INF vs TANKS

[womble]

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

No. Don't be daft.

B-10 recoilless rifle firing which has over 10 times the back blast of a Panzerfaust 100

Reference? Is the backblast as hot? Does that backblast control nozzle on the back do nothing to affect how that blast interacts with the firer and his crew?

It's still not a WW2 first generation weapon.

Modern weapons produce less backblast. They're designed to do so. They're more sophisticated. Unsurprisingly.

[quiote]And you are ignoring the US Army tests.

[womble]

Yes, but, as the player we'd ALWAYS give into temptation.

Hence the need for a morale check to see if the shooter is brave enough to take whatever risk it's assessed that they are taking by pulling the trigger. Whether the player base as a whole would accept the additional lack of control is another question.

BF simply decided based on the preponderance of evidence that shrecks/fausts should not share that ability.

Such decisions can be changed.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Reference? Is the backblast as hot? Does that backblast control nozzle on the back do nothing to affect how that blast interacts with the firer and his crew?

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.

It's still not a WW2 first generation weapon.

1954 to be exact.

Modern weapons produce less backblast.

That is not universally true. You are forgetting that WW2-era AT rockets had much shorter range than modern weapons. For example, I have read that the initial charge on the RPG-7, which is designed to be fired from buildings, is more powerful than the charge in a Panzerfaust-30. The RPG-29 doesn't have an initial charge; it burns it's entire charge before leaving the tube.

And how, pray, are the game mechanics going to account for that? Every room in CM buildings is the same. And those are still field manual accounts for modern weapons.

Simple. They don't. They don't account for it now. Just allow it for every building instead of banning it for every building. That isn't completely realistic, but it is closer to it than the blanket ban (except for PIAT).

And you're assuming your pTruppen will never make any such similar mistake. The chances of fouling up are vastly increased inside where there's much more stuff behind you. Do remember that the insides of buildings in CM are desperately abstracted. Rooms in Europe are not 8mx8m.

Why would they need to be 8mx8m? Where did you get that requirement from?

And I am not assuming a zero risk. I'm assuming a small one that would be dependent on training, i.e. Experience rating in-game.

Infer: to safely fire a weapon system inside, preparations have to be made. If as in all CM cases those preparations have not been made, it follows that they are not safe to fire inside.

Assuming the room is large enough to begin with, the preparations are opening the doors and windows.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, I only want the evidence presented to actually be relevant to the weapon systems in question.

Then good luck on finding some, because there appears to be very little out there. And I will reiterate that the only instances of injury when firing from structures presented so far are clear example of soldiers making a careless mistake. That proves it's possible to get hurt doing it but says little about how likely that is.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

However, in WW2 these weapons were in the earlier phase of development and backblast would have been a problem creating a danger to the man firing the weapon.

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

Given the dangerous results of this in a confined space such as a room would you want to be the guy asked to fire the weapon in such an environment?

On a rather larger scale

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Just as the Soviets had learned a lot about urban warfare, so had the Germans. The Waffen SS did not use makeshift barricades erected close to street corners, because these could be raked by artillery fire from guns firing over open sights further along the straight streets. Instead, they put snipers and machine guns on the upper floors and roofs because the Soviet tanks could not elevate their guns that high, and simultaneously they put men armed with panzerfausts in cellar windows to ambush tanks as they moved down the streets. These tactics were quickly adopted by the Hitler Youth and the First World War Volkssturm veterans.

...

Soviet combat groups started to move from house to house instead of directly down the streets. They moved through the apartments and cellars, blasting holes through the walls of adjacent buildings (making effective use of abandoned German panzerfausts), while others fought across the rooftops and through the attics. These enfilading tactics took the Germans lying in ambush for tanks in the flanks.

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

source given is: Beevor, Antony (2002). Berlin: The Downfall 1945

The Nordland's armour was reduced to four captured Soviet APCs and two half-tracks, so Krunebberg's men's chief weapon was now the panzerfaust which were used for close quarters battles against both Soviet armour and in house to house fighting against Soviet combat groups.

