Login

russian armor

The imbalance between Allied and Axis Infantry Anti-tank

PAGES (20)down
13 Nov 2014, 14:40 PM
#81
avatar of emil_fh

Posts: 28

The intresting thing from my point of view is that for some reason lots of people, in this case including the developers at Relic, automatically assume German equipment allways is superiour to Allied or Soviet equipment.

The Bazooka is a prime example. Its actually a better weapon than the Panzerschreck. Its lighter, easier to handle and can effectively take out any German tank. Mediums and medium tank based AFV head on and even the heavierst from the sides and rear.
For some reason in CoH2 it even struggles to be effective at flank shots. Against the heavier tanks is completly useless.

The Bazooka also is a better multi purpose weapon with different ammo types available.
This might be intresting for rebalancing.

IMHO the Bazooka should at least have a decent chace to penerate medium armor (P4) head on. Flank and rear shots should have a better than decent chance against any German vehicle. Panthers, Tiger and Co being more or less immune to them over the frontal arc is ok. But shots at the rear armor should really be effective. Penetrating with allomst every hit and with a high crit chance.

Giving the Bazooka the ability to lauch WP rockets could also be intresting. How it should work in game needs testing. Could be a smoke 'nade, a fire 'nade or a mixture like the Obers ability.

All rocket based AT should be inacurate at long range. Hit chance against a typical medium tank 75/50/25 % or so. Maybe better at short and even worse at long range. This would make AT infantry a last line of defense and not walking PAKs. Would underline both roles that of the AT guns and that of AT inf. At short range in tight terrain the latter will be deadly in open terrain the will be much less effective.

The PTRS should get a range advantage and be more accurate. After all its a rifle and not a rocket. This could outweight its low damage. Turing them into a long range AT harrasment weapon.
Another option would be the ability to fire tungsten core API ammo. Wich would work about the same as it does with the MG42. Increase damage and penetration for a short period of time. Not enough to kill a P4 with one activation on one squad but enough to drive it off.

The only real advantage the Panzerschreck has over weapons like the Bazooka or the PTRS is its penetration. Wich is simply based on warhead size. The laucher itself is a very clumsy and heavy weapon. The laucher its allmost double the weight of the Bazooka. So how about the Panzerschreck slowing the equiped Squad down?
The Schreck is also infamous for its huge firing signature. Wich is true for all rocket based weapons but with the Schreck its worse than with most others. How about the unit wich fired a Schreck getting some sort of debuff for a short time after firing? Received accuracy for example. They simply attract a lot of attention. Could even be an option for Panzerfaust and Bazooka using squads too. This again would underline their role as short range tank hunters and not long range general purpose weapons. Maybe combine it with a "rockets target vehicle only" button.

I also find it strange that HEAT warheads loose penetration at range. This is not the case in reality. Hasn't been in WW2 and isn't now. If its about balance why not handle it by accuracy. This is the major shortcoming of these weapons. Neither the Panzerschreck nor the Bazooka will reliably hit a standing tank behond 100 m. Even though the rocket will fly much further. A skilled user usually would try to get withing 50-75 m and go for a flank shot. Even with the Panzerschreck.
Both the Bazooka and the Panzerschreck a specialist weapons. Veterancy really should make a difference with them. Maybe even the penetration could get better with veterancy because the user tries to hit where it really hurts. In this case changing the penetration profile to one dependent on range since the weapon isn't accurate enough to do so behond medium range.

There are lots of possible options without abandoning the historical roots of the game completly. They just have to be used IMHO.


Panzerschreck were an improvement/copy of the bazooka with bigger caliber and better combat success, american leaders recognized the schreks superiority and in late war designed the super bazooka with higher caliber. As far as I know the superbazooka were never used in the ww2 but the normal bazooka with improved warhead were. True that the panzerschrek was clumsy and produced a lot of smoke, but still a much more succesful weaponsystem for other things than self-defence versus tanks.

13 Nov 2014, 14:48 PM
#82
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

The intresting thing from my point of view is that for some reason lots of people, in this case including the developers at Relic, automatically assume German equipment allways is superiour to Allied or Soviet equipment.

The Bazooka is a prime example. Its actually a better weapon than the Panzerschreck. Its lighter, easier to handle and can effectively take out any German tank. Mediums and medium tank based AFV head on and even the heavierst from the sides and rear.
For some reason in CoH2 it even struggles to be effective at flank shots. Against the heavier tanks is completly useless.



I am sory to inform you that schrecks and fausts were clearly better than bazookas. Bazookas could not penetrate any german tank, that's for sure. They failed big time against Tigers and even Panthers. On the contrary, fausts and schrecks could penetrate almost any Allied tank. They are the ancestors of every modern AT infantry hand held weapon. The rest of your statement seems ok to me, it's clear that bazookas need to have a little more damage and using different type of amo could be interesting.
13 Nov 2014, 15:09 PM
#83
avatar of schnuersi

Posts: 56

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2014, 14:40 PMemil_fh
but still a much more succesful weaponsystem for other things than self-defence versus tanks.


