Bazookas/PanzerFausts

[tgra]

I'm beginning to think that Bazookas for the AI are a waste of time. I'm not going to be stupid enough to move armour within 100M of a house without checking it out first although it seems the AI is a bit more open to doing this.

Just when I thought they were useless I was watching a 60 seconder and heard the 'donk' sound. "Bollocks" I thought "what was that?"

It seems my Sherman had run straight into a bloke with a Panzerfaust hidden in a hollow.My infantry team had missed him (them) as they were concentrating on an MG.

However, in about 10 plays (OK I know FOW is lost after the first play) I have only lost one tank to hand-held weapons.

Is this normal? Is this historically correct?

Some people have said that MG fire is not as effective as they thought. Perhaps this is why I can lead with infantry so often and then bring in the heavy-stuff.

[Fionn]

Bazookas and fausts shouldn't kill you if you're being careful and have enough infantry.

However, if you don't have infantry and are in close terrain etc then they are massive killers.

I just took out a Sherman with two Panzerfaust 30s in a streetfight today. PF 30s are worthless in open terrain but come in very handy in a streetfight.

I think MGs are fine. Also, remember that MGs in the beta demo don't have any "grazing" effect and they are a lot more effective in the full game IMO.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Huron]

There's an intersting table about the effectiveness of German infantry AT-weapons on this site, that somebody mentioned on the board earlier:

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust4.htm

In the current table and time, of almost a million Fausts and Schrecks supplied to the troops, they only accounted for 350 out of some 8000 confirmed armour kills. There are some if's and but's to these figures, explained on the page.

The whole site is a very good read about infantry AT weapons, IMO.

Huron

[Wild Bill Wilder]

In my opinion those antitank weapons are mirrored very accurately in this game. Panzerfausts can be indeed deadly at relatively close range, even the sorry ones.

Bazookas will leave you frustrated (as in the real WW2). Bazooka men in this game are brave men indeed.

And the German heavy MG42 is a nightmare. That sucker can wreak havoc in an Allied advance, again very true to life.

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

Dirctor of Scenario Design,

The Gamers Net

[tgra]

Yep.. without much need for debate I agree.

The MGs have proved themselves pretty deadly on both sides. Perhaps it's the AI tending to make a silly error by moving armour too close to buildings without checking them out (even when Infantry is available).

I'm just trying to think of why I'm more effective at anti-tank tactics than the AI when I am a pretty inexperienced wargamer.

[howardb]

I've had several kills with the Shreck but none whatsoever with fausts, I've heard that they've fixed this in the final. There is one thing that bothers me about the shreck and it's the speed which he walks. It's too slow. The MG42 teams should be slow granted but not the shreck teams.

[Fionn]

Howardb,

Your last post paints you . So, you play CLOSE COMBAT do you?

I'm almost certain you do since super-fast-sprint schreck teams were one of my complaints in CC.

A couple of months ago this was issue was reviewed and actual weights of weapons, ammunition and bulkiness was looked at. The end result was that schrecks can't run.

Take a look at a schreck and the weight of the rockets and realise the loader is carrying 40 lbs of rockets in a suitcase and the number 1 is carrying the big, heavy schreck tube and you'll realise why they can't run while the zooks can.

It's a real pain in any German commander's a** but that's the way it is unfortunately. I think it's realistic.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest JonS]

tgra

going back to the first post on this list, you say

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm beginning to think that Bazookas for the AI are a waste of time. I'm not going to be stupid enough to move armour within 100M of a house without checking it out first although it seems the AI is a bit more open to doing this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, even though the inf AT weapons aren't getting kills, they are modifying your tactics merely by their presence, and potential. Imagine what your tactics would be different if the other side didn't have any such weapons, then think again if they're a waste of time?

Regards

Jon

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[Reverendo]

I only have a little problem with AT guns, Bazookas, Schreks, Fausts and tank main guns:

-My AT weapons ALWAYS miss

-The AIs AT weapons ALWAYS hit

Even under the same conditions. You always talk about AARs in which a Stug takes like 3 or 4 shermans out. Ok... Whenever I try it, my Stug is knocked out at the first shot, while if I try it with the Americans, the Stug DOES kill the three Shermans, even if all three are firing at the same time.

Is that a bug or just disastrous luck?

Will the 'Hack the Reverend's armour' string be removed from the final game's code?

P.S: I once saw one of my Panzerschrecks knocking a Sherman out, but it seldom happens. I remember once I told a Schreck to fire at a Ronson's rear from 10 meters. Nobody was shooting at the Schreck, he wasn't even fatigued, since he hadn't moved on the whole battle... and he missed. Twice. Even three times, till the Sherman shot him down.

:¬(

[howardb]

Fionn I think you're wrong (no in fact I know you are wrong because I've had real life expiriences with a similar weapon system). During recruit period in the Norwegian army we used the Carl Gustav AT weapon system (If i'm not much mistaken it's about 16-20 kg's I dont remember the exact figures. I know US Rangers use it too, I saw them shooting with it on a Discovery program) and we could run several hundred meters with it. It's definately heavier than the shreck + ammo.

This is taken from http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust3.htm

"The firing tube of the Panzerschreck was164cm (65 in.) long and weighed 9.25kg (20.4 lb) (empty). The projectile used was the RPzB.Gr. 4322 (Raketenpanzerbüchsen-Granate / "Rocket Tank Rifle Round") that carried a shaped charge of 660g (23.3oz.) and weighed 3.30kg (7.27 lb.)"

A later version:

"Production of the Panzerschreck had changed to this successor model in October 1943. The Raketenpanzerbüchse 54 weighed 11kg (24.2 lb.)(empty). It was also modified to fire the newly developed RPzB.Gr.4992 which with a modificaton of the propellant had a longer practical range of 180m (590 ft.) (absolute theoretical range against nonmoving large targets was 400m). This ammunition too came in a summer and a winter version.The armor penetration of both RPzB.Gr. 4322 and 4992 was 230mm (9 in.), at a 60° impact angle this figure was reduced to 160mm (6.3 in.). The ammunition was transported in a carrying frame holding 5 rounds, the wooden supply crates contained 2 rounds."

And the last model:

"The next model was the RPzB.54/1. Changes were the reduction of tube length to now135cm (53.1 in.), which among other changes led to a reduced weight of 9.5kg (21 lb.). The ignition system was changed: the contact pin to the missile was changed to a contact ring. Also the sights were redesigned and improved. Although the weapon officially entered service at the 20th December of 1944, the first order for this new weapon wasn't given before early 1945, and of the requested 48,000 only 25,744 had actually been delivered until the end of the war."

Considering the Shreck teams only carried roughly 5 rounds with each shreck (in the game at least) I see no problems at all running with this weapon system (2 guys could actually run with double that amount of ammo). Lastly it's no secret that I used to love CC2, I think I played it every day for a long period of time. I even brushed away the dust from the old CD while I was waiting for CC3

[MikeT]

Fionn, this does explain German efforts to put PS and PF rockets on nearly any thing with tracks or wheels. They French tracked carriers and even captured British Bren carriers to transport these rockets.

Mike T

[Guest JonS]

Ahh, Mike - you aren't thinking of Nebelwerfer rockets are you? There's a bit of a difference between those and PS/PFs.

Regards

Jon

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[Fionn]

Howardb,

It's not only weight it's the cumbersome nature.

Check out the schreck but mroe importantly the carrying case. It's highly cumbersome and difficult to run with.

Personally I'd LOVE to have someone do a comparison between the zooks and the schreck and prove the schreck could be run with.

It would make my job as German commander MUCH easier.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[tgra]

Hi JonS,

Not moving tanks within 100m of buildings before they have been checked is my SOP and, unless there was no infantry available, MUST have been SOP during WWII... surely!!??!!

The possibility of anti-tank doesn't make me change tactics.

[Fionn]

Pham got one of my Shermans in CE at close to 190 metres with a Schreck.

100 metres is nicely inside the schrecks range. You'd be better off staying 200 metres away IMO

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[howardb]

Fionn:

I'm afraid I still don't agree with you because it's not really that cumbersome. I've ran with a weapon system that's nearly the same size (a little smaller) and much heavier (almost twice as heavy) with no problems at all. Had amost the same carrying cases for ammo (although in plastic). It's not like I could run a marathon with it but for some hundred meters it would be no problem at all, in fact I could take a km or two with a shreck now if you want to (I live in stavanger people look me up in the book). Furthermore what's the point in making a test between zookers and shrecks? You might maybe run faster with a zooker yes but you'll still be able to run with the shreck. No the test should be in if you could run with it and if yes how long. This is actually just common sense.

I've seen the shreck and don't come and tell you can't run with it because it's so big, heavy and cumbersome (you make it sound like it's huge which it's not). I dunno but maybe it's just Norwegian soldiers that are so far SUPERIOR (personally I don't think so but if you're right then I suppose we are) to others or the facts are wrong about the shreck in the game

[Guest rune]

I try not to get involved in these discussion, as I am trying to keep my lurking status. However, howard is correct on this. On the web page given, there are two photos of troops running with it. It had a strap so it would be held in one hand while running. I did more research on the net and started looking in books, and found 3 more photos of troops running with it. I accept that this might not be enough proof, so...while I research it even more, what would you accept as proof? I have a call and email into the Patton Museum to see what information they have on it, will that suffice?

rune

[Fionn]

Hey, I'd be HAPPY if schrecks could run.

1. It isn't that the guy with the tube couldn't run. I accept he could... It's that the guy with the carrying case probably couldn't.

2. Non-evidence based comments don't help anyone's case. Facts are needed to change items, not stories about running. Weapon weight, ammo weight, dimensions of carrying case etc.

3. Rune, yup it's not the tube carrier I think had to walk. I think the guy with the carrying case would probably have walked.. I can't remember exactly why this was decided but I'm pretty sure it was a combination of weight and cumbersomeness.

4. Howardb, an essence of decision-making is comparison. If the guy carrying the bazooka rounds can run and his load weighs more and is more cumbersome than the schreck ammo carriers load then ipso facto the schreck carrier could run. There is logic there.

5. Photos with guys jog-trotting with the schreck tube wouldn't be proof. You've got to remember that the issue is the ammo carrier. I think most everyone accepts the schreck carrier could do it. It's the ammo carrier I doubt. Since CM deals with them as a unit if one can't then both can't.

6. Check out the PIAT and the PIAT case and compare it to the zook and schreck for example.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[howardb]

"The projectile used was the RPzB.Gr. 4322 (Raketenpanzerbüchsen-Granate / "Rocket Tank Rifle Round") that carried a shaped charge of 660g (23.3oz.) and weighed 3.30kg (7.27 lb.)"

That accumulates up to about 16 kg's with 5 rounds (which is the standard ammo in the game). Even if it was over 20 kg's I'd still be able to run. That the shreck units can't move faster than a MG42 w/tripod is what's concerning me, it's totally out of proportions more so than the comparison of Bazooka vs Panzershreck.

[Fionn]

Ok, I'm going to state this once more slowly and clearly.

It is not ONLY weight it is to do with the cumbersomeness of the carrying case.

I can run carrying 20 Kg if it comes to it too BUT I can't run carrying two 10 Kg suitcases. Simple point eh?

So DEAL with the carrying case and dimensions etc.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest JonS]

Nice response. HowardB - your real life, actual factual, rinky dink experience is irrelevant. Sorry. Best you go out and read a dozen or so books and come back to us then.

"It works in practice, but can we make it work in theory?" Anon.

Jon

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 12-07-99).]

[Guest rune]

You guys are missing the point. I understand what Fionn is saying...before we go making changes to the database, they want it based on fact, and not best guess or hearsay. We all can agree the man with the stovepipe can run, but the guy hauling is the issue. Personally, I think he can, as I remember it, there was the case with 5, which broke down into 2 wooden small cases which held 2 each. that would make it about 20 pounds in each hand, not realatively large. HOWEVER, before we change the database, I will do whatever it take to supply proof of this. I have amended the inquiry to the patton museum. The point is, I don't want another CC3 "best guess" database, I want it as close to real as it can get, and I understand Fionn's point of proof first.

Tim

[MikeT]

I think I will contact the Wermacht Mailing list about this issue. These characters seem to know a great deal about Heer equipment and such.

I made a comment about the Wermacht modifying captured light inf tracked vehicle to serve as mobile anti-tank weapons. I will post a better description later to night.'

Mike

[Guest panzerfaust]

Yesterday I had a chance to go to the local military museum where I got to look at and hold *get this* the Panzerfaust 30, the Panzerchrek and the late model Bazooka... and I agree 100% that you could run with the Panzershrek. Granted I'm only 18 so my knowledge of this stuff is limited but a lot of the guys would have been my age.

[Major Tom]

What's with all this running anyway!?! I rarely run, especially when just trying out a new scenario. When I started Random Encounter, I snuck my forces around the map. I didn't know where anyone was, you don't want to run into an ambush, do you? However, with all of us knowing inside and out these three demo scenarios we can afford to be a litte reckless in running troops as you know where the enemy is and isn't. Later on, when we get the game this won't seem as that big of a deal, since we won't be running as much. I rarely run with my bazooka teams anyway, frankly, I rarely move them other than to get into position or to get better firing angles, and this is usually done by crawling.

Hasn't your Mother ever told you not to run around with Panzerschrecks?

As a kid, not TOO long ago, I had some of these miniature 1cm tall soldiers. In one of the packs, I had an American Bazooka gunner, and in the other, a Panzerschreck. The Panzerschreck was not quite as long, but, it was much fatter. I don't know the model's accuracy, but, it looked pretty unwieldy. I have some pictures of an American Bazooka, it is a pretty thin looking thing.

Want to see something REALLY ackward looking? Take a look at a PIAT. I actually have a pretty interesting story about my first experience in seeing an actual PIAT. Some friends and I were waiting outside of a building (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) to see a concert, and the line just happens to pass some sort of Army Surplus store. This being late at night it seemed really strange that some guy leaves this store carrying a PIAT. Now what the heck is he going to do in a downtown city at night with that?!?!

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 12-07-99).]