[womble]

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

source given is: Beevor, Antony (2002). Berlin: The Downfall 1945

Good find. I'm somewhat surprised that a Faust makes a hole in a brick wall big enough for entry purposes, but that's a big lump of HE, even if much of the blast is being focused by and into its liner, so not all that surprised. Should point out that there's a typo in my earlier post: "no" should be "not"; shades of meaning, but I didn't intend to state that cellar-origin ambush fire was always booby-trap based. I'm pleased you've found some evidence that it was not.

I want to be clear: I do think that CM tanks at the moment aren't as vulnerable in close terrain (urban or sylvan) as they should be. If BFC can be convinced that ATRR can be fired (at whatever level of risk) from indoors, and can conceive of how that can be implemented (opening the windows of a room that's in sightline of the tank you're going to shoot at could potentially draw unwanted attention, which should be accounted for in the spotting model, no?), then it would help make armoured OUT the sphincter-puckering exercise it seems generally accepted that it ought to be. However, I am equally convinced that any changes will have to be evidence-based: BFC don't have a track record of making changes just because of outcry.

Edit: Oh, one other thing: any idea what the Nordland's "captured Soviet APCs" were? As far as I can Google, they didn't have any, other than lend-lease M3s...

[Childress]

I'm fine with these weapons firing from structures provided the risk is there. If I, directing a shreck team, observe a Sherman 76 rolling by our 1st floor window guess what I'm going to do? Who cares if we end up with a couple of yellow icons. That game is worth the candle, as the French say... There's no cost/benefit equation currently worth considering. Throw in a burning building and two dead landsers that changes.

Also, who should open up if the event occurs intra-turn? A seasoned Veteran team or a jittery, trigger-happy Green one? Is it Motivation based? Experience? And what choice does the enemy AI make? Complexities, complexities...

[womble]

I'm fine with these weapons firing from structures provided the risk is there. If I, directing a shreck team, observe a Sherman 76 rolling by our 1st floor window guess what I'm going to do? Who cares if we end up with a couple of yellow icons. That game is worth the candle, as the French say... There's no cost/benefit equation currently worth considering. Throw in a burning building and two dead landsers that changes.

I'm sure the "player will take every shot available" thing has been an inhibition on BFC making ex-building fire even a possibility. Even if it was a stone cold certainty that every man of a squad was going to be skull or cross base when the Faust went off, 90% of players would make that sacrifice for a perceived good chance of eliminating an entire tank. Which is why I think the pTruppen ought to get a say in whether they actually open up or not.

Also, who should open up if the event occurs intra-turn? A seasoned Veteran team or a jittery, trigger-happy Green one? Is it Motivation based? Experience? And what choice does the enemy AI make? Complexities, complexities...

Some choice calculations like this are already made, I gather, wrt the close assault process. I'm pretty sure BFC have said that well motivated, experienced troops in good morale and fatigue states are more likely to undertake close assault of armour, given the opportunity, than scared, knackered, poorly motivated newbies. The calculus of potential suicide already exists to be used

[Childress]

But which team let's it rip? Why should the Veterans, acutely aware of the downsides, roll the dice but not the hastily trained noobs? Why should the Vets position themselves in an enclosed space to begin with? Do we limit this to the zealous? Players will deliberately place Fanatic shreck/faust teams in buildings.

Edit: Hmmm, maybe not such a bad idea...

[womble]

But which team let's it rip? Why should the Veterans, acutely aware of the downsides, roll the dice but not the hastily trained noobs? Why should the Vets position themselves in an enclosed space to begin with? Do we limit this to the zealous? Players will deliberately place Fanatic shreck/faust teams in buildings.

Edit: Hmmm, maybe not such a bad idea...

Just for the sake of illustration, suggestion and discussion:

Perhaps low motivation Veterans will be less likely than high motivation Greens. Conscripts wouldn't even know which end of the Faust not to stand in front of... It doesn't have to be a smooth curve, it can just be a table of factors arbitrarily plucked. Or maybe Charles can devise a function that accounts for the appropriate variables appropriately, the graph of which can only be sketched on an n-dimensional surface. If the AI had some concept of "threat" in an area, that could be accounted for too: the pTruppen wouldn't be intrepid if they suspected that there were Scout teams the other side of the street into which they would be firing.

