How effective was the Panzerfaust IRL

[Georgie]

Calling Faust grogs. The first fausts with a 30m range dont seem to offer too much of a threat to tanks. But later on how about the 60m and 100m fausts? It seems that every German squad had several. With any accuracy at all with ranges that US and British tank vs German infantry were fought then the Allied tanks were just cannon fodder on the attack and should have been held back for a strictly support role. I'm wondering how this is going to be portrayed in the upcoming versions of the game.

[womble]

While short ranged, the 30 (not the 30k so much) packed a punch, could penetrate pretty much any Allied armour and had pretty good behind-armour effects, so what it hit stayed hit. In close terrain, it's deadly to tanks which is why they want infantry along to sweep up the enemy. Obviously the quantity of the threat increases as the engagement ranges go up, but the quality of it remains similar. You just have to arrange matters so that you can jump tanks from 2-4 AS away...

[John Kettler]

Georgie,

If a Panzerfaust (klein) 30m connects with any of your armor, you'll change your tune in a hurry (140mm penetration). It's a deadly threat; the Panzerfaust (grosse) 30m, Panzerfaust 60 and the Panzerfaust 100 are even worse.

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

Let me put this into perspective for you. This thing will pierce ~5.5" of armor, and because of its looping trajectory, armor slope doesn't buy you what you'd expect,either. An M4A1 has, per this authoritative source, page 20

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13810463/Standard-Ordnance-Items-Catalog-1944-Vol-1

a whole 2" of armor for the front upper hull. Even if you factor in slope, at best, it's 4" max! The improved model of the Panzerfaust 30m will penetrate 8." Now you understand why you see so many late war Shermans festooned with sandbags, logs and other items intended to dissipate the awful power of the Panzerfaust's projectile.

Here's some good information on the weapon series.

http://dererstezug.com/panzerfaust.htm

There's a great sequence of a German antitank infantry unit unloading from a truck. Every single soldier has his own Panzerfaust 30 (mix of both types), and those that don't are Panzerschreck teams. Be grateful you're not facing that.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Georgie]

"Now you understand why you see so many late war Shermans festooned with sandbags, logs and other items intended to dissipate the awful power of the Panzerfaust's projectile."

Did these makeshift protection items do any good as protection against the faust? I have read that they didn't but the tankers of the time must have thought that they did or they were desperate.

[Karabekian]

Did these makeshift protection items do any good as protection against the faust? I have read that they didn't but the tankers of the time must have thought that they did or they were desperate.

Well they were going to die if the steel around them was penetrated. Anything between you and death was good for these guys.

Since spaced armor is used a lot these days it certainly had to have some effect. The Germans used it against AP projectiles, and it seems it worked against RPG too as it was never discontinued. However, these were actually designed to work as armor, a sandbag, concrete or something would make no difference against a panzerfaust, but perhaps make you more vulnerable. A bag of sand in addition to the steel in front of you.. does not sound like much good when discussing a weapon that could kill any armor at the time. At some time, I believe such additions were banned?

However, it would seem additional armor also actually made you more vulnerable by giving surfaces for AP to bite at. For example, the Germans made tests with tacks on turrets and hulls and there were certain angles at which it worked, but in others it actually made the projectile "bite" at the armor. Perhaps someone here knows of it.

[slysniper]

I would think some grog out there knows the answer. But at this point in the war, the Germans lacked so much other resourses. I think it was the paust that accounted for more Allied tank kills than any other weapon. But you would need to get that verified from someone else. I do not have the printed material on that. But I do recall seeing something on it at one time.

Of course , there was some stupid reasons as to why that happened also. Like american forces pushing so hard, that they were pushing forces down roads without much scouting. leading with armor. A easy way to get ambushed by German infantry w/ faust.

