coe Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 anyone have any idea how common it was to get injured from firing a zook, schreck or PzFaust.... if it was, that might be cool if there is a probability factor that someone becomes a casualty when one fires such weapon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auggy Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 If people were injured by these devices I wouldn't see why they were actually used in combat then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Injuries to self are a possibility with almost every weapon, but I think modeling this to CM would only frustrate people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Backblast will ruin the day of anyone not outside the safety arc of those things. Gyrene 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 People get hurt all the time by backblast, even in training. While they train you to look back, during a fight with people and vehicles running around it is easy to forget or to have someone run behind you right after you check. CM does somewhat simulate this by suppressing you if you fire one in a building or if you are behind someone who does but I can't recall any actual casualties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Anybody's seen the classic german movie "Die Brücke"? In it there's a young soldier firing a Panzerfaust inside a house without looking back... The result is, well, ugly... If you can get your hands on a copy, make sure to grab it. IMO one of the best war movies ever made. [ February 06, 2003, 03:00 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Currently reading 'With The Jocks' and enjoying it hugely. I have just read a description of a Jock PIAT gunner who was standing back in a second storey room looking down at the rear deck of a Tiger. He fired and hit the windowledge infront of himself :eek: Messy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 That brings up a point. Does anyone remember if the PIAT had a backblast. It shouldn't have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Sgtgoody: That brings up a point. Does anyone remember if the PIAT had a backblast. It shouldn't have. It doesn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Oops, should clarify more. Did it have one in CMBO? I know it didn't in real life because it was just a big springloade spigot mortar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty's Double Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 No it doesn't have one in CMBO, that's why it's so much harder to spot. For more PIAT hilarity read Gearge MacDonald Fraser's account of using one against fleeing Japanese troops - in boats! The book is called "Quartered safe out here". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Although the PIAT didn't have a backblast it had a kick from the projectile propellant. the firer was supposed to brace himself sufficiently to utilise this kick to recock the spring mechanism. If he failed, and it could be tricky, he had to perform an awkward and protracted manual cock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 On the subject of injuries, while there was no backblast to roast squadmates behind you, apparently broken collarbones and the like were not uncommon from firing the PIAT due to the strength of the kick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Especially if the firer was leaning against a wall or something while firing. This is kind of like the experiences with the "Knee mortar" in the Pacific. More than a few GIs ended up with broken legs before they figured out how to really use them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 hmmm, I'm thinking that it wouldn't be too hard to model injuries - every time it fires there is a chance of injury - i.e. if the weapon is being handled by conscripts well, then the chances are higher.... (also that'd be kinda cool if gun tubes could occaisionally go - like very rarely but never the less sometimes....) C. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick614 Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 I was under the impression that there was in actually no such thing as the "knee mortar" in the Pacific. US troops had thought the Japanese had such a weapon but turned out to be something else. More along the lines of a rifle grenade if I remember right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by Rick614: I was under the impression that there was in actually no such thing as the "knee mortar" in the Pacific. US troops had thought the Japanese had such a weapon but turned out to be something else. More along the lines of a rifle grenade if I remember right. Yes and no. There was a real weapon that came to be called a 'knee mortar' in GI slang. Technically, it was the Japanese Model 89 (1929) 50mm Grenade Discharger. It was indeed a small, one-man mortar probably similar in power to a Rifle Grenade. However, is was most definitely NOT designed to be fired by resting the baseplate against the thigh, which is apparently what a lot of GIs thought. It was designed to be fired with the baseplate against the ground, just like a larger mortar. The shape of the baseplate is such that it looks like it's designed to fit over your thigh, which is probably the origin of the confusion among GIs. As mentioned, firing a 'knee mortar' with the baseplate on your thigh quite often results in a broken femur. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 We used to say that privates are like puppies, always sticking their nose into things that will get them killed. Do any of you who were in the military remember the NCO aura of invulnerability? Why is it that when yelling at a private for handling duds the NCO most often feels he has to pick the stupid thing up? More historical faux paus: During the age of muzzle loading cannon many soldiers ended up with broken ankles from trying to stop cannon balls with their feet. They figured that if you could see it rolling along the ground it couldn't possibly be dangerous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scheer Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by ParaBellum: Anybody's seen the classic german movie "Die Brücke"? In it there's a young soldier firing a Panzerfaust inside a house without looking back... The result is, well, ugly... If you can get your hands on a copy, make sure to grab it. IMO one of the best war movies ever made. I second that. Seen the flick in school in history. Very moving. And great scenes with M4 Shermans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.