Flak, Panzerfaust, Units, DRM/Modules

[olap]

Very interesting find!

My question is how does the backblast of the weapons tested compare to WW2 weapons. If there is not a large difference I'd be tempted to say this may be enough evidence to warrant a change.

The mentioned modern weapons have larger backblast in most cases. There are some modern, mostly German made, anti-armor weapons that produce much lower backblast, however these were not tested, but the super bazooka (90mm) was!

[olap]

Then again, permanent hearing damage while not life threatening isn't to be casually dismissed.

Sadly happens on a battlefield too often, imagine a round explouding next to you, now thats some noise even if you are unhurt!

[ChrisND]

Then again, permanent hearing damage while not life threatening isn't to be casually dismissed.

No, no it isn't. I'd be very hesitant to risk that myself. On the one hand you could have the AI always obey your orders and risk injury. But that seems gamey to be able to force the AI to do something that will almost certainly result in permanent injury. On the other hand, the AI could occasionally/usually refuse to fire but this might be confusing and annoying for players when the AI starts rejecting their commands or appears to do nothing after receiving them.

And of course the information, while interesting, isn't necessarily relevant since they are different weapons systems. I don't know enough about the WW2 systems to say how closely comparable they are.

Maybe in a future title we can designate buildings as prepared defensive positions with the necessary modifications made (in addition to other bonuses) and these things can be used safely from them.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It appears the only real preparation required would be a pair of ear plugs. I have no idea if these were issued.

[olap]

And of course the information, while interesting, isn't necessarily relevant since they are different weapons systems. I don't know enough about the WW2 systems to say how closely comparable they are.

Well one tested might be familiar to you: the 90mm recoiless. It is comparable, same system, same method as the bazooka in the game.

The others are producing much larger backblast, even if a TOW can be fired from within a building, please stop telling me a Panzerfaust can't be.

I will enjoy the game with or without this feature. I just want to see this game as close to real life as it can.

[olap]

It appears the only real preparation required would be a pair of ear plugs. I have no idea if these were issued.

No they weren't issued, according to this article. http://www.ehow.com/about_6457104_history-development-hearing-protection-devices.html

[Fetchez la Vache]

I'm still not convinced about the PF not being useable from within a building. Jet blast definitely an issue, I have no doubt about that, but it's manageable with a bit of care. Flying debris could be an issue but I'm not convinced that alone prevents the use indoors. The only thing I'm really unsure about is the overpressure effect which I can find little evidence online.

The PF30 (which would have been used in the timeframe of CMBN) has 97g of black powder propellant. This would produce 26 litres of gas at standard temp/pressure, so probably in the order of 260 litres at the higher temperatures in the jet blast (waggles hand). I currently don't have the engineering knowledge to translate into meaningful overpressures but given that 260 litres is an increase of under 2% volume in typical 3*3*2.5m room (no I didn't factor in furniture...) it's not as if we're talking massive increases in volume here. Yes I know rate of change of pressure is all important, but I don't currently have the physics at my fingertips to make that computation and anyway the PF ignition does not appear to be comparable to, say, TNT denotation speeds.

Also I still that some level of abstraction might be helpful to say, for example, allow the shooting of PF from ground floors (firer pops outside to take quick shot) or partially ruined buildings (less restriction).

I won't lose sleep over it though. :-)

[Battlefront.com]

Let's be very careful about drawing conclusions from a test on goats and cats. Better to look at how they are actually used. Excerpt from FM 3-21.8

Engagement From an Enclosure

B-65. Firing from an enclosure creates unique hazards. Therefore, before positioning Soldiers in enclosures (combat only), leaders must consider several factors that affect safety. Only in combat, when no other tactical option exists, should the M136 AT4 and XM141 be fired from an enclosure. If it must be employed this way, the enclosure must meet the following minimum requirements. The M72-series LAW has been rated safe for use from an enclosure, but only when the enclosure meets the following minimum requirements.

l Construction. The building must be sturdily constructed to reduce structural damage that would occur in a weakly constructed enclosure such as one made of wood or stucco.

l Size of Enclosure. Minimum measurements for the enclosure are as follows:

n AT4 and XM141 – minimum room size 17 by 24 feet; minimum ceiling height 8 feet (combat only).

n LAW – minimum room size 12 by 15 feet.

l Ventilation to the Rear and Sides. To allow for backblast, at least 20 square feet of ventilation (for a standard 3-foot by 7-foot doorway) must be provided directly behind the firer. Doors and windows should be removed beside and behind the position to increase ventilation and reduce overpressure, noise, and blast effects. On the front wall, windows and doors should be reinforced, rather than removed, because removing would draw attention to the position. Reinforcing the windows also helps protect the firer from enemy direct-fire weapons.

l Objects and Debris. Any objects or debris to the rear of the weapon must be removed to prevent them from flying around the room and possibly injuring personnel as a result of the backblast.

l Muzzle Clearance. Muzzle clearance must be at least 6 inches.

l Weapon Clearance. Properly positioning the weapons within the enclosure is vital to the safety and survival of all personnel in the enclosure. The weapons should be positioned so no walls are within 5 meters to the rear or side of the weapon.

l Non-Firing Personnel Positions. If any other Soldiers are present, they must avoid standing in corners or near walls and must remain forward of the rear of the launcher.

OK, so US Army doctrine says these can be fired from an average sized room if certain precautions are made. But note the parts that I bolded.

So what about the allegation that a TOW can be fired from within a room?

l Firing From Bunkers and Buildings. In accordance with DA Pam 385-63, TOWs will not be fired from buildings, bunkers, or within 100 meters of a vertical or nearly vertical backstop without the approval of the commanding general.

So much for the goat test! And this is why TOWs are not allowed to fire from within a building in CM:SF.

Javelins, on the other hand:

The soft launch capability of the Javelin enables the gunner to fire from inside buildings because there is little overpressure or flying debris.

No problemo.

Here's the full section that I quoted from:

https://rdl.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/23583-1/FM/3-21.8/appb.htm

Accordingly, that goat/cat report should be discarded as meaningless in terms of what should be in the game or not. Apparently they determined the overpressure damage was too great to be discarded. A deaf soldier is a useless soldier, after all.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Well, first off, my post was addressing the Global Security article. Secondly, unless I've missed a post you've managed to gather two anecdotes, both severely lacking in information and context, one of which describes their uniforms being burnt!

Quite

So I'm not convinced by the evidence available that this was widespread enough to warrant a change. And I don't have a horse in this race, either way would be fine with me as long as it had some basis reality.

This is our conclusion as well. Are we being too stingy with allowances for these things to be fired from inside? Yes. But unfortunately, that appears to be the best course of action for us.

Steve

[Dadekster88]

Rules will be broken in combat if it gets the job done but as someone who has fired off a LAW and a TOW before I think BF made the right decision in not allowing building launches. WW2 weapons would be amplified in effects as far as backblast etc. I hope we can use them in rubble but from buildings I can see why they'd not allow it.

[Rayak47]

I've got it! Shooting a panzerfaust off will ignite the cash everyone in Europe is aparently secreting in their house!

[olap]

Quite

This is our conclusion as well. Are we being too stingy with allowances for these things to be fired from inside? Yes. But unfortunately, that appears to be the best course of action for us.

Steve

Are you inconsistent with it? Yes. As far as CMx1 is concerned. Should be there an option for the player to allow or disallow this in the game? Maybe.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

But if you let a player do it, he will do it all the time. Since that is not what actually happened, you get closest to what did happen. That or dedicate scarce coding time to implement some more advanced modelling of backblast and such.

[Battlefront.com]

Are you inconsistent with it? Yes. As far as CMx1 is concerned.

We never base our games on games. That includes CMx1. There's a lot we got wrong in CMx1 as well as right. We started fresh with CMx2 and did not blindly carrying things forward.

Should be there an option for the player to allow or disallow this in the game? Maybe.

This is a slippery slope. Real life combat is far more complex than we can ever simulate in a computer game. There are all sorts of "exceptions" that can happen in real combat. Allowing players easy access to these "exceptions" inevitably makes them become common. And that's a problem.

I do think we should reexamine certain restrictions. PF30 should probably be allowed to fire from within a building. It's small enough that practically speaking should't cause problems.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

But if you let a player do it, he will do it all the time. Since that is not what actually happened, you get closest to what did happen. That or dedicate scarce coding time to implement some more advanced modelling of backblast and such.

We crossed posted pretty much the same thing about the exceptional becoming common if players are allowed to do it.

The issue of coding/testing time is significant. We can't implement 1/10th of the things people have requested of us in any given year. To make a realistic capability of firing a PF60 from within a building would require non-trivial effort to get it right. This would require enough preconditions/disincentives to prevent people from using the PF60 from within buildings too easily *and* it would require AI programming to understand these rules.

It's not out of the question, we just don't see it being a top priority.

Steve

[dkchapuis]

But if you let a player do it, he will do it all the time. Since that is not what actually happened, you get closest to what did happen. That or dedicate scarce coding time to implement some more advanced modelling of backblast and such.

They wouldnt do it all the time if the majority of the time it happened it resulted in friendly casualties.

To make a realistic capability of firing a PF60 from within a building would require non-trivial effort to get it right. This would require enough preconditions/disincentives to prevent people from using the PF60 from within buildings too easily *and* it would require AI programming to understand these rules.

Completely understandable. Speaking of priorities (yes, I quoted you just for the segue), where does co-play fit in the priority list? somebody posted that it wont make it until after the Bulge, East Front, and next Modern Warfare game. PLEASE make it not so. Are there really that many higher priority game-play features that are higher priority than co-play? What could they be? (And I dont mean to imply that co-play would be a small task)

If we can get a CMSF QB-like gripe session going on the forums could it change your mind?

[MikeyD]

I recall in the 1970s(?) the great pride with which the Armbrust AT launcher was introduced, the first AT launcher with true indoor firing capability. It used an elaborate piston/countermasss technique to allow safe firing from within houses. More recently the US fielded the AT4-CS (confiined space) weapon for urban combat, firing a saltwater countermass(!) out the back of the launcher. You'd think if firing from a building were relatively safe and easy that they wouldn't need to go to that trouble and expense of designing weapons that could be safely fired from indoors.

[C'Rogers]

More recently the US fielded the AT4-CS (confiined space) weapon for urban combat, firing a saltwater countermass(!) out the back of the launcher. You'd think if firing from a building were relatively safe and easy that they wouldn't need to go to that trouble and expense of designing weapons that could be safely fired from indoors

Your point is very solid, however I would like to reiterate what you are saying in a different way.

Would the US waste large sums of money and time on a useless technology?

I mean, that couldn't ever possibly happen, could it?

[Battlefront.com]

heh... yeah, but in this isn't one of those cases

Steve

[Dadekster88]

Hehe, I work for the state now and did federal time as well and that reminds me of the following joke.

When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ballpoint pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300 C. The Russians used a pencil.

Nothing about this joke is true of course but every joke does have an element of truth to it.

[Gromit]

That reminds me of something my nuclear weapons school instructor told all of us- our country's initial answer for protecting itself from a mass Soviet missile strike was originally to launch a vast "curtain" of US missiles and detonate them above us meeting the oncoming Soviet launch... then someone learned about EMP and realized that in one ill-fated decision we would have wiped out practically every transitor-based piece of equipment in the US in a matter of an hour or two. Meanwhile, the Soviets would be humming along with their "obsolete" vacuum tube technology... :eek:

[Battlefront.com]

I love that NASA joke

My personal claim to fame is having a dinner and crashing at the pad of a guy who did the programming for the Sgt. York targeting system. This was long after the famous 60 Minutes exposure of the pork project it was. Boy, that was a fun conversation to have! Though it was sad to see some of those Sgt. Yorks at the Redstone target corral waiting their turn to be blown up. Those were some VERY expensive targets for the American taxpayer!

Steve

[Dadekster88]

Had to do some looking up on that but yeah, seems the whole AA thing for the Army was a black hole as far as money went back then. :eek:

[JonS]

Hehe, I work for the state now and did federal time as well and that reminds me of the following joke.

When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ballpoint pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300 C. The Russians used a pencil.

Nothing about this joke is true of course but every joke does have an element of truth to it.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

[olap]

I do think we should reexamine certain restrictions. PF30 should probably be allowed to fire from within a building. It's small enough that practically speaking should't cause problems.

Steve

I see it similar to the soft launch capability of the Javelin. You don't want to stand behind it either when it's fired, and also it still creates some overpressure. Taking into account the large weight of the missile itself, the ammount of the propellant might be larger than in the case of the Panzerfaust 30. Couldn't find any data on that, but someone with backround in physics could enlighten us.