Bazooka Effectiveness
Frank Reichenbacher
widespread version in use by American troops in WWII) against medium and
heavy tanks? I'm especially interested in the Panzer IV and the Tiger tank.
When a GI with a bazooka took a shot at a tank how far away would he be
before he thought he might actually do some damage (I'm not talking about
the rated effective range)? What part of the tank did he try to hit and what
did the average GI think of the weapon?
Frank Reichenbacher
Martin Rapier
<9j07u2$lub$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU>...
> How effective was the M1A1 bazooka (I am assuming this was the most
> widespread version in use by American troops in WWII) against medium and
> heavy tanks? I'm especially interested in the Panzer IV and the Tiger
tank.
The 2.36" Bazooka could penetrate 110-120mm of armour (zero slope),
maybe
80mm at 30 deg (sources vary, naturally but see Chamberlian & Ellis
'Anti-Tank Weapons' or 'Infantry Weapons of WWII' by Hogg, 'US Army
Handbook' by Forty).
> When a GI with a bazooka took a shot at a tank how far away would he be
> before he thought he might actually do some damage (I'm not talking about
> the rated effective range)? What part of the tank did he try to hit and
what
> did the average GI think of the weapon?
Being a HEAT warhead, the range is immaterial, it will always
penetrate the
same amount IF it hits in the first place. A 2.36" rocket in theory
could
go up to 700m but the chances of hitting anything at that range are
minute,
100m is more likely a sensible range. With the pen figures above a
bazooka
can take out a Panzer IV from any angle but would need to hit fairly
square
on from the front, the side or rear would be better options. A Tiger
is a
tougher nut to crack, forget it frontally and it is even fairly dodgy
from
the side, better to to shoot it from behind. A Panther is easy meat
from
the side or rear.
There are very, very few engagements were US troops engaged Tigers.
Tiger
1s were certainly encountered at Gela in Sicily and towards the end of
1944
and into 1945 they may have tangled with some Tiger IIs.
Cheers
Martin.
John Lansford
>How effective was the M1A1 bazooka (I am assuming this was the most
>widespread version in use by American troops in WWII) against medium and
>heavy tanks? I'm especially interested in the Panzer IV and the Tiger tank.
Against the Mk IV it was very effective, although the small diameter
warhead didn't always disable a tank. Against a Tiger the chance for
disabling the tank wasn't nearly as great.
>When a GI with a bazooka took a shot at a tank how far away would he be
>before he thought he might actually do some damage (I'm not talking about
>the rated effective range)?
The range didn't effect the warhead from damaging a tank. The shaped
charge warhead functioned the same whether it was fired from 300 yards
or point blank range from the tank. Most bazookas were fired from
close range, however, in order to hit vulnerable points on the tank.
> What part of the tank did he try to hit and what
>did the average GI think of the weapon?
Hitting engine compartments from the flank or rear (where the armor
was thinner) was always a good tactic. The blast from the warhead
could be expected to ignite oils or fuel there, causing a fire. The
infantry liked the bazooka because it finally gave them some chance to
fight back against tanks, instead of having to rely on US tanks,
AT-guns, or airpower, which may or may not be there when the tanks
showed up. It was certainly better than nothing at all.
John Lansford
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
Red_Lion
You have already seen from previous posts that the Shape Charge could
penetrate the same amount of steel at any range, assuming it actually
hit something.
The diameter of the shape charge also is relational to the size of the
hole going into the tank. In the case of a 2.36 inch, it would cause a
hole about the size of quarter to a nickle. Not very big and it didn't
do a lot of damage if it went into the turret, unless you were standing
in front of the "jet". If you were lucky, you could get a secondary
explosion, (ammo or fuel) but most likely the explosion went in and
caused a little damage. (It looks a whole lot better in the movies than
real life.)
If you could hit the running gear, tracks, road wheels or suspension,
you could cause the tank to stop moving and the crew would eventually
leave (called saving one's own life). Once disabled, you could bring in
indirect fires, bring up a shape charge, flame weapons or what ever the
infantry could come up with.
In the case of the 90th Division, they had pretty much quit carrying the
bazooka after the Hedgerows. They were at the Company HQ and could be
brought up. The US wasn't facing a lot of tanks, and the bazooka wasn't
all that effective (sort of a death wish to shoot one). When the 90th
was in Dilligen (on the Saar before the Bulge) there was a German
counter attack into the town at night with tanks and there was some
wishing there were bazookas present, but they were able to drive the
tanks off with rifle grenades and AT mines.
The Bazooka wasn't that effective against concrete or reinforced log
bunkers. Not enough explosive to take them out.
--
Walter Bjorneby
campaign and worked fairly well.
Walt BJ
Red_Lion
the time we landed in Europe neither it nor the 2.36 were effective
against the current German Tanks. In fact by the time the US invaded
Sicily, Gavin (82d Airborne) would write that they had given up with the
Bazooka and were using captured German Panzerfausts. (On To Berlin, p
55-56 paperback edition).
In 1943 an Intelligence Bulletin said the shape charge of the bazooka
could not penetrate the front of a Tiger (something the combat soldier
(North Africa, Sicily and Salarno) already knew).
Andy O'Neill
There's a book "Bazooka" by Terry Gander which might be worth getting
out a library, depending on level of curiosity of course.
Little on your specific questions though.
The penetration quoted is 120mil in this book.
In theory, potentially just sufficient to get through a Tiger frontally
but not enough for a panther.
Maybe the tests were done against different type of steel or there'd be
just enough multiplier from any deviation from dead ahead.
>From the side, many late war German tanks would have skirting and or
over-lapping wheels.
In the case of the wheels, this is a bit of a side effect... but these
make a HEAT round go off far enough away the focussed blast will have
dissipated (somewhat) before hitting the armour beyond.
Shaped charges are quite effective against intact houses, I'm surprised
nobody mentioned this use.
In street fighting, "mouse-holing" or blowing a hole in an adjoining
wall was used to attack through houses rather than down (dangerously
open) roads.
Apparently, the bazooka was sometimes used for this... although
arranging so the back-blast doesn't catch anyone must have been tricky.
There was a smoke white phosphorous round, an effective anti-personnel
weapon.
>From trawling through photos, some years back, as research for "real"
small unit OOB my conclusion was that most foot infantry seemed to ditch
the bazooka at section level.
Presumably one factor'd be it's heavy.
Carrying the rounds looks a bit of a pain, the webbing wotsit designed
to hold them looks to me to be clearly uncomfortable and ungainly.
Infantry with their very own half-track to lob the thing in seemed more
likely to have theirs.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Liverpool Wargames Association
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/LWA.htm
--
Bill Shatzer
On 21 Jul 2001, Red_Lion wrote:
-snips-
> In 1943 an Intelligence Bulletin said the shape charge of the bazooka
> could not penetrate the front of a Tiger (something the combat soldier
> (North Africa, Sicily and Salarno) already knew).
There were all sorts of things which would not penetrate the front of a
Tiger - up to and including the 6 pounder/57mm anti-tank gun and the
standard 75mm Sherman main gun at any reasonable range.
Failure to pentrate the frontal armor of a Tiger is hardly a condemnation
of the bazooka. Very little, short of the 90mm guns, could do that
consistently.
Cheers and all,
--
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Red_Lion) wrote:
> In 1943 an Intelligence Bulletin said the shape charge of the
> bazooka
The warhead of the bazooka was in fact an existing anti tank grenade.
This had been designed to be fired from the 0.5 Browning MG and was
never issued though production continued.
A 3.5 inch version with a much more effective warhead was designed
but shelved until 1945. It was first issued for the Korean war.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Lawrence Dillard
team
could get close enough to the armored vehicle to hit it in a spot
vulnerable
to the shaped-charge effect.
However, it was soon found that in combat situations, it had its
drawbacks.
One was that the round left a clearly visible smoke trail to the
location
from which it was fired.
The second was that 2.36" equates to about 57mm, and that size
anti-armor
device quickly became ineffective as the Germans upgraded the armor on
their
armored vehicles. So a launcher team had to be brave enough to
aproach
closely to an AFV, then be able to endure almost guaranteed return
fire from
supporting forces, guided to their location by the smoke trail left by
the
rocket. For some reason, development of smokeless propellant for the
"bazooka" was never a high priority.
And the powers-that-were in the US failed to heed the warnings of the
combat
soldiers that a 2.36" warhead was not poweful enough to compete with
the
AFV's being fielded by the Germans.
Initially, US troops tried for outright "kills" with the Bazooka, (as
their
indoctrination had it that the device could give them a fighting
chance
against armor, and that its effectiveness was unaffected by range),
but
found that these were rare, as the penetration of the round under
combat
conditions could not match that obtained under proving-ground
conditions.
But rather than abandon the weapon, the soldiers adapted by aiming at
AFV
main wheels and rollers, etc., which until later in the war, were not
protected by skirts. This involved scattering supporting German
troops far
enough away for long enough to allow for a well-aimed shot.
The Germans had their own version of a shaped-charge launcher, but it
since
it was carriage borne, it was unwieldy; once they became acquainted
with the
US Bazooka, they quickly adapted the principle of man-portability,
while
eschewing the puny 2.36" warhead, substituting one of 88mm in its
place.
Ironically, however, during the Battle of the Bulge, in which
large-scale
combats between US-made armor and German armor took place for the
first
time, with German armor individually most often prevailing, the
Bazooka
proved useful in town/village combat where a surreptitious approach to
to an
AFV could be arranged. Individual soldiers armed with a launcher
scored
tellingly with shots to the side armor as well as with shots from
above into
the turret top.
Unlike the Germans, the US never moved on to develop the Bazooka
concept to
a logical conclusion: the disposable single-use device.
"Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message
news:9j07u2$lub$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU...
Andrew Clark
"Lawrence Dillard" <ldil...@enteract.com> wrote
> The rocket launcher could be quite successful, given
> that the launcher team could get close enough to the
> armored vehicle to hit it in a spot vulnerable to the
> shaped-charge effect.
I see that on the first day of the Korean War, 5 July 1950, US Lt
Connors fired no less than 2.36 bazooka rounds at point-blank
range at a squadron of North Korean T34. All shots hit; no tank
was destroyed, although one threw a track but remained in action.
This seems to have been the typical experience of the bazooka of
Allied troops in WW2 also: an unreliable weapon at best, only
consistently effective against the lighter German tanks like the
Mark IV.
> The Germans had their own version of a shaped-charge
> launcher, but since it was carriage borne, it was unwieldy;
> once they became acquainted with the
> US Bazooka, they quickly adapted the principle of
man-portability
I think you are thinking of the Puppchen 88mm rocket launcher.
This was no more than the carriage-mounted version of the
hand-held Panzerschreck or Ofenrohr, which was a 7.25 lb
hollow-charge rocket launcher loosely inspired by the bazooka.
When introduced in 1943, the Panzerschreck was effective against
all tanks then in service and remained potent until the end of
the war.
However, you also need to remember that the German Army pioneered
the hand-held single-shot anti-tank weapon with the very
effective Panzerfaust, which was developed independently of the
bazooka, had twice its range and several times its killing power,
and came into use just before the bazooka in 1942.
Andrew Clark
"Andrew Clark" <acl...@cedar-consultancy.co.uk> wrote
> I see that on the first day of the Korean War, 5 July 1950, US
Lt
> Connors fired no less than 2.36 bazooka rounds at point-blank
> range at a squadron of North Korean T34.
This should read "I see that on the first day of the Korean War,
5 July 1950, US Lt Connors fired no less than *twenty* 2.36
Andy O'Neill
<acl...@cedar-consultancy.co.uk> writes
>However, you also need to remember that the German Army pioneered
>the hand-held single-shot anti-tank weapon with the very
>effective Panzerfaust, which was developed independently of the
>bazooka,
>had twice its range
Ermm...
See below.
>and several times its killing power,
Definitely.
>and came into use just before the bazooka in 1942.
Nope.
Source of most below is Terry Gander's "Bazooka".
Yes, I reached all the way up to that shelf and actually got a source
out.
The first model, faust 30 was a pretty dodgy weapon, often more
dangerous to the firer.
The first models were available for trial in march 1943.
By wars end there were several prototypes in the pipeline, but the 90
was the longest range type commonly available.
This having a 90 metre effective range.
I've not got the figure for a 90 to hand, but the 60 had a velocity of
45m/s and the 100 62m/sec.
The 150, which was copied as the RPG2 by Russia in 46 was 82m/s
Effective range would probably be considered rather shorter in the
field.
The Puppchen had a max range of approx 500m, effective range quoted as
230m and muzzle velocity 150m/s This is the weird closed breech gizmo
with shield and wheels.
IIRC 400 were made in 1943, although accounts I've read differ on how
many were actually used.
They dumped the idea because they got examples of the bazooka in late
42
and decided something similar was probably a better idea.
So the Germans actually had the rocket before the pzshreck.
The bazooka is quoted as having 83m/s velocity for a max range of 640m
(
which must be a typo! )
The rockets and launcher had problems initially and in 1943 both were
improved.
Wartime production was 475,628 launchers, 15,603,000 rockets.
On p 28 of "Bazooka" there's a picture showing rockets side by side.
Bazooka, shreck, faust 30.
The faust is flippin huge in comparison.
Andrew Clark
"Andy O'Neill" <An...@l-25.dont-spam-me.demon.co.uk> wrote
> The first model, faust 30 was a pretty dodgy weapon, often more
> dangerous to the firer. The first models were available for
trial in march 1943.
Ian Hogg in "Infantry Weapons of WW2" comments that the
Faustpatrone was in use on the Russian front in October 1942. Its
successors, the Panzerfaust 30 and Panzerfaust 30 Klein went into
mass production (300,000 per month) in October 1943 after
extensive trials beginning March 1942. It had an effective range
in combat out to about 60 metres, compared to the bazooka's
effective range in combat of about 30 metres. Note that the
bazooka had a maximum theoretical range of 100 metres compared to
the Panzerfaust 30's range of 80 metres, but the later had a far
more stable flight path and thus a longer combat range.
> They dumped the idea because they got examples of the bazooka
in late
> 42 and decided something similar was probably a better idea.
The Panzerfaust continued in service until the end of the war and
could still score victories in Berlin in May 1945. the
Panzerschreck was loosly inspired by the bazooka in that it was a
rocket-propelled weapon, but that is as far as the bazooka can
claim credit for it.
> The faust is flippin huge in comparison.
The Panzerschreck was nearly twice the size and weight of the
bazooka. The Panzerfaust was both shorter and not much different
in weight.
--
David Thornley
Lawrence Dillard <ldil...@enteract.com> wrote:
>The rocket launcher could be quite successful, given that the launcher
>team
>could get close enough to the armored vehicle to hit it in a spot
>vulnerable
>to the shaped-charge effect.
>
preferred to the 57mm AT gun on the northern shoulder of the Bulge.
Both were inadequate against the heavier German tanks, but the
57mm was much harder to move around. In close terrain, it was
possible to go tank-hunting with bazookas, but a 57 had to take
the shot it was given.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
--
AndersonTDI
wrote:>Ian Hogg in "Infantry Weapons of WW2" comments that the
>Faustpatrone was in use on the Russian front in October 1942. Its
>successors, the Panzerfaust 30 and Panzerfaust 30 Klein
Sorry, but Ian Hogg does occasionally get it wrong (or rather I think manages
to confuse himself on occasion, but then who of us doesn't?) The Faustpatrone 1
was the Panzerfaust-30 Klein, the Faustpatrone 2 was the Panzerfaust-30. Mass
production of both began as he notes in October 1943. The notation of their use
in Russia in October 1942 is a typo, in October 1943 early production lost were
sent to the various theaters so that training units could be set up. The first
use in combat appears to have been in November 1943, with widespread use
begining in early 1944.
>It had an effective range
>in combat out to about 60 metres, compared to the bazooka's
>effective range in combat of about 30 metres.
The PzF-30 and 30 klein were only sighted for 30 meters, they could not have
had an effective range of 60 meters. The PzF-60, introduced in mid 1944 was
sighted for 30, 60, or 80 meters.
The bazookas effective range was up to 100 yards, and slightly greater for
stationary targets. However, the well-trained user of both the panzerfaust and
bazooka would tend to wait for a shot at minimum range -- preferably at a
vehicle going away from the firer!
--
Red_Lion
the 2.36 in Bazooka could destroy any German Armor. While it was not
the first time troops weren't told the truth, this deficiency could have
been corrected by a stronger explosive, as one of the Advisors to the
Ordnance Corps, Dr Charles Lauritsenm Sr, Cal Tech, wanted.
It would have also been much easier to replace/change the Bazooka than
it was to change the 57mm AT gun or provide higher velocity guns for the
Sherman (or the Tank Destroyers).
