Infantry AT in buildings

[sburke]

Correct regarding hearing damage, but no other physical injuries were reported.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA244127

That is until the animal rights group showed up, killed all the human lab techs and liberated the goats...unfortunately to a location later discovered to consider goats a delicacy.

naaaahhhhhh

[Michael Emrys]

Grenades and rifle grenades can and will be used by any unit from within a structure against vehicles.

I believe the PIAT can also be fired from indoors. Something to look for when the first module arrives.

Michael

[BletchleyGeek]

I believe the PIAT can also be fired from indoors. Something to look for when the first module arrives.

If so, that will be a huge advantage for the Brits, which I guess will be "balanced" by an insane reload time.

[Sgt Schultz]

PIAT - Personal Ineffective Anti Tank

How manly can it be to deploy a weapon that goes SPROING when you 'fire' it?

The developer of the PIAT made a fortune in post-war America making the Slinky.

[Sardaukar]

Sounds like the Armbrust.

Panzerfaust 3, ARMBRUST & MATADOR, all use same design and can be fired from enclosed space. But bit out of CMBN timeframe.

[womble]

PIAT - Personal Ineffective Anti Tank

How manly can it be to deploy a weapon that goes SPROING when you 'fire' it?

Depends how strong you have to be to cock the spring... How manly is it to deploy a weapon that goes "ping" when it's time to reload, like some military kitchen appliance...?

[Sublime]

Still, PIATs are very good because they can be fired indoors, and dont leave a backblast, give a noise, or any of that.

Im DYING to play as the Red Devils in Arnhem..

[DLaurier]

The Germans still had the AT rifles from early war.

Personaly I would like to see these, rare as hen's teeth, but usefull against light armor.

[flamingknives]

I suspect that PIATs do make a fair bit of noise. The bomb is propelled by a propellant charge, not the spring.

The spring is there to bring the recoil down to something approaching human tolerance.

The PIAT is a single-shot, open-bolt blowback spigot mortar. The recoil is partly countered by the forward momentum of the "bolt" and then spread over a longer time (reducing the force on the firer) as it compresses the spring. If it is well braced, then the recoil will re-cock the spring ready for the next shot.

[vossiewulf1212]

Yes the PIAT was kinda a poor-man's API blowback design in that the "bolt" was still moving forward when the round was fired.

[winkelried]

I believe the PIAT can also be fired from indoors. Something to look for when the first module arrives.

Michael

I am looking forward to the discussion about the PIAT effectivness - seems that during testing a skilled user was able to get 60% hits at 100 yards with a dud rate of 25% ... equals 45% of detonating hits ...

[ArgusEye]

Again, that's not what Battlefront have determined. Any anecdotes about interior use have exceptions like being in the front half of a roofspace with the back blown off. Field manuals said to not use the things indoors.

Do you have any primary sources for this? The only things I found were exhortations to make sure nobody was behind you within three (later five) meters during firing, making sure the back of the tube was unobstructed when firing from a foxhole, and reminding the soldier that loose debris behind the tube might turn projectile. I've not found much else. Notably lacking from anything I found is any field instruction leaflet forbidding its use from enclosed spaces.

To be clear: I'm really interested, not just making a point.

[stikkypixie]

Do you have any primary sources for this? The only things I found were exhortations to make sure nobody was behind you within three (later five) meters during firing, making sure the back of the tube was unobstructed when firing from a foxhole, and reminding the soldier that loose debris behind the tube might turn projectile. I've not found much else. Notably lacking from anything I found is any field instruction leaflet forbidding its use from enclosed spaces.

To be clear: I'm really interested, not just making a point.

There was long discussion about this a couple months ago. The most convincing argument I remembered from this thread was this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vt20q0s2uqwC&pg=PA32&dq=panzerschrecks++overpressure&hl=en&ei=kk6pToqiDKqF4gSJluD4Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

arguments pro firing from buildings were always very vague in details and anecdotal.

[ArgusEye]

That's why I asked about the primary sources. These booklets just ape each other, and I don't believe the story.

The Panzerfaust was a recoilless weapon, much like the initial stage of the M47 Dragon missile (which adds a sustainer motor). The dangerous zone of the Panzerfaust was 10 m, that of the Dragon 30 m. If we assume the risk the Nazi's were willing to take was three times more than the US Army of the eighties, then let's call them equivalent in backblast. (I'm being very rough on the Panzerfaust, I am sure you'll agree.)

Let us turn to pages 8-12 thru 8-14 of US Army Field Manual FM 90-10-1, and we read:

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 LAW, Dragon, 90-mm RCLR, and TOW from masonry and frame

8-12FM 90-10-1

buildings, and from sandbag bunkers. These tests showed that firing these

weapons from enclosures presented no serious hazards, even when the

overpressure was enough to produce structural damage to the building. The

following were other findings of this test.

(a) 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 per-

formance 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 masonary building)

is exposed to less noise hazard than if he fired a LAW in the open without

earplugs.

(d) The safest place for other soldiers in the room with the firer is against

the wall from which the weapon is fired. Plastic ignition plugs are a hazard

to anyone standing directly behind a LAW or TOW when it is fired.

(e) Firers should take advantage of all available sources of ventilation

by opening doors and windows. Ventilation does not reduce the noise

hazard, but it helps clear the room of smoke and dust, and reduces the

effective duration of the overpressure.

(f) The only difference between firing these weapons from enclosures

and firing them in the open is the duration of the pressure fluctuation.

(g) Frame buildings, especially small ones, can suffer structural damage

to the rear walls, windows, and doors. Large rooms suffer slight damage, if

any.

(3) Recoilless weapons fired from within enclosures create some obscu-

ration inside the room, but almost none from the gunner’s position looking

out. Inside the room, obscuration can be intense, but the room remains

inhabitable. Table 8-8 shows the effects of smoke and obscuration.

8-13FM 90-10-1

(4) The Dragon causes the most structural damage but only in frame

buildings. There does not seem to be any threat of injury to the gunner, since

the damage is usually to the walls away from the gunner. The most damage

and debris is from flying plaster chips and pieces of wood trim. Large chunks

of plasterboard can be dislodged from ceilings. The backblast from LAW,

Dragon, or TOW rarely displaces furniture. Table 8-9 shows the test results

of structural damage and debris.

(Highlights in bold are mine.)

Furthermore, the rule for firing a Panzerfaust from within a bunker was that one meter of free space should be behind the tube at firing. Not that impressive.

[stikkypixie]

That's why I asked about the primary sources. These booklets just ape each other, and I don't believe the story.

The Panzerfaust was a recoilless weapon, much like the initial stage of the M47 Dragon missile (which adds a sustainer motor). The dangerous zone of the Panzerfaust was 10 m, that of the Dragon 30 m. If we assume the risk the Nazi's were willing to take was three times more than the US Army of the eighties, then let's call them equivalent in backblast. (I'm being very rough on the Panzerfaust, I am sure you'll agree.)

Let us turn to pages 8-12 thru 8-14 of US Army Field Manual FM 90-10-1, and we read:

(Highlights in bold are mine.)

Furthermore, the rule for firing a Panzerfaust from within a bunker was that one meter of free space should be behind the tube at firing. Not that impressive.

I'm no expert but, isn't the Dragon specially designed for firing from interiors? "Common sense" would say that if backblast/overpressure wasn't a problem Russian RPGs would not bother with that dual stage propulsion of theirs.

[womble]

Do you have any primary sources for this?

No. Take it up with BFC. They've put the hours into the research enough to change their minds from x1.

[ArgusEye]

The Dragon was not designed for work from the interior, but if you are sceptical about the Dragon, that is no problem. The Panzerfaust was a recoilless projector, using 190 grammes of black powder [for the PzF 100] for propulsion. The 90mm RCLR was also purely recoilless, and it used 500 grammes of M5 nitrocellulose/nitroglycerin propellant. It's listed as less of a shot report than the Dragon. And it's also listed in the report excerpt I quoted above.

The dual stage RPG motors are mostly for added range. You can take a purely recoilless design that does mostly the same, but the firing pressures would be higher, making for a more cumbersome weapon, and with the double propulsion you get more range for the same amount of propellant.

[stikkypixie]

The Dragon was not designed for work from the interior, but if you are sceptical about the Dragon, that is no problem. The Panzerfaust was a recoilless projector, using 190 grammes of black powder [for the PzF 100] for propulsion. The 90mm RCLR was also purely recoilless, and it used 500 grammes of M5 nitrocellulose/nitroglycerin propellant. It's listed as less of a shot report than the Dragon. And it's also listed in the report excerpt I quoted above.

The dual stage RPG motors are mostly for added range. You can take a purely recoilless design that does mostly the same, but the firing pressures would be higher, making for a more cumbersome weapon, and with the double propulsion you get more range for the same amount of propellant.

The part of the dual stage motor makes no sense to me, but I'm no expert.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf, this link would say that the RPG dual launch was designed for other reasons than added range.

All I'm saying I know that modern AT (if not the Dragon) have specially designed soft launches to allow them to be fired from inside buildings, and I assume there is a good reason for that. Even with the same amount of powder, doesn't mean that their usefulness in practice cannot vary.

Edit: Forgot to add, that hopefully BFC can find some sort of middle ground for infantry AT in buildings.

[ArgusEye]

I refer you to page 26 of your own link.

Backblast dampening measures to modern heavy projectors are quite useful if you don't want to damage your position too much. Collateral damage has become much more of an issue since WWII. It also means that you have less to worry about if there are friendly troops moving about. So there is an advantage to backblast amelioration, but that does not indicate that the use of the weapons without this is impossible indoors.

[stikkypixie]

I refer you to page 26 of your own link.

Backblast dampening measures to modern heavy projectors are quite useful if you don't want to damage your position too much. Collateral damage has become much more of an issue since WWII. It also means that you have less to worry about if there are friendly troops moving about. So there is an advantage to backblast amelioration, but that does not indicate that the use of the weapons without this is impossible indoors.

What you mean with page 26? All I see is that the RPG-7 can be fired from buildings.

[ArgusEye]

Exactly: that also the good old RPG7 can be launched from inside enclosed spaces. And its ejector charge is stronger than that of the PzF.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

stikkypixie wrote:

What you mean with page 26? All I see is that the RPG-7 can be fired from buildings.

Exactly: that also the good old RPG7 can be launched from inside enclosed spaces. And its ejector charge is stronger than that of the PzF.

Bingo! There's the crux of the argument distilled down right there.

Regards

KR

[stikkypixie]

Exactly: that also the good old RPG7 can be launched from inside enclosed spaces. And its ejector charge is stronger than that of the PzF.

So the strip charge that first ejects the projectile to reduce the backblast is stronger than that of the PzF? I did not know that.

[Praetori]

Correct regarding hearing damage, but no other physical injuries were reported.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA244127

Interesting read, I remember a report from the same source on the 90mm recoilless which says about the same thing. Both say little on the immediate effects however.

Anyhow the tests I were referring to (with the pigs) were with the AT4 (non CS variant), the CG and some other weapons (though it was years ago and I could be remembering wrong. I haven't seen the information on the web but I haven't looked very hard either).

I have no idea of how the backblasts from a AT4 or CG compare to a zook or old panzerfaust but I can guess as WW2 weapons usually go more BANG than modern ones.

And most modern ones aren't supposed to be fired from unprepared indoor positions due to the risk of injury from the backblast and overpressurization.

I remain skeptical on how "fit" a soldier would be after firing a panzerfaust or zook from a Normandie type enclosed house. But I do agree that it should be possible to do with some preparation/deployment time (bashing out a wall, finding a large enough room etc) as Infantry is clearly on the losing end in urban environments with the current mechanics.

[winkelried]

I remain skeptical on how "fit" a soldier would be after firing a panzerfaust or zook from a Normandie type enclosed house. But I do agree that it should be possible to do with some preparation/deployment time (bashing out a wall, finding a large enough room etc) as Infantry is clearly on the losing end in urban environments with the current mechanics.

Your statement seems to be founded on a misunderstanding of the urban environment you would find in Normandy and in most parts of Europe in the 1940s.

There rarely are long and uninterrupted ranges of houses to be found (some exceptions confirm the rule - e.g. centers of large cities) more often a few houses were clustered but interrupted by roads of different sizes and small gardens with walls of various size. In addition you would see corners and houses which are not aligned with the others and probably some damage done by artillery fire. So there would be already quite some potential cover available for ATG assets - but it won't be a kind of continous fight, but falling back from position to another position.

So it's up to the scenario designer to provide these details. In a well designed scenario infantry is not more on the losing end as it was in reality.

Some Pictures - look for Carentan