"Best" antitank weapon of WWII.

I would say the best would be the Panzerfaust. Compact, Highly effective, deadly AT weapon, perfect for urban fighting vs armour. It was also very cheap to make and it is claimed that Panzerfausts were made evan after Berlin had bin surrounded.

 

They only had to pull the spring back when first reloading it. The recoil from firing a projectile automatically recocked the spring.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Oh I was not aware of that, thanks for catching that one Tony Williams.

 

That was the plan, but how reliable was it? I got the impression that field use did not quite meet what the makers said it would do.

FNG

 

http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paters ... fantry.htm

I dont know how reliable this website is...

-also didnt the projective often have trouble staying without assistance in the PIAT itself?
-additionaly claims that PIAT was never shot from hip or shoulder only from prone, which makes sense when you think of it

http://www.arnhemarchive.org/equip_piat.htm

-this site claims that live fire excersies were banned after the war
-would seldomly reload the spring automatically
-considered a to be a one shot weapon

I assume this weapon was good for street fights. I dont know from these sites I still think the PIAT was more reliable than the sites admit, why? because i dont beleive everything I read, esspecially on the internet!

-I thought the PIAT could penetrate a bit more than just 75mm of armour

 

The PaK 41 75/55mm was an excellent anti-tank gun. It utilized a squeeze-bore barrel, tapering downwards from 75mm at the breech to 55mm at the muzzle. Muzzle velocity was an amazing 4,000fps which, although capable of defeating any tank, put much stress on the barrel. The ammunition was complex and dependent on tungsten (tungsten was never in large supply for the Germans), and for this reason no more than 150 guns were ever made. The shield was revolutionary in being part of the gun's structure, allowing a smaller profile (and could thus be hidden more effectively).



Does anyone have any info on Rheinmetall's 75mm PaK 44?

 

The Best things about the PIAT (and there isn't that mutch good to say about it) is that it was difficult for the enemy to see where it had been fired from and it could be used easily and safely from indoors. The bazooka, for example, required the user to shoot and scoot if he valued his rear and was not suitable for indoor use - well, certainly not more than once - cough, cough ...

 

Wasnt the Panzerfaust operational from indoors as well?

 

I'm not sure - so I was careful not to mention that one - I'd be surprised if it couldn't.

 

not from what i hae read, the heat and smoke given off in confined spaces could be lethal.

 

In that case the PIAT could be unique then.

 

its only a game but combat mission did enlist the work of some historians as well as themselves researching.

And this is there opinion, the piat is the only infantry at weapon that was largely noiseless and totaly smokeless.

often i can fire four or five rounds at tanks before they notice the team.

incindentaly from sources i have which i will write up tommorow because im tired now, the piat at ranges of 80 yards and under was generaly more accurate than the panzerfaust 100. and penetrated about 102mm of steel rha 275.

and by normandy fused 90% of the time.

 

No. Like the Bazooka and the Panzerschreck it had a significant rocket blast shooting out the rear when fired, something that should never be thrown back at you by walls or anything like it!

 

If so some of those documentaries might have it wrong as they said thay Germans hid in basments and fired Panzefausts at the Russian tanks.

 

WO 291/1060,
"The A45 flame gun versus the Panzerfaust", mentions that "As the campaign in NW Europe progressed the proportion of tank casualties due to hollow-charge weapons (mainly of the Panzerfaust type) increased from 10% to 35%."

An indication of Panzerfaust hit probability from operational experience is given as follows:

Range (yds)_hits__misses__% hits
0-20_________17_____15_____53%
21-40________13_____14_____43%
41-100_______10_____22_____31%

WO 291/153 "The effectiveness of PIAT shooting" reports trials shoots on a Covenanter. 3 serials were fired, one by "average" trained soldiers and 2 by above-average users, one of staff from AORS 6. The results should therefore be regarded as an upper bound on possible performance. The serials were fired using an inert bomb with identical ballistics to the HE/AT round. The target was a Covenanter tank moving at about 10 mph, either crossing at 70 to 110 yards, approaching at 110 to 65 yards, or receding at 35 to 110 yards.

"There is no great difference between the percentage of hits with first, second and third shots, although the proportion is slightly greater with the second."

Percentages of hits at different ranges were:

Crossing target: 70% under 85 yds, 48% over 85 yds.
Approaching target: 42% under 85yds, 24% over 85 yds
Receding target: 80% under 65 yds, 68% over 65 yds.

"The effect of range on the percentage of hits is not very great; about two thirds as many shots hit above 85 yards as below. It is certainly not possible to obtain a hit with certainty by waiting until the tank is within say 70 yards. The reason for the unexpectedly poor performance at short ranges is presumably the increase in angular movement of the target, combined, perhaps, with the 'sense of hurry' already mentioned."

Of particular note was the high proportion of fuze failures in these trials:

"From these figures it can be seen that about 75% of hits detonate with the DA Fuze 425. No DA Fuzes 426 were available for trial, but it is assumed that a greater proportion of them, perhaps as much as 90%, would detonate."

these are snippets given to me by someone else. i havnt ordered the originals from the national archives yet, but i will one day.

 

.
.
.
Selesque dixit
"I have a question here. Was the panzerfaust used against infantry just
like against armor, or just used against armor? From a training movie I saw, it
looked like it could be used against entranched infantry, especially in city
areas. "

It seems than than panzerfausts were used by infantry for quite a few things
Beevan in " the fall of berlin " mention russian using them to punch holes in
massonry to pass from building to building ,
It's a long tradition for the soldiers, at a pinch , to use anything which work ,
rather than the quartermaster aproved gear ,
there was reports of british soldiers during the Falklands ,
using Milan AT missile to take out argentinians bunkers ,
definitly a very expenssive way for the taxpayer,
but very cheap for the boys
.
I vote for the panzerfaust , it revolutionized armored warfare , squad
tactics and last but not least gave the humble soldier a much needed boost
in morale than he could shoot back at armor instead of being a passive
bag of grease for the tracks ,
waiting for somebody far away to do something , maybe !
.
.
. :roll:
.
.

 

In my opion there is no doubt the Panzerfaust could be used against infantry. Well actually I had the idea for couple years after seeing it used in Close Combat V when my troops fired Panzerfausts at American troops occupying a building. Also I seen a video of a German officer showing civilands how to use the weapon during Berling. Tha target was a wall and it blew a hole right thru it. Granted the building was missing a roof and a wall or two but it was effective.


I belevie the Germans use or used a weapon called Panzerfaust 3. I beleive it was towards the end of the coldwar but I can neither remember if it entered service and if so how well it was recieved alsong with relationship to early panzerfausts.

 

Whether the panzerfaust could be used against infantry or not depends entirely on its detonator - ie would firing it at a soft target be enough to set it off - if yes then it certainly was.

The PIAT was used against infantry and was actually designed to do so - it hinged upwards so that it could be used as a mortar !

 

Well if we are talking about troops within buildings than it can be used.

 

Due to its short range a Panzerfaust wouldn't be much more effective than a common handgrenade against infantry, and a lot less effective than a mortar round because it is restricted to direct fire (and as far as I know it had no timed fuse, only an impact fuse - not too useful against soft targets). No doubt it could be used for this role, but probably not very succesfully.