They are only usefull for self defence vs. tanks.
While like any other firearm they can be fired at anything but they are not good at it. For bunker busting for example the PzFst lacked range. Both lacked accuracy and the optimised HEAT warheads have low fragmentation.

The warhead of the PzSchreck is so big because its intended to take on soviet tanks wich are as a rule of thump better protected compared to US and British tanks.
Against M4s it was simply overkill. This is what made it effective.
But the Germans themself concidered the PzSchreck not really successfull this is why they stopped producing and developing them in favour of the PzFst.
13 Nov 2014, 15:22 PM
#84
avatar of emil_fh

Posts: 28

I agree, maybe the success were due to germans fighting a defensive battle, in the west, in the later stages of the war. Here ambushes with handheld AT could be used. Therefore I meant that they could be used as a weapon against tanks, more than a last line defense when overrun, americans using bazookas often had to use them against the underside of tanks to take them out, so a combination of bigger warhead, less armoured american tanks and the nature of the battles fought is what I think made panzershreks more effective.

Did they stopped producing them because fausts were good enough and much easier/cheaper to produce and use? For volksturms etc?
13 Nov 2014, 15:30 PM
#85
avatar of schnuersi

Posts: 56

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2014, 14:48 PMJohnnyB

I am sory to inform you that schrecks and fausts were clearly better than bazookas.


No they are not.
First: comparing the PzFst to the Bazooka is like comparing apples to oranges. The Bazooka like the PzSchreck is a team weapon and platoon asset. The PzFst is a short range non reusable grenade laucher for use by the individual soldier. Only later versions were reloadable under combat conditions. They also had much inferiour range and accuracy. The PzFst is all about penetration. Its a last ditch self defense weapon not a platoon support asset.

The Bazooka with the improved M6A3 rocket can effectively engage any German tank. Exept the frontal armor of the Panther and heavier tanks. Against the side and rear armor even of the Tiger 2 it was effective. The P4 only had a chance to survive against even the original M6 rocket if it was fitted with skirts and these are actually hit.
The P4 without skirts is even vulurable to PTRD and PRTS AT rifles over the sides and rear.

The toughness of German armor is often overexagerated. In fact its not about the vehicle as such but about unsuitable tactitics, lack of propper training and lack of experience.

The first Tiger E knocked out by the western Allies for example was killed by a QF 6 pdr without the use APDS while engaging over the frontal arc. So the conclusion it the 57 mm AT is effective against it if used properly.

German tank crews feared Bazooka... not in a head on engagement but getting ambushed by them. Engageing armor head on is a bad idea even for AT guns. Its suicidal for hand held AT.

The Bazooka certainly is not the best design but its not completly useless. Its lightweight and thus more mobile. There are also different ammo types available for it making it more flexible. This is also underlined by the fact that the weapon was not abandoned but improved and the M20 developed from it. The US Army just put a low priority on anti armor capability as a whole because they deemed it unnessesary... wich in fact it has been. If the Bazooka would have been completly ineffective and the need for a better weapon pressing they would have developed one faster.
13 Nov 2014, 15:32 PM
#86
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130

Sturmpios should have had the schrecks, not the volks...

Would fix a dozen problems.


Will not happen ever unless early game okw gets a complete overhaul.
13 Nov 2014, 15:38 PM
#87
avatar of schnuersi

Posts: 56

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2014, 15:22 PMemil_fh

Did they stopped producing them because fausts were good enough and much easier/cheaper to produce and use? For volksturms etc?


They stopped for several reasons:
The PzSchreck is a specialist weapon and needs a two men team. Gunner and loader. Its large heavy and cumbersome. This combined with the large firing signature because of the rocket engine still running when the projectile left the barrel (not the case with the Bazooka) resulted in a high loss rate. It attracted attention and it was difficult for the weapon team to change position quickly.
The weapon team needed to be properly trained to use the weapon to its full effect. Giving it to untrained personell was a waste of recources.
Against late war Soviet heavy armor the PzSchreck was loosing effectiveness. It couldn't be improved because the penetration of a HEAT warhead is directly linked to the liner diamerter. This is why the later PzFsts used 149 mm warheads.
On top of that the PzFst is far easier and cheaper to make. The later versions also approach the effective range of the PzSchreck.
In theory the Schreck had bigger range and is more flexible because different rockets could be used. The German Army never saw it as a general support weapon but a dedicated AT weapon though.
So why keep using it if there is a cheaper and simpler alternative.
13 Nov 2014, 15:49 PM
#88
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

Finally!

This has been a major problem since CoH2's release.


Completely agree. Excellent points OP.
13 Nov 2014, 17:17 PM
#89
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

So its either Volks that are the problem or schrecks...


I do agree that schrecks are really good, but they seem to have no problem being on the PzGr unit. There seems to be a good tradeoff since PzGR squad loses quite a bit of its AI power. The squad is also expensive to make and to reinforce. Volks, on the otherhand, are cheap and easy to maintain.

I really think moving the schrek to the Sturmpioneer squad would improve things.
13 Nov 2014, 17:29 PM
#90
avatar of sneakking

Posts: 655

Permanently Banned
Great post OP. Completely agree that schrecks need a nerf. That, or change the stats of the Volks' schreck so it's weaker than the PGren one, because as PwnageMachine pointed out earlier, they are pretty well offset by their small squad size and reinforce cost.

