Col Deadmarsh Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 Is it true that these AT weapons all had max ranges between 200-225 meters? I find it quite a coincidence that all three have similar maximum ranges and yet are each totally different mechanisms. Are these figures correct? ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 Here's extensive info on the Panzerfaust and -schreck: http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm ------------------ New to Combat Mission? Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 They're all basically similar sized rocket launchers with chemical propellant. Unless someone had a magic propellant mix that nobody could duplicate it's not that surprising that they have similar ranges. The only one that's an oddball is the PIAT. ------------------ "If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted February 12, 2001 Author Share Posted February 12, 2001 Interesting site Gremlin. Here are some quotes: Bazookas ~ "...late M1 [bazooka] models had a different bead with crevices for 100yard, 200yd. and 300yd. range. Piats ~ ".... Tanks could be attacked at ranges up to 100yd., larger targets like houses at larger distances of 300m and more." Shrecks ~ "...There is still some controversy around the range of this weapon. Sources give figures for anything from 150m to 1,000m as range: The Panzerschreck's technical data call for a theoretical engagement range of 700m (!), practical engagement ranges are usually cited with 400m for static targets and 100 to 230m for moving targets. Then again, an army report on the fighting around Posen dated March 1st 1945 emphasizes the effectiveness of the Panzerschreck and states that static targets such as AT gun and infantry emplacements had been successfully attacked at ranges up to 1000m (!). Engagement procedures called for the Panzerschreck teams to open fire against attacking (oncoming) tanks at 180-150m. Laterally moving tanks were to be attacked at a range of 120m." The only weapon that is still in question is the Piat. My opponent Homba right now is probably staging an inquiry into our game after my Veteran Piat team which was out of command radius took out his Puma at 134m. Of course, it was stationary at the time just like those houses were in testing if you read above. The fact is, the max range is more around 300m so that shot was very much possible although probably very unlikely for them to hit. If any of these values are less than correct, it would be that of the schreck which should probably have a farther range than the 225 it's given in this game. Can you imagine being able to fire at moving targets up to 400m away? Sheesh. You'd have to double the unit's price for that kind of attack range. Would be cool to see though... ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 There is range and then there is range. The longest ranges listed for the Schreck on that site, involve pointing it upward at a 45 degree angle and lobbing a shell like a mortar round. Not suprisingly, with little accuracy. Use a mortar, Hans... Then there are the "static target" figures. This means the proverbial broad side of a (stationarY) barn. It does not mean an enemy 2nd Lieu having a bad hair day. There there is the "recommended engagement range" figure, which lo and behold, is much more closely grouped at around 100-200 yards regardless of type. Why do you suppose that is, boys and girls? If you said, "because the real issue is how well you can aim the darn things, which is nearly the same for all three", then go to the head of the class. A big wobbling 40 pound tube on your shoulder firing a low velocity arching round stablized by nothing but four little tail fins, is not a laser pointer, ladies and gentlemen. And the shooters are not draftsmen in a lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 I agree about the probable effective range being about the same, it's the reload times I wonder about --- especially the PIAT. From what I've read, the PIAT was very awkward to re-cock (a strong man had to stand up and jump on it like a pogo-stick!). IIRC, there was a popular saying that you better make your first shot count, because you'll never get another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 Originally posted by von Lucke: From what I've read, the PIAT was very awkward to re-cock (a strong man had to stand up and jump on it like a pogo-stick!) From what I've read, the thing had a charge that re-cocked the spring when fired. So the second shots wouldn't require it to be done manually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 Originally posted by Jarmo: From what I've read, the thing had a charge that re-cocked the spring when fired. So the second shots wouldn't require it to be done manually. You're both correct. It was supposed to recock itself but sometimes it failed to. The initial shot did have to be manually cocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts