King tiger vs the bazooka

[Polish Bruce Lee]

i was playing this one quick mission, and the axis had two king tigers, i was scared to all hell because i just had inf, with some bazookas, i was hiding them all over and the two kings came near one, then the bazooka opened fire =o and BOOM there goes the first one, up is smoke and flames, then he fired a second shot, killing the second one :eek: making the crew abandon i think. i am positive they were king tigers so it wasnt a spotting error, i guess i was just lucky, i am curious if anything this unusual has happened to anyone else

[lcm1947]

Boy, what a bit of luck you had. :eek: Yeah, while the King Tiger is a hard nut to crack it can be done. That lone bozooka man just saved your bacon. You might want to check his pants however? Good show!

[Redwolf]

The lower quality armor of the King Tiger means that the Bazooka cannot only penentrate it from a very narrow angle on the sides, but fromthe majority of of side shots. Also the more complex form of the King Tiger (and especially Tiger 1) turrets is made a plain box in CMBO, that gives more good-angle opportunities, especially in hulldown.

According to rexford, the armor quality factor should not apply a) to HEAT and only to the front of KT and Panther, so the things are really a little easier to kill in CMBO as in reality.

But it is not that bad, in principle they were killable from the sides in reality.

[Splinty]

Give that bazooka gunner a medal and a 3 day pass in Paris!

[Diceman]

There was a really interesting field test http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html of bazookas posted on this forum a while back. The penetration data BTS uses is based on the best available test data; there is much anecdotal evidence, along with the field test linked above that suggests that the bazooka didn't work as well as the test results say it should of. I suspect that either there was wobble in flight, or a detonation problem causing the round to detonate at less than optimum angle. It also appears from the test that the small shaped charge of the bazooka was easily defeated by obstacles on the tank such as "towing-jack device", wheels, and "exhaust pipes." It'll be interesting to see if and how bazookas are modeled in CMBB.

[Redwolf]

As for angles, I gained the impression that rounds of bazooka-class weapons had a tendency to riccochet when touching minor objects on the surface, which an AP round wouldn't notice.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Diceman:

It'll be interesting to see if and how bazookas are modeled in CMBB.

When did the Soviets start to use rocket propelled grenades? From my tiny knowledge of the subject they seem to have persevered with the AT rifle longer than was actually profitable. This has always struck me as strange given their interest in these weapons later - making the RPG7 the world's most popular light anti-tank weapon for instance...

[Diceman]

Originally posted by Determinant:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Diceman:

It'll be interesting to see if and how bazookas are modeled in CMBB.

When did the Soviets start to use rocket propelled grenades? From my tiny knowledge of the subject they seem to have persevered with the AT rifle longer than was actually profitable. This has always struck me as strange given their interest in these weapons later - making the RPG7 the world's most popular light anti-tank weapon for instance...</font>

[CMplayer]

If my opponent bought 2 KTs in a QB and I just had infantry I'd chortle with joy. Unsupported tanks just don't cut it, and he put way too many points into those two eggs.

[ July 06, 2002, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Here is a scenario:

1 American Parachute Platoon (vet)

1 M8 HMC (reg)

1 M18 Hellcat (reg)

Map: Town, moderate tree cover, large hills, October 1944, good weather. Axis attack.

Estimated opponent strength:

1 Rifle 44 Platoon (reg)

1 Pioneer Platoon (reg)

2 MG42 Light MG (reg)

1 King Tiger (reg)

The enemy infantry is nearly wiped out (one para squad has 22 kills for five losses of its own), but both of my vehicles were KO'd by the Tiger (Hellcat was my mistake).

My opponent, however, has his KT in the town, and is about to be schooled in the art of infantry vs. armor. One para squad is still at full strength, 24 ammo, two gammon bombs, one rifle grenade. The bazooka team is still at full strength and ammo as well.

The expensive purchase will soon be cheap scrap.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by redwolf:

As for angles, I gained the impression that rounds of bazooka-class weapons had a tendency to riccochet when touching minor objects on the surface, which an AP round wouldn't notice.

A large problem for early PIAT warheads was the fact that the fuze would fail to detonate unless it hit the target square. This was rectified after the Sicily battle, but user confidence apparently remained low for a period during the fighting in Italy.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Determinant:

When did the Soviets start to use rocket propelled grenades?

The RPG-2 was adopted for service in the Soviet Army in 1949. The LPG-44/RPG-1 was developed during the period 1944-48 but never adopted.

Source: "Protivotankoviye granatomyotnite kompleksi" ("Anti-tank grenade launcher systems"), Lovi, Koren'kov, Bazilevich & Korablin, Vostochniy Gorizont, Moscow, 2001.

All the best,

John.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Determinant:

When did the Soviets start to use rocket propelled grenades?

The RPG-2 was adopted for service in the Soviet Army in 1949. The LPG-44/RPG-1 was developed during the period 1944-48 but never adopted.

Source: "Protivotankoviye granatomyotnite kompleksi" ("Anti-tank grenade launcher systems"), Lovi, Koren'kov, Bazilevich & Korablin, Vostochniy Gorizont, Moscow, 2001.

All the best,

John.</font>