Matrix Games Forums

The ESTAB has the range on the Panzerfaust as min 10, eff 100 and max 100.
If I remember right, the Panzerfaust came in 3 models 40, 60, and 100.
Wasn't the usual engagement range around 50 even for the 100? I thought I remember reading that the weapon was very innacurate past 50m.
I'm not sure how the game uses the effective range, but I assumed that was the range where the unit was most likely to use the weapon. If that is the case, shouldn't the effective range be 50?

ORIGINAL: Arimus

The ESTAB has the range on the Panzerfaust as min 10, eff 100 and max 100.
If I remember right, the Panzerfaust came in 3 models 40, 60, and 100.
Wasn't the usual engagement range around 50 even for the 100? I thought I remember reading that the weapon was very innacurate past 50m.
I'm not sure how the game uses the effective range, but I assumed that was the range where the unit was most likely to use the weapon. If that is the case, shouldn't the effective range be 50?

I had the same thoughts some time ago and "tweaked" max effective range to below 100m, by setting accuracy to below 0.3 (the "effective" threshold I think). This way I tried to conserve Pzfaust usage to the shorter ranges (<=50m). For the same reason I also removed the Aper data, so the Fausts wouldn´t be wasted too much as poor mans artillery. Couldn´t finish my test runs for serious time constraints and real life matters though. At least I think I noticed some better Faust handling at short ranges with according more "kills".

I didn't notice the .3 threshold, I'll try that, Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Arimus

The ESTAB has the range on the Panzerfaust as min 10, eff 100 and max 100.
If I remember right, the Panzerfaust came in 3 models 40, 60, and 100.

Actually, 30, 60 and 100.

Effectiveness at max. ranges:
Somewhere above 30-50 meters, with the models PzFaust 60 and 100, a Panzerfaust gunner had to pick a parabolic trajectory, due to the weight of the warhead. The bigger the distance, the higher the angle he had to use.
If the gunner was experienced enough, he could still score a hit at the particular model's max. distance.

Same with the Panzerschreck, where then german units even figured that they could go beyond the grenade's official range of 180 meters, even though the grenade lacked penetration power, if compared to the really effective Panzerfaust warheads. Unlike the American bazooka, the Panzerschreck grenades were somewhat more reliable, especially in winter, one reason might have been that their warheads featured a magnetic-ignition, in contrast to the American battery-powered warheads. Interestingly, the US adopted that type of ignition later on.

A swiss instructor, telling ranges for non-moving targets of a direct post-war Panzerschreck (called "Panzerfaust" in the German Army since at least the 1960s, btw) derivate, stated that "a 400m range is right on for engagement of non-moving large targets, such as buildings or pillboxes, against which AT weapons are effective. A 1000m range is reachable only through the use of a parabolic trajectory, and I imagine that more than one round was fired."

http://www.oocities.org/pizzatest/panzerfaust3.htm

While there is no doubt that a range of 1000 meters would not have materialized with the German warheads, as they carried half of the swiss grenade's propellant charge (and delivering velocities of ~110 meters/second) only, ranges of 400 meters for non-moving targets (pillboxes, houses, gun-nests) and 200-300 meters for moving targets are absolutely reasonable, according to veteran accounts I've read so far. Well, ... if operated by "trained" and experienced gunners.

In early 1944 (March), in a field report, a Bn CO of the 225. Inf Division (Hauptmann von der Planitz) pointed out that training was absolutely important, and advised that the Panzerschrecks should only be operated by hand-picked troops (and put in AT-units or assigned to strongpoints as defensive weapon) and not be used on the offensive at the main front-line. The grenades' detonators used to "go off on the slightest touch", so that they had to be carried around in wooden boxes/frames, hence the advice to get reliable, responsible and couragous operators and hence the hint that it was not suitable to serve at the main front. When the improved version RPzB 54 came up, gunners were tempted to use it on the offensive as well, as the shield and the improved range-finder allowed for better handling, and - due to the effective/impressive "look" of the weapon -, made them over-estimate its effectiveness/accuracy.

Whatsoever, the question is, what ranges will the game's modifiers actually allow for?

ORIGINAL: Arimus

I didn't notice the .3 threshold, I'll try that, Thanks.

Could be it´s even below 0.3, maybe around 0.25. Think I saw the current "base" value in some of the patch notes anywhere on this board.

Edit: Dave explained the basics here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2988971

While truncating the weapon ranges might be 'better' in some respects, be aware that it will then never be possible to take a rare long-range shot with success, and with the spotting range from a tank to hidden infantry unit being of similar 'degree' to the existing weapon range it might be counter-productive to clip the range in such a way... Infantry also finds it very hard to work-its-way forward against armour even in covered terrain. Some anti-armour threat helps to suppress the unsupported vehicles sufficiently to close the range and obtain some kills, a proportion of the time.

That is a good point Lieste. I was thinking of trimming the range, because I'm running into "super Shermans", but it could be a two-edged sword as you say.

I read where the Panzerfaust 100 did not enter into production until November 1944, yet the stats on the Panzerfaust in the game seem to represent the 100 instead of the 60.

I didn't notice the .3 threshold, I'll try that, Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Lieste

While truncating the weapon ranges might be 'better' in some respects, be aware that it will then never be possible to take a rare long-range shot with success, and with the spotting range from a tank to hidden infantry unit being of similar 'degree' to the existing weapon range it might be counter-productive to clip the range in such a way... Infantry also finds it very hard to work-its-way forward against armour even in covered terrain. Some anti-armour threat helps to suppress the unsupported vehicles sufficiently to close the range and obtain some kills, a proportion of the time.

Good points, I wasn´t quite aware of. As said, I aimed at countering too many long range shots, that beside offer some "threat" and suppression, too seldomly cause actual enemy tank losses.

Maybe it´s also related to unit experience & training. I´d suspect a less experienced infantry guy to make a long range shot, while a more experienced one would try to keep nerves, making a rather short, more success promising one.

I believe that you are right about experience. In the British Army the PIAT (with its pluses and minuses v the US and German equipment) was helf at Platoon HQ level, normally assigned to an experienced corporal with, of course the prescence of the platoon sergeant to 'provide added encouragement' to only fire at the PIAT's battle range.

Good morning Harry