One way or another, schreck blobs are a problem.
13 Nov 2014, 21:11 PM
#91
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

Shrek blob with Obers is such a n00b tactic I swear. Even with the accuracy nerf, I doubt it will stop the blobbing. At least I will have SOME chance to escape the homing missile.
13 Nov 2014, 22:03 PM
#92
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2014, 15:32 PMJaigen


Will not happen ever unless early game okw gets a complete overhaul.


Every suggestion these days requires a faction overhaul. :/
13 Nov 2014, 22:31 PM
#93
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

So does this mean Relic is completely incompetent
14 Nov 2014, 03:43 AM
#94
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

I agree with a lot of what has been said lately. Rather than nerf Panzerschrecks, make the penetration standard at all ranges for HEAT weapons and lower the accuracy so that it's very high at short range, but very low at max range.

I also cannot agree enough with taking Panzerschrecks off Volksgrenadiers. I don't care what happens to them, whether they're moved to Sturmpioneers or introduced on a new Tank Hunter unit, anything else is better. Volksgrenadiers could instead get an upgrade for some (mediocre) StG's, which would also unlock Panzerfaust. Also buff the Raketenwerfer, that thing is useless.
14 Nov 2014, 04:18 AM
#95
avatar of HardworkingBulldozer

Posts: 117

So far most kids agree that Shrecks should be taken away from volks and instead improve their AI efficiency, and also improve Rak43 so it doesn't shoot at frogs and grass anymore.

Actually OKW is not desperate for Pshrecks. [slightly] Buff puma, fix r43.
14 Nov 2014, 05:23 AM
#96
avatar of Enkidu

Posts: 351

Hmm, shreks on sturmpios does seem to make more sense but that would leave volks in the same awkward position cons are in. I guess okw at least have the option of other non doctrinal infantry so it wouldn't be as bad.

I'm hearing a lot of you saying that you'd like to see the shrek nerfed rather than allied AT buffed for fear of infantry blobbing being too effective and while I completely understand that sentiment, I'd rather see allied AT buffed and blob control weapons (hmgs) better at discouraging blobs if that's an issue.

I feel like infantry upgrades should be useful and effective at their given rolls. It should be exciting to see a weapon on the ground; a small win for whoever picks it up and a noticeably lost asset for whoever dropped it. Especially if munis are involved.

Some of the weapons in game are currently like that and some are not. If I see an lmg-34 on the ground, it's like getting a star in Mario. I will change my current strategic objective, some times to the point of recklessness and go out of my way to pick it up. I'll make the fight about getting that weapon if I can (it's pretty broken lol). If I see an lmg-42 or shrek on the ground, I think "Oh hell yeah!" and try to pick it up asap. If I see a BAR on the ground, my volks get giddy and I try to pick it up if possible but I won't do so recklessly. If I see a bazooka on the ground I think "Meh, I guess my volks have a free slot, maybe I'll pick that up after the fight." If I see a ptrs on the ground, I either walk past it or think, "I wonder if there's a DP hiding under that."
14 Nov 2014, 06:09 AM
#97
avatar of ASneakyFox

Posts: 365

actually if sturmpios had the shrek option instead of the volksgren that could be a lot more interesting of a choice. buying a shrek would decrease the sturmpios killing power against infantry, and in a squad of just 4 losing 1-2 men to be guys who cary the shreks means they wont be killing many infantry.

In comparison to the volksgren.. theyre incredibly medicore vs all units. their main utility is that they can occupy space and throw grenades and shreks. Their role in infantry fights is that they can maybe attract some gunfire aware from the sturmpios while the sturmpios close in for the instawipe.

Bassically the decision to upgrade a volksgren with shreks is obvious and based only on if you have the munitions for it.

Choosing to turn a sturmpio from an anti infantry unit to an anti vehicle unit could be a more interesting choice.
14 Nov 2014, 07:27 AM
#98
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

I feel like Relic made 2 major mistakes just before they released WFA.

1. Moved Panzerschrecks to Volksgrenadiers
2. Swapped the M15 and 57mm AT Gun.

Things would be so much better if these two mistakes were reverted.

Also, I wouldn't even care if Sturmpioneers could put away the Panzerschreck, not getting the uber-repair bonus and only having one 'schreck is a fair enough tradeoff imo.
14 Nov 2014, 07:47 AM
#99
avatar of faus515

Posts: 101

was be ~10 000 online
now ~3000 online
future ~ ?
14 Nov 2014, 08:31 AM
#100
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2014, 07:47 AMfaus515
was be ~10 000 online
now ~3000 online
future ~ ?


it not problem about number of player
but problem is ratio on automatch searching time
now player perfer play Axis team more than Allied team
and yes Allied AT performance is one reason
PAGES (20)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Russian Federation 53
Poland 11
Sweden 3
United States 15
Germany 1

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

683 users are online: 1 member and 682 guests
NorthWeapon
4 posts in the last 24h
38 posts in the last week
137 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45069
Welcome our newest member, linkvaow88moinhat
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM