pbem
anyone had a tiger taken out by us rangers (ubermenshen) at a range of 243 m?
this seems crazy to me
likewise a panzerfust can't hit a barn from 50m
any comments
m9 bazooka
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Fallschirmjager
- Posts: 3555
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
- Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Ive commented on this as well and been yelled down by certain members of this board
Apparently the Allies had ATGM tech in the mid 40's
The Pen is fairly accurate....but the accuracy is way too high
I do however wish that Panzerfausts be left alone
Ive talked to those that used them in combat....and they told me they were very inaccurate weapons and its why they let a squad member carry 5-7 in a sack strapped to their back and nothing else
Apparently the Allies had ATGM tech in the mid 40's
The Pen is fairly accurate....but the accuracy is way too high
I do however wish that Panzerfausts be left alone
Ive talked to those that used them in combat....and they told me they were very inaccurate weapons and its why they let a squad member carry 5-7 in a sack strapped to their back and nothing else
-
Belisarius
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
-
Gary Tatro
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: MA, US
To tell you the truth
I have played with both, and yes the bazooka has better accuracy, I can not remember ever hitting anything beyond 100m.rjinwootton wrote:pbem
anyone had a tiger taken out by us rangers (ubermenshen) at a range of 243 m?
this seems crazy to me
likewise a panzerfust can't hit a barn from 50m
any comments
As far as Panzerfusts I like them so much even when I play the Russians I take them over bazooka's any time. They have much higher penatration and I have noticed a difference in accuracy if you run or on a halftrack, but if you walk 50-100 meters to attack your enemy I have found I still hit pretty often.
Are you playing 7.1 or H2Hfr?
Also the M9 is better than the M1, in H2Hfr you can just barely pen on a tiger with an M1.
"Are you going to do something or just stand there and bleed"
rjinwootton, the faust launches a large shaped charge that looks pretty much like the german handgrenade. The round is barely stabilized and the launch tube has very crude iron sights. Typical engagement range with it was 25-50m. Or even shorter.
Bazooka on the other hand launches a fin stabilized rocket from a launching tube. You really can't compare them, rather you should compare bazooka and schreck. They are quite similar.
As for bazooka penetration, they are still a bit off but not bad, imho. 120mm for M1 and 140mm for M9. Kinda funny as they used same ammo...and best figure I found after browsing several websites was 5 inches for M9A1 ammunition which apparently wasn't available during WW2. I'm sure ammosgt will correct me
100mm or so for both would be more correct, imho.
Ranges in the 8.0 version I have are 5 hexes for M9, 4 hexes for M1, 4 for schreck and 1-3 for fausts (3 different models) Again, not bad but in all fairness I think the faust max could be 2 even for the 100 model.
Voriax
Bazooka on the other hand launches a fin stabilized rocket from a launching tube. You really can't compare them, rather you should compare bazooka and schreck. They are quite similar.
As for bazooka penetration, they are still a bit off but not bad, imho. 120mm for M1 and 140mm for M9. Kinda funny as they used same ammo...and best figure I found after browsing several websites was 5 inches for M9A1 ammunition which apparently wasn't available during WW2. I'm sure ammosgt will correct me
100mm or so for both would be more correct, imho.
Ranges in the 8.0 version I have are 5 hexes for M9, 4 hexes for M1, 4 for schreck and 1-3 for fausts (3 different models) Again, not bad but in all fairness I think the faust max could be 2 even for the 100 model.
Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
-
Fallschirmjager
- Posts: 3555
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
- Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Voriax wrote:rjinwootton, the faust launches a large shaped charge that looks pretty much like the german handgrenade. The round is barely stabilized and the launch tube has very crude iron sights. Typical engagement range with it was 25-50m. Or even shorter.
Bazooka on the other hand launches a fin stabilized rocket from a launching tube. You really can't compare them, rather you should compare bazooka and schreck. They are quite similar.
