Panzerfaust Unt Again

[Atlas]

While reading through this fine message board, I found the following question: "Has anybody else noticed how reluctant the German squads are to fire their PanzerFaust?"

I think the question is a good one, but one that makes my head spin when I consider the remedy.

As most of you know, the Panzerfaust was a disposable recoilless anti-tank weapon that required only one soldier to operate and was, by most accounts, easy to fire. There is no debate of its effectiveness. (200mm of armor at 30 degrees.)

It is my experience that the likihood of a German unit to actually use the weapon increases relative to the experience of the unit....which is a one further way CM differentiates the benefits of experience.

What I cannot wrap my brain around is the fact that lesser German units equipped with PFs will sit within PF range (30m, 60m, or 100m) of armor and DO NOTHING. Sometimes they will wait until the tank spots them, then grovel, panic and die to the man before anybody in the squad decides to use the ONLY remedy available.

Panzerfausts were not scarce (I believe 200,000 of them were being produced every month by April, 1944) and the level of sophistication of these devices was such that many German (Nazi Youth) children were issued PF near the end of the war. A further benefit of the PF was that if the carrier were to become incapacitated, a comrade could pick up the PF and use it without problem (as BF has so well simulated and a good reason individual PF units are not a practical solution.)

Perhaps the answer is to allow more experienced German infantry to fire the PF only with better accuracy instead of more regularity. It seems to me that lack of experience would not make a unit slower to use the PF, but faster and in haste to get the heck away from the iron beast.

This is, of course, neither here nor there as far as CM1 is concerned and I am not sure of the results in tinkering with the already potent German infantry, but I am interested in how others perceive this issue.

[CavScout]

I don't know... the less experianced someone is, the less likely they would be to jump up from cover to fire the thing. The PF is easy to use but did require one to expose one's self to use it.

[109 Gustav]

If you find that units are not firing their panzerfausts, check the type of faust they have in the unit info box. CM includes Pf-30s, -60s, and -100s. The number is their range in meters. Thus, units in early 1944, equipped with Pf-30s will not shoot tanks beyond 30 meters.

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[:USERNAME:]

Another part of this issue is that HQ units dont have them. Thats not only bad from a realistic point of view but a gamey opportunity.

Example:

I see that the two units in front of me are a platoon and a company HQ, ergo, no AT defense and I can concentrate on a infantry squad instead.

I would suspect that platoon and company HQs especially would have these (more so than the squads since they are responsible) and that Bn HQ units should represent the Tank Killer squad that infantry Bn would form.

Ive read on many occasions that Bn HQs had a dedicated tank killer squad. Panzerfaust, mines, bundles, cocktails, etc. Perhaps the men in this squad were picked from guys that had earned a tank destruction badge already.

Hopefully a CM2 design parameter.

Lewis

[Hakko Ichiu]

Another thing to remember is the difference between maximum range (30m - 60m - 100m) and effective range. I don't pretend to know exactly what these are, but they are certainly significantly less than maximum range.

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

Ethan

-----------

"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University

[Guest Big Time Software]

Atlas, I think the others have answered your basic question well enough. Basically, range, unit Experience, and unit state (i.e. Pinned, OK, etc.) have a lot of influence over PF usage.

Username, I am not so sure that a HQ unit would be lugging around a PF as regular kit. I can easily see a HQ grabbing a squad member, armed with a PF, to go do something, but since a PF is rather cumbersome (in general) I don't think Platoon, Company, or Batallion HQ units would have them as regular equipment.

CM2 will have seperate "tank hunter" teams and will have the use of more AT weapons than just PFs.

Steve

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

Another thing to remember is the difference between maximum range (30m - 60m - 100m) and effective range. I don't pretend to know exactly what these are, but they are certainly significantly less than maximum range.

In the case of the PF, I think these differnces (from 30-100m ranges) are really their "effective" ranges.

Basically, each new generation had a better sight, and was easier to use.

The "max" range of even the PF30 was certainly much greater than 30m. It probably was just almost impossible to get a hit.

At 30m though is pretty hard to miss something the size of a tank, under ideal circumstances. Under not so ideal, everything becomes near impossible.

Jeff Heidman

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Username, I am not so sure that a HQ unit would be lugging around a PF as regular kit. I can easily see a HQ grabbing a squad member, armed with a PF, to go do something, but since a PF is rather cumbersome (in general) I don't think Platoon, Company, or Batallion HQ units would have them as regular equipment.

CM2 will have seperate "tank hunter" teams and will have the use of more AT weapons than just PFs.

Steve

Glad to hear that there are going to be tank hunter teams.

As far as the HQs I think you are missing a point. Theres a tradeoff between reality and abstraction. If you exclude the possibility of a HQ having this weapon then you introduce a gamey opportunity from knowing the infantry unit you are facing is a HQ unit.

Since the sharing of knowledge is an abstraction (Omni-LOS and enemy unit intel)that has a profound effect on knowing more than you could possibly gather inside a tank, then having HQ's having one panzerfaust isnt that far fetched. It counter weights the global knowledge base. It is a good counter-abstraction in my opinion.

If nothing else, another good abstraction is to have the infantry units that have these weapons be more inclined to fire if a HQ is within proximity. The accuracy and/or range could be slightly extended also to account for a quick burst of foot power/judicious crawling to a better/safer firing position.

Enemy infantry intel in general should be toned down. Type, numbers, morale, etc are just beyond knowing. There should also be somewhat of cloaking, meaning that HQ units are not identified so easily in the presence of other units. I target them exclusively and gamily wipe them out.

So my point is that abstractions can be OK as long as they dont invite gamey ploys and that counter-abstractions should be viewed as such. Its a function of the game designer to decide what plays out best.

Lewis

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

In the case of the PF, I think these differnces (from 30-100m ranges) are really their "effective" ranges.

Basically, each new generation had a better sight, and was easier to use.

The "max" range of even the PF30 was certainly much greater than 30m. It probably was just almost impossible to get a hit.

At 30m though is pretty hard to miss something the size of a tank, under ideal circumstances. Under not so ideal, everything becomes near impossible.

Jeff Heidman

I believe the warhead was improved so that better penetration was achieved with about the same charge. But the range was increased with additional propulsion. It therefore had greater velocity then with each additional model.

Jeff is correct in that a tank at these ranges becomes a vertical "area target". This effect will decrease with range but Belton fired one against a King Tiger Frontal turret area at 30 meters (100 meter version) and hit within inches of his aim point. Then again, the tank had burnt out already and wasnt moving.

Another anomaly is that a tank moving right at you at these short ranges has an opposite effect than it would on an antitank gunner. To an antitank gunner, the motion hardly matters but to a LATW operator the motion has such a profound effect (actually the fear of being squashed) that firing trials have proved that hits are more frequent against laterally moving targets.

Lewis

[Atlas]

Thank you for the reply BTS and others. I am not sure whether anybody supplied an answer as to why CM's German Infantry would rather die than use their PFs, but I can see that most who replied do not believe it to be a huge issue.

A few replies, though, are in order:

1.CavSCout: The beauty of the PF is that one could lay in almost a prone position to fire the mechanism. One did not have to "jump up" to fire it.

2. 109 Gustav: This is, of course, understood.

3.Username: Interesting, but off topic.

4. Hakko: Good point. My sources give no information as to the optimum firing range within classifications of PFs. Still, this does not answer the riddle as to why an infantry soldier would resist the temptation to at least attempt a shot at local armor.

5. BTS: I understood that "Range, unit Experience, and unit state" are the factors that your fine team uses to program the actions of those German Infantry units with PFs. I agree that these factors are important.

None-the-less, IMHO I also believe that PFs are under utilized- especially by lesser troops. It serves no purpose for a squad to get destroyed in short order without at least getting one - no matter how impossible - PF shot at a nearby target.

Often times in CM, regular INF with multiple PFs will NOT fire even if they are well in range and under no strain.

The German military hierarchy worried more about stray PFs falling into hands of the enemy than the over-use of the weapon. (There are documented stories of PFs being used in an anti-infantry role.)

What's my beef? I have none. Love the game. I am just debating out loud whether 1. PFs are under-utilized in CM and 2. Whether this matters. Since most feel that the answer to 2. is "negatory", I will move on.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Recently I read that in some cases the Finnish infantrymen used PFs just to chase the soviet tanks out of nearby area. They shot at the tanks without real changes to hit, but the warhead's close explosion was enough to make those tankers to lose their nerve and back off to better cover.

I don't know if this kind of effect is possible to model in CM, but at least it makes me think that soldiers in general would be more likely to take their changes and use PFs than to die without even trying them.

Ari

[Michael Dorosh]

Perhaps it is the lack of visible AT weaponry that allows your units to identify HQ units as such?

How else would you distinguish 6 men in dusty uniforms as a headquarters vice infantry squad - except of course for the lack of an LMG and perhaps the preponderance of radio equipment.

In such a case, I don't think it's gamey at all to pick your target based on the immediate threat - ie blast the squad cause you know they have AT weapons, or if you have no armour in range of their AT weapons, blast the headquarters.

I can't see an already encumbered radio operator carrying a PF, nor a driver, nor der Spiess (Hauptfeldwebel), nor an officer (though many highly decorated officers won the Panzervernichtungabzeichen using them, I don't think they carted them around, as Steve has also suggested.). This is, in fact, what an HQ unit is made up of, no?

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

http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by Atlas:

3.Username: Interesting, but off topic.

What's my beef? I have none. Love the game. I am just debating out loud whether 1. PFs are under-utilized in CM and 2. Whether this matters. Since most feel that the answer to 2. is "negatory", I will move on.

Off Topic? The Topic is: Panzerfaust Unt Again. Unt? Is that german?

You want experienced troops to use them? Who has the most experience? The senior NCO's and junior officers..

Excuse the hell out of me for trying to get some feedback into the game. The fact is if the game potrays the PF range from a point to another point, it is unrealistically modeling the range of these weapons. They werent dug in 88s and the infantry could make short bursts or crawl towards the targets. The game should model the range of these weapons a little further then their designation. Now, Thats an abstraction but since this isnt Close Combat and we arent tracking who is carrying the faust then thats a good abstraction.