As it was the 2.36 in Bazooka did not give effective results on any of
the front slopes or turrets of Panthers, Mark IVs or the various German
Assault Guns.
The Bazooka was good at breaking down a door as another poster has
reminded us, but for getting through walls, shaped (satchel) charges
worked better.
The sad part is the "improved 3.5 in. Bazookas" did not become available
to US Troops until the Pusan Perimeter Fights in Korea. We are
fortunate that we never had to use the Dragon or the M-72 LAW against a
trained and aggressive Armored Force.
--
Andy O'Neill
<acl...@cedar-consultancy.co.uk> writes
>> The first model, faust 30 was a pretty dodgy weapon, often more
>> dangerous to the firer. The first models were available for
>trial in march 1943.
>
>Ian Hogg in "Infantry Weapons of WW2" comments that the
>Faustpatrone was in use on the Russian front in October 1942.
OK, the faustpatrone is a fore-runner to the panzerfaust
BUT.
I think you should not say the "very effective panzerfaust" ( which
was
undoubtedly effective ) if you really meant the faustpatrone.
Don't confuse the faustpatrone with the panzerfaust klein, whose
original designation was faustpatrone 1 and is a world apart in
effectiveness.
The faustpatrone ( of Oct 1942 ) was a weapon troops in the field
loathed.
It had no sights, no fins, was wildly inaccurate beyond very short
range, the shape of the warhead was such that it often just bounced
off
enemy armour without going off. You fire the thing by holding it at
arms
length ( a quick prayer you hand isn't about to be burnt off is
probably
appropriate ) and prod the button. You hold it at arms length because
the tube is much shorter and the back blast will get you otherwise -
the
whole thing is 14" long. From reports in the field it's a toss up
between careering off at a wild angle and catching fire in your hand
being least favourite attributes.
More a "better than nothing" sort of weapon.
There's a comparative set of cut away drawings on p40 of "panzerfaust"
the faustpatrone is top of the page and it's entire length is shorter
than the bomb to sight on the pzfaust klein below. But for the funny
little cone on the end you might well think it was some sort of stick
grenade.
I scanned this in at:
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/fausts.gif
This is a pretty good book on fausts and also covers hollow charge and
fog grenades.
IIRC, it was also only produced in very small numbers.
>Its
>successors, the Panzerfaust 30 and Panzerfaust 30 Klein went into
>mass production (300,000 per month) in October 1943 after
>extensive trials beginning March 1942.
Well, that's not right.
The AWO only asked HASAG to design what became the faust 30 in
November
1942.
I'd suggest that "42" is a typo and ought to read "March 1943" as
that's
also when production began according to "bazooka" and "panzerfaust"
(Wolfgang Fleischer).
>It had an effective range
>in combat out to about 60 metres,
The designation panzerfaust 30m refers to the effective range.
The 30m indicating 30 metres.
The 60m indicating 60 metres.
And so on...
To quote Ian Hogg from "Tank Killers"
"Now the firer tucked the tube under his arm *, took aim, squeezed the
trigger and the over-sized warhead was launched to a range of about
30m
(33 yards). So it was called the Panzerfaust 30 and in October 43
went
into production..."
Theoretical maximum range of the devices being rather more...
The 60m had a 75-80% chance of hitting (a stationery target) at 60m
compared to 25% at 80m.
The 60m had 3 points on it's sight: 30, 60 and 80m.
IIRC when you use the 80m wotsit the tube is at a ridiculous angle
which
I'd have thought was about 45 degrees.
It is, however, a fair while since I handled the replica.
*
It's perhaps worth mentioning that there were two drills to firing -
one
position being over your shoulder ( for fox-holes ) and the other
under-
arm.
>compared to the bazooka's
>effective range in combat of about 30 metres.
The only way I can see that might be right, is if you supposedly have
to
aim at a wheel or some such with the bazooka.
Otherwise, that just seems far too low.
>Note that the
>bazooka had a maximum theoretical range of 100 metres compared to
>the Panzerfaust 30's range of 80 metres, but the later had a far
>more stable flight path and thus a longer combat range.
In the military book club's encyclopaedia of infantry weapons of ww2
(Ian Hogg ) it says 400m max range for the bazooka.
That sounds more like it, IMO.
The muzzle velocity of the bazooka is 300 fps, the pzfaust 30m 98fps,
or
a third as fast.
The diameter of the bomb is far greater on the pz faust...
The bazooka round is longer.
I suggest if you care about the numbers you might consider another
source.
Michael Emrys
> ...shaped (satchel) charges...
I was unaware that satchel charges were shaped. I thought they were simple
blocks of TNT or other HE with detonator and timer encased in (surprise!) a
satchel with straps that made it convenient for carrying or throwing.
Michael
--
Andy O'Neill
<Red_...@lycos.com> writes
>As it was the 2.36 in Bazooka did not give effective results on any of
>the front slopes or turrets of Panthers, Mark IVs or the various German
>Assault Guns.
It rather puzzled me to notice that the penetration figures quoted vary
between 80mil (encyclopaedia) and 120 mil(Bazooka). A big difference.
Similarly 75mil and 100mil for the PIAT.
Making me wonder if one's quoting 90 degrees and one 30 degrees slope or
some such.
Or perhaps one is effective penetration with internal damage and the
other theoretical max... which'd potentially make a hole but with little
damage inside.
WW2 designs for HEAT are supposedly very inefficient due to the shape
and stand off being less than optimal, as I understand it.
OTOH.
The original bazooka missile was improved..
The M6A1 is the pointy one, the pointy bit being referred to as the
ogive, apparently.
Changing this to a blunter one supposedly gave less chance of glancing
off.
The m6a3, this new projectile, also changed from a steel to a copper
liner and the rocket had better fins for improved stability.
But the liner change should have improved penetration.
Maybe this accounts for some of the difference.
Bazooka doesn't give a date for this.
>The Bazooka was good at breaking down a door as another poster has
>reminded us, but for getting through walls, shaped (satchel) charges
>worked better.
I think it was actually used on walls as well.
I seem to recall commandoes carrying the bazooka for this purpose.
The PIAT had a weird feature where you twist the monopod round 90
degrees and use it as a sort of a mortar, the shoulder pad acting a bit
like a base plate...
This is referred to as house-busting mode.
It'd usually claimed that the weapon was effective at this, and the
penetration v armour is quoted as similar for both the PIAT and bazooka.
I didn't think satchel charges were shaped charges... weren't they just
charges?
If you set a big lump of HE off against a dividing wall, I'd have
thought might well result in your cover falling down about your ears
rather than a mouse-hole...
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Liverpool Wargames Association
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/LWA.htm
--
David Thornley
Andy O'Neill <An...@l-25.dont-spam-me.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It rather puzzled me to notice that the penetration figures quoted vary
You should never take penetration figures too seriously, but this
is wilder variation than I'm used to. There may have been other
differences in the tests, or as you suggest it might have been
effective penetration. A shot that penetrates the armor is almost
certainly a very bad thing for the tank, but this is not as true
with shaped charges.
>WW2 designs for HEAT are supposedly very inefficient due to the shape
>and stand off being less than optimal, as I understand it.
>
They were not well understood at the time. I've read that a
hollow-charge round might do better when hitting a light armor
skirt than the main armor, as the skirt might push it out
closer to its most effective standoff distance.
Nils K Hammer
My casual book of weapons claims that it uses a grenade with a
penetration of 120mm, which seems very high for a mere .6kg bomb.
Range is listed as 75meters. Previous discussion here suggests that
the lack of accuracy was the great failing of the sturmpistole.
One of the reasons I like to bring the thing up in discussions is
that you could create an equivalent to a modern American inf squad
using all WW2 equipment, and thus chastise the complacent who think
everything today is just peachy.
My big reason for this fascination is that I was waiting for a
train decades after the war and wandered around town. When crossing
a useless little triangle of ground I was utterly amazed to find
myself standing on a pile of rusted ammunition. The little ones
were too big to be 20mm, (presumably leuchtsaetze) and the big
ones were awfully small to be panzerfaueste. Looking back on the
incident I am amazed that I was stupid enough to pick up a shaped
charge and rattle the copper liner.
Nils K. Hammer
Andy O'Neill
<thor...@visi.com> writes
>I've read that a
>hollow-charge round might do better when hitting a light armor
>skirt than the main armor, as the skirt might push it out
>closer to its most effective standoff distance.
Umm... ?
This would be bazooka or piat we're talking?
