INF vs TANKS

[ArgusEye]

There are too many posts in this thread to reply to individually, so I'll resort to generalities.

The whole point of a recoilless weapon is that no momentum is imparted to the launcher. That means that the momentum of the projectile plus the front expulsion of propellant gas must be entirely compensated by the momentum of the propellant gas and/or plug ejected from the rear. Until they repeal the Law of Conservation of Momentum that's not going to change. This means that no matter how modern, every recoilless weapon is going to have exactly the same backblast given its shot momentum. Venturies don't change this in the slightest. Any argument about 'generation of weapon' or 'modern weapons have less backblast' should be accompanied by a treatise why the weapons in question should be excused from obeying the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

There are four main dangers about backblast. Shock waves, high speed gas jet ablation, overpressure, and heat.

Shock waves are propagating waves of sudden pressure followed by rarefaction. They impart a sudden movement to whatever is around. Contrary to popular belief, they don't move objects very far. They move the impacted object quite violently, but only for a very small displacement. Some items, like loose rubble, almost don't react to shockwaves. Other items, like panes of glass or some types of doors, shatter or dislodge, because their elastic strain range is quite small. The human body doesn't like shock waves. Especially the lungs can be lethally damaged by shockwaves. However, the danger of shockwaves from a properly functioning recoilless weapon are slight. A steady deflagration is sought, because otherwise the tube would rupture and the weapon blows up. A well known problem for the first production run of the PzF 60. Very little in the way of shockwaves can be expected for the early generations of weapons, because the exhaust velocities were low. Modern rcl's like the RPG 7 have more issues with this, but still it is a minor concern. This effect is more dominant in explosives going off, like blast grenades or satchel charges. The wave reflects quite well, and this causes big problems in enclosed spaces. However, since rcl's don't generate a lot of shockwaves, it doesn't come into play very much.

High speed gas jet ablation is the same principle used in gas cutting machines. The gas acts as a sand blasting jet, and rips any exposed surface to shreds. The velocities and jet density must be very high for this to happen, and this effect is only apparent inside the direct exit flare of the weapon. For a PzF this means the 'beam' of fire up to two meters [est] behind the weapon. It doesn't reflect well, and after slight dissipation the effect vanishes very quickly. However, when and where the phenomenon occurs, it will literally shred human flesh and bone. The early generation short PzF tubes were easily tucked in the armpit by novice users, and this would literally blow their arm off. Thence the longer tubes later, even though the rear half of the tube had no further function. Look at some cross-sections to see the long straight empty exhaust tube. This is the effect warned against most.

Overpressure, sometimes erroneously called persistent pressure wave in military 'science', is the most important problem to consider in this context. A truly enclosed area such as a bunker would have trouble venting off the hot gases generated by the weapon. The excess gas would increase the interior pressure, thus damaging the occupants. This is a very serious problem in small unvented spaces, but add a sufficiently effective vent, and the problem goes away. The 'safe limits' about room size and vent size mentioned earlier seem, especially with the unchanging vent size, on the experimentally safe side. Please note that in considering the vent size, the window through which the shot is fired is a major vent as well! If we invent a soldier firing a PzF 100 through a small aperture in an unvented room, we could compute off the cuff using standard NIST injury thresholds that he would typically be suppressed if the room was smaller than 12 cubic meters, injured requiring medical aid in a room smaller than 4 cubic meters, and would have a 50% chance of dying of blast injuries in a room of half a cubic meter. Venting will [unpredictably but greatly] impact these effects. I think we can agree that inhalation of burning powder is a much greater danger than the pressure!

Heat is a dangerous one. The nitroglycolic fuel of a RPzB is a neatly surface-burning propellant, which comes out of the nozzle fully-decomposed and in great preponderance fully combusted. It comes out hot, but is unlikely to ignite household materials at ranges more than a metre or two. However, if obstructed, the volume of hot gas produced is likely to sear flesh if redirected towards personnel. A safe distance to clear the rear of the tube should be taken into consideration, but it is very hard to make a good estimate of how great this range should be. I leave that to doctrinal analysis.

The PzF produces a short 'cough' of heat, much less than the Ofenrohr, but since it used black powder, there was a great risk of particles of flaring powder flying out and lodging in combustible items. Though nothing that wouldn't be dealt with by ten seconds of swatting with newspapers or brooms, this is not the kind of thing enjoyed if you're at Faust range of the enemy.

