Air-to-surface rockets in SPWAW

SPWaW is a tactical squad-level World War II game on single platoon or up to an entire battalion through Europe and the Pacific (1939 to 1945).

Moderator: MOD_SPWaW

User avatar
Belisarius
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Belisarius »

Leo,

Yeah, I've been reading those statements too. (can't recall when exactly but it wasn't too long ago) It's interesting to see the statement that White says they rather took the Panzerfausts over the bazookas if they could.

I think your modifications sound fairly reasonable, and will hopefully be balanced enough but gameplay will tell. ;) Personally I'm more concerned about the 'zookas, as they are killers....it's OK with me, but since every Joe down to the company cook has one, they can be a nuisance.
Image
Got StuG?
Akmatov
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA

Thanks werderwayne

Post by Akmatov »

for the address. As you say, a very serious group.
Frank W.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Contact:

Post by Frank W. »

Originally posted by Panzer Leo
I
Bazooka: The German bazooka is definitely superior, with greater penetrating effect and concussion. It is more accurate and has a greater effective range.


mhhh.. in the game the US weapons are better.

perhaps an attempt to help the US somewhat more
against the cats ?

mhh... in the case of "balancing the game" despite realistic
values perhaps someone should look at the brits. the
poor tommys have no zooks only the weak piats, their
inf squads are weaker than the US ones. their tanks
are average at best ( esp. in firing after moving ! in this
special case the US ones seem to be the best - M18 for
example ).
AmmoSgt
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Redstone Arsenal Al

Post by AmmoSgt »

Did a quick Search on Google using "Combat History Bazooka" here are some interesting finds in the first 10 hits ...

http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html

http://www.100thww2.org/support/77657mm.html

http://www.100thww2.org/support/776.html

And as far as training goes ... 1200 rounds fired in intensive 3 day training session ...( Boy, I would have loved to be there for that ) http://www.coulthart.com/134/chapter_10.htm

There are a lot of these combat histories on the web.. some are pretty spotty, some reveal some interesting details and incredible stories of Bravery and the vargarities of Combat.. While I trying to find some links to post on Bazooka performance I ran across ...
http://www.techwarrior.cx/~roliver/8th/8th-chapter6.htm
this one is well worth reading just for general info ..

Note the 3000 yard kill in the History of the 100th and the Jagtiger. Also note how much time these guys spent firing as Artillery.
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
AmmoSgt
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Redstone Arsenal Al

Post by AmmoSgt »

Originally posted by Frank W.
mhhh.. in the game the US weapons are better.

perhaps an attempt to help the US somewhat more
against the cats ?

mhh... in the case of "balancing the game" despite realistic
values perhaps someone should look at the brits. the
poor tommys have no zooks only the weak piats, their
inf squads are weaker than the US ones. their tanks
are average at best ( esp. in firing after moving ! in this
special case the US ones seem to be the best - M18 for
example ).


