Shreck team needs an mp40

[Georgie]

The Shreck team is in trouble even if it disables a tank and the crew abandons it. The Shreck team is usually close to the tank and the single k98 isn't much use at close encounters against grease guns , thompsons or a 45s and its not a good idea to keep an infantry team with the Shreck team for cover as they make it easier for the tank to spot the Shreck or at least to be alerted.

[sburke]

Funny you should say that. I wish this were video rather than a screenshot. The team here smacked the Sherman. The Sherman crew bailed, the TC grabbing his Thompson. He emptied the entire clip at the Shreck gunner at darn near point blank range missing completely, whereupon the gunner calmly drew his pistol and dropped the TC. God I love this game. What you also can't see real well is the assistant is tossing a hand grenade (or possibly an AT grenade, couldn't really tell).

Yeah it might be better for the asst to have an MP 40, but in this instance the asst never even fired his weapon.

In another PBEM I had recently I had two guys with Kar 98s immobilize a scout car with a PF then proceed to trash the scout team that bailed along with the crew. It has a lot to do with timing and the position. If given any chance at all the crew typically has more weapons available and in some cases automatic weapons. Generally I use my shrecks at a further distance with less risk of close combat conditions, but I also have not lost too many engagements even up close and personal.

[womble]

Tank Hunter teams often have SMGs. They'd make good close protection details for the Tube Guys.

[Ts4EVER]

In the German toe the Schreck teams in Infantry divisions carried K98k (or similar rifles) and the ones in Panzergrenadier or Fallschirmjäger units carried smgs.

[Rake]

Funny you should say that. I wish this were video rather than a screenshot. The team here smacked the Sherman. The Sherman crew bailed, the TC grabbing his Thompson. He emptied the entire clip at the Shreck gunner at darn near point blank range missing completely, whereupon the gunner calmly drew his pistol and dropped the TC. God I love this game. What you also can't see real well is the assistant is tossing a hand grenade (or possibly an AT grenade, couldn't really tell).

Yeah it might be better for the asst to have an MP 40, but in this instance the asst never even fired his weapon.

How come that schreck is firing from inside a building?

[Vanir Ausf B]

That's the Syrian rebel unit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJHyM7Rgs_g

[Georgie]

Tank Hunter teams often have SMGs. They'd make good close protection details for the Tube Guys.

Works very good. Thanks

[womble]

Works very good. Thanks

I have a soft spot for TH teams these days, after one of mine perfomed some serious heroics. I expect most QB picks where I get the chance there'll be one or more with some "extra oomph" (better experience, motivation and leadership than the rest of the pTruppen).

[mjkerner]

Yeah, why is that schrek firing from a building?

[Rokko]

The Schreck is not in the building but before it at the wall. Unfortunately, I too had hoped they allowed AT weapons to be fired from indoors.

[mjkerner]

Ahh, yes, I see that now that you pointed it out. Thanks.

[winkelried]

Accordingly to the KSTN 154c for the Infanterie Panzer Jäger Kompanie for the Grenadier/Jäger/Gebirgsjäger-Kompanie had 18 Raketen-Panzerbüchsen (Panzerschreck), 1 LMG, 24 Karabiner, 19 Pistols and 5 MPs for 48 men in each platoon. So almost no MPs in real life ...

Checking a few more KSTNs ...

[womble]

Accordingly to the KSTN 154c for the Infanterie Panzer Jäger Kompanie for the Grenadier/Jäger/Gebirgsjäger-Kompanie had 18 Raketen-Panzerbüchsen (Panzerschreck), 1 LMG, 24 Karabiner, 19 Pistols and 5 MPs for 48 men in each platoon. So almost no MPs in real life ...

Checking a few more KSTNs ...

Hrrm. TH teams in BN get a Faust per trooper, so I don't think the 18-in-48 ratio is being observed in "specialist teams" at least. What year are your sources coming from; I'd imagine there was significant variation during the course of the war...

