PIAT vs Bazooka vs Panzerfaust/Panzerschreck

[Raketenpanzerbuchse]

Which was the better anti-tank weapon in World War II and in CM?

[Mr. Johnson--]

Puppchen

[Raketenpanzerbuchse]

What is that?

[Mattias]

Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust, in their respective roles.

The former compared to the Bazooka and the PIAT, the latter in its then unique capacity as single shot, mass use, disposable launcher.

--

The Puppchen was produced in some numbers but discontinued as it was found to be both uneconomical and tactically inferior in comparison with the Panzerschreck.

--

M.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mattias:

Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust, in their respective roles.

The former compared to the Bazooka and the PIAT, the latter in its then unique capacity as single shot, mass use, disposable launcher.

--

The Puppchen was produced in some numbers but discontinued as it was found to be both uneconomical and tactically inferior in comparison with the Panzerschreck.

--

M.

Apples and oranges. PIAT could fire farther than the early Panzerfaust models, and had the significant advantage of not having a backblast - which meant you could fire it somewhat stealthily, and more importantly, from a position of cover such as a building - you could not do that with a rocket-launched weapon without certain dangers. You could also reload a PIAT where you couldn't with the Panzerfaust. It was lighter than a Panzerschreck and considerably smaller.

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

Originally posted by Raketenpanzerbuchse:

Which was the better anti-tank weapon in World War II and in CM?

128mm PaK...

But since that isn't an option...

Depends on the situation. They all have advatanges and disadvantages.

[K_Tiger]

I read elswere on the net, the piat was a hard to reload weapon only realy strong mens could reload it in a couple of time..

All Panzerschreckteams wear fireproofed ponchos, so i think, they could use it also in Buildings with limited danger..

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

[QB]I read elswere on the net, the piat was a hard to reload weapon only realy strong mens could reload it in a couple of time..

That's only when it failed to recock itself.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Mattias:

The Puppchen was produced in some numbers but discontinued as it was found to be both uneconomical and tactically inferior in comparison with the Panzerschreck.

--

M.

I'm actually interested why they didn't continue with the Puppchen. I know they believed the Panzerschreck was tactically better but comparing the performance between the various German AT weapons, it appears the Puppchen fills the niche between the Panzerschreck and the Pak40 quite well.

I wonder if there any efforts to either extend the range of the Panzerschreck or lighten the Puppchen? Both would appear logical. Perhaps producing a tripod mounted Panzerschreck with an extended barrel, allowing a longer burn for the rocket?

[Mr. Johnson--]

Just perfect the 105mm RR, Brian.

[K_Tiger]

Mr. Dorosh:

Sorry i must disagee again, the biggest reason not to build more "Püppchen" was the dislike from the crews who statet it made to mutch smoke after the first firing and were suddenly spotted by the ennemy. Also you couldn dig in with it like with normal At-weapons, if somthing is behind you the smoke that comes out of the back couldn leave the place where the gun r placed and the crew cant anymore aim at targets.

[HVAP]

K_Tiger that sounds "tactically inferior" to me

[Brian]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Mr. Dorosh:

Sorry i must disagee again, the biggest reason not to build more "Püppchen" was the dislike from the crews who statet it made to mutch smoke after the first firing and were suddenly spotted by the ennemy. Also you couldn dig in with it like with normal At-weapons, if somthing is behind you the smoke that comes out of the back couldn leave the place where the gun r placed and the crew cant anymore aim at targets.

Mmmm, I was under the impression that there was no backblast from the Puppchen, as it fired its rocket from a closed breech, as did the 38cm Rocket on the Sturmtiger, forcing all exhaust gases out of the muzzle. This might account for it being more easily spotted. However, I was referring more to the use of a "through" design, like the Panzerschreck, only larger (or rather longer), to allow a longer range rocket to be used. There is this gap, between the maximum effective range of the Panzerschreck (100-150 metres) and the Pak40's with its comparatively massive weight and requirement for a towing vehicle and lots of other paraphenalia.

