Range of Panzerfaust

[Paul Lakowski]

Jason , your logic is flawed. You assume that X amount of warheads / Y amount of Kills = kill rate for that weapon].Thats a strategic rate not a tactical rate.

The problem is that many many many more weapons have to be produced just to get one per squad....regardless of if there all used or none of them are used. Have you heard of "Shelf life". Panzerfausted used carboard in their construction how long do you think they last?

Even modern missiles and rockets only have shelf lives of 5-10 years and thats after decades of top dollar development.

The point is if 24 million "AT Rifle grenades" manufactured over two years result in a average of only 5 per squad over that same period ..... then a Pzfaust production of a few million in a year over a much larger demand [312 divison in combat in '44], is going to result in only a fraction being available.... on an 'on going basis'.

The question of determining weapons effectiveness based on the total number of kills is a seperate issue. The two 'sets' don't over lap completely in fact in a lot of cases they may not over lap at all.

What you need is to deterimine how many shots resutled in how many kills.

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 03-16-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Of course it is a strategic rate. I am not trying to deduce that the accuracy at 2 meters was 1/500. The strategic rate sort of matters. And if you enumerate all the factors you like and try to put numbers on them, you will not wind up with 50% of shots equal to kills.

Do I know the number of shots? No, nobody does. And nobody is ever going to, either. But you can put plausible, wide-range numbers on the intervening factors, like how many were overrun in depots, and how many were fired at buildings, and how many the would-be shooter bought it first. They just have to all multiply out to 1/300 or 1/500, as I said.

If you try to put numbers on those links in the chain, I think you will rapidly find they are not plausible, if you try to get the strategic rate out at the end, with an assumption of high accuracy, shooting at close range, and shooting at the doctrinal targets.

What do I conclude from this? That the fausts were mostly not used as the doctrine said they should be. I can give plenty of plausible explanations for that, such as not everyone wants to be a dead tank-hunting hero with a posthumous medal, and a faust is a dangerous item to possess when a sergeant needs something very risky done urgently, and it is a plausibly useful uber-grenade.

And the same reasons, and other perfectly obvious ones, probably led most of the ones that were fired at armor, to be fired from rather far away. With a sizeable portion of misses resulting. How sizeable, I do not know, but sizable.

Why do I say this? Because most of the other terms of the series between strategic and tactical rate, are plausible factors of 2 at most. And 1/500 covers *9* of those, compounded. And there aren't 9 such layered issues to account for all of the blighters.

So somewhere along the way, there are one or more places where the term is not "divide by 2" but is instead more like "divide by 10", or 5. And the only plausible ones in the list, for which numbers that low are believable at all, are "fired at other targets", and "missed".

Do you think 90% of the fausts made and delivered, fell apart in the rain? 1/4 I do not mind at all, because being generous about things like that will make no appreciable impact on 9 powers of 2 in succession.

Incidentally, with most of the fausts delivered in the last year of the war, if you work it out your own numbers will put the "lifespan" of the ~4-5 fausts per platoon CM assigns, at about a week.

[M. Bates]

You seem to be pulling figures out of your backside and then drawing pompous and obscure conclusions.

[Paul Lakowski]

OK heres some % figures from Russian study of how there tanks were killed . It covers major battles from Berlin 1945 to Orel 1943 [ kursk]

7% aircraft

5% mines

14% handheld [Panzerfaust and others]

6% misc

68% Artillery.

They note that in Berlin operation 24% of tank losses were due to Panzerfausts.Also Russians tend to group AT Artillery in with regular Arty .

[Gregory Deych]

Originally posted by Tiger:

Panzerfaust models, which included the 30 Km, 30m, 60m, 100m, and the 150m. The number 60m means the fighting range in meters"

Tiger

Man, where can I get THAT version?

[This message has been edited by Gregory Deych (edited 03-16-2001).]

[Dr. Brian]

Jason,

Your numbers don't account for the weapons stores found under Soviet control at the end of WWII.

As we know today, the Soviets were very protective of ANY information, and if they did give any, it was always, "adjusted."

For what it is worth.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[argie]

Originally posted by Gregory Deych:

Man, where can I get THAT version?

[This message has been edited by Gregory Deych (edited 03-16-2001).]

I think he is refering to the Kleine 30... IIRC, a version with a little warhead

Ariel

[This message has been edited by argie (edited 03-16-2001).]

[:USERNAME:]

I cant believe some of the math/logic that goes on here.

The PF was a one shot weapon. It therefore is more like ammo than a gun. You wouldnt divide the number of 7.92mm produced by the number of infantry kills would you?

Many fausts were used in street fighting, bunker busting, destroyed during barrages (I heard they were volatile and you wouldnt keep it in a trench with you but outside on the ground), shot to pieces in trains, left behind because of infantry attacking,etc.

The proper way to analyze it is to look at tank destruction studies. Towards the end of the war , hollow charge weapons, in suitable terrain, were accounting for a good number of tanks.

Jeesh

Lewis

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Nobody else seems to be willing to grappled with the implications of the data. The figures can be pulled out of any end you choose, because they all point to the same conclusion, even when the differ by factors of three. The conclusions may seem obscure, but that is because nobody is accepting the invitation, diving in, and playing the the numbers themselves. If they do, they will find as I found, that you can't put any plausible numbers on each item anyone has mentioned, and get a different conclusion.

I will now substantiate those statements.

In a typical game of CM, a German infantry company facing a tank-supported force takes out 2 Allied tanks with schrecks or fausts. Sometimes the German armor gets them all, and there is no need. Sometimes the infantry gets 4.

Now, let an infantry company get into a fight every 3 days. And let only 1/3rd of them face armor in the first place, even though in the west it was extremely common. And focus only on the last year of the war, when the better infantry AT weapons are fielded (even though the effective schreck has been out longer). Then the cumulative infantry kill score in the last year alone would be half of the combined Allies cumulative AFV fleets for the whole war - far too high.

Meanwhile, even if the infantry fired 20 shots each time to produce those 2 kills, on the above assumptions we've only accounted for 15% of the fausts and schreck rounds issued and no longer on hand in March, and only 4% of all the infantry AT weapons issued in the whole war.

I estimated the AFV kill % from these weapons at around 10% of the total and said it would be that plus or minus 5%. Another fellow offers the figure of 14%. Fine by me. Now allocate them and work it out. The Allies produce 200k AFV in the whole war and have more left at the end than at the begining. Even if you ignore all the early war ones - by no means an insubstantial fraction, perhaps 1/4th in reality - and ignore the increase in fleet sizes during the war - you get an upper bound of 29,000 AFVs KO'ed by infantry AT weapons.

The period said to be covered was Kursk to Berlin so that is 2 years. The German divisions in action vary over the period, but 200 is the right ballpark. In terms of infantry companies that will mean on the order of 3500 of the things. Thus one arrives at 2.5 million "company days", and the AFV kills per company per day comes to 1 divided by 88. Or in other words, a typical infantry battalion might get 1 AFV per month, or a company 1 every 3 months. Not 2 every 3-9 days.

OK, now let us take the other fellow's figures and consider the PAK. 68% to artillery, which obviously includes tanks and TDs since there is no seperate entry for them. KOs be indirect HE are likely to be quite small, but the AFVs almost certain outscore the PAK, probably by around 2 to 1. That leads to the implication that around 22% of the AFVs were killed by PAK (and heavy FLAK, included). That is half again more than the infantry weapons. Applying the same assumptions used in getting the upper bound for the infantry weapons, above, that means an upper bound of around 45,000 AFVs by the PAK and FLAK. Gee, that is almost exactly 1 each, 0.9.

I conclude from that, that the PAK and heavy FLAK were much more effective because of their superior range; I also conclude that they mostly acted as ambush "get one" weapons, with occasions where they were lost without getting any (e.g. to artillery prep fire) common enough to balance out those in which they ran up higher scores.

I welcome anyone who is annoyed by the implications of my numbers, to put his own numbers on any of the items. How many AFVs do you see companies in CM taking out? How common do you think fights remotely like CM ones were, for a typical infantry formation? If you want to revise the figures on formations and lengths of time engaged, feel free, just so you don't depart from the basics of known history.

