John Kettler Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 The item in the link at 2:17 may rattle some cages and perhaps cause reconsideration of the BFC view on the practicality of firing Panzerfausts from enclosed structures. The sequence is in Battlefield I, Part 1, the Battle of Berlin, and I've never seen its like anywhere. It shows a bunker with three fairly small rectangular firing ports, out of which quickly emerge a Panzerfaust each! This position appears to be fully enclosed and is fashioned from stone rubble, which makes it hard to spot in the rubble where it's sited. The location wasn't given, but it was part of Berlin's defenses. See for yourselves, along with lots of good footage. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Well, they don't show them firing, and you can't see the back of the position, so it's not exactly conclusive. Lots of great footage though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Like the poor sods in that bunker I think you might be grasping at straws on this one. -F 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 2, 2013 Author Share Posted September 2, 2013 Fenris, Would that be mjkerner or me? I can't tell to whom your reply is addressed. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Hi John, my comment was regarding using the film as evidence for panzerfaust use from enclosed spaces. I was suggesting that like the makeshift bunker it would be a tactic of improvisation/desperation. I wouldn't mind being able to do it in game though to be honest. Perhaps causing the firing unit to become heavily suppressed with a chance of injury. Less so depending on how damaged the building was.. But I think the conventional wisdom of recoilless weapon firing indoors being a big no-no still holds. -F 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 *sigh* http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=73a_1374260554 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a80_1373203646 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 2, 2013 Author Share Posted September 2, 2013 Fenris, Okay. Understood. Am not sure how makeshift that bunker is considering the firing embrasures are stone framed and that the weight of the top cover has to be many tons. I further find it of interest that it this bunker/PB has multiple radial embrasures, rather than merely one firing port. To me, this suggests real combat engineering and that the position's probably laid out to cover an intersection. While I take your point on your views on firing recoilless weapons indoors, the fact remains we have footage of people doing exactly that and surviving to shoot again. Vanir Ausf B, It would be nice to know the outcome of the first vid. As for the second, that has to be the least effective RR or RPG shot vs a tank I've seen to. T-55 takes a direct hit and survives? Must've been a partial dud! That's the first time I can recall seeing a RR fired through a loophole (and a small one at that). Typically, it's been a window or doorway. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umlaut Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 I really have no opinion on whether fausts, zooks or schreks should be allowed to fire from inside buildings in CM. But I´ve read that fausts were very popular among soviet soldiers in Berlin - for blasting holes in walls between buildings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 2, 2013 Author Share Posted September 2, 2013 umlaut, Indeed, and they were used indoors, in basements, to enter the one next door. Rather screws the standard model, never mind the reports of wholesale Panzerfaust firings from the basements forcing the Russians to change their street fighting tactics when operating armor. Frankly, I liked the way things were in CMBO as far as infantry vs armor when infantry was in buildings. You simply didn't go gadding about near buildings without thinking twice. I say this from experience, having lost my favorite 251 "dragon" to an most embarrassing grenade or similar in my CMBO days. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Fenris, Okay. Understood. Am not sure how makeshift that bunker is considering the firing embrasures are stone framed and that the weight of the top cover has to be many tons. I further find it of interest that it this bunker/PB has multiple radial embrasures, rather than merely one firing port. To me, this suggests real combat engineering and that the position's probably laid out to cover an intersection. While I take your point on your views on firing recoilless weapons indoors, the fact remains we have footage of people doing exactly that and surviving to shoot again. Vanir Ausf B, It would be nice to know the outcome of the first vid. As for the second, that has to be the least effective RR or RPG shot vs a tank I've seen to. T-55 takes a direct hit and survives? Must've been a partial dud! That's the first time I can recall seeing a RR fired through a loophole (and a small one at that). Typically, it's been a window or doorway. Regards, John Kettler Really? To me it looks like a pile of rubble quickly thrown together to form a bit of shelter. There seems to be no actual mortar holding the bricks together. One hit from anything solid and that thing comes tumbling down... I sure wouldn't fire a rocket launcher from in there :/ But then again, they might be 12 year old hitlerjugend with only one rocket... disposable in all the meanings of the word... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 I recall in one old interview ('World at War'?) a woman said she was trained to fire a Panzerfaust for home defense. In training she hit the target squarely first time - but in the process she got the propellant jet in the face. After that she always flinched on firing and never hit the target again. I suppose by the time we get to Berlin they figure the firing within buildings technique only needs to work once. Rather like those Japanese soldiers running up to a tank with a shaped charge tied to the end of a long stick. Good luck with that plan. As to RPG, I believe that distinctive mid-body bulge in the launcher was a chamber designed to ablate the backblast somewhat (am I using the word 'ablate' correctly?), making RPG more confined-spaces friendly. Remember RPG-7 design post-dates Panzerfaust by 15 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 I suppose by the time we get to Berlin they figure the firing within buildings technique only needs to work once. Rather like those Japanese soldiers running up to a tank with a shaped charge tied to the end of a long stick. Good luck with that plan. Somehow I doubt that the Soviet troops using panzerfausts to mousehole between adjoining basements considered them to be suicide weapons As to RPG, I believe that distinctive mid-body bulge in the launcher was a chamber designed to ablate the backblast somewhat (am I using the word 'ablate' correctly?), making RPG more confined-spaces friendly. Remember RPG-7 design post-dates Panzerfaust by 15 years. I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to since no one has posted anything featuring an RPG-7. If you mean the two videos I posted, those are B-10 recoilless rifles. The "mid-body" bulge, which is actually located at the breech end of the barrel, is a venturi nozzle. It's purpose is to spread out the force of the propellent charge over a larger surface area of the barrel so that the barrel doesn't explode, thereby enabling larger propellent charges to be used without making the barrel thicker. It does practically nothing to lessen the backblast, which in the case of the B-10 is several times more energetic than a Panzerschreck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 The "mid-body" bulge, which is actually located at the breech end of the barrel, is a venturi nozzle. It's purpose is to spread out the force of the propellent charge over a larger surface area of the barrel so that the barrel doesn't explode, thereby enabling larger propellent charges to be used without making the barrel thicker. There's a novel explanation I never came across before. I had always figured that the venturi were there to accelerate the gasses flowing through them, thus balancing the recoil from the projectile as it is fired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 It does that too, to some extent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 9, 2013 Author Share Posted September 9, 2013 I believe this article on Chechen antitank tactics will provoke some thought. The text clearly states the RPGs are being fired from inside the buildings and that the tank hunting teams are dropping Molotovs from above on trapped tanks and other armor. The Russian attack being described was the first assault on Grozny, before Russian artillery blew the snot out of the city. Note also that the tank main gun can't depress enough to shoot into basements or elevate enough to engage upper stories. http://vabapaase.webs.com/thechechnyaexperience.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 See this post in the Market Garden Allied AAR #2! http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1467621&postcount=81 One of the urban combat improvements is that infantry anti tank weapons (Bazookas, Panzerfausts, Panzershrecks) can now be fired from buildings, with negative affects being applied to those around the launch. This can be suppression, injury or both. Weapon type affects the degree of the negative affect. -F 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 12, 2013 Author Share Posted September 12, 2013 Fenris, Outstanding! I have vivid memories from the CMBO Beta Demo of firing a bazooka from a small wooden building. Got the tank, but set the place on fire and had to exit. Hastily! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Outstanding! I have vivid memories from the CMBO Beta Demo of firing a bazooka from a small wooden building. Got the tank, but set the place on fire and had to exit. Hastily! ISTR doing the same thing, or maybe it was a Shreck that was fired at me. In any event, the small wooden house caught fire and had to be evacuated with a morale hit on the troops involved. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 12, 2013 Author Share Posted September 12, 2013 Michael Emrys, This major improvement in infantry antiarmor capabilities strikes me as a very good reason to get MG, since I'd imagine/hope it would add this capability into CMBN. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.