Panzerfaust BBQ

[hnh3_cm]

Is anybody else finding it almost impossible to mount a defense in buildings because of AT weapon backblast. A good 50% of my games end up with self-inflicted building fires ruining my defense. I can't believe for a second that the chances of a panzerfaust immediately setting fire to an entire 3-4 story building could be so high (or even possible at all).

This is quickly ruining my enjoyment of a large portion of the game. Surely the chances are so small that removing (or at least drastically reducing) this feature would have no impact on realism.

IMO, this 'feature' should be seriously rethought. If the occurrence was very, VERY rare, I could accept it as a vagary of war. But should so many of my games be decided by one questionable feature?

I can also see this as being a major problem with CM2, since the emphasis on urban warfare will be so much heavier.

So far, this is the only major complaint I have about this revolutionary game. And if it wasn't impacting my enjoyment so severely, believe me, I wouldn't say anything at all. I'm one of those sycophant, rally around BTS at all costs kind of persons (well, most of the time).

[Jarmo]

If the fires would start small, and slowly spread, I'd be

OK with that. As it is, maybe the chance to fire the house

should be reduced.

Don't know really, I haven't ever fired a zooka in a house.

[KiwiJoe]

Ive fired 20-30 shots with bazookas from houses. Never had a single fire start.

[paullus]

The backblast from a Panzerschreck or Bazooka is pretty significant. I do put a lot of these units in buildings, but I don't rely on them as part of my main defensive position (unless I can hide them in woods).

Even today, most ATGM or RPGs cannot be fired from buildings. It makes sense to model something similar in the game. Though I would think that really tall buildings should have the option of moving troops to the roof (to fire down on AFV tops). What do you think?

[KiwiJoe]

If its a prepared defense Id remove all flammable stuff from the back blast area and perhaps even wet the carpet and such down with buckets of water.

[ntg84]

LOL

[howardb]

The LAW (or M-72 as the Norwegian version is called) can be used from a resonably large room. I don't think it would set a smaller room on fire but I wouldn't be the one using it though. The excellent Swedish Carl Gustav recoilless gun on the other hand would probably fry you. The backblast on that weapon is awesome... it's cool just to watch the backblast.

[IntelWeenie]

I have more problems with shreck teams (and squads firing PFs) getting pinned instead of starting fires. I have caused my fair share of fires, too, but I don't think it's all that unrealistic. Maybe a flame-then-fire type of deal (most houses take more than 60 seconds to be consumed by fire!) would be more realistic (and give the shreck team time to beat a hast retreat ).

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Guest Germanboy]

Well it is not like the fires immediately engulf the soldiers in the house and fry them. I have had a number of fires (for various reasons) where all the soldiers in the house managed to get out. If you don't insist on staying I can not really see the problem. Also, these light houses in CM are IMU old, half-timbered houses, with wooden floors and straw/mortar walls. Extremely inflammable. I would expect that in stone houses the chances of starting a fire are much reduced.

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

Andreas

[Guest dirkd1976]

I gotta agree with hnh_cm. I have had a number of building go up in flames from the backblast of AT weapons. I realized that this has happened in real life, but it has happened way to many times to me. It is very frustrating to see a well laid ambush go all to hell over and over because of backblast fires. Every once and a while I could understand it happening, but every other game is just ridiculous. I hope this gets fixed it the new 1.03 patch. (or maybe I should just stop whining and suck it up!!) Ahhh, nothing like a Germankabob!!!

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

Never mistake motion for action - Ernest Hemingway

[chrisl]

Sometimes happens to me, sometimes doesn't. Easy solution: hide behind the house. More effective anyway if all you have is a tank assault-- they can't rubble the house on top of you if you're not in it. If it's a big bldg and you expect an infantry charge into it as well (like the church in VoT), hide one squad inside and the rest behind it and when the assault gets close, move the ones from behind into it.

[hnh3_cm]

Hmmm...well, if a highly questionable (IMO, from a rarity standpoint) feature forces me to use unrealistic and gamey tactics, then I believe the feature is the problem and not my setup.

I was kind of hoping for a more official response. (hint,hint)

[Eridani]

The fire tile IIRC just means that a small fire has been started and everyone is getting the hell out... I think this falls under a what you see is not what you get catagory... the buildings do not burst into flames immediately, but, they are on fire and ur men do want to get out asap.

notice, casualties from men in burning buildings are usually pretty light.

-EridanMan

[Degrees of Frost]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

If its a prepared defense Id remove all flammable stuff from the back blast area and perhaps even wet the carpet and such down with buckets of water.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All flammable stuff ? What about the crew ?

Bazooka teams did hide behind houses and fire from the corner of the house, not from windows etc..

[Rother]

Here's the size of room you need to fire some modern AT weapons from inside a building. Just for a little perspective.

Ceiling must be 7' high.

Floor size must be at least 17'x24' for a TOW, 15'x12' for a Dragon, and 4' to the back wall for a LAW.

There must be an opening at least 20 sq ft at the rear of the room for backblast.

Muzzle clearance needs to be 9" for a TOW and 6" for a Dragon.

Don't stand behind the back of the weapon and hold your ears.

Rother

[Supertanker]

I haven't had it happen that often, and last night I had a fire break out from a grenade duel at close range. My squad ran out and was shot down by an MG, and the AI's ran into the next building and was captured by another squad of mine. All fine examples of Mr. Murphy being the real commander, and the chaos that often dooms my plans is part of why I like the game.

[Bullethead]

Eridani said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fire tile IIRC just means that a small fire has been started and everyone is getting the hell out... I think this falls under a what you see is not what you get catagory...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is my opinion also. Most of the time, nobody gets hurt by the start of a house fire in CM--they beat feet right on out.

This makes sense to me as a fireman. It only takes a few minutes for a small fire in 1 room to grow and fully engulf the entire house. And well before this happens, the house is uninhabitable from the heat, smoke, and gases generated by the growing fire. So troops aren't going to hang around once a fire starts.

So the question, IMHO, isn't whether troops should immediately bail from burning buildings, but whether houses burn from backblast with a realistic frequency in CM. I think so. Propellants burn VERY hot and unless you have that 20 square foot plus backblast opening Rother mentioned, all that heat is going to stay inside. Besides making things unpleasant for the troops, this heat has a good chance of igniting stuff in the house. And even if there is no furniture left, as I understand it most houses were packed with straw for troops to sleep in. So even stone buildings should have a pretty good chance of ignition.

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

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[von Lucke]

There is a reason that the 'shreck has a shield mounted on it --- the projectile continues to burn propellant some 2 meters after leaving the tube, and flecks of still burning propellant tended to stick everywhere --- especially to the gunner. Many ofenrohr ("stovepipe") gunners where issued fire-retardant panchos and gas-masks as a protective measure.

Now, just think of all those sparks flying around inside an enclosed space... Tho, personally, I've only had one building go up on me this way, (and at the most inconveniant time), but the crew did get out alive.

But since most people tend to pound the rafters out of any building they think even might be inhabited, I try and hide my AT weapons in the woods, or behind buildings (preferably both).

[hnh3_cm]

Well, the subject is closed for me. Unless a member of the CM team cares to respond (and they shouldn't bother if they only intend to try to convince me that what I have personally observed is realistic), I won't be posting here again.

I just can't see the fun in having my games continually decided for me by one questionable feature. :^(

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hnh3_cm:

I just can't see the fun in having my games continually decided for me by one questionable feature. (<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay - so far we have had your opinion that it is questionable. At least one veteran has said that he is happy with it. Do you have anything to back up your claim except for a gut feeling that it happens too often? If so, I would be interested in hearing about it. If not, I think you can not really expect BTS to make changes.

I just reread the thread, and I probably should not be posting this, but anyway. Your last post is quite arrogant. A lot of the other posters here disagree with you on either

a) that it is a problem in terms of frequency of occurence and/or

that it is unrealistic that this can happen and/or

c) that hiding behind instead of inside houses is gamey and did not happen in real life.

Some of those posts have been supported by data unlike your assertions, that as far as we know could just come from 'The big book of knowledge I just pulled from where the sun don't shine'. But all that info is apparently not good enough because this is your pet-gripe. Now if you don't give a neff about other people's reactions to your initial post, why do you post it in the first place? Why not send an email to Charles directly, saving all of us the time that was offered by the posters here trying to address your post?

You want an official answer? IMO, you don't deserve one unless you can offer something more solid than you did so far.

God, I begin to sound like Fionn...

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

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 07-18-2000).]

[Hunter]

Andreas, LOL

hnh,3_cm, what you are doing IS wrong, and putting troops BEHIND houses not IN them is not 'gamey' it is 'realistic and historical' for exactly the right reason ie: Use of LAW inside is dangerous (to the wrong side).

Bruce

[gashford]

During my limited time in the forces I fired several LAWs although a modern weapon compared to the weapons of '44 there is very little chance that I would fire one from within a building if given the choice.

Even with double ear protection and an NBC suit on the noise was deafening in an enclosed open topped wooden firing stance.

The back blast on these weapons should not be underestimated and would easily incapacitate through noise and shock anyone sharing a room with you if you fired it within a building.

Tactics taught us was to launch ambushes with these weapons was in woods or between buildings or behind them due to the signature left by the weapon, which attracts a lot of attention after firing, so the escape route was equally as important as the ambush point.

Having seen the horrondous damage caused a vehicle accidently caught in the back blast of such a weapon I would say that small fires could easily result in the heat of the signature if the back area had not been cleared of flammable or combustable materials, but I seriously doubt three stories of a building would catch fire, but perhaps as stated earlier this is relieved by the massed survivability of such fires in the game?

Hope this helps in some way.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From US-Army Field Manual 23-25 Light Antiarmor Weapons, Chapter 6 Page10:

Only in combat, when no other tactical option exists, should the M136 AT4 be

fired from an enclosure. (Italics in the original)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now this should come as close to an official answer as you can get short of digging the German FM on the Schreck and Faust out. It could be argued that it in effect says is that the putting of units into houses is gamey. The reason for this is, surprise surprise, backblast and the structural damage it can cause to light buildings. It goes on that if you have to put your guys into houses, there are strict room requirements (stated in a post above) and you have to remove doors and windows.

Thanks to MajorH for making this resource available in such accessible form.

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

Andreas

[Paul T. Gardner]

From the Panzerfaust http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm site:

"Caution was to be paid to the backblast of the weapon, it created an explosion blast of two to three meters ( 6.5 - 10 ft.) behind the tube.

Therefore on many Panzerfausts, especially the early Panzerfaust 30 m, a warning in large red letters printed on the upper rear part of the tube advised to stay clear:

Achtung! Feuerstrahl! ("Beware ! Fire Jet !")

Sometimes other variations of this warning were stenciled on the upper rear. But the backblast wasn't only dangerous to bystanders: the rear of the firing soldier had to be free of obstacles for at least 3 m (10 ft.), otherwise heavy burns on the back of the firing soldier would result. Officially the rear of the gunner had to be free for 10m for safety reasons and the backblast was reported as lethal to a range of 3m behind the tube.

Mostly the fiery backblast, but also the atmospheric pressure and the relative hazardousness of the blast's smoke put put heavy restrictions on indoor use; this holds true even more for the Panzerschreck."

And for the Schreck:

"The backblast of the Panzerschreck was even more dangerous than that of the Panzerfaust. Therefore, as explained above, with the early model the operator had to wear a kind of fireproof poncho and a gas mask (with the filter removed) for protection against the backblasting propellant particles. As stated abvove, the propellant continued to burn for another 2m (6.5 ft) even after it had left the launch tube. Later the protective shield cured this problem."

Rgds

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

PTG

[Geier]

I've fired the Carl-Gustaf launcher (which is neither a PF, Psk or a zook I admit) several times and there is no way no how you would fire this weapon with anything at all obstructing the backblast for at least

20 meters. The safety distance in the Swedish Army is 70 meters behind the weapon. The loader is expected to load and then only look backwards and yell "Clear" when the firer has called out "Firing". The firer won't fire until he has heard "clear".

Now, the buildings in CM are expected to have interior walls too. So the safety distance of 3 meters for a PF (thanks Paul T Gardner) to the nearest wall would not always be achieved, certainly not for the entire squad. The safety distance would be 6-10 meters for anyone being in the cone directly behind the weapon but I wouldn't crouch there for any money in the world.

Firing a backblast weapon from directly in front of a building would generate the same hazard.

If you are desperate enough to fire any backblast weapon from inside a building expect any or all of the following to happen:

Anyone in the squad that happens to be 0-10 meters behind the weapon (remember, 9 men are in there if a PF is fired) will get hurt/killed. The rest will be pinned at the least. None will need to shave the back of their necks ever again. Anything burnable caught in the jet will be incinerated and/or catch fire. Visibility in the building will be heavily reduced from the dust. The firer must be extremely exposed to fire, basically he'll have to lean out in order to not set fire to the wall surrounding the opening he's firing through. This leads to more squad members running the risk of getting caught in the blast.

Everyone in the same room as the firer will get the wind knocked out of them.

No one who has ever fired a Carl Gustaf recoilless would dream of doing so from an enclosed space. If the backblast from a Psk is one tenth of a Carl Gustaf it's still far too dangerous. Maybe from a church door firing at a perfect angle so the backblast would travel the length of the church... Maybe.

hnh3_cm, if all that is required to "ruin your enjoyment of a large portion of the game" is the inability to get away with firing backblast weapons indoors 100% of the time... well what can I say, to only play battles in a "rural" environment might be the thing. I'm sorry, but you really should take the time to read the responses to your post, I think you have misunderstood how these weapon systems function.

Geier