Jump to content

Panzerfaust shot at Infantry Target?


Recommended Posts

I've seen this - with raised eyebrows - happen regularly in pitched, knifefight range infantry battles without any vehicles in CMFB 3.0 (haven't tried playing the Germans in 4.0 yet). It seemed to happen when the soldiers were getting low on ammo - but that was normally the time for the most pitched fighting as well. I do have endgame screenshots with soldiers out of all ammo proudly cradling their fausts, so it's not like they're programmed to expend them without a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

<Snip> the question is why?did he panic?or is it built into the ai?to make random poor choices?

Was the AI shooting on its own or did they have a Target order?  If they were given a Target order my guess would be the Target order is the reason.  

CM Engine 3 Manual Page 48: This is the standard fire command, instructing a unit to use all of its available weapons to fire at the designated target.  

So as long as the weapon is in range, has ammo, is deployed if needed to be deployed and the operator is not suppressed etc. they may use it.  I don't think they would have fired it if given the Target Light order.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, target order usually frees squad TacAI to use all their weapons on the target.  However, it would be totally normal for troops to expend LATW weapons against infantry, especially in urban combat.  Huge numbers of bazooka rounds and panzerfaust were expended in the war, and probably only a minority were fired at AFVs.  If you are in a situation where you are sure you need to hold LATW in reserve for tanks, the best thing to do is split the AT team off from the squad and give it different targeting orders.

Before someone points it out, it is a known issue that LATW is not handled consistently between WWII titles, CMSF and CMBS.  Good reminder that still needs to be sorted!

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

Is this something they would do in real battle?

Yes. Especially in a close-in battle for their lives, they would throw in whatever they had to hand. And even before it got that desperate, if the enemy had some kind of cover that could not be penetrated by their rifle caliber personal weapons, like masonry, they would fire a shape charged weapon if they had one. In Italy the Brits were even firing AT guns at earthwork positions to penetrate. BTW, in a recent game of BS, I had a team fire their Javelin at a dug-in enemy team, taking them out, and I was glad that they did even though I had not specifically ordered it to.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infantry firing anti-tank weaponry at other infantry is very common in my experience. Especially if the opposing infantry is in buildings.

I would have thought this AI behaviour is entirely appropriate if a little annoying from our God perspective - "Damn it! I'm expecting enemy armour in fifteen minutes!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5.1.2017 at 9:48 AM, niall78 said:

Infantry firing anti-tank weaponry at other infantry is very common in my experience. Especially if the opposing infantry is in buildings.

I would have thought this AI behaviour is entirely appropriate if a little annoying from our God perspective - "Damn it! I'm expecting enemy armour in fifteen minutes!".

I remember, back in 1982, in the Battle of Goose Green during the Falkland War, British Paras even used wire-guided Milan rockets on Argentine MG positions. There was a hot debate in the media, how "appropriate" that was. But in any case, it was very effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using any and all weapons in any situation to win a battle/war is appropriate.

However, there is an economic issue in the wider picture.  Especially in modern conflicts, we in this game are more than happy to shoot off very expensive Javelins (Wicky: 'In 2002, a single Javelin command launch unit cost $126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000.") to take out very few infantrymen.

I know that this has been done.  Saw a Brit doc that showed them using a Jav to take out a sniper.  But, is this "cost per kill" affordable?  Is this really going to be generally allowed by high command in RL situations?  I wonder if using such a sledgehammer to kill a nut should have a Victory Point cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I agree with OP. It's a HEAT weapon and the soldier  hits the other soldier like it's laser designated. HEAT not HE. Extremely low kill rating if it lands near you, same with panzershrek. molten metal stream / concussion vs  explode on impact like HE does. Plus to hit anything moving at that range let alone a tank would be extremely difficult with this weapon.

Edited by user1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Using any and all weapons in any situation to win a battle/war is appropriate.

Being an old wargamer, I tend to agree with you.

But looking at, e.g., dropping barrel bombs on everybody in Aleppo, systematic rape in other places, you name it.... makes the statement quite questionable. It does not take much, to justify any attrocities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

Being an old wargamer, I tend to agree with you.

But looking at, e.g., dropping barrel bombs on everybody in Aleppo, systematic rape in other places, you name it.... makes the statement quite questionable. It does not take much, to justify any attrocities.

I was thinking of the use of expensive support weapons vs low value targets.  Not arguing for atrocities vs civilians.  However, I believe the decision re nukes dropped to get Japan to surrender quickly to save hundreds of thousands of US lives re casualties invasion of home islands was valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Erwin said:

I was thinking of the use of expensive support weapons vs low value targets.  Not arguing for atrocities vs civilians.  However, I believe the decision re nukes dropped to get Japan to surrender quickly to save hundreds of thousands of US lives re casualties invasion of home islands was valid.

Yes, I thought so.

And I fully agree with your Japan example. Or the bombing of Germany, which is a little closer to me.

But still, a statement which I could not let go without comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...