My opinion is that the good infantry AT weapons the Germans had in the late war, had as their primary tactical effect, an increase in the physical security of German infantry on the battlefield, allowed them to maintain formation integrity, and allowed various useful tactics. In particular, they forced the Allies to lead with infantry more often. They made effective, tactics designed to strip the infantry off of the tanks (via artillery, ranged MG and light FLAK fire, etc), because tanks left alone in the defensive zone lost much of the freedom of movement they had had in the early war. They made the Allied tanks stand off and shoot up the German infantry from range, instead of penetrating and breaking apart small German infantry formations. And occasionally, the killed tanks from ambush, blocked roads, or got kills when Allied tanks attempted to avoid the above tactical effects.

But with the Allied tanks standing off, and with the ordinary and understandable reluctance to move to close combat with them whenever it could be avoided, plus a tendency to expend the AT weapons at non-tank targets, and when fired at tanks, often at ranges that basically announced "do come any closer" rather than actually killing the things - they did not wipe out the Allied tank fleets, through repeated losses to every German infantry force engaged. The primary tank killers were other tanks and TDs, and towed PAK - heavy FLAK, and the reason for that was their range.

I don't think CM is too far off now, but it is leaning to the high side in the effectiveness it shows for these weapons, in my opinion. And upward effectivenes revisions, like ~40% hit probabilities at the rated ranges say, would produce CM kill rates that could not have occurred historically.

[JoePrivate]

Jason wrote:

In a typical game of CM, a German infantry company facing a tank-supported force takes out 2 Allied tanks with schrecks or fausts. Sometimes the German armor gets them all, and there is no need. Sometimes the infantry gets 4.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to drive home here but what you described as a typical CM game *isn't* from my experience. It is definitely atypical. I would say an infantry coy in a typical CM game w/shrecks and fausts would account for zero AFVs, that's right ZERO. Maybe 1 AFV in a 3-5 game span for a shreck and that might be high. As for panzerfausts, well that's a pretty rare occurance, cause for celebration when it does. That's the point I was trying to make in my earlier post regards the range, the situations to use these weapons usually just don't occur. From my experience in CM the biggest killers of AFVs are AT guns and other AFVs.

[Paul Lakowski]

Jason I'm not going to get into your approach because its based to much on a series of assumptions that may or may not apply. Consider the following example ......

During the war the russians produced

48,800 x 45mm AT guns

5,400 x 57 mm AT guns

68,800 x 76mm guns

They they estimate that eah AT gun type had the following kill ratios with tanks

45mm 0.25

57mm 3

76mm 2.5

So if we assume that ever AT destroyed in anger that should result in 1944 with 32,350 German Tanks lost?????

Kill Ratio x loss = German tanks killed

45mm 0.25 x 8,200 = 2,050

57mm 3 x 1,100 = 3,300

76mm 2.5 x 10,800 = 27,000

The daily ammo production was 50,000 x 45mm Ammo and 30,000 x 76mm from one factory alone

So going on 76mm ammo thats ~ 11 million rounds produced and since most were arty, then if even 10% or a million 76mm round genetrated 27,000 kills thats 41 rounds per kill.But in 1944 alot of 76s were used as AT guns and the load outs where more like 50-50 which would make the kill rate per gun About 200 AT rounds per tank Killed.

Looking at the 45mm amm thats > 18 million rounds generating 2050 kills in 1944 or about 8,900 rounds per kill and this is a dediacated AT gun so 50-50 load out or 4451 AT shots per Tank kill...?????

See how just a few turns of the assumption and you end up with completely screwed up figures that just don't add up [that 76mm ATG should get 10 times the kill rate of 45mm ATG...which on the face of it doesn't sound too bad]

And heres another twist the production figures are from the Munitions plant # 22 near Kuibyshev and represent the production in 1943.... the total arty ammo production easly ran at 5 million rounds per month or about 60 million a year.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

There is no way those kill figures for the Russian ATGs can be correct. The Germans didn't lose that many AFVs to ATGs. The 3 and 2.5 figures should probably be .3 and .25. Then the kills would be 2050, 330, 2700, total 5050 by ATGs.

