Panzerfausts Targeting Problems(the morons won't use them)

[dano6]

I am playing a PBEM game and I can't get my infantry to actually use their panzerfaust 100s. I have had 6 squads target M4s at various times and ranges. The ranges were from 36m-76m. Every single time the squad turned and fired on a US infantry squad that was nearby(within 100m). On only 3 of the 6 occasions were the German squads even receiving fire from someplace. I read a post below that addressed this problem but there was never a solution mentioned by BTS. It seems to me that this is a huge problem. Why even give the germans faust if they aren't going to use them on a regular basis. I would think that if a tank rolled up to within 40m of your position and you had your choice of a infantry squad at 100m in a building and a tank directly to your front, you would sure target that tank first, period. Why would you give yourself away to the tank to fire on the infantry?

Anyways this seems to be a major problem that I hope is already fixed or that a fix is in the works.

dano6

[billcarey]

I had a team with 2 fausts at a distance of *7* meters from a sherman, and they ignored it. What could be more important than a tank 30 feet away!? I wish they would have shot it.

- Bill

[tss]

I had a team with 2 fausts at a distance of *7* meters from a sherman, and they ignored it.

Well, if I were that close to a tank I certainly wouldn't shoot it with a Panzerfaust. It would be way too close for my personal safety.

I remember reading a case where a Finnish faustman was almost crushed by falling bits of a T-34 after he had hit its ammo storage, and the tank was about 20-30 meters away.

- Tommi

[Guest Charles]

I believe BTS has said that in the demo there is a problem with the PF threat analysis, such that they often ignore armor in favor of sighted infantry units. This has been fixed.

------------------

Not THE Charles from BTS

[Fionn]

Charles is right.

Fausts are rarely used in the beta demo unfortunately. It's an error and one that has been fixed since. They use them now as my nemesis the Sherman keeps finding out LOL

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[dano6]

Thanks Fionn, as always Steve and Charles are way ahead of all of us and the game is always getting better.

dano6

[Doug Beman]

The AI has no problem using them, and they're nasty. Right at the tail end of a play-through of Riesberg (as Allies) I was pushing 2 tanks and a couple squads of infantry down the main road, and at the first building a German infantry squad popped up from behind a building on the left and wasted a Sherman. As the surviving Sherman and the infantry returned fire, a German squad popped up out of the woods on the RIGHT, and popped the OTHER Sherman. The infantry, naturally, got freaked and booked for cover on the side of the buildings opposite the German PFers, whereupon a German squad in a building I had previously cleared(!) opened up on them, causing numerous casualties. I got two good lessons: let infantry lead by enough for them to engage enemy AT infantry, and don't assume that a building, once cleared, will STAY cleared.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 11-19-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

dano6, the issue is one of how frequently the TacAI checks for a PF worthy threat. Right now it is far too long and if the situation is dynamic and fluid, there is a chance that you will simply miss the check (i.e. stuff changes). However, *some* of the reasons people are having trouble is because of the conditions the unit is under and its relative desire to use the thing. Greenhorns aren't all that jazzed to push the button

Steve

[Iguana]

Fionn said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fausts are rarely used in the beta demo unfortunately. It's an error and one

that has been fixed since. They use them now as my nemesis the Sherman keeps finding out LOL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this mean that you are playing a more recent version of the game than the beta demo?

Just how effective were Panzerfausts in reality?

-Doug

[erich]

I was playing the Germans in reisburg last night, and had a couple of green smg squads, with their platoon leader and a regular smg squad set up an ambush in a suspected tank approach on my right flank. A sherman with a mounted rifle squad rumbled past, missing the ambush zone and bypassing one of the grren squads. As soon as the sherman passed it (range 22m) it opened up with everything it had. It used onf of its pf-100s to brew up the tank, taking the rifle squad with it. They never knew what hit them. I've seen LOTS of pf usage, especialy from ambush. I find the squads ysing them against infantry when low on ammo, too.

------------------

Eric

[Fionn]

Doug,

Yes, I'm a tester. I have umm build 29 while the beta demo was based on build 12 or 13. My version is a LOT more advanced than what you have..

Are you new here not to know I'm a tester ?

PFs I don't feel were all that effective. They kept tanks at a respectable distance but unless the tank commander gets careless or runs into an ambush they shouldn't kill tanks.