One thing with the backblast effects and firing out of apertures: the shooter, not being able, as would normally be the practice with small arms fire, to position themselves at the back of the room they're shooting out of, would be more exposed to enemy spotting and counter fire than they normally would when firing out of a window.

[costard]

Watching the videos, the B10 was fired with the backblast going out of a large hole in a street-fronting wall and was set up to fire through two more large holes in walls: well keyholed. The weapon isn't in a contained space for backblast effects. In effect a fortification has been built to accommodate the weapon.

The RPG was interesting - again being fired through a large hole in the wall (the top corner of the building was rubbled), masses of smoke and we didn't get a look at the operator after firing: the two guys you see going into that small space at the end of the clip could well have been looking to help an injured man.

I don't see any evidence in the videos that care isn't being taken to significantly minimise the effects of backblast. This would lend itself to the hypothesis that backblast from these weapons is significant, and that operators of these weapons take care to employ the weapons in such a way as to avoid injuring themselves. That operators do injure themselves when they don't have the opportunity to get an optimum result (enemy kill + zero self-harm) would support the idea that operators do take on the risks of sub-optimum deployment in order to get a sub-optimum result (enemy kill plus self injury).

Morale and experience ought to play a role, weapon type and relative chances of success do too. Add in varied terrain effects (hell does rain have an effect on the likelihood of a shell turning on armour? Why not? - add in weather effects too.) Now, build a code that does all this -um. Not me, I'll be happy if someone else does it, even pay them for their effort but I recognise that BF need to run a successful business and this effort might be considered at a lower priority than those posting here.

Battlefront, fix or do sumfink!

[John Kettler]

Based on the sum total of evidence presented, I'm of the firm opinion and belief that the case for using bazookas, Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks indoors has been made. The historical accounts support such use, the U.S. Army's studies support the capability of such use, and there are multiple recent combat videos showing the use of far more potent weapons indoors, with all present in the room and vicinity apparently emerging at worst shaken up and maybe with hearing issues after firing--when people aren't standing directly in the backblast, such as the case seen in one streetfighting RPG sequence. Clearly, some pretty powerful weapons can be and are being fired from inside, by people in thin shirts with short sleeves no less!

This altogether too breezy for my tastes, but it does show a Panzerschreck team set up to fire from inside a building. This is GD in May of 1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J27051,_Russland,_Füsiliere_mit_%22Panzerschreck%22.jpg

Another Panzerschreck team set up to fire from the remains of a building.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Infantry/Firearms/German/Panzerbuchse/images/Panzerschreck_in_action-px800.jpg

Still another.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/757898-2/rpzb_54_44_9h48k7wlmb0ow8gs4kkw0c4kk_ejcuplo1l0oo0sk8c40s8osc4_th

If anyone reads German, here are the manuals.

http://www.bergflak.com/psmanual.html

Page 9 of the definitive one shows a Panzerschreck ready for firing from yet another building ruin.

http://www.bergflak.com/images/D1864_6.pdf

Additionally, I think the case can be made CMx2 is a step backward in modeling AFV effectiveness in MOUT, in that in CMx1 it was dangerous to bring an AFV near an unsecured building, for undetected infantry on the upper levels could and did drop grenades, satchel charges, Molotovs and other unpleasantness on those below. I lost a number of AFVs to such causes myself. The Russians learned this same harsh lesson during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. There, trucks, armored cars, BTR-152s and tanks were showered with Molotov cocktails, from the rooftops, gutting whole columns trapped in the relatively narrow streets. Naturally, the open topped vehicles fared the worst.

The test results indicate infantry not on the ground floor of a building can do nothing of the sort in CMBN/CMFI, but is itself at grave risk because the tank's (the extreme case for purpose of this argument) situational awareness and reaction times are grossly unrealistic, especially if buttoned, there is no modeling of blind spots (critical issue in tank stalking) or of various close-in infantry techniques to blind and cripple the tank prior to attempting to outright destroy it.

Men Against Tanks

Additionally, the tank can engage even the top stories of the buildings with impunity despite the laws of physics and the technical limits of the weapons used. Since I doubt BFC is likely any time soon to model those things, I deem it appropriate that the playing field be somewhat restored to normalcy by allowing bazooka, Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust to be fired from inside buildings, perhaps with morale checks and "die rolls" for effects on occupants.

I would like to point out that the link specifically talks about firing recoilless rifles and smaller rocket type and RPG weapons FROM upper stories of buildings DOWN upon a tank so as to hit its weaker top armor. Note well, too, what it says about the effects of firing such weapons indoors on personnel. In essence, not much in the way of negative effects.

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

I believe this pic will shed some light on what a Panzerfaust firing looks like without all that daylight in the way.

http://zwentzen.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/panzerfaust_fire.jpg

Regarding the use of the Panzerfaust for mouseholing, I refer the poster to the earlier account in which a Panzerfaust took an entire corner off a house. I do not believe an interior wall, at least, for a house, would be that big a deal. Volksturm firing the Panzerfaust against buildings in familiarization training. Vid quality's awful, but does make my point.

From a very good description of the Panzerfaust series we get this

http://www.dererstezug.com/panzerfaust.htm

(Fair use)

"The 'faust was not used just against tanks, either. Another effective use of the weapon was as a "house buster". When attacking buildings & light fortifications, the German soldiers soon learned that a round or two of Panzerfausts could destroy or breach walls & demoralize the defenders." (Fair use)

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lethaface]

Perhaps these weapons could be given a deploy command/delay for indoor usage. Or have the option to create a prepared position in a house during deployment phase. We CAN setup HMG positions in houses ad hoc fashion, which too would need preparations in RL (apart from setting up the tripod).

I don't know enough about this to really add to the discussion, but I don't see how the back blast from a RPG-29 would be significant less than the back blast from a panzerfaust.

In CMSF it is possible to fire RPG's etc from indoors and for gameplay purposes that felt right. Smoke never obscured the entire floor to prevent return fire, I often had teams moving to another floor/building ASAP after firing.

So if not (only) for the sake of realism (which has arguments both ways), I would allow it for gameplay purposes. Urban recoilless rifles/guns usage (and CA from buildings) is a micro management hog at the moment. So I see room for improvement

There would be many possibilities to maintain the PIAT indoor advantage, like setup time or possible injuries.

[Childress]

Well, that settles that.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Watching the videos, the B10 was fired with the backblast going out of a large hole in a street-fronting wall and was set up to fire through two more large holes in walls: well keyholed. The weapon isn't in a contained space for backblast effects. In effect a fortification has been built to accommodate the weapon.

That is true of one of the B-10 videos, but not of the other. But even in the video you refer to the room is nevertheless quite narrow.

I don't see any evidence in the videos that care isn't being taken to significantly minimise the effects of backblast. This would lend itself to the hypothesis that backblast from these weapons is significant, and that operators of these weapons take care to employ the weapons in such a way as to avoid injuring themselves. That operators do injure themselves when they don't have the opportunity to get an optimum result (enemy kill + zero self-harm) would support the idea that operators do take on the risks of sub-optimum deployment in order to get a sub-optimum result (enemy kill plus self injury).

This isn't in dispute. We know that careless handling of these weapons can lead to disaster in any situation. I recently saw a video of a man seriously injure or kill himself (it wasn't clear if he survived) when he fired his RPG into the wall in front of him he was trying to shoot over. And this was outdoors. I've seen another video of a man similarly hurt or killed when he walked directly behind a RPG as it was fired. Again, outdoors. The case could be made that there should always be a small chance of someone getting injured any time one of these weapons is fired, outdoors or indoors.

The question isn't if there is zero risk. In combat there is some risk inherent in almost any action that involves engaging the enemy, and it boils down to weighing the risk/reward. Shooting at a tank is a risky proposition in any circumstance, not just from in buildings. But if shooting from a building gives you a tactical advantage you take that risk. To me the relevant questions are is it feasible and was/is it done in practice often enough for it to be allowed in the game. I think the answers to both of those questions is yes.

EDIT: I referenced this video above. Here's what can happen if you get careless with backblast

[womble]

Based on the sum total of evidence presented, I'm of the firm opinion and belief that the case for using bazookas, Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks indoors has been made.

Good for you. Your track record for assessing evidence ain't exactly spotless, though, in many people's eyes.

The historical accounts support such use...

Some accounts have come to light, yes.

...U.S. Army's studies support the capability of such use...

No, they don't. They support the capability of such use for modern weapon systems which are decades advanced from the first generation Tubes.

...recent combat videos showing the use of far more potent weapons indoors...

More potent? Yes. With the same backblast characteristics as WW2 tubes? Yet to be demonstrated. Propellant charateristics and propulsion jet control technology have changed radically since 1943.

This altogether too breezy for my tastes, but it does show a Panzerschreck team set up to fire from inside a building. This is GD in May of 1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J27051,_Russland,_Füsiliere_mit_%22Panzerschreck%22.jpg

a) it's propaganda.

it's a rubbled building. You can fire Shrecks from rubble in-game right now.

Another Panzerschreck team set up to fire from the remains of a building.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Infantry/Firearms/German/Panzerbuchse/images/Panzerschreck_in_action-px800.jpg

Again, remains. That building has no roof.

Still another.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/757898-2/rpzb_54_44_9h48k7wlmb0ow8gs4kkw0c4kk_ejcuplo1l0oo0sk8c40s8osc4_th

Still no roof. Look at the top lighting on their helmets.

If anyone reads German, here are the manuals.

http://www.bergflak.com/psmanual.html

The only bit I could puzzle out that seemed relevant was that the backblast goes thirty (30) metres back. That's lots of flame and nastiness.

Page 9 of the definitive one shows a Panzerschreck ready for firing from yet another building ruin.

Ruin. Not intact building. You can already fire the things from ruins.

Additionally, I think the case can be made CMx2 is a step backward in modeling AFV effectiveness in MOUT...

In a number of ways, that's probably true.

The test results indicate infantry not on the ground floor of a building can do nothing of the sort in CMBN/CMFI...

Actually they show that infantry on the ground floor can't do anything like that either. They have to move out into the street to execute such close assault.

...there is no modeling of blind spots (critical issue in tank stalking)...

I don't think that's necessarily true. In the test I ran, the team Slow moved up on the target from several AS away and weren't spotted on "hard ground". They were on the 6 of a PzIV with a cupola. If they strayed even a bit from "right behind" the tank, though, they got spotted. If they moved upright, they got spotted. If you're stalking a tank, you'd better crawl!

Additionally, the tank can engage even the top stories of the buildings with impunity despite the laws of physics and the technical limits of the weapons used.

I count this as a wash with not being able to target buildings further down the street you're on.

I believe this pic will shed some light on what a Panzerfaust firing looks like without all that daylight in the way.

http://zwentzen.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/panzerfaust_fire.jpg

I love that picture It's incongruous with the "little puff of smoke" that you see in that "training film", which certainly looks innocuous enough. That's a big flash out the back though.

Regarding the use of the Panzerfaust for mouseholing...

As I said, it was a bit of a surprise, but on further consideration it ought not have been. It's more significant, I think, that mouseholing often occurs from one enclosed space to another, so if it wasn't purely confined to making entry from outside, it goes to show that there were circumstances where even the combination of launch flash and warhead detonation was bearable in a confined space.

Vid quality's awful...

Isn't it just? :-0 But "Panzerfaust: essential equipment for every Hausfrau!" is a great piece of propaganda "Tired of your old decor? Panzerfaust makes stripping that wallpaper a breeze!"

[poesel]

If anyone reads German, here are the manuals.

http://www.bergflak.com/psmanual.html

I've read the manuals. There's nothing about firing in confined spaces. No mention, nothing against, nothing for it. There are security warnings about the flame coming out the back.

