# Anti-tank weapons



## Erich (Jan 12, 2005)

instead of massing the what is it thread I started how about we do another one here. Anti-tank weapons of different nations.

Ladies/Gents please add pics, text and whatever of your collections and , net, book sources if you would please

Erich


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2005)

that was a monster shot !!


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2005)

that was better. this is my wifes garden room which has a few huge-like book shelves. close up of the rump of the rohr


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2005)

interesting, the photographers wife is in the background. funny that was not on the original scan......ooooooooh freaky.... oh well friends across the river playing with his digitial

ok another one as the last done : this the armored glass panel in the shield


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 12, 2005)

Okay, here's a piece of mess china. A soup bowl from the Soviet Navy - I've only put in the logo as you can imagine what the rest of it looks like!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

Cool stuff guys! Look like you could open your own museum, Erich!


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2005)

wish I had the room, esepcially with all the personal photos stored away....and there are some rare ones indeeed. Nice soup bowl med !


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

That bazooka is sweet. I noticed the the 'Tank Killers' book facing the camera. 
Can we put proper photos from the war, or is this just what we've got. 'Cos I have nothing.


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2005)

anything U want to do friend. stills, action shots, text, etc..... please give your sources credit though ....


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

This Anti-tank artillery was the most powerful anti-tank gun in the world until 1942. The Germans found it so effective, and it was such a nice prize they even started producing their own ammo for it. It was Russian. 

This one was captured and is on display at Nuremburg.


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2005)

sehr Kühl shot of the 76mm. Say didn't this piece get fitted with the standard German muzzle break ??


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

I believe the Germans made several modifications to the original Russian design. The PaK 36 (r) was also used to gun the Marder III (R) Tank Destroyer. Many were sent to N. Africa to aid the 88 in combating the heavily armoured Matilda. 

I would like to point out that the FlaK 18 37 8.8cm, although used in AT role, was a classified AA cannon. Just in case anyone tries to say that the Pak36r wasn't the most powerful AT cannon in the world.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2005)

Good, I know this is WW2 General but the topic is anti-tank weapons and so a few of my pictures just might be from an earlier war... WW1!! Return to the days of the big cannon anti-tank guns and see how practical they have become since WW2. Then WW2, then finally into Vietnam and modern warfare. Sit down and enjoy the picture comparisons. Ha, Ha, Ha, I am a thread hijacker.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2005)

I forget what type the two ww1 anti-tank rifles are. Maybe someone can take the picture and find out what they are.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 23, 2005)

Here is the Bazooka in our museum, with some assorted things that go BOOM!


----------



## Erich (Jan 28, 2005)

you guys know what this late war killer job is.... ?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2005)

Well, Panzerschreck? I don't actually know the difference between the Faust and Schreck...


----------



## Kongo Otto (Jan 29, 2005)

Here are a few pics from German anti-tank guns.

First Picture: Raketenwerfer 43 "Puppchen"






Second Picture: 12,8cm Pak 43







Greetings from germany
Kongo Otto


----------



## trackend (Jan 29, 2005)

hi D The Faust one shot hollow charge weapon and the Schreck a German copy of the bazooka 
heres four for the thread I didn't include the sticky bomb as it was not a fired weapon. only the Mauser dates from the 1914-18 war.
The BOYS was well known for its fantastically vicious kick when fired as was the PIAT.
The Blacker Bombard was effective but it's mount was heavy and made it very hard to transport even with the legs removed.
Ive handelled both a Boys and a PIAT which is a beast of thing to cock and needed both feet on the thing to compress the spring.


----------



## Kongo Otto (Jan 29, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> I forget what type the two ww1 anti-tank rifles are. Maybe someone can take the picture and find out what they are.



The smaller one at the Picture is a Soviet PKM Machinegun.It fire 7,62x54R
(Rimmed Edge) Ammo.It was put into service in the Red Army in 1964.


Greetings from germany
Kongo Otto


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2005)

The 128mm anti-tank cannon you showed a picture of, Kongo, is a PaK44 128mm not PaK43 - as there was no PaK43 128mm. PaK43 was an 88mm cannon.


----------



## Kongo Otto (Jan 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The 128mm anti-tank cannon you showed a picture of, Kongo, is a PaK44 128mm not PaK43 - as there was no PaK43 128mm. PaK43 was an 88mm cannon.



Thats correct.Was my mistake.I´m sorry.


Greetings from Germany
Kongo Otto


----------



## trackend (Jan 29, 2005)

Thats alright Kongo we can't all be as perfect as old Plan D


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2005)

I study tanks, and naturally come across the AT cannons. I like people to be correct.


----------



## trackend (Jan 30, 2005)

Iv'e never seen a studded tank other than a lee grant.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2005)

Studded? You mean riveted? There were quite a few riveted tanks...


----------



## trackend (Feb 6, 2005)

Steady on D you're starting to sound like an Anorak 
I was quipping


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 6, 2005)

Heres a Boys .55 caliber anti-tank rifle used in WWII. It wasn't really effective at all against German tanks but worked pretty well against Japanese tanks. It weighed 36lbs and fired a steel core armor piercing round at 3250 fps penetrating over 0.75" steel at over 300 yards.


----------



## trackend (Feb 6, 2005)

I thought I would include the sticky bomb after all as it was ment for use against armour although all the ex squaddies i've spoken to who used them said that no one told them that they contained nitro if they had none of them would have been so enthusiastic in whacking them on the sides on their intended targets .
Nº 74 ST Grenade
(Sticky Grenade)

Particulars:
Weight: 2 lbs. 4 ozs. 
Fuze: Time 
Delay: 5 sec. 

The Nº 74 Grenade (Sticky Bomb) was designed as an anti-tank grenade and was disliked by everybody who ever came across it.

The grenade consisted of a glass ball on the end of a bakelite (plastic) handle. Inside the glass ball was an explosive filling whilst on the outside was a very sticky adhesive covering. Until used, this adhesive covering was encased in a metal outer casing.

Due to the use of glass in this grenade, they were fragile and travelled badly. Quite often the glass would crack in transit, causing the explosive to start leaking out. This explosive which leaked out was not very sensitive to friction but was very sensitive to impact and detonation could occur if the exposed explosive received a blow due to careless handling.

To use the grenade, you remove the case release pin (not the pin marked 'DANGER'). This allows the metal protective casing to fall free, exposing the adhesive coating. You then grip the handle and safety lever and remove the safety pin (marked 'DANGER'). The grenade is now ready to either throw or attach to the target.

This is where the sticky bomb is most dangerous! Whilst attempting to throw it, the grenade could stick to the wearers' clothing!

If the thrower has not let go of the safety lever, he has to try and remove the item of clothing without letting go of the lever. 
If the thrower has let go of the lever, he has 5 second to remove the item of clothing and get a safe distance away from the bomb. 
When this happened, it tended to end up stuck to the throwers' trousers - with the uniform which was worn at the time, to remove his trousers (which were held up by braces) the thrower would have to remove any equipment (belt, ammunition pouches, etc.) followed by his Battle Dress blouse (jacket). He would then have to try and take his trousers off over his boots - all in less than 5 seconds! 
You may ask why the thrower could not just pull the grenade off of his clothing. They could try this but the adhesive coating was designed to allow the grenade, which weighed 2¼ lbs (1 Kg), to stick to the side of a tank.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 24, 2005)

Erich said:


> you guys know what this late war killer job is.... ?



That is a Panzerfaust 150, very few were produced in the late war stages. Very efective and modern looking weapon.


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The 128mm anti-tank cannon you showed a picture of, Kongo, is a PaK44 128mm not PaK43 - as there was no PaK43 128mm. PaK43 was an 88mm cannon.



Hehe, no PD that is infact a 88mm Pak43 in that picture, located in Normandy france besides a Museum near the famous beaches. 

Even touched that particular gun while visiting the place several years ago actually


----------



## plan_D (Nov 27, 2005)

How is it? Unless it's carrying a PaK43 carriage. Or the museum put the wrong information (which I've seen) infront of it.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2005)

plan_D said:


> How is it? Unless it's carrying a PaK43 carriage. Or the museum put the wrong information (which I've seen) infront of it.



Well it is, as a matter of fact, sitting on its original Pak43 carriage. 

Its quite easily recognized actually, as it has some rather distinctive dimensions and features.

For contrast I have a couple of wartime pictures of the Pak43, here you can quite easily see the resemblance:


----------



## plan_D (Nov 28, 2005)

I wasn't actually paying attention to what it looked like. I just corrected it from the 128mm PaK43 remark, as there was no such thing. Only a PaK44 128mm.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2005)

Hey, no worries PD, we all make mistakes  

Anyway here's my contribution to this thread; An Ardelt 88mm PaK 43/3 waffenträger, captured and being tested by the Russians: (Just look at the size of those rounds !  )


----------



## plan_D (Nov 29, 2005)

You wouldn't want to be in the way of that ...


----------



## Soren (Nov 29, 2005)

You definitely wouldn't.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 1, 2005)

for antitank weapons, i dont have any pics. For handheld weapons there was the german Panzerschreck and the Panzerfaust. The American bazooka and the British PIAT. The Germans used the Flak 88mm to great use against the allied armor.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 20, 2005)

Check this...there was a *20 mm Solothurs anti-tank rifles* for sale in the U.s in the late 50s for less than 200 dollars...a bargain..


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2005)

Very nice Charles ! 8)


----------



## evangilder (Dec 20, 2005)

Interesting. I wonder how many were bought.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 13, 2006)

Probably not many.


Check this video, TOW hitting a Tank looks like a M-46/48 patton.

Listen the secondary explotions ...horrifing.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 13, 2006)

Really interesting CB, the TOW really did make a mess of that tank, it was quite frightening in my opinion.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 13, 2006)

Thats cool.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2006)

wow, when i saw the first explosion but then you see other explosions blow the bloody turret off! scary stuff


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 12, 2006)

For the spanish language readers and all in general here is an article about the Panzerfaust that I wrote in colaboration with a friend. 

http://tecnica-militar.fateback.com/terrestre/Panzerfaust.htm


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 12, 2006)

Nice CB.  

I like the way you put on the sighting inclements, not many do that.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 25, 2006)

I know , I know.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 26, 2006)

These are great CharlesBronson, 8) keep up the good work!  

Could you please do one on the Puppchen No.68 AT?

And translate some into English please?

Thank you,


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 28, 2006)

I did translate a bit.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 5, 2006)

Raketenpanzerbuchse.


----------



## Erich (Mar 5, 2006)

actually Panzerfaust und Panschreck 54's in action on western and Ost front. More propaganda newsreels from the Deutsche Wochenschau collections. I have this run also by the way. Wait till you see the spring 45 footage, almost ghastly what a 8.8cm rocket can do to a T-34


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 8, 2006)

*Panzerhandgranaten*

The first special AT hand grenade was the Panzerhandgranate 41. It weighed 2kg and was effective against armor of up to 30mm thickness. 504,600 were produced in early 1943. Further developments of AT handgrenades utilising shaped charges had trouble stabilizing the flight which was necessary for the shaped charge to work (this lead to the development of the Panzerwurfmine).

*SS-HL-Handgranate.*







The SS-weapon's academy then invented the HL-Handgranate that was also often referred to as the SS-HL-Handgranate to denominate it's inventor (see pictures at left and right). It had a length of 19cm, weighed 420g including the shaped charge of 210g and had a diameter of 7.2 cm. It's front consisted of a felt disc which was 6mm thick and drenched with glue. The idea was to run up to the tank and stick the grenade onto the armor. This method to attach the AT grenade to the tank proved to be less practical than intended, the weapon proved rather unsuccessful and unpopular, therefore further developments centered around the Hafthohlladung which seemed more promising.


*Panzerhandmine / Hafthohlladung*

Small early trials with Panzerhandminen with shaped charges of 300 and 400g did not prove successful. The first usable weapon, the Panzerhandmine 3 or PzHM 3, had a bottle-like shape with a length of 27cm and a diameter of 14cm. Three strong U-magnets were to fix the weapon to steel armor of the tank it was attached onto by daring infantrymen. It carried a shaped charge of 1000g capable of penetrating 130mm of armor. The successor model, the Panzerhandmine 4, was a little bigger and had stronger magnets and an improved penetration performance of 150mm.

*Panzerhandminen 4.*






The spikes in this weapons were used to attach the handgrenade to wooden pillboxes.








First use of the PzHM 3 was in the battles at the Wolchow in russia in May 1942 and the german coastal defense of Dieppe in the failed operation "Jubilee".


The Panzerhandminen were succeeded by the larger weapon family of the Hafthohlladung ("attach hollow charge") which were basically enlarged Panzerhandminen. The single important type, the Hafthohlladung 3, had a shaped charge of 1.5kg that could penetrate 140mm of armor, had a diameter of 15cm; with it's three magnets the weapon was 27.5 cm tall. the complete weapon weighed 3kg;






The magnets exerted an attachment force of 45 kg. To arm the weapon, the Sprengkapsel 8 ("detonator cap") detonator and the time fuse had to be inserted into the top. The weapon detonated after 7.5 seconds. The first shaped charges of the HHL 3 were hemispherical; later the shaped charge was improved to a more effective tapered / conical shape of 1.7kg resulting in a total weight of now 3.5kg. 553,900 were produced

*HHL-3*






A very useful tactic with the Hafthohlladung was to let it the tank overrun the position and then attach the shaped charge in the rear deck.

*Images of the "Die Panzerknacker booklet" in his page 14 and 20 explaining the trench and best way and location to use the HHL.*


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 8, 2006)

PIAT - used here by Canadian troops


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 9, 2006)

PIAT not the best but much better to have to run to attach and HHL.  


More images of the Haftholladung showing the cord to arm the fuse.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

CharlesBronson said:


> Raketenpanzerbuchse.


isnt that the same as the panzerschrek?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 11, 2006)

Yes, that was the official designation.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 11, 2006)

hey right the panzerschrek is twice a bazooka? twice as heavy and twice as powerful? i saw this somewhere but i cant remember


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 13, 2006)

Yes it was pretty heavy and ackward to handle, remember that is a crew weapon, one load from behind and other aim and fire.






It did penetrate a little more armor than the 2.36 inches Bazooka . The RPzB 54 compared with the panzerfaust 60 or 100 had a little more efective range but the Panzerfausts were by far more practical, lighter weapons and capable of piercing thicker armor because his larger warhead.


----------



## Erich (Mar 13, 2006)

just think of a 8.8cm fired at you at around 100 yards. you're dead !

I own one ........... Panzerschreck 54/1, with original shield and panzerglas


----------



## Henk (Mar 13, 2006)

Erich would you put up a pic of it please?

Henk


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 13, 2006)

Erich had posted it already...check the first page of this topic.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 14, 2006)

*Panzerwurfmine L.*

The "antitank trowing mine" was developed because of the problems to stabilize the dedicated anti-tank grenades for flight - the shaped charge needed to be pointed straight at the armor to work efficiently - the Panzerwurfmine ("tank throw mine") or PWM (L) (L for "lang" = "long") was developed by the Luftwaffe weapon's bureau (the Luftwaffe also contained ground forces in the form of it's field units and the paratroopers). 



The weapon weighed 1.36kg, had a length of 53.3cm and used a stabilizing assembly of four fins made of canvas at it's rear wich automatically deployed when lauch. It was introduced into service in May of 1943 but proved rather impractical. Still, 203,800 were produced in 1943.


It's successor model was the Panzerwurfmine Kz (Kz = kurz ("short")) that weighed only 1 kg. Flight stabilization now was achieved by a long canvas strip that rolled out when the weapon was thrown and extended from it's rear. The warhead had a diameter of 11.4 cm and carried a shaped charge of 500g that had an armor penetration of 150mm.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 16, 2006)

PIATS were OK, as they had no backblast. They could also kill any tank if used properly/skillfully.

The PzShreck has 2x the AP ability of the 2.36 Bazooka (200mm vs 100mm), the 'Super-Bazooka' of the Korean war was developed from it.

The 'Faust 60 had less penetration than a 'Shreck CB IIRC. I think only the 'Faust 150 outperformed it?

*Erich:*



> just think of a 8.8cm fired at you at around 100 yards. you're dead !



I wonder if all warheads were HEAT?

Did you see that guy in Black Hawk Down with an RPG in his chest? - Ouch!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 16, 2006)

> The 'Faust 60 had less penetration than a 'Shreck CB IIRC. I think only the 'Faust 150 outperformed it?



Completely WRONG, the shaped charge in the panzerfaust 60 was 150mm diameter compared with the 88 mm diameter in the Schreck.
The armor penetration of the Tank-terror was 100 mm, the Tank-fist pìerce 190-200mm of homogeneous armor.


----------



## Erich (Mar 16, 2006)

CB it depended on the attacking angle and of course range. Basically with a PzSchreck you could not miss, a Pzfaust on the other hand, no pun here but it was seen unless a direct shot flat out the fist head could actually deflect off of turret armor. the idea of developing further the fist cartridge to be of more pointed design.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 16, 2006)

Maybe but I was talking about the absolute penetration capability in disregard of the aiming, off couse the flatter trayectory of the RPzB 54 make it easy to aim and fire, aniway I think that the advantages of the Schreck did not compensated his bulkier and heavier layout.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 16, 2006)

I'm absolutely, positively certain the 'Shreck could penetrate 200m of armour. The Bazooka could only achieve 100m - that is why the Americans copied it.

The early FaustPatrone's were near useless against sloped armour, but some or all 'Faust 60's solved this problem IIRC.

Anyway, the 'Fausts later than the '60 definately solved this problem.

I know the 'Shreck could suffer deflection too.

My uncles tank was hit by a 'Faust and he survived.

A similar tank to his was KO'd by a 'Shreck.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 16, 2006)

the Shreck i reusable right? the faust is kinda like a LAW, drop it after use


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 17, 2006)

That's more or less it loomaluftwaffe.

Later 'Fausts could be reloaded though.

The 'Fausts also had a more dangerous (to the operator) backblast.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 17, 2006)

then whats so practical about Shrek?


----------



## Erich (Mar 17, 2006)

Range and accuracy, never heard of a schreck round ever bouncing off Soviet or Western turret or glacis armor, that is not correct. I have the knowledge from someone whom was Waffenmeister in the 1st Infantrie Div. who's unit laid ambush to many Soviet T-34's and JS's in the marsh/tree lines of Ost Preussia using a variety of AT weaponry, especially Faust and Schrek's.

the Faust in every Landsers hands was a deadly weapon but only at close range and the Schrek teams were in two's laying in ambush with prepared and not so prepared positions and would allow the T-34's to come within the 100 yard range, usually hit from the sides either turret or decking and even over the support wheels-tracks. No Soviet armor could withstand the 8.8cm hits according to Helmuth R.

you can imagine during the smoke of battle the men operating the Schreck 54's had to be on their toes and soon as a rocket was bonre had to try and leave their positions due to Soviet retribution this is case in open type country or within the burbs of Prussian village's.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 17, 2006)

Schwarzpanzer.....what is your source for the 200 mm penetration of the 88 warhead...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 19, 2006)

No answer...? No kidding , in no place said that the panzerschreck could penetrate 200 mm of armor....simple phisics.


*SpzB 41 in SD.Kfz 221.*


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 20, 2006)

were those things actually effective?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 21, 2006)

What things....? the SpzB 41 ?... it was effective against 45 mm of armor at close ranges.


----------



## MacArther (Mar 26, 2006)

"I'm absolutely, positively certain the 'Shreck could penetrate 200m of armour. The Bazooka could only achieve 100m - that is why the Americans copied it"

I know where you might get this from. By any chance did you take this figure from Call Of Duty: Big Red One? I ask because there is information on weapons in the game, and there are a few bad mistakes on a few weapons (i.e. panzerfaust was an explosive that penetrated 44mm of verticle armor plate!) and the Panzershrek is listed as having an armor penetration rate of 200mm. A side note, the game shows Stuarts knocking out a Tiger's frontal armor from a ways away!!


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 24, 2006)

Tellermine, HHL 3 hollow charge, and other explosive anti-tank devices in action.

Is a propaganda video but interesting as well.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7SixS9PAw_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

I am not really big on anti tank weapons and what not, my knowledge in that area is very limited but if I am mistaken isn't the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck the 2 deffinitive anti tank weapons of WW2.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (May 29, 2006)

I'd probably say the Bazooka was DerAdler.

Interestingly, the 'Faust 3 is similar in principle to the PIAT.

The USSR based the RPG on the 'Faust, but has features of the Bazooka (exposed grenade, reloadable respectively).

The M136 (I guess what you 'have'?) is kinda the reverse of the RPG, borrowing the opposite features of the Bazooka/Faust (tube, 1 shot respectively).

Confusing isn't it?  





loomaluftwaffe said:


> then whats so practical about Shrek?



The less dangerous backblast.

Hi CharlesBronson,

After a bit of research, it seems that the penetration of the 'Shreck was apparently 160mm of angled armour.

I could have sworn blind it was 200mm though... sorry! 



MacArthur said:


> I know where you might get this from. By any chance did you take this figure from Call Of Duty: Big Red One?



Nope,never played it. The super-bazooka used in the Korean war was an answer to the T34's encountered there. The 2.36in WW2 Bazookas proved ineffective against them, the answer was to take design keys from the 'Shreck.

The penetration power was apparently doubled, perhaps that's where I got the 200mm figure from...(though I'm sure it was the 'Shreck).

Thanks anyway MacArther.


----------



## MacArther (May 29, 2006)

No prob, glad to help. It just irks me that a game that portrays such a great unit would get something so simple wrong. I mean, a Panzerfaust being a HE weapon that defeats 44mm of armor!!??? What is wrong with them!??


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 31, 2006)

> No prob, glad to help. It just irks me that a game that portrays such a great unit would get something so simple wrong. I mean, a Panzerfaust being a HE weapon that defeats 44mm of armor



You mean a HEAT weapon.


----------



## MacArther (Jan 1, 2007)

Nope, the game called it a HE weapon........


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 1, 2007)

All right but is a HEAT, High Explosive Anti Tank.


----------



## MacArther (Jan 2, 2007)

I'm well aware, but the game people seem to be lacking in terms of their knowledge base.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 14, 2007)

edited


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 4, 2007)

The poorsmen antitank weapons.  

31stwc - Google Video


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 22, 2008)

One more photo of the luftwaffe "panzerwurfmine", fin stabilized hand-trowing antitank grenade.







Luckily for the german antitank soldiers someone design the Panzerfaust....


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2008)

Cant add too much to this discussion, but thought i would have my two cents worth

In the early war period, ie the most effective AT weapons were the French 75, the German 88mm the Russian 76 mm, and the british 25 pounder. French 25mm was too light, the 47 mm okay, but in short supply. British 2 pdr was a good gun, but had a design fault in that it could not fire HE. German 37mm AT of the early war period was found to be nearly useless, but remained first line material until the end of 1941

German 88s were not that common at the earlier parts of the war, and they found their 37mm AT weapons completely inadequate. Even the 50mm that supplanted it was not fully effective. As a stop gap, they used the numerous 75mm captured french guns, well into 1942. Finally in 1942, the Germans produced the 75mm Pak 40. The only criticism that could possibly be levelled at the 75/40 was that it was not trully a squad weapon, and really needed a prime mover for proper transport. However, from 1942 it was the mainstay of german defences, and should have been the gun they concentrated on. It was more than adequate in performance, and cheap to build. At 12000 RM to build, compared to over 180000 for a panther tank, the Germans should have concentrated on these weapons in the last three years of the war. It was certainly the strategy favoured by Rommel.

British had a good early war AT gun with one fatal exception, it could not fire HE rounds, and so was always able to be picked off at range. Even the iotalian 47 Bohler Gun was able to fire HE, so the british were at a huge disdvantage becuase of this blunder


----------



## MacArther (Jul 24, 2008)

Anyone have something on the thermos bombs and other allied anti-tank grenades? I'm especially interested in the ones that the airborne troops would have carried.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 24, 2008)

> In the early war period, ie the most effective AT weapons were the French 75, the German 88mm the Russian 76 mm, and the british 25 pounder.



The french 75 is a field gun, could be used as AT weapon is not its main objetive. The same goes for the 25 pounder perhaps is alittle worst for the antitank job since it have a separate loading wich gave a mediocre rate of fire.
I would say In the 1939-40 was the 2 pounder and the 88 even the 88s were an improvisated measure.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> The french 75 is a field gun, could be used as AT weapon is not its main objetive. The same goes for the 25 pounder perhaps is alittle worst for the antitank job since it have a separate loading wich gave a mediocre rate of fire.
> I would say In the 1939-40 was the 2 pounder and the 88 even the 88s were an improvisated measure.



true enough about the 75 and the 25 pounders. however, towards the end of the french campaign, the 75 was used as a direct fire weapon, in the quadrillage defence networks set up by Weygand. firing over open sights, even with HE rounds, they proved very effective against the Light tabnks being fielded by the germans. The field gun mount was a problem, because it did not allow adequate traverse.

The germans addressed this in the latter part of 1941, after they had been surprised by the Russian heavy armour on the east front. they had noted the effectiveness of the 75 in the french campaign, along with its weaknesses. The solution was to mount the 75 on the 50mm Pak carriage. They fitted as muzzle break, and issued AP rounds. Initially the gun was found to be innaccurate, due to the lightness of the carriege, but this was eventually fixed (though i forget exactly how). From memory this 75mm Pak 97/38 was able to penetrate about 60mm at either 500 or 1000 yds (i forget to be honest) and was found to be adequate. Its one advantage over the 75 Pak 40 was that with a lighter carriage, it was somewhat man portable.

The 25 pounder was issued with solid shot AP rounds from an early stage. Having a combined HE and secondary AT capability proved to be the saviour for the Commonwealth Infantry in the early yearsd of the war. Wheras the 2 pounder could always be overcome at long range by HE firing tanks, this ability could be countered by the 25 pounders, who could engage the Light tanks of the Wehrmacht at all effective ranges. Whilst i agree that it was not an AT gun as such, it was probably the most effective AT weapon available to the CW forces from 1940-42.

Later, HE guns were still used against heavier tanks, but relied more on the effects of the HE direct hits to disable (by blast effects) as opposed to destroy (by armour penetration) the opposing tanks.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 25, 2008)

Agreed, honestly I didnt knew that the 25 pounder had also armor piercing projectiles.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 10, 2008)

British antitank ambush, PIAT, satchel charge and smoke grenade used.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 11, 2008)

As cool as that looks, and damaging as it could be, I'd rather have an AT gun than a Piat and some satchells in that scenario. Still for what that group of ifantry has, that will be a nasty ambush.



> They fitted a muzzle break, and issued AP rounds. Initially the gun was found to be innaccurate, due to the lightness of the carriege, but this was eventually fixed (though i forget exactly how). From memory this 75mm Pak 97/38 was able to penetrate about 60mm at either 500 or 1000 yds (i forget to be honest) and was found to be adequate. Its one advantage over the 75 Pak 40 was that with a lighter carriage, it was somewhat man portable.



I'm not possitive, but if I recall correctly, weren't the French 75mm field guns not issued AP perse, but rather HEAT rounds?


----------



## parsifal (Oct 11, 2008)

MacArther said:


> I'm not possitive, but if I recall correctly, weren't the French 75mm field guns not issued AP perse, but rather HEAT rounds?



I dont know...I do know that it was the Germans who developed the basic gun as a proper AT Gun. prior to that it was a field gun used in the AT Role. I know that I have read that the germans developed and produced an AT round for it, but am not sure if it was dedicated AP or HEAT. I do know that the gun fell short in performance to the later 75mm ATG produced by the Germans


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 11, 2008)

> As cool as that looks, and damaging as it could be, I'd rather have an AT gun than a Piat and some satchells in that scenario.



The britons had some of that. By the way the french/german Pak 97/98 muzzle velocity was 575 mps compared with 750 mps in Pak 40.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 16, 2008)

Vey good footage of the 50mm pak 38 in action.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEKXMccR760_


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 17, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Schwarzpanzer.....what is your source for the 200 mm penetration of the 88 warhead...



Some figures, and also a very recommendable site:

Panzerschreck

_Production of the Panzerschreck had changed to this successor model in October 1943. The new Raketenpanzerbüchse 54 weighed 11kg (24.2 lb.)(empty). It was also modified to fire the newly developed RPzB.Gr.4992 which with a modificaton of the propellant had a better practical range (usually cited at 180m). This ammunition too came in a summer and a winter version.*The armor penetration of both RPzB.Gr. 4322 and 4992 was 230mm (9 in.), at a 60° impact angle this figure was reduced to 160mm (6.3 in.).* The ammunition was transported in a carrying frame holding 5 rounds, the wooden supply crates contained 2 rounds. _


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 17, 2008)

Interesting, honestly I believed the figures were lower.


----------