Of course, tanks often run into ambushes and commanders often get careless so in those situations they are pretty effective.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[tss]

PFs I don't feel were all that effective. They kept tanks at a respectable distance but unless the tank commander gets careless or runs into an ambush they shouldn't kill tanks.

I remember reading somewhere that only a very small minority of Soviet AFV losses were caused by Panzerfausts. The main reason for this was that the T-34s would stay out of range and fire at German positions until there was no one left to use them.

However, the Fausts were very deadly in forested areas if the tanks somehow got separated from the covering infantry. During Ihantala battle Faustmen (actually, a few of them had also Panzerschecks) of the 12th Finnish Infantry Regiment destroyed 50 Soviet tanks in 48 hours. For two days small 2 men teams sneaked their way through forest and ambushed T-34s, JS-IIs, and JSU-122s.

What made this really feat really impressive was the fact that the unit had received first Fausts two days before the battle and had practically no training. The Faustmen crawled so close to the enemy tanks that they could not miss. Mostly this meant 30-40 meters, but some advanced to 15-20 meters.

-Tommi

[Iguana]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Doug, Yes, I'm a tester. I have umm build 29 while the beta demo was based on build 12 or 13. My version is a LOT more advanced than what you have..

Are you new here not to know I'm a tester?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I did not know you were a tester. I guess you could say I'm new as I didn't start reading the forum much until after the beta demo came out. To be honest, I thought you were just a guy with a good knowledge of WW2 who posted a lot.

Can anyone recommend any sources for me to read more about panzerfausts? Was much training required to use them? I wonder why the Allied armies had no equivalent?

On a related note, what is the current squad carried antitank weapon of the U.S. military? When I went through basic, it was the LAW rocket. I heard the LAW has been phased out...

-Doug

[howardb]

TSS:

Like a commander once said (don't remember which) If I were to win an arctic battle I would want Finnish soldiers, Swedish weapons and Norwegian clothes. There's no denial of the couriage of the Finn soldiers, I'm in total awe.

Iguana:

Boy do I got a treat for you probably the best site on the net for Panzerknacker infantry weapons. They got everything that can kill a tank (well could anyway). Set your browser to : http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust2.htm

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was much training required to use them? I wonder why the Allied armies had no equivalent?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mentioned being trained to use the LAW... the Panzerfaust is the same basic thing... you can teach a chimpanzee to use the thing. The Russians did have a Panzerfaust ripoff... even looked like it. Can't remember the name of it. As for the Americans & British, there were a lot of things they didn't have equivalents for... decent LMG's, assault rifles...

[Iguana]

howardb,

Wow! Now that's what I call a good web site! Many thanks for the link. That one is a definite bookmark, in fact I'll probably print the whole site out on paper.

Berlichtingen,

I'm not very familiar with the British WW2 weapons, but I'll concede the point that the U.S. didn't have a good LMG. Don't overlook the BAR, however.

As for assault rifles, between the Thompson SMG and the M1 Carbine, I don't really see that the U.S. needed one.

-Doug

[Berlichtingen]

Doug,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not very familiar with the British WW2 weapons, but I'll concede the point that the U.S. didn't have a good LMG. Don't overlook the BAR, however.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the british had the Bren (similar to the BAR), and for infantry AT they had the PIAT (junk). The BAR was a fine weapon, but it isn't a true machinegun and certainly isn't in the same class with the MG34 & MG42's (The MG42 is the basis for most NATO machineguns... M-60, GPMG, MG1)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for assault rifles, between the Thompson SMG and the M1 Carbine, I don't really see that the U.S. needed one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M1 Garand was a superb weapon... the M1 carbine wasn't (the general opinion of Marines in WWII was that it might make a good replacement for the pistol). The Thompson was a SMG, and as such had the limitations of a SMG... range. The Thompson had one other problem... you either had to be really strong or really well trained to hold it on target.

[Los]

Actually there is a misconception that the Thompson kicks like a mule. It doesn't. We have two in outr unit (don't ask why) and I have fired them several times. The weight of the weapon helps keep the kick down and makes for fairly steady firing.

However it is a hevay bastard to hump and 45 calibre rounds weigh a ton when you are carrying a half dozen clips plus extras in boxed form so from that standpoint it is a drawback as are the normal limitations of an SMG. BTW in that german vs US equipment, any of the guys (but not all) seemed to believe that the MP40, (some of them called it the schmeisser, erroneously), was a little better.

