Instantaneous Combustion - Heavy Buildings

[Bruno Weiss]

Okay, now I've seen some posts relating to this, but now that it happened to me I'm still trying to figure out what actually took place.

Against one of my opponents, in a city fight where SS Motorized Panzergrenadiers squads were positioned in heavy buildings, (the office types not the hotel looking light ones), one of them fired a panzerfaust at an M10, 80 meters out and at a 45 degree angle to the outer wall on the first or ground floor. The firing unit was up against and facing the wall they were firing through. No sooner had the lil fellers pulled the trigger, than the entire building burst into flames. Needless to say, the sprinkler system didn't work.

Now, I can see and would expect damage from the backblast of a PF, directly behind the firing unit. I could maybe see unexpected results if the firing unit were positioned with a wall directly behind them (this one wasn't), but I don't understand how an entire office size building would erupt into a towering inferno from the backblast of a PF.

I've looked several times at the film, and cannot identify anything else that might have hit the building. The only possibility would be a single shot from the M10, but I do not see it in the film. And can't imagine how one shot from an M10 would cause the same event either. But, it appears the PF is what caused it. The building was not previously damaged, or fired upon.

Can anyone explain this? Am I overlooking something? I'm thinking maybe a gas main leak, or seeing it's Halloween the little fellers were victims of "The Keep".

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Pvt. Ryan]

Did the building already have a * or ** rating? Maybe the backblast was the straw that broke the I-Beam's back.

[David Aitken]

The simple answer is, CM currently regards buildings as a single unit. Either it's standing or it's not; either it's not on fire or it is. The backblast from your Panzerfaust started the fire. There is a compensating abstraction, in that your men can evacuate without taking casualties – just because the building looks like an inferno does not mean it is lethal, only uninhabitable.

More info in the thread Panzerfaust BBQ.

David

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

More info in the thread Panzerfaust BBQ.

David

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 11-02-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like David has taken over the searchonauts...

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Bruno Weiss]

Thanks guys. Well, that certainly makes firing a PF from a building a little bit of dicey business. Actually, the firing inf unit dissappeared (I can picture lil piles of incenerated ash with helmuts, pistols and rifles laying there), and a nearby Command unit was seriously injured, casuing them to take flight (out into the open and in the direct fire lane of enemy infantry. Now, the killer is I fired a PF team from a building (same type, but different location), on the same turn and it went just fine. Is there something inherent to the inf PF, versus the PF teams? All kidding aside, this makes me a little nervous about firing PF's while in a building.

I'll go read the links, thanks.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

Bazookas, Panzerschrecks, and Panzerfausts all have a backblast which can do damage. PIATs and rifle grenades do not.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Bruno Weiss]

Okay, I read that thread. And something else then comes to mind. The PF team I mentioned that did successfully fire from the same type of building at the same time, was on the "top floor" (does that mean roof, or actually the top interior floor).

On the other hand, and I'll go back and study this film again, but everyone else seems to take only light casualties when this happens. In my case, it wiped out the entire PG team, and seriously injured a nearby Command team, (the Command team by the way, was not located anywhere near the backblast), and the building (I didn't measure yet), had sufficient space to contain the backblast. I.e., the PF fired up against the wall it was seeing through, with the backblast having the full length of a large office building with no other interior wall affecting it.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Okay, I read that thread. And something else then comes to mind. The PF team I mentioned that did successfully fire from the same type of building at the same time, was on the "top floor" (does that mean roof, or actually the top interior floor).

On the other hand, and I'll go back and study this film again, but everyone else seems to take only light casualties when this happens. In my case, it wiped out the entire PG team, and seriously injured a nearby Command team, (the Command team by the way, was not located anywhere near the backblast), and the building (I didn't measure yet), had sufficient space to contain the backblast. I.e., the PF fired up against the wall it was seeing through, with the backblast having the full length of a large office building with no other interior wall affecting it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bruno, kudos for actually going back and reading the thread. Two points: first it seems you have just been plain unlucky, I have never seen that happen (but I try to avoid firing LATWs from buildings anyway). Second, buildings are abstracted, so they are actually not large office style buildings, but they sort of have rooms and things. You just don't see them. I recall a post by BTS saying that this was the reason why spotting inside a building takes a while after the unit entered, it abstracts the search of rooms. Hope I got that right.

I would again recommend to anyone to get the Military Reference Library - it is a bargain and extremely helpful to answer questions like this one. As can be seen from the other thread.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-02-2000).]

[chasd]

I think the fire graphic is supposed to represent parts of the building are alight (caused by the faust), and that your units cannot occupy the building. If your squad was eliminated as soon as the buidling caught alite, that would probably mean your troops got caught in the fire and roasted.

[Bruno Weiss]

Okay, thanks guys. And Germanboy, that then makes sense. If modeled that way, in an abstract fashion, then that would explain the problem. From my God's eye view, the building looked capable of sustaining the backblast, but in reality their may have been an interior wall that caused an internal compression value to the backblast (hmm, is CM that sophisticated)?

Well, one final question. About the "top floor". Is that the roof, or top interior floor? These are the three story type buildings, if that makes a difference.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Well, one final question. About the "top floor". Is that the roof, or top interior floor? These are the three story type buildings, if that makes a difference.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think CM models roofs, and even stories are currently abstracted. You simply have a higher and a lower level, not 1st, 2nd, 3rd floor.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Bruno Weiss]

Gotcha, and thanks again. While there are many unknowns and "crap happens" in battle, to which I fully agree. I would submit that this particular needs a little more smoothing by BTS.

In the thread citation above, I read where Allied Bazooka's do not suffer this problem. I'd ask why? (Need a technical guy here), but my current level of knowledge is the the allied bazooka and axis panzerfaust have roughly the same backblast. Inherent discrepancy?

Second problem I see here, is that the abstract internal makeup of buildings while working fairly well for other aspects of the game, leaves open a problem here where it is more than a FOG of war situation if attempting to use a PF from a building. There is no mechanism to attempt to verify building stability. (Like positioning the unit so as to avoid the problem), because you can't see the abstract internal walls.

Finally, it makes me wonder as to what sort of determining criteria is being used here to compute building structure damage. I.e, if a 105mm HE, 75mm HE, 81mm HE, etc, take more than one hit to ignite the same building, then how is the backblast from a PF causing such catastrophic damage? That would make me think that what I said earlier about internal walls causing internal compression values to the backblast was indeed the case, since the incoming HE fire has to penetrate an external wall, whereas the backblast is fully internal. I'd love to know the answer to that one. I mean, if CM "is" that sophisticated, then I'm more than impressed. But if interior walls weren't modeled, then internal compression values were? (I.e., internal compression values meaning like placing a firecracker in an upside tin can causing compression which then magnifies the original explosion values). Hmm, gonna have to give my lil PF guys a laptop algorithm program to figure out if it is safe to fire their lil panzerfausts.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

In the thread citation above, I read where Allied Bazooka's do not suffer this problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bazookas can light buildings with their backblast. I can testify to that through firsthand (in the game) knowledge. PIATs and rifle grenades do not have a backblast, however.

[Guest Germanboy]

Number of points Bruno:

- Zooks should cause the same damage, I can see no reason why not. As I said in the other thread, current SOP is still not to be in houses.

- The previous addresses your FOW problem. Don't be in a house firing a Schreck/Zook. It is bad tactics, therefore the game should not be coded around them. Where the walls are does not matter, unless you find a room with 9 yards space behind you (rather unlikely in a pre-1980s European residential building).

- compression values? Don't think they are used. I think there is just a random chance that the building starts burning. (starts is the important word here). And if a tank is close enough to be fired at by a zook/schreck, your guys have better things to do than try to put out the fire.

The short end of it is: hide somewhere else with your ambush

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-02-2000).]

[russellmz]

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust2.htm#use

"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 !"; see pic. below of four Panzerfaust 30 in delivery crate).

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 heavy restrictions on indoor use; this holds true even more for the Panzerschreck.

