Flak, Panzerfaust, Units, DRM/Modules

[Steiner14]

You know what happens when all debt is paid for? All money has vanished. You don't want that to happen, do you?

Surely i want debt money to vanish.

ps: And it will anyway. It always has.

[Michael Emrys]

Unfortunatly BFC does not accept EC-cards (AFAIK).

I paid for my copy using a debit card and BFC was quite delighted to take my money. If your EC card is, as you say, the equivalent to a debit card, I don't see why yours would be a problem as long as it is a recognized brand and you have sufficient funds in your account.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Tomayto, tomahto

No, he's right. The distinction is significant.

Michael

[Magpie_Oz]

No, he's right. The distinction is significant.

Michael

Between AT Rifle and AT grenade ? you got that right they are two entirely different things

[Michael Emrys]

Also Antony Beever writes in his book (Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Penguin Books, 2002, ISBN 0-670-88695-5 p.316-319), that Panzerfausts were fired at Russian tanks from cellar windows.

But given the time and the situation, I have to wonder if those weren't essentially suicidal gestures. They had to figure that even if they survived the backblast, the Soviet infantry was surely going to kill them.

Michael

[MikeyD]

I once read instructions on how to fire the Stinger anti-aircraft missile. You hold your breath, fire, then walk out of the toxic propellant cloud that surrounds you before exhaling.

Which reminds me of a story in one of those old WWII history TV series. A woman describes how she was trained to fire the Panzerfaust as part of the home guard. Her first attempt she scored a direct hit on the target - and got a facefull of burning propellant to boot. All subsequent attempts she missed the target because she flinched. So those things could probably be fired from buildings by infantry - once.

[poesel]

I paid for my copy using a debit card and BFC was quite delighted to take my money. If your EC card is, as you say, the equivalent to a debit card, I don't see why yours would be a problem as long as it is a recognized brand and you have sufficient funds in your account.

Michael

BFCs store offers me to pay with credit card (Visa or Master) or Paypal. There are no other options. Maybe the store changes its offers depending on the location of the buyer?

[stikkypixie]

BFCs store offers me to pay with credit card (Visa or Master) or Paypal. There are no other options. Maybe the store changes its offers depending on the location of the buyer?

An American friend of mine told me his debit card (as we know it in Europe) also worked as his VISA card with the exception that you pay immediately. That might explain this.

[ClarkWGriswold]

Between AT Rifle and AT grenade ? you got that right they are two entirely different things

Fine! Fine! "Rifles with anti-tank capability". There.

[Michael Emrys]

BFCs store offers me to pay with credit card (Visa or Master)...

My debit card is one of those. That's what I meant by a recognized brand name. If your EC card was issued by Visa or Master Card you should have no problem.

Michael

[Erik Springelkamp]

European bank cards are usually not associated with those American organisations, as those organisations demand a much higher provision. Shops don't want to pay that provision. That is why a credit card is not a popular paying method in the retail sector, and is generally only accepted in luxury case like hotels, and tourist related shops.

[Magpie_Oz]

Fine! Fine! "Rifles with anti-tank capability". There.

Take it easy mate, an AT rifle is something like the Boyes or the Soviet PTRS-41 which are huge calibre weapons that only have one use, i.e. to shoot tanks.

An AT grenade is either thrown or there were some projected off the end of a rifle.

Either way the three thing encompass a range of different weapons with wildly varying effectiveness.

[Glukx Ouglouk]

European bank cards are usually not associated with those American organisations, as those organisations demand a much higher provision. Shops don't want to pay that provision. That is why a credit card is not a popular paying method in the retail sector, and is generally only accepted in luxury case like hotels, and tourist related shops.

That's definitely not true for all of Europe... Over here (France), pretty much all debit cards are either Visa or MasterCard cards (with a few American Express cards too, I think, but that's not common), and all payment terminals in stores are compatible with the EMV standard (used by Visa, MasterCard, and a bunch of others). I'm pretty sure that in Italy too, most cards are compatible with either Visa or MasterCard in addition to their national system (Bancomat), though some store will only accept Bancomat cards. I can't speak for other countries, but there are probably quite a few others in similar situations...

[Erik Springelkamp]

Yes, 'European' was too wide a specification.

I think Germany is closer to the Dutch situation.

Debit card payment in the Netherlands has a much lower tariff for the shop-keeper than a credit card and that makes shop-keepers hesitant to accept CC. In shops that get a lot of foreigners they will accept that price, because otherwise they would probably lose trade, but supermarkets for instance will not accept credit cards here.

There is also resistance against harmonisation in bank payment tariffs, as in many countries those costs are much higher than here in the Netherlands, so harmonisations would imply an increase in costs. (But the banks would probably like it).

For on-line purchases in the Netherlands the preferred payment method is also not the credit card, but a system called 'iDeal' that will take you to the internet banking site of your own bank with a pre-filled electronic form, where you can then order a direct payment from your bank-account to the seller. The overall cost of this system are also much lower than the service of a credit card supplier, and it is inherently much safer than giving a CC number: you don't give any sensitive information to the seller, but you do business directly with your own bank, using a safe token request-response technology.

'iDeal' is currently marketing its system in other countries in Europe.

[Wodin]

I'm happy with the debit card system...

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Correct. I've said pretty much the same thing in the past... there could be some special circumstances in real life that would allow PFs to be fired inside. Heck, even Panzerschrecks. But that's not something we've had a chance to simulate correctly. Until then, as you say, it's best to leave it out completely instead of causing people to get the wrong idea about what these weapons could do.

Unfortunately, we didn't do this for CMx1 and now some people have apparently concluded that since CMx1 allowed it that it was realistic. We never base our simulation decisions on other wargames, not even our own. We look to the real world instead.

Steve

Just reopening this thread due to some information that's come to hand regarding overpressure when firing a recoilless weapon inside a structure. Refer here... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/recoilless.htm

A snippet from the link

Since the end of World War II, the US Army has conducted extensive testing on the effects of firing recoilless weapons from within enclosures. Beginning as early as 1948, tests have been conducted on every type of recoilless weapon available. In 1975, the US Army Human Engineering Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, conducted extensive firing of the LAW, Dragon, and TOW from masonry and frame buildings, and from sandbag bunkers.

Firing these weapons from enclosures presented no serious hazards, even when the overpressure was enough to produce structural damage to the building. Little hazard exists to the gunnery or crew from any type of flying debris. Loose items were not hurled around the room. No substantial degradation occurs to the operator's tracking performance as a result of obscuration or blast overpressure.

The most serious hazard that can be expected is hearing loss. This must be evaluated against the advantage gained in combat from firing from cover. To place this hazard in perspective, a gunner wearing earplugs and firing the loudest combination (the Dragon from within a masonry building) is exposed to less noise hazard than if he fired a LAW in the open without earplugs.

We see the article clearly states that even weapons such as the Dragon, which is by order of magnitudes a much more powerful wepaon than a Panzerfaust 60, can be fired from within a building with the main problem being potential damage to eardrums. To me, it seems the old CMx1 way of simulating these weapons was not so far off the mark (but excluding bazooka's and panzerschreks this time). However, if fired from within a building there's a chance that the firer will be supressed with that chance being much more likely depending on the experience level of the unit doing the firing.

Regards

KR

[ChrisND]

No citations of any kind in that article. Why should we take their word for it?

[gunnergoz]

What a fun thread! Panzerfausts, screaming font fests, credit cards, debt, rifle grenades, what's not to like?

[olap]

No citations of any kind in that article. Why should we take their word for it?

I have given a few examples with citations on the use of Panzerfaust from within a building. On the other hand there is one citation that it cannot be used from a building. Who needs to prove what?

[ChrisND]

I have given a few examples with citations on the use of Panzerfaust from within a building. On the other hand there is one citation that it cannot be used from a building. Who needs to prove what?

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!

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.

[GonzoAttacker]

How about damaged buildings, will we be able to shoot bazookzs, at guns and panzerfausts from those locations?:confused:

[olap]

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA244127 that was the source. They used cats and goats, during the tests the only problem was some ear drum rupture in case no hearing protection was used. (Imagine a cat with earplugs lol)

[Vanir Ausf B]

Very interesting find!

The weapons. Tests were conducted with four different weapons: LAW (a light anti-tank rocket normally fired from a launcher on the shoulder) (9 rounds fired), DRAGON (a heavier anti-tank rocket normally fired from a bi-pod and tracked to the target) (7 rounds fired), TOW (a heavy anti-tank rocket normally fired from a mounted launcher which was also used to guide the missile to the target) (4 rounds fired), and the 90 mm recoilless rifle (normallyfired from the shoulder) (2 rounds fired).

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.

[ChrisND]

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA244127 that was the source. They used cats and goats, during the tests the only problem was some ear drum rupture in case no hearing protection was used. (Imagine a cat with earplugs lol)

Interesting, thanks.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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