The side skirts field replacements for STUGs were sometimes quite
close
to the armour, otherwise you'd be talking... what... about 18 inches
minimum for turret skirts?
Several feet for side skirts?
That's a long way off for a 2 n a third inch round.
Or were they talking sandbags etc on shermans, bed springs on Sov
tanks?
The faust had about a 6" diameter warhead.
I could imagine that the focal point on a faust might be further...
but
a whole foot extra?
Andy O'Neill
<nh...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
>I'm sorry that the sturmpistole gets left out of these discussions.
>My casual book of weapons claims that it uses a grenade with a
>penetration of 120mm, which seems very high for a mere .6kg bomb.
80mm with a range of 80m according to my encyclopedia.
I'd have thought even 80mm was optimistic - I was thinking around
50mil
from memory... or maybe that was the rifle grenade.
OTOH it'd presumably have a plunging sort of flight path....
If it's that or a fog grenade and Teller mine / hollow charge I
suppose
the kampfpistole might start to sound pretty good.
One up on something likely to burn your hand off and accurate to
spitting distance.
I've heard/read several first hand accounts of Sov tanks in 1941,
early
42 knowing they were impervious to anything German infantry had and
crushing them in their foxholes.
You seen the drill on them stick-grenade type fog grenades?
In theory, you hang about round a corner or whatever until the tank
comes by....
( You might spot a potential problem right there ).
You have two of these grenades, handle to handle with a length of
string
between.
You arm them and lob so's the string (hopefully) wraps around the
tank's
gun.
This blinds the crew and is (hopefully) sucked into the air intakes
and
acts like CS gas, possibly forcing them out.
If this fails, you run up and lob your handy dandy bunch of
grenades/mine on the rear deck and return to cover.
Which is why, I guess, Jerry had them tank destruction badges.
I reckon anyone can do that sort of stuff and live through the
experience more than once deserves a badge.
>Range is listed as 75meters. Previous discussion here suggests that
>the lack of accuracy was the great failing of the sturmpistole.
It was supposedly quite popular... which I noticed particularly seeing
as how I always figured a white elephant like the shoot-round-corners
attachment.
I thought the egg grenade on a stem was the offensive gizmo troops
liked, along with the handy ability to fire flares.
I've always assumed anyone carrying one'd take the first opportunity
to
pick up an smg or whatever and relegate the gizmo to back up.
>One of the reasons I like to bring the thing up in discussions is
>that you could create an equivalent to a modern American inf squad
>using all WW2 equipment, and thus chastise the complacent who think
>everything today is just peachy.
With the invention of the Hi-Lo principle Jerry could have made an
M79.
They didn't, and I'm no expert, but they don't look rocket science...
No rocket at all :^)
There's the Stg 44... grenade launcher was a bit rubbish compared to a
modern one.... the mg42 is still pretty effective.
I suppose 8 Stg44 and an mg42 might give a modern squad a run for
their
money.
Personal armour and medivac might be worth thinking about.
Andy O'Neill
>My casual book of weapons claims that it uses a grenade with a
>penetration of 120mm, which seems very high for a mere .6kg bomb.
80mm with a range of 80m according to my encyclopedia.
>Range is listed as 75meters. Previous discussion here suggests that
>the lack of accuracy was the great failing of the sturmpistole.
It was supposedly quite popular... which I noticed particularly seeing
as how I always figured a white elephant like the shoot-round-corners
attachment.
I thought the egg grenade on a stem was the offensive gizmo troops
liked, along with the handy ability to fire flares.
I've always assumed anyone carrying one'd take the first opportunity
to
pick up an smg or whatever and relegate the gizmo to back up.
>One of the reasons I like to bring the thing up in discussions is
>that you could create an equivalent to a modern American inf squad
>using all WW2 equipment, and thus chastise the complacent who think
>everything today is just peachy.
With the invention of the Hi-Lo principle Jerry could have made an
Andrew Clark
"Andy O'Neill" <An...@l-25.dont-spam-me.demon.co.uk> wrote
> OK, the faustpatrone is a fore-runner to the panzerfaust
My point was only that the Germans had a hand-held anti-tank
weapon (albeit not a very good one) in service long before the
bazooka, and that the US therefore did not invent or pioneer the
concept of this weapon. This was the somewhat typically
nationalistic claim made by another poster.
(snip other points: I will as you suggest get some more books!)