There are warnings in doctrine about backblast of PzF and Ofenrohr. With the Ofenrohr, there should be no comrades behind you for 30m. Not strange when you realise that the ignition jack is going to come out of the back of the rocket in a hurry. There are no warnings not to fire the thing indoors, but there are diagrams of PzB trenches that show little concern for blast or heat effects around corners. Also fire concerns are not mentioned, again because of the nitroglycolic rocket fuel. Its fuel will make quite a bit of nasty smoke, although its toxicity is overstated.

The doctrinal warnings about the PzF are to keep the back of the tube pointed away from yourself or comrades for a few meters, it differs how many. Firing from indoors or bunkers is nowhere forbidden. Firing from dug in positions is recommended to be done with the end of the weapon extending above the rim, but otherwise it is mentioned in Fibeln that when firing from spiderholes, one meter of clearance behind the weapon suffices. Scorched tunics are to be expected, though.

As for the acrid smoke from a PzF choking out the firing tank hunter, watch this:

Panzerfaust 60 fired

This is a PzF 60, and check how much of that smoke is actually dust!

As for the B10 movies, notice that after firing in the second movie, the windows are still in their frames! How is that for huge, destructive overpressures? I'm sure I'm not the only adventurous kid who's blown out some windows when experimenting with things that go boom.

It would be nice if we could look critically at received wisdom for a change. I really can't believe that this is still a contested issue.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Great post Argus. I was hoping you would show up

BTW, here is a collection of footage of PzF and Panzerschrecks being fired, some of it in color:

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I await womble's typically indifferent dismissal of ArgusEye's post with interest.

Regards

KR

[akd]

It's worth pointing out that if you stand in my front room, with a 10 foot clearance from the back of a Shreck tube sticking over your shoulder to the back wall, you're standing in the bay window with the front of the Tube sticking out of the window. Not a posture conducive to remaining unseen (and therefore alive long enough to discharge the thing). In the normandy house I stayed in during the summer, you'd have been leaning over the "balcony" (I think some realtors call them "Juliet balconies"; they're just a handspan deep) rail. And the Shreck manual says stuff flies Thirty Metre out the back end.

Minimum obstacle clearance and danger area are not the thing. If there were a wall beyond the minimum obstacle clearance distance, but still within the the danger area, the threat would be injury to the wall, not the firer. Happily walls seldom complain.

[John Kettler]

ArgusEye,

Now, that's a post. A superb analysis of the issues, including some I'd not previously encountered. I'd never thought of that ignition clip's being blown back before. Excellent point. When I brought up the venturi issue, it wasn't about altering the fundamental physics of the device, and I go back to the Davis Gun on RR matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_gun

Rather, I was arguing that the venturi was more likely to create a focused blast effect behind the RR than the simple exhaust of the Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck or bazooka did.

One of the things that puzzles me comes from some of the Panzerfaust firing footage, in that the front of the weapon elevation appears guaranteed to send the backblast into the foxhole wall less than a meter from the firer's back. If that indeed is what's happening, why is the firer not getting scorched or worse?

Vanir Ausf B,

Some of that I recently posted, some of that is from the training film Manner Gegen Panzer (Men Against Tanks), but that color film and new to me Panzerschreck footage make a stellar find. Well done!

akd,

Sooner or later there'll be an animated wall cartoon, and kiddies will break down and cry when you drive a nail to hang a picture. And to think all I had to worry about was Bambi ref deer hunting!

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

I await womble's typically indifferent dismissal of ArgusEye's post with interest.

Why would I dismiss a post that made some of the points that I made earlier: the complete combustion of the HE propellant and the incendiary nature of black powder "ejecta".

I will dispute the airy statement that generation/technology of weapon has no effect on the backblast. A venturi exists to speed up the recoil-compensating jet and provide some rearward containment so that the tight fit of the projectile doesn't mean all the blast goes out the back, leaving the shell unmoved. If the venturi is half the diameter of the tube it's constricting, the jet will be 4 times faster, requiring 4 times less mass to be ejected out the back than would otherwise have been the case, since momentum is directly proportional to velocity. The amount of propellant needed to achieve the same muzzle velocity from the same launch tube ahead of the projectile will be the same, since that's a matter of energy, not momentum. Some of the propellant energy goes into powering the recoil system too (whether that's a carriage or blowback); how much is "wasted" there will depend on the nature of that system.

4 times less mass means 4 times less heat thrown out the back. It means the other 3/4 of the propellant gases get chucked out the front (and the recoil of that, much slower, gas would need compensating for, too, so actually it needs some calculus to tell exactly how much propellant gas needs to go out the back, but the rearward gas is already faster than the projectile and forward moving gas before the venturi gets involved).

4 times less mass is a quarter the extra gas injected into an enclosed space, reducing the overpressure by a factor of 4 as well.

Also, there's going to be a difference between tube-burning (mostly) rocket, and something like an RR. In the tube-burning rocket, all the combustion products generated in the tube are being thrown backwards. In an RR where there's an initial detonation origin in the breech and expanding gases push the passive projectile out the barrel, much of the propellant gas will be going forward, reducing the backblast per unit of bang.

So simple comparisons of propellant weight and momentum aren't really adequate to the case.

On top of that, it remains important to differentiate between soft-launch systems and ones where the acceleration of the projectile is largely achieved within the launch tube.

I don't think anyone has ever disputed that standing directly behind any of the WW2 tubes was bad for people's health and well being; we all agree there. I'm thinking that the video debunking of the "received wisdom" about the amount of effluvia from a Faust launch is pretty complete.

I wonder whether any of this is having any impact on BFC's thinking on the matter.

[poesel]

Except that, AIUI, this would prevent the unit from firing any of its weapons until the room was prepared.

You sure with that? But anyway - if this simulates that the team is occupied with clearing the room, making holes and preparing the position I'd be ok with that.

A slight issue might be different team sizes which would in theory result in different times to complete the task. But then you could argue that many men working in a confined space would not necessary be faster than fewer.

ArgusEye - great post. Thanks!

That means that the momentum of the projectile plus the front expulsion of propellant gas must be entirely compensated by the momentum of the propellant gas and/or plug ejected from the rear. Until they repeal the Law of Conservation of Momentum that's not going to change. This means that no matter how modern, every recoilless weapon is going to have exactly the same backblast given its shot momentum.

If you have a two-stage propulsion then the amount of momentum is spread over the two stages. The second stage is hopefully a bit away from the shooter so it doesn't account for damage of the firing soldier.

The sum is of course the same no matter how modern the weapon is.

[Vencini]

I'm learnig a lot with your conversations sirs. Like always...

I did a little test and they don't fire from buildings, even if they don't have front or rear walls (not through too)

What about the posibility,in game, to fire from inside buildings, but with chances of get wounded,killed, pinned (TURNED INTO FIRE, in future modules, of course)?

Regards

[ArgusEye]

Womble, I tried giving a direct blow-by-blow answer, but it became unreadable. Let me lecture a bit about 'venturis'.

When firing a rcl, one suddenly generates a lot of gas inside a piece of pipe that has a projectile stuck in one end. The gas expands, and pushes the projectile out. How well it achieves this is dependent in equal measure upon the pressure attained by the gas, and how long it maintains this pressure. You will appreciate that with one end of the pipe open, a lot of gas will just escape. This drops the pressure, as gas escapes during generation, and shortens pressure duration, since the gas keeps escaping during and after generation. The easier the escape down the back of the tube is, the more energy is lost, therefore the lower the energy efficiency of the shot.

The way to get the most out of our shot is to completely close the rear of the weapon. This causes it to become a gun. Highly efficient, but it has a strong recoil, and it needs to withstand the high pressures that typify guns. Two things we were trying to avoid.

There we turn to a venturi system. Stripped of all mysticism, what is commonly called a venturi is nothing more than a stricture in the gas flow followed by a reclaiming expansion. The stricture is what increases pressure and pressure duration, because it inhibits gas escape. The reclaiming expansion is what gives some extra forward momentum back to the launcher to compensate the backward momentum imparted on it by the gas acting on the stricture. The clever bit is that the extra energy used for the shot comes from the reclaiming expansion robbing the exiting expanding gas. This is how a venturi exit increases efficiency. You get higher velocities with less propellant.

The price you pay for this additional efficiency is higher launcher weight and strength. The burn chamber and projectile run must be able to withstand the launch pressures, and the expansion cone on the rear is not a light-weight toy either. The more complex gas system is also more prone to trouble. If your cone gets loose, or your stricture fouls up, suddenly your launcher gets very lively and doesn't merit the name 'recoilless' anymore. Or blows up, as some RPG7s seem to do when in the hands of idiots. Frugal idiot uses damaged strip charge, fouls the stricture, and the ejector of the second shot goes high-order next to his ear.

When we are aiming for efficiency, we might as well not stop at the venturi. We might, for instance, compute or test how long the obturation of the projectile lasts, and make sure that we spend all our propulsion on it before that time. A big fiery blast from the front of our rcl isn't going to do anyone any good. A well tuned rcl doesn't have a lot of muzzle flame. If three quarters of your propellant gets wasted out the muzzle, you're doing something very wrong indeed. In any rcl, the bulk goes back, as it should.

Pictured here is the Carl Gustav, an older RCL [although it does have venturi'd exhaust], but modernized time and time again, and fired with modern, well-tuned ammunition.

No matter how much propellant you burn, it has to go somewhere. No matter through how many venturis, baffles, dispersers or muzzle brakes it goes, it doesn't disappear into nowhere. The overpressure is therefore not diminished in any significant way. Not that it matters, because you'll have to fire from inside a fridge to get killed by overpressure, and you'll need to fire from a walk-in closet to get suppressed.

I can therefore say with confidence that the shockwaves -however insignificant to the damage they may be- are not influenced by venturis. Shockwaves are entirely momentum-based, and that has to be compensated anyway. Overpressure is also solely dependant upon the amount of gas generated, id est the amount of propellant, without consideration of any venturi. Even the heat of combustion still is contained in the gas, which exits in bulk from the rear of the launcher.. The expansion cone will rob some heat from the gas, but this is also lost to non-utilized expansion in a straight exit. The venturi will cause big malfunctions if used with crude propellants like black powder, but this is again not a great improvement due to the venturi, but a forced choice. The only thing that the venturi system will do, is cause the focused ablative exhaust stream to be much reduced. The expansion will dissipate it much quicker. In this way, it does make the weapon a lot safer.

[JonS]

suddenly your launcher gets very lively and doesn't merit the name 'recoilless' anymore.

you win teh internets for today.

the Carl Gustav, an older RCL [although it does have venturi'd exhaust], but modernized time and time again, and fired with modern, well-tuned ammunition.

Also; heavy as a b'stard (and those guys might want to have a wee think about where they're storing their ready ammn)

[ArgusEye]

JonS, be happy with that weight, it keeps the boom inside.

A nice find here [0:07 to 0:14]:

Off the cuff, that is a PzF II being fired. Observe how the soldier points the rear of the tube at the inner wall of his Schützenloch, yet he doesn't suffer any harm.

[John Kettler]

ArgusEye,

The very question I raised earlier. I wasn't imagining it! The backblast was going into, not over, the foxhole.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ArgusEye]

Excuse me, I'm sorry if I missed you posting this earlier. You came with much interesting stuff to view, I must have accidentally skipped it.

[John Kettler]

Vencini,

That's ironclad proof what I said earlier to womble about not being able to fire bazooka/Panzerschreck/Panzerfaust from a building even when it could barely to be there.

Well presented!

Argus/Eye,

No problem. That would be my post 105.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109722&page=11

I always love it when you choose to jump into a discussion/debate. I always learn new things--more when I'm wrong!

Regards,

John Kettler

[ASL Veteran]

Vencini,

That's ironclad proof what I said earlier to womble about not being able to fire bazooka/Panzerschreck/Panzerfaust from a building even when it could barely to be there.

The question was never if someone can fire a panzerfaust from inside a building. Someone can fire anything they want to from a building in the same manner that I can place a firecracker in my mouth and light it if I want to. No, the question was always what happens if one is fired and how that should be handled by the game.

Although Arguseye may be astounded that this issue is still being debated, there is nothing that he said that I find astounding at all. What I found astounding is those who feel that backblast causes nothing but burst eardrums and is almost completely harmless. I think even Arguseye would agree with me that if someone in the heat of battle were using a Panzerfaust in a building that it would be possible for that individual to injure or kill himself or others nearby. I've already posted personal accounts to that effect earlier (one of them from inside a foxhole John Kettler). There is nothing 'mythical' about injury or death from backblast.