[womble]

German Schurzen might well have exacerbated the penetration effect of HEAT warheads. Previous discussion here pointed out that they didn't have the good understanding of jet formation and so WW2 era HEAT warheads detonated too close to the armour for the penetrating jet to properly form before hitting the plate. However, given that the vehicles given this sort of armour were just as toasted without it, perhaps it wasn't felt worth removing, if it gave any additional protection against the lighter threats it was initially installed to defend against. Note that the tanks with adequate side protection against lighter threats never had Schurzen installed (the Panther had "mini-Schurzen covering just the gap between the track cover and the top of the road wheels), nor were Schurzen added to front plates, (apart from the III, and that was, I think, before the advent of infantry ATR) which were just as liable to penetration by HEAT as the sides, in the case of IIIs and IVs, but not vulnerable to ATR. "In field expedient" modifications ran the risk of adding useless weight, degrading reliability and fuel economy, which is why they were discouraged by the policy setters.

Certainly, a smooth armour plate will not be penetrated as often as one with shot traps. The Sherman Jumbo had an entirely flat Glacis for maximum protection.

[Dowly]

Of course , there was some stupid reasons as to why that happened also. Like american forces pushing so hard, that they were pushing forces down roads without much scouting. leading with armor. A easy way to get ambushed by German infantry w/ faust.

Yep, Allies lost a bunch of tanks navigating through the bocage. I seem to recall that the germans

would pin-point gaps in the hedgerows large enough for tanks to get through and set-up ambushes

either with ATGs or infantry held AT weapons, such as the 'Faust.

[akd]

I think it was the paust that accounted for more Allied tank kills than any other weapon. But you would need to get that verified from someone else.

No, high-velocity guns (tank and ATG) accounted for the greatest share of Allied tanks kills right through the end of the war, I believe. During the Normandy campaign, only something like 10% of kills were attributed to panzerschreck/panzerfaust, but that did rise toward the very end of the war.

[slysniper]

No, high-velocity guns (tank and ATG) accounted for the greatest share of Allied tanks kills right through the end of the war, I believe. During the Normandy campaign, only something like 10% of kills were attributed to panzerschreck/panzerfaust, but that did rise toward the very end of the war.

It would be nice to find some hard data on it. I could have been looking at a chart for 1945 only or who knows, Like I said it was a long time ago. I just remember the piece because it was showing how the Germans managed to prolong the war with such a lack of armor. They had to count on other methods for tank warfare since they no longer had the armor to match up to the huge numbers they up against.

[Dowly]

Looking at how the war progressed towards the end as we now know it. It tends to tell me

that ATG and infantry AT weapons would have accounted for the most tank kills once the

fighting got into the urban areas and German armor had been decimated.

But would like to see some concrete data for this as well.

[gunnergoz]

I concur with Dowly and suspect that Soviet experience probably would verify that, as the war progressed and urban combat became more common, infantry AT weapons like the panzerfaust and 'schreck would have been truly ubiquitous threats to tanks. The fact that the faust lent it self to use by quickly trained militia operators made the situation even worse for tankers, since even youths and oldsters could be handed one and be turned into a lethal tank killer, albeit often a suicidal one.

[akd]

It would be nice to find some hard data on it. I could have been looking at a chart for 1945 only or who knows, Like I said it was a long time ago. I just remember the piece because it was showing how the Germans managed to prolong the war with such a lack of armor. They had to count on other methods for tank warfare since they no longer had the armor to match up to the huge numbers they up against.

I have the data, both US and British, but no access to it at the moment. My recollection is that the percentage of kills due to shaped-charge weapons rose to something like 30% in the final months of the war in Germany. I have no doubt that in particular battles the percentage might have been higher.

edit: some of the data can be found in this thread, e.g.

Overall cause of loss for tanks varies according to time period and the reports cited. Thus, according to WO 291/1186 in the ETO it was:

Mines 22.1%

AT guns 22.7%

Tanks 14.5%

SP Guns 24.4%

Bazooka 14.2%

Other 2.1%

This may be compared to a sample of 506 US First Army tanks lost (destroyed and damaged) between 6 June and 30 November 1944.

