"Bazooka, PIAT, Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust performance" Topic

Guys,
What was the performance difference – if any – between these man-packed AT weapons?

for example, my understanding would be that:
- the PIAT wasn't a strong armor penetrator
- the 'faust had a very short range,
- the bazooka had HE for buildings and such,
- bazooka / 'schreck had the best range

Was there any real difference between the bazooka and 'schreck?
Did they have the same ammo types available?

What questions am I failing to ask?

Thanks!

same ammo types.. I think you have a misunderstanding of them. They are pretty much all the same ammo- a HEAT round. Some, like the Faust 'could be' bigger, and hence a bigger bang and hence more penetration. Some were easier to aim than others, which helps with range. Each had its plusses and minuses.

Would all of them be of some use against pillboxes and buildings?

All are HEAT warheads, good for punching a hoole in steel armour but not as hot against pillboxes. Maybe the later Panzerfaust had a decent effect on buldings though.

PIAT, lauched by a big darn spring.
Shortest range of the bunch, but it could also be fired from inside buildings without provblems as it had no back blast. It also had the advantage of not giving their postion away so obviously by the bloom of the bacl blast like all the rockets types. Of course, having the nerve towait for your target to get so close is another story altogether.

Bazooka, the orginal came in 2.36 inch and was good for '42 and even '43 but started having problems with German armour after that due to increases in thickness, slope angles and the surprise effect being a bit done. I even read a book by James Gavin the CO of an airborne division that by '44 they paraded with the 2.36 for the newsreels, but then took Panzershrek into action instead.

The Panzerfaust was a rocket launched from a tube where the rest of the rocket overlapped the front of the tube. Think RPG but very primitive. They came in different models based on range of use. I think it was Panzerfaust 30, 60 and 100.
Late very end of the war saw developments of 150 and 250 evne with reusable launchers and wraps around the warhead for shrapnel effect, but the last two were very late.

Disadvantage of rocket back blast saying, "here I am kill me with a half belt of caxial mg fire".

The Panzershrek was essentiallly an upscaled copy development of the US bazooka. Reusable, hellacious backblast and good hole puncher. Like I said, even the Us airborne carried them into their fights at times.

The US 3.5 inch bazooka was the last development and matched if not besting the rest except of course that signature back blast of all the rocket types. Too late for general use in the second world war, it was used by nearly every western army, some right until the mid 1980s! It even had the afvantage of different types of ammo like dedicated HE or WP rounds too..

The PIAT was a spigot mortar, the spring operated the firing pin which fired the charge in the base of the bomb, so it didn't have a rocket back blast. Short range.

The Panzerfaust was very powerful but short ranged and essentially disposable. Iirc it wasnt a rocket but a gunpowder charge fired the warhead.

Bazooka and Panzerschreck were both rocket launchers with decent range, but the bazooka had the worst penetration of any of them.

By coincidence I was just looking up the abilities of these weapons on my old Panzer/Armour/88 data cards today.

The data cards are usually fairly accurate.

Bazooka and PanzerSchreck have a max range of approx 400m with an armour penetration of 100mm for Bazooka, 115mm for PzSck. Bazooka has slightly better accuracy than PzSck.

Panzerfaust has max range of 100m with armour penetration of 200mm. Note other comments above about Pzfst range abilities depending on the year of manufacture.

PIAT has max range of 100m and armour penetration of 100mm.

The German "Faustpatrons" of large calibers, although they did not produce a significant amount of fragments during the explosion, had a serious high-explosive effect. When firing at buildings, 1-3 shots were enough to make people in the affected room unfit for combat. Therefore, captured "Faustpatrons" were widely used in Soviet assault units in urban battles. There were official orders prescribing the collection and transfer of captured "Faustpatrons" to provide assault units. And there were even handicraft installations for salvo fire from "faustpatrons" in urban battles.

Hi Cuprum,
I seem to recall reading at some point in the past that, in the closing months of the war, the advancing Soviet army captured a factory or assembly plant manufacturing Faustpatrone and actually put it into production.

Have you ever run across any event of this sort in your studies?

B

Hi! I have never seen any mention of the establishment of the production of German rocket-propelled grenade launchers for the Soviet army. In my opinion, there are two reasons for this: the first is the initial underestimation by the Soviet leadership of hand-held rocket weapons. After testing the bazooka, the USSR refused to supply this weapon, considering it to be an insufficiently effective anti-tank weapon (although these grenade launchers were still in service with the Red Army in small quantities, coming complete with amphibious vehicles). The second reason is the huge number of captured German grenade launchers. At this time, the Soviet leadership had already recognized the effectiveness of grenade launchers in urban battles, but considered it necessary to refine these weapons. What they did after the war with the help of German specialists.
In the meantime, these weapons have been used with great success by assault groups in the storming of cities. Here is a description of his actions during the assault on Danzig:
"During the assault, Soviet troops actively used captured anti-tank weapons: the Faustpatron and the Panzershrek rocket launcher. Captured Faustpatrons were ordered to be collected and handed over to the engineering services. But they were not intended to fight tanks. Most of the Faustpatrons were at the disposal of the assault sapper brigades (ShISbr), which used them as part of assault groups to suppress enemy firing points.Before the assault on Danzig, 30 assault groups were trained in the 1st SISBr.Each sapper assault group consisted of 4 attack aircraft and 4 flamethrowers (of which 2 reserve). With each of these assault groups, a group of "faustniks" of 4 sappers operated (a squad leader and three "faustniks", one of which had a special machine for salvo throwing). This machine was a domestic invention and allowed simultaneously throwing up to 10 faustpatrons. A group of "faustniks" was armed with 50-80 faustpatrons and machine guns.One tank or self-propelled guns was allocated for the transport of a sapper assault group, which also provided fire support. To storm especially difficult objects, demolition men were included in the group. 200 kg of explosives were allocated to the sappers' department. With the help of sewer hatches, which were used as reflectors, they staged directed explosions, and then, after pre-treatment of the hole with a flamethrower, they finished off the surviving Nazis. Hiding behind neighboring houses, sappers armed with faustpatrons made their way to the intended object and fired at the window where the enemy machine gun was installed. Others at this time threw grenades at windows and doors, from which the Nazis fired. If the enemy's resistance did not stop, one or two concentrated charges were placed under the walls of the building and an explosion was made. After that, the enemy garrison usually surrendered. If he continued to resist, the infantry threw grenades at the breach. During the first two days of the assault on the city, enemy resistance in 19 buildings was suppressed in this way. When fighting within the quarter, the importance of faustpatrons and flamethrowers increased, since under these conditions, the processing of assault targets by direct-fire artillery and tanks became almost impossible. And when the sappers-attack aircraft managed to get close to the object of the assault or the firing point at the distance of a shot from a flamethrower, the success of the assault was ensured, since flamethrowing in all cases forced the enemy to leave the defended object. Almost daily, assault groups fired 200-250 faustpatrons at the enemy. True, hits by faustpatrons were not always accurate enough, but the force of their explosion made it possible to eliminate enemy firing points equipped in buildings with two or three shots. The great opportunities provided by the weapons of the Red Army, rich trophies and the ability to use all this effectively made it possible to carry out the operation to capture Danzig.

Years ago in some Quarrie WW2 rules there were AP values for a PIAT in which its anti-armour performance declined with range. This seemed to make little sense for a HEAT weapon, but there was a thread here a few years ago on the PIAT which sort of explained it. Accounts of people who had used them were cited indicating that its velocity was so low you had to give it a lot of elevation for it to achieve its maximum range. As a result of being "lobbed", it would arrive at a glancing angle with adverse effects for its AP ability. It would try to penetrate the armour at an angle basically. So ole Quarrie was right after all.

These are the type of weapon where it's bemusing to me that they weren't thought of in 1916. Compared to an anti-tank rifle, both launcher and round are cheap to make. The principle of shaped charges had been known about for 20 years, so even without the all-important metal liner you could made a rocket launcher at that date that could have taken out those WW1 rhomboid tanks without difficulty.

It makes you wonder if tank development would have happened differently to how it did, had tanks been seen as horribly vulnerable to hand-held infantry weapons from the get go. AIUI, the early reservations around them related to their vulnerability to breakdown and bogging, rather than to infantry anti-tank fire.

PIAT range versus large targets (eg building): 350 yards

Panzerfaust: Tank fist
Faustpatrone: Fist cartridge

Instead of fist should it be "puncher" or "hitter":

- Tank-punch/hitter
- Punch cartridge

There was a problem with the first type of fuze in the PIAT bomb, which lead troops to think they were firing duds when in fact the angle of impact was stopping detonation. A new (all ways? I'll have to check) replaced this and would detonate the bomb. There was a bit of PIAT propaganda in some 1944-45 publications, recommending increased training and familiarity by personnel to get over any preconceptions about it.

Gary

Thanks for the replies, they've been helpful!

The Soviets did not manufacture pz Fausts.
They organise collection of unused German ones.
I wouldn't get too carried away with expectations there.
It was mostly specialised sov units in set piece late war situations would have them. At least in an organised fashion.

Also the PIAT had a secondary role as a mortar and even had a primitive sighting markings to enable it to be used thus. The Welsh Division at S'Hertenbosch used them effectively in that role.

I find it funny everyone always leaves out the 57mm, 75mm and 105mm recoilless guns. The 57mm was light and accurate.

Re Panzerfaust factories. My recollection is that the "factory" or "assembly plant" was abandoned and overrun well inside Germany.

I'm still looking for the reference source. Will advise if (and when) I can find same.

B

The US recoiless guns only saw use in tiny numbers in the closing couple on months of the war, which is why most people ignore them. The Germans used them in limited numbers for much longer.

There's also the puppchen. The sort-of-gun the panzershrek round was originally designed for.
And the PAW. Used the hi lo principle rather than rocket or venting out the back.

I have seen a short report on the US 17th Airborne Division being given a small number of recoilless rifles for use ahead of Varsity. I think it was 18 of the 57-mm type and two of the 75-mm version. As I recall the author was very much trying to dampen down reports that these were 'wonder weapons' and would shortly be displacing towed anti-tank guns as they were so effective. US Infantry Battalions would have had them for the invasion of Japan and I think a few were likewise provided for trials on Okinawa.

Gary

Blutarski,
During the siege of Budapest, an arms factory, the Hungarian Manfred Weiss Steel and Metal Works, located on Csepel Island (within the city) kept up production of various light armaments and ammunition, Panzerfäuste included, all the way until the very last moment, when attacking Soviet troops seized the factory by the first days of 1945.

In Germany, complete Panzerfaust launchers were supplied by just three assembly plants: two Hugo Schneider AG (Hasag) filials in Lepizig (manufacturer's code: „wa") and Schlieben („wk"), as well as Warz & Co. of Zella-Mehlis („cq").

Wolfhag

These are the type of weapon where it's bemusing to me that they weren't thought of in 1916.

IIRC, the bazooka was proposed to the U.S. Army by Robert Goddard in WW1, but wasn't thought useful then. But obviously they dusted off the idea for WW2.

The PIAT's ability to fire at high angles proved very popular in Italy when fighting up the steep local mountains. The weapon could attack dug-in troops.

At one time it was also considered as a replacement for the 2-inch mortar but this never took place.

One interesting point on high angle attack with the PIAT, at Arnhem a German tank was behind a building. The paras had a PIAT and a spotter located off to the side who could see the German tank. With the aid of the spotter the PIAT was fired OVER the house. The first shot went over, the second fell short but the third scored a direct hit and brewed-up the tank.

Wiki says:

A contemporary (1944–45) Canadian Army survey questioned 161 army officers, who had recently left combat, about the effectiveness of 31 different infantry weapons. In that survey the PIAT was ranked the number one most "outstandingly effective" weapon, followed by the Bren gun in second place.

An analysis by British staff officers of the initial period of the Normandy campaign found that 7% of all German tanks destroyed by British forces were knocked out by PIATs, compared to 6% by rockets fired by aircraft. However, they also found that once German tanks had been fitted with armoured skirts that detonated shaped charge ammunition before it could penetrate the tank's armour, the weapon became much less effective.

Wiki here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT

Barry