Leo's OPINION as to better is I think a minority view.. depends on what you mean by better.. Better Pen for sure.. but more accurate .. I don't see how crude wire sights would be better than optics with a range estimation reticle like i discussed above, Nobody else in the world conciders shooting anything in what is esentially Protective gear and mask ( for the early shrecks ) more accurate than firing without the mask et al . Firing from behind a little window in a shield is not much better , some but not much. Everybody has opinions . ..They are different but , better depends on the situation.. German Ammo was what ? about 6 lbs.. US Ammo about 2 Lbs ..who carries more ammo? . Even the Germans admit that the size and weight of the Shreck created problems on returning to cover or leaving the area after firing. If we are going to start giving an anti infantry value to Shreck rounds .. however small .. then Main Gun and Howitzer HEAT should be looked at. HEAT is hard coded so you cannot engage infantry with it as I understand the situation. The US Bazooka had at least the WP round for anti-personnel that everybody agrees upon and as soon as I can find the M designation of the HE Frag round we can all agree upon that. The German bazooka does NOT in fact have a designed Anti personnel round.
In all Honesty, properly rated ( HEAT is not a frag round, unless it has been sleeved , and few were sleeved to be DP ammo) to a lower HE Kill than the same proper HE round I have no problem with HEAT being able to engage infantry and have some effect.. However there is nothing special about the Shreck Ammo that would make it an exception in the game over, say , 25 lber or 105 HEAT, in fact if anything, the Shreck round is much lighter with much less HE in it than say a British 88mm/ 25 lber HEAT Round, even 75mm HEAT is heavier and has more HE than a Shreck round. So if you want that addressed within the bounds of the game I support it, To just make up a HE round for the Shreck because you need it to offset the HE/WP ammo for the bazooka is just more Fantasy.. Now, I support Leo doing whatever Leo wants with H2H Leo's Game .. he did the work, but as far as SPWAW is concerned, if the issue is HEAT as anti-personnel then all HEAT should be addresses and a proper WP round for the bazooka needs to be figured out . HEAT can indeed produce casulities , so can fireworks, The Question is , is the ammo DESIGNED to reliably produce casulites against a squad sized target dispersed over terrain? or Did shooting at HARDPOINT Fortifications create the ocasional casulitiy due to the terrain providing some contribtion to substitute for the lack of fragmentation. The BLAST alone is a poor casulity maker. I think the traditional case that HEAT is a Hard Point target weapon has kept it from being seriously concidered as a casulity producer against Infantry. The Shreck and the Faust were made as Anti Tanks weapons , the Bazooka was made as a portable Weapon for the Infantry to engage a variety of targets and ammunition to support that concept was designed and issued to that purpose. Sorta like the US 57 mm V the Brit 6 lber, same basic gun .. but for some reason beyond my understanding .. the Brits were very reluctant to provide otherwise perfectly good guns with HE. Heck , with the 6lber .. instead of just using US Ammo they rebored the whole barrel to 75mm to make a HE weapon out of it .. go figure.
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
Vathailos
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 11:29 pm
Location: In a van, down by the river.

Just a thought based on more modern AT weapons experience.

Post by Vathailos »

Ammo SGT, I’ve had the opportunity to fire both LAWs and AT-4s out of the US arsenal, and I thought I’d share some information about sights. My experience includes firing both types at stationary as well as moving targets at ranges from 75m (LAW only) to about 200m (where the LAW is, based on my experience, utterly useless, as opposed to mostly useless ;)).

The LAW has sights with staggered range ticks as well as a “lead” guide for moving targets built into “pop-up” plastic sights. Understandable that they’re cheap, as almost all US light and medium-AT infantry weapons are one-shot disposable units. For the era in which they were produced, the sights are adequate. The sights on the AT-4 are more advanced plastic pop-ups, but not really a great improvement in increasing accuracy.

What made the difference for me was the charge behind the projectile, and it’s ability to travel toward that aim point and strike the target effectively. The LAW is horrible in this regard. Despite having a range estimation gauge on the site, the rocket itself has to be lobbed at targets. It’s arc is not so pronounced as to make it an effective weapon for covering dead-space in most instances (like an MK-19 or M203, or older M49), but pronounced enough to make firing one much more an art than a science. The only way to become efficient in engaging targets with such a weapon IMO is practice with “Kentucky windage”.

The AT-4 on the other hand has sights that I didn’t find to be a great improvement over the LAW, but I was able to hit targets reliably at much larger distances. On a light note, during training I hit a hulk at almost 200m by banking the round off sand about 20m in front of the target. The round itself didn’t detonate until it hit the target, tearing up the roadwheels. Enter the "Magic B.B."

Much text to simply point out that more accurate sites in this case, when not combined with an effective projectile, were not of much use. I'm not familiar with the bazooka or the panzerfaust/shreck. But sights are a portion of the "accuracy" picture. Projectile speed and stabilization methods are other equally important aspects. Which I think you gather.

EDITED for those who prefer complete, intact thoughts
AmmoSgt
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Redstone Arsenal Al

Post by AmmoSgt »

Vath yeah .. I agree .. but what you are saying applies to both the Bazooka and the Shreck, as both were SLOW aprox 300 feet per second ( 100 meters per second). What I am saying is given equal velocity and therefore equal arc or lobbing .. the one with the better sights , especially with range estimation reticle and a lead scale is going to have the superior accuracy. especially beyond 100 yards/meters. Also the some 40 rounds per man that the US Army gave Troops in training on the Bazooka could only help in the accuracy department. Just look at any Range recovery report on US Training Ranges .. the Number 1 Item is invariably the Bazooka , there must have been an ungoddly number of rounds fired in training. The whole Production of M6A1 rounds was superceeded in Jan 1644 by the higher pen M6A3 and then they were expended in training ( aside from the relatively few used in North Africa and the Med).
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
Akmatov
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA

Post by Akmatov »

Basically, if you want to hit anything with a LAW, intentionally, you need to let it get into the traditional "whites of their eyes" range, i.e. if you can spit on it, you can probably hit it. NOT a method I would prefer for myself.
Panzer Leo
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig/Germany

Post by Panzer Leo »

Originally posted by AmmoSgt
Leo's OPINION as to better is I think a minority view..


That's true, a real minority: the guys that actually fired both weapons in real life... :D

How does it come, Ammo, that you always give me the feeling you don't read my posts and refer to arguments I made, but rather keep on posting all kinds of stuff you can find, even if it's only slightly touching what we're talking about...

Also you almost completely ignored what I wanted to say.
But rather then grumbling, I looked at your links and the result is:

2 of your five links didn't contain the word "Bazooka"
1 Link speaks of US troops immediately using captured German AT-rockets
1 Has nothing really to say about Bazookas, but has a huge amount of text

1 is an actual test report of a Bazooka:

The results and conclusions when looking at it:

16 rounds fired, all but one aimed at the flank or rear of a Panther, range unknown.

5 hits in the suspension, all are questionable in causing immediate immobilization

2 turret penetrations

2 rear hull penetrations

1 side hull penetration

6 completely ineffective hits

No misses reported (indicating range was not too great).

A note by the officer reporting:
- hits on the frontal armor are unlikely to penetrate due to ricochet


So under perfect training conditions with aiming at the weaker parts of the Panther, not even a third of the hits was able to put it out of action...and now imagine combat situations :eek:

So if this shall by any means be a test to promote the capability of the Bazooka, I can't see how that should work in a favourable way for it.


Here again are my assumptions on weaknesses of the Bazooka:

- the rocket tends to tumble, causing it's penetration ability and accuracy to drop over range

- the ignition system is not reliable, causing ricochets and late detonations

Both technical setbacks cause the weapon to stay below a performence it could have had with optical sights and in terms of lethality to heavier tanks.
Image

Mir nach, ich folge euch !
AmmoSgt
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Redstone Arsenal Al

Post by AmmoSgt »