[JonS]

faust != schreck

[winkelried]

Hrrm. TH teams in BN get a Faust per trooper, so I don't think the 18-in-48 ratio is being observed in "specialist teams" at least. What year are your sources coming from; I'd imagine there was significant variation during the course of the war...

The "faust" was called Faustpatrone and Panzerfaust and were distributed a bit everywhere.

We talk about the Panzerschreck or 8.8cm Raketen-Panzerbüchse 54 - the German equivalent of the U.S. Bazooka - which were allocated differently.

[winkelried]

... for the Grenadier/Jäger/Gebirgsjäger-Kompanie ...

Sorry typo - should read Grenadier/Jäger/Gebirgsjäger-Regiment

[Alan8325]

I'd like to see shrek teams get to fire from inside buildings before they get an MP40, although that would be helpful as well. As it stands, AT teams aren't nearly as useful in urban combat as they should be. In real life there is all kinds of cover in urban terrain, especially in areas already hit hard by combat, but CM urban terrain is stripped of most of this and units cannot shoot and scoot around corners. Until this kind of fidelity in urban combat shows up in the CM engine, I think we should get the ability to fire from buildings as a compromise.

[Rake]

The Schreck is not in the building but before it at the wall. Unfortunately, I too had hoped they allowed AT weapons to be fired from indoors.

I saw the wall before I posted my question and it sure looks like the wall is up against the edge of the building. If the edge of the wall is up against the building, the schreck team has to be in the building. Unless, the wall isn't directly against the building... in which case I stand corrected.

These images are from CMBN, but it shows the relationship between the low wall and building... if those guys are behind the wall, they are most certainly inside the building.

Personally, I'm wondering if somebody didn't let the cat outta the bag :eek:

Get back, IMC!!!

[sburke]

no one let any cat of any bag. they are outside the building. The wall section is one of those with an angle and the angle terminates up against the building. I'll see if I can't get the other shot posted from the angle of the shreck team that shows this more clearly.

[A Canadian Cat]

As it stands, AT teams aren't nearly as useful in urban combat as they should be. In real life there is all kinds of cover in urban terrain, especially in areas already hit hard by combat, but CM urban terrain is stripped of most of this and units cannot shoot and scoot around corners.

No, please, no. And I don't mean to pick on one person. IMHO we should not be asking BFC to move away from realistic behaviour. It has been established that these AT weapons were *not* *routinely* fired inside. What we should be advocating is BFC tweaking some infantry AI behaviour; shooting around corners, allowing the use of AT weapons from ruined buildings etc. As well as advocating improved urban maps. Lets lend our voices to asking for things that make the game *more* realistic; not less.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't know where or how it was established that they were not routinely fired from inside buildings. There is no reason they could not be. There are many videos of post WW2 AT rockets -- some with backblasts even stronger than their WW2 predecessors -- being fired from inside buildings with no apparent ill effect to the shooter. The idea that soldiers in urban combat would rather face tanks in the street than shoot rockets at them from inside buildings is flatly contradicted by the behavior of combatants in that situation.

Yes, we do need better modeling of urban environments and the ability for infantry to utilize building corners. The problem is those features require new AI and animations which we all know take time and money. Allowing AT rockets to be fired from buildings would be a relatively trivial change in the meantime since the game engine can already to it (PIATs, ect.).

[sburke]

I don't know where or how it was established that they were not routinely fired from inside buildings. There is no reason they could not be. There are many videos of post WW2 AT rockets -- some with backblasts even stronger than their WW2 predecessors -- being fired from inside buildings with no apparent ill effect to the shooter. The idea that soldiers in urban combat would rather face tanks in the street than shoot rockets at them from inside buildings is flatly contradicted by the behavior of combatants in that situation.