The problem with translating that into the game is that the Panzerfausts are fired by the Tac AI and the player has no control over it. Thus, if we were to realistically account for human error, positioning of target units to the firer (how much clearance will you have if you are firing out a window at an angle down the street - think about it), abstracted room size, and other areas that are not clearly defined within the game there seems to only be a few options available.

1. Not allow them to be fired from buildings (simple solution)

2. Allow the Tac AI to fire the Panzerfausts when it decides to fire one with the possibility of death or injury to the firer or other occupants of the building. (complicated solution)

3. Allow the weapons to be fired from damaged buildings in the assumption that it is open enough that the chances of accidental death or injury are reduced sufficiently. (halfway solution)

Consequence free firing of these weapons from buildings considering all the abstractions and known dangers of using these weapons doesn't seem like a valid position to me. It's simply not viable to always assume that the firer has checked their backblast area and prepped the firing area before deciding to use the weapon. It's probably not even always a valid assumption to make that the one firing the weapon was fully trained in it's use or that anyone else in the building actually knows that the weapon is about to be fired and can take the appropriate action to avoid the backblast.

Actually, to be entirely accurate it's not even a good assumption to make that the armorer properly prepped the weapon before issuing it or that the one firing it has the appropriate fusing immediately available in order to fire it. I have read a personal account where the soldier with the Panzerfaust sneaks through this wheatfield until he's in firing position near a Sherman and when he gets ready to fire it he realizes that he doesn't have the fusing (or whatever it is) so he has to sneak all the way back to where he started in order to grab the fusing, sneak all the way back to his firing position, arm it, and still not being discovered finally fire and miss the tank he was after. In another account the armorer didn't prep the Panzerfausts properly because he was transferred over from the Luftwaffe and when someone was demonstrating the weapon to him he accidentally fired it into a barn door. As they were seeing their lives pass before their eyes, the faust hit the barn door and fell harmlessly to the ground like a stone. In the game every Panzerfaust is ready to fire at the right time and it always detonates when it impacts - that's just not the case IRL. You guys want to talk about room dimensions and how close other troops are to the back of the weapon? Seriously, how technical do you guys really want to get? All we need to know is whether it's possible for death or injury to occur. Once you have made that determination then you have to make a decision on how to portray these weapons in game while accounting for that.

One last thing - this does absolutely nothing for urban fighting for pixeltruppen who are fighting before 1944 or aren't German so this isn't a 'urban leveller' by any stretch of the imagination. I view that argument as a total strawman. All it does is help the Germans, and only in 1944 and 1945. Altering this would do absolutely nothing with regards to tanks in the streets for infantry not carrying Panzerfausts, so if you decide to play as the Russian in Operation Bagration you will have to deal with the same situation that you find yourself in now, only you won't even be able to complain about Panzerfausts.

This issue comes up a lot so you can be assured that BFC is aware of it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

There is nothing 'mythical' about injury or death from backblast.

The possibility was never in question. The myth is that injury or death was the usual result.

What I found astounding is those who feel that backblast causes nothing but burst eardrums and is almost completely harmless.

What I find astounding is that you think such a person exists.

Consequence free firing of these weapons from buildings considering all the abstractions and known dangers of using these weapons doesn't seem like a valid position to me. It's simply not viable to always assume that the firer has checked their backblast area and prepped the firing area before deciding to use the weapon. It's probably not even always a valid assumption to make that the one firing the weapon was fully trained in it's use or that anyone else in the building actually knows that the weapon is about to be fired and can take the appropriate action to avoid the backblast.

The same holds true of firing these weapons from trenches or foxholes, but we already have consequence-free firing from those positions despite proof that this can be deadly if care is not taken. I am not opposed to the idea of consequences as long as they are in line with reality and applied as consistently as is feasible.

Actually, to be entirely accurate it's not even a good assumption to make that the armorer properly prepped the weapon before issuing it or that the one firing it has the appropriate fusing immediately available in order to fire it.

This is essentially modeling of dud rate, which BFC has apparently decided not to do. I'm not opposed to it, but it affects a lot more than just anti-tank rockets (17 pdr APDS anyone? )

One last thing - this does absolutely nothing for urban fighting for pixeltruppen who are fighting before 1944 or aren't German so this isn't a 'urban leveller' by any stretch of the imagination. I view that argument as a total strawman. All it does is help the Germans, and only in 1944 and 1945.