Mines 18.2%

AT/Tank guns 46.2%

Artillery 7.3%

Mortars 1.8%

Bazooka 13.6%

Other 12.9%

[sburke]

Overall cause of loss for tanks varies according to time period and the reports cited. Thus, according to WO 291/1186 in the ETO it was:

Mines 22.1%

AT guns 22.7%

Tanks 14.5%

SP Guns 24.4%

Bazooka 14.2%

Other 2.1%

This may be compared to a sample of 506 US First Army tanks lost (destroyed and damaged) between 6 June and 30 November 1944.

Mines 18.2%

AT/Tank guns 46.2%

Artillery 7.3%

Mortars 1.8%

Bazooka 13.6%

Other 12.9%

Unfortunate in the categories are dissimilar. If one takes the AT guns,tanks and SP guns from the first and compare that to the AT guns/tanks of the second you get - 61.6% vs 46.2% whereas Bazooks factor in pretty close to the same. That "other" is an odd one, what is accounting for that 10% difference? What do both references use "other" to mean? Lost on battlefield due to immobility (fuel?) or aircraft?

[Erwin]

Looks like they were trying to fudge the numbers. Clearly they needed to invest more in the vastly improving "Other" weapons.

And either the tanks or the ATG's were not doing so well, so they lumped em together.

[JonS]

Did you forget the [snark] tags?

"Other" weapons.

other is any single weapon which scored lower than 14.2% (UK) or 1.8% (US), or were the cause of KO wasn't clear.

either the tanks or the ATG's were not doing so well, so they lumped em together.

When examining a 75mm hole in the side of a Sherman, is is astonishingly difficult to determine whether the round came from a 75mm PaK on the ground or a 75mm KwK in a turret or superstructure. Sometimes they couldn't even tell if the pen was caused by a 75mm or an 88mm.

[JonS]

From No.2 ORS, Report No.33 The Use of Panzerfaust in the NW European Campaign

Normandy (June-Sept '44)

Sample Size: 83

Tanks lost by HC: 5 (6%)

N. Belgium and Holland (Sept '44 - 8 Feb '45)

Sample Size: 76

Tanks lost by HC: 7 (9%)

Germany, west of Rhine (8 Feb - 24 Mar '45)

Sample Size: 30

Tanks lost by HC: 2 (7%)

Germany, east of Rhine (24 Mar - 3 May '45)

Sample Size: 274

Tanks lost by HC: 94 (34%)

German Tanks in Normandy by British HC weapons

Sample Size: 81

Tanks lost by HC: 8 (10%)

The increased ratio east of the Rhine is put down to a relative dearth of AP weapons, and "possibly a large number of woods making Panzerfausts easier to use."

Note: "Except for those suffered after crossing the Rhine, for which evidence could still be collected after the end of hostilities, the estimates are based only on samples."

Source

[akd]

Unfortunate in the categories are dissimilar. If one takes the AT guns,tanks and SP guns from the first and compare that to the AT guns/tanks of the second you get - 61.6% vs 46.2% whereas Bazooks factor in pretty close to the same. That "other" is an odd one, what is accounting for that 10% difference? What do both references use "other" to mean? Lost on battlefield due to immobility (fuel?) or aircraft?

The methodology of the two studies was vastly different so you cannot compare the numbers directly this way.

Here is more detail on WO 291/1186:

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/loss.txt

[MG TOW]

"Now you understand why you see so many late war Shermans festooned with sandbags, logs and other items intended to dissipate the awful power of the Panzerfaust's projectile."

Did these makeshift protection items do any good as protection against the faust? I have read that they didn't but the tankers of the time must have thought that they did or they were desperate.

