Air-to-surface rockets in SPWAW

[werderwayne]

The previous post got messed up in the QUOTES department...sorry, it's a function of getting logged out every 2 minutes.

-WW

[AmmoSgt]

What impresses me is that if the German even thought about making something it is in the game .. if the Allies made something that was problematic for the Germans to handle it is probably not ..
Just look at Mine Clearing .. Germans were incredibly weak in Mine Clearing, Yet they Have Mine Clearing Vehicles they never produced.
Allies developed several Mine Clearing techniques , yet are only allowed the ones that the Germans have as well... "must be that fair and balanced" thing the the Tiger Kiddies are afraid to play the game without.. Not every nation had to clear mines by hand ,, Allies had line charges and Bangalores , But everybody clears at the same rate . I don't know how a German Player can take any pride at all in claiming a win. geeze louise , and the whineing .. put a box of tissues in the German OOB fer Gawds sake .
Different Armies , Different strenghts and weaknesses , using different tactics ..
And thats the problem , Allies have been dumbed down to the point where every Army in the game has to fight the same way with similar equipment all averaged out to the lowest common denominator, The Germans, What the heck are you Tiger Kiddies so darn afraid of?
The Stuff I am pointing out that is missing from the US OOB is stuff that is critical to the proper execution of US tactics .. some folks play the US .. against serious players and against the AI that don't mind Historical situations ... note to Scenario designers .. just look at how many scenarios there are for the US that does not have a single US FO in the game, that has no Ordnance resupply.. you think that is historically correct? Really?
If the Tiger Kiddies are so afraid of this stuff spoiling their arcade shoot'em up's they don't have to play anybody that won't give it up in pre game negotations . Nobody is being fooled about the situation by leaving it out of the game entirely.

[Voriax]

Ammo, what mine clearing vehicles????

Only German mine clearing vehicle in the game is Minenram Pz-III found in Czech oob as a 'scen only' unit with availability date Dec 1949.
As this vehicle will never come up in a pbem or campaign game due to the avail date I really see any reason to gripe???

You are correct though in that it was never produced. But this vehicle could be replaced with the Pz-1 mineclearing tank, at least it was produced, even though in small quantities.

Voriax

[werderwayne]

Did we get a little off-topic?

-WW

[Voriax]

Originally posted by werderwayne
Did we get a little off-topic?

-WW

Oh my! Didn't notice
Well, I guess straying off-topic happens occasionally :rolleyes:

Voriax

[AmmoSgt]

Originally posted by Voriax
Ammo, what mine clearing vehicles????

Only German mine clearing vehicle in the game is Minenram Pz-III found in Czech oob as a 'scen only' unit with availability date Dec 1949.
As this vehicle will never come up in a pbem or campaign game due to the avail date I really see any reason to gripe???

You are correct though in that it was never produced. But this vehicle could be replaced with the Pz-1 mineclearing tank, at least it was produced, even though in small quantities.

Voriax

OH, I see how this works now , I want US Stuff in the game that actually existed for players to use against the AI or against players that don't mind an honest game , or for historical scenario design , and every tiger kiddie in the world gets to bitch and moan to keep them out . But if I point out that the Germans have fantasy stuff for their "what if's" I have no right to comment because it is in the game for the exact same reason I want stuff that actually existed? Sounds "Fair and Balanced" to me .
So fantasy stuff is OK for German players for historical accuracy , But actual stuff for the US is too "what if" ?? I see how that works ...
Do you guys ever listen to yourselves ?

[Voriax]

Originally posted by AmmoSgt

Do you guys ever listen to yourselves ?

Do you?

Your holy crusade attitude unfortunately shows.

Did I ever say I'm against WP, carbines for trucks, Bangalores and like? Either here or in the chat? Did I?????

I only pointed out that in some cases they (may) require modifications to .exe and thus are very hard if not impossible to get in.

Some non-existing German or other country prototypes are not a problem for me, but they apparently are for you, even when their existence has minimal impact in the game.

And yes, fantasy stuff is okay for Germans for historical accuracy. It is also okay for US (M6A1) or Brits (Black prince)..ok, nearly fantasy stuff. Provided it's use is limited only 'what if' style scenarios. I think I've seen only one scenario where Minenram's were used..

Are there any 'fantasy units' in the standard oob and in it's standard formations? No. Do US troops lack a bunch of stuff? Yes. And feel free to add them for all I care.

Voriax

[AmmoSgt]

Originally posted by Voriax
Do you?

Your holy crusade attitude unfortunately shows.

Did I ever say I'm against WP, carbines for trucks, Bangalores and like? Either here or in the chat? Did I?????

I only pointed out that in some cases they (may) require modifications to .exe and thus are very hard if not impossible to get in.

Some non-existing German or other country prototypes are not a problem for me, but they apparently are for you, even when their existence has minimal impact in the game.

And yes, fantasy stuff is okay for Germans for historical accuracy. It is also okay for US (M6A1) or Brits (Black prince)..ok, nearly fantasy stuff. Provided it's use is limited only 'what if' style scenarios. I think I've seen only one scenario where Minenram's were used..

Are there any 'fantasy units' in the standard oob and in it's standard formations? No. Do US troops lack a bunch of stuff? Yes. And feel free to add them for all I care.

Voriax

M6A1 was made in Quanity ( about 50, heck of a lot more than some German Stuff) and deployed in Bn Strenght Stateside. Just Like many German vehicles it Didn't see any Action outside of it's home Country. Being Deployed for Defense of the Home Country counts. I know it sounds odd to some folks to actually be able to defend your Home Country to the point that nobody can invade it. But unlike Germany and Italy and Japan , thats exactly what the Americans and Brits did .
If I sound like I am on a Crusade , I'll take that as a complement, Eisenhower Liked that word. I have been advocating for 3 years , back since SPWAW 4.0 to just get real stuff in the game for the US. I keep getting told by both staffers and german players US Tactics are not "fun" and Unbalance the game, How can anybody tell anybody else what tactics are fun for them , especially when they are a heck of a lot more Historically correct than the current game options for the Allies .. That really ticks me off, If they aren't fun for you then don't play that way .,.. but IMHO it is a **** poor reason to leave real units and capabilites out of a game that others might enjoy playing more if it had any chance of executing realistic tactics for the Winning Powers in the War.
When you get past all the BS reasons it comes down to a simple lack of will to buck the Tiger Kiddies that act like they are scared to death of even a unrestricted game with the existing stuff in the game at even odds , God forbid the US get any more stuff that they can'rt cope with, Heck they can't cope with half the stuff that is already in the game, so why would anything change if more stuff they can't deal with is added . You cannot simulate tactical competence by reducing the effectiveness of Units you can't cope with or fighting against inculding units you don't want to deal with in the game. Rigging the game is not a win, unless of course you are a Tiger Kiddie .. Then you will take any win you can get anyway you can get it.

[Frank W.]

AMMO:

you have overworked the US oob and send them to pz. leo ( for use in H2H) and b. melvin ( for use in the new OOB set ) ???

"The new Matrix Official OOB's, SHP files, LBM's patch in now being
prepared by Matrix games for official release.

The ETA will be in about 30 days"

if not, STOP ranting and do it.

or just mail the persons and tell them the changes you would like.......they can then be opnely discussed.

and: i´m now even more confused about the M9 bazookas!
ARE they now overpowered in game or not ? perhaps anyone have some RELIABLE data ( perhaps in comparison with the german gz. fausts or pz. schrecks ? )

[Charles2222]

PLease note, I wrote these comments as I read the quoted portions, so what may look as though I'm not understanding, may soon clear up further into the post




Mogami:

Stug production went east tanks went west.

That's the same thing you said in the first place, and it's just as muddy now. If you mean what I now think you mean, what you're saying is that stug production, or new stugs went east, while new tanks went west. Still don't agree. BTW, when you say stug, I think you're still not clear. Perhaps you should resort to the more general term "tank-destroyer", because the "true stugs" were the "SG" lineup, whereas the tank-destroyers would more commonly also fit the JPZ's in as well. In any event, assuming I've hit on one of the possibilities of your meaning, i don't believe any of them (except for the Bulge of course). I don't know why you'd think the 'stugs' were going east, or more peculiarly the tanks going west, when it's normal to send tanks where the tank divisions were, and that post-Bulge was east. Nevertheless, you're more than welcome to prove it again.

If you can count is not snide. You state you don't trust me I say go count them your self.

Maybe where you come from it isn't, but to say "if you can count" is to tell me I'm stupid; snide indeed. In any part of the USA I know of, it is an insult. If you instead had said "go count" or "you can count" those aren't insults. Your English doesn't seem too precise, so naturally you may not understand the HUGE difference in whether you threw one word in there or not.

If you can count is not snide. You state you don't trust me I say go count them your self. If you examine Panzer Regt you will observe one or more Bn being replaced by Stug. If you check all Panzer and Panzer Grn Div you will find a number that on June 6 1944 have Panzer Regt with 0 tanks (stugs instead)

That's not tanks moving west, and I'm pretty sure you'll find the divisions of the west, at about the same time, with a stug regiment as well. Perhaps you already know this, but when the divisions became low enough on tanks, instead of keeping a weak third regiment, or balancing all the tanks between the three regiments, they took the 3rd regiment and consolidated all the tanks into the 1st two regiments, thus, when say 10 stugs arrived and 10 tanks, the tanks went into the 1st and 2nd regiment while the 10 stugs started the 3rd regiment.

The Germans were not adding stugs they were using them in place of tanks.

Yes and no. When they had 3 regiments of tanks, naturally they didn't have any stugs. When the stugs arrive new, they in a sense replace the tanks, since there is no longer a 3rd regiment of them, but any that arrive go into the 1st two regiments, while any new stugs go to the 3rd. I don't think this was regulated to just new stugs either. I think a number of infantry divisions had those stugs stripped from them to help the panzer divisions too.

Even some west front formations had this change.

Okay, well we're agreed on that then.

Although total numbers of tanks is on the rise, the total on the east front remains fairly stable. The number of stugs however continues to rise. I conclude the stug was gaining in importance on the eastern front while the tank was being held in the west.

That may be so, but I sure haven't seen any documentation that showed to what front new AFV's were going.





AmmoSgt:

Just look at Mine Clearing .. Germans were incredibly weak in Mine Clearing, Yet they Have Mine Clearing Vehicles they never produced.

As far as I know the minenrams or whatever they were called, were removed from the game. Other than not having mobile mine-removers, I wonder how you come to the conclusion that GE was "incredibly weak" in that department? They apparently didn't have too much problems with Eban Emal (sp) . the Maginot Line, or Tobruk. Slower than some perhaps, but they seemed to manage. Incredibly weak to me is 30% or worse, the efficiency of what it's compared to. The USSR has used penal battalions/cows at times, and though it may had been primitive I'm sure it was reasonably quick. That's the secret weapon the USSR needs, cows to blow up mines!

Allies developed several Mine Clearing techniques , yet are only allowed the ones that the Germans have as well... "must be that fair and balanced" thing the the Tiger Kiddies are afraid to play the game without.. Not every nation had to clear mines by hand ,, Allies had line charges and Bangalores , But everybody clears at the same rate . I don't know how a German Player can take any pride at all in claiming a win. geeze louise , and the whineing .. put a box of tissues in the German OOB fer Gawds sake .

Because maybe everyone that with any regularity plays GE, isn't on some kind of quest to look for every little nat's worth of advantage that they had that the Allies didn't (Goliaths anyone?).

M6A1 was made in Quanity ( about 50, heck of a lot more than some German Stuff) and deployed in Bn Strenght Stateside. Just Like many German vehicles it Didn't see any Action outside of it's home Country.

Irrelevant point. The war wasn't fought in the States, AT ALL, and it WAS in GE. Yes, we might be with glee if we nit-picked and left every vehicle that never crossed the borders of GE and make it useable only there, and how you know that I'd like to know, but that's impossible depth to the game. Does that also mean that if you're defending in Sevastopol, that I get to use my not-in-the-game Dora? mu-ha-ha-ha-ha.

I keep getting told by both staffers and german players US Tactics are not "fun" and Unbalance the game, How can anybody tell anybody else what tactics are fun for them , especially when they are a heck of a lot more Historically correct than the current game options for the Allies ..

Please don't misunderstand that I'm siding with you on this one, but one possible explanation is that the game is being designed for this awful balance thing. Everything is pretty much revolved around the idea of human playing human, therefore, no human will play, or at least very long when the odds are stacked so heavily against them. In CL, this 'could' change, if the operational layer is any good. Imagine for example how fun it would be, even if you're the side getting stomped all the time, to bide your battles and save up for a select few where you throw in practically everything and have the opponent going . Of course, having said that, two of the problems of SP is that the opponent is NEVER beyond a certain size for the given battle, and also that you have the unnatural boundaries of the screen edges. I just moan in a pathetic wimper when I think of all that scenario design when the designer may think they're clever by having some flank attack from some fairly unlikely place. The main thing wrong with that, is that the flanking force is unnatural, because until it enters that one crummy hex, I can't attack it in the slightest. It rather damages the adage that plans don't survive enemy contact when we always know the relative size of what we cannot even see yet (3X our force maybe) and that we can never escape the boundaries. Sure there are boundaries sooner or later, but not in every battle. A battle against a force holding a town could easily turn into a change of direction and attacking another force attacking the front's flank. Boy, I don't know what I'd give to play a campaign battle where I'd be able to attack from both the front and the rear of the enemy in a given battle, and his subsequent possible sliding right out of my grasp. We need battle attention more than weapon attention.

When you get past all the BS reasons it comes down to a simple lack of will to buck the Tiger Kiddies that act like they are scared to death of even a unrestricted game with the existing stuff in the game at even odds , God forbid the US get any more stuff that they can'rt cope with, Heck they can't cope with half the stuff that is already in the game, so why would anything change if more stuff they can't deal with is added .

You need to be more consistent. You're the one afterall who's always crying that all the Axis players want to always have a field full of Tigers. If you got your precious WP, or whatever else, would you be willing to run into an SS Heavy Tank Regiment with support? It don't sound like it.

[Frank W.]

i have first hand information from guderian himself.

he complained about that 44 + 45 too much tanks
going to the west, so he could barely form any counter
attack armor force on the eastern front.

some valuable tank divs were even send to rumania
and hungary for "political" reasons as hitler said. and
he wanted to protect the oil fields. but of course this
up splitting of the units was a mistake. most germans
in 44+45 wanted to defend the east and let the western
allies conquer more of germany ( as they realised that
the war was lost ), because of the fear of the russian
hordes and the bolshewism ( sp ? )....

[mogami]

Originally posted by Frank W.
i have first hand information from guderian himself.

he complained about that 44 + 45 too much tanks
going to the west, so he could barely form any counter
attack armor force on the eastern front.

some valuable tank divs were even send to rumania
and hungary for "political" reasons as hitler said. and
he wanted to protect the oil fields. but of course this
up splitting of the units was a mistake. most germans
in 44+45 wanted to defend the east and let the western
allies conquer more of germany ( as they realised that
the war was lost ), because of the fear of the russian
hordes and the bolshewism ( sp ? )....

Hi, And of course Hitler had the other idea. By fighting hard in the West and letting the East go. The Western alliance would, rather then let Eastern Europe go to the Soviets come to terms.

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by Frank W.

and: i´m now even more confused about the M9 bazookas!
ARE they now overpowered in game or not ? perhaps anyone have some RELIABLE data ( perhaps in comparison with the german gz. fausts or pz. schrecks ? )

This has been discussed up and down for quite some time...main problem is, that with the given engine it is almost impossible to simulate a Bazooka type weapon correctly.

In particular being that the decrease of accuracy after a range of 100-150m. These weapons (Bazooka and PzSchreck) were able to hit larger immobile targets reasonably good at much longer ranges (at least 300-400m) like houses and were used quite frequently in that role.
If you now give a Bazooka a range of 7 hexes, it automatically becomes more accurate on ranges of 4-6 hex then you want it to be and there's simply no way to alter that.
Also a squad weapon always gets the bonus of the squads FC value, increasing it even further.

What I did as a workaround now for the new version is: I gave AT-rockets in squad formations a range of 4 (200m), but the last hex of a max range gets a huge penalty, so leaving them with a reasonable effective range of 150m against vehicles.

Individual AT-units are much more expensive and I decided to give them the ability to go further then 200m, namely 7 hexes (350m).
As I could regulate the FC value, they do not go off on the accuracy as a Ranger squad would do...but they're still a bit too accurate over 150m...but that's what we have to live with...

On historical comparison:

M1 and M9 Bazookas:

effective range against vehicles: up to 120m
penetration depending on rocket from 100 to 125mm
the Bazooka rocket suffered from an unreliable fuze mainly because of the rocket's tip shape, causing the projectile to glance off sloped plates sometimes or delays in detonating when hitting the ground at odd angles.

M20 Bazooka:

as far as I know it never saw service in WWII, but maybe AmmoSgt knows more...

PzSchreck:

is commonly referred to as an improved design over the M1/M9 in terms of range, flight stability and penetration, mainly due to the larger rocket diameter (88mm instead of 60mm) and a better detonator.
Effective against vehicles up to 150m with a penetration of 160mm - 180mm, depending on source.
Main setback compared to the M9 can be seen in the missing optical sight as the M9 did have one.

PzFaust:

a completely different system (non-reloadable), not really comparable to the weapons above. Usually fired at ranges not greater then 50m (first model only up to 30m).
At close ranges reasonably accurate, biggest advantages being the high penetration ability of at least 200mm, ease of use and considerably good anti-personel effect due to large explosives amount/warhead.

Range of PzFsts in H2H are either 1 or 2 hex.

[AmmoSgt]

Originally posted by Panzer Leo
This has been discussed up and down for quite some time...main problem is, that with the given engine it is almost impossible to simulate a Bazooka type weapon correctly.

In particular being that the decrease of accuracy after a range of 100-150m. These weapons (Bazooka and PzSchreck) were able to hit larger immobile targets reasonably good at much longer ranges (at least 300-400m) like houses and were used quite frequently in that role.
If you now give a Bazooka a range of 7 hexes, it automatically becomes more accurate on ranges of 4-6 hex then you want it to be and there's simply no way to alter that.
Also a squad weapon always gets the bonus of the squads FC value, increasing it even further.

What I did as a workaround now for the new version is: I gave AT-rockets in squad formations a range of 4 (200m), but the last hex of a max range gets a huge penalty, so leaving them with a reasonable effective range of 150m against vehicles.

Individual AT-units are much more expensive and I decided to give them the ability to go further then 200m, namely 7 hexes (350m).
As I could regulate the FC value, they do not go off on the accuracy as a Ranger squad would do...but they're still a bit too accurate over 150m...but that's what we have to live with...

On historical comparison:

M1 and M9 Bazookas:

effective range against vehicles: up to 120m
penetration depending on rocket from 100 to 125mm
the Bazooka rocket suffered from an unreliable fuze mainly because of the rocket's tip shape, causing the projectile to glance off sloped plates sometimes or delays in detonating when hitting the ground at odd angles.

M20 Bazooka:

as far as I know it never saw service in WWII, but maybe AmmoSgt knows more...

PzSchreck:

is commonly referred to as an improved design over the M1/M9 in terms of range, flight stability and penetration, mainly due to the larger rocket diameter (88mm instead of 60mm) and a better detonator.
Effective against vehicles up to 150m with a penetration of 160mm - 180mm, depending on source.
Main setback compared to the M9 can be seen in the missing optical sight as the M9 did have one.

PzFaust:

a completely different system (non-reloadable), not really comparable to the weapons above. Usually fired at ranges not greater then 50m (first model only up to 30m).
At close ranges reasonably accurate, biggest advantages being the high penetration ability of at least 200mm, ease of use and considerably good anti-personel effect due to large explosives amount/warhead.

Range of PzFsts in H2H are either 1 or 2 hex.

I agree with much of your post Leo with a couple of exceptions , However first , the M20 issue .. I have read reports that some ( a few )made it to the ETO in the last months of the war.. nothing more firm than that.

exception 1, range and accuracy Bazooka v Panzershreck
Shreck had crude sights made from , basically, a piece of wire with two markings 100 and 200 yards .. M1A1 Bazooka wasn't much better, However the M9A1 had optical sights with range and lead caculator grid calibrated to 400 yards , giving a range estimation capability and some systematic method of ploting a "lead" on a moving vehicle. given the compareabilty of the sights I would give the M9A1 about 5 to 10 times better chance to hit past 150 meters, especially on a moving target, Both weapons fire an incredibly slow rocket aprox 100 meters per second , having some way to estimate range and lead is incredibly important past 100 meters ( 15 MPH / 25 KPH is about 25 feet/ 8 meters per second, or about a tank lenght in the time of flight to 100 meter in target distance)
As Far as the PanzerFaust is concerned , the sights are useless in the underarm firing position , but still very crude in the over the sholder firing position and I agree with the 1-2 hex range MAX

exception 2 Warheads .. true early M6A1 ( and Panzershreck) ammo had a spitzer shaped warhead with some problems if it hit at too great an angle on a sloped surface ( this is a in game calculation for the HEAT ammo already) , However the M6A3 had a rounded shaped warhead to reduce this problem.

Exception 3, Anti- Personel use of Anti Tank Ammo, due to the nature of HEAT Ammo you get very little fragentation, and blast alone in a poor casulity producer ( Blast alone from a 500 pound bomb produces lethal over pressure to only about 25 feet/ 8 meters, This is why entrenchments and bunkers work so well) .. You need a fragmentation effect to reliably produce casulties. The Bazooka had an Anti personel HE round that was designed to produce casulities ( weight of charge was around half a pound/ 250 grams or about 3 times the explosive weight of a handgrenade) The bazooka also had a WP round for Smoke/Incenderary/ Anti- Personnel. Fuzing is also different. To illustrate what I mean , The M2A3 engineering shape charge ( of which I have personally shot a couple hundred ) weights 15 pounds with a 10 pound HE charge using a fiberboard case and a glass cone gives off NO frags { rocks and gravel may be a problem} and given ear and eye and direct blast protection you can be fairly close with no problems) ( Similar to the shaped charges used by the Germans on Eban Emmauel) . So IF you must give a HEAT Weapons a Anti Personnel capability concider how HEAT is handled V. infantry from other weapons like Tank main Gun ect. There is a real reason no other HEAT round in the game is given a credible Anti- Personnel effect.

An Additonal point the I think is critical, given the short engagement range for these weapons , spotting. The Shreck had a MUCH largers signature than the Bazooka or the Faust, much more rear blast and front flash to the point that early versions required protective clothing and later a large front shield , both features making it much easier to spot .

No Question the German stuff had a higher Armor Pen and were more lethal against armor if they hit, but you have to give a real edge to the M9 in the accuracy category , especially beyond 100 meters/yards or on moving targets.
One other point that you may find arguementative , Training, particularly in the case of the Faust, as I understand the situation, most of your Faust shooters fired their first round in combat.

[Belisarius]

Does anyone have any combat statistics about 'Zooks and PzFausts/Schrecks??

So much for theoretical numbers and soldier training....that have these and these sights... that one has such and such warhead...

But a kill is a kill first when the target is dead. So...can anyone dig up some kind of combat record of these weapons?

[Voriax]

Ammo, could yuu give some details about that HE bazooka round? Could it be that it was for M20 only or post-war?
The reason I'm asking this is that 'Catalogue of standard ordnance items, 1944 second edition' does not know said munition. Only 3 types of HEAt and one WP

Voriax

[AmmoSgt]

The M6A1 and M6A3 should be pure HEAT The WP is the M2? if I remember correctly ( I haven't had the FM in my hand for quite a while ) I think if you check on that 3rd HEAT Round it has a prefragmented casing around the charge and about the same pen as the A1 version. The rifle grenade with the same basic head is the M9 I think, Maybe the M7A1.. I honestly don't remember the designation for sure, I may have to order the FM ... Might try to change the class on the Bazooka to Napalm and see if it just effects the graphics on the HE/WP but not on the HEAT ..
I am thinking maybe if we make a WP only bazooka and make it a second weapon in the Bazooka team folks can keep it turned off under normal conditions and turn off the Heat only first bazooka with no anti personal rating .. sorta like having to preselect what round you have on hand for op fire .. and be able to switch back and forth as needed. I dunno, might be problems with that
But if folks decide to try and fire both at once we would just cut the rate of fire down to 5 or something maybe Infantry Flame instead of napalm ..I dunno yet still playing with ideas .

[Voriax]

Ammo, according to that manual M6A1 and M6A2 are the same, except A2 is a field modification that has a contact ring which is removed in the A1.
M6A3 on the other hand has that roundnosed warhed. No mention of any fragmentation ring whatsoever. And then the M10 WP rocket.

Btw this manual is available in pdf form from http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/ ... II19391945
if you want to d/l one for your own use.

Voriax

[Vathailos]

First the vote. I'd love to see WP rounds introduced as AP/Smoke ammo for the US tanks.

Now, an observation. I hear a lot of complaints about the accuracy/power of aircraft (particularly rocket firing planes). Also lamented is the lackluster performance of AAA. I think those complaining about ineffective air defense could be failing to try it with elite crews.

In long campaigns, some folks don't add AA to their core. I've played long WWII campaigns again and again (and many times as Germany) and know the shift of air power all too well, and the havoc it can wreak in 44-45. I’ve started to make even my small core contain at least 8 AA assets, that should be “elite” by that point. Typically the 4 AT 88’s I purchase at the start are converted to 88AA’s and I’ve typically got 4 mobile quads also (either wirble or mobel). They do surprisingly well against allied air when properly placed. Give it a try.

Has anyone else experienced similar successes with AA assets? How about opposite experiences? What say you about “elite” AA units against an enemy’s direct-attack aircraft support?

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by Belisarius
Does anyone have any combat statistics about 'Zooks and PzFausts/Schrecks??

So much for theoretical numbers and soldier training....that have these and these sights... that one has such and such warhead...

But a kill is a kill first when the target is dead. So...can anyone dig up some kind of combat record of these weapons?

I primarely based my arguments on comments and essays made by US military personel in early '45, as it was sent to Eisenhower by General White, Commander of the 2nd armored after making a field evaluation of US equipement in comparison to German.

On the aspect of infantry AT-weapons:

Bazooka: The German bazooka is definitely superior, with greater penetrating effect and concussion. It is more accurate and has a greater effective range. The Panzerfaust is an effective and simple weapon to operate. It is highly effective against armor and also against personnel. We have equipped our infantry and reconnaissance units with captured German bazookas and they have great confidence in them. Since we habitually carry them on vehicles, their greater weight than the U.S. type is not a factor.

General White is basing this statement on tests like this one:

Bazookas - In training tests using the regular U.S. bazookas and the German "81-mm" bazooka the following results were obtained:

Firing at a Mark V tank from ranges of eighty to two hundred yards both side and front armor were penetrated each time the tank was hit. Approximately twelve rounds were fired. In each case where the target was missed, the projectile detonated upon hitting the ground. Firing at the same target at a range of eighty yards with the U.S. bazooka, out of ten hits on the side armor, only three penetrations were obtained. At two hundred yards no penetrations were scored. In cases where the target was missed, the projectile generally did not detonate upon hitting the ground. Up to ranges of two hundred yards, the German weapons was more accurate, possessing a flatter trajectory than ours. Tests indicate the German bazooka is far superior to ours.

-Lt. Col. L. W. Correll, Commanding 17th Armored Engineer Battalion



Yep, I noticed the typo "81mm" also


Bazooka. Well, we had the first one. And that is about all that can be said for it. The German bazooka makes ours look sick, not only in effect but in accuracy.

-Lt Coulter Montgomery


The full comments on all kinds of equipement can be read here:

http://www.merriam-press.com/mono_200/m_240_ex.htm

http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~eswmn/IT.html

A very interesting aspect: the 90mm TDs of the 2nd armored haven't seen any HVAP ammo, the 76mm only rarely...



This kind of leads me to the following assumptions (others also made before):

- the Bazooka rocket tumbles (explaining the decreasing penetration effect over range and its inaccuracy)
- has a bad ignition system (causing it sometimes to glance off without detonating)

The above would make an optical sight a nice feature, but it does not really help a lot, as the poor rocket negates the positive effect.

On the PzFaust:

When Germans fired more PzFausts against personel then against tanks (just a short look on how many were used and how many tanks there actually were driving around) and the US troops say it was highly effective in that role and used by them also, AmmoSgts theory on HEAT rounds does not really hit the nail on the head (I fired HEAT rounds from a Panzerfaust 44 myself and I can say that personel in close range without proper protection will take casualties by flying stones, dirt, cap shrapnel and blast effect).
The PzFausts in H2H are by no means mass killers - they make a casualty here and there and that should be pretty realsitic.
The explosives of a PzFaust was around 800g - 10 times of a handgrenade...enough to have at least some noteworthy effect.