Range of Panzerfaust

[Guest Michael emrys]

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.

Another source of possible misunderstanding is this: I have read that for planning purposes the Soviets assumed that one of their AT guns would take out 2-3 German tanks before it was itself killed. That looks sort of like the figures that Paul is quoting.

But note carefully: Those figures only apply to guns that are actually engaged with German tanks. It wildly distorts the totals to try to apply those percentages to all the guns deployed all the way across the Eastern Front, let alone all the guns that were produced prior to and during the war.

Michael

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Another source of possible misunderstanding is this: I have read that for planning purposes the Soviets assumed that one of their AT guns would take out 2-3 German tanks before it was itself killed. That looks sort of like the figures that Paul is quoting.

But note carefully: Those figures only apply to guns that are actually engaged with German tanks. It wildly distorts the totals to try to apply those percentages to all the guns deployed all the way across the Eastern Front, let alone all the guns that were produced prior to and during the war.

Michael

YES YES , thats exaclty the point I was trying to get too. Infantry need an adequate short range AT weapon and what ever else it must be mass produceable to the max in order to produce enough to satisfy the 'normal' consumption in battle.... If you don't supply it they won't stand up to tank attack.

By the end of the war the RPG type weapon emerged as the design of choice for post war planners...and that hasn't change to this day. So there has to be something to it , clearly in the hands of determined well trained troops they can be deadly!

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

YES YES , thats exaclty the point I was trying to get too.

Then I don't see what you guys are arguing about, since I mostly agree with Jason.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 03-18-2001).]

[Tiger]

I know I'll get flamed for this but I think another 5-10 meters added to when the units with panzerfausts will fire would be more accurate. Currently you have to run your infantry to within 5-10 meters of a tank before they will attempt to even fire the weapon. I liked it better in the demo where they would fire their fausts up to their listed range. Sure you got many misses but it was probably more accurate than what we have now (needing to be within 5-10 meters to fire). Note I'm not asking for an increase in accuracy, just the range at which a unit will fire them off to what they are capable of.

I liked the way they were handled in the demo better. Not that You got more hits at greater range but that they would at least fire the damn things to their listed range. It was great watching those fausts slowly arc out towards the tank then miss by 5-20 meters

-John

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Why are people so gosh darn daft? Is anyone following the positions actually being maintained here? Does anyone besides me even remember what the heck we are debating?

It is proposed to make fausts in CM 70% accurate at their maximum stated ranges.

I say no way in heck. Anyone arguing against what I am saying, is arguing in favor of that proposition. I have shown that no realistic estimate of the tanks KOed by fausts in the war is consistent with any dramatic increase in fausts ability to kill tanks, far beyond CM levels. Everybody else has responded to deductions to this effect with, in essence, "uh, gee, how can you tell?" and a refusal to examine the numbers.

Do you think a refusal to examine numbers can justify an increase in faust effectiveness *by a factor of five*?

Accuracy at range, or area covered, I don't care how you measure it, that is about how big the change would be. That is what you would get. People are advocating, and I am opposing, a five-fold increase in the combat effectiveness of the faust. They are not proposing the freaking status quo. They have to *prove* that CM is *wrong* about faust effectiveness, by huge amounts. Well, it isn't, it is generous if anything, but in the right ballpark.

The faust did not run the table of all Allied AFVs, even though they had millions of them. "Maybe hundreds of thousands in training". It doesn't freaking matter a whit! Play with the freaking numbers you nimnuts! Penny ante factors do not matter, there are 30 of the things for every AFV. So you drop it to 28, what does that change? Nothing.

Hey Michael, care to take me on, 800 pt meeting engagement, you take an Allied armor force, I take German infantry, and every time a German squad is within 65 yards of a tank, I roll 1d6 and 1-4 it is dead and you have to retreat it off the board? Think I won't blow you off the freaking map?

Is that what you are trying to defend? Are you trying to defend *that*, with no other argument that "I can't tell what the numbers mean, 'cause there's lots o' factors, and so I won't play wit 'em anyways". If you *aren't* in favor of such a change, then kindly say so.

[:USERNAME:]

Jason

I think everyone went light on you in spite of the fact you made a goofy post. You compound that error by continuing with the factorys divided by the fleets non sense.

You are just too blind to see the game the way it is. Its an abstraction. Its a function of the modeling that was discussed. You wont get it cause maybe you cant get it.

The faust is modeled no where on the board. No one guy is holding it. It is in the area defined by the holder squad In suitable terrain, a firer could easily double the range of the weapon by running for a short burst. Now pay attention, the squad is not going to run, our hero is going to run. Big difference.

The tanks have a hundred fifty sets of eyeballs helping them. Even when buttoned up. They are too effective. Not the fausts.

Now your shorts are too tight. Go lossen em.

Lewuis

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Why are people so gosh darn daft? Is anyone following the positions actually being maintained here? Does anyone besides me even remember what the heck we are debating?

It is proposed to make fausts in CM 70% accurate at their maximum stated ranges.

Jason nice try at Diplomacy.Ok for all the daft people as you call them [ I guess that includes me too].

The maximum accuracy achieved on a test range was 60-80% and this dropped to 25% beyond the 'effective range'which is 30m for the Pz Faust 30 etc etc.

We all know that in the real world battlefield accuracy are far below what can be achieved on a test range controlled shot.

I suggest 1/2 the above figures with a health ± range as this does seem to work for tanks etc.

Elite troops [ few and far between in German infantry battalions after 1943] should do 55-60% at short range and maybe 25% out to 50m on the Panzerfaust 30.

Regular troops would do ~ 30% at effective and 10% beyond 30m [ for Pzfaust 30].

...these would constitue the bulk of the infantry troops.

And Green troops [ an increasing reality in 1944 and especially 1945] might do 15-20% at 'effective range'and 5% beyond 'effective range'.

If under suppressive fire these figures might drop again by half?

[PeterNZer]

.. ok where's that dead horse.. but anyway

Jason

You give the PFs 'effectiveness ratio' but it seems you haven't put any thought into the proposition you are advocating.

Dividing total number of PFs produced by the number of tanks knocked out is a bit silly really:

1) You're assuming all PFs were used

2) You're assuming all PFs were fired at tanks

Clearly point 1 is a biggie, but one could assume a ratio if one really wanted to get anal and do this properly. I imagine there are some records of captured war materiel, at least on the western front (beyond those that went 'missing' or were played with by soldiers).

As for point 2, I would say just about everyone has seen footage of the PF used in roles other than the AT one. I've seen it shot off at a building (this may have been for the camera mind) at least on a couple of occassions and it is my belief that this would not be terribly uncommon. Actual historical study might help here, wow, concept.

Furthermore, in my mind comparing the PF to the pak is fairly nonsensical since they were totally different weapons treated in dif ways. The Pak's job was to knock out tanks and support inf on an ongoing bassis, it was not to be used as some disposable and easily replaceable weapon. Since it wasn't disposable it is guaranteed to have a better 'ratio' since it doesn't automatically fall appart when it's knocked out it's first tank and can go on to knock out more.

So now we've established the whole ratio thing is a bit silly, what do we have left? Some people would like to see the PF used more, others not.

Myself I find it frustrating that my men won't open up with their PFs. That's one of the things I liked about the CC series (ok, i'm NOT advocating that CC is the holy grail, i just LIKED this part of it ok? )is that the germans, when they saw a tank, opened up when it got in range! They didn't fire off one, then wait and see if it hit, then fire off another (which i seldom see in CM, since I think the inf seem to be operating on a rarity system like the way a tank is reluctant to fire off that last HE round), if a tank came into range they let loose with all they had. Which seems realistic to me (actual HISTORICAL evidence would be nice here).

So, yeah, i'm one for changes. Perhaps it's just me playing as the Germans too much

PeterNZ

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

- Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf -

Der Kessel scenario design group

Combat Vision movies

[PeterNZer]

(I should note we see a bit of classic US vs' European social sciences debate here. Had a lecturer US trained in NZ and we did find his whole algerbraic approach to the analysis of ethnic conflict kinda odd. Mind you, he was rather clever so it did work and was arguably predicative)

[This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Okay, here are my own little assumptions...

Of X PFs produced, a lot never made it to the frontline or were destroyed because Erwin the Quartermaster insisted on the correct Nachschubform before handing them out, resulting in the troops not having any while the stocks were either overrun or blown up, resulting in a loss of Z. Also allowing for training use A, destruction in trains/partisan ambushes B and faulty units due to sabotage C, with a further loss of D, due to spoilage, and E due to battle damage, we arrive at the number X1 of units actually delivered to frontline troops. Substract from this the number X2, which is the number of working PF fired in anger at non armoured and non-vehicle targets or Erwin the Quartermaster, we arrive at X3. This number exactly equals the number of Allied AFVs actually destroyed by PF, AD. This allows but one conclusion:

The PF when fired in anger at an AFV had a 100% strike and destroy rate.

There I proved it. BTS, please fix or do somefink.

Here is the formula, no need to thank me...

X-SUM(Z, A, B, C, D) = X1

X1-X2 = X3

X3 = AD

qed

Assumptions are a wonderful thing...

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Philistine]

Jason,

If I understand your argument correctly, you are essentially saying that CM's depiction of panzerfaust effectiveness should not be increased because they were not particularly effective historically considering the vast amount of PF's made versus the (relatively)small number of AFV's destroyed by them. Correct so far?

I think what people are disagreeing with are three of your major assumptions, not necessarily the nitty-gritty numbers you are using to support your assumptions.

1st--You are assuming that CM exactly accurately depicts or overdepicts the effectiveness of PF's. I'm not sure this is accurate (I'm not sure it is innacurate either, but you've done nothing to convince me). There has been some argument (which does not seem ridiculous on its face) that the method of modeling PF's, coupled with absolute spotting, artificially reduces the effectiveness of PF's.

2nd--Your assume that PF's were not particularly effective (based upon your 1/500 manufacture to kill discussed below). However, in absolute terms (assuming the 14% # is correct at least as an order of magnitude), the PF was a pretty effective weapon. Any given tank being destroyed having about a 1 in 7 chance of having been destroyed by a PF.

3rd--(and I think most important) As Lewis pointed out, the PF is more properly treated as ammunition rather than as a weapon. In this case (particularly in CM), the squad would be the weapon, with the PF being the round of ammunition. If you conduct the same analysis you made relating to #'s produced versus # of AFV's killed by to tank (or AT gun) ammunition as you do to PF's I would think (with no actual evidence) that the ratio would be even lower.

To summarize, I think people are not so much disagreeing with your #'s, but rather with your analysis of what the #'s mean. In such a case, it doesn't matter if anyone "plays with the numbers," since the people arguing with you don't feel that the types of numbers you are talking about (i.e. # made versus # of tanks killed) supports your conclusions (that the PF is not effective or that CM overmodels PF's).

FWIW, I'm not convinced that PF effectiveness should be changed, but your arguments aren't doing anything to convince me they shouldn't be.

Just my $.02, but then, I may be daft

--Philistine

[Philistine]

Sorry, double post.

[This message has been edited by Philistine (edited 03-20-2001).]

[PeterNZer]

Hey, we need an analyst like you here, want a job?

PeterNZ

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

- Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf -

Der Kessel scenario design group

Combat Vision movies

[Tiger]

Myself I find it frustrating that my men won't open up with their PFs. That's one of the things I liked about the CC series (ok, i'm NOT advocating that CC is the holy grail, i just LIKED this part of it ok? )is that the germans, when they saw a tank, opened up when it got in range! They didn't fire off one, then wait and see if it hit, then fire off another (which i seldom see in CM, since I think the inf seem to be operating on a rarity system like the way a tank is reluctant to fire off that last HE round), if a tank came into range they let loose with all they had. Which seems realistic to me (actual HISTORICAL evidence would be nice here).

