Have You Ever...

FourDeuceMF

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
392
Reaction score
292
Location
Geneva, IL (Chicago)
Country
llUnited States
In the past couple of months in a few scenarios, I recall watching my son carry his wounded 8-0 along in Hatten, and I pushed a burning wreck halftrack off the side of the road in KGP...two things that I'd surprisingly not seen done in over 20 years (the latter at all)... ;-)

(and yes, I did use the 'Tiger to Panther...get on the road, push that heap of junk out of the way' line...) :p
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,256
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
yes. once. Delaying Action, ASL A 49.

with only 1.5 squads available to set the limit for PF's, it is a low limit.

and there are a lot of Russian Tanks to attend to, so one does not simply pass up a PF shot in this scenario.

Run into the PF limit in a scenario?

Never seen it happen. Would be freaking awesome to suddenly have the German infantry rewind back in time to early 1943 when PFs were still on the drawing board.
 

sunoftzu

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
938
Reaction score
483
Location
Taipei, Taiwan
Country
llTaiwan
My opponent ran out of panzerfausts playing DASL-18 "King Of The Hill".

That was back in about 1989, and is about the only thing I can still remember about that game ......

John.
 

thedrake

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
1,407
Reaction score
554
Location
Picayune, MS
Country
llUnited States
Almost ran out of PF as SS in scenario FB14 At the Narrow Passage...fired em off like crazy,did not score one hit on any Russian tanks, but did CR one of my own SS squads. Worst part of it was happened in a convention game.
 

Perry

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
2,764
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
yes. once. Delaying Action, ASL A 49.

with only 1.5 squads available to set the limit for PF's, it is a low limit.

and there are a lot of Russian Tanks to attend to, so one does not simply pass up a PF shot in this scenario.
This is the only scenario I went into with the PF limit weighing on my mind.

IMO, you must pass up the "bad" PF shots and save them for "good" shots.
 

JRKrejsa

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
3,667
Reaction score
1,094
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I wanna play whoever you guys play! PFs almost always hit my tanks...
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,556
Reaction score
5,063
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
A49 Delaying Action was also once played as the final at ASLOk. :(

As relayed in The Rout Report in Pokey Perry's Plan. ;)
The Rout Report! What a blast from the past!!🤗🤗
Fired up the Wayback Machine eh Perry?😉
 

Old Noob

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
2,196
Reaction score
2,352
Country
llUnited States
If your PF hits (and kills) it is a 'good' shot. If your PF misses or CRs you, it's a 'bad' shot.
 

holdit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
414
Reaction score
568
Location
Ireland
Country
llIreland
I've never run out but then PFs (and ATMM) are grossly over represented in ASL. This is likely due to perception they were used effectively by Volksturm boys and old men in the slaughter vast swathes of Red Army tanks. This simply isn't supported by the facts. A 1944 OoB of 10 squads with 15 PFs is probably over representation.

The Germans fired huge numbers of PFs for every kill obtained. What is not shown in ASL is that a PF required a good deal of special training to use safely and effectively (as well as to survive). As the number of properly trained German troops declined the rate of wastage (misses) shot through the roof.

For example, German records for Jan to Apr 1944 on the eastern front showed a total of 520 tanks killed by PF, PSK, ATMM, and other handheld hollow charge weapons or AT mines. Of these 264 were killed by the PF (50.8%)

Approx another 256 were killed by:

Panzerschreks - 86 (16.7%)
ATMM - 65 (12.8%)
Grenade (bundles) - 21 (4.0%)
Anti-tank Mines - 73 (15.%)
Sturmpistole - 10 (0.2%)

While specific details are lacking, in the four month period the PF killed about 3.2% of the total tank kills claimed (8148 w/ known cause) on the entire front (counting guns 75mm and larger) for the expenditure of a whopping ~684,500 PFs fired*.

This raw data would suggest that it took roughly 2593 PFs fired per kill (German records are not perfect but...). Note that hits that were not "flush" on the armour tended to results in duds or imperfectly shaped detonations and failed penetrations. Even if one discounts defective rounds, or those used against bunkers, building etc., the kills per shot ratio is terrible (even if the numbers are off by 50%, they are still awful). It should also be noted that hits beyond 40-50 meters were extremely rare.

With nearly 8.3 million produced (~425,000 rejected due to production flaws), their use in ASL would have them kill the entire Allied and Russian tank fleets many time over with the current availability, usage and TH table rules (especially beyond 50 meters). These were weapons of desperation but in the game we tend to stalk tanks like rabbits (especially in 1945 when they are available on base dr 1-4).

Here are a few sources:

Hahn, Fritz: Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945
Fleischer, Wolfgang: Panzerfaust and other German Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons
Germany and the Second World War. Volume vol 2.
Das Deutsche Reich & der Zweite Weltkrieg. Band 5 / 2.

*Note that total German expenditure of PFs in on the eastern front in 1944 exceeded 2 million.
I wonder how much of this is due to the PF being less effective than the game portrays, and how much is due to real-life WW2 tankers staying further away from infantry than their ASL counterparts.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
I wonder how much of this is due to the PF being less effective than the game portrays, and how much is due to real-life WW2 tankers staying further away from infantry than their ASL counterparts.
Maybe. Then again the PF was an ambush weapon and a real world battlefield were not as choked with terrain as the typical scenario presents (especially in the east), and a scenario may only give a player one or two tanks versus x# of PFs (ie:12 PFs for 8 squads). Generally, fields of fire were much more open and infantry was close by, especially as experience was gained.

But still,... 2593 shots to obtain a kill. Meh.
 

holdit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
414
Reaction score
568
Location
Ireland
Country
llIreland
Maybe. Then again the PF was an ambush weapon and a real world battlefield were not as choked with terrain as the typical scenario presents (especially in the east), and a scenario may only give a player one or two tanks versus x# of PFs (ie:12 PFs for 8 squads). Generally, fields of fire were much more open and infantry was close by, especially as experience was gained.

But still,... 2593 shots to obtain a kill. Meh.
True enough. Just a line of thinking that occurred to me - not unlike a Napoleonics debate that went on for ages about giving an attacker a bonus for a flank attack. Some were claiming that such attacks didn't happen and there were few mentions of them in the histories. It was also true, however, that generals tried to make sure they didn't happen, and I was considering the possibility that real-world generals in the early 19th Century might have known their trade better than pretend generals in the 20th. 😀
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Not exactly. As I noted above the raw numbers can be deceiving. If only 50% were shot at tanks that's still 1296 shots per kill. If just 25% were shot at tanks - 648 shots per kill.

Were most lost or abandoned? Were they thrown away as the infantry retreated or routed? I haven't found details on this just the amount of PF 'expended'.

As the sample notes only 3% of kills that could be identified by cause (some 8000+) were PF kills. I would not be surprised, in a battle there would be machine gun and rifle fire, shrapnel flying about from mortars and artillery bursts, large numbers of tanks closing while firing machine guns and their main guns - general chaos that ASL cannot represent. The slightest distraction could result in large numbers of misses.

One source notes that between June and the Falaise Pocket (Aug), British tank losses to PF and Psk were about 6% of their total in the bocage terrain. Another US study had allied tank losses to shape charged weapons between Jun 44 and May 45 at 7.5% but noted most were disabled/crippled rather than written off. Compare this to 13% lost to non-combat related issues. The majority of tanks lost (54%) were due to "gunfire".
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,917
Reaction score
5,100
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Not exactly. As I noted above the raw numbers can be deceiving. If only 50% were shot at tanks that's still 1296 shots per kill. If just 25% were shot at tanks - 648 shots per kill.

Were most lost or abandoned? Were they thrown away as the infantry retreated or routed? I haven't found details on this just the amount of PF 'expended'.

As the sample notes only 3% of kills that could be identified by cause (some 8000+) were PF kills. I would not be surprised, in a battle there would be machine gun and rifle fire, shrapnel flying about from mortars and artillery bursts, large numbers of tanks closing while firing machine guns and their main guns - general chaos that ASL cannot represent. The slightest distraction could result in large numbers of misses.

One source notes that between June and the Falaise Pocket (Aug), British tank losses to PF and Psk were about 6% of their total in the bocage terrain. Another US study had allied tank losses to shape charged weapons between Jun 44 and May 45 at 7.5% but noted most were disabled/crippled rather than written off. Compare this to 13% lost to non-combat related issues. The majority of tanks lost (54%) were due to "gunfire".
Just like today's close defense anti-armor weapons (RPG, AT-4, LAW, etc.) it takes nerves of steel to accurately target and engage an enemy AFV in a combat environment with everything else happening around them. The biggest factor I see is the ability to estimate range and the propensity to fire the weapon prematurely. Having been the subject of at least 5 RPG attacks, three were launched at extended range and fell far short (at least 100m) from my vehicle, another the firer was so shaken he must have been firing at aircraft and the 5th I was just lucky he had removed the detonating cap from the projectile (probably to use on an IED) so it was just an inert round when it penetrated my radiator. In all but one case the firers life was cut drastically short following his weapon's fire. I can only assume that being a last ditch defensive weapon, and the fact it was liberally handed out to Volksturm and other less well trained personnel especially late in the war and coupled with the life expectancy of its user (thus experience gained by its use), the number of shots were possibly as high as indicated.
 
Last edited:

R Hooks

Smoke Break brb
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
762
Reaction score
209
Location
beaumont texas
Country
llUnited States
My uncle was a tanker in WW2, he said most of the PF people were kids put in a foxhole and told to fire if they heard a tank close to them. My uncle says most came up with their hands in the air, and the others died.
 
Top