Yes, we do need better modeling of urban environments and the ability for infantry to utilize building corners. The problem is those features require new AI and animations which we all know take time and money. Allowing AT rockets to be fired from buildings would be a relatively trivial change in the meantime since the game engine can already to it (PIATs, ect.).

ooooorrrr we could work on creating maps that are much more conducive to Infantry and AT combat capabilites.

So here is the Shreck team's view. Personally I do agree there are a lot of limitations currently that make urban fighting a little difficult however I don't think folks have really sat down and looked at the tools we already have to alter that paradigm. No you can't peek around corners and we can't under any conditions fire a shreck from a building even if all the walls are blown out. You can however create a map that has rubbled buildings without actually using a building. Hence this scene. The shreck team is firing from the rubble of a "collapsed" building created by altering elevations, adding some wall sections, thrown in a few flavor items and a crater....

I'll come back to this discussion after Gustav is out as it is one near and dear to my heart. I think we have yet to push the limits of what CM can do with an urban battlefield. The tools in CMBN and CMFI are quite a bit better than Shock Force.

[Rake]

no one let any cat of any bag. they are outside the building. The wall section is one of those with an angle and the angle terminates up against the building. I'll see if I can't get the other shot posted from the angle of the shreck team that shows this more clearly.

Alright, dammit, I apologize . But you've gotta admit, from the original angle, they sure looked like they were inside the building. And, given the ability of tanks to (theoretically) fire at ptruppen in adjacent buildings uo to eight stories above them, add me to those who would like to see this changed to allow bazookas, schrecks and fausts to fire from inside buildings... This is one of those few occasions where two wrongs do make a right...jmo.

[A Canadian Cat]

I don't know where or how it was established that they were not routinely fired from inside buildings.

This has been discussed several times. It is clear, to me, that BFC have done their research and made a good choice backed up by that research. Sure there are things that could be done to make things better, one prime example would be allowing shreks and fausts to be fired from building rubble. And I hope these things are on the list of improvements to be made. In case you missed it here is a recentish thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96073

It is a long one so here are some relevant posts:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1250896#post1250896

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1250956&postcount=52

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1254802&postcount=133

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1254805&postcount=134

Including this one where Steve says there is improvements that can be made to the game some day to allow it in some conditions:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1250963&postcount=54

[Vanir Ausf B]

It is a long one so here are some relevant posts:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1250896#post1250896

No it is not. Panzerfaust 60 is propelled by a 134g black powder charge. Projectile goes out the front, blast and heat out the back. There is no pulverized countermass. There is no second stage propellant. You do not want to be in an enclosed space when a 134g charge detonates.

My relevant response:

The B-10 uses the ZhN-881 propellant charge, which is 821 gram of nitrocellulose/nitroglycerin. This amounts to 12-16 times the backblast of a PzF100, and to about 42-56 times the backblast of a PzF30k.

Evidence all points toward firing recoilless weapons from indoors not being a big deal in reality. Not just anecdotal evidence, but full US Army studies. I am surprised this is still a contentious issue.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1250956&postcount=52

Engagement From an Enclosure

B-65. Firing from an enclosure creates unique hazards. Therefore, before positioning Soldiers in enclosures (combat only), leaders must consider several factors that affect safety. Only in combat, when no other tactical option exists, should the M136 AT4 and XM141 be fired from an enclosure. If it must be employed this way, the enclosure must meet the following minimum requirements. The M72-series LAW has been rated safe for use from an enclosure, but only when the enclosure meets the following minimum requirements.

l Construction. The building must be sturdily constructed to reduce structural damage that would occur in a weakly constructed enclosure such as one made of wood or stucco.

The bolded parts were bolded by Steve. My response is that 1) most of the buildings in Normandy are stone or brick, to the best of my knowledge, and even in the case of wood construction tests have shone that while AT rockets do substantial damage they do not collapse the building. And 2) It turns out that "Only in combat, when no other tactical option exists" happens rather frequently, particularly in CM where the some of the best outside-the-building options are presently not available and may not be available for some time to come.