Bazookas - M1A1 M9A1

[Felix_45]

Good grief, man, have you heard of Google or library?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust

Okay Sergei, I followed your link and read this!

The US 82nd Airborne Division captured some Panzerfausts in the Sicilian campaign, and later during the fighting in Normandy. Finding them more effective than their own Bazookas, they held onto them and used them during the later stages of the French campaign and even dropped with them into the Netherlands during the Market-Garden campaign. They captured an ammunition dump of Panzerfausts near Nijmegen, and used them through the Ardennes Offensive to the end of the war. [7]

So are allies going to get to play with captured panzerfausts in future modules....Hmmmmmmmmm?

On a more serious note, I'm finding that I'm googling this kind of stuff more and more when I'm making purchases for QB's or trying to figure out what caliber of ammo is used by what and who so that I don't "acquire" the wrong stuff or buy something utterly useless. :D:D

[Michael Emrys]

So are allies going to get to play with captured panzerfausts in future modules....Hmmmmmmmmm?

Only the 82nd. Airborne.

Michael

[Haggard Sketchy]

I also recall reading about the Korean War, and how US troops were initially horrified because their bazooka rounds werent penetrating the NKA T-34/85s. Apparently 'super bazookas' were brought in, designed at the end of WW2 for heavy german armor, and they did the trick. I seem to remember them being 100mm or something.

In one notable incident, infantry blocking forces of the U.S. Army's Task Force Smith were overrun by 33 North Korean T-34/85 tanks despite repeatedly firing 2.36 inch rockets into the rear engine compartments of the vehicles.[34][35] Additionally, Ordnance authorities received numerous combat reports regarding the failure of the M6A3 warhead to properly detonate upon impact, eventually traced to inventories of rocket ammunition that had deteriorated from numerous years of storage in humid or salt air environments.

Whether the original bazookas would've sufficed, nice excuse to introduce a better weapon. It must've been welcome against the glacis too.

[MikeyD]

Someone on this board awhile ago said that his father(?) had referred to WWII infantry AT weapons and "anti-tank placebos". It was unlikely they'd actually stop a tank but their presence had a morale effect beyond their utility.

[JonS]

Heh. When I first joined up we were issued 'raincoats' (ponchos, really) that were made of very tightly woven cotton. When they were brand new they actually did work ok. But after moving through the bush a bit, and being out in the weather, and being scrunched up in a small pack, the surface developed a cotton fuzz that worked well at anything except repelling water. And that would have been ok, too, as long as we'd been able to replace them regularly. But of course, that's not the way the Q system works. Visually (on a dry day, inside the Q-Store) they appeared in good condition. So, no new jacket for you sonny.

As a result, they became known as 'Jackets, absorbent' or 'Jackets, psychological.'

[Sergei]

We had the Magic Capes. If you were threatened by ABC weapons, you hunkered down in your foxhole with your Magic Cape over you and the evil radiation and nerve gases would not harm you!

[Sublime]

heh.

Interesting Ive heard about the bazookas hitting the rear engine compartments and not penetrating either. WW2 is my favorite, but god some of the stories from Korea can make your skin crawl. Chinese hordes with whistles, and the 'bugout route'.

I wonder why bazookas never caught on in the Ost Front? The Russians certainly like fausts enough to use them as inspiration for the RPG

[Sgt Schultz]

Soviet troops were on average more often illiterate. The word "peasant" still meant something in the USSR back then.

RPG is flat out idiot proof with no written instruction and little training involved. Stick here... push button.

Zooks have lights, batteries, wires, steps that must be taken in an exact order...

The Soviet command structure most likely decided to keep it simple and mass produce RPGs. Then the inertia of the Soviet state took over, and since no one ever ORDERED anyone to make zooks... they never quite got around to it.

[LukeFF]

Also why'd the Soviets not follow suit and introduce RPGs or anything until a few years after the war? They just didn't have the technology?

Their best AT weapon was the T-34.

[Sublime]

Yeah, Luke, that point occured to me as well. Along with AT weapons, IL-2 Sturmoviks,etc. I guess their doctrine didnt exactly have a place for it. Still, Im surprised.

[Sergei]

Soviet troops were on average more often illiterate. The word "peasant" still meant something in the USSR back then.