I'd also chime in that the M1 carbine wasn't viewed too favorably by most infantry soldiers though it was pretty handy for drivers and others REMFs.

Los

[Iguana]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The M1 Garand was a superb weapon... the M1 carbine wasn't (the general opinion of Marines in WWII was that it might make a good replacement for the pistol). The Thompson was a SMG, and as such had the limitations of a SMG... range. The Thompson had one other problem... you either had to be really strong or really well trained to hold it on target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I know the difference between the Garand and the carbine. In fact, I own a Garand. It is a heck of a lot of fun to shoot, but I can see why the GIs didn't fool with half-full magazines.

The reason I didn't mention the Garand before was because it is really too big and heavy to call an assault rifle, IMO. The carbine seems to be more of an assault rifle to me, although maybe not a very effective one.

Sure, the Thompson had limited range, but it was a heck of a trench sweeper or room clearer.

As I said before, I'm having trouble envisioning a situation where the WW2 GI squad would need an assault rifle instead of the weapons which were avaliable to them (Garand, Carbine, Thompson, Colt .45, etc.).

-Doug

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually there is a misconception that the Thompson kicks like a mule.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When compared to its counterparts it does.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We have two in outr unit (don't ask why) and I have fired them several times. The weight of the weapon helps keep the kick down and makes for fairly steady firing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have also had the opportunity to fire Thompsons (both the version carried in WWII and the famous "Chicago Piano"). The Thompson can be effective if you fire in bursts... which you learn to do with training. GIs in WWII did not get the greatest training in the world... my father (Navy) mentioned that they finally got swimming training after being sunk twice .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However it is a hevay bastard to hump and 45 calibre rounds weigh a ton when you are carrying a half dozen clips plus extras in boxed form so from that standpoint it is a drawback as are the normal limitations of an SMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its even heavier with the 50 round drum

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW in that german vs US equipment, any of the guys (but not all) seemed to believe that the MP40, (some of them called it the schmeisser, erroneously), was a little better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MP40 is a sweet gun to fire (the Sten isn't to bad either), but it really doesn't like dirt.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd also chime in that the M1 carbine wasn't viewed too favorably by most infantry soldiers though it was pretty handy for drivers and others REMFs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said... Its a replacement for the pistol

[Los]

Actually I have fired the MP40 (and most any other SMG you can think of) several times including, usually on the same range with all the other SMGs (we have occasional "SMG familiarization days" on the training schedule) on the same range with the Thompson, there's not that much difference in kick. Given the weight of the gun it's much more stable than the MP40 when firing. BTW our groups armory has every conceivable weapon going back prior to WW2, including a working rare MP34 bergmann. (They just NEVER turn stuff back in.)

I agree that the Mp40 was my favorite to fire of all the WW2 SMGs though I don't know how much of that was clouded by the "coolness" factor of German stuff. The sten has a slower ROF than the MP40 (or at least in perception), plus that side mag port which I hate, but the ROF kind of fits in well with a British weapon, "let's not hurry along too much chaps, it would be bad form to appear eager."

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 11-27-99).]

[Moon]

I read somewhere that the Germans actually preferred the Sten, since its side magazine allowed firing the weapon while prone, which obviously is a handicap with the long straight magazine of the M40.

[Los]

That is an advanatage.

Los

[howardb]

I've also read that the MP38/40 wasn't favoured in rubbles or trenches because of the long ammo clip.

Now what really impress me about german weapons are the Sturmgevehr44 (sorry if it's written wrong, I don't bother to look it up). This gun was decades in front of it's allied counterparts in fact the russians made a copy of it AK-47?.

[tss]

Now what really impress me about german weapons are the Sturmgevehr44 (sorry if it's written wrong, I don't bother to look it up). This gun was decades in front of it's allied counterparts in fact the russians made a copy of it AK-47?.

No, AK-47 was not a copy of the German weapon but a original Soviet design by Kalashnikov. Sure it was inspired by Stg44 but apart from the curved clip they are completely different weapons.

As for SMGs, in my opinion best were Finnish KP-31 'Suomi' and Soviet PPsH-41. Both were heavy weapons which gave excellent accuracy (for a SMG) to the fire. A good soldier could consistently hit a man from 150 meters with a Suomi and in ideal firing-range conditions hits were possible up to 300 meters.

The main drawback of these two weapons was weight of the gun and ammunition. Additionally, reloading the drum magazines was a pain.

-Tommi