Exactly! If you have a panzerfaust 30 (or 60 or 100) then fire it once the target gets into range, do not wait until it is 5-10 meters away. I find myself too often having to "infantry rush" vehicles in order to get them within this 5-10m range so that they will fire their PFs. I don't mind the misses this would result in but I'd rather miss at 25-30m then have to rush up to the 5-10m "magic firing range" and get my infantry slaughtered. BTS please return panzerfaust usage back to like it was in the demo where troops will at least fire them when a target comes withing normal weapon range. This "don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes" is annoying and unrealistic, i.e. artificial.

jmtcw

John

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by PeterNZer:

Hey, we need an analyst like you here, want a job?

PeterNZ

Me or Philistine - hmm, if it is me, would I want to work for a company that employs you? Nahhhhh...

I am having difficulties taking a company seriously that employs me...

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Jeff Heidman]

Another thing that seems to be missed (or maybe I just missed the comment).

Lets pretend that a PF has a 100% hit and kill rate inside its effective range, just for the sake of arugment. They are magic tank killing machines, but only within their range.

If the Germans made some millions of them, does that mean that every Allied tank is toast, 'cause the faust is so dang effective?

Of course not. It does mean they are going to be mighty careful about getting within range of the thing.

In fact, it could be the case that fausts are extremely effective at keeping tanks away, but not so effective at killing them, simply because tanks do not generally wish to get within 100m of infantry to begin with. Why should they?

Further, CM (somewhat) artificially portrays unusual battles, simply because they are the battles that are interesting. Trying to extrapolate the effectiveness of a weapon system in CM to real world strategic effectiveness is going to result in some odd results, especially for a weapon with an extremely limited engagement envelope like a panzerfaust.

Jeff Heidman

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

In fact, it could be the case that fausts are extremely effective at keeping tanks away, but not so effective at killing them, simply because tanks do not generally wish to get within 100m of infantry to begin with. Why should they?

This is brilliant. Allied tank crews were VERY shy of "German bazooka teams" (even the Canadians called them that) and the unwillingness of armour to properly support the infantry was a common theme. The reason? The availability of German PF and similar weapons.

Excellent point. Another example of intangibles coming head to head with numbers and unprovable supposition.

It does not help us with the debate on "how effective panzerfausts should be" but is an interesting point to bring up. Surely CM players, good ones anyway, will be equally shy with Allied armour facing German opponents.

But will they? Does the CM game engine mathematically portray this shyness accurately? Surely we can quantify this. It's so simple a twelve year old girl could.

Perhaps Germanboy can come up with a mathematical formula for Allied tank crew shyness, giving us a range figure in metres that Allied tanks should not close the range to known enemy infantry, and it can be modelled into future editions of CM. If it hasn't already been factored in by Steve (I think we all underestimate him with these discussions, I really do).

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Perhaps Germanboy can come up with a mathematical formula for Allied tank crew shyness, giving us a range figure in metres that Allied tanks should not close the range to known enemy infantry, and it can be modelled into future editions of CM.

Sure, I get it from the same place where the other one came from.

Excellent point Jeff.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Sure, I get it from the same place where the other one came from.

Excellent point Jeff.

Yes, I recognized the smell immediately.

[PeterNZer]

Since i just spent the day.. eh.. 'forecasting' the size of the US gaming market, i find the irony on this page of the thread particularly ammusing

PeterNZ

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

- Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf -

Der Kessel scenario design group

Combat Vision movies

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

No, I am not assuming that every faust made was used. No I am not assuming that every faust used was fired at an AFV. Put your own numbers on the likelihood for a faust to pause either hurdle. Personally, I'd put the first factor around 1/2 and the second factor between 1/5 and 1/10. Choose your own.

Germanboy, you didn't put in any numbers, and if you try, you will see that the intermediary ones are not believable if you want to arrive at your ending conculsions. The point of modeling, rather than data mining, is that each variable is assessed for its believability, on its own. That is the cross check on the believability of the conclusion. If you require me to believe that the QM kept 99% of the fausts in his sock drawer, in order to arrive at the result, then I know immediately why that model of the factors is wrong.

Jeff, I am the one who has been maintaining from the get-go that fausts' limited range meant that they were not very effective tank killers but were quite effective at maintaining the security of German infantry on the field. Read my own posts in this thread, or others, and you will hear me saying that over and over.