No, not really.

In 1926, however, only 51% of the population over the age of 10 had achieved literacy. Male literacy was at 66.5 while female literacy lagged behind at 37.2. By 1939, however, male literacy was at 90.8 and female literacy had increased to 72.5%. According to the 1939 Soviet Census, literate people were 89.7% (RSFSR, ages 9 – 49). During the 1950s, the Soviet Union had become a country of nearly 100% literacy.

Since the literacy campaigns must have hit hardest at the generation that was in school in the 1920s-30's and therefore were at conscription age in 1940's, the myth of an illiterate Russian peasant is really just that, a myth. No doubt created by Nazis.

Now, whether an Uzbek recruit understood the text is a different thing, but at least he could read it...

[Sublime]

While I have no doubts that Nazi propaganda helped propagate the illiterate Soviet peasant image - any statistics from the USSR (really at all) but especially in the Stalinist period I take with a large grain of salt.

Though apparently Cuba has the highest literacy rates in the world - wonders of communism!

I think who was well educated depended a lot on where they were from, among other things. IIRC interviews with Kalashnikov (the AK designer Kalashnikov) he mentioned that he always loved mechanical things, and since his village was almost entirely devoid of any mechanical items he was left doing things like taking apart the few doorknobs that were there. Apparently he was pleased as punch to get in the Red Army, to be able to tinker with more items. I think part of the point Schultz was making was that even if you're technically literate, as in reading and writing, if you've never been exposed to much machinery at all, beyond simple tractors or things like doorknobs, it may be a bit much to expect you to be able to use a bazooka in a extremely stressful enviroment.

Of course Im sure many could, but one of the biggest proponents of the myth of the idiot peasant was the Russian High Command itself. From what I've always understood, the Soviet High Command always wanted rugged, simple devices for its troops for ease of use, being easy to teach and use, not needing much maintenance, etc etc.

And like you mentioned Sergei, the USSR had so many different ethnic groups, etc being thrown together in the melting pot of their gigantic military that it must also have been important to have easy, simplistic things to use, what with Uzbeks, Mongolians, Ukrainians, Russians, etc etc etc.

[LukeFF]

From what I've always understood, the Soviet High Command always wanted rugged, simple devices for its troops for ease of use, being easy to teach and use, not needing much maintenance, etc etc.

And like you mentioned Sergei, the USSR had so many different ethnic groups, etc being thrown together in the melting pot of their gigantic military that it must also have been important to have easy, simplistic things to use, what with Uzbeks, Mongolians, Ukrainians, Russians, etc etc etc.

It's like that saying: "Quantity has a quality all of its own."

Since we're talking about the Red Army, take their service rifles as an example. The Mosin-Nagant is about as basic as a rifle can be, yet it's very reliable and just as accurate as any other contemporary bolt-action rifle.

On the other hand you have the semi-automatic SVT-40. It's a reliable rifle for sure, but it has a lot of internal parts that need to be cleaned when it's field-stripped. Besides that, one has to be careful when taking out the bolt, or one will find that the springs have flown off into the wild blue yonder (as I found out, much to my chagrin). On top of that, the gas system has to be adjusted just right with a special wrench in order for it to cycle correctly, which means that's one more part for a soldier to lose.

The Soviets looked at all of those factors (and more) and, in the face of the advancing German army and needing to arm millions of troops quickly, realized the Mosin-Nagant was the better solution for the Red Army's needs. Sometimes the best weapon is not the most advanced design but the one that can be produced quickly, efficiently, and adequately fulfill the task required of it.

[Sublime]

A good point. Which leads me to something I've often wondered about - There seems to be two ways to group designs - quantity over quality, or quality over quantity. Seems to me the Allies in WW2 chose quantity, with Shermans, T-34s, etc etc. While the Wehrmacht went with quality.

I've always found it odd that since the Wehrmacht lost the war, the US Army and military has seemed to adopt (in the postwar/coldwar/present) the quality over quantity strategy.

Any thoughts?

[Erwin]

Makes more money for the defense contractors to create something very sexy that can do a lot of things, but is so complex that it requires a small army of highly paid contractors to service with very expensive parts (all made by the contractor) - thus ensuring massive cash flow for the duration of the toy's life.