Read a funny anecdote about Patton balling out a sherman crew for having a layer of sand bags strapped to the front chassis. He called them "yellow", and told them to get that crap off their tank. Turns out the tank commander was a Sergeant who survived and recently returned from the ill fated Hamelburg raid which was Pattons personal fiasco to rescue his son-inlaw. The Sergeant lost it, pointed out he was not yellow, was a seasoned tanker, and he participated in the disasterous raid. Patton let it slide

[John Kettler]

gundolf,

Patton decried the sandbags and other measures because the overload broke down the tanks' drive trains and suspensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

"Progressively thicker armor was added to hull front and turret mantlet in various improved models. Many had an additional rectangular patch on each side protecting ammunition stowage, others had an additional slanted plate in front of each front crew hatch. Field improvisations included placing sandbags, spare track links, concrete, wire mesh, or even wood for increased protection against shaped-charge rounds, even though it had little effect. Mounting sandbags around a tank had little effect against high-velocity anti-tank gunfire, but was thought to provide standoff protection against HEAT weapons, primarily the German Panzerfaust anti-tank grenade launcher and Panzerschreck anti-tank rocket launcher. By 1945, it was rare to see a Sherman without any field improvisations. In the only study known to have been done to test the use of sandbags, on March 9, 1945, officers of the 1st Armored Group tested standard Panzerfaust 60s against sandbagged M4s; shots against the side blew away the sandbags and still penetrated the side armor, whereas shots fired at an angle against the front plate blew away some of the sandbags but failed to penetrate the armor. Earlier, in the summer of 1944, General Patton, informed by his ordnance officers that sandbags were useless and that the machines' chassis suffered from the extra weight, had forbidden the use of sandbags. Following the clamor for better armor and firepower after the losses of the Battle of the Bulge, Patton ordered extra armor plates salvaged from knocked-out American and German tanks welded to the front hulls of tanks of his command. Approximately 36 of these up-armored M4s were supplied to each of the armored divisions of the Third Army in the spring of 1945.[63]"

As for being "balled out" by Patton, that's not something I'd care for at all, nor would I like to be bawled out!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Georgie]

Looks like the faust was very effective IRL , even the first one with only a 30m range. When the 60m and 100m range fausts make their apperance in the game it may change the way battles are fought especially the small ones with a lot of close in fighting. An allied tank wont be able to get away with a 60m or a 100m fighting range. Good by close range cavalry tactics.

[ArgusEye]

The Panzerfaust was born from the idea that there should be a way to use a big charge like a Haftmine in a 'thrown' way like the Panzerwurfmine. Thirty meters is the range you would expect.

Most PzF's were never launched at tanks. Even though they were a fine anti-tank weapon, they also did great things to even entrenched or walled off infantry, and their detonation left a street-filling cloud of black sooty smoke. Fragmentation sleeves were apparently produced for a short amount of time, until this was found counterproductive. To the dismay of the higher echelons, they were like oversized Stielgranaten to the troops, with added bonus of being able to kill tanks.

[womble]

[quote=ArgusEye;1390384

Most PzF's were never launched at tanks. Even though they were a fine anti-tank weapon, they also did great things to even entrenched or walled off infantry...

[John Kettler]

Georgie,

OKW (Oberkommando des Wehrmacht) just sent this by special messenger. It was accompanied by the following terse message.

"Courage laudable; Eisenkreuz, Erste Klasse awarded for kiliing KV-1 heavy tank and saving the unit; also Dumbkopf, Erste Klasse awarded for definitively showing how NOT to fire the Panzerfaust. Soldiers are hereby ordered to emulate only POSITIVE aspects of this man's behavior!"

Regards,

John Kettler

[Georgie]

Georgie,

OKW (Oberkommando des Wehrmacht) just sent this by special messenger. It was accompanied by the following terse message.

"Courage laudable; Eisenkreuz, Erste Klasse awarded for kiliing KV-1 heavy tank and saving the unit; also Dumbkopf, Erste Klasse awarded for definitively showing how NOT to fire the Panzerfaust. Soldiers are hereby ordered to emulate only POSITIVE aspects of this man's behavior!"

Regards,

John Kettler

Maybe he could aim better that way if only once. Notice the German with the Lugar. Even then they recognized the superiority of pistols against the deadly tank crews.