INF vs TANKS

[ArgusEye]

So the dispute reduces to 'side with me on technical issues or you're a Nazi!'.

[ASL Veteran]

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.

Has the thought occurred to you that in real life the infantry man might just reposition himself if he saw a tank approaching?

[ASL Veteran]

So the dispute reduces to 'side with me on technical issues or you're a Nazi!'.

No, I'm not asking for anyone to 'side' with me. I do sometimes wonder about the motivation behind this discussion I have to admit. It is also a fact that most of the users who were firing Panzerfausts did so for Hitler so my statement about Nazi's firing Panzerfausts is an accurate one. Of course, that doesn't mean that those who play as Germans believe in that ideology. I play as Germans frequently too.

Edited to add that there is no intent or implication in my statement about Nazi's firing Panzerfausts that those who play as Germans in CMBN are cut from the same cloth. My statement only related to those who were actually firing the Panzerfausts in anger during the war.

[Sgt Joch]

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.

"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."

Hubert Meyer, The 12th SS, (p.131)

[Sgt Joch]

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.

Tony Le Tissier, The Siege of Kustrin, (p.45)

[Vanir Ausf B]

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?

If you think this has only been about the Panzerfausts and not Panzerschrecks and Bazookas then you haven't been reading very carefully, or maybe not at all. It wasn't for the thrill of it that I posted a link to the FM 1944 for the Bazooka

And BTW, they are every bit as much your Nazis as they are mine. I am presently playing by first CMBN game commanding the Germans. So you might was well back off of that straw man right now.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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."

Hubert Meyer, The 12th SS, (p.131)

No question that foxholes were too dangerous to fire from. It should not be allowed in the game without consequence

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

I think this one was posted about 10 pages back. Or maybe that was a different one. But there has never been any doubt that if you fire one of these weapons with anything directly behind the breech it's going to hurt, inside a building or out.

[Sgt Joch]

I think this one was posted about 10 pages back. Or maybe that was a different one.

ah yes, this thead is already too long...

[Lethaface]

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.

Any weapon could have been mis constructed or wrongly armed in RL. So I think it is unfair to use this as a counter for using RR in a building.

Same goes for proper training. Why are hand grenades allowed to thrown from inside a building? (IIRC they are). Lobbing handgrenades is prone to self injury, so why not ban them all completely from the game?

On a more serious note, the main point is WHY BF disallowed firing of panzerfausts/shreks/zooks from within a building. From reading the manual I recall that this is because of the backblast of such weapons.

At first I was just surprised because this was allowed in CMSF. From well argumented posts like ArgusEye's, I begin to feel the ban on firing RR from houses is overdone and unrealistic to some degree.

[Lethaface]

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.

How did you jump to that iffy conclusion? (that only those who like to play exclusively as Germans in CMBN wants this feature). Apart from that, what does a players favorite side in CMBN had to do with odds of including a certain feature they like? I smell sensitivity here, but you should not misdirect any hatred for WWII Nazi's on people playing this game, wheter they'd like to play exclusively SS or whatever.

Personally I classify any form of racist theories as total BS, and am saddened by the fact that untill this day humanity suffers from such theories. It is indeed shocking how a whole nation was controlled by a group of racist fanatics willing to go as far as industrialized murder.

However, all of that HAS NOTHING to do with the ban on firing RR from buildings in CMBN, or whether that ban is appropriate.

[dieseltaylor]

What is the feeling about banning Bazooka and Panzerschrek from firing from buildings? Apparently the big firing signature of the Panzerschrek made it unpopular with German troops and it had a much more dangerous effect to the rear of the weapon.

Or is that too complex? The Panzerfausts were massively more common than the PzSchrek - 8 million to sub-300,00. Pzschrek ammo 2.2 million.