Um, last I checked the CMBN timeframe is entirely 1944-45, and BFC has at least 2 more "families" of games planned that are also set entirely within that time frame. As for it only helping the Germans, all I can say is "Bazooka"

[Kanonier Reichmann]

This sort of argument that death or injury could possibly arise from use of a Panzerfaust within a building is spurious to my mind. In case one forgets, there was a war on, so death or injury sort of comes with the territory. Sure, the chances of injury or death are possibly increased a tad when firing a Panzerfaust from within a building but the risk is more than likely a lot less then the risk of being injured or dying when there's a bloody great enemy tank in full view, just ready to use its main gun and MG's to blow you away if (when?) discovered.

I also consider ArgusEye's link to the clip which shows a recoilless weapon being discharged within a building yet not even blowing out the windows from the alleged incredibly dangerous overpressure such a weapon causes is somewhat telling in the argument.

Regards

KR

[John Kettler]

ASL Veteran,

Despite my unfortunate garble, I was talking about using the listed weapons in the game. Both ArgusEye and myself noted a Panzerfaust firing sequence in which the firer clearly would've had the backblast hitting the wall of his foxhole a few feet to his rear, yet it did nothing. YMMV, I guess.

I believe that AI control of Panzerfausts should also have a manual override, just as we do for pretty much everything else. Using such weapons is an art, not a computer flag setting! I understand the options you've listed, as well as their underlying reasoning, but I maintain that unless and until BFC allows attacks against AFVs from the ground floor of a building and from upper levels, to include things like grenades into, say, a halftrack below, particularly if no attempt is made to depict the main armament blind spot circle for tanks (see the Op Bagration thread for my discourse and German blind spot plot for the T-34/76), then it totally screws the utility of infantry vs armor in every single case ranging from a shack to the Reichstag! That is insane on the face of it, vastly more insane than if there were no drawbacks to firing from structures.

I'm not saying that having no strictures is necessarily the right approach. I earlier agreed that a morale check was probably a good idea, as was some possibility of suppression or worse. Then along came Anthony Beevor's book with Panzerfausts being successfully fired from the cellars so often the Russian had to change battle tactics. Nor should we forget their use for mouseholing adjoining house walls. If they were that dangerous would the Russians have been firing them completely indoors?

Regardless, I think it fair to note that Panzerfausts were almost certainly responsible for most of the 400 tanks (a TD worth) the Russians lost in the Battle of Berlin. Certainly the Russians thought so.

The Panzerfaust 30 (Klein) entered combat late 1943, not circa June 1944. Ditto the Panzerfaust 30.

Wiki on the Panzerfaust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust

"Panzerfaust 30 klein ("small") or Faustpatrone

This was the original version, first delivered in August 1943 with a total weight of 3.2 kilograms (7.1 lb) and overall length of 98.5 cm (38.8 in). The "30" was indicative of the nominal maximum range of 30 m (33 yd). It had a 3.3 cm (1.3 in) diameter tube containing 54 grams (1.9 oz) of black powder propellant launching a 10 cm (3.9 in) warhead carrying 400 g (14 oz) of explosive. The projectile traveled at just 30 m (98 ft) per second and could penetrate 140 mm (5.5 in) of armor.

Panzerfaust 30

An improved version also appearing in August 1943, this version had a larger warhead for improved armor penetration, 200 mm (7.9 in), but the same range of 30 meters."

Our own M. Hofbauer amplifies these points.

http://www.oocities.org/pizzatest/panzerfaust2.htm

These sorts of things matter very much to otherwise all but helpless infantry which is not only screwed in villages and up, but also can't effectively close assault armor in the open in the ways depicted in Manner Gegen Panzer. q.v. And this most assuredly was done.

Certainly, your first solution is easy, but it is, in my view, not merely wrong but also unfair and ahistorical too. What were, in reality, difficult problems for the attacker become de facto not big deals. In turn, this fundamentally warps the combat dynamics. Bluntly put, the present approach, especially in conjunction with the blind spot issue, practically gelds infantry facing armor when it comes to historically available, proven weapons and techniques. That can't and shouldn't be allowed to stand.

Why, with all the amazing development work that brought us CMBN and more, should we be forced to live without what we had way back in the CMBO Beta Demo? I vividly recall firing a bazooka, hitting the AFV, but having to beat feet when a fire broke out in the wooden house my team was in. Mmm. Fire!