Leo I am not sure what issues of yours I am not addressing .. I am trying to address them all, as well as everybody elses. It iis very frustrating not having access to the US Army Ordnance Corp History which has the details of what and when stuff was introduced and the performance records, as well as not having ready access to Army FM's anymore. I am doing my Honest best to remember what I have read from these sources, and from what I know from personel experience ( such as firing while in protective gear and the usefullness of rangefinding sights ).
The Bazooka was a popular weapon with the troops and the Troops had a lot of confidence in it . Yes the "test Tank Diagram " talks about side and rear hits, thats because some folks are more concerned with what does work and how to best use a weapon, than to just focus on what doesn't work and try and just dismiss a weapon because it has limits. Every weapon has limits and every weapon has good points.
I don't know where you are getting that the bazooka round tumbled and had Fuzing Problems ( ignition you call it ) ..HEAT ammo regardless of nationality or time period has critical limits to proper fuzing , jet formation and sucsessful penetration, this is recognized and is an "in the game" calculation for all HEAT ammo. This has been exploited by almost all Armies since HEAT was introduced, from track skirts to spaced armor to reactive cells, and HEAT ammo has evolved to overcome these countermeasures. HEAT ammo operates on the Monroe effect, it forms a plasma jet that is focused forward and uses about 80% of the blast energy in a directional plasm jet of molten material from the "cone" various penetrative effects can be achieved by varying "cone " material and "cone " angle, but invariably the blast going to the sides and rear is much reduced and special arrangements in the ammo itself is required to make a HEAT round an effective anti personnel weapon in it's own right. On troops inside a closed space the plasma jet can be devestating (closed modern APC's, pillboxes , inside tanks ..ect) but in the open you have two problems .. first the ground itself is usually at to much of an angle for relaible fuze operation and regular earth, brush, wood , and even small stones do not make good shrapnel in the case of a Heat round except to the front of the round. Buildings , especially stone/concrete do make good shrapnel and provide a perdendicular and hard enough surface for imediate detonation for proper jet formation.
Yes, the US used Captured German Equipment.. we even had an Ordance Company in WW2 that was formed to assess and supply captured German 88mm ammo to 2 US Arty Bn's that were formed to utilize the large numbers of German 88's we captured as we overran Europe. In the article that mentioned the US troops picking up the German Fausts it also mentioned they picked up German Rifles as well, since they lost theirs in a river crossing. It does not imply either way a preference for German Rifles or US Rifles , just a preference to being armed over unarmed. It also reflects a rather high order of Bravery and Morale in persisting in accomplishing the mission under very difficuult conditions and after high losses to men and equipment IMHO. The article never said they prefered the Faust and discarded the bazooka , just that they captured them and put them to use. I am sure Germans would do the same with captured US Bazookas .. in fact that is one of the theories behind how the Germans got Bazooka technology and the Idea to make the Shreck. The Faust was an original German weapon and I'll give them credit for that.
The Bazooka in the game is about right as it now stands , given the limitation of the accuracy code , and I find your solution to that a good one. I think the Shreck is being over rated , especially in the Antipersonnel role as it attemps to be a Bazooka instead of a dedicated Anti-tank weapon. It is definately more useful with a HE capability , would have been nice in real life , but the ammo simply didn't exist. I agree many Shrecks and Fausts were fired in other than an anti tank role , but their effectiveness was very limited due to lack of proper anti-personnel ammo. There can be no doubt as to the effectiveness of the WP round from the bazooka in an anti-personnel/ anti material role, burning WP showering a gun position will put that gun out of commision and cause the crew to evacuate the area until the WP and ammo burn out . WP wounds are very painful and very hard to treat since the WP fragments continue to burn inside the skin at 2700C for about a minute more or less.. they are usually not outright fatal , but usually do result in death and are usually inmediately incapacitaing. Until I can prove the existence of the HE Frag round I'll leave the Bazooka with AT HEAT and WP for AP( anti-personnel) /smoke even without the smoke feature.
The German had perfectly good rifle grenades ( as did the US for anti- personnel work , IMHO given the relative effectiveness of a proper anti-personnel HE rifle grenade and the limited number of Shreck rounds a team can carry and the unusually large proportion of tanks that the game structure usually causes , it is a mystery why you would even want to take away AT ammo from a shreck and replace it with a HE type round unless you have the Shreck teams carrying 90 pounds or ammo and weapon already.
Basic load for a two man Bazooka team was only 12 rounds , I can't see a Shreck team having more than 6 due to the increased weight of the larger Shreck round.
I do not want to deny the German player anything they actually had or even anything they think they need to have a even chance of winning in the game .. I don't really care how the German weapons are represented in the game so long as the US weapons get represented correctly with the correct ammo type and performance. Bazookas reliably knocked out German Tanks .. if not always from the front.. the tactics and deployment are the players responsability. I think it is a wrong thing to beef up anybody's weapons so that players can get "best performance" without having to use tactics and placement to achieve them. I also happen to think that leaving whole categories of ammo out of the game is not right, and I happen to think that if you want HEAT to have a anti-personnel effect in the game, it is better to address how HEAT is handled as a whole instead of making a work around for just one type of HEAT round. I happen to support HEAT having a very limited effect against anti personnel / anti material targets if all HEAT has it. Given the limited numbers or rounds both sides carried and the indiscriminate nature of opfire once you click "yes" I would rather my antitank teams NOT have the HE or if they did at least get some smoke masking effect from a WP type round, certainly fring and revealing position with a round of very limited effectiveness and not smoke capable is not the best solutuiion in the enevitable tank heavy enviroment of SPWAW.
If I missed any of your concerns , please repost them, or point them out. And Please remember I am addressing SPWAW and making no comment whatsoever on how you handle items in your version of H2H ( other than I think you have a workable solution to the game accuracy coding problems).
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
Vathailos
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 11:29 pm
Location: In a van, down by the river.

Off topic

Post by Vathailos »

Akmatov,

I was far from impressed with the LAW, and you're on-target with "effective employment" advice.

One system I was very impressed with was the old RPG 7. It has (IIRC) penetration equal to or greater than the then standard US-issue MAW, the "Dragon". The Dragon was wire-guided, bulky (2-man crew, POS night sight) and you had to sit and wait while your round tracked to the target with a nice smoke signature behind you telling your target who just engaged it.

The RPG was comparatively light (the Chinese knock-offs were lighter than the Soviet-made ones), could fire multiple times (with differing types of rounds) and was MUCH more accurate (IMO) than even the AT-4. It'd be my weapon of choice were I in the "dumb-fire anti-tank" business. Were I still playing today and had my druthers, I'd actually take the Javelin. ;) Nasty little top-down bugger.
Panzer Leo
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig/Germany

Post by Panzer Leo »

Originally posted by AmmoSgt
Leo I am not sure what issues of yours I am not addressing .. I am trying to address them all, as well as everybody elses. It iis very frustrating not having access to the US Army Ordnance Corp History which has the details of what and when stuff was introduced and the performance records, as well as not having ready access to Army FM's anymore. I am doing my Honest best to remember what I have read from these sources, and from what I know from personel experience ( such as firing while in protective gear and the usefullness of rangefinding sights ).
The Bazooka was a popular weapon with the troops and the Troops had a lot of confidence in it . Yes the "test Tank Diagram " talks about side and rear hits, thats because some folks are more concerned with what does work and how to best use a weapon, than to just focus on what doesn't work and try and just dismiss a weapon because it has limits. Every weapon has limits and every weapon has good points.
I don't know where you are getting that the bazooka round tumbled and had Fuzing Problems ( ignition you call it ) ..HEAT ammo regardless of nationality or time period has critical limits to proper fuzing , jet formation and sucsessful penetration, this is recognized and is an "in the game" calculation for all HEAT ammo. This has been exploited by almost all Armies since HEAT was introduced, from track skirts to spaced armor to reactive cells, and HEAT ammo has evolved to overcome these countermeasures. HEAT ammo operates on the Monroe effect, it forms a plasma jet that is focused forward and uses about 80% of the blast energy in a directional plasm jet of molten material from the "cone" various penetrative effects can be achieved by varying "cone " material and "cone " angle, but invariably the blast going to the sides and rear is much reduced and special arrangements in the ammo itself is required to make a HEAT round an effective anti personnel weapon in it's own right. On troops inside a closed space the plasma jet can be devestating (closed modern APC's, pillboxes , inside tanks ..ect) but in the open you have two problems .. first the ground itself is usually at to much of an angle for relaible fuze operation and regular earth, brush, wood , and even small stones do not make good shrapnel in the case of a Heat round except to the front of the round. Buildings , especially stone/concrete do make good shrapnel and provide a perdendicular and hard enough surface for imediate detonation for proper jet formation.
Yes, the US used Captured German Equipment.. we even had an Ordance Company in WW2 that was formed to assess and supply captured German 88mm ammo to 2 US Arty Bn's that were formed to utilize the large numbers of German 88's we captured as we overran Europe. In the article that mentioned the US troops picking up the German Fausts it also mentioned they picked up German Rifles as well, since they lost theirs in a river crossing. It does not imply either way a preference for German Rifles or US Rifles , just a preference to being armed over unarmed. It also reflects a rather high order of Bravery and Morale in persisting in accomplishing the mission under very difficuult conditions and after high losses to men and equipment IMHO. The article never said they prefered the Faust and discarded the bazooka , just that they captured them and put them to use. I am sure Germans would do the same with captured US Bazookas .. in fact that is one of the theories behind how the Germans got Bazooka technology and the Idea to make the Shreck. The Faust was an original German weapon and I'll give them credit for that.
The Bazooka in the game is about right as it now stands , given the limitation of the accuracy code , and I find your solution to that a good one. I think the Shreck is being over rated , especially in the Antipersonnel role as it attemps to be a Bazooka instead of a dedicated Anti-tank weapon. It is definately more useful with a HE capability , would have been nice in real life , but the ammo simply didn't exist. I agree many Shrecks and Fausts were fired in other than an anti tank role , but their effectiveness was very limited due to lack of proper anti-personnel ammo. There can be no doubt as to the effectiveness of the WP round from the bazooka in an anti-personnel/ anti material role, burning WP showering a gun position will put that gun out of commision and cause the crew to evacuate the area until the WP and ammo burn out . WP wounds are very painful and very hard to treat since the WP fragments continue to burn inside the skin at 2700C for about a minute more or less.. they are usually not outright fatal , but usually do result in death and are usually inmediately incapacitaing. Until I can prove the existence of the HE Frag round I'll leave the Bazooka with AT HEAT and WP for AP( anti-personnel) /smoke even without the smoke feature.
The German had perfectly good rifle grenades ( as did the US for anti- personnel work , IMHO given the relative effectiveness of a proper anti-personnel HE rifle grenade and the limited number of Shreck rounds a team can carry and the unusually large proportion of tanks that the game structure usually causes , it is a mystery why you would even want to take away AT ammo from a shreck and replace it with a HE type round unless you have the Shreck teams carrying 90 pounds or ammo and weapon already.
Basic load for a two man Bazooka team was only 12 rounds , I can't see a Shreck team having more than 6 due to the increased weight of the larger Shreck round.
I do not want to deny the German player anything they actually had or even anything they think they need to have a even chance of winning in the game .. I don't really care how the German weapons are represented in the game so long as the US weapons get represented correctly with the correct ammo type and performance. Bazookas reliably knocked out German Tanks .. if not always from the front.. the tactics and deployment are the players responsability. I think it is a wrong thing to beef up anybody's weapons so that players can get "best performance" without having to use tactics and placement to achieve them. I also happen to think that leaving whole categories of ammo out of the game is not right, and I happen to think that if you want HEAT to have a anti-personnel effect in the game, it is better to address how HEAT is handled as a whole instead of making a work around for just one type of HEAT round. I happen to support HEAT having a very limited effect against anti personnel / anti material targets if all HEAT has it. Given the limited numbers or rounds both sides carried and the indiscriminate nature of opfire once you click "yes" I would rather my antitank teams NOT have the HE or if they did at least get some smoke masking effect from a WP type round, certainly fring and revealing position with a round of very limited effectiveness and not smoke capable is not the best solutuiion in the enevitable tank heavy enviroment of SPWAW.
If I missed any of your concerns , please repost them, or point them out. And Please remember I am addressing SPWAW and making no comment whatsoever on how you handle items in your version of H2H ( other than I think you have a workable solution to the game accuracy coding problems).


Three points mainly:

1. I simply do not believe that HEAT rounds were so useless against personel as you say. Reason is the statement of US personel as I listed before, that credits PzSchrecks and Bazookas a good effect in this regard. Note I'm by no means supporting any unrealistic masskilling with these weapons, but a casualty here and there is the least one can expect. I know exactly how these rounds work, I fired them myself and I did a lot of research on their use on personel.
The way I modeled them, I would say it is kind of a compromise. They are underrated in lethality in hous to house fighting and overrated on open ground...but the system cannot support more then I did.
BTW, I think it will take some more time (we discussed this topic a year ago or so and you started looking for a Bazooka HE round last time already with no result), till you realize, that the second most used US Bazooka round against personel was the HEAT round and not an almost or even non-existing special HE type.
And you will also find out, that the US troops were quite pleased with the HEAT rounds effect against other targets than tanks or pillboxes.

2. I find it very disappointing to not have WP modeled in SPWAW, but I think we can't do anything about it...I have no idea how to work around the engine to make it work like it did in history...maybe you'll find something...BUT I found a way to model the anti-personel effect of PzSchrecks and PzFausts. I was able to take a few rounds from the AP ammo, make them HE and behave like HEAT when they hit armor. The result is that you CAN fire a PzSchreck at soft targets (I almost never saw more then one casualty), but you always fire a round you also could use against tanks...and with reduced ammo on you got around 5 shots all in all for a PzSchreck...so what's wrong with that ?
If I cannot model one weapons features, that is really disappointing, but it is by no means a reason for me, to keep a second weapon down, although I actually can model it very close to historical behaviour.

3. I know you have terrible problems to change your impression the PzSchreck was the better weapon in terms of range and accuracy. I thought the same (mainly supported by it's behaviour in SPWAW, I have to admit), before I did a lot of research on that topic. I have no interest in pushing any German or other nations weapons beyond realism, I just want to know the truth...I brought up statements of US army personel that actually tested both weapons...the result looks very clear to me...why not to you ?
I think I found an explanation for the Bazooka's strange behaviour (loosing penetration ability over range) and why almost any source gives it 120m effective range and the PzSchreck 150m (nothing dramatic...but still a bit better) against tanks.
What is wrong in my research that makes you think the opposite ?
Image

Mir nach, ich folge euch !
werderwayne
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 12:42 am

Re: Thanks werderwayne

Post by werderwayne »

Originally posted by Akmatov
for the address. As you say, a very serious group.


