III-SC 202780, Credit NARA.
Jump to content
Posted 05 October 2009 - 08:57 PM
Posted 09 October 2009 - 07:40 PM
Posted 10 October 2009 - 02:49 PM
Posted 10 October 2009 - 03:00 PM
Being built mainly by slave labour wouldn't have helped
The panzerfaust was more powerful than the bazooka but definitely not a safer weapon. It was known to occasionally blow up in the tube instead of firing, killing the user.
Posted 10 October 2009 - 03:33 PM
the panzerfaust was better than the bazooka...
Posted 10 October 2009 - 04:57 PM
Posted 10 October 2009 - 10:03 PM
Posted 10 October 2009 - 10:30 PM
It is the type of weapon perfect for a city defense like Berlin, which is why so much damage was done with them.
Posted 11 October 2009 - 01:25 AM
Posted 11 October 2009 - 03:10 AM
Posted 11 October 2009 - 05:44 PM
The panzerfaust was also effective at indirect fire support.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 04:25 AM
Posted 12 October 2009 - 09:01 AM
Posted 12 October 2009 - 10:46 AM
About 70% of Soviet tanks in Eastern Europe were destroyed or damaged by panzerfausts. Incredible alternative to the lack of heavy anti-tank weaponry.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 12:02 PM
Wholly unlikely. Statistics show that most tanks were killed by anti-tank guns, followed by other tanks and finally infantry. Despite the millions of Panzerfausts and other hand-held infantry AT weapons produced by Germany during WWII, they only awarded 18,500 silver tank destruction badges (destruction of a tank by a hand-held weapon) and 400 gold tank destruction badges (destruction of 5 tanks by a hand-held weapon). That's in any theatre.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 03:31 PM
I don't know about being effective at the indirect fire support role. Even if you could get it to travel in the right direction hitting your target would be an amazing feat in itself as well as the fact that you would need a lot of men and panzerfausts available at one time and with enough ammuntion to make something resembling an artillery battery worth it.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 04:24 PM
Posted 12 October 2009 - 06:19 PM
Posted 12 October 2009 - 06:31 PM
I've heard that the Russians were so impressed with the Panzerfaust that it was the basis for thier post-war RPG program. Is this just popular hearsay or is it actually true?
Posted 12 October 2009 - 06:41 PM
There are several problems using it as an indirect fire weapon here:
First, the round must strike a solid hard surface to detonate. This is due to the use of a pezio-electric fuze (it was designed to go off after hitting a tank...).
Next, the use of a shaped charge reduces the blast effect directing most of it forward.
Then there is the problem of fragmentation. A panzerfaust round has only a light metal casing. It produces little fragmentation on detonation. Against a soft target it will have only a very reduced effect and then only at close range.
And, the panzerfaust has extremely limited range. Typical launchers in use had either a rated maximum range of 30 or 60 yards when fired against a tank as designed. You might get one to go a bit further firing it at 45 degrees but without alot of accuracy.
The Germans did prototype a high explosive / fragmentation warhead for the Panzerfaust but it was not accepted for production.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 06:58 PM
Edited by Von Poop, 12 October 2009 - 07:03 PM.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users