Sure. But when you're dealing with CAHDs your game is no longer realistic anyway, so no need to worry about such details, just do whatever makes the book-keeping easy. In other words, something like,
The only difference is whether it might still be possible to identify the remains.
Not having realistic characters doesn't preclude having weapons that behave in a way that feels realistic.
I play a lot of games that have either limited elements of fantasy or move between different levels of fantasy (e.g. a fairly realistic military game that includes fighting aliens).
Sacrificing the sense of fidelity around the military stuff just because there are aliens in some parts wouldn't work for me.
Of course I also prefer movies that make an effort to get science, technology, and military gear stuff right even if they're science fiction. This is a personal-preference thing, I'd guess.
To be clear: I'm not claiming any of this is, in any way, really "realistic." It's a matter of getting things to feel reasonably correct. Having people be somewhat hard to engage with weapons like shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles "feels" right to me... and at least some people with experience with these things apparently agree.
Uhm, not quite.
AFAIR this RGW IS in fact recoilless, because it uses a sort of counter-weight-pellets that are expelled from the rear end of the PF III.
So, did i miss something?
Yeah it uses countermass -- that means less backblast -- but when you say it "IS" (in CAPS) in fact recoilless, are you saying that an RPG-7 somehow *isn't* recoilless?
They're both "recoilless" (using different approaches) -- but that's compared to something like a mortar which has *massive* recoil and can only be fired from a plate fixed against the ground.
Now, I've never fired any of these anti-tank rocket launchers -- so I don't have first-hand experience with what the recoil is like -- but from videos it looks like the destabilization from firing is at least on par with what you'd get from an assault rifle (which has, really, a very mild recoil).
Several people who seem to be knowledgeable have told me that the missiles themselves are a bit inaccurate for reasons other than recoil -- something I find easy to believe... I don't think anti-tank missiles are designed for the kind of accuracy rifles (of any sort) are.
It may be that the Panzerfaust III is a super-accurate weapon and the comments made by others don't apply to it -- but nothing I've been able to find about it suggests that it's known for for being significantly more accurate than competing products (it probably beats the RPG-7, which apparently has a fairly bad reputation in the accuracy department but remains hugely popular, probably because it gets the job done despite any accuracy issues and it's cheap).
It may well be that *I'm* missing something (which is why I started this thread), but it's not that there are a couple of different approaches to making a missile weapon recoilless.
Cheers,
-E.