[Sergei]

I think part of the point Schultz was making was that even if you're technically literate, as in reading and writing, if you've never been exposed to much machinery at all, beyond simple tractors or things like doorknobs, it may be a bit much to expect you to be able to use a bazooka in a extremely stressful enviroment.

Well, that's obviously made up BS and has nothing to do with the discussion. If you're claiming that Russians were too simple people to handle something like a Bazooka (yet not dumb enough to handle a PTRS which was a much more delicate and complex machine), I don't know what to say. People from much humbler conditions have learned to operate much more complicated machinery than a goddamn Bazooka.

If someone wants to make crazy claims like that, they'd better back it up with actual evidence, not just racist myths about the lowly Russian peasants.

[Michael Emrys]

Makes more money for the defense contractors to create something very sexy that can do a lot of things, but is so complex that it requires a small army of highly paid contractors to service with very expensive parts (all made by the contractor) - thus ensuring massive cash flow for the duration of the toy's life.

There is that, but also I think the DoD is thinking of how to get the most bang from the fewest number of people on the line with their fingers on the triggers. The downside to that—or at least one of them—is that it can lead to "all your eggs in one basket" syndrome. Which may be where we have gotten ourselves to. We've gotten away with it so far because we have yet to come against any enemy that can effectively attack the basket. When we do, it's liable to be a real shocker.

Michael

[Sublime]

It makes you wonder what would have happened in a WW3 scenario with the high tech weaponry the US military went into desert storm with. So a late 1980s scenario. whether or not it quality would have defeated quantity this time around. personally I think we would have been overrun and gone nuclear.

Sergei - I still dont understand where this hostility is coming from? No ones propagating racist myths or anything else. For one, I was wondering whether it was a decision made by Soviet High Command or weapon makers. Obviously people have used more complex weapons than a bazooka in stressful enviroments. The Mujahideen or Viet Cong spring to mind immediately. However that doesnt mean that some weapons designer or commissar assumed that peasants would not be able to figure it out or use it. A bazooka is a new weapon design and type at that time, and so maybe it seemed a more alien idea or method compared to the PTRD which is basically a giant rifle. And what exactly was made up bs that had nothing to do with the discussion?

[fry30]

Sergei, you're taking this thread way out of control. If you don't like what Sublime is posting, ("go read a ****ing encyclopedia instead of prodding this board for primary sources and anecdotes") don't read this thread. Which segues into my next point...

With a name like Sergei, I'm going to assume your blood is of eastern descent. I wouldn't be proud of people insinuating that my family comes from "ignorant" stock either, but I don't get up in arms every time someone calls the Irish a bunch of drunks with fertilizer bombs and firebombs. What Sublime said however, whether you perceive it to be a thinly veiled snub or otherwise, was simply not meant to insult the common Russian soldier of World War 2. So apparently, whatever Sublime has said to you, (you're clearly annoyed with him already, hence the google/wikipedia comment) has made you angry and you want to run his name through the mud.

Originally Posted by Sublime

"I think part of the point Schultz was making was that even if you're technically literate, as in reading and writing, if you've never been exposed to much machinery at all, beyond simple tractors or things like doorknobs, it may be a bit much to expect you to be able to use a bazooka in a extremely stressful enviroment. "

Well, that's obviously made up BS and has nothing to do with the discussion. If you're claiming that Russians were too simple people to handle something like a Bazooka (yet not dumb enough to handle a PTRS which was a much more delicate and complex machine), I don't know what to say.

What "discussion" are we even having, when you state that Sublime shouldn't be asking "dumb" (yes my words, not yours) questions at all?

If someone wants to make crazy claims like that, they'd better back it up with actual evidence, not just racist myths about the lowly Russian peasants.

1. I think thats literally what Sublime is trying to do.

2. In the absence of primary sources, which you think aren't necessary on a board like this, I'm pretty sure

IIRC interviews with Kalashnikov (the AK designer Kalashnikov) he mentioned that he always loved mechanical things, and since his village was almost entirely devoid of any mechanical items he was left doing things like taking apart the few doorknobs that were there. Apparently he was pleased as punch to get in the Red Army, to be able to tinker with more items.

- , the sentence that literally precedes the selection you quoted, is his best attempt. You can learn a lot more from speaking with a veteran than you ever can browsing Civilian encyclopedias. You can learn a ton from this Discussion Board alone!

I don't mean to be creating enemies here, but really Sergei, what you are doing is so obvious its embarrassing. Go post in another thread, this one apparently is way too personal for you. Everything Sublime has posted has been in the spirit of personal enlightenment.

----------

Personally, I think the Russian high command did not think very highly of their soldiers. Personally, I don't think the American high command (or the british for that matter) had much faith in the combat readiness of their early 40s forces in Afrika. Hence the need for over whelming odds and simplified tactics/ hardware... hmm, deja veux anyone?

[JonS]

Sublime may not have intended to come across as racist - who does? - but he did espouse a casual unthinking slur wrapped up in highly faulty 'logic'. Often we don't see our own faults until they're pointed out.

deja veux

I see what you did there.

[LukeFF]

For one, I was wondering whether it was a decision made by Soviet High Command or weapon makers. Obviously people have used more complex weapons than a bazooka in stressful enviroments.

To add to what I wrote up above, a lot of what the Soviets chose came down to practicality. The Mosins used during WWII were just slightly altered models from their WWI predecessors. Why reinvent the wheel (in this case your service rifle) when you already have one that works just fine?

(The Germans pretty much followed the same logic with the K98. It's just a shortened version of the WWI-era Gewehr 98).

[Sublime]

I dont understand how I even casually espoused 'racist' logic. For one I doubt that what this would be called could even be called 'racist', if anything since I come from Irish Catholic stock, I'd consider Russians of the same race as me, that is caucasian. Now maybe an ethnic slur, perhaps, but I think its silly to even try for that, because that was never my intention. Im simply going on what I've read and gathered over my life being interested in military history.

If you read Cornelius Ryans book about the Battle of Berlin, or Antony Beevor's, book, they're both replete with accounts such as a Soviet soldier sending lightbulbs looted from East Prussia home to his village. He thought the light bulb would illuminate on it's own, never having had any real experience in his village with wiring, etc etc.

That doesnt make a person stupid, it's just how the world was. Fact are simply facts. That doesnt mean I get mad every time someone talks about how some Americans are ignorant, or were extremely impoverished or something in some historical scenario that took place generations ago. And I certainly dont accuse them of racism. In fact to kinda get off point, but as an American living in Boston Im getting pretty damn tired of people playing the race card in all sorts of clearly ridiculous situations. But whatever. I dont want a flame war, I just dont understand where the hostility is coming from. I always thought Sergei posted insightful intelligent posts and I'd never even spoken to him directly until he told me to go look at wikipedia or something. Figures the one time I dont preface my post with a section on how I dont need to be told to use a search engine I get exactly that. Btw thank you for standing up in my defense fry.

[Dave85]

A good point. Which leads me to something I've often wondered about - There seems to be two ways to group designs - quantity over quality, or quality over quantity. Seems to me the Allies in WW2 chose quantity, with Shermans, T-34s, etc etc. While the Wehrmacht went with quality.

I've always found it odd that since the Wehrmacht lost the war, the US Army and military has seemed to adopt (in the postwar/coldwar/present) the quality over quantity strategy.

Any thoughts?

Hitler, you must remember, had an unhealthy obsession with super weapons and poured vast amounts of germanys resources into devastationg weapons that had no real effect on the war because they came too late and too few.

Also the allies obviously had the capability for far greater quantity, regardless of quality because of the huge US, Soviet and British commonwealth industrial capability.

It would, IMO be a rather silly attitude for the west to say "well, the germans had bigger tanks than us and they lost the war, so we best not build big tanks"

You have to remember that after the advent of nuclear weapons there was a constant arms race on the go. When you are in a state of preparing for a war that may or may not happen, for 30+ years, it pays to invent very advanced weapons and be prepared to mass produce them, as opposed to mass producing basic weapons that you may never use.

In modern times, war has been for the US, for want of a better word, a luxury, usually politically or financially motivated and not really linked to American national security. In wars like this the politicians need to keep casualties as low as poss to win the next election, whereas arms expenditure is a good thing, because all the corrupt sons of bitches have shares in the war profiteering companies.