the ammunition can play a role.

I've always wondered about this one. Did it have serious muzzle blast issues, or serious in comparison to the standard short 75mm? Did it really have more of a problem than, say, the German 75mm L/70?

Beautifully done.

Depends on the campaign and the intent of campaign designer. If the campaign is set during a week of hard rain on soft ground, then perhaps the SD fully expects the player to lose a percentage of his vehicles to immobilization and has taken this into account in his allotment of forces to the player. Part of the challenge and fun of the campaign might be in the wrench this throws into the gears of your well-laid plans and the need to adapt on the fly during the course of a battle.

They are not automatic rifles in the sense of the Browning Automatic Rifle and the role of Automatic Rifleman in the US squad. Turning these battle rifles into squad support weapons has generally proved a dead end. They never did really meet in the middle, as once the weight goes down the weapon becomes uncontrollable during automatic fire and if the barrel is not heavy enough it can't provide sustained fire support. Up the barrel weight and add features to help with controllability and you end up with a weapon that is no longer a good rifle, but isn't a very good LMG either. The Marine's M27 is 5.56mm. The movement back toward rifle-caliber weapons has generally been for long-range reach, not automatic firepower, e.g. reissued M14s, the Brit L129A1, German G3s, etc.

Known bug, should be fixed in next version.

Elevation is in meters.

This. It is a particular problem for the AI as they have no ability to "hide" troops in cover when under indirect fire. The AI does not achieve the full benefit of the cover until the whole unit is "cowering," which often doesn't occur until they've suffered several casualties. And if they are under a slow rate of indirect fire, their morale can recover while they are still under incoming fire, so they pop back up, take another casualty, cower, pop back up, etc. And I think that even "hiding" the unit does not confer the full benefit of cover it should against indirect fire, as all the soldiers will periodically switch from "hiding" to "spotting", at which time they are vulnerable to ground bursts. Need to test this again, however. Then you have the increased likelihood versus real life of a direct hit on fortifications due to their larger footprint. And none of that has anything to do with the mortars themselves.

It uses rifle-caliber ammo, weighs over 20lbs and serves in the role of base of fire for the squad. How could it ever be compared to an assault rifle?

I would LOVE for my opponent to attempt this as a means of maneuver.

Yes, MG34/MG42 gunners have 9mm pistols.