So they forgot it or never thought anyone would fire one inside or didn't deem it dangerous/noteworthy.

[dieseltaylor]

I've read the manuals. There's nothing about firing in confined spaces. No mention, nothing against, nothing for it. There are security warnings about the flame coming out the back.

So they forgot it or never thought anyone would fire one inside or didn't deem it dangerous/noteworthy.

Rather a telling point in that last sentence.

[womble]

Rather a telling point in that last sentence.

Which one of the three possibilities? All are, in isolation, potential explanations.

[Childress]

The Panzerfaust

Just to add fuel to the fire, as it were:

Caution was to be paid to the backblast of the weapon, it created an explosion blast of two to three meters ( 6.5 - 10 ft.) behind the tube.Therefore on many Panzerfausts, especially the early panzerfaust 30 m, a warning in large red letters printed on the upper rear part of the tube advised to stay clear:

Achtung! Feuerstrahl!

Sometimes other variations of this warning were stenciled on the upper rear. But the backblast wasn't only dangerous to bystanders: the rear of the firing soldier had to be free of obstacles for at least 3 m (10 ft.), otherwise heavy burns on the back of the firing soldier would result. Officially the rear of the gunner had to be free for 10m for safety reasons and the backblast was reported as lethal to a range of 3m behind the tube.

Mostly the fiery backblast, but also the atmospheric pressure and the relative hazardousness of the blast's smoke put heavy restrictions on indoor use; this holds true even more for the Panzerschreck.Despite the seemingly easy usage and the fact that simple usage instructions were printed onto each weapon, many accidents happened because of wrong handling of often ill-trained personnel, sometimes also because of material defects of the weapons themselves.Although officially a single-use throw-away weapon, the used tubes of the all the Panzerfaust weapons were usually collected and returned for rearmament at the factory.

Above all, do NOT try this:

http://www.germandaggers.info/weapons6.htm

[Vanir Ausf B]

Mostly the fiery backblast, but also the atmospheric pressure and the relative hazardousness of the blast's smoke put heavy restrictions on indoor use; this holds true even more for the Panzerschreck.

What "heavy" restrictions, specifically? The only one mentioned is a 10 foot clearance.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM23-30.pdf

Bazooka field manual, February 1944. On page 183 it states that it is "not desirable" to fire a Bazooka from a vehicle due to backblast, but there is nothing about firing from buildings.

[dieseltaylor]

Which one of the three possibilities? All are, in isolation, potential explanations.

I thought it worth leaving it hanging. : )

Lets face it warfare is a life and death matter. On that basis given a chance to nail a tank would you or I , or perhaps more to the point a fanatical German, risk a modest danger and NOT fire? So I think it unlikely that the Germans did not fire from rooms at targets of opportunity.

However at the end of day perhaps BF have decided the game plays better the way they have it. I do not play urban scenarios so have no idea whether this is a correct view or not. Just ahistorical.

[dieseltaylor]

BTW the effectiveness of bazooka's is called on here:

Re: WW2 Bazooka [-] Posts: 4

Aug 29 03 11:29 PM

• Reply
  
• Quote
  
• More
  • My Recent Posts

You might wish to read these volumes in the series "United States Army in World War II": "The Ordnance Department: On Beachhead and Battlefront"; "The Ordnance Department : Planning Munitions for War; "The Ordnance Department: Procurement and Supply" (Washington, D.C. : Office of the Chief of Military History, U.S. Army, 1968) . In addition, these volumes have a lot of footnote and bibliographical references to articles about the development and performance of the bazooka.

According to "The Ordnance Department: On Beachhead and Battlefront" book, the British did test some early model bazookas in North Africa, but found them to be unsatisfactory in performance against the more heavily armoured models of German tanks, and they thought that in the poor cover of the desert, it was unlikely that soldiers using the bazooka would get within the recommended 100 yard range needed in order to get a sure hit, and that the backblast was sure to betray their position. So for the time being, they stuck to their 6 pounder anti-tank guns as their primary battalion level anti-tank weapon, and the Boys .55 inch calibre anti-tank rifle issued to each platoon, which could penetrate only about 12 mm of armour at 100 yards range.