To the fellow talking about 15 yard sprints, I know perfectly well than the 9 men are not arranged in a perfect 20 by 20 foot box. And to the fellow suggesting upward accuracy revisions, I know perfectly well that increased accuracies would improve the kill rate of CM fausts. What both of you are assuming rather than arguing, is that CM faust effectiveness is too low, so that some upward adjustment in that effectiveness is in order.

Yes, modeling a 15 yard sprint forward as an abstraction might serve as a model for such an effectiveness increase. But that doesn't in the least show that one is required, which is the point in dispute. There are a number of ways to revise faust effectiveness upward and have the rationale for it be tactically believable. The question is whether the *result* would be tactically and strategically believable, in terms of the resulting pile of scrap metal.

Next to Germanboy's attempt at a joke. The problem you see is we know some of these things. Your QM, rejects, leftovers in depots in March '45, etc suffices to drop the 7.7m rounds constructed to 4.4m, which incidentally excludes faulty rounds, which you mentioned later. Training, the highest estimate anyone has alleged as believable on its own is "even hundreds of thousands", so drop it to 4m. Partisan ambushes between German and the German border were rather rare, but I will be absurdly generous and assume they got 10% of the things, leaving 3.6m. Spoilage I will left be a factor of 2 since one fellow seemed to think a lot of that one, even though the 5/plt in CM only have to last them 1 week, leaving 1.8m. Then I will allow another whopping factor of 2 for battle damage to a simply tube, leaving 900,000. Then I will let 9 out of 10 faust be fired at non-AFVs, leaving 90,000. fired at AFVs. Then I will take the highest figure ever offered for tanks KO'ed by the things and round it upward, and that is 30,000, which is only 1/3rd your required number, meaning an average final accuracy of 33%. Maximum.

You are left defending such propositions as "no, really, partisans destroyed 70% of all faust production with their daring guerilla raids inside Germany from the fall of 1944 to the spring of 1945." If you want to support absurd conclusions, you have to make absurd intermediary claims, one that everyone and his brother can see are false.

But if you want every link to be believable, then you will not arrive at high kill chances for fausts actually used. In fact, in the above chain, it is entirely possible the number of dead AFVs is overestimated by a factor of 2 (e.g., the Germans only claim 16000), and likewise entirely possible that the portion fired at AFVs is underestimated by a similar factor (which still leaves, not an assumption that all fausts were fired at AFVs, but that *1 out of 5* was). And if those are regarded as more believable, then you will get not 100%, nor 33%, but 8% hits when one was fired.

What do I conclude from that? That every factor in the above chain is right to within 1%? No. I conclude that the probably accuracy of the average fired faust was somewhere in the range of 8% to 33%. Or 20% plus or minus 10%. From which I also conclude that their primary tactical result on the battlefield was to make German infantry relatively safe from near approach by Allied AFVs, as I have already stated repeatedly.

And I furthermore assert that they already perform this function in CM. Allied tanks do not like to get close to German infantry, in my experience, because it is risky. German infantry does not have built in anti-tank capability strong enough to charge across the board, with default levels of terrain cover, and annihiliate all Allied armor in their path.

Let us look at Paul's proposed accuracy percentages and others' proposed "short run" models and see which of these two effects they would have. Start with both. For regularly Paul suggests 30% accuracy at stated range, rising to 60 for elites, so I will assume 40% for veterans. So the hit chance is to be 30-40 at state range, or 1/3rd. If they run too, that then becomes 115 meters in 1945, 75 meters in late 44. These are comparable to the accuracies screcks currently get at those ranges. So the proposal amounts to saying, every German squad should have built in schreck, with the rounds per platoon the same as one launcher has now.

Compared to a schreck, here is what they would have. 3-6 distributed launchers instead of 1, much harder to suppress. 4-10 man counters instead of 2, much harder to KO. Fast movement with little tiring, vs. fast for about 1 move maximum. These advantages, I submit, would make them more effective than a single schreck. 2 schrecks is about right - those would have a bit more ammo, but fewer shooters and more easily KOed etc.