"The Panzerschrecks were initially less successful than Panzerfausts because Panzerschreck gunners - trusting in the impressive size of the Panzerschreck - tended to open fire at larger ranges of around 100m (330 ft.), which was also necessified by the relative cumbersomeness of the large Panzerschreck which was a hindrance when retreating into cover after the shot. Panzerfausts were easier to handle and usually shot from a distance of 30m (100 ft.) after which the soldier quite easily could get under cover again. At early trials, out of 12 Panzerschreck rounds fired at a static T-34 at a range of 100m only 3 hit the target.

In the same trial all of the five Panzerfausts fired at a range of 30m hit the tank - however one should keep in mind that this was a static target that did not shoot back!"

http://www.oocities.org/pizzatest/panzerfaust3.htm

[Fūrinkazan]

I have found this, taken form an excerpt of the field manual (d560/4) of the panzerfaust 100.

the distance of security behind the weapon is 10 m.

If the weapon is fired from a trench of foxhole, you have to let at least 1 m behind you or there is a risk of getting your back burned, or shoot with the rear of the weapon outside the foxhole/ trench. The weapon is deadly at 3 m behind it.

Unfortunately, there is no mention of the use or restriction of fire inside buildings.

I found this on a review about german anti tank tactics. It seems that there was a use of panzerfaust in buildings in Berlin, but no details so very hard to say if it was safe or not.

So i think that there will be a lot of fighting just like it was for the hmg efficiency thread.

I tested anti tank fighting in QBs against the ai, with engineers or with troops without panzerschreks, only demo charges, grenades or faust.

I'm not sure that the problem is firing from buildings or not. The problems of destroying tanks comes from :

- spotting : it seems that sometimes infantry does not spot tanks well, sometimes at few meters while the tank spot them. I had an at team crawling behind a buttoned up sherman with no tank commander cupola that was spotted at a few meters and destroyed by the tank. How were they spotted ? It also seems that tanks react very fast, sometimes faster than infantry.

- for vehicles with open top like tank destroyers, it seems that infantry targets the vehicle and not the passengers or open top. When crawling behind the tank, they start firing their rifle and after throw grenades.

When on the second or third floor of a building it's also hard to kill the passengers. I think there was a thread about this, for jeeps or trucks, were infantry targeted the vehicle instead of the crew

- no minimal range for the weapons of the tank. I attacked an immobilised tank with a team and demo charges. At 3 m they were killed by the main gun.

Some things disadvantage infantry i think, spotting to easy maybe, buttoned up tanks are almost blind at close range, this is more the case for allied tanks without cupola, and the no minimal range for weapons, allowing the tank to destroy infantry at too close range.

If i remember well, in cmx 1, tanks had lower spotting capabilities when buttoned up, especially with infantry in buildings.

Despite this, it is perfectly possible to destroy tanks with grenades and demo charges but it's a lot of micro management.

For what is about allowing AT rockets to be fired from buildings, maybe this could be linked to the experience of the shooter.

Green troops would have a high level of risk to get injured or killed while veterans much less. Another rule would be to have the at team detached from the squad and alone on the floor from which they are firing.

[John Kettler]

Furinkazan,

I took this from my #145 in the Op Bagration thread. It speaks to the tank hyper awareness issues, blind spot modeling and a way for BFC to quickly do a first order analysis of "they can't shoot me" range for close assault purposes. I also provide, via link, a German analysis of the T-34/76's blind spots and more.

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

Broadsword,

I grant there's reaction time involved, which is affected by all kinds of things. Tank speed of reaction is ridiculously quick from spotting to shooting unless you're talking about, say, switching near instantly from cannon to coax MG versus an already hit target. That I can buy. What I can't buy is a situation in which a buttoned tank pretty much sees all, instantly, has no limitations on how closely it can employ its weapons so long as they'll bear on the target. There's also that little issue of the TC's being able to see what the gunner can't. There was no commander override switch back then.

(Snip)

ASL Veteran,

(Snip)

To a first approximation, I think BFC could do a simple graph paper exercise to determine a blind spot cookie cutter representing main gun coverage assuming max depression. A kind of Cover Arc inside of which the main gun can't be used. The Germans did exactly that for the early T-34/76. I've seen the drawings. Here they are (pp. 15-17). Kurt Fischer is that former Panzerjaeger I mentioned elsewhere.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105589859/...-Volume-3-No-4

To be a bit fancier for our purposes, there could also be a reduced depression over the engine deck and some depression limit for bow MGs. Were this to be done, then tank stalking might work as it did historically. In turn, this would make players with tanks think twice about where and when they commit their armor.

Regards,

John Kettler

[cireland65]

I just stumbled upon this too. Set an ambush and my opponent parked his tank in between three squads armed with PzFst at a range of 13m. All three squads stared at the tank and didn't fire even with manual target so I came here. This limit really makes AT teams useless in city fights IMO.

[bairdlander]

Fausts CAN NOT be fired from inside building

My troops have fired them from inside buildings out the window frame.

[poesel]

My troops have fired them from inside buildings out the window frame.

Pics or it didn't happen (savegame is ok, too)

[A Canadian Cat]

I just stumbled upon this too. Set an ambush and my opponent parked his tank in between three squads armed with PzFst at a range of 13m. All three squads stared at the tank and didn't fire even with manual target so I came here. This limit really makes AT teams useless in city fights IMO.

Can you give some more details? Were your squads outside or inside? Who spotted whom? What did the tank do?

Note: you cannot fire bazookas, shreks and phausts from inside buildings. Only the PIAT can be fired from inside.

[cireland65]

They were in a house which is why I said I just stumbled upon it. The tank, well he sat there an entire turn and my infantry just watched him, and then the tank drove away advancing past them and into the back of my Ktiger with a gunner doing the 'aiming, spotting, aiming, spotting, aiming, spotting' routine. So in my next turn I will bonzai my infantry out of the buildings into the open roadway to chase the tank and maybe then they will fire at him.

[womble]

Pics or it didn't happen (savegame is ok, too)

I thought I saw a Faust fire (at another infantry target) from within a building once. It really did the job and broke the team it was aimed at. Unfortunately that was before I knew they weren't supposed to, so I didn't think anything of it, and don't have any proof (or, alternatively, way of going back and examining more closely what really happened... )

[bairdlander]

Pics or it didn't happen (savegame is ok, too)

Can we get a confirmation from battlefront that they cant fire from builds?It was from level 1.I don't have pics or save as I was unaware they could not fire from buildings.It happened at least twice in scenario "Last Defense" as Axis.

[Sublime]

It's a fact, fausts, schrecks and zooks cannot fire from inside buildings. Honestly Im surprised this still gets debated. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN - AT ALL. In fact infantry WILL NOT even close assault or throw grenades on tanks from in a building UNLESS the tank has an open top.

And yes it's ridiculous, with no gun elevation limits it really fu*ks infantry in city fights. Rockets inside buildings, along with CA's from inside buildings (since the grenade throw is an abstraction of infantry close assaulting) would at least balance things some.

[Sublime]

My troops have fired them from inside buildings out the window frame.

Absolute nonsense. It did not happen. At all. Run tests, try it again. They werent in the buildings, or your leaving something out. Firing them out the window frame wouldnt make a difference - the backblast is the problem.

As others said, saves or screens - or your just a poster whose been here 6 months whose dead wrong on the subject they quoted me on.

And why the f*ck would we need confirmation from BFC? Do you think all these guys who've been playing CM for over a decade now would be endlessly begging BFC to allow it, and discussing it if it WAS possible now? Do you really think we're all that friggin stupid and you just waltz in here and tell us we're all wrong, or we don't know what we're talking about? Maybe you think we dont actually *play* CM, we just whine about it ?

[bairdlander]

Calm down guy,its just a game.Sounds like you are having a bad day.:DHope you get well soon.

[A Canadian Cat]

It really did the job and broke the team it was aimed at.

Rifle grenade baby.

[Sublime]

yes I apologize. Im having a really bad day due to some stuff going on irl.