Effectivness of Bazooka and Panzerschreck

[Taki]

Played a H2H Scenario with Airborne Infantry and Stuarts against German Scouts and PIV and Stug.

Make a long Story Short: The Tank (in General not only German) take too much Hits bevore they are knocked out.

Got 2 Hits on the Side Turret and Hull on a PIV wich didnt take him out. The Tank turns and kills the Zook Team. Okay you think "that happens 1 Time" but it happens on other Moments to.

Another Example in Same Mission. 2 Sidehits on another PIV with Stuart 2times 37mm AntiTankGun dont impress them, then a Schiessbecher and 1 Bazooka didnt hit Skirts and it still is functional.

Compared to that Problem with Hitpoints and blinded Tanks by Nonpenetrating Shots this one is definatly wronig balanced.

I can live with Hits not taking out Tanks by Instant but THERE should be some Paniced blinded Crew imposssible to act for a Minute or so after they get Hit by Melted Plasmastream that Ricochets inside a Tank.

Right now i very often see no Tank Casualties other than Commander. There where Driver Hits, Loaderhits and so forth in Cmx1 by Internal Armourflaking etc.

Where has it gone?

[siffo998]

hm i can only comment on that 37mm hits. as far as i know they do not carry any explosive charges so if they penetrate the armor they behave just like normal rifle bullets. they can hit something on their way through or not.

i havent seen myself any tanks in my games that survived a shrek hit. at least i cannot remember. I`ve even seen frontal shrek hits at around 200m distance that took out the tank at once.

but i`Ve also have to admit that i`ve seen some side penetrations at a panther and he immediately opened fire at the enemy sherman (no panic or something which seems a bit strange).

i`ve also seen a video on youtube where a sherman ingame was hit by a shrek (frontal penetration) and immediately returned fire (the op of that video was annoyed over exactly the same thing as you). but the sherman ingame was standing at a huge slope so that might diminished the shrek penetration a bit.

some balancing might be needed. I would second that tank crews should be a bit more shocked when a shell penetrates the armor but it should also depend on the experience of the crew.

[Pak40]

Taki,

I highly disagree and this is based on many books & first person accounts that I have read. For example, I'm currently reading a book on the La Fiere causeway bridge (in order to make a campaign ). The Germans attacked the bridge with 3 old captured Renault tanks. Two bazooka teams took them out along with some help from a 57mm At gun positioned further back. It took several bazooka rounds on each tank before the crew was killed and the tanks started burning. Seven bazooka rounds were put into one tank before the crew tried to bail. Mind you, the Renault was a pre-war French light tank with about 30-40mm armor. Still, it took seven rounds to KO one of them.

I think in this particular attack all rounds were frontal hits, which would explain why it took so many rockets. Bazooka rounds aren't all that powerful. They can penetrate as much as 100mm armor but there isn't really any real punch once they do penetrate - it's just a stream of molten metal. There's not HE explosion once it does penetrate, therefore the penetration has to hit something critical in order to KO the tank (ammo, fuel, engine, crew)

[womble]

Right now i very often see no Tank Casualties other than Commander. There where Driver Hits, Loaderhits and so forth in Cmx1 by Internal Armourflaking etc.

Where has it gone?

I think you've not played many scenarios where your tanks have gotten hit. I've seen casualties to each and every position in the tanks I've had blown up. You don't see 'crew hit' text when your opponents tanks take hits, but you will, if you look carefully, little 'red cross' icons for when crew have become casualty.

Zook rounds and 37mm rounds did not have strong behind-armour effects. Skirts aren't really there to stop HEAT rounds, so the 'not hitting skirts' thing isn't very relevant.

If you're comparing things to CMx1 titles, I suggest you stop soon, or you're setting yourself up for disappointment. The level of fidelity in the models suggests to me that technical effects like tank hits are more accurately depicted in CMx2 than in CMx1.

[MikeyD]

Its a rare PzIV in the game without skirts and all of them have the added turret armor. I think BFC models some sort of standoff armor bonus protecting against zook hits, though there could be (and has been) considerable argument about how effective stand-off plates should be. One camp believe the extra stand-off enhances formation of the piercing jet, just like stand-off probes on modern HEAT rounds. Schreck seem to be considerably better at killing American tanks than zooks are at killing Germans. That may be the combination of the smaller American warhead versus the German stand-off plates.

[Pak40]

I agree with Womble. I've had lots of crew injured in tanks, usually from larger caliber guns.

Ditto on the 37mm not having much punch once it penetrated.

From my recollection though, skirts were in fact meant to stop HEAT rounds. The molten jet stream from a HEAT round was only effective a few inches after the point of impact. A normal AP round, especially if it's solid shot, could easily get past the skirt and impact on the vehicle itself.

[akd]

I have done some comparative testing of bazookas versus side-on PzIVHs and Panthers on a controlled range and it does appear that hits to armored skirts significantly reduce probability of a HEAT kill. Hits to PzIV skirts still result in turret and hull penetrations (and report as such), but these penetrations seem to have a very low probability of causing casualties or significant damage.

Panthers, on the other hand, suffer casualties and damage much more readily from hits to their turret/hull. However, hits to the Panther armored skirt seem to have little to no chance of penetration at all. These report as "HIT: armored skirt" which suggests that the underlying hull is unaffected by the bazooka warhead. The distance between the side skirt and the hull on the Panther is, I believe, greater than the distance between the PzIV skirts and hull/turret.

Turn the tanks head-on to bazookas, however, and the PzIVs fare much worse in comparison to the Panthers.

[MikeyD]

I recently went back to play a game in CMSF and nearly jumped out of my skin when an RPG unexpectedly KO'd one of my vehicles from 400m+! Yikes! I had become too accustomed to the less-than-stellar performance of first generation rocket launchers in CM:BN. Even the lowly RPG-7 looks like an uberweapon in comparison.

[flamingknives]

I would recommend the citation for LCpl. Beharry, VC.

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/57587/supplements/3369

as an example of many powerful HEAT rounds hitting a medium armoured vehicle without it being catastrophically destroyed.

Regarding the mechanism of shaped charge penetration, there are certain key points to be taken into consideration:

The first is that the jet formed is not molten. It behaves as a fluid due to the very high forces involved, but there is no thermal phase change due to jet formation(1). What results is the liner material - usually copper - being formed into a jet moving between 2 and 6km/s. The better the original charge is made, the more coherent the jet is and the more of the jet that hits the same point, the more it penetrates for a given diameter.

The jet needs some time (and therefore distance) to form. Too close and outer edges of the inverted cone do not have time to flow to the jet axis and hence their mass and effect are wasted on fresh armour at a greater radius from the centre(2). An ideal jet makes a very narrow hole through armour plate. At greater distance, the manufacturing flaws and minuscule variations in conditions cause the jet to disperse, with parts of the jet fragmenting and striking fresh armour and penetrating less overall depth. This effect takes place over metres. The optimum will be lost quickly, but substantial penetration will be achieved over large (i.e. multiple metres) distances. The RPG-7 will still penetrate 150mm of concrete from seven and a half metres away and the side of an M113 from three and a half metres.

Skirts, at least on the Panzers, were deployed, as far as I can tell, in response to russian anti-tank rifles. The 14.5mm rifles were sufficient to threaten German Mark 3s and 4s from the sides at close range. Adding such skirts is a lightweight way of tumbling the bullet before it hits the hull and robs it of much of its penetrating capacity.

(1) The passage through thick armour will cause some heating, so, post-penetration thermal effects would be expected, but the jet itself is not plasma, molten, or even particularly hot as it forms and before impact. The penetration effect is due to mass and velocity, not melting

(2) Some of the Panzerfausts have very large charge diameters and comparatively short standoff. As the side skirts are thin, the usually-wasted part of the liner would still pass though and join the rest of the jet, improving perforation.

[winkelried]

The M1A1 bazooka was not particularly effective as an anti-tank weapon it penetrated approx 80mm/90degrees. This is why the M9 was introduced in 1944 (August in ETO) which used an improved rocket which penetrated 110mm/90degrees. Both had a calibre of 2.36in (approx 60mm).

Already during the war the development of an even stronger M20 "Super Bazooka" with a 3.5in (90mm) calibre started which could penetrate up to 280mm/90degrees. Development and deployment was slow after the war and had then to be rushed to the troops engaged in the Korean war since the T-34/85 encountered was rather immune to the M9 still deployed then.

The German Panzerschreck was developed based on captured Bazookas it seems. But the Germans immediately went to more powerful 88mm warheads which penetrated 150-220mm/90degrees at 100-200m

BTW the Panzerfaust's penetrated up to 200mm.

[winkelried]

Skirts, at least on the Panzers, were deployed, as far as I can tell, in response to russian anti-tank rifles. The 14.5mm rifles were sufficient to threaten German Mark 3s and 4s from the sides at close range. Adding such skirts is a lightweight way of tumbling the bullet before it hits the hull and robs it of much of its penetrating capacity.

you are right.

[winkelried]

Here the penetration table for the different ammo types from Hogg's Tank Killing

M6 ca 80mm (early production)

M6A1/A2 ca 100mm (mainly M1 Bazooka)

M6A3/A4 ca 120mm (mainly M9 Bazooka)

M6A5 ca 125mm (post war)

other sources put the M6A1/A2 at 80mm too. seems to be difficult to get consistent data here.

[womble]

I have done some comparative testing of bazookas versus side-on PzIVHs and Panthers on a controlled range and it does appear that hits to armored skirts significantly reduce probability of a HEAT kill.

That's interesting. I had thought I remembered BFC siding with the 'skirts didn't help vs HEAT much' proposition. Obviously they do somehow in the penetration model.

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>I had become too accustomed to the less-than-stellar performance of first generation rocket launchers in CM:BN.<snip>

LOL it reminds me of something my Dad said. He was an infantry officer in the 60s and speaking of the older AT weapons (at the time I was into WW2 table top model war gaming) he referred to them as "placebo weapons" - not effective at all and mean only to give infantry the *feeling* that they could deal with a tank.

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>I've seen casualties to each and every position in the tanks I've had blown up. You don't see 'crew hit' text when your opponents tanks take hits, but you will, if you look carefully, little 'red cross' icons for when crew have become casualty.

Agreed, I have a game going right now where a Sherman turned a corner and found two Marders side on. The Sherman took out the first one but then was distracted momentarily by near by infantry and did not get the first shot on the second one. A round hit the Sherman and the tank was OK and the crew were not panicked and I wondered why it did not return fire and died moments later. Turns out the first hit killed the gunner - I had text notification turn off and did not notice the first time I viewed the scene.

Zook rounds and 37mm rounds did not have strong behind-armour effects. Skirts aren't really there to stop HEAT rounds, so the 'not hitting skirts' thing isn't very relevant.<snip>

Yep, in another game - against the AI, I had a scout unit surprise a Stug III. The AC put five or seven rounds (I don't remember) of 37mm on target as the Stug was rotating only to die once the 75mm gun got a bead on them.

[Georgie]

I have read reports that tests performed post war indicate that the panzerfaust will penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger 2. Which reports? I don't remember. Hopefully some one else has read the same or similar reports and does remember.

[MikeyD]

Compare the 100mm diameter panzerfaust warhead to the Bazooka warhead. About 1/2 more penetration than the zook. To this day the US will not field an oversize warhead that sticks out of the launch tube. Safety and transport considerations, they say. In CMSF compare the German panzerfaust 31T to the Marine SMAW.

[Sixxkiller]

I once was in Germany and was talking to an American Colonel. He said he started in the Army as an AT Infantrymen. The system he operated was the M47 Dragon. Only reason I remember it was that he said the theory behind use was pray, pray it would fire, pray it hit, pray it actually damaged anything, pray people in different countries didnt hear it, and pray you can run fast enough not to get killed 10 seconds after use. He then said, we'd rather have just had "zooks". I remember it cause he said pray a lot haha.

To be fair the Bazooka weapon system was designed to defeat the PzIII and possibly PzIV's. The Germans and russians made leaps in armor design and the US really didnt have as much time to field and train, and equip soldiers back then as we do nowadays.

[c3k]

HEAT warheads have penetration which roughly correlates with the diameter of the warhead. (Yeah, modern developments have skewed that somewhat, but it's held true from WWII through the '80s into the '90s.)

[winkelried]

HEAT warheads have penetration which roughly correlates with the diameter of the warhead. (Yeah, modern developments have skewed that somewhat, but it's held true from WWII through the '80s into the '90s.)

That's true. And the effectiveness of the bazooka-like weapons even in the 80s was limited. We assumed 0.2 kills/shot fired against heavy armor as basis for planning. The effectiveness of ATGM for instance was assumed to be at 0.8 kills/missile fired. As far as i remember a kill was anything between immobile, no longer able to shoot and destroyed.

[JasonC]

ian.leslie - there are enough detailed AARs of tanks taken out by infantry with bazookas to show that claim is false. Were short range infantry AT weapons relatively ineffective compared to full guns mounted on armor chassis? Yes. But in the right terrain, short range infantry AT killed as many tanks are anti tank guns, or more, and forced attacking armor to be accompanied by infantry, or made it fail if that infantry had been stripped (e.g. by artillery fire).

This doesn't mean every bazooka round should kill when it hits. In my opinion, the item the game currently gets very wrong in tank vs. infantry fighting is the ease with which tanks spot the infantry. When exposed the TCs should die quickly at close, small arms ranges, and when buttoned, the tanks shouldn't see diddly squat. This is the real factor that allowed infantry AT to get close enough, to hit and hit repeatedly. The tank is fact would rarely know where the shot came from even after it happened, despite the backblast of rocket weapons.

Big loud bang, smoke around the tank from the rocket exploding, no idea where it came from inside the tank. Maybe it KOs the tank, maybe not, but the shooters can do it again, unless infantry near the tank and on its side saw what happened and respond with their own small arms. That would be more realistic.

[Georgie]

ian.leslie - there are enough detailed AARs of tanks taken out by infantry with bazookas to show that claim is false. Were short range infantry AT weapons relatively ineffective compared to full guns mounted on armor chassis? Yes. But in the right terrain, short range infantry AT killed as many tanks are anti tank guns, or more, and forced attacking armor to be accompanied by infantry, or made it fail if that infantry had been stripped (e.g. by artillery fire).

This doesn't mean every bazooka round should kill when it hits. In my opinion, the item the game currently gets very wrong in tank vs. infantry fighting is the ease with which tanks spot the infantry. When exposed the TCs should die quickly at close, small arms ranges, and when buttoned, the tanks shouldn't see diddly squat. This is the real factor that allowed infantry AT to get close enough, to hit and hit repeatedly. The tank is fact would rarely know where the shot came from even after it happened, despite the backblast of rocket weapons.

Big loud bang, smoke around the tank from the rocket exploding, no idea where it came from inside the tank. Maybe it KOs the tank, maybe not, but the shooters can do it again, unless infantry near the tank and on its side saw what happened and respond with their own small arms. That would be more realistic.

Yes!!! Once the lid is closed you are in a smokey hot box trying to look out a couple of slits and a periscope or two to get an idea of which way you are heading and trying not to shoot your own troops or a friendly tank.

[LongLeftFlank]

Yes, buttoned AFVs spotting infantry is on my own Top Three Things To Be Improved list.

[Holien]

Yes, buttoned AFVs spotting infantry is on my own Top Three Things To Be Improved list.

+1000

I hope this does get tweaked further.......