How would the Carl Gustaf 84mm....

....have compared with panzerschreck and others, during WWII, had it been used?

Carl Gustaf M1 from 1948....

I think it is a much more capable weapon. Chief advantage is that it is rifled, greatly improving accuracy and range. It can engage moving AFVs of the 1960s era out to about 350m, compared to a maximum of 70 m for the German panzershreck.

I'm not sure about its penetration capabilities, but would not be surprised if the differences are slight. Panzershreck was capable of penetrating about 160mm of steel at 69 m . I don't actually know the penetration capabilities of the Karl G. , but should be more than 100mm at the quoted 350m range

Parsifal is pretty much spot on.

What may be hard to find is the performance with the 1948 ammo. There have been a number of up grades to the ammo over the years, and hollow charge ammunition went through some big changes in capability.
The 1948 ammo might have been the same as 1960s ammo or it may not. There have been several changes since the 60s.

There was almost always a variety of ammo for it, like HE and smoke in addition to the anti-tank rounds. There have also been several different illuminating (flares/starshell) rounds over the years. Which greatly added to it's versatility, supplies of these rounds permitting in small units.

Biggest disadvantage is its weight, and the weight and bulk of the ammo. Fine if it's mounted on the Volvo AT recce vehicle, but a real pain if man-carried.
The bl**dy thing also deafens the firer with the first shot !!

whats the nick name they give it in the british Army? "Charlie G"?

Yep.
Great weapon and accurate, but impractical as man-portable - and bl**dy awful to parachute with !!!

parsifal said:

I think it is a much more capable weapon. Chief advantage is that it is rifled, greatly improving accuracy and range. It can engage moving AFVs of the 1960s era out to about 350m, compared to a maximum of 70 m for the German panzershreck.

I'm not sure about its penetration capabilities, but would not be surprised if the differences are slight. Panzershreck was capable of penetrating about 160mm of steel at 69 m . I don't actually know the penetration capabilities of the Karl G. , but should be more than 100mm at the quoted 350m range

Click to expand...

I did was working at The US Army Human Engineering Labs ( then HEL) as a human factors engineer in the 80s when we did the human factors testing of all the candidates. We did a very comprehensive series of tests including man portability. I wrote the evaluation of the ergonomics of the weapon and found the sights needed improvement. These were the very basic "iron sights" that came with the weapon at the time. I designed and patented (#3,969,827) a sight that was adjustable for range and would mechanically reset to a 200 M "battlesight" setting upon folding it down and replacing the cover for stowing should the operator decide not to fire the weapon. This was modified for the use on this particular weapon.

The point that I want to make is that rifling in an anti-tank weapon may improve accuracy but degrades the penetration of a hollow (shaped) charge. That's why they usually are fin stabilized. The tank shaped charge round (HEAT - for high explosive anti-tank) used in tanks are all fin stabilized for this reason. Many modern tanks are smoothbore because both the HEAT round and the APDSFS (depleted uranium) round perform better when not spinning.

Paul

Well I have no info on CG, but the Finnish 55 S55 (tube was 55 mm and other 55 mean that it was designed or taken into service in 1955) see:
55 S 55 - Wikipedia
How it happened its HEAT ammo was 88 mm in diameter and it was capable of penetrating 300 millimetres of RHA +/- 40 millimetres. On those far away days when I did my military service (some 40 years ago) that wasn't enough for frontal shots against the MBTs of the SU and were were trained to aim at hull sides.