Despite the seemingly easy usage and the fact that simple usage instructions were printed onto each weapon, many accidents happened because of wrong handling of often ill-trained personnel, sometimes also because of material defects of the weapons themselves."

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

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[David Aitken]

Germanboy wrote:

> Looks like David has taken over the searchonauts...

That's what I was thinking...

[Guest Rollstoy]

Wasn't it von Richthofen who said: "Aim for the building and not for the man!" ??.

[Bruno Weiss]

Okay, I hear ya's and it's a good discussion about tactics. I'm not sure I agree with verbatims, i.e., no one during WWII ever fired a bazooka or panzerfaust from a building, my presumption was that it was fairly common. I'll go and see what I can find on that.

However, if that were to be the case, then why is CM allowing for a nice blue okey dokey line of fire by the PF's? My thinking takes me to think maybe then the PF's should show red, sight blocked.

Also, backblast or no. Nobody addressed my other question. Is it realistic to presume the backblast from a zook or faust would do more damage to a building than an incomming HE round? (If internal compression is not being modeled - and I agree that it is highly doubtful that it is).

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

However, if that were to be the case, then why is CM allowing for a nice blue okey dokey line of fire by the PF's? My thinking takes me to think maybe then the PF's should show red, sight blocked.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the game does not stop you from using (mostly) stupid tactics. You learn and avoid them if you can. Please note that the FM does not say 'You will be shot if you place an LATW into a building' but 'Unless there are no alternatives you should not do this'. So CM leaves you the freedom to do it, and enables you to trade off between the risk of doing it and the perceived benefit. You are the CO, your choice.

The same goes for historic examples, I am sure it happened, but there was always the risk of fire/collapse involved. But as they say at home: 'Not macht erfinderisch' (necessity is the mother of invention).

As for backblast and structural damage, interesting point, no idea if/how that is modeled.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Bruno Weiss]

Okay, I'll go along with that. That is in evidence elsewhere in the game and serves to provide more realism. That leaves me then with the final quandry of why zooks are at least perceived as less damaging to the buildings than fausts, and why the faust backblast is a more leathal building killer than an incoming HE round? And I doubt any of us can provide the real answer, BTS would have to.

Interesting discussion, thanks again guys.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

That leaves me then with the final quandry of why zooks are at least perceived as less damaging to the buildings than fausts, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are they? If there's a difference, it's negligable. I've never set a building on fire with a Pschreck or Pfaust backblast, but I have done so with bazookas.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and why the faust backblast is a more leathal building killer than an incoming HE round? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I don't think it is. In quite a few games against both the AI and PBEM, I've seen two buildings set on fire from LATW backblasts. I have no idea how many buildings I've seen smashed to bits or set on fire from DF HE, but it's a lot more than two.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[David Aitken]

Bruno Weiss wrote:

> and why the faust backblast is a more leathal building killer than an incoming HE round?

When an AT weapon sets a house on fire, yes, the effect is more than you could usually achieve with quite a few HE shells. But there is a far greater certainty that HE will level a building, than a rocket launcher will set it on fire. Bad when it happens, but it does not happen very often.

David

[Guest Rollstoy]

Guys, have you seen "Die Brücke" (The Bridge), where there is a scene where a German soldier fires a Panzerfaust from inside the room at a tank standing only meters from the window. He is stunned by the explosion but not by the backblast, which tragically kills a civilian. I do not know the historical background of this movie, but why should they make up something like this?!

[Chupacabra]

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

but why should they make up something like this?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it's a movie, and movies often tamper with reality?

I've seen the movie, and it's very good, but there's a lot of non-ficticious evidence to show that firing LATWs from buildings is, in most cases, an official Very Bad Idea.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Medieval]

That certainly is fate.... the chances are slim to none. A backblast could start a flame but not a blaze instantly... nor an explosion.

In addition, I've noticed many buildings blowing up from HE rounds... and its happening more and more it seems. A Panther of mine in Parker's Crossroads BLEW to pieces a 2 story Heavy building filled with like a company of Amis. Most died. That's a bit over the top.

Andy