Kanonier Reichmann Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I think this link is worth repeating... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/recoilless.htm From the article at the Global Security.org website it makes the following statement in very plain terms... 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. The safest place for other soldiers in the room with the shooter is against the wall from which the weapon is fired. 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. The only difference between firing these weapons from enclosures and firing them in the open is the duration of the pressure fluctuation. Frame buildings, especially small ones, can suffer structural damage to the rear walls, windows, and doors. Large rooms suffer slight damage, if any. Recoilless weapons fired from within enclosures create some obscuration 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. 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 the AT4, Dragon, or TOW rarely displaces furniture. While the results of the tests may have shown that the threat of injury from debris is rare, commanders must ensure that proper safety precautions are followed prior to firing weapons inside a room. There's also this very specific information on the Panzerfaust30 Klein from the following linked site... http://trizna.ru/galerea/albums/userpics/Panzerfaust_30_klein.pdf Admittedly it not about the most common model Panzerfaust modelled in CMBN but from a common sense point of view it's hard to see how such a weapon could cause such massive damage when fired from within a structure to result in a no exceptions ban from doing so within the game. Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatdog Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Not to mention that infantry AT weapons could be fired from buildings in previous Combat Mission games. ...and that not having this modelled chronically inhibits the defender in built-up areas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Re the PIAT referenced earlier Louis Hagen's memoir "The Arnhem Lift" relates a duel between a German SP gun and his team, which was firing on it repeatedly from a small attic window. I read this book long ago and details are hazy but ISTR they were engaging the AFV at some distance and launching the PIAT bomb in an arc. They didn't kill it but kept it from advancing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 well PIATs are launched with a spring (as im sure you know) so of course they can be used in a building.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 PIATS actually do have rocket power IIRC, but I guess it doesn't light up for a few meters so can be fired from an interior. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I agree on an earlier point, one of the biggest issue for me regarding CM is that the infantry TacAI lacks fluidity and isn't capable of reacting to danger or improvising. Things like quickly scattering into cover when under fire, quickly turning back if walking into a street when fired upon, looking around when entering a new area etc. Another thing I would love to see is infantry be able to peek around corners, perhaps if they are near a corner they could either look around on their own or look around if you give an order to watch that direction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Again I think the game "system" effectively sims that, but the graphics doesn't quite match. I bet it's a similar issue to the TARGET command flicking to a different tile. I still find the actual fire effect to work as desired even tho' one may not be able to place the TARGET exactly where the enemy is standing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nik mond Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 My point was that all the elevated building firing positions in CMBN are enclosed, because once the roof's blown in you can't get into the attic any more. It's the enclosure that's the stopper, not the shooting downhill. Except the 7 story church steeple, which can be blown open and still be occupied. What about the faust patrones. The are small warhead projectiles with only propellant for a 30m distance. Wouldn't they have a much lesser back blast? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 PIATS actually do have rocket power IIRC, but I guess it doesn't light up for a few meters so can be fired from an interior. No, there was an explosive propellant charge in the tail of the PIAT round. The charge detonated instantly when the spigot rod slammed forward under spring tension, propelling the round and resetting the spigot rod spring. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Well evidently there wasn't much backblast. I don't think the launcher even has a vent tube (correct me if I'm wrong), and if the gunner isn't getting his eyebrows burnt off I'd presume that people behind him aren't either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The PIAT used a charge similar to a shotgun cartridge so it would kick like a mule when fired but there was never any danger of overpressure as there was no rocket propellant involved. It would be great if someone from Battlefront could comment on this subject. Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The PIAT used a charge similar to a shotgun cartridge so it would kick like a mule when fired but there was never any danger of overpressure as there was no rocket propellant involved. It would be great if someone from Battlefront could comment on this subject. Regards KR Panzerfaust has no rocket propellant either. PIAT uses a small propelling charge, probably about 1 oz. blackpowder. It is not a recoilless weapon, but a spigot mortar. Part of the recoil force from the explosion is absorbed by the resetting spring, but some is imparted to the shooter/baseplate. The smallest panzerfaust uses a somewhat larger blackpowder propelling charge (around 2 oz.) However, it vents the force of the explosion to the rear and is thus recoilless. Both would create some amount of overpressure if fired in a confined space, as would any firearm. The question is of degree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 ...BUMP... because it's worth it! Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 What is the difference between a panzerschreck,bazooka, panzerfaust and a RPG? Cos in CM:A i have seen RPG's fired from within buildings 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 RPG7 is a boost-sustain rocket, whereas the WW2 analogues are single-stage, burn it all at once-type job. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 RPG7 is a boost-sustain rocket, whereas the WW2 analogues are single-stage, burn it all at once-type job. Are WW2 AT likely to have more back blast than a RPG then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Here's rocket being fired inside a room. About 2:30. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 RPG7 is a boost-sustain rocket, whereas the WW2 analogues are single-stage, burn it all at once-type job. To be clear: the RPG-7 projectile is propelled from the launcher by an explosive charge, exactly like a panzerfaust. This charge gives the 2.25kg warhead a muzzle velocity of 117m/s. Compare this to 30m/s at the muzzle for the Panzerfaust 30's 2.9kg warhead. The big improvement in the RPG-7 over the Panzerfaust and RPG-2 systems is that at 11m from the muzzle, a rocket motor at the base of the warhead ignites, boosting the projectile to 294m/s. The panzershreck and bazooka are both pure rocket weapons. A rocket motor in the tail of the projectile is ignited electrically, accelerating the projectile down the length of the tube while the exhaust vents out the back. Ideally the rocket motor would be spent by the time the projectile reaches the muzzle of the tube, but as can be seen with the Panzershreck's blast shield, this was not yet perfected in these types of weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Here's rocket being fired inside a room. About 2:30. If it's good enough for Charlie, it's good enough for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpitfireXI Posted March 22, 2021 Share Posted March 22, 2021 Resurrecting this older thread so Panzershrecks and bazookas can now fire inside of buildings? Â I had thought the blast effects would prevent this but got my last Sherman destroyed by a panzershreck last night from a german firing from 10 feet away on the third floor of a building. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 22, 2021 Share Posted March 22, 2021 It doesn't prevent firing, but it also doesn't prevent consequences from firing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.