Later seeing the need for such a weapon, however, they adopted the Projectile Infantry Anti Tank in time for the invasion of Sicily in 1943. Normally at least one PIAT was issued to each platoon in infantry companies.

It was derived from a spigot mortar (the Blacker Bombard, invented by retired British Lieutenant Colonel Stewart Blacker, who was a prolific inventor of armaments, most notably the anti-submarine warfare weapon called the "Hedgehog", which threw a cluster of armour-penetrating missiles from a ship; he also developed the PIAT). The PIAT was a launcher with a simple spring loading and firing action. The round was held in a trough at the front of the projector; releasing the trigger of the cocked weapon set a steel spigot in motion, contacting the rear of the round, igniting the ballistic cartridge attached to the tail, which set the projectile in flight.

The PIAT had to be cocked manually the first time, but theoretically afterwards, the recoil of the weapon would recock the spring. The spring was however, very difficult to co-ck (or recock). (Sorry about the misspelling-- for some reason the forum's interface won't let me write the "c" word!) The trigger was stiff, requiring a two finger pull, and the brief lapse between pull of trigger and ejection of round often caused soldiers to release their grip too early, resulting in a failure to recock that took a great deal of strength to reset. The manual says: "...although the weapon is fired from the shoulder, the action on firing is very different from that of a rifle or machine gun. When the trigger action has released the spigot, a total weight of about 12 pounds travels forward for one-tenth of a second before the round is fired.The backward thrust on the shoulder is increased and the balance of the weapon changes slightly. The aim has to be kept steady against these effects..."

As Tony Williams pointed out, one big advantage that the PIAT had over the bazooka was that there was no backblast, and thus it could be fired from an enclosed space. (Firing a bazooka inside a room was just as deadly as being directly behind the backblast of the weapon when firing in the open.) It was recommended that the PIAT's firer take a prone position, however, as the weapon's violent recoil meant that it was virtually impossible to fire while crouching or standing, although I've seen photos of soldiers kneeling with the PIAT in firing position while up against a wall or window. Commonwealth troops also disliked the weapon's great weight (32 pounds) and length (39 inches).

Another advantage was that the PIAT's hollow charge warhead was adequate for penetrating the armour of most German armoured vehicles; it could normally defeat about 4 inches of armour at 0 degrees slope. In one famous incident, a Canadian infantryman in Italy, on the night of 21st-22nd October 1944 on the Savio River, Private Ernest "Smokey" Smith of the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, knocked out a Panther in Italy in 1944 with a PIAT from a range of 10 yards.

For anti-tank purposes, however, it was recommended that the PIAT be fired from within 100 yards (it wasn't very accurate at long range) and from a flanking position.

It could also fire HE (if my memory serves me correctly, 2 inch mortar bombs were used) out to about 650 yards.

Although the American 2.36 inch M1 Launcher, Rocket, Anti-Tank (the "bazooka") could theoretically penetrate up to 5 inches of steel, it was found that its normal performance against

vertical armour was only about 3 inches. More importantly, the narrow cone of fire of the warhead (it made a hole about 1 inch wide) meant that the round was often ineffective when striking at angles other than the vertical-- the HEAT round's chemical "jet" explosion would detonate in a direction away from the target's armour plate and thus fail to penetrate-- and since the American soldiers often faced enemy vehicles with well sloped armour, if the round struck at other than a right angle, then a GI was often in trouble.

In fact, there were a lot of complaints about the weapon from American soldiers.

"Bazookas - In training tests using the regular U.S. bazookas and the German "81-mm" bazooka (my note-- the 88 mm Raketenpanzerbche 54) the following results were obtained:

German bazooka:

Firing at a Mark V tank from ranges of eighty to two hundred yards both side and front armor were penetrated each time the tank was hit. Approximately twelve rounds were fired. In each case where the target was missed, the projectile detonated upon hitting the ground.