The 105mm RCL which someone else suggested, is more a replacement for the conventional AT gun, rather than an infantry anti-tank rocket projector. It, or rather the 57mm or 75mm RCL might be a good weapon to fill the gap I'm talking about but it suffers from weight and the excessive cost per round in propellant.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Brian,

You are correct about the backblast of the Püppchen: it had a breech lock so the gases would have been forced out the front. I'm sure it was quite a cloud, though.

I would think the weight, 20.5 lbs. for the panzerschreck vs. 270 lbs. for the Püppchen would be a deciding factor in determining production priorities, along with the much more complicated production requirements and more resources required to produce the Püppchen. They fired the same ammo with the same killing power, so it would seem logical that the simpler launching platform would be preferable, although not to the exclusion of the other.

BTW, I noticed in HBO's "Band of Brothers" the producers have the Germans using a Püppchen at Carentan.

[Warmaker]

Long post, be warned!

I don't think it's proper to compare the PIAT to the Panzerfaust. To the Panzerschreck, yes, but not the 'faust.

The Panzerfaust is numerous enough that practically most of your squads in CM will have at least 1. 2 if you have a little luck. Their ranges are short early on but it gives your squads a lethal AT capability (better and safer than demo charges which you have to be close to use).

My order of preference of the three with first being most preferred: Panzerschreck/Bazooka/PIAT.

The PIAT to me has less punch than the Bazooka but it does get that little "stealth" bit and makes your AT team harder to detect.

The Panzerschreck of these 3 is it as far as I'm concerned. Longer range, bigger warhead, and extremely lethal. Hit practically any tank from any angle with the 'schreck and it's dead. I can't ask for anything more but ATGMs, and that's waaaaaaaay down the road!

Oh, and as far as using the 105mm Recoilless Rifles to fill the niche between the 'faust/'schreck and the PaK40, it's got some extreme pros and cons:

+ Good blast value for killing infantry should the need arise, unlike the Puppchens. The '105 has a value of 77 versus the miniscule 8 of the Puppchen.

+ Respectable amount of ammunition. Usually in the 30s for an average QB.

+ Cost isn't bad or good either. For a regular crew it at 59pts while the 75mm RR is at 40pts. The Puppchens though are 26pts.

+ Higher velocity vs the Puppchens. The 105mm RR has m/sec and the Puppchen has 150m/sec. This makes the 105mm RR more accurate but long range plinking of moving targets over 100m is still risky unless you've got an elite crew or something.

+ The Puppchen's maximum range is 500m while the 105mm RR can touch at 2000m. Take this with a grain of salt however since hitting something at more than 100m (esp. for the Puppchen) is not conducive to your Puppchen/RR team's health.

- As far as penetration goes the Puppchen wins hands down with a penetration value of 147mm at a 30 degree angle. The 105mm RR is respectable with 89mm @ 30 degrees with it's hollow charge rounds. Otherwise, 36mm @ 30 degrees at 100m or less with normal HE rounds. I've seen too many vanilla Shermans survive direct front hull hits from hollow charge rounds of the 105mm RR. I DON'T LIKE SEEING MY ANTI-TANK WEAPONS NOT KILLING AT THE FIRST SHOT!!!

- IMO, the traverse is much slower than a Puppchen or Panzerschreck team. Watch those wide firing arcs...

- IMO also, the ROF for the 105mm RR is ATROCIOUSLY SLOW! My goodness man, I could wait and expect to see the second coming before a follow up shot is loaded, aimed, and fired!

I've been playing alot with different weapons in an effort to find a cheaper, yet still reliable AT weapon at short ranges to free up my valuable PaK40s and Pak43s. I've tried the Pak38, Puppchens, Panzerschrecks, 37mm FlaK, the 75mm RR, and of course the 105mm RR.

For me it's a tie between the PaK38 and Puppchen though they both have their own shortcomings. I know some Axis players love the 37mm FlaK but I know it sounds weird: I don't like using them too much. Dunno why.

So, for the majority of my AT work, the PaK40 is the final word. At shorter ranges the Panzerschreck is it. Powerful stuff like the PaK43 is a luxury but the PaK40 and Pz.schreck will fulfill most of an Axis player's needs. Well, at least mine.

[ March 17, 2002, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Andreas]

It seems that tech groggyness is taking over. I wonder why it is inappropriate to compare the PF and the PIAT? After all, both of them had a very limited design spec. Kill tanks. The question that was asked is which one was best at doing the job, not which one was reloadable or did leave a signature mark when fired, although both of these would come into the assessment.

To give you a non-groggy example. I compare the train against the plane all the time when I think about getting from London to Cologne. That does not mean that they have anything more in common then that they would get me there. I don't look at how they work or how the driver is trained or clad or what colour scheme they come in. That is a bit irrelevant to me, although I can see how anoraks would get all excited about it.

To get back to the question - despite the shortcomings of the early versions in terms of range, all things considered I think the PF would win the contest. It is easily carried, simple to use, cheap to mass-produce, and extremely deadly when it hits. The kill numbers (and ratio of all tanks killed) achieved by the men using it in the east are impressive.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Look again Michael, just like you I do not compare the PF with the PIAT.

I have the impression that the Panzerschreck was the best weapon among it's peers and that the PF, though included in the question, hold a unique position as there was no comparable weapon system fielded by other nations in the war.

--

There was a lot of designs made for the ranges outside that of the Panzerschreck, two good examples of which are the "Panzertod" (or "Hammer") and the "8 cm PAW 600".

The Panzertod was a tripod mounted light RL gun weighing 45 kg and firing out to an effective range of 500 meters and the PAW was a variable pressure cannon for HL and HE grenades firing out to 600 meters for AT purposes. The latter weigh 630 kg but came with a useful HE range of 6200 meters and without the excessive powder consumption of the RL cannons in use.

--

M.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The kill numbers (and ratio of all tanks killed) achieved by the men using it in the east are impressive.

Hardly a convincing bit of evidence in itself; they were in a somewhat more "target-rich environment" than Allied troops on the Western Front fighting a worn down German Army short on everything, including armour...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Well, I knew someone would bring that up, but I would argue that it just goes to show that they actually could kill tanks when necessary. Also, the simple fact that there were so many of them around and that they could be carried easily can arguably serve as proof that it was a very good weapon.

I really don't care which one was better, but I don't accept your 'apples and oranges' claim. They both were hand-held weapons used to defeat tanks. They are comparable, if you want to do that.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Brian:

the PzSchreck 10,5cm is going into that direction.

Btw, the reason why the Puppchen (please note it was called Puppchen not Püppchen) was disliked, as stated by others, was that it handled like an AT gun (unwieldy, heavy, big as opposed to a Panzerschreck that one man could take anywhere he went) but lacked the effectivity (range/accuracy) of a real AT gun. It was too impractical. In closed confines and the chaos of fast-moving battles you were much better off with an RPzB or a PzF.

a couple of other notes (this is all going from memory here). PIAT was poor due to it's inaccuracy and tendency of it's ammunition to predetonate with the user. although it remained in active service as official equipment, actual use of PIAT (as in life firing etc.) was suspended after the war due to the high rate of accidents. spring-recoil-operation with a minimum of charge meant that yes it could be fired from confines where no other of the AT weapons here could be fired (a considerable advantage), but the semi-semi-auto-cocking-mechanism which required a lot of physical strength for the first shot and then was supposed to cock by itself from the recoil of the first shot often failed so that even subsequent shots had to be cocked manually which was hard to do (reportedly impossible while lying prone). low Vo made for poor accuracy (Both RPzB and Bazooka had far higher accuracy and range). As for comparison with the PzF, the PIAT required a dedicated soldier while the PzF was considered a secondary armament -just like handgrenades- for any soldier (a la the way both types are represented in CMBO).

the story about fireproof ponchos for the Panzerschreck goes back to the original handling of the RPzB 43 and 54 before these weapons were regularly fitted with the characteristic shield; even then there are lots of pictures showing that troops in the field hardly ever used fireproof ponchos even with the eearly version. I think I only ever saw one picture of a PzSchreck soldier with a poncho in the field, the other pictures showing them wearing fireproof clothing are from drill, training and manual.

uhmmm...anything else I missed?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Well, I knew someone would bring that up, but I would argue that it just goes to show that they actually could kill tanks when necessary. Also, the simple fact that there were so many of them around and that they could be carried easily can arguably serve as proof that it was a very good weapon.

I really don't care which one was better, but I don't accept your 'apples and oranges' claim. They both were hand-held weapons used to defeat tanks. They are comparable, if you want to do that.</font>

Andreas, the point isn't how much they were the same, but how much they were different. The original question was "which was better".

You just proved my point; I think. You say you don't know which one was "better", I am saying neither was "better" overall, as each had its advantages over the other.

[ March 17, 2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[flamingknives]

"Panzertod" (or "Hammer")

Who called it "hammer" ? The translation for "Panzertod" is, literally, "Tank death"

The performance seems similar to the puppchen.

(please note it was called Puppchen not Püppchen)

Why not? I can't find the word without the umlot ( ??? It's been a while since I studied German and I can't remember how to spell what those dots are called) anywhere in my German/English dictionary. Is there a difference in meaning?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

(please note it was called Puppchen not Püppchen)

Where does it say so?

The proper -chen form of Puppe (doll) is with an umlaut. But it is not impossible that the term isn't intended to be the -chen form of doll, hence my question.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The Germans did, the translation of Hammer being hammer, it is was simply alternative name used during it's development process.

Well, the maximum range figure for the Puppchen given in CM and the figure given for Panzertod by me above is one of the few similarities.

The Panzertod was a RCL weapon, it weighed only a third of the Puppchen (in transport configuration), it had a Vo of 430 m/s (as opposed to 150 m/s) making it more accurate and the engagement distance of 500 meters is supposed to be the actual "Gefechtsreichweite", which is set at 230 meters for the Puppchen in the same source.

All my German books refere to the weapon as Puppchen, the omlaut version being limited, among my sources, to books in English.

--

M.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

[snips]

a couple of other notes (this is all going from memory here). PIAT was poor due to it's inaccuracy and tendency of it's ammunition to predetonate with the user.

I'd like to know your source for this (apart from memory). I've not heard it before.

although it remained in active service as official equipment, actual use of PIAT (as in life firing etc.) was suspended after the war due to the high rate of accidents.

Again, I'd like to know your source. I did once have a conversation with a pub landlord who claimed to have used the PIAT in what was then Palestine in action against Jewish insurgents, which I imagine would have been at least a year or two after the war.

Gander (see reference below) says that the PIAT continued in service during the Korean war.

[snips]

was supposed to cock by itself from the recoil of the first shot often failed so that even subsequent shots had to be cocked manually which was hard to do (reportedly impossible while lying prone).

In "Quartered Safe out Here", George McDonald Fraser recounts cocking a PIAT manually while prone, so I think it must have been possible.

low Vo made for poor accuracy (Both RPzB and Bazooka had far higher accuracy and range).

[snips]

Terry Gander's book "Bazooka: Hand-Held Hollow-Charge Anti-Tank weapons" (Parkgate Books, London, 1998: ISBN 1-90261-615-4) gives comparative performance stats on all these weapons. The initial velocities of each are stated as being:

M1, M1A1, M9 or M9A1 bazooka______83 m/sec

R-Werfer Püppchen________________150 m/sec

RPzB 43, 54 or 54/1_______________110 m/sec

PF klein, PF-30____________________30 m/sec

PF-60____________________________45 m/sec

PF-100___________________________62 m/sec

PF-150________________________c. 200 m/sec

PIAT__________________________76-137 m/sec

It is not clear to me why the PIAT has a range of velocities shown -- whether this reflects uncertainty about the true value or variation with different models of bomb or firing modes -- but it is clear that the PIAT's intial velocity is at worst very little inferior to the bazooka, and at best higher than either the bazooka or the Panzerschreck.

All the best,

John.