Bazooka/Panzerfaust Useage?

Tankleader

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Location
Fredricksburg VA
Country
llUnited States
SamB said:
It's not the same shooting into a tree line and shooting a wall or building.

If troops are "in" the building, there's a good chance that you will affect the troops if you hit the wall they are hiding behind. Troops in a tree line are a little different. More apt to be spread out, or does your squad all hide behind the same tree? :wink:

A bazooka or PF round could easily miss all the trees your guys are hiding behind and hit a tree farther back in the woods. It would go "boom" but would not be likely to hurt the troops. For this reason alone, IF you allow this, the rule should have a +2 or +3 TH DRM, IMO.

Change is not a "good thing" - and this from someone who likes change. :)

Sam "Its just a game, *amnit"
Sam,
I agree with what your saying, but thats why the to hit table exists on the back of the counter to see if you hit, and then you use the IFT. You could then also argue that the TH could be different for hitting a wall (small target) compared to hitting a house. Just a small point about not changing rules or making modifications. What I am hearing hear is that we can't try and improve the game. This could make MMP happy because they could now just crank out the second edition and never have to worry about change. I've learned my lesson here and on the other board to not ask questions because the great majority of players seem to be set in their ways, which is something that I was warned about by lots of other players. I know that I've lost this fight but at least I tried.
My other concern is this that I have received lots of advice to just make this an SSR to whatever scenario we play, but isn't that the same as saying do it, just don't change the rule book? So my follow on question here is how many groups are out there that are using the rule book as a general guideline and generating SSR's to play the game?

Tanks
 

Tankleader

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Location
Fredricksburg VA
Country
llUnited States
Bryan Holtby said:
The list of "why's" in the ASLRB is almost endless but I guess all new players go through this. Again, the best advice is to forget the WHY.
Trying to understand why the designers did it a certain way wont help you understand the rule. Adopt your tactics to the rules.

Most of us long time players dont have the patience to answer the 'why cant I?' questions that dont deal with rule specifics.
Hello Bryan,
Me asking all of these "WHY" questions make me feel like a new recruit in bootcamp all over again. Anyway it's been a good experience posting here as I am now into reading section D, but don't ask me how much has really been retained.

Tanks Out
Andy
 

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,111
Reaction score
190
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Brian W said:
I can't help but find it rather funny that you start off with the above statement followed by a rather long realism argument. Followed by an "it doesn't matter" ending.

I happen to agree, but this attitude is not helpful when a new player brings questions to the table.
The irony of my response was not lost on me, but I decided to proceed anyway. Besides the fact that the rules do not allow what "Tankleader" proposes, I also do not agree with his realism argument, so I included a realism argument of my own.

As far as it being a helpful attitude, that may or may not be. He asked why is was so. The only correct response is "because the rules say so". IMO, that response would demonstrate an unhelpful attitude.

I agree that groggies should exercise a wide degree of latitude when addressing questions by new players. But this was not a question of rules application or interpretation by a new player, it was a question of game design and a speculation that the design is somehow not realistic, coupled with an assertion that some experienced players agreed with him in principle. That's a big difference.

This forum is not really the correct place to pose questions about rules intent or the reasoning behind a particular abstraction, and expect a correct and satisfactory answer. We can discuss them ad nauseum without ever reaching a conclusion. Those questions can really only be answered by Mac and Greenwood. Insofar as a rationale is provided in the ASLRB, all a player need do is refer to the Footnotes once in a while, in this case Footnotes C20 and C21.

"Tankleader" started out in his original post by saying "I'm no expert" (and sorry, as much as I respect and admire those in our armed forces -- especially Marines -- a contemporary soldier does not necessarily qualify as a WWII ordnance expert), and then solicited opinions about his views.

I gave him my opinion. Nothin' wrong with that...

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 

Tankleader

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Location
Fredricksburg VA
Country
llUnited States
bebakken said:
"Tankleader" started out in his original post by saying "I'm no expert" (and sorry, as much as I respect and admire those in our armed forces -- especially Marines -- a contemporary soldier does not necessarily qualify as a WWII ordnance expert), and then solicited opinions about his views.

I gave him my opinion. Nothin' wrong with that...

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Bruce,
When I started the question about the rules regarding PZ and Bazookas the term "Expert" related to my familiarity with the game. That said, I'm sure you'll agree, that my "contemporary soldier" experience makes me a tad bit more qualified on WWII ordnance than those with no experience. This contemporary experience is what motivated me to ask the questions about the use and effectiveness of these weapons.

Tanks
Andy
 

Bryan Holtby

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
85
Location
Ontario, Canada
Country
llCanada
OK Andy, lets put this in a contemporary military light then.

You are in a platoon that currently has 1 reloadable non guided ATM (not a bank machine either, LOL) launcher, you have 10 rounds in a case without any way to get more in the next 2-4 hours. You know that your duty as the non guided ATM guy is to defend your platoon/company against enemy armour in case of an attack, and you also know that there are enemy tanks in the area, but not how many. You also know that your ATML isnt guarenteed to either hit OR kill on one shot, it may take 2 or 3 rounds to cook a tank.


Are you going to;

A) give away your position shooting at a target you will likely have little effect at and in the process likely bring enemy fire down on yourself and your crewman? Thus risking the only defence your platoon/company has against tanks.

B) waste what little ammo you do have at that target, again, risking ammo

C) Wait for a tank to roll into view/hear about one on the radio and move in for the kill?

Dunno about you, but I've seen some pretty crusty platoon/company commanders when I was in the military, and that was when they were happy. They wouldnt be too happy that you depleted the platoon/companies only AT resource on a non tank target. Even if you were successful in taking out that enemy position, I just cant see a platoon commander being happy about it.

That being said, if your position was under heavy fire and the enemy was advancing on you, its likely that you would shoot it, but again, thats the desperate situation.
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
380
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
I'm sure you'll agree, that my "contemporary soldier" experience makes me a tad bit more qualified on WWII ordnance than those with no experience.
No, I don't agree.

Your experience with the LATW of today make you more expert on the first bazookas? No, I don't think so. And as many others have pointed out, the answer as to "why" may have as much to do with the doctrine and use of these weapons - as they were used in WW II - as it has to do with the theoretical capabilites of the weapons.

Ultimately, the "game" answer, OIOW the "rules" answer is because the rules say so... For EVERY reality argument that you can think of, someone can think of a counter argument. For this reason, ALL so-called-reality-arguments are pointless.

Design your own game... design scenarios and include an SSR... someoen will play it.

I don't really mean to sound "short" with you, but truth is, most of these discussions have been beaten into the ground. After all the arguments it boils down to "because the rules say so".

Roll low
Sam
 

Tankleader

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Location
Fredricksburg VA
Country
llUnited States
Sam and Bryan,
I'm not agruing the rules anymore far from it and am willing to play them as they stand. I was answering the critics that say it can't be done. It just so happens that my job in the Marine Corps deals with ordnance among a few other things. I have also talked to some of my bretheren stationed in Aberdeen MD. that deal with this on a daily basis by testing systems, and they all concur with what I was saying about the use of BAZ against infantry. There are modern systems out there that contain less explosives than what the BAZ did but are more accurate.
Bryan, to answer your question about what would I do. First, I would make sure that I always had a few rounds available to engage armor if I had too, but if I was threatened by the infantry I would engage them with whatever means necessary to insure my survival I could save the BAZ and never see the armor. Evaluate the current threat and act. In Iraq we used TOWS and Javelins to take out infantry and positions. Yes, these systems were wire guided and accurate, but we also used the SMAW's and AT-4's to great effect and these are about as close as you can get to a WWII BAZ or PF.
I am looking forward to games with both of you on VASL or FtF if your in the D.C. area. I am still learning, you probably already guessed that by this thread.

Tanks Out

Andy.
 

Bryan Holtby

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
85
Location
Ontario, Canada
Country
llCanada
Most of us are still learning at some level. I still get rules wrong, but my biggest issue now is forgetting them. I ve read the damn book until I wore out the pages and I STILL forget things. Which is why its important to give the rules a once over if you are dealing with unfamiliar vehicles, weapons like baz and pf that arent used in 70% of the scenarios. OBA is another one I frequently read over.

I have found that the single best assistant to learning the rules is to watch what questions pop up on the ASLML and on here. Look them up for yourself and watch the discussion, if any, develope. If you feel you have something to add, say it. Dont be afraid of being wrong, most of us have "been there, done that". :oops:

Just watch the reality arguments on the mailing list :wink:
 

csosus

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
Dallas, Texas - USA
Country
llUnited States
Bazooka

I've been watching this thread for a couple of days and asked my great uncle about his experiences. As it turns out he was a bazooka gunner with the 1st Inf. Div from 1942-1945. He said that in training and in combat they were ordered NOT to use the bazooka as an anti-personel weapon but that in a couple dire circumstances they did ignore this. He could only remember 2 times. Once they were pinned by a German machine gun in some woods, they fired appx. 15 rounds without ANY apparent effect(they finally got them with some well placed rifle grenades) they other time they were pinned in a crossfire by some Germans in a couple of wooden pillboxes, they fired appx. 3 shots at each forcing they Germans to withdraw (this of course was combined with rifle and machine fire). Upon inspection of the pillboxes, he said that the bazooka did do quite heavy damage to the pillboxes, but failed to kill anyone inside. Another instance he related to me was once a German truck drove right through his position and they shot twice at it and both rounds went right THROUGH it without any damage.
After hearing about all this lends credence to the ASL rules about how the Baz should be handled, BUT, my uncle also said that they were "scared stupid" of the Panzerfaust and the "shoulder 88" (Panzerschrek) as the Germens seemed to have an unlimited supply and fired them at anything that moved. After some reading here's some statistics:

British PIAT (Projector, Infantry, Anti-tank):
Projectile & weight - Hollow Charge, 3lb, armor pen. appx. 75mm

U.S. Launcher, rocket, 2.36 inch anti-tank, MI (aka bazooka):
Projectile & weight - HEAT 3.4lb Rocket, armor pen. appx. 80mm

German Panzerfaust (Pf): there were actually 5 models all with Hollow charge type projectile:
30K (Klein - small) - Projectile weight appx. 6lb, armor pen. 140mm @ 30deg.
30 - Projectile weight appx. 10lb, armor pen. 200mm @ 30deg.
60 - Projectile weight appx. 13.5lb, armor pen. 200mm @ 30deg.
100 - Projectile weight appx. 13.5lb, armor pen. 200mm @ 30deg.
150 - Projectile weight appx. 13.25lb, armor pen. 200mm @ 30deg.
each sucessive model had a larger gunpowder charge to give it greater range. another note: the Germans produced these at a rate of no less than 200,000 a month from Sept 1943 through April 1945.

German 8.8cm Rakaten Panzer-busche 54 (aka Ofenrohr or Panzerschreck) FYI Ofenfohr means 'stovepipe' and was so nicknamed for the flame and smoke which came from the rear when fired.
Projectile & weight - Hollow charge, 7.25lb, 100mm @ 0 deg.

As can be seen the Baz, PIAT, and Pzs all had a nominal weight projectile, but the Pf lobbed some pretty hefty explosives Just as a comparison, the German 7.5cm Infanterie Geshutz 37 (a purpose built infantry gun) lobbed a 13.2lb HE shell.

Therefore given this info, IMHO, the Baz, PIAT, and Pzs should all be used only against AFV or Inf in/behind bldgs/walls, But the Pf should be able to be used against any target as deemed necessary within the confines of the ASL system. BTW has anyone thought about how the ASL system handles rifle grenades? Is this part of the squad inhherent FP? Just curious.

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth.
BTW all the above stats are from:
"The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II"
by Ian V. Hogg, Bison Books, London England, 1977
 

andy

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
198
Reaction score
1
Location
In an Ivory Tower
Country
llCanada
Thoughts on rules variants.

Ok, stepping back just a bit.

Sam noted the fallacy of arguing reality for the sake of existing rules interpretation. When talking about interpreting existing rules, someone says to me, "...and it makes sense when you think about it because in real life..blah". Yes, but in chess I could say "little castles can't move, because in real life...". There's no way into the designer's head so must go with what's written (Q&A/Perry & COWTRA). The internal system is balanced with abstractions etc.

Now...VARIANTS:

That's a different story. You and your opponent accept variants or house rules before the game starts. The PF thing could be handled that way. Making it official, or even optional official is really tough and here's why...

Developing Rules Variants:

You make these to improve realism, and/or playability/fun and/or historical accuracy. The TESTING that needs to make a variant work in the existing system is HUGE. You have to make sure you haven't unbalanced 1-3500 existing scenarios, and also that you haven't created more questions "what happens with X when using new rule Y?" Finally, you may have spawned a whole new generation of sleaze tactics.

Between consenting adults, play whatever house rules you want. When you try to develop variants for general use scope is important. If the change is very small affecting very small parts of the game, less testing is required. Stupid example: "Ice breaking with a mortar has mod of +2 when in extreme cold" When you do substantial things though, systematic playtesting is required so you don't break the system in other places.

Many ASLers are a pretty conservative bunch. Many don't want to play an unofficial game. Having said all this, don't be discouraged in writing variants/additions, nothing wrong with trying to make the best game better, or even writing your own game. If the variant is a hit, people will play it, perhaps buy it. The best of the best will eventually become official by popular demand or MMP decision.
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
705
Reaction score
32
Location
New York
Re: Bazooka

csosus said:
German Panzerfaust (Pf): there were actually 5 models all with Hollow charge type projectile:
30K (Klein - small) - Projectile weight appx. 6lb, armor pen. 140mm @ 30deg.
30 - Projectile weight appx. 10lb, armor pen. 200mm @ 30deg.
60 - Projectile weight appx. 13.5lb, armor pen. 200mm @ 30deg.
100 - Projectile weight appx. 13.5lb, armor pen. 200mm @ 30deg.
150 - Projectile weight appx. 13.25lb, armor pen. 200mm @ 30deg.
each sucessive model had a larger gunpowder charge to give it greater range. another note: the Germans produced these at a rate of no less than 200,000 a month from Sept 1943 through April 1945.

BTW all the above stats are from:
"The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II"
by Ian V. Hogg, Bison Books, London England, 1977
This is all very interesting information and it shows that the ASL rules on these weapons are pretty accurate to the reality of WWII.

What stunned me was the Pf production figures mentioned!!!!!! This translates to 2.4 million units per year!!!


Confirms to me of the "totality" of that war and how fortunate the U. S. was to be mostly not on the receiving end, as most of those Pf must have been used against Russian tanks, no?

Does the Pf klein version perhaps represent the Pfk?

Frank H.
 

csosus

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
Dallas, Texas - USA
Country
llUnited States
csosus

Frank H asked: Does the Pf klein version perhaps represent the Pfk?

YES I believe so. And you're probably right that most were used on the Eastern Front. Comparing German/Russian tank losses in the last two years of the war you can see that the Russians lost almost 8 tanks to every one the Germans lost. I don't think these high Russian losses were due to AT Gun vs. Tank or Tank vs. Tank engagemants, but probably most were lost to Pf and Psk. Also keep in mind that this figure is the official ratio as claimed by the Russians, who, more often than not, played down thier own losses as much as possible, so the figure may be somewhat higher.

As to the Productiuon figures, several hundred thousand never made it to the troops, as late in the war the transport system in Germany was in shambles. I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that the Americans captured several thousand in stockpile in Antwerp after its capture and issued them to thier troops. Several hundred thousand more were also captured in stockpile after the capitulation of the Ruhr Pocket in 1945. So many in fact that training schools were formed in the rear to teach GI's to use them.
 

Anonymous

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
897
Reaction score
6
Country
llUnited States
HEAT and HE rifle grenade launcher

CSOSUS wrote

"He could only remember 2 times. Once they were pinned by a German machine gun in some woods, they fired appx. 15 rounds without ANY apparent effect(they finally got them with some well placed rifle grenades)"

sorry to come back again with my last obsesion, that is: Rifle grenades are not represented in ASL and I think they should. As csosus wrote when they were used properly they had an important effect in a firefight (kill the MMG that is stoping your advance) and they are not a point blank weapon, then they would have used some hand grenades to do the job.

They were also used aganist armour albeit with limited effect (though the german army replaced their antitank rifles with them in 1942 and even the SS procured for themselves with especially devised HEAT rounds)
They even modified some ATR's to be able to fire Anti tank rifle grenades.

I have put another example of their use aganist infantry in the "general" topic.

I know that anything that might imply a change or an addition to the rules is considered like tabu. And recently read that scenarios are written on marble for the next generations to see. But eventhough I'd like to see a rule covering their employment and I'd like to use it.
 

asloser

The Head Tuomo of the Finnish ASL Community
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
851
Reaction score
1,180
Location
Klaukkala-Finland
Country
llFinland
Re: HEAT and HE rifle grenade launcher

desperado morale said:
I know that anything that might imply a change or an addition to the rules is considered like tabu. And recently read that scenarios are written on marble for the next generations to see. But eventhough I'd like to see a rule covering their employment and I'd like to use it.
Well, since you seem to be well read in this subject why don't you:

1) devise some rules on how it would work in ASL

2) Find a good action highlighting their use and desing a scenario around it (or preferably multiple scenarios on varying actions)

3) Submit this stuff for publication to MMP or any TPP publisher

And then your dream has come true.

This method worked for me when I was frustrated by the lack of Finnish AFVs and ordnance in ASL 8)

Of course not all will use these rules and the exisisting scenarios will not have them, but that is the closest you can get.
 

Bryan Holtby

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
85
Location
Ontario, Canada
Country
llCanada
Or, have you considered the fact that they may already be factored into a US squads 6 FP? Maybe they didnt warrant a counter specifically but were a victim of playability in reducing counter density. In other words, they were a victim of abstraction. Every time you see a why question, there is a 50% chance of the word abstraction being the answer.

So lets toss out all the Ami scenarios and make new ones so we can all spend another hundred dollars on a new Ami module that accurately portrays ONE WEAPON that adds very little to the game.

While were at it, lets add the earlier version of the Panther, with only 60mm of armour on the front, in stead of 80mm for the rest, they made 60 of them and they were all at Kursk so we gotta have that counter. Oh, and lets not forget that the Panther carried APCR rounds, which ARENT in the game, so lets add that in too. And lets not forget about the last model either, better tranny (although still not perfect but far better than the middle versions tranny, which was in turn way better than the original version), chin mantlet to prevent the downward deflection (the reason for the O around the AF).

The list is endless on ways to imporve and detail the game, all at the risk of ruining everything produced before the improvement. That is the battle anyone faces in suggesting an improvement.

If you just cant live without it, design your own scenarios, your own counter, and then submit them to MMP or someone else for publishing. Thats what everyone else does.
 

Eduard

Recruit
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
desperado morale

Bryan,

I agree with the possibility of an abstraction and I understand the necessity of them to increase playability.

Only I would like to know for certain if the rifle grenade launchers were incorporated on the squad firepower factor or not. I'm not sure at all about this point.

I will propose a "house rule" but I don't think you can devise an scenario specificaly for them. Though you can include them in new scenarios. In fact they would be just a little more effective than an ATR as an AT weapon and less than a 50mm mortar as an antipersonel weapon. But a CH should be devastating aganist a tank or a Support weapon.

from 250 to 800 such devices in a German division would indicate they were a little bit useful.


Thanks for your answers
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
380
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
from 250 to 800 such devices in a German division would indicate they were a little bit useful.
The fact that there were lots of them doesn't necessarily mean they were effective. Spock would not be impressed with your logic. :lol:

I tend to believe that these were factored into the squad fire power. Look at the level of detail in ASL - do you think the designers didn't know that these weapons existed?
 

JD Sullivan

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
422
Reaction score
1
Location
Beaverton, OR
Country
llUnited States
Hi all,
I've searched this topic looking for the answer to a question and that question being, to use LATW as pure IFT only, do you need to roll to hit or can you add their xFP with the unit who is firing the weapon?

If I have to roll a to hit and do hit, can I then add the FP with the firing unit?

Thanks.
 

WesN

Vicious Coon
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
152
Reaction score
1
Location
Tampa
Country
llUnited States
I've searched this topic looking for the answer to a question and that question being, to use LATW as pure IFT only, do you need to roll to hit or can you add their xFP with the unit who is firing the weapon?

If I have to roll a to hit and do hit, can I then add the FP with the firing unit?
You fire at the infantry like you would fire at a vehicle. The infantry has to be in a building, pillbox or behind a wall since you are firing a HEAT round at them. You have to roll to hit and if you score a hit you effect them with the FP listed on the counter. You do not combine it with your IFP.

Wes
 

Doughboy

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
5
Location
Tonto from Toronto
Country
llCanada
Janked said:
You fire at the infantry like you would fire at a vehicle. The infantry has to be in a building, pillbox or behind a wall since you are firing a HEAT round at them. You have to roll to hit and if you score a hit you effect them with the FP listed on the counter. You do not combine it with your IFP.

Wes
Wasn't there something in the rules that stated that upon breaching a hole in a wall or a building subsequent small arms fire can ignore the wall or building TEMs?

:rolleyes:
 
Top