"Best WW2 hand-held anti-tank weapon?" Topic

What was the best hand-held anti-tank weapon in World War II?

(a) PIAT (British)
(b) M1 'Bazooka' (USA)
(c) Panzerschrek (Germany)
(d) ____________________ (something else)

Flamethrower

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Wolfhag

Define best. The best at penetrating armor? The best at portability? The best for ease of use? The best for firing from close quarters or from inside a small enclosed space? Best for range?

I'd probably say by all accounts the PanzerFaust was one of the most effective when you factor all of these into account. The American bazooka was very good. The Piat had issues, but I'd rather fire that from an indoor ambush position than something that is more likely to light up my compatriots stuck in there with me.

For pure penetrative power, probably the Panzerschrek. All had their good points and bad. Best is really subjective depending on how you define it.

d. Panzerfaust (Germany)

That's easy. And obvious. PanzerFaust. The RPG is essentially a reloadable version as is almost every other similar weapon in the world today. Don't see many PIATs Bazookas or PanzerSchrecks in use today. Ever wonder why? There's your answer!

Lee for the win!

faust for sure

Does the anti-tank dog (explosive strapped on his back) on the hand held leash count? ;)

If not, then probably the panzerfaust.

On paper I would go with the Panzerschrek. I don't know enough about its handling and if it was too bulky. GIs commented on the fact that the bomb would detonate even on high angle hits.

The Tokarev TT-30 7.62mm pistol in the hand of the Rus partisan forcing the German driver out of his fuel bowser a hundred miles behind the lines. No fuel…no tanky.

I remember in A Bridge Too Far, the sad twang noise the Piat made on it's limp trajectory, only to fall short of the tank it was aimed at. That has to be the worst. Panzerfaust seems best.

The radio patched through to Corps, Offshore or aircraft cab rank.

That's easy. And obvious. PanzerFaust. The RPG is essentially a reloadable version as is almost every other similar weapon in the world today. Don't see many PIATs Bazookas or PanzerSchrecks in use today. Ever wonder why? There's your answer!

AT4 and carl Gustav launcher to name but two

A radio, with which to call in either an air strike or artillery fire – or both.

A Faust is essentially a one shot bazooka too – since the Baz came first.

The panzerfaust is a recoilless gun whilst the bazooka is rocket driven. The faustpatrone was invented and introduced before the bazooka. Not many noticed the first version but it wasn't in any way based on the bazooka.
The end of war version of the panzerfaust was rocket driven, but reloadable.
The shreck round was invented for a gun like weapon. When they saw a captured bazooka, that inspired creation of the shreck.
I think the faust is the obvious winner even considering the common versions. The faust 150 was made in small numbers and a significant improvement. I think they made some prototype faust 250. That potentially qualifies and was even more effective.

Panzerfaust was responable for about half the known kills from handheld AT weapons (Panzerschreck comes to 16%, AT mines 15%), but it only accounts for 3.2% of the total amount of identified tank kills and it had a rate of around 2600 shots/kill as opposed to some 1200 AT gun shots/kill.

YouTube link

I agree that the 'faust was probably the best.

But it seems that the primary method used by some posters to consider which weapons follow the model of others is what they look like. I think it might be more useful to consider their technical mechanisms, or their tactical use models, rather than just how they appear.

An RPG, at least the RPG we most often think of (the RPG-7 and it's various modernized versions) is in no way a reloadable version of a panzerfaust. At least not any panzerfaust that saw action in WW2.

Panzerfaust was a recoilless launcher. Tactically, due to it's nature as a very short-ranged single-shot disposable weapon it was issued as rounds of ammunition. In this the tactical use model is closer to the Russian PG-43 anti-tank grenade than to the bazooka, PIAT or Panzerschreck.

RPG-7, on the other hand, is a medium-range (for infantry hand-helds) rocket launcher (granted it uses a recoilless cartridge to fire the rocket out the first few meters before the rocket motor ignites), that is issued to dedicated RPG gunners, not just passed out as needed as rounds of ammunition to the troops. It's tactical use follows the model of the bazooka, PIAT or panzerschreck, not the panzerfaust.

In gaming terms the key difference I think is that with panzerfaust-type weapons (or PG-43s for that matter) you can justify having as many shooters as you want, but not as many shots per shooter as you want. A squad of 8 or 10 men might reasonably have 8 or 10 shooters. With an RPG-7 (or bazooka/PIAT/panzerschreck) style weapon you should see the weapon only in the hands of a dedicated gunner, rather than whole squads carrying one or two each.

Panzerfaust's tactical use model could be considered as the inspiration for the US M72 LAW and its more modern follow-on AT-4, and the RPG-18 and RPG-22 that seem to have been inspired by the LAW, as well as the Armbrust and the MATADOR that seems to have been inspired by it. These were/are all single-shot short-range disposable AT weapons, that were intended to be issued as rounds of ammunition to troops as-needed. But most are technically unrelated to panzerfaust. LAW (and the RPG-18 and -22) are rocket-launchers. Armbrust and MATADOR are recoilless launchers, but with dual-piston counter-weight technologies that are miles apart from the simple packed black-powder charge of panzerfaust. AT-4 is at least a more conventional recoilless launcher like panzerfaust, but is an enclosed tube without the out-sized warhead projecting from the front which is so notable in the panzerfaust.

Bazooka was a rocket launcher, as was panzerschreck. Carl Gustav is a recoilless gun. Technically they are not related. But at least they are both filling similar tactical profiles -- man-portable crew served medium-range (for infantry hand-helds). Perhaps the Blindicide (both 83mm and 100mm versions) are better examples of post-war bazooka-style weapons. AT-4 is very much more a modern rendition of panzerfaust than bazooka, being both a recoilless launcher and a single-shot disposable weapon.

PIAT stands alone in the crowd from the standpoint of it's technology. It was essentially a shoulder-fired mortar. It is not hard to see why this path was a developmental dead-end.

But while we might recall a movie image of a PIAT falling short of it's target, that is not really a reason to conclude the panzerfaust was better. The PIAT had almost twice the range of the most common model of 'faust. So if we use the tendency to fall short of the target as our source of criticism, we should be choosing the PIAT in favor of the panzerfaust! But of course range alone is hardly the key consideration of hand-held AT weapons.

I find the notion that a platoon of infantry in defensive positions might have 20 or 30 of it's soldiers armed with effective AT weapons to be a revolutionary concept. Yes it might be only at very short range. But essentially the emergence of this kind of capability suddenly makes the concept of an armored overrun of infantry positions a highly dubious proposition. This is what the panzerfaust achieved. It combined an effective warhead with the potential of vast scale of issue.

For this, it wins the title of best hand-held AT weapon of WW2 in my book.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

A good stout Finnish log.

> Panzerfaust was responable for about half the known kills from handheld AT weapons

A large chunk of that comes from the fact that the vast majority of armored combat vehicles were in use by the allies. Kinda hard to kill tanks that don't (and never did) exist. Not to belittle the faust, it gave infantry in close in fighting some real punch – tanks got close to late war German infantry at their peril.

Surely, Sgt Rock's P … istol?

Panzerfaust as well.

Of course the best handheld WWII AT device is the handset of a radio calling-in CAS, Hvy FA or Naval Gunfire … As brucka alluded to.

aircraft cab rank.

Probably the worst. Post battle analysis showed very few tanks destroyed by air attack. Same goes for artillery unless firing direct or 15" shells from a battleship.

You may be correct. And yet, it was still used in that manner. Of course in WWII things were not as accurate as today. But the techniques were there and used …

So … regardless … this link says you may be correct !

Modern artillery and air have a number of ways of taking out tanks. It is a different ball game.

I don't know. This looks a lot like a bazooka to me.

And so does this.

Those are the AT4 and Carl Gustov. They are the principal anti-tank weapons used by the west these days.

Here is the RPG and the Bazooka.

link

Those rocket launchers look like bazookas to me. So maybe it was the bazooka over the panzerfaust after all.

But then again, the bazooka was the first of the whole shoulder launched anti-tank rocket category of weapons anyway.

The AT4 looks like, but it is a single shot throw away. Just an improved LAW. A very improved one.

Those rocket launchers look like bazookas to me. So maybe it was the bazooka over the panzerfaust after all.

The saying "The victor writes the history" plays out true here. The Panzerfaust seemed to be a better weapon than the bazooka. However, since the German's lost the war, it was the Bazooka design that seemed to influence the ones after it.

This looks a lot like a bazooka to me.

So if our standard is which one looks like which other ones, then yes I think the Bazooka wins.

But if our standard is which ones worked best (in the OP), or even which ones have been most influential for modern follow-ons, I think you will find very few weapons programs that start with "I like the way that one looks -- let's do something that looks like that."

Rather, weapons development seems to flow on the dual inputs of technological design and tactical utilization.

The Carl Gustav is not a rocket launcher. The fact that it looks like one may be an interesting observation, but it is in the end trivial. It can not, and does not, launch a rocket projectile. The projectile is propelled by the chamber pressure, not by reaction to a propulsion impulse. It must be constructed to withstand the pressures of firing, more like a cannon than a rocket launcher.

The panzerfaust is not a weapon served by a specialist gunner, nor does it fire a rocket projectile. At least not the ones that saw action (the faustpatrone, the panzerfaust 30, 60, 100 and 150). They did not and could not launch rockets, and they were issued to common soldiers as rounds of ammunition.

This photo, from Wikipedia Commons, shows the tactical potential of a weapon like panzerfaust. Issue a dozen of them to a squad, issue several dozen to a platoon. That's a VERY different proposition than what you could ever achieve with Carl Gustavs or RPG-7s, despite what they look like.

… since the German's lost the war, it was the Bazooka design that seemed to influence the ones after it.

Disagree. The panzerfaust was very influential. Both recoilless launcher technology and one-man disposable tactical utilization have been VERY widely emulated in post-war infantry AT weapons.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

It seems that the anti-tank rifles do not get many mentions here, even though they were very common in the early war. That is probably due to the limited armour penetration (though back in 1940 they could still penetrate a good number of vehicles), but compared to the rocket/recoilless hand held weapons they had longer range, good accuracy and no backblast. That said, the weight and firing recoil must have been a pain.

As for the "best", if I would find myself assigned to a dedicated anti-tank team in a WWII infantry unit, my favourite would probably be Panzershreck – enough penetrative power to tackle pretty much any vehicle coming down the road, and with enough range to allow for some distance between us and the target.

As for panzerfaust, it certainly was somewhat revolutionary for the time: good penetrative power, some range, easy to use, relatively light and (quite importantly) a design that could be manufactured cheaply in massive numbers. But on the drawback side they had the backblast effect, as well as sometimes having malfunctions dangerous to the user – post-war Finnish was left with a good number of Panzerfausts, but after a number of accidents decided to discontinue their use in peacetime training.

Modern artillery and air have a number of ways of taking out tanks. It is a different ball game.

Very much so … but I doubt any WWII Cdr would reject CAS, FA, etc. support !

However, in "modern times", one of the first things a Cdr on the ground is have his FIST/FO call-in everything they can get.

I'd imagine if possible so would any WWII Cdr. Couldn't hurt, would be good for your troopers morale, etc. And may make the enemy think twice about their advance/attack.

That is one of the reasons the WWII Germans did a lot of movements at night. A column of vehicles, troops, etc. along a road is a prime target for CAS. Or FA or Naval Gunfire for that matter. I remember when I was an LT in the 101, cross training at Little Creek NAB (or was that NOB ?). Being taught how to call-in Naval Gunfire in '82 at Navy/USMC BAT. The thought of being able to call-in those BIG Naval 15-16 inch shells was certainly a nice option.
Our SGM called it throwing Buicks … 2000lbs shell flying thru the air !

It appears the Panzerfaust was the inspiration for the RPG and maybe even the M72 LAW. Regardless, the need for Infantry to be able to "manpack" light hand carried weapons was very important. Many times in the early stages of WWII we saw the AT Rifle was not that effective. And in many cases Towed AT Guns were not always available. Or even effective. E.g. some of the Russian tanks crews called German 37mm AT gun. The "Door Knocker" for obvious reasons.

The panzerfaust was very influential. Both recoilless launcher technology and one-man disposable tactical utilization have been VERY widely emulated in post-war infantry AT weapons.

Yes … very much so …

As I have stated before, in the '80s the US ARMY understood the need for Infantry AT weapons.

Each Squad had an M47 MAW, even thought it would not be that effective in all cases. But it could KO/disable an AFV.

Each of the two 5 man Fire Tms in the Squad had an M203 GL that could fire HEDP and could penetrate @ 2 inches of armor. Again not that much but it could stop an AFV by blowing a track off. Then the Infantrymen could use demo/satchel charges to KO the immobile vehicle.

And of course an M72 or two could be issued to every man if the AT threat was high. Again, not the best AT weapon but you could stop/KO an AFV at close range.

Even the M113 Mech Inf Co. had 2 organic M901 ITV AT Section. Plus the Bn had an entire Anti-Armor Co. With 3 (or 4) Plts of ITVs. And the light units like the 101 had an Anti-Armor Co. with M151 Jeep mounted TOWs.

NATO knew if the WP attacked to the West. With their massed AFV formations in full flood. They needed all the AT weapons they could get.

All based on WWII and Korean War experience … Infantry needs an effective way to kill AFVs without other support if need be.

A radio, with which to call in either an air strike or artillery fire – or both.

A radio doesn't do much good unless there is someone on the other end. Well, if you are Taliban it could be an IED.

some of the Russian tanks crews called German 37mm AT gun. The "Door Knocker" for obvious reasons.
It was the Germans themselves that called it a doorknocker. Mocking their own weapon. Whose officers at first determined that it's uselessness a 'training problem'.

Gentlemen while I do accept that in places there will be large stocks, but typical these are safely behind the lines. A MRR typicaly has 152mm SP guns, 2S3 which hold only 46 rounds may. Refilling takes quite a time as Co locating the gun and it's ammunition means mutual destruction. Hence rounds need to be placed somewhere near and then moved almost individually to maintain some sort of risk reduction. This takes time. The more you use in one place the sooner you need to replenish.

A radio doesn't do much good unless there is someone on the other end. Well, if you are Taliban it could be an IED.

That's a given, like if you have enough ammo and fuel, etc. … just one of a number of "variables" that you can run into on the battlefield, I'd imagine …

And IIRC, if I am wrong I'm sure someone will correct me. But I believe many AFVs in WWII were certainly damaged/KO'd by mines and in some cases "booby traps"[e.g. the IJFs in the PTO had a number of "imaginative" ways].

So the Taliban, or other insurgents we are dealing with currently, have IIRC, damaged/KO'd many AFVs with IEDs. Probably more than any other method.

It was the Germans themselves that called it a doorknocker. Mocking their own weapon. Whose officers at first determined that it's uselessness a 'training problem'.

That is probably true, I can't remember where I heard or read it. Thanks for that. And it wouldn't surprise me that the German leadership blamed the troops vs. the Tech. But I was not other … so …

UshCha
23 Nov 2017 1:42 p.m. PST
Gentlemen while I do accept that in places there will be large stocks, but typical these are safely behind the lines. A MRR typicaly has 152mm SP guns, 2S3 which hold only 46 rounds may. Refilling takes quite a time as Co locating the gun and it's ammunition means mutual destruction. Hence rounds need to be placed somewhere near and then moved almost individually to maintain some sort of risk reduction. This takes time. The more you use in one place the sooner you need to replenish.

I think you posted this on the wrong thread ?

Petrol Bomb
Use of the term which disparages the Soviet Foreign Minister could be dangerous to the user.

Molotov Cocktail … We were still trained to make and use them if need be. Waaaay back in '79-'90 …