"Best" antitank weapon of WWII.

Well if to blows a hole in a garrisoned buuilding no doubt the defenders will be injkured if not killed.

 

Like I said, though, it would not be more effective than handgrenades or mortars. In other words it would not fill a gap in the infantryman's armament and fighting abilities when used against infantry; against tanks, like jeaguer said, it did.

 

The piat did have a he round for it to though.

 

The Panzarfaust used a shaped charge which meant that most of its explosion was projected forward. Unless there was an HE round available it would be far less effective against infantry than a grenade or mortar which sent mayhem all around (even if it did detonate).

 

I think any sane person would rather a AT gun over a panzerfaust. Sitting behind out computer, we can hardly appreciate the fear that the holder of the faust must have been feeling as the tank got closer. While an effective weapon, the faust was simply a last ditch weapon to use. Unless you are playing WWIIOL, no person in their right mind would go hunting tanks alone. The faust is not the wonder AT weapon our troops today carry, it was frankly a last ditch weapon, but not the primary defense against tanks.

I have to say the 6 pounder. Great AT ability as it was for a gun of its size, small, light (well light compared to many other AT weapons), and with a supply of APDS round, effective against late war German tanks.

While the 88 was a good weapon, it suffered from being very tall, and frankly it needed some kind of vehicle to move it around.

 

I think the best AT weapon is the infantry. They have the best mobility. they would have an easier time amushing tanks. They don't even need an AT weapon. They would need 2-4 men, 1-2 SMGs a can of gas or oil and a match. they would just climb on a tank opean the hatch spray a few bullets in and then dump in the gas or oil and throw in a match or a insindary(sp?) grenade.

 

Do hatches not lock from the inside?

This has a "hollywood" ring to it

 

That iis very dangerous work, requiring a number of things:

1) Plenty of local cover for your soldiers

2) The enemy do not use combined arms tactics, and therefore do not have their tanks supported by infantry

3) A willingness for your infantry to take very heavy losses.

 

when it's war people get desperate, and would use anything to kill the enemy

 

i forgot to add that one Canadian in Italy stoped a German counter attack.
he had a thompson and a piat(sp?). it was dark and they where stationed along a road. there where 2 of them, and that night Germans attacked. the person beside him operating the piat was hit. he then took over the piat and took ou the first tank it was a panther. he then used his thompson took down several infantry, the infantry pulled back. then a second panther came down the road, he reloaded the piat and took out the second panther. he them started again with the thompson. the German thinking it was a larger force retreated.

 

Sure, but does that make it the most efficient weapon?

The PIAT certainly qualifies at close range, more so than infantrymen and improvisation.

 

I was talking to a chap from the bosnia war, and he was saying that the one man antitank weapons were regularly given to the youngest, most foolhardy soldiers, as the older ones knew better, and that is why they got to be older soldiers.
That aside, I think the besta/t weapon is, in fact a stout Iron bar. Stick it in the tracks, and, hey, presto! an immobilised tank. It is reuseable, any number of times,takes no special training, but lots of guts.

 

In city combat, probably the Panzerschreck or Panzerfaust. The schreck was reloadable and had better range. Unlike the bazooka, the panzerschreck was deadly to main battle tanks at any facing. Pound for pound, they could match the 76mm guns of the Sherman and T-34. An advantage of these weapons in urban combat is that foot troops often have more mobility in closer quarters and are harder to locate (esp by a tank). They could maneuver around the side and back, where armor was a lot weaker. This is more difficult to do with a tank and can't be done with a fixed gun. The ranges in urban combat were often very short. The cheap and simply to produce fausts had the advantage of being widely available. Almost every squad had several of them. So basically you're talking about tons of hand held weapons at urban target ranges as effective as tank cannons. Russian infantry was probably a lot more of a problem in the defense of Berlin than the T-34s.

In the field, probably the 75mm/76mm AT gun. It had good range, very solid punch. Concealable and hard to hit, with gun shield to protect the crew (as opposed to the 88, which was very large with no gunshield). It could take out a main battle tank (Sherman, T-34 or Mark IV) with good regularity and had a fairly rapid rate of fire. Produced widely by all nations, esp Germany. The Panther tank was armed with a long barrelled 75mm and faired very well on the wide open plains of Russia. These tanks matched performance with the Tiger despite it's 88mm.

 

they did produce 88's in AT mode which were both low and fitted with a gun shield.

I can't see that much difference between an emplaced 88 and emplaced 75 for size and difficulty to hit.

FNG

 

Only later in the war, with the 8.8 cm L/71 PaK 43 which weighed 2.5x as much as the 7.5 cm PaK 40, and was quite a lot bigger. Not many were made.

 

I'd say the Bazooka :lol:

 

slightly of topic but ince we are talking about AT-weapons, it would seem kind of dumb to start a new topic about it.
What about Mortars? could they be used in a AT-rol. Well, not that they have any change when you have a tiger rolling at you. But what against tanks at the start of WW2? Could a mortar be capable of taking out a tank?

 

yes, and at all times to some regards. Remember the mortar falls and top armour of even the most formidable tank is still quite light.

The Ruskies developed a post war AT grenade that had chute to get it fall down, I don't know if such things existed during the war though.

Of course the chances of hitting a tank with a mortar is low so it's effectivness is slight.

FNG

 

There was always a chance that a lucky mortar bomb could hit a vulnerable spot, periscope, gun tube, track, exhaust, etc. and knock it out of action. The chance of destroying a tank outright with a mortar would probably require a direct hit on the thin top armor, and of course the bigger the mortar (a 120mm mortar is obviously more likely to cause problems than a 50mm), the more likely the chance of doing some serious damage.

 

On the PIAT; I reckon it was very effective weapon, albiet painful. The recocking mechanism required the firer to take the full force of the recoil, and it did have a hefty recoil. Some soldiers (sorry, no sources) tried propping it up against a tree I think.
Also, on D-Day, at Pegasus bridge, An Airborne PIAT knocked out a tank attempting to cross the bridge, and was considered to be ther most important shot of D-Day.