PIATS SUCK?!

[michael_wittman44]

Hello all, I don't mind the PIAT but you have to know that like most infantry AT weapons they are short range. In David 1's screenshot it seems that the PIAT gunner has ambushed the enemy tanks and taken them completely unawares well at least after the first few shots have hit. Having all three games I concur that the panzerschrek when used for what is was designed for and when used by an expert crew can be as deadly.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by David I:

So PIAT - Piece o'****e or incredible piece of British ingenuity?

Or was I only lucky?

DavidI

Neither, your opponent was an idjiot leading with tanks.

Shorter range, yeah yeah, all the common sense stuff, sure sure.

One thing not mentioned is the synergy you get by combining AT weapon fire on a given turn. This is very important. A piat becomes a cannon-fodder god of war the moment you open up with him, at virtually ANY range theoretically possible, so long as you have armor or a clear AT gun shot timed to release 10-15 seconds into the turn, from a contrary direction. So, the piat opens fire, the Panther begins to turn his slow turret AWAY from your real kill shot----an AT gun or quick armor flanking move. It's that extra few initiative shots that make or break the kill.

Otherwise a Piat is just fodder, unless your opponent is clueless.

[roqf77]

"Neither, your opponent was an idjiot leading with tanks.

Shorter range, yeah yeah, all the common sense stuff, sure sure.

One thing not mentioned is the synergy you get by combining AT weapon fire on a given turn. This is very important. A piat becomes a cannon-fodder god of war the moment you open up with him, at virtually ANY range theoretically possible, so long as you have armor or a clear AT gun shot timed to release 10-15 seconds into the turn, from a contrary direction. So, the piat opens fire, the Panther begins to turn his slow turret AWAY from your real kill shot----an AT gun or quick armor flanking move. It's that extra few initiative shots that make or break the kill.

Otherwise a Piat is just fodder, unless your opponent is clueless."

Just because your hopeless at using piats doesnt mean we are.

They are very useful weapons especialy as they do not give away there position nearly as much as other weapons. I have knocked out stug's, panthers and tigers with piats. Against good opposition as well. I think the real situation is that you arnt very good at using them.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Walpurgis Nacht being called hopeless in respect to some of his tactics?

MWAHAHAHAHAHA

*snort*

HAHAHAHAHAHA

*I can`t breathe*

Help!

*turns blue*

MWAHAHAHAHAhahaha.

Funny.

Walpurgis is, ofcourse, right. Armour getting close to a PIAT is doing things wrong unless the scenario is set up in such a way that it allows for close in PIAT action. In the typical combat action, PIATS will not come into play.

Oh, and roqf, check Walpurgis` ROW scores to see what brought about the hilarity. My very first multiplayer game I attempted to start a game against him. He declined saying he wanted a veteran opponent, which I thought very impolite at the time. I now know he saved me from sticking with single player for the rest of my CM playing days.

[roqf77]

not interested in his scores.

The fact of the matter is irl without the enemy making mistakes piats killed enemy tanks.

There fore your and his assurtion is that he is a better tactician than any ww2 commander, which is quite frankly bs.

So no you and he are wrong and thats it.

Just to clarify, i mean no personal offence to either of you. its just that typical play for me atleast is just to general and too brand a statement to make.

its on par with saying in a typical game a sherman will not knock out a tiger.

[ September 16, 2005, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: roqf77 ]

[JasonC]

The right way to take WN's comments is as sound advice to protect tanks from infantry AT by having infantry go ahead of them. And his tip about distraction tactics with infantry AT to set up a heavier shooter, is sound. The wrong way to take WN's comments is literally, as pretending tanks never go places infantry isn't already, ergo infantry AT never gets shots, etc. That part is swagger, overstatement to emphasize a point. The rest was tactics.

[roqf77]

ah yes i see. on that level i agree.

[Merkin Muffley]

Although, dare I say it, the thing with PIATs is that they will be cannon fodder when you see the little sods but quite often they manage to get a surprising number of shots off before being located.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

That is indeed a great feature of PIATs. And they are by now means bad at what they do. But what they do is far too limited to rely on to deal with tanks. What happens more frequently instead of getting multiple shots off is the Out of Range message on my targetting cursor. PIATs are my usefull little buggers IF the enemy obliges. Which is what I was trying to say but didn`t.

[roqf77]

no offence elmar, all im saying is that you can say that about anything near enough. thats what an infantry at weapon is. i rarely lose tanks to panzerfausts or bazooka's or indeed shrecks.

but i think it depends more on the map, than anything else.

[David I]

What you cannot see in the sequence I posted was that my opponent's infantry had been stripped away, that he never knew that those units (including the PIAT) were there, he was concentrating on destroying some known Shermans (which he did anyway) and that he was under severe time restraints. Terrain and staying hidden are the key to PIAT success. I posted that sequence because it was, without a doubt, the most successful PIAT attack/defense I have ever made in the game.

BTW the PIAT crew got their decorations posthumisously (spelling? Note: put dictionary next to computer).

DavidI

[michael_wittman44]

Could you post an AAR of the game (i.e. the final score) or any other info you want? By the way did you win the battle??

[michael_wittman44]

Shrecks and bazookas are incredibly over modeled in CMBO as well. I remember 180m fantasy shots with shrecks, brewing tanks left and right. They had an insane hit chance ratio which was totally diminished in CMBB, and is probably worse in CMAK.

It seemed that patches for CMBO fixed alot of glitches such as that, Brent Pollack.

[warspite]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I like PIATs. They are... quaint...

Sometimes they even work, and if they do, they do so elegantly. Obviously both parts of this design principle were kept by British car manufacturers after the war.4

LOL.

I'll chime in and say that PIATs are my favorite infantry AT weapon, I like them better than bazookas, schrecks or fausts. It depends on the terrain of course, but a PIAT leaves no smoke trail, makes little sound and can often fire off his entire supply of ammo without being spotted.

The downside is that a smart player will take the time delay and bring a screen of infantry with his tanks into areas where he suspects PIATs may be operating. Unlike a schreck or bazooka, the PIAT doesn't have the range to engage the panzers before the infantry spot him.

[David I]

Wittman,

It's an ongoing email game. I am slowly being overrun but my Poles are going down fighting. The scenario is "A Rock in the Flood" and looks to be a challenge to both sides. More upon the end of the game.

DavidI

[JasonC]

Posthumously.

The dictionary is inside your computer -

http://www.m-w.com/

[junk2drive]

One of the many things that keeps us playing the CM series is these teams.

I can order my shoulder fired AT weapon team from the saftey of woods to climb a ridge and cross open ground into a clump of scattered trees. My hope is that the will gain LOS to an enemy AFV last seen marker and not get killed in the process. I watch the video as my little 3d troops make it to the trees, go to one knee, a poof of smoke from the rear of the weapon... and miss. As the AFV rotates to counter, it poofs again and a ball of fire erupts.

I can't think of another game that does this so well.

[michael_wittman44]

True junk2drive, it seems to be more realistic compared to the Close Combat series.