U.S. Bazooka:

Firing at the same target at a range of eighty yards with the U.S. bazooka, out of ten hits on the side armor, only three penetrations were obtained. At two hundred yards no penetrations were scored. In cases where the target was missed, the projectile generally did not detonate upon hitting the ground. Up to ranges of two hundred yards, the German weapons was more accurate, possessing a flatter trajectory than ours. Tests indicate the German bazooka is far superior to ours."

Lt. Col. L. W. Correll, Commanding 17th Armored Engineer Battalion, 1945

General James Gavin of the 82nd Airborne was perhaps the US army's most vociferous critic of the bazooka. (Read his book "On to Berlin".) He witnessed bazooka rounds "bounce off" the armour of Tigers and Panzer IVs "from as close as 10 yards" at Biazza Ridge in Sicily in 1943, and he was extremely bitter about being mislead into believing that the bazooka was capable of easily destroying any German tank, as the manual claimed. He was even more angered to find that one member of the bazooka's development team had resigned in protest because it was well known that the weapon could not destroy the heavier German tanks that were coming out in 1943. He caustically said that his men never received an effective man portable anti-tank weapon until they captured stocks of German Panzerfausts in late 1944.

The later models of 2.36 inch bazookas (like the M1A1, M6A1, M9, M9A1) improved in range and accuracy-- the late models could hit large stationary point targets (like a tank) out to 300 yards and hit area targets at 7-900 yards (depending on the launcher's model and ammunition used), but even in the Korean War the warhead's armour penetration problem had not been solved.

For example, on the road to Osan-ni in South Korea on July 5, 1950, a second lieutenant of the 34th Infantry Regiment, Ollie D. Connor, fired 22 rounds from his 2.36 inch bazooka at the rear target facing of several T34/85s at 15 yards range. He failed to knock out even one tank.

The US Army tried to blame the failures of 1950 on old ammunition, but the 2.36 inch bazooka continued to be used throughout the Korean War, and even with replacement stocks of ammunition, it was well known to be inadequate against Soviet built T34/85s, just as World War II veterans knew it was inadequate against most German tanks from 1943 on. More indicative of what the army really thought was its hurried replacement of the 2.36 inch bazooka with a much better weapon.

The real answer was the 3.5 inch "super bazooka", which ironically had been developed at the end of World War II in answer to German armour, but for some reason it was not seen as being an essential weapon to put in the hands of combat soldiers. But the T34/85's appearance in Korea induced the Ordnance Department to rush the 3.5 inch M20 and M20A1 bazookas into production. Depending on the model, this weapon could penetrate 10-11 inches of armour.

The small 2.36 inch bazooka continued to soldier on in Korea, since its light weight and portability made it a good weapon for bunker busting in the mountainous terrain of Korea.

Cheers,

Andy

http://forumonwar.yuku.com/topic/554

I note the comment on rooms though this assertion is not backed up by any proviso on room size, open windows and doors etc.

[Childress]

What "heavy" restrictions, specifically? The only one mentioned is a 10 foot clearance.

As noted (Womble?), interior spaces in CM are, by necessity, heavily abstracted and many different sizes are present. One supposes a room could be cleared for this purpose given time and opportunity; perhaps if the AT team in a structure doesn't move after the start of a scenario in a fashion similar to the camouflage bonus enjoyed by AT guns that don't move. Maybe you could have Green and /or Fanatic tube teams opening fire in an unpredictable manner and, importantly, outside the player's control: no manual targeting allowed.

Certainly a spacious warehouse floor would be suitable. Definitely not barns with their abundance of flammable materials (hay?) and wooden plank walls. Any building sporting a blown out wall to the rear of the weapon should be okay. But the coding could prove tricky; BF hasn't been able to fix the anomaly of Rhino tanks reversing through bocage.

You've made some telling points, but, on balance, I endorse the current implementation especially given the absence of appropriate penalties.

[womble]

What "heavy" restrictions, specifically? The only one mentioned is a 10 foot clearance.

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.

10 foot of clearance can be difficult to find in european houses.