Pascal DI FOLCO Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Hi everyone, I've played a good few games with Allied infantry, and I've been wondered at the effectiveness of these primitives RPGs. Some examples : - Benouville bridge : a PIAT team took out the bunker from its rear, then shot a PzIV in the front at 100 m (KO), and a second one at 135 meters, and it burnt - after that they were out of ammo... - Arnhem operation : PIATs made the main of the job : in the first scenario they got the wooden bunker, and the 2 Pumas PSW, in the second they ambushed a StuH42. It was also surprising that the PIAT could fire downward from a hill or second story, as the firing mechanism did'nt allow it, the ammo fell if the thing was aimed downward.. - Swatting at Tigers (ASL scenario 41 available at the ASL2CM website) : once again, one bazooka team KO'ed 2 TIGERS !!! and another one a third. This time they were nearer (50 m or so), and had to strike at the side.. - Son bridge : Bazooka again, this time it destroyed the 88mm gun that was poundering my troops unpunished. When I target the enemy, I always see that the hit chance are at c.20%, but I hit some 80% of the time ! Has everyone so much success ? Are these weapons overrated in accuracy ? ------------------ PDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 In ongoing PBEM, my jagdpanzerIV has just been caught in a crossfire of 2 bazookas. Both firing from a bit over 100 meters, have already missed 5 or 6 times. Generally I find 'em deadly if distance is around 50 m. But not unrealistically so. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPT STRANSKY Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Hmm i agree they can be a bit too tough 60-70% of total anti tank infantry weapons fired kill me tanks. We are talking panthers and tigers here not light armnoured tanks. And from dam long distances as well. Anti tank weapons should be feared but at the same time everyone seems to have em in sall the games ive played. In WWII infantry took out more tanks running up and throwing mines on the tracks etc, im 100% sure on that but ive read a dam few accounts about that happenning. More than using infantry AT accounts. To me the antitank team should be feared but i think the overall effectiveness seems to be too high. Someone if they know more please post some AT info for infantry weapons. Im curious to know how effective they were in real life. Personally ive done aweome ambushes in the game at point blank taking out shermans in spectacular fashion. The enemy seems to do it to me from a good distance and its real lame. Always at max range and usually a kill. I have infantry supporting just infront but they do jack all sometimes. And yes the HQ is near by. To me tanks just dont seem to have the impact they should. Its like hey theres a tank kill it, ok wheres the next. Tanks were feared. Especially Tigers. German Armour calculations i think may need a top up. Maybe even allied tanks need it to vs Panzerfausts. i dont play allies so comment people. Make this game balanced. Im a veteran war gamer and i like games to progress im not trashing cm by the way. BASICALLY HOW EFFECTIVE WHERE INFANTRY AT IN WWII? AND IS IT BEING TRETED THE SAME IN CM? ITS EITHER MY BAD LUCK ETC OR AGAME MISCALCULATION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Uh, most of what you have written there constitutes spoiler info, do you really think it is necessary to put the scenario names into your post? It would be nice if you could edit it to make sure that people are aware that you have spoiler info in there, or even better, take the scenario names out, since they are irrelevant to your question. Thanks in advance. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncounio Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 I found out that Bazookas and Piats are very dangerous when range is below 100M, keep your tank still and you are DOOM..ed (Sorry couldn't resist ) Well if the AFV is moving chance are more lower that you hit anything except on ambush I do not feel they are overrated by any way As you stated Pascal, IIRC, you could no aim the PIAT downward or the charge will fall (some kind of british humor) and it is not modeled in CM nor is the gun depression limit of any tanks but it took God seven days to make the world and it seems he may need another attempt to make it perfect ------------------ Nicolas http://perso.infonie.fr/nicolas.counio/combat_mission1.html "Deux intellectuels assis vont moins loin qu'une brute qui marche" Un Taxi Pour Tobrouk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rune Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Search is a wonderful thing on forums. Here is what was discussed before about PIATS. Here are some more tidbits on the PIAT: - The round was not actually launched by the spring- each round had a small explosive base charge that the spring drove a spigot into; this launched the round off the spigot. - The PIAT could not be fired from the hip or even from the shoulder- it was usually fired in the prone position. It weighed 32lb, and had a good kick, both of which could cause serious injury if fired from other than prone - It fired a 3lb bomb to a max range of 110 yds at about 250 ft/sec, initial velocity. It could also be used as a crude mortar out to 750 yds. It was 39 inches long. - The trigger was so stiff that two fingers had to be used to pull it, tending to throw off aim. Also, there was a pause between pulling the trigger and the round actually leaving the launcher- anybody who forgot this invariably loosened their grip and got a painful punch in the shoulder, plus the spring would not recock (the explosive charge also recocked the spring when it fired the bomb- you only had to manually cock the spring for the first shot). - It could be fired in an enclosed space without danger to the occupants- unlike the Panzerschreck and Bazooka. - It remained the standard platoon AT weapon until 1950 (issued one per platoon, normally) - The inventor, Lt Col Blacker (ret'd) successfully pleaded patent rights to the design in 1944 and was awarded the equivalent of $150,000 US for his troubles Also later in the thread, it is stated that the PIAT had a clasp to hold the round in so it wouldn't fall out and could be aimed at a lower elevation. I have seen pictures of someone aiming down from a second story, so your logic is faulty. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noba Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 ------------------------------------------- Also later in the thread, it is stated that the PIAT had a clasp to hold the round in so it wouldn't fall out and could be aimed at a lower elevation. I have seen pictures of someone aiming down from a second story, so your logic is faulty. ------------------------------------------- So now i realise that rule 13.61 in the ASL Rulebook is incorrect after all these years ! LUVPANTHERS - I demand a replay !!! Rats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 LATW seem to be modelled prety well to me in CM. In general, they are only useful if you let them be. Theya re extremely vulnerable to enemy infantry, and not very useful beyond relatively short range. 100m is defintely short range. As far as their armor pentrating abilities, again, I think they are spot on. The German Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust are (and should be) hit=kill weapons against almost all Allied armor. They had very significantly larger warheads in them than their Allied counterparts. The faust, however, has an extremely short range. The schreck is a feared weapon at any range under 120m, as it should be. The Allied bazooka and Piat are nice to have, but are certainly not hit=kill weapons against some of the heavier German armor. But they are effective against light armor, and even the vaunted Panther will be scrap if it goes waltzing around with its side or rear armor exposed. I have not seen these weapons as being overly powerful myself. I had two Zooks firing at a Wespe 120m away for two turns in one game, with just one hit (immobilization). After the Wespe got a track taken off the crew decided that one of the Zooks would eventually hit, so they found somewhere else that they needed to be... During this time the hit % for the two Zooks were always around 20% or so. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 My most successful PIAT team ever sprang an ambush against several German armoured vehicles in a small village, expended all its ammo and escaped unharmed. It KO'd one armoured car and scored damaging hits on two Tigers. Out of six or seven rounds fired there were three hits against Tigers (one of which had no effect) and one against the A/C. I consider this a good test case because the team was never sighted and never fired upon during its sortie. ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 CPT STRANSKY wrote: We are talking panthers and tigers here not light armnoured tanks. Look at Panther's side armor. A 45 mm gun could punch through it. In WWII infantry took out more tanks running up and throwing mines on the tracks etc, im 100% sure on that but ive read a dam few accounts about that happenning. More than using infantry AT accounts. Well, effective infantry AT weapons became available only in the later part of the war so it is not surprising that there are more stories about using demolition charges than Panzerfausts. Someone if they know more please post some AT info for infantry weapons. Karelian Isthmus on June '44 gives an interesting data point. When the Soviet attack begun on June 10, Finnish defenders didn't have Panzerschrecks or -fausts at all. (They were all stored behind the front) but they were quickly distributed to the front and by June 14 first psk teams were at front lines. Soviets launched a series of batallion-strength recon raids on June 9. A grand total of 5 light tanks (reported as T-26s but they probably were T-70s) were destroyed that day at Rajajoki and Valkeasaari sectors where the spearpoint of the attack was aimed. All were destroyed by anti-tank rifles since AT guns were destroyed by artillery and men with demolition charges didn't get a chance to use them. A couple of days later (June 14 or 15) faustman Eero Seppänen singlehandedly destroyed more tanks than that in one day (7 or 8, my sources are at home and once again the board search function doesn't work). In the end of June Soviets lost 50 tanks and assault guns in 48 hours to schrecks and fausts at Ihantala. I don't have figures available right now, but the ratio of tanks destroyed with demolition charges versus rocket weapons was at least 1:50 in Karelian Isthmus. (Come to think it, I can't remember reading about a single instance where an undamaged tank was stopped with a demolition charge or Molotov coctail during those battles. One immobilized Grant was torched with a Molotov coctail and about 10 damaged tanks were finished with DCs and coctails in a sneak attack at Ihantala). After the introduction of rocket weapons Finnish close-defence men certainly didn't want to go back to using thrown weapons. Their life expectancy was short enough with rockets. To me tanks just dont seem to have the impact they should. Its like hey theres a tank kill it, ok wheres the next. Don't send your tanks to area that you haven't reconned with your infantry first. Tanks were feared. They certainly were. How much of that fear was reasonable is another question. BASICALLY HOW EFFECTIVE WHERE INFANTRY AT IN WWII? In good conditions, very. The key is to pound the infantry into submission from longer distance. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cward Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: As far as their armor pentrating abilities, again, I think they are spot on. The German Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust are (and should be) hit=kill weapons against almost all Allied armor. They had very significantly larger warheads in them than their Allied counterparts. The faust, however, has an extremely short range. The schreck is a feared weapon at any range under 120m, as it should be. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There were several versions of the Pfaust. I beleve there were a 30, 60, 100 meter ranges. The Hitler youth in the late war had hundres of these pfaust100's and used them to great effects, on jeeps, trucks and tanks.. whatever they could hit with them. They were great shaped charges that would punch small holes in armor, spewing hot metal through the crew compartment.. often though they were not as deadly in the long run, as often these charges would not brew up the tank as often as AP tank rounds would.. and the Ko'd tanks could be reclaimed.. (*though no bugger really wanted to recrew an already ko'd tank) Here is a good website dedicated to the Panzerfaust and most other WWII weapons. http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm And as to some other comments here.. if these werent really that deadly, whats the use for combined arms at all? These Shaped charges are still used extensively today and were great innovations in AP technology.. Granted some of the ranges are quite extreme.. but I could see where in some instances the bazooka in close could be many times deadlier than a 75mm Oh and by the way you can still buy rebarreled Boys AT guns in 50Cal in the US. An excellent 5 shot varmint gun.. Easy cleanup, not carcass left to remove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 This topic of LATW being too effective, can not be deployed inside buildings, what have you is coming up time and again IMO because CM is providing a reality check for long-time wargamers who are so used to roll over everything with their tanks, particularly the German Überpanzer of other games. If you look in the actual Field Manuals and other real life data or even a good book (it is amazing what you can learn from them), rather than play another round of Close Combat X or whatever, you would be surprised how much CM seems to have gotten it right. Tanks without infantry are toast. That was then and it is now. I have read AARs from the Lebanon war, and the Syrians had to pay high prices for going by the Frunse books. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 CM pretty much has it right.. What is wrong is the gamer's expectations after years of playing CC and other games. If you read your histories you'll see many accounts of tanks being knocked out by fausts and schrecks at close ranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: CM pretty much has it right.. What is wrong is the gamer's expectations after years of playing CC and other games. If you read your histories you'll see many accounts of tanks being knocked out by fausts and schrecks at close ranges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Soviets lost over 100 tanks & SU's to Panzerfausts & Schreks in the Berlin fighting in the course several hours fighting in 1 day. Their was an interesting comment from the French tests done in 1947 concerning the Panther G , the Panzerfaust could penetrate it from any aspect. The same couldn't be said for the PIAT or US 2.36in bazooka, which often failed frontaly. Youy get Inf in good terrain & or built up areas they will tear up tanks & SPs with little problem. Regards, John Waters ------------ People who can smile when things go wrong have found someone else to blame. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: There was an interesting comment from the French tests done in 1947 concerning the Panther G , the Panzerfaust could penetrate it from any aspect. The same couldn't be said for the PIAT or US 2.36in bazooka, which often failed frontally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An interesting footnote to this discussion is that somehow the 82nd. Airborne got its hands on a warehouse full of Panzerfausts and issued them to its troops in place of the bazooka, at least during the Battle of the Bulge. I don't know if they were able to maintain their supply later on. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Okay my turn. I have killed more tanks in CM with British PIATS than tanks by a large margin. But then again I have had a hug amount of PIATS since I play infantry only. (not all the time just most). Now you would seem to think that by the statement above that I wuld think AT teams too powerful but I do not. You see I have 6 or 7 PIAT teams on the field and by the end of the game most are dead or close and the survivors are out of ammo. That is the thing if you shoot about 40 rounds out then you are going to kill something. Oh and for those of you who remember my "UNDEAD TIGER" post my friends Tiger absorbed almost 15 shots and he was immobilized. So no I think they got it right. Just do not run your tanks without support! ------------------ Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb -Priest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 One of my favorite types of QB is to take an all-infantry force, maybe an ATG or two, and give the AI a loaded Armor force with an experience bonus. Sure, it's not another human I'm up against, but an integrated infantry force is a tough nut for armor to crack. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Anyone want to face my 19 elite bazooka teams with an elite King Tiger (same point cost)? I guarantee that the bazooka teams win every time (unless the terrain is completely unsuited). Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts