JasonC Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Vanir - the part where you wrote "I see no reason to think it would be prohibitively low", immediately following your citation of the mils inherent weapon figure. I do see such a reason. When I say I "see" such a reason, I mean it literally. I've got a target showing my own 50 yard dispersion firing 40 rounds from an AR freehand, and another for 100 yards, from last weekend. I know what the gun can do benchrested, and I know what it actually does fired freehand, and I know it is gobs more accurate than any bazooka or panzerschreck, at that range or the much longer one you are discussing. And all of it tells me that a freehand shot with a much less accurate weapon at 300 yards would indeed have a "prohibitively low" first round hit probability. And that nothing you cited effects that conclusion in the slightest. BTW, I agree with you that the bazooka should have a better accuracy than the panzerschreck - I just also think they should both be quite low for targets at 200 yards, and practically vanishing for 300 yards. Unless the target is an office building or something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 All, The Bazooka, by Gotdon Rottmann, has some very groggy stuff, one of which is that the early bazookas had major problems which, coupled with no real training (catch as catch can in receiving units), resulted in simply awful accuracy, so bad that Patton, then commanding Third Army, ordered that bazookas not be fired against tanks more than 30 yards away! Of course, then there were numerous duds because the fuze was in the nose of the early bazooka rocket, not the warhead's base as in the case of the Panzerschreck's rocket. Frequently, the bazooka rocket's nose crushed on impact but failed to detonate the shaped charge. The bazooka in combat accounts are most interesting, and it turns out we have our own version of Trooper Jeffries, except he faced down Tiger tanks. If memory serves, he was at Rocherath, Belgium, so likely King Tigers! Also of military-technical interest is the identification of the German intel officer who debriefed a U.S. POW in Tunisia and learned from him about the bazooka, but Rottmann is quite clear the operational compromise of the weapon occurred in Russia. In turn, that led to the Panzerschreck. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Vanir - the part where you wrote "I see no reason to think it would be prohibitively low", immediately following your citation of the mils inherent weapon figure. I do see such a reason. When I say I "see" such a reason, I mean it literally. I've got a target showing my own 50 yard dispersion firing 40 rounds from an AR freehand, and another for 100 yards, from last weekend. I know what the gun can do benchrested, and I know what it actually does fired freehand, and I know it is gobs more accurate than any bazooka or panzerschreck, at that range or the much longer one you are discussing. And all of it tells me that a freehand shot with a much less accurate weapon at 300 yards would indeed have a "prohibitively low" first round hit probability. And that nothing you cited effects that conclusion in the slightest. BTW, I agree with you that the bazooka should have a better accuracy than the panzerschreck - I just also think they should both be quite low for targets at 200 yards, and practically vanishing for 300 yards. Unless the target is an office building or something. If you know the range to the target and the aimpoint for your weapon at that range placing a shot within a few feet of that aimpoint at 300 yards is certainly not prohibitively difficult. I can do it consistently from a standing position with my rifle, which is more accurate than a bazooka but then again tanks are not small objects. A Panther tank is about 10 feet tall, 11 feet wide and 22 feet long. But whatever. I'm not really concerned about the Bazooka range getting pushed out all the way to 274 meters (300 yards), particularly if there is no means of separating what range the TacAI will open fire at on its own and what range the player can manually command a unit to fire. But an increase to 200-220 meters would not be out of order along with a bump up in accuracy. Data on the Panzerschreck seems more sparse so it's hard to say how correct it is in the game. The 200m max effective range is on the high end of what I have seen quoted. The only thing that seems clear is that whatever the Panzerschreck accuracy is the Bazooka's should be higher, especially the M9. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Whoah! Why should the bazooka have better accuracy than the Panzerschreck? The MV of the Panzerschreck is 361 fps or 110m/sec. http://homepage.tinet.ie/~nightingale/panzerschreck.html By contrast, the bazooka rocket was significantly slower at 265 fps or 80m/sec. http://world.guns.ru/grenade/usa/bazooka-m1-m1a1-m9-m9a1-e.html Given this, would someone please explain how the flatter shooting weapon winds up being less accurate at a range where both can obtain a hit? To me, this makes no sense. Am I missing something? Oh, and Patton's bazooka use "at around 30 yards" was stated November 20, 1944. The bazooka engagement accounts in the Rottmann book were practically at spitting distance (intended to be a "can't miss" range), a few tens of yards/meters.This may also be explained by the terminal lethality issues of the bazooka rocket, in that it was necessary to aim for vulnerable points on German armor, whereas the Panzerschreck rocket could and did penetrate the target at will from all aspects. The German training drawings for Panzerschreck crews depicting Allied and Russian tank vulnerability(info not to be allowed to fall into enemy hands) clearly show this to be the case, with most of the tanks being vulnerable to a K-Kill over a very large portion of the tank and considerable damage which would result if hit elsewhere. Let me put that into perspective. In one of the firing tests against the Panther, the bazooka shot missed the flank armor, went low and hit the roadwheels instead. The result? A 4" hole in the outer roadwheel hit, which wasn't otherwise damaged, and NO damage to the interior roadwheel! Something to ponder. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 There is more to accuracy than velocity. Stability in flight matters. That the Panzerschreck had much better penetration than the Bazooka is not in question. This thread in not about penetration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Vanir Ausf B, Please supply some evidence illustrating the purported instability of the Panzerschreck rocket in flight. I haven't seen any that I know of. Footage I've seen indicates no apparent problems with in flight stability. Were such stability problems to have been the case, I would expect to see lots of complaints from the field about how inaccurate the weapon was, for if the rocket was unstable, and given its relatively high velocity, the drift off the aim point would be glaringly obvious except at very close range, yet the Germans trained to hit a range of tanks at 150 meters (sight pictures shown directly in the manuals). If there's proof the Panzerschreck rocket was unstable compared to the bazooka rocket, and that it seriously affected accuracy at, say, 150 meters, then I'm most interested in taking a gander at it. I don't know what the planned accuracy factor was at 150 meters, but I'd guess at least 50%, maybe higher. I do find it of interest that the training range was set up for shots at 200 meters or less. If they did, indeed, train the way they fought, then that must've been the bounding distance for a militarily reasonable Panzerschreck shot. In practice, closer was better, but I don't recall any German instruction to routinely withhold fire until 30 meters, more like twice that plus a bit. the manuals also make it clear the Panzerschreck crews trained hard on rapid reloading to create a higher volume of fire. Kill the enemy tank as fast as possible--before it kills us! Penetration comes into the discussion because it's directly related to the issue of weapon employment. Essentially, the Americans had to let German armor get really close in order to have a good chance of hitting a weak spot, whereas the Germans, armed with a weapon with excellent penetration characteristics and lethality, suffered no such limitation. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 300 yards with a shreck means aiming 36 feet in the air to golf arc the shell onto the target. A comparable rifle shot in flight time and inherent dispersion would be about 1800 yards, not 300. If you can hit a tank sized area with a rifle consistently at 300 yards, that is roughly comparable to hitting it with a schreck at --- 50. As for the reason all infantry AT opened very close, it is because men are not suicidal. Announcing your presence and exact location to a main battle tank is not something sane men do without a solid belief that there shot has a good chance of being effective, or desperation, or both. They want not any possible hit chance and death in seconds if they miss, but a better chance of hitting than not hitting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Please supply some evidence illustrating the purported instability of the Panzerschreck rocket in flight. I haven't seen any that I know of. Footage I've seen indicates no apparent problems with in flight stability. Please supply some evidence that the panzerschreck was more accurate. We have the dispersion of the Bazooka. I do find it of interest that the training range was set up for shots at 200 meters or less. If they did, indeed, train the way they fought, then that must've been the bounding distance for a militarily reasonable Panzerschreck shot. In practice, closer was better, but I don't recall any German instruction to routinely withhold fire until 30 meters, more like twice that plus a bit. the manuals also make it clear the Panzerschreck crews trained hard on rapid reloading to create a higher volume of fire. Kill the enemy tank as fast as possible--before it kills us! The training regimen for the Bazooka specifies shots out to 300 yards (274 meters). Penetration comes into the discussion because it's directly related to the issue of weapon employment. Essentially, the Americans had to let German armor get really close in order to have a good chance of hitting a weak spot, whereas the Germans, armed with a weapon with excellent penetration characteristics and lethality, suffered no such limitation. Nobody disagrees with that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Here's what my semi-groggy reference says on Schreck. The weapon in the game should be the 8.8cm Racketenpanzerbuchse 54/1. The earlier model 43 and initial model 54 did only have a range of 150m. The 54/1 model fired the extended-range RPGr4992 round that could reach to 200m, or 220 yards. Interestingly, this same source says U.S. Bazookas had a range of 640m! Yikes! That must mean pointing the tube at 45 degrees and letting fly. 