Jeesh...You Unt?

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 01-29-2001).]

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Atlas:

Thank you for the reply BTS and others. I am not sure whether anybody supplied an answer as to why CM's German Infantry would rather die than use their PFs, but I can see that most who replied do not believe it to be a huge issue.

A few replies, though, are in order:

1.CavSCout: The beauty of the PF is that one could lay in almost a prone position to fire the mechanism. One did not have to "jump up" to fire it.

By default, having a line of fire to the enemy means the enemy has a line of fire at you.

Also, I beleive the PF had a back-blast. Some places indicate a back-blast of "two to three meters ( 6.5 - 10 ft.)". This would make prone firing difficult as your legs would be toasted unless you could fire from a "L" position.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis, you have a point there. I'll mention it to Charles. No promises

Atlas wrote:

It serves no purpose for a squad to get destroyed in short order without at least getting one - no matter how impossible - PF shot at a nearby target.

I thought someone pointed this out, but in any case I will It takes some SERIOUS courrage to fire a PF. First, simply because the thing is very dangerous to fire (compared to a rifle let's say). Probably more frightening, soldiers were under no illusion that as soon as they fired the thing that every enemy gun in sight would open up on the firing position. The range was very short and the chance of hiding the blast just about nil.

Think of it this way. Pretty much every soldier in WWII was armed with weapons that could take out pretty much any tank in the war. But the method of delivering something like grenade to the target involved HUGE risk. So given the choice, generally it was run rather than throw. Same for PF use to some degree.

Also, a soldier that KNEW he was in a bad firing position (backblast, no escape route, highly exposed, etc) might decide it would be better to run away today so he could come back and fight another day. Or at the very least, needed more time to prep the weapon, shift around equipment, get into a better firing position, etc.

Simply put -> firing a PF was not a scientific event dictated by range, suppression, and Experience alone. There are other things, more or less random, that can lead to PFs not being used. Or grenades for that matter.

The German military hierarchy worried more about stray PFs falling into hands of the enemy than the over-use of the weapon. (There are documented stories of PFs being used in an anti-infantry role.)

In a strategic sense, you are correct. But if your squad only has one PF, and the last time you saw a supply of them was 3 days ago, would you fire it at the first target you saw? Second? Third? The point is... who knows. The soldier (or NCO yelling at him) did in fact have to pick and choose when to use ANY weapon, from sidearm all the way up to an AT gun. Ammo is not an unlimmited item, and therefore wastage needs to be curtailed as much as possible. The more ammo you have, the more likely you are to use it.

Hope this helps.

Steve

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by CavScout:

By default, having a line of fire to the enemy means the enemy has a line of fire at you.

Maybe in the game but not in real life. The game does not model angular depression for the tank weapons(LOF).

Tanks also have very limited LOS especially at 30 meters or less to the sides. This was well known and exploited by tank killers.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by :USERNAME::

Maybe in the game but not in real life. The game does not model angular depression for the tank weapons(LOF).

Tanks also have very limited LOS especially at 30 meters or less to the sides. This was well known and exploited by tank killers.

True, what I meant was you have to be exposed to fire a weapon at the enemy. If the enemy can bring a weapon to bear is another question.

[Michael Dorosh]

The backblast of the PF also exposes your position to every machinegun within eyesight - the MGs you know about and the ones you don't know about. Even if you fire while prone, the backblast and resultant explosion from the rocket hitting the tank would pretty much advertise your position to the entire battlefield - something most soldiers were loathe to do.

You didn't mention in your example whether or not the Allied armour had already detected the PF armed unit - this would make a large difference. Steve raises an excellent point about resupply, and not wasting ammunition - if an Allied Sherman is going the other way, or you know a AT gun is around the next corner waiting for him, you are not likely to waste your only PF.

If you can support your claim that PF units are dumb with specific examples, it would help the discussion immeasurably.

[Tanaka]

Just a little mention...

As the things are, Infantry is promptly faring the PF at other infantry targets quite often...

Just as an example, yesterday I had a squad with one PF, with LOS to a pined enemy infantry (about 15m away) and a enemy Tank (the Tank was 20m away)...

I ordered the squad to fire to the Tank (Open top) and the TacAi changed the orders to attack the infantry, what the TacAi did next was to fire the PF to the infantry.

Edited because of some spell check

[This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 01-29-2001).]

[:USERNAME:]

I had a squad behind a small hill with scattered trees. There was sherman in the front of the hill. I split the squad and sent one half squad crawling to the top of the hill and the other to sneak around the right side.

The sherman comes around the left side, its buttoned but sees the crawling guys at about ten meters and cranks it turret to shoot at them. They keep crawling, like thats the mission! They get blasted once, keep up the crawling and get blasted again, forget it. They panic and run.

I gave the guys targetting to the out of LOS sherman in the beggining of the orders phase but that doesnt matter.

The TAC AI should really be able to change the actions of the troops in a situation like that.