Yeah, not exactly a barrel of laughs! :D

-WW
Frank W.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Contact:

Post by Frank W. »

okay, here is the quote from general white to eisenhowers request for the opinion of fighting troops in regard of the US equipment. that was the opinion on the bazooka:

" 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"

so, that should say it.

i´m out of the discussion therefore :D

edit: let me say something out of personal experience perhaps:

i´m quite shure that effective ranges of more then 2 - 3 hexes of any bazooka or. pz.faust/schreck are too high because we made some training in the early 90ties w/ panzerfausts in the bundeswehr. though i was in the air force we got infantry training. the weapon we had was definitly NOT the more modern panzerfaust 3 but an older modell that exact name i don´t know. from my experience it´s very optimistic to hit moving targets on distances on 100-150m or so. i´m not a sharpshooter of course perhaps some very good trained troops can accomplish more with these kind of stuff.
User avatar
Belisarius
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Belisarius »

Hmmm.... when it comes to accuracy and efficiency, mentioning PzFausts and PzSchrecks in the same sentence should be avoided, IMO. :cool:

A Panzerschreck is a very good weapon.

A Panzerfaust is a discardable, cheapo weapon.

PzSchrecks should be compared to Bazookas. Panzerfausts are something completely different.
Image
Got StuG?
Panzer Leo
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig/Germany

Post by Panzer Leo »

Originally posted by Belisarius
Hmmm.... when it comes to accuracy and efficiency, mentioning PzFausts and PzSchrecks in the same sentence should be avoided, IMO. :cool:

A Panzerschreck is a very good weapon.

A Panzerfaust is a discardable, cheapo weapon.

PzSchrecks should be compared to Bazookas. Panzerfausts are something completely different.


That's right and General White distinguished between the two in his report.

Frank is now refferring to the Panzerfaust 44 (or leichte Panzerfaust), a design of the early Bundeswehr, closer to Panzerschreck, actually.
The modern Panzerfausts are reloadable and the 44 type is somewhat comparable to the RPG-7, making them both based on the Panzerfaust 150, that came too late for WWII and that used a completely different system then the wartime models 30/60/100.

So it's tough to not mix up German Panzerfaust designations of war- and post wartime. :D
Image

Mir nach, ich folge euch !
User avatar
Belisarius
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Belisarius »

Originally posted by Panzer Leo
So it's tough to not mix up German Panzerfaust designations of war- and post wartime. :D


Rooight. :D

It didn't cross my mind that modern AT weapons are called Panzerfausts, too, even if I think I knew it...:rolleyes:

Thanx for the heads-up! My post was also a nudge to AmmoSgt, who seems to mix up 'fausts and 'schrecks from time to time. But I believe that's only in writing, not in mind.
Image
Got StuG?
Voriax
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sat May 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Finland

Post by Voriax »

Ammo, though this might interest you...and perhaps also others.

While it's likely that PzSchreck was inspired by Bazooka the recoilless gun principle wasn't totally unknown to Germans. During Winter War two 76mm recoilless cannons were captured during Raate road battles. These were Dynamo-Reactive cannons designed by L.V.Kurchevsky. He designed several models, including aircraft weapons..however as at least some, if not all of them fired a 'counterweight' behind them when the gun was fired they were kinda dangerous also towards own troops :) Also as the recoild wasn't always eliminated they tended to damage the aircrafts where they were installed...and eventually the project was cancelled, designer was arrested and probably ended up in some Gulag.

In any case, one of these captured cannons was given to Germans, I'd assume they did study it.

Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
User avatar
Belisarius
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Belisarius »

Voriax, how about the German 105mm RCL? Does that work on the same principle, or is it some other kind of recoil-less mechanism involved?
Image
Got StuG?
Voriax
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sat May 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Finland

Post by Voriax »

Belisarius, did some digging and found something about 75mm and 105mm LG40 recoilles guns. Apparently the research started from a 'throw-back weight' principle but Rheinmetall figured a high-speed jet of gas through a nozzle in gun breech will do the trick. So, in a way it was bit similar to Bazookas and Schrecks.

And Germans also had 80mm and 100mm recoilless guns..they called them 'Panzerabwehrwerfer's. Apparently they had some sort of a system where the pressure was slowly released into barrel thus reducing recoil and allowing for lighter carriage/gun which could be easily paradropped. not really recoilless but low-recoil.


Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
Post Reply

Return to “Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns”