Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-20-2020, 07:47 AM   #31
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Probably. It was a big, heavy tank, designed in 1941, so by the late war it was far from state of the art, and tank reliability had improved a lot over that short time. However, it turned out to be more capable of long drives than was expected, which no doubt was very handy in the role it ended up being forced to take.

Of course the SotA 1945 tank didn't see service in the war, because it was over before they could enter service. For those, we need to look at the T-54/55 and the Centurion.
Ah no I meant they had to devoted more resources right from the beginning. i.e it always took more resources and workshop time to repair and make serviceable (it's just it didn't mater in the role that was initially envisioned for it as it was going to be used less often and with more preplanning).
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation.
*not too high of course
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2020, 08:01 AM   #32
borithan
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Some sources say it was unpopular, but others say it was rated as highly satisfactory by units that used it, so I'm guessing it worked well (for a LAW) but users disliked the cocking system and high recoil.
It was always bloody heavy, and that is never popular. However, I suspect it might have been an element of those that got to know it (or had to rely on it) came to respect it, while as those who didn't find a use for it, or had it malfunction on them the one time they actually tried to use it in anger, hated the thing.

It also had the advantage that it could be fired from enclosed spaces, unlike the bazooka.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
Rupert has the range calculations correct. The basic way of using WWII LAWs was to conceal yourself, preferably somewhere that the tanks would not try to drive, and ambush the tank. Your odds of being killed by a different tank after you'd attacked could be quite bad. Infantry anti-tank weapons were most effective in towns or cities, where it's easy to get a downward shot onto the thinner top armour and there are a lot of places to hide.
There is more than one story of particularly audacious users of the PIAT who actively went out tank hunting with the thing, with decent success... though some of those stories ended up being posthumous retellings. I think I have heard similar stories of bazooka teams during events of the Battle of Bulge and the like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
The Panzer IV was a grossly obsolete design that they were very lucky to manage to stretch to the point of making a tolerable mid-war medium tank.

I mean, there was no winning move once it turned out that blitzing the USSR into surrender wasn't going to work. But trying to carry through the rest of the war with a pre-T-34 main tank doesn't sound like a highly appealing approach.

A tank that can actually win engagements has a lot going for it that most German tanks were finding seriously in doubt when they pitted their dubious pre-war machines against T-34s...
Hmm... I don't think I would call the Panzer IV grossly obsolete at any point of the war. Obsolete by the end, yes, but not grossly so. It was definitely an older design, but it and the Panzer III outclassed most of its contemporaries at the opening of the war (remember every tank having a radio and a full 5 man crew were not a given at that point), and because it had been very well designed it was able to be updated to the point where it was competitive right through the war. It wasn't a tolerable' mid-war medium, it was a good mid-war medium tank.

The major issue with facing the T-34 (which when first fielded had a 2 man turret, and was often missing a radio) on an individual level was the guns they carried. Once they put more powerful guns into both the Panzer III & IV (and both had been designed with the capability to do that in mind), they were on a par again. The Panzer 3 did reach the end of its practicable usefulness before the end of the war, but the Panzer 4 was respectable compared against any medium fielded by any of the major powers right up to the end, though it was at a point where it couldn't really been stretched any further (while as both the Sherman and T-34 had more practical use out of them to go, both getting major upgrades in 1944).



The biggest thing to use against your tank is terrain. In close terrain, getting a position where you have a decent shot with a LAW against a WW2 tank is probably not hard and you are probably just as, if not more, mobile than they are (in open country they can just drive away from you...). You also have superior visibility than they do without exposing themselves, so sneaking up on them would probably not be that hard. If you can (somehow) direct your big tank through a confined space you may be able to get it to cross your mine, potentially immobilising it. If immobilised, the crew are likely to make a runner if they think it is safe to do so.

Distance would be pretty much as close as possible while still maintaining some kind of cover, as has already been mentioned, accuracy was not the strength of any of these weapons. I am not sure how much you could specifically aim at points on a tank with these weapons, but I guess "generally not at the front armour" would be best. Theoretically driver's vision ports and the like are weak spots (and there is an account of a Tiger being knocked out by a bazooka hit on the driver's vision slot), but I don't know whether actually aiming for those parts will work. Trying to immobilise it might work (and the lower sides of a tank are probably a good target for these kind of weapons anyway), and if successful in close terrain you can bugger off afterwards leaving it stuck. There are also several accounts of tanks being taken out of the fight by hits at the turret ring, sometimes as a result of it being a weak spot, but others simply because it jammed the turret mechanism.

Certainly possible if the terrain is right, and your tank hunter is particularly audacious. However the main problem for is actually supporting infantry, as you are exactly the kind of target they are meant to be looking for, and obvious tank ambush points are going to be exactly the kind of points where good supporting infantry are going to be on their highest alert.
borithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2020, 11:35 AM   #33
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by borithan View Post
Hmm... I don't think I would call the Panzer IV grossly obsolete at any point of the war. Obsolete by the end, yes, but not grossly so. It was definitely an older design, but it and the Panzer III outclassed most of its contemporaries at the opening of the war (remember every tank having a radio and a full 5 man crew were not a given at that point), and because it had been very well designed it was able to be updated to the point where it was competitive right through the war. It wasn't a tolerable' mid-war medium, it was a good mid-war medium tank.
A radio and 5-man crew are poor metrics. The radio is an accessory that could usually fit on the same or nearly the same design, and the fifth crewman is only needed in combination with a (relatively early war) radio. Yes, that provided an edge in the earliest campaigns, but that's a highly unsustainable advantage. Radios weren't omitted in contemporary designs because it was hard to fit one in a tank, they were omitted because they were expensive and the value may have been underestimated.

Compared to mid-war Shermans and T-34s, late-model Pz IVs had serious weight distribution issues from fitting an acceptable gun and armor onto a chassis designed with no notion of what 'acceptable' would mean at that point. And a blatantly dated front armor design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borithan View Post
The major issue with facing the T-34 (which when first fielded had a 2 man turret, and was often missing a radio) on an individual level was the guns they carried. Once they put more powerful guns into both the Panzer III & IV (and both had been designed with the capability to do that in mind), they were on a par again. The Panzer 3 did reach the end of its practicable usefulness before the end of the war, but the Panzer 4 was respectable compared against any medium fielded by any of the major powers right up to the end, though it was at a point where it couldn't really been stretched any further (while as both the Sherman and T-34 had more practical use out of them to go, both getting major upgrades in 1944).
The Panzer III was designed to be capable of upgunning to the 5cm gun...which was a good try, but still not at all enough gun, and they couldn't fit anything better. (Later they gave some the 7.5cm infantry gun that the IV originally had.)

Purportedly they were working on a Panzer IV model armed with the same 5 cm gun when they suddenly hit Soviet armor and realized that they had badly underestimated what a tank-fighting tank would need. The long 7.5 cm gun and the Panzer IV were never meant to go together - the gun needed modifications to fit at all, and the tank wound up severely front-heavy due to the barrel. It worked, to be sure, but that was no planned-for upgrade path.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2020, 12:52 PM   #34
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

What's more, the Pz.IV's side armour was never really adequate, with those Soviet anti-tank rifles putting holes in them all through the war.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2020, 05:14 PM   #35
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tessen View Post
If I want to knock out a WW2 tank say a Tiger or a Panther and the tools I have at hand are:

A bazooka

A Piat

A teller mine

A panzerfaust

At what effective range would I have to be , how realistically near to knock it out and where do I aim the shot or place the mine to do the job?
An overall comment on all: Way too close for comfort

A bazooka or a Piat preferably less than 50m to hit, the panzerfaust less than 20m and the mine.. well you would really need to emplace it before or try some silly tricks that are very unlikely to do anything except get you killed.. Though a few tanks were knocked out by placed or hurled anti tank mines but that is kind of unlikely.

On knocking out tanks: The mine if hits the track is fairly likely to cause a mobility kill but then you are hopefully somewhere not nearby yourself as the tank just became a pill box with ****** off enemies trying to see if they have someone to shoot at..

The Piat had a benefit of not having a signature thus making it the most survivable for the user. It also had no back blast but it was big, unwieldy and hard to make ready to shoot. Also the charge was pretty anemic in penetration so least likely to disable a tank of the three listed AT launchers.

The Bazooka: Depends a lot on what generation one you have: Early 60mm, late 60mm or the super bazooka. Early 60mm was a bit unreliable and the external wires were easy to break. The later were more reliable and had the wires internally. The 60mm weapons were more effective than a Piat likely in penetration and accuracy, but still not enough against heavier targets. The later super bazooka would be much better.

The panzerfaust it again depends on the model.. the panzerfaust klein 30 was slightly better penetration than the above but not overwhelmingly so, the panzerfaust 30 was much better penetration and damage with the large 142mm warhead. The panzerfaust 60 had longer range. Overall, if you are close enough and hit a tank with this, it has the best chance of knocking it out.

As to probabilities of knocking such out: very low regardless. Overall figures are in the 1-5% range of shots depending on the situation and source. The Highest rate that I can recall was Finland using about 4000 panzerfausts and about 3200 Panzerschreck ammunition to knock out about 500 tanks in 1944.

As to where to shoot: a panzerfaust should penetrate about any WWII tank in the side at any point and the front in most places.. The other weapons less so.

But in any case the best place to shoot is at side and at middle to hit the likely locations of ammunition inside.

Overall: if the tank is in close terrain without infantry support and you know what you are doing, you have a fair chance if you have a AT launcher and you are mostly likely to survive. If they have infantry support then you might get that one shot off and then it is a question of if your friends can keep the enemy infantry heads down while you high tail out. In more open terrain your chances of both succeeding and surviving are much lower.

As a final comment: If I could indeed chose what weapon to use, it would depends on the location and situation.
In a city: Likely panzerfaust as it likely has the best "one shot kill" probability and you can likely get close. Second choice would be a Piat as it can be shot best from inside houses and such due to no backblast.
In a dense forest/rocky or similar broken terrain again a panzerfaust for the best one shot kill probability as you can get close.
In more open terrain: Likely the super bazooka as it has from what I understood the best long range hit probability. With a Piat as a second choice as a shot with it might not even be noticed even by the enemy infantry if there is some fighting going on.
__________________
--
GURPS spaceship unofficial errata and thoughts: https://gsuc.roto.nu/
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2020, 05:53 PM   #36
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby View Post
The Piat had a benefit of not having a signature thus making it the most survivable for the user. It also had no back blast but it was big, unwieldy and hard to make ready to shoot. Also the charge was pretty anemic in penetration so least likely to disable a tank of the three listed AT launchers.
It had more of a charge than the bazooka, though due to the choice of shape it had no more penetration (but was less sensitive to variation in standoff distance).

Quote:
The Bazooka: Depends a lot on what generation one you have: Early 60mm, late 60mm or the super bazooka. Early 60mm was a bit unreliable and the external wires were easy to break. The later were more reliable and had the wires internally. The 60mm weapons were more effective than a Piat likely in penetration and accuracy, but still not enough against heavier targets. The later super bazooka would be much better.
No Super-Bazooka until the Korean war. The later Bazooka should be compared to later PIAT rounds, which were also improved.

Quote:
The panzerfaust it again depends on the model.. the panzerfaust klein 30 was slightly better penetration than the above but not overwhelmingly so, the panzerfaust 30 was much better penetration and damage with the large 142mm warhead. The panzerfaust 60 had longer range. Overall, if you are close enough and hit a tank with this, it has the best chance of knocking it out.
The problem being that its range was terrible, its accuracy also terrible, and the launch signature huge.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2020, 06:13 PM   #37
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
It had more of a charge than the bazooka, though due to the choice of shape it had no more penetration (but was less sensitive to variation in standoff distance).
The sources I saw had the 60mm bazookas penetrating better than the Piats, although the Piat had a larger charge. But I guess it is one of those "What version of A compared to what version of B" as both improved during the war.

Quote:
No Super-Bazooka until the Korean war. The later Bazooka should be compared to later PIAT rounds, which were also improved.
True.
Quote:
The problem being that its range was terrible, its accuracy also terrible, and the launch signature huge.
Oh, yes. All of those, thus the need for terrain that allows you to get close. But still specially the larger version had the biggest penetration and largest effect after armor of the listed weapon. But in the more open spaces it was.. not very good, to say the least.

But in close terrain it allowed things like Ville Väisänen to destroy 8 T-34s in a single morning on june 28. 1944.
__________________
--
GURPS spaceship unofficial errata and thoughts: https://gsuc.roto.nu/

Last edited by weby; 10-21-2020 at 04:56 AM.
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2020, 11:01 PM   #38
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Germany couldn't out-build the Allies, so its only hope was to try and build better.
The effort to build better wound up causing them to build far less. For example, the average production run between design changes on the Tiger was less than 6 tanks.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 04:58 AM   #39
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post
The effort to build better wound up causing them to build far less. For example, the average production run between design changes on the Tiger was less than 6 tanks.
The big problem was not the complexity, though it did contribute, the big problem was that by the time they started producing those their economy was already failing.
__________________
--
GURPS spaceship unofficial errata and thoughts: https://gsuc.roto.nu/
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 05:44 AM   #40
Anders
 
Anders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

The perfidious Western Allies insisted on bombing their factories, which was really unsporting of them.

What did the Russians use for handheld AT-capability?
__________________
“When you arise in the morning think of what a privilege it is to be alive, to think, to enjoy, to love ...” Marcus Aurelius
Anders is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
tank, wwii

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.