In another such scenario, I thought I was doomed when at the last minute a Tiger came trundling by, headed straight for the VL. In desperation, I Targeted the tank, fired an M9A1 rifle grenade, hit the tank on the turret side, hit a weak spot, penetrated and knocked it out. Forget who I was fighting, but oh was he steamed!

Neither one of these is even possible in our vastly more detailed and realistic game/sim. That, to me, is worse than absurd and patently ridiculous combined.

Regards,

John Kettler

[chaos49]

a lot of good post about the subject. but my wish was that grenades and demo charges could be cast from windows. that will give all country an advantage to tanks in build up areas.

[dieseltaylor]

US Army Tactical and Technical Trends, October 1944.

The grenade may be launched from standing, kneeling, or prone positions. The operator must always wear a steel helmet, and immediately after firing must take cover to avoid being hit by splinters. Since a 6-foot jet of flame shoots from the rear of the tube on firing, a firing position must be so chosen that there will be no walls or other obstructions to this stream.

Incidentally is it possible that the bazooka and Panzerschrek are far less room friendly than the faustpatrone?

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_faustpatrone/index.html

Consequence free firing of these weapons from buildings considering all the abstractions and known dangers of using these weapons doesn't seem like a valid position to me.

ASLVeteran

The point is that whilst you consider the blast effects as very problematic most of the community disagree with you. Obviously it will be nice when we discover more information however one will not be pleased to be told anecdote does not count!

If BF feel gamewise it makes for too many problems and degrades the gaming pleasure then lets hear it. I can live with it as gameplay should outrank attempted fidelity to history. Perhaps a fudge is in order that makes going near enemy buildings without unsuppressed infantry friends a more dangerous event. Perhaps within 50 metres of a non-friendly building degrades spotting severely as crew keep an eye on that and associated clutter... and this is cumulative to a certain level.

[Vencini]

I'm not an expert. I give my modest opinion. I think this debate is very interesting. POsted by ASLveteran

No, the question was always what happens if one is fired and how that should be handled by the game.

Don't the game already handle tha with the "friendy fire" rules?Make a rule for a "back blast into buildings" and apply like "friendly fire" ?

1. Not allow them to be fired from buildings (simple solution)

Yeah, simple solution= boring solution. I hope this debate change that

2. Allow the Tac AI to fire the Panzerfausts when it decides to fire one with the possibility of death or injury to the firer or other occupants of the building. (complicated solution)

"Friendly fire heavy damage?"

3. Allow the weapons to be fired from damaged buildings in the assumption that it is open enough that the chances of accidental death or injury are reduced sufficiently. (halfway solution)

"friendly fire light damage?"

Only applicable in buildings not in open terrain

Chaos49

but my wish was that grenades and demo charges could be cast from windows. that will give all country an advantage to tanks in build up areas.

They could be throw by windows but only agains opened vehicles and not against tanks...(a pity!)

Regards

[JonS]

What I find astounding is that you think such a person exists.

Well, so far there've been two in the posts immediately following yours

[ASL Veteran]

Well I'm sorry to say that if the entire community of those who like to play exclusively as Germans in CMBN in 1944 want consequence free firing of Panzerfausts from undamaged buildings to be implemented in the game, the current odds of that happening are extremely low.

[ASL Veteran]

a lot of good post about the subject. but my wish was that grenades and demo charges could be cast from windows. that will give all country an advantage to tanks in build up areas.

Yes, I whole heartedly agree and have strenuously advocated as much. I'm hopeful that something can be done in that area. The fact is that infantry close assaults on tanks are done in an abstract way in the game currently in every location except buildings. It's inconsistent and I hope it gets changed.

[ASL Veteran]

Um, last I checked the CMBN timeframe is entirely 1944-45, and BFC has at least 2 more "families" of games planned that are also set entirely within that time frame.

I'm not sure what your point is here. If the issue really is that you feel that tanks have an unfair advantage in city fighting because your Nazi's can't fire Panzerfausts from buildings then this statement is irrelevant. This statement only makes sense if your motivation is something other than levelling a perceived advantage that armor has in city fights. As far as I can determine, firing Bazookas and Panzershreks from buildings was never on the table. At least, I haven't seen any evidence of any outrage by the 'community' that they can't fire their Bazookas from inside buildings. It's always about Panzerfausts. Interesting eh?