The proposal therefore amounts, approximately and in terms of the increased AT effect involved, to keeping the game as it is now but with 2 extra free schreck teams per German infantry platoon. In some ways it would be a larger change that that, i.e. more favorable. Typical German platoons cost 93-155 pts, or call it 125 average, some smaller and some larger, some regular and some veteran. Schrecks cost 23 as regulars, 28 as vets, call it 25. The proposal would then add about 40% to the point value of German infantry.

But someone will rightfully note that from this we must deduct the value of the current fausts. How much is that? Say they kill within 35 meters vs. the 95 meters of the existing schrecks and new fausts. They have 37% of the range and 14% of the covered area, so they are probably worth about 1/4 as much. So the increase may be only around 25-30%, in point value terms.

Now, at last I arrive at a proposition that can be examined against facts and the judgments of each. Does anything think that at present, German infantry in CM is ineffective by 3/4 or 4/5ths, compared to Allied infantry costing the same? Is there anyone who would offer to never play the Germans again, if this change would be made, for the sake of realism? Does anyone think that at present, it is necessary to buy 2-3 panzerschrecks per platoon of German infantry, in order to have adequate AT ability and to defend the infantry's local ground?

Is there anyone here willing to take a force of allied armor, at least half his points spent on tanks, vs. my German infantry in a meeting engagement, and I get 2 free schreck teams per platoon?

If not, then just what exactly are people arguing for? Please state it clearly.

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

If not, then just what exactly are people arguing for? Please state it clearly.

I am OK with the 60 and 100. But the 30 is useless and again I will hammer in the point into your head that the game has uber sharing of spotting and tanks that have cameras mounted outside to cover dead zones they couldnt possibly see.

Since the damn faust can be (in my mind) anywhere the squad takes up area on the board, then it would not be so gamey but rather a nice abstraction to have the "least range rule" where the game engine figures range from the nearest "squad member".

[Paul Lakowski]

Jason part of the problem I have is that firstly most front line infantry should be average at best. Germans as far back as 1942 were consentrating the veterans in elite platoons held in reserve at the Battalion Regimental and Divisional level.The front line troops were regular at best. By 1944 this situation would have been much worst with probably half the front line troops as 'green'.

Next, a german infantry platoon could count its self luck to have more than 5 x PF each , let alone 5 per squad....may be in 1945 they could count on 5 per squad.

Another factor you've ignored is 'overkill', an example in ODS there was a situation where something like 40 RPGs were fired at several Abrams. All the Abrams where hit atleast once but no kills due to chobham & spaced armor. But 40 shots is something like a company firing , probably at long range for the RPGs [ 3-400m] so 10% hits sounds right....so on paper 40 -0

The same things appear to have happened in the middle eastern wars but the Israeli tanks didn't have the benifit of CHobham armor so they lost a number of tanks but in most cases each tank 'kill' was hit by several RPGs.....on paper the RPGs don't look good but their statistical kill rate was well below the actual hit rate.

Heres something some one wrote to me years ago about the RPG-7 in vietnam.

"Vietnam: RPG VS M113 NCHfreak <NCHfreak@hotmail.com>1999/02/26

: soc.history.war.misc

Hello With ref to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/shwv/articles/arm-faq.htm ,it says that there is a US army report which said that for RPG VS M113

1 prentration for every 7 RPG hit

1 hit for every 8 to 10 RPG fired

0.8 causality per prentration.

Simply calculation shows that VC/NVA need 70 to 87.5 RPG fired to cause 1 causality. This means that all the RPG round in 1.6 to 2 coy

needed to aim and fire at a single US M113."

Note the 1 penetration for every 8 hits as the 1 hit in 8 shots is about right for average trained troops firing while under fire.... 1/2 of 30%.

[Goanna]

To sum up here, don't we actually have a logical solution here that BTS could take on board?

Doesn't the 20% +/- 10% varying by range that Jason has deduced sound about right to the average goon, provided that the modification is also made that the squads will actually use the damn things when something comes within the weapon range.

The uberspotting ability is something that needs to be addressed seperately.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

To the man with no name - So, if say the faust 30 acted more like a faust 40, or say was commonly fired at 20 yards, that would suffice? I'd go for that, certainly. No problem, because it does not make any large change in the overall kill score I'd expect.