Profile of schnuersi

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.

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.

>Implying training matters at all in the age of machine guns and flamethrowers, which were both hilariously easy to use

^^... because as everybody knows from action movies aiming doesn't matter with machine guns or automatic weapons in general...
Training is what matters most. The gun is secondary at best. A well trained soldier with a bolt action rifle will more often than not succeed vs an untrained militiaman with a machine gun.
The fact than a MG shoots faster just means more shots can miss in a shorter time. Wich is exactly what will happen without proper training.

Modern armies put more effort in picking and training their gunners than their rifleman. Why is that necessary if these are so easy to use?

A flamethrower is a extremly complicated to use, unwieldy and dangerous device. An untained person will most likely present a bigger danger to himself and his mates than the enemy. Its also heavy and bulky. Even carrying if around needs time to practice and getting used to.

This threat is as far as I can tell again a case of comparing apples with oranges.

Tiger Ace is fine in 1v1 and 2v2 with VPC. From my point of view you don't see it too often in these either.
Its a powerfull unit but it comes very late and because of the MP income hit even if it cause large emounts of damage that is often not enough to prevent a VPC victory. The not kiling the Ace but everything else, especially repairing units is a very effective counter.

With 3v3 and 4v4 or without VPC the balance is out of the window anyways and so its mood arguing if its because of the Tiger Ace or not.

Meet your 1st Lieutenant in the Artillery.

A comissioned officer wearing sandals and jewlery on duty... sorry I can't take that serious.

I am also curious how she will hump 40-50 kg 155 mm shells. Judgeing from the picture she is only slightly heavier.