As for bazooka penetration, they are still a bit off but not bad, imho. 120mm for M1 and 140mm for M9. Kinda funny as they used same ammo...and best figure I found after browsing several websites was 5 inches for M9A1 ammunition which apparently wasn't available during WW2. I'm sure ammosgt will correct me
100mm or so for both would be more correct, imho.
Ranges in the 8.0 version I have are 5 hexes for M9, 4 hexes for M1, 4 for schreck and 1-3 for fausts (3 different models) Again, not bad but in all fairness I think the faust max could be 2 even for the 100 model.
Voriax
If you aimed it high in the air you could probably shoot a Faust round 250 m
Of course you wouldnt be able to hit anything....but it could probably be done
I agree with the range of the weapons...but I am able to nail tanks at 200 m on my first shot with an M9
Thats way too accurate IMHO
Fallschirmjager wrote:If you aimed it high in the air you could probably shoot a Faust round 250 m
Well sure, but you surely have noticed that just about all weapon ranges in SPWaW are 'maximum effective/practical ranges'
Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
-
Fallschirmjager
- Posts: 3555
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
- Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Voriax wrote:Well sure, but you surely have noticed that just about all weapon ranges in SPWaW are 'maximum effective/practical ranges'
Voriax
Which I dont like
Range to me...means as far as you can make the thing fire
I dont think there is such a thing as "effective range"
If you are an expert with a weapon you are going to be able to use it at a longer range than a new conscript
Well since I have been INVOKED by Vor .. I shall chime in ..
The M1 and the M9 Bazooka fired the same ammunition , this is true .. but the Ammunition changed a couple of thime thru the war ..
In Game Terms The M1 is rated as using the M6A1 Bakooka rocket and the M9 as using the M6A3 Rocket.
In Real life the M1 Bazooka was a solid tube , fixed primative sights and battery ignited, while the M9 was a two piece foldable tube, Optical sight , Magneto ignited weapon .. The PanzerShreck was solid tube fixed primitve sights Magneto ignited with a shield for backblast necsitated buy the rocket on the shreck continuing to burn after leaving the tube.
Both Bazooka and Shreck rounds had a speed of about 100 meters per second give or take a small percentage for air temperture.
Bazooka rounds had better ballistic coeffiency than Shreck round ( Panzer Faust rounds didn't have a Ballistic coeffiency near as I can tell , the warhead and aerodynamics were totally defined by the needs of the shape charge and not by any needs of air resitance conciderations) . While The Shreck having a much larger diameter ( which in shaped charges is more important than charge weight, but is connected to charge weight in a couple of ways) which results in a larger and deeper penetration. Larger is not necesarily better, the US Army is currently investigating a unknown weapon that recently knocked out an M1A1 Abrams Tank with a pencil sized hole that went clean thru one side and half way thru the opposite side after pentrating several key componets inside. This happen in Iraq last month. But deeper is always good .
Both the M6A1 Bazooka round and the ShrecK round had a very pointed ogive that was more designed to provide a stand off for the shaped charge warhead with some small concideration for aerodynamics. Giving a mean dispersion in mils of about 6.5 IIRC while the M6A3 had a blunt more roundish Ogive that provided better aerodynamics and adequate standoff with a greater chance of detonating at the proper distance due to a larger frontal contact area and a mean dispersion in mils of about 4 IIRC. M6A3 has approximately 20% better penetration thru improvements in cone angle and an improved cone material.
By way of a brief explanation, Monroe effect ( shaped charged weapons) have used a variety of cone liner material rangeing from glass thru copper , brass various copper alloys and iron and steel. By adjusting cone angles and materials you vary the penetration in different materials , what works well on earth or concrete will not work as well on armor plate for example and vice versa. Engineering Shaped charges for example, will use a shallow cone and a glass liner to get maximun penetration in earth with a cooler hole that allows TNT charges to be placed down the hole sooner for cratering operations. In real life this means a 8" diameter 15 lb Engineering shaped charge will pentrate 8 foot of packed earth ( ideal for cratering) but only 6" of Armor plate while a Modern 2" diameter 3 oz shaped charge will penetrate the 6" of armor plate but only about 6" of earth as well.
In Real life all bazookas would have had the M6A3 ammunition by jan 44.
In comparison the Shreck suffered from 3 negatives in accuracy .. the rocket burn time ( by this I mean a much longer unguided by the tube burn time ), the primitive sights, and the poor balistical effiency . The M1 bazooka with M6A1 suffers from 2 negatives in accuracy , primitave sights and poor balistical effiency , one negative is removed with M6A3 ammo .. The M9 bazooka suffers from no negatives unless using M6A1 ammo then the balistical effiency problem is added. Please note the "accuracy negatives" and the terms "poor" and "good" are relative within this group of weapons in this time period .. The PanzerFaust has all the negatives plus short range , but one heck of a warhead.
On a side note I recently had the oportunity to examine a German K98 Grenade Launcher attachment, and noted the sights are calibrated to only 80 meters, this not to say that there are not other versions with different calibrations , there may very well be , but the collector I spoke with and that owned this seemed to think this was the most common version.
The M1 and the M9 Bazooka fired the same ammunition , this is true .. but the Ammunition changed a couple of thime thru the war ..
In Game Terms The M1 is rated as using the M6A1 Bakooka rocket and the M9 as using the M6A3 Rocket.
In Real life the M1 Bazooka was a solid tube , fixed primative sights and battery ignited, while the M9 was a two piece foldable tube, Optical sight , Magneto ignited weapon .. The PanzerShreck was solid tube fixed primitve sights Magneto ignited with a shield for backblast necsitated buy the rocket on the shreck continuing to burn after leaving the tube.
Both Bazooka and Shreck rounds had a speed of about 100 meters per second give or take a small percentage for air temperture.
Bazooka rounds had better ballistic coeffiency than Shreck round ( Panzer Faust rounds didn't have a Ballistic coeffiency near as I can tell , the warhead and aerodynamics were totally defined by the needs of the shape charge and not by any needs of air resitance conciderations) . While The Shreck having a much larger diameter ( which in shaped charges is more important than charge weight, but is connected to charge weight in a couple of ways) which results in a larger and deeper penetration. Larger is not necesarily better, the US Army is currently investigating a unknown weapon that recently knocked out an M1A1 Abrams Tank with a pencil sized hole that went clean thru one side and half way thru the opposite side after pentrating several key componets inside. This happen in Iraq last month. But deeper is always good .
Both the M6A1 Bazooka round and the ShrecK round had a very pointed ogive that was more designed to provide a stand off for the shaped charge warhead with some small concideration for aerodynamics. Giving a mean dispersion in mils of about 6.5 IIRC while the M6A3 had a blunt more roundish Ogive that provided better aerodynamics and adequate standoff with a greater chance of detonating at the proper distance due to a larger frontal contact area and a mean dispersion in mils of about 4 IIRC. M6A3 has approximately 20% better penetration thru improvements in cone angle and an improved cone material.
By way of a brief explanation, Monroe effect ( shaped charged weapons) have used a variety of cone liner material rangeing from glass thru copper , brass various copper alloys and iron and steel. By adjusting cone angles and materials you vary the penetration in different materials , what works well on earth or concrete will not work as well on armor plate for example and vice versa. Engineering Shaped charges for example, will use a shallow cone and a glass liner to get maximun penetration in earth with a cooler hole that allows TNT charges to be placed down the hole sooner for cratering operations. In real life this means a 8" diameter 15 lb Engineering shaped charge will pentrate 8 foot of packed earth ( ideal for cratering) but only 6" of Armor plate while a Modern 2" diameter 3 oz shaped charge will penetrate the 6" of armor plate but only about 6" of earth as well.
In Real life all bazookas would have had the M6A3 ammunition by jan 44.
In comparison the Shreck suffered from 3 negatives in accuracy .. the rocket burn time ( by this I mean a much longer unguided by the tube burn time ), the primitive sights, and the poor balistical effiency . The M1 bazooka with M6A1 suffers from 2 negatives in accuracy , primitave sights and poor balistical effiency , one negative is removed with M6A3 ammo .. The M9 bazooka suffers from no negatives unless using M6A1 ammo then the balistical effiency problem is added. Please note the "accuracy negatives" and the terms "poor" and "good" are relative within this group of weapons in this time period .. The PanzerFaust has all the negatives plus short range , but one heck of a warhead.
On a side note I recently had the oportunity to examine a German K98 Grenade Launcher attachment, and noted the sights are calibrated to only 80 meters, this not to say that there are not other versions with different calibrations , there may very well be , but the collector I spoke with and that owned this seemed to think this was the most common version.
"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
Vor I am pretty sure that M9A1 was actually the US WW2 AT Rifle Grenade.
It had a warhead very very similar to the Bazooka warhead , with small variances to standoff (to allow for penetrating jet formation) and fuze timing due to a different speed of flight.
Since it is Veterans Day , A Big Thanks to all you Vets out there, I shall mention that Audie Murphy got his Bronze Star with "V" device for knocking out a German tank on the Anzio beachhead in March 44 with the AT Rifle Grenade at a range of 50 yards and then leading His men out of an ambush consisting of mutiple machine guns.
It had a warhead very very similar to the Bazooka warhead , with small variances to standoff (to allow for penetrating jet formation) and fuze timing due to a different speed of flight.
Since it is Veterans Day , A Big Thanks to all you Vets out there, I shall mention that Audie Murphy got his Bronze Star with "V" device for knocking out a German tank on the Anzio beachhead in March 44 with the AT Rifle Grenade at a range of 50 yards and then leading His men out of an ambush consisting of mutiple machine guns.
"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
I've managed to find a couple videos of Panzerfaust shooting on the 'net, and it does look rather dodgy. The smaller vid (more common, on Kazaa) shows the shot, then cuts to an explosion; I'm a little suspicious, but that's me. <G> The other one is a chunk of that German "How to kill tanks" film, and shows a nice side hit on a T-34, but it looks to be at mebbe 30 meters or so.
SP:WAW (http://www.matrixgames.com/Games/WorldAtWar/index.asp)
SP:MBT/SP:WW2 (http://linetap.com/www/drg/SPCamo.htm)
Combat Mission HQ (http://www.combatmission.com/)
G-o-D's Close Combat Links (http://home.wanadoo.nl/cclinks/)
SP:MBT/SP:WW2 (http://linetap.com/www/drg/SPCamo.htm)
Combat Mission HQ (http://www.combatmission.com/)
G-o-D's Close Combat Links (http://home.wanadoo.nl/cclinks/)
-
Major_Johnson
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Beach Haven, NJ, USA
Well I just got done with a PBEM where the M9's and Panzerfausts were in abundance. Admittedly I was playing from the American side, and I will admit that overall the M9 may have been more accurate than it's counter-part when used against armored vehicles, I don't think things were out of balance. I certainly didn't get kills with every hit, and certainly don't remember getting a kill farther than 2 hexes. Most were one hex. And if it wouldn't have been for the M9, my Amored Inf units never would have gotten the better of the German Airbourne "Supermen" that would never get suppressed until after the 2nd M9 shot!
But as with all the scenario's, results are going to vary every time you play them, as they should. That's the way the game engine is designed. And which is why we keep on playing. Year after year after year!!!
BTW, that PBEM (I was testing) is one by Steve Avery. He converted it for use in H2Hfr, and should be posting it soon. It's called "Beyond The Arno". I highly reccomend it.
But as with all the scenario's, results are going to vary every time you play them, as they should. That's the way the game engine is designed. And which is why we keep on playing. Year after year after year!!!
BTW, that PBEM (I was testing) is one by Steve Avery. He converted it for use in H2Hfr, and should be posting it soon. It's called "Beyond The Arno". I highly reccomend it.
M.J.!
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.