That is believable. Of course, it doesn't mean that it is true. But any claim that the average Russian ATG KO'ed more than 1 tank, is obviously false. There were more Russian ATGs that dead German AFVs.

As for the ammo figures, the Russians used the 45mm not just as a ground mounted ATG, but as the main armament in their light tanks - BT-5, BT-7, T-70 etc. They did not switch over the last of those chassis to SU-76 production until 1944, and they certainly still had light tanks running in 1944.

And the 76mm situation is worse. It formed 2/3rds of the Russian field artillery, the whole SU-76 fleet, most of the KV fleet, and above all more than 2/3rds of the fleet of T-34s. The artillery probably consumed the lions share, all HE. The towed and tracked versions probably split the remainder, and then split it again AP vs. HE.

Moreover, one cannot compute total ammo production from the runs of one factory at one time. You need total production figures. Because different plants were making different things at different rates and for different periods, etc.

The figures for shells produced per towed AT guns are in the range of 250-300 for the Germans. Of those, about 1/2 were AP or HEAT, the latter probably issued as a duel purpose round. The average German PAK probably accounted for 1 Allied AFV, or a fractional number on that order. Does this mean the average PAK fired 150 AP and got one hit? No. It means the factors making for lost ammo, times a last factor of the hit probability of the average shot, together multiple out to around 150. It is unlikely the average hit probability was greater than 15%, that being the case. Why? They were probably firing from their longest range whenever possible, since they would get KO'ed if Russian tanks got close enough to them.

What are the other factors that multiply out to the rounds per gun figure? Probably a high figure for rounds left at destroyed guns, a moderate figure for rounds destroyed in transit (e.g. by bombing), a moderate figure for rounds captured in depots, a moderate figure for rounds left on hand. The same sort of analysis as I offered for the fausts and such, in other words.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Now, let an infantry company get into a fight every 3 days.

I would say that this is far from typical. Did you have a real life history we could use as an example?

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

There is no way those kill figures for the Russian ATGs can be correct. The Germans didn't lose that many AFVs to ATGs. The 3 and 2.5 figures should probably be .3 and .25. Then the kills would be 2050, 330, 2700, total 5050 by ATGs.

Thats rich Jason, now the Red Army doesn't know how to study the effectiveness of there own Anti Tank Guns.....why , because it doesn't fit with Jasons view of the world????

[Goanna]

Let me just add a bit of a goons point of view here. I don't have any data whatsoever to provide as evidence, but I would say that the model as BTS has it is just about perfect.

Do my infantry use their fausts everytime I want them too, hell no. Do they do weird **** like shoot them at other infantry occasionally when there isn’t a tank within a km, uh huh. But do they serve the basic purpose they are supposed to, i.e. punish the poor sod who thinks he can roll his armour right up to those woods I am in and pummel me with HE, yup.

If you can’t get your fausts to work right, I think you might just want to practice a few of the things mentioned above. The sneak and dash technique, hiding a lot longer than you think you should and positioning yourself so that your infantry aren’t suppressed by any small (or large) arms fire are all great ways to get faust kills against those who don’t keep a respectful distance.

Whatever BTS does with the model would not, in my opinion, be able to make any demonstrable difference in the accuracy of these weapons usefulness compared to reality since the vast majority of use do things with our pixelated warriors that we couldn’t get away with in real life. Basically, they work pretty much as they are supposed to now without modification.

PS: I think I have you all beat. I got a 218m schreck kill on jdmorse through the front armour of a Sherman III totally without asking. I gave the schreck team a move order. They paused at a waypoint and took a shot I never would have tried and nailed him.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

It is not as rich as the Russians saying they killed more German AFVs, than the Germans ever built. If the Russians claimed they shot a billion Germans would you believe it? But it is just as likely they originally gave correct figures, and somebody in the process of tranfering them to you missed a decimal, or thought a rate per 1000 was a rate per 100. Such honest errors happen.

If you take the number literally and apply it to the whole Russian ATG force, then the 76mm figure alone (68,800 x 2.5) is more than twice German AFV production from 1933 to 1945. Without leaving anything for the 45mm, let alone the tanks, the planes, the mines, or the western allies. If you still believe it, I've got some great swampland for you in Florida, cheap.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Michael, pick any other number you like that you think more believable ans stick it in, instead. Why is it so hard to get people to play with the numbers? It is not an assumptions game at all. It is a deductions game.

The figures go in as trial and error, and you see what they imply for the other factors. You have to get all the factors to believable levels, not just one. If you push on one of them, another will squeeze out.

The point of the estimate you picked on item out of, is that it hardly used up more than a fraction of the fausts, and would still kill more AFVs than the allies had.

My own conclusion later on, included the item than an average company only killed 1 AFV in 3 months. You can decide for yourself if that is because they were busy sucking their thumbs, or fighting but not getting shots when they did (= range is the tactical problem, which is my thesis statement), or missing (related to the previous).

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I largely agree, Gonna. I don't see any need for changes in faust effectiveness. What got me started on the subject was someone suggesting that the fausts should be more accurate at ranges near their maximums.

Specifically, Paul recommended a hit probability in the range of 70% at the stated ranges, and other fellow suggested extending the ranges a modest ~5m as well. There is no question a faust-60 that killed 2/3rds of the time at 65 yards would produce a slaughter of AFVs in CM, that has no counterpart in the real history. And the reasons such suggestions are made, in my opinion, is that those making them have an entirely exaggerated sense of how commonly and easily German infantry ran around blowing up allied tanks with the things late in the war.

The corrective to that view is to have one's nose rubbed in the reality, that the Germans issued (not had at the end of the war) >20 fausts per Allied AFV, and gave them to the supposed ubermenschen cover-boys of Tank-Killer Magazine, and didn't kill even 1/6th of the things as a result.

Why? *Range*.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Michael, pick any other number you like that you think more believable ans stick it in, instead. Why is it so hard to get people to play with the numbers?

Because playing with numbers is silly, especially if you are trying to use numbers to prove a point about tactics.

The Calgary Highlanders had one 6-pounder gun that survived the entire war; she fired 1500 rounds in her service career, 1200 were directed at the enemy.

1200(!)

I don't think she was credited with anything more than a halftrack.

Does this mean we can conclude that the 6 pounder was ineffective at destroying tanks? Hardly.

It is not an assumptions game at all. It is a deductions game.

This is a game of not just assumptions, but of wild assumptions. No disrespect intended, but I think one would be better served by getting his hands on actual after action reports, interviews with vets, or treatises on the subject, and "grappling" with those.

My own conclusion later on, included the item than an average company only killed 1 AFV in 3 months. You can decide for yourself if that is because they were busy sucking their thumbs, or fighting but not getting shots when they did (= range is the tactical problem, which is my thesis statement), or missing (related to the previous).

But the numbers are misleading; how many companies spent 100 percent of their time in the line? And how many used the PF for training - not just the other factors already mentioned - stockpiling, use against infantry targets, wastage (shelf life, loss through capture or enemy action, etc.)

Look at the footage of old men being trained to use the PF - they are firing live ammunition! Perhaps M. Hofbauer might know how common it was for PFs to be live fired in training - I really don't know, but suspect that the number of PFs so fired would number in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

There are simply too many variables to prove the kinds of things you want to prove with the kinds of data you are providing.

[Michael Dorosh]

More to consider -

Terrain - how much terrain on Eastern and Western and Italian fronts was unsuitable for tanks? Much of the ground the Canadians fought over was unsuited - especially Italy and Holland. German battalions opposite them often never saw an Allied tank for weeks at a time.

Employment - Allied tanks were employed as units - squadrons (companies) and regiment (battalions). One German infantry company might find itself overrun by two or three dozen T-34s while the neighbouring battalion might not see a tank for weeks.

Your example states that in infantry company might "get" one tank in a certain timeframe - but given the employment of Allied tanks (with troops (platoons)usually acting together) this seems misleading.

[:USERNAME:]

The fact is that the game makes PF30s ineffective not due to any modeling error in panzerfaust usage (besides ignoring that a firer would position himself better) but that the uber spotting and sharing of said spotting puts infantry at a disadvantage.

People like Jason cant see the forrest for the trees. The game uses an abstracted (and flawed) spotting routine. It puts a short ranged weapon like the faust30 in the useless category. Tanks are hard put to spot within 30 metrs of themselves when buttoned. Thats a fact. But the game does a 360 and makes them completely aware of their near surroundings.

I look at it this way; Panzerfaust 30 are "actually" hand thrown weapons in reality (like mag mines and such), the panzerfaust 60 represents the "real" 30.

Dividing production figures by kill claims is so beyond the scope of the game that it boggles my mind.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

It is not as rich as the Russians saying they killed more German AFVs, than the Germans ever built. If the Russians claimed they shot a billion Germans would you believe it? But it is just as likely they originally gave correct figures, and somebody in the process of tranfering them to you missed a decimal, or thought a rate per 1000 was a rate per 100. Such honest errors happen.

If you take the number literally and apply it to the whole Russian ATG force, then the 76mm figure alone (68,800 x 2.5) is more than twice German AFV production from 1933 to 1945. Without leaving anything for the 45mm, let alone the tanks, the planes, the mines, or the western allies. If you still believe it, I've got some great swampland for you in Florida, cheap.

Jason , just in case you didn't get it...the % figures I presented and the losses were presented by the Russian sourse ... all I did was MAKE AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE LINK....its total invalid because it assumes all AT guns lost were lost fighting tanks, when they were probably mostly destroyed by arty and MG fire....how can I conclude this....I can't , I make an assumption that since most battles were between infantry divisions, who had little or no tanks, then odds are most Anti tank guns weren't destroyed engadging enemy tanks.

You see how the more the assumption ,the weaker the point?

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

What are the other factors that multiply out to the rounds per gun figure? Probably a high figure for rounds left at destroyed guns, a moderate figure for rounds destroyed in transit (e.g. by bombing), a moderate figure for rounds captured in depots, a moderate figure for rounds left on hand. The same sort of analysis as I offered for the fausts and such, in other words.

There is also the matter of rounds expended in training, both initially and in "refresher" courses. This would, I take it, amount to a not inconsiderable fraction.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

There is also the matter of rounds expended in training, both initially and in "refresher" courses. This would, I take it, amount to a not inconsiderable fraction.

Michael

Is there an echo in here?

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

I largely agree, Gonna. I don't see any need for changes in faust effectiveness. What got me started on the subject was someone suggesting that the fausts should be more accurate at ranges near their maximums.

Specifically, Paul recommended a hit probability in the range of 70% at the stated ranges, and other fellow suggested extending the ranges a modest ~5m as well. There is no question a faust-60 that killed 2/3rds of the time at 65 yards would produce a slaughter of AFVs in CM, that has no counterpart in the real history.

Jason , if you go back and read what I wrote ,you'd see I stated "TEST RANGE ACCURACY"....now your new around here but there's been an ongoing debate as to how to convert ranges achieved on the test range with actual battle field accuracy.

My rough conclusion was to half the test range accuracy but allow for a siginficant ± % based on crew training.....So when I say 60-80% @ effective range , that translates into about 30-40% for average crew and ± 25% range between average and 'poor' or averaga and 'veteran'.

And the reasons such suggestions are made, in my opinion, is that those making them have an entirely exaggerated sense of how commonly and easily German infantry ran around blowing up allied tanks with the things late in the war.

The corrective to that view is to have one's nose rubbed in the reality, that the Germans issued (not had at the end of the war) >20 fausts per Allied AFV, and gave them to the supposed ubermenschen cover-boys of Tank-Killer Magazine, and didn't kill even 1/6th of the things as a result.

Why? *Range*.

The issue is that RPGs are lethal , when used by skilled defenders in good cover....If you take the middle east , you find that the real RPG effectiveness was diluted statistically because the great tendency of all the troops in a platoon or company to fire on the same target. So they may fire a volley of 8 rounds but with 4-6 hits but on paper it took 8 x RPGs to kill a tank. [NOTE the above RPG figures are fictious and only intended for argument sake....any resemblence with person or persons real or imaginary is purly conincidental ]