INF vs TANKS

[Vanir Ausf B]

I do have a source. Maybe more than one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0BmSEhYQ_A&t=3m49s

RPG fired from building

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

B-10 recoilless rifle fired from building twice (1:22 and 2:37)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn1NWU3nGQc&t=6m13s

RPG-29 fired from building

RPG fired from building

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtzvrg_baba-amr-homs_news#.UY2cQMpNVck

B-10 recoilless rifle fired from building

Since the end of World War II, the US Army has conducted extensive testing on the effects of firing recoilless weapons from within enclosures. Beginning as early as 1948, tests have been conducted on every type of recoilless weapon available. In 1975, the US Army Human Engineering Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, conducted extensive firing of the LAW, Dragon, and TOW from masonry and frame buildings, and from sandbag bunkers.

Firing these weapons from enclosures presented no serious hazards, even when the overpressure was enough to produce structural damage to the building. Little hazard exists to the gunnery or crew from any type of flying debris. Loose items were not hurled around the room. No substantial degradation occurs to the operator's tracking performance as a result of obscuration or blast overpressure.

The most serious hazard that can be expected is hearing loss. This must be evaluated against the advantage gained in combat from firing from cover. To place this hazard in perspective, a gunner wearing earplugs and firing the loudest combination (the Dragon from within a masonry building) is exposed to less noise hazard than if he fired a LAW in the open without earplugs.

The safest place for other soldiers in the room with the shooter is against the wall from which the weapon is fired. Firers should take advantage of all available sources of ventilation by opening doors and windows. Ventilation does not reduce the noise hazard, but it helps clear the room of smoke and dust, and reduces the effective duration of the overpressure.

The only difference between firing these weapons from enclosures and firing them in the open is the duration of the pressure fluctuation. Frame buildings, especially small ones, can suffer structural damage to the rear walls, windows, and doors. Large rooms suffer slight damage, if any. Recoilless weapons fired from within enclosures create some obscuration inside the room, but almost none from the gunner's position looking out. Inside the room, obscuration can be intense, but the room remains inhabitable.

The Dragon causes the most structural damage, but only in frame buildings. There does not seem to be any threat of injury to the gunner, since the damage is usually to the walls away from the gunner. The most damage and debris is from flying plaster chips and pieces of wood trim. Large chunks of plasterboard can be dislodged from ceilings. The backblast from the AT4, Dragon, or TOW rarely displaces furniture.

While the results of the tests may have shown that the threat of injury from debris is rare, commanders must ensure that proper safety precautions are followed prior to firing weapons inside a room.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/recoilless.htm

[Childress]

But there's also this, courtesy of WIkipedia:

Firing the (Panzerschreck) generated a lot of smoke both in front and behind the weapon. Because of the weapon's tube and the smoke, the German troops nicknamed it the Ofenrohr ("Stove Pipe"). This also meant that Panzerschreck teams were revealed once they fired, making them targets and, therefore, required them to shift positions after firing. This type of system also made it problematic to fire the weapon from inside closed spaces (such as bunkers or houses), filling the room with toxic smoke and revealing the firing location immediately. This was in contrast to the British PIAT's non-smoking spigot mortar system, or the Panzerfaust's short burst launch system.

One suspects they were used from within structures in extremis.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't see why firing indoors would reveal their position to any greater extent than outdoors. It generates the same amount of smoke either way. In fact, having some of it confined indoors would tend to reduce visibility.

[sburke]

One suspects they were used from within structures in extremis.

Yes but of course that is the only time we players would ever use them...

[Vanir Ausf B]

In extremis is not an uncommon situation in combat.

[Childress]

I don't see why firing indoors would reveal their position to any greater extent than outdoors. It generates the same amount of smoke either way. In fact, having some of it confined indoors would tend to reduce visibility.

The wind dissipating the smoke molecules and, uh,.... hell, I don't know! Ask the anonymous Wiki contributor!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Our cook, Maier, quickly noticed the movement of Russians in the house directly across the way and he promptly sprayed it with his flamethrower. As the Soviets began to bring their mortars into place, Jonas, our "specialist" from the 22nd (SS Cavalry Division), sprang up from beneath the window and fired his Panzerfaust into the Russian-occupied house. An entire corner of the building broke off and the house went up in flames.

...

We soon head rumors that Ivan was in the neighboring house. Through a hole in the wall we fired our last Panzerfaust at him. The backfire scorched our uniforms. Then we tossed a few hand grenades and rushed out for the next row of houses, which lay about 40 meters away without cover.

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

[Vanir Ausf B]

The wind dissipating the smoke molecules and, uh,.... hell, I don't know! Ask the anonymous Wiki contributor!

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

[ASL Veteran]

A persistent myth.

Not a myth

“At lunchtime a tank with infantry seated on top raced past us at an incredible speed on the street leading into town. No one could have stopped it. Even our sergeant was struck speechless. It was not long before other tanks, again with infantry on board raced past in the same direction. The same thing occurred twice more. That they were not concerned about us came as something of a shock.

When there was a break our sergeant shouted: “There are more coming. I am going to take a Panzerfaust and see if I can knock one out.” With my comrades I had gone behind an almost collapsed wall to find firing positions for our rifles. This was necessary as our whole bodies were shaking with excitement. It was not long before another tank with infantry sitting on it followed and stopped near us. The Russians jumped off and went to the foxholes of our neighboring section on the far side of the street. Their sergeant opened fire and shot one of the attackers. We were petrified when we saw the sergeant fall to a burst of machine gun fire and our ten comrades fall to shots in the neck.

When the tank was about to move off, there was an explosion and a track came off. Our sergeant had made good what he had said. However, he was unlucky, as he had been standing in a doorway between two doorposts and the blast from the Panzerfaust had rebounded off the doorposts behind him and burnt his back. The Russians jumped off and fled towards the town, but a brave machine gunner cut them down.

An ambulance took away our wounded sergeant. We laid him down on a stretcher on his stomach. The medical orderly thought that it was a wound that would get him discharged from the service. Our section was then taken over by the staff corporal.”

another account for you

"I shouted at my men: ‘Let them overrun us and knock them out with Panzerfausts from the rear!’ Some of the grain sheaves were on fire. Approximately twenty enemy tanks and armored personnel carriers were rolling towards us, their engines roaring and their tracks squealing. They crossed the Vieux-Villez road and penetrated into our positions. Our own artillery tried to stop the enemy. Next to me in the foxhole, after firing the Panzerfaust, there was a heart rending moan. The gunner had not lifted the tube high enough and he died soon after from massive burns."

How about the US Military?

FM 7-7 gives us some guidelines for using AT weapons from inside buildings

“When firing the LAW or Dragon from within a room, backblast must be taken into account. In urban combat, the backblast area for these weapons is more dangerous because of rubble and the channeling effect caused by buildings, narrow streets, and alleys. Antitank weapons should not be fired from unvented or closed rooms. By wetting down the floor of the room or building, the signature produced by the backblast may be significantly reduced.

The accompanying chart (figure R8) shows the backblast area of the various weapons and the minimum room dimensions for safe firing

TOW Room size 17’ by 24’, Ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet (open door), muzzle clearance 9 inches

Dragon, Room size 15’by 12’, Ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet, muzzle clearance 6 inches

LAW, Room size 4’ to the back wall, ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet.”

Doesn’t it seem odd after all those exhaustive studies indicating you can’t be injured by backblast that it's right in their field manuals that these types of weapons are dangerous to fire from an enclosed space?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Not a myth

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.

Doesn’t it seem odd after all those exhaustive studies indicating you can’t be injured by backblast that it's right in their field manuals that these types of weapons are dangerous to fire from an enclosed space?

Hmm, field manual vs. video evidence. I'll take the video evidence.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Actually, scratch that. The manual doesn't even contradict my point. In fact, it supports it.

“When firing the LAW or Dragon from within a room, backblast must be taken into account. In urban combat, the backblast area for these weapons is more dangerous because of rubble and the channeling effect caused by buildings, narrow streets, and alleys. Antitank weapons should not be fired from unvented or closed rooms. By wetting down the floor of the room or building, the signature produced by the backblast may be significantly reduced.

The accompanying chart (figure R8) shows the backblast area of the various weapons and the minimum room dimensions for safe firing

TOW Room size 17’ by 24’, Ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet (open door), muzzle clearance 9 inches

Dragon, Room size 15’by 12’, Ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet, muzzle clearance 6 inches

LAW, Room size 4’ to the back wall, ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet.”

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.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

[medlinke]

15' by 12' is the size of a typical bedroom.

Not in my experience travelling in Europe. lol

[Killkess]

While i cant realy join the technical debate i just want to highlight that tanks in cm2 share some unhistorical advantages in urban warfare. The mixture of super-spotting and non excisting firing-height-restrictions often gives armor an edge over infantry forces which they historical did not have.

Due to this i see no real sense in restricting the use of certain infantry at-assets from inside buildings while armor shares much more questionable capabilities. If BFC cant fix the tanks at least give the inf better ways to handle this.

[chaos49]

Womble: "The breach team spotted the PzIV almost straight away, and the tank had intermittent spots on varying members of the team. The dogfaces took no action whatsoever against the tank whilst within the building. I didn't bother testing from higher floors, since if they won't close assault from the ground floor, they're not going to from higher up. As soon as they exited the building (they did have a target order on the tank that they'd been ignoring while inside), they chucked grenades and "housebricks" at the tank, destroying it quickly from the right rear."

good that ohter see the same thing that tank are almost safe, now i dont know if its meant to be that way by battlefront ?

Steve can u confim its the way it sould be.

[bisu]

This tank vs infantry issue (including related topics as urban fight and tank spotting) keeps reappearing on this forum on regular basis really. This confirms that it is among the most crucial problems currently for the majority of players (including myself). Therefore I think it is by no means a "wasting of scarce resources" issue. Once we had this MG effectiveness discussion which was of comparable intensity and ultimately led to a fix which most of us regard as a small breakthrough in the game mechanics.. I don't remember whether Steve made ever any statements according BF plans to look closer at the tank vs infantry problem. I think it is good timing now for that and most of us would acclaim an improvement here.

[womble]

Tanks still aren't anywhere near "safe" in urban combat. They don't see infantry inside buildings very well except in the frontal arc (where they see too well, but then infantry see too well in urban environments too), and they don't see infantry behind buildings at all. There is almost always somewhere to squirrel away an infantry team or two so that a tank will run by it/them and get CAed or ATRocketed. If a tank stops anywhere with a demo team armed unit near and to its flank or rear, it's going to suffer unless it has infantry support.

I'm not saying it's not an issue: close assault should be possible from within buildings. But statements that tanks can operate with impunity will just be read as hysteria and will not increase the chance of adjustments being made.

CA should have more chance of effect from the ground floor of buildings since the brave gropos doing it will have the chance to jam things into running gear that they wouldn't from throwing range.

[bisu]

There is almost always somewhere to squirrel away an infantry team or two so that a tank will run by it/them and get CAed or ATRocketed.

Well, in my experience urban maps tend to be rather sterile environements with blocks of buildings sepatated by paved roads usually. Only minority of designers make the effort to put some terrain features which enable placement of AT teams (with the limited representation of rubble in game). In such setting an opponent with basic tactical skills has an easy task with clearing the exposed road crossings first, before advancing the tank (which supports them from behind knowing there is no threat from the adjacent buildings). In H2H play you must be very lucky or have a less demanding opponent to get a tank within your infantry AT assets range in urban fight..

[ASL Veteran]

Oh it's a myth alright.

Just keep on believing what you want to.

[womble]

Well, in my experience urban maps tend to be rather sterile environements with blocks of buildings sepatated by paved roads usually. Only minority of designers make the effort to put some terrain features which enable placement of AT teams (with the limited representation of rubble in game). In such setting an opponent with basic tactical skills has an easy task with clearing the exposed road crossings first, before advancing the tank (which supports them from behind knowing there is no threat from the adjacent buildings). In H2H play you must be very lucky or have a less demanding opponent to get a tank within your infantry AT assets range in urban fight..

So how does your opponent with baisc tactical skills clear the exposed road crossings? With infantry. It is only true to say there's "no threat" from the adjacent buildings if those buildings have been cleared of infantry, or if the tank's flanks are covered by its own support; it takes very little time for infantry to exit the building and total the tank with demo charges or (handheld)ATR(ocket/Recoilless). So the current simulation demands that you use infantry to protect your tanks in urban environments. Hardly a "sky is falling" scenario.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. If you're approaching a T-junction, you don't have to worry about anything that can pierce your armour in the building facing you across the T, though you probably ought to be suppressing it anyway since can tanks can't fire upon buildings further down lining the street they're on; infantry have to go there first, and unsupported by tank HE and MGs to flush out any defenders waiting with big bricks of plastique. Also worth considering is the effect of the visual signature of firing ATR: the little puffballs of smoke the game displays hardly reflect "clouds of acrid choking smoke", and even if they did, the TacAI doesn't have the capacity to draw the conclusion "smoke cloud and still operating == lucky escape from ATR shot" in order to take the appropriate action, unless they actually spot the team that fired. I'll also say again that it's daft that CA can't occur from within buildings when it's already so abstracted.

Making spurious points doesn't help the argument for moving the situation nearer to what we perceive to be realism.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Just keep on believing what you want to.

I believe what the evidence supports.

Unlike you.

[womble]

I believe what the evidence supports.

Unlike you.

So you pick video evidence of post-war weapon systems and post war studies of post war weapon systems to "prove" that it was practicable to fire wartime manpack AT weapons from within buildings. Your "belief system" needs some tuning.

You're also ignoring the fact that Fausts fired from cellars were routinely rigged as booby traps, unmanned, no aimed and fired handheld. It's fair enough to take "published doctrine" with a fistful of salt; as has often been said, the REMFs only issued "doctrine" to stop troops at the pointy end doing what they were already doing, in many cases. But I'm pretty sure that the number of actual WW2 anecdotes of manpack AT weapons being successfully used without serious injury from within structures which have been referred to here is now matched by the number of anecdotes where the user was seriously injured or killed.

Perhaps BFC should allow the potential use of such systems in this way, but there evidently should be a significant chance of an "user (or even team) incap" result, on top of some variable quantity of suppression and chance of "light wounds" and it should consequently take a particularly good morale check to allow the user to attempt it, regardless of the orders you, the player, issue. On top of that, it looks like the historical record suggests that firing such thing should be an automatic "firm spot" for anyone who can look at the location it was fired from, with the allowance of firing through the smoke at the team, given that smoke is protection equivalent to battleship plate if you're not already area firing through it.

But those video clips aren't supporting evidence for that position.

Query: given that MANPAD is apperently current jargon for man portable air defense, would it be useful to use MANPAT to refer to Shrecks, Zooks and Fausts? It ought to include PIAT, though, which doesn't have the same issues. MANPRAT? The R is for "rocket" or "recoilless"... Makes the last bit somewhat unfortunate though. MANPATR? ATR refers to AT Rifles too, though. Curses.

[Vanir Ausf B]

So you pick video evidence of post-war weapon systems and post war studies of post war weapon systems to "prove" that it was practicable to fire wartime manpack AT weapons from within buildings.

Oh, really? Are you under the impression that soldiers in WW2 were physically more susceptible to back blast than soldiers post-WW2?

But those video clips aren't supporting evidence for that position.

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're also ignoring the fact that Fausts fired from cellars were routinely rigged as booby traps, unmanned, no aimed and fired handheld.

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?

But I'm pretty sure that the number of actual WW2 anecdotes of manpack AT weapons being successfully used without serious injury from within structures which have been referred to here is now matched by the number of anecdotes where the user was seriously injured or killed.

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.

[Childress]

Perhaps BFC should allow the potential use of such systems in this way, but there evidently should be a significant chance of an "user (or even team) incap" result, on top of some variable quantity of suppression and chance of "light wounds" and it should consequently take a particularly good morale check to allow the user to attempt it, regardless of the orders you, the player, issue.

Yes, but, as the player we'd ALWAYS give into temptation. Our guys are just conglomerations of pixels. I seem to remember that, in CM1, you could override the TacAI and target AFVs from within buildings at the risk of injuries and fire. CM2 has no fire- yet- so the risk/reward ratio is reduced. The coding poses no problem unlike, say, gun elevations. PIATs can already fire from inside structures. BF simply decided based on the preponderance of evidence that shrecks/fausts should not share that ability.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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.