Early War Infantry AT weapons

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Early War Infantry AT weapons

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Early War Infantry AT weapons

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Early War Infantry AT weapons - 11/23/2000 4:25:00 AM

Mike Rothery

Posts: 180
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

I've been playing some early to mid war scenarios, and I am developing an aversion to rifle-grenades. I think that rifle-grenades are way too common in the game. My reading on the matter seems to show that they were not always carried, were woefully inaccurate, and the troops disliked having the launchers attached to their rifles. They were issued for specific tasks, often with specially prepared rifles with reinforced stocks (at least in the British and Commonwealth forces). The Anti-Tank abilities of rifle-greandes were marginal at best. The SS took them seriously and went through 3-4 versions of increasing power. The Fallshirmjaeger dropped them for the Panzerwurfmine (the shaped charge with a small umbrella), and the German Army converted their AT Rifles to launch them. Early war orbats show that the primary AT weapon in Infantry Battalions was the AT Gun, with AT Rifles at the Company or Platoon level. For German mid war units it was common for improvised AT weapons to be used, ie. Tellermine, Satchel charges, demolition charge attached to a jerry can of gasoline etc. I also note that the German 37mm PAK had a oversize slip-on Shaped charge rocket available mid war. The Brotich relied upon the Hawkins bomb and the Sticky bomb through the mid-war period. Can we agree on an approach for Infantry AT weapons, and decrease the use of rifle-grenades?

_____________________________

MikeR

Post #: 1

- 11/23/2000 4:50:00 AM

Drake

Posts: 178
Joined: 9/4/2000
From: Kingston, Canada
Status: offline

Lets see the Germans made over a million and a half Schiessbecher, they are the device that lanches rifle granades and they never stoped production ontill May 44 so if they were as useless as you say I dont think the Germans would have did this. They also had a handgun version that was very common. Like in truth do most AT weapons are two comman in the game. Like they could add formations without AT weapons but no one would buy and if you took out the formations with AT weapons people would complain the other way. [This message has been edited by Drake (edited November 22, 2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Rothery)

Post #: 2

- 11/23/2000 5:05:00 AM

john g

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rothery: I've been playing some early to mid war scenarios, and I am developing an aversion to rifle-grenades. I think that rifle-grenades are way too common in the game. Can we agree on an approach for Infantry AT weapons, and decrease the use of rifle-grenades?

Personally I think that infantry kill tanks far too often, infantry close assualts are too easy to initiate, and the bonus for having an at weapon is too strong. Just watch a ptrd team take out tiger after tiger when engaging them from a tree hex. Perhaps they are shoving that 14.5mm gun into the vision slits and are shooting the crew at close range. In the period before 1940 most of my armor kills have been with infantry units. The fear factor is not there, the player knows that the infantry has a slim chance of surviving if they assault the tank, and none if they don't. There is nothing to be gained in not trying the assault. I don't think that it is just the rifle grenades, though I normally stay 3-4 hexes away from infantry while machine-gunning them to death. Any unit that approaches an infantry unit to a 1 hex range deserves the death it will shortly receive. thanks, John.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Rothery)

Post #: 3

- 11/23/2000 5:06:00 AM

Mike Rothery

Posts: 180
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

My concern is not about HE rifle-grenades but AT rifle-grenades. Also, my concern on the OOB's is that other weapons which could be in there, are not. eg. the modified 37mm and PzB 39 AT rifle for firing shaped charges, the Panzerwufmine for Fallshirmjaeger, the hawkins grenade for Britidh infantry, the Gebalteladung and improvised mines for the germans etc... I agree that if we modelled line infantry squads acurately, they would be too boring, and no-one would buy them. As for the Kampfpistole, I am afraid it really was useless as an AT weapon, but ok for smoke, flares etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Drake: Lets see the Germans made over a million and a half Schiessbecher, they are the device that lanches rifle granades and they never stoped production ontill May 44 so if they were as useless as you say I dont think the Germans would have did this. They also had a handgun version that was very common. Like in truth do most AT weapons are two comman in the game. Like they could add formations without AT weapons but no one would buy and if you took out the formations with AT weapons people would complain the other way. [This message has been edited by Drake (edited November 22, 2000).]

_____________________________

MikeR

(in reply to Mike Rothery)

Post #: 4

- 11/23/2000 8:52:00 AM

craig77

Posts: 8
Joined: 9/18/2000
From: Alba,Mo
Status: offline

My research shows Germany did not even have a Rifle Grenade launcher until sometime 1941. Called the Shiessbecher, it was only capable of fireing AP grenades (no HE). It was later replaced by Gewehrgranatgerat, which fired HE and AP grenades. German troops still refered to it as the "Shiessbecher" however.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Rothery)

Post #: 5

- 11/23/2000 10:03:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

I've been playing a bit as the Brits, and the Boy's AT rifle, the same one used on units specifically for the ATR role, do not have a penetration point at all. It's treated as a mere small-arms rifle; no use whatsoever even if the said armor is only 1mm thick (and no use for HE purposes either unless I'm mistaken). Were the Boy's AT really that woeful until the PIAT came out?

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Rothery)

Post #: 6

- 11/24/2000 2:29:00 AM

Securitas

Posts: 42
Joined: 11/8/2000
Status: offline

The Boys ATR was not particularly effective, but it should still be capable of SOME damage to a tank, at least in the early years of the war (39-40). It certainly could penetrate the side armour of a half-track, or a Bren carrier. ------------------ Securitas _________________________ 88mm is a really nice number

_____________________________

Securitas _________________________ 88 is a really nice number

(in reply to Mike Rothery)

Post #: 7

- 11/24/2000 4:34:00 AM

Mike Rothery

Posts: 180
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

The .50cal Browning was also considered an At weapon at the start of the war, and the Boys had better penetration than the M2. The Boys could get lucky and do some damge to early war tank, but even if you got a penetration you were unlikely to do any critical damage. That is why the Germans added a tear gas capsule inside their AT rifle projectiles.....but it didn't help. The accounts of Australian troops using the Boys against the Vichy French in Syria show that repeated hits used to make the French tanks back off, but there was no noticable damage.

_____________________________

MikeR

(in reply to Mike Rothery)

Post #: 8

- 11/27/2000 9:47:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

It is considered small arms, like a 50 cal. bu like a 50 cal can penetrate a bit 26mm is its base. Also note that it is assumed for AT purposes that units may have scrounged something that allows them to be more effective than their "official weapons", and if they are in cover are enhanced some more. It does not take a lot to take out a tank at close quarters. look at all the T-72s taken out in Chechnya with RPGs and molotovs. Tanks are tough to tak out in open ground, but get into close terain and watch out...

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Mike Rothery)

Post #: 9