'Fighting range' was only about 150 yards. This implies the Schrek's listed 'max range' of 200m was max aimed combat range. I'd expect if you fired one over the barn it would keeping flying for 6-700m too, probably tumbling for half the distance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 IIRC, max range on the Panzerschreck was greater than the bazooka, something like 800-1000m (maybe depending on the model). Problem with effective range/combat range/etc is that it is not always firmly defined. Generally it means 50% probability of a first round hit, but ranges given in training/manuals can also be influenced by doctrine and other factors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Vanir Ausf B, You were the one asserting the bazooka was more accurate than the Panzerschreck, but in order to invidiously compare the former with the latter, seems to me you'd need the same sort of data for the Panzerschreck's ballistic dispersion as you obviously have for the bazooka. Unless you'd care to provide such data or something equivalent thereto, all you have is an assertion, not proof! For the record, I'm not disputing the training range for the bazooka, and as you pointedly remarked earlier, this is a discussion about (not merely) accuracy, but (really) antitank accuracy. Against an M7 Priest. In order to make such a comparison, I deliberately elected to bound the problem by choosing an identical range for both weapons. MikeyD, I've previously cited what Patton had to say, as of November 20, 1944, about the proper fighting range for the bazooka. So, while the sights might say one thing, and stateside training might teach another, the realities of war, and Patton if you were in his Third Army, dictated much shorter engagement ranges for the bazooka, in order to make a telling hit on often very tough Panzers. As for maximum Panzerschreck range, at 45 degrees, it'd go a klick! JasonC, If what you say is true, then how much harder would it be for a slower rocket (the one from the bazooka) to hit something at the same 300 yards? I believe that video showed a bazooka in Nettuno, Italy could hit a good sized building at pretty impressive range, not sure how far, and the six-barreled bazooka could absolutely pummel it. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted December 12, 2013 Author Share Posted December 12, 2013 Here's what my semi-groggy reference says on Schreck. The weapon in the game should be the 8.8cm Racketenpanzerbuchse 54/1. The earlier model 43 and initial model 54 did only have a range of 150m. The 54/1 model fired the extended-range RPGr4992 round that could reach to 200m, or 220 yards. From what I get from the manuals is that range is decided by ammunition and not by type of weapon. The 54/1 is just a bit shorter and lighter than the 54. There were three types of ammo: "Arkt" (arctic), "Sommermunition 44" and "Arkt 44/45". All types could be fired from both the 54 and 54/1 (there were adaptor plugs). Arkt 44/45 had a range from 100 to 200m depending on temperature. The others should not be shot over 100m. There is also a warning not to shoot Arkt at over 30°C as it could explode prematurely through overpressure. Reference: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1486330&postcount=14 I have no idea when or where the weapons and ammo were fielded. So I can't say with which we are actually shooting in CMBN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Unless you'd care to provide such data or something equivalent thereto, all you have is an assertion, not proof! I never claimed to have proof. But I do have some evidence while you have basically nothing that says otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Interestingly, this same source says U.S. Bazookas had a range of 640m! Yikes! That must mean pointing the tube at 45 degrees and letting fly. 'Fighting range' was only about 150 yards. This implies the Schrek's listed 'max range' of 200m was max aimed combat range. I'd expect if you fired one over the barn it would keeping flying for 6-700m too, probably tumbling for half the distance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 JK - a good sized building? So we've gone from 6 mils accuracy claims and 1/3rd hits at 300 yards, to "could hit the broad side of a barn"? Look, this isn't all that complicated. Almost all weapons have solid accuracy against tank sized targets at 1 second of flight time and some chance of hitting at 2 seconds of flight time, and precious little beyond that. But real ATGs then have 750 meters of range per second of flight time, and hand held rocket launchers only 100. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 JasonC, Methinks you're taking things more than a bit out of context. We started this whole exercise with poesel71's report that he was getting 33% hits (Regular troops, rested, perfect weather, in command, etc.) at 200 meters on a Priest and, thinking this was on the high side, inquired what we, his gaming colleagues, thought. In turn, this led to the statement by Vanir Ausf B that the likely bazooka rocket modeled had a dispersion of 6 mils. That led to an unproven assertion by him that the bazooka was more accurate than the Panzerschreck, but he has yet to provide dispersion data for the Panzerschreck. The above form, I think, the key parts of the debate. I stipulate that firing range performance, particularly if bench testing is used there, simply isn't likely under combat conditions. But I now choose to seize your one second time of flight argument and point out, absent contradicting data, the Panzerschreck, by virtue of its higher MV than the bazooka, should have a longer optimal engagement range than the bazooka. If that's not, in fact, happening in the game, then I'd love to know why? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 One area that none of you are thinking about is the sighting on these weapons. The sights were not designed to aim at targets the distances you are discussing. So it really does not matter if the weapon could hit a target at greater ranges. its the fact no common soilder would try because the weapon was not designed to do it as for sighting. Now on the other hand, because of how the sighting worked. A crew that was able to fire the weapons enough and experement, likely could easily come up with focal points within the sighting system and hit targets at distances beyond the sighting marks. (but again for gaming purposes, all this should likely never take place.) So the weapons should not be fired much past the designed sight distances the weapon has. That is the where the game should reflect the dostance- now the question , does it do that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altipueri Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Life was so much easier when I played table top wargames and if the bazooka was in range - we said 100 yards max - roll a dice and 5 or 6 is a hit. Which is about the same 33% the OP was getting. Things are being over complicated and over analysed for no significant increase "realism." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 So the weapons should not be fired much past the designed sight distances the weapon has. That is the where the game should reflect the dostance- now the question , does it do that? I don't know about the 'Schreck, but the ranging scale on the M1A1 Bazooka went up to 300 yards in multiples of 100. The optical sight on the M9A1 went up to 700 yards in multiples of 50. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 See above in re optimism. The sights do not tell us practical ranges in combat. Firing at multi second ranges is golfing - to the inherent inaccuracy of both operator and weapon, add inaccurate range estimates and aiming points several multiples of the target size in the air above it, and hits become a matter of the wildest stroke of luck. And then men generally don't like taking such chances when the result of a miss is they speedy demise. That is why all hand held rocket AT weapons are very short range weapons in practice. Like, 200 yards at the outside, and 100 a much more practical shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Vanir Ausf B, My earlier, heavily documented post vanished in a computer burp and some weird lockout from first posting, then logging in. Took me about six tries to get out of the cycle back to login loop, several after complete system shutdown, to include unplugging! In any event, the gist of what I said before is this: The Panzerschreck, because of the effective 150 meter limit imposed by relatively low thrust rockets it fired that weighed 7.4 lbs each, didn't have a lot of reach. Considerable work, available to the troops at the end of 1944, produced an improved rocket, with a 200 meter range. Both values reflected what the Germans had calculated as the effective range at the time. The Panzerschreck's iron sights reflected this, with the later one able to accommodate every rocket type. By contrast, the bazooka fired a rocket weighing just over half of what the Panzerschreck fired, and the bazooka had a telescopic sight with built-in reticle. Inert Ordnance says the bazooka had a 300 yard point fire range, which I take to mean could hit something the size of a tank, as opposed to a barn. Had the Germans managed to produce a rocket capable of such range, then they, too, would've needed pricey telescopic sights for their Panzerschrecks. I still think we need to take a hard look at JasonC's 1 sec TOF rule which, within its designed range band, should give the Panzerschreck greater "legs" for that part of the rocket's flight, thus, greater accuracy than the bazooka. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 JK - what is the fall off in velocity with range for the two? The schreck round does leave faster, check, but it is also much larger, bigger cross section for air resistance etc. If the velocity drop were exactly the same then I would agree that more initial V means better range with decent accuracy. But I have my doubts that the V loss would be the same. 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.