How effective was the Panzerfaust IRL

[winkelried]

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

Finnish

[ArgusEye]

Swedish volunteer fighting for the Finns, to be completely nitpicky about it.

[PzKpfw 1]

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.

Panzerfaust were very effective vs AFV's especialy since they could penetrate any Allied AFV from Sherman to IS-2. PF were also effective vs German AFVs Ie, the The french tested Panzerfaust vs Panther Ausf. G 's in 1947 and found panzerfaust penetrated from any aspect.

Also remember that after Falaise their were no more large scale armour battles in the West, until Sept in Lorraine & Dec the Ardennes offensives. Prior to this German tanks were onlly encountered in very small numbers in local German defensive actions. Its only logical that most US/UK tank losses would be from MPAT, mines and AT guns during the push after Falaise.

Regards, John Waters

[Vanir Ausf B]

:eek:

A blast from the past

[winkelried]

Swedish volunteer fighting for the Finns, to be completely nitpicky about it.

There is a swedish speaking minority in finland. could some of those?

[Dowly]

There is a swedish speaking minority in finland. could some of those?

From what I recall from watching the movie, they were volunteer Swedes from Sweden.

Think there were close to 2000 Swedish volunteers fighting on the Tali-Ihantala front.

[PzKpfw 1]

:eek:

A blast from the past

Yup .... Heya's Vanir..

Regards, John Waters

[John Kettler]

For those looking for data on street fighting losses to Panzerfaust and secondarily Panzerschreck, may I offer this. 70%! It's taken from an article Valera Potapov (provider of much detailed info to BFC for use in CMBB) wrote for his site, Russian Battlefield (Fair Use) about the IS-2.

http://english.battlefield.ru/js-2.html

"At the end of the war, each Tank Corps should have at least one Tank Regiment of JS-2 tanks, which were best for breaking through a heavily entrenched enemy line. A single 122 mm shot could penetrate the armored cupola of a concrete bunker, or shatter the main redbrick walls of the Konigsberg. At that time, an infantryman with a Faustpatrone, a Panzerfaust, or even a Panzerschreck, became the most dangerous enemy of the JS-2. Russians didn't distinguish these weapons and called them all "faust". Thus, an infantryman with a "faust" was called a "faustnik". During street fighting, about 70% of destroyed tanks were hit by "fausts".

From the beginning of 1945 Soviet tanks received shields of various designs. These shields were intended to protect from HEAT munitions (e.g. "fausts"). Most of these shields only protected turret, whilst hull remained unprotected. That was not so bad, as many people think now, because over 80% of "faust" hits were on the turret side. A shaped-charge round would completely destroy the shield, but leave the main armor unbreached, leaving a small black hole in it. Soviet tankers called such holes as "the kiss of the witch".

Unfortunately, these shields might be torn off by a shell, or explosion. The result could be fatal. Lieutenant-Colonel V.Mindlin (a participant of battles for Berlin) wrote in his memoirs "The Last Battle - the Hard Battle!" about this:

"Here is a tank with battened down hatches... but the crew is silent. They respond to neither radio nor knock. There is a small hole with a diameter no more than a cent. That was a "faust", that was its work. A shield was torn off, and a next round penetrated the armor...

Those who saw a tank battle knew how terrible death could be for tankers. If a round hit the ammunition or fuel tanks, a tank would be destroyed at once - just blast off and the crew perishing without any torture.

Often a round just penetrates the tank's armor but doesn't hit the ammunition or fuel tanks. All crewmembers are wounded, their tank is burning, but the crew is unable to extinguish the flame. They need to escape the tank and run off to a safe distance. However, the tankers are wounded and they simply can't do that, they can't open the locked hatches. And you can hear the cries of those being burned alive. You can't help them because the hatches are locked inside..."

It was very dangerous to fight with open hatches (and prohibited, by the way) because enemy infantry could throw a grenade into a tank. Thus, all crews received an order to close hatches but not to lock them. As a result the losses crew were reduced."

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

From Axis History Forum, a Russian member chimes in with new data for Battle of Berlin armor losses.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=104100

Unfortunately, it's not sourced. It's very detailed, though. I summarize as follows.

1st Guards Tank Army 232 tanks/SPs destroyed of 703 engaged

2nd Guards Tank Army 209 tanks/SPs destroyed of 667 engaged

3rd Guards Tank Army 204 tanks/SPs destroyed of 632 engaged

_______________________________________________________

Total tank/SP losses = 645 tanks/SPs destroyed of 2002 engaged = 32%

Applying the 70% loss fraction from above, we get 451.5 faust (mostly Panzerfaust) kills for the Battle of Berlin.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

From research I did a long time ago, top American generals (including Patton) discouraged things like sandbags because they added weight, increased the chance of snagging something, and didn't do anything to help protect the vehicle. In fact, some have theorized that the sandbags, in particular, actually amplified the effect. This is because it helped increase standoff distance (the point of impact before hitting the main armor) and actually aided in the containment of the jet/gasses from the shaped charge.

The German skirt armor is a bit more of a question mark. in some cases it no doubt helped. For example, on a PzIV's front corners. But in other places, such as around the turret or the Panther's side skirts, it's less likely to have helped much if at all. At least against shaped charges. The armor was thick enough to deform solid AP enough to reduce effectiveness. Though in practical terms most solid AP had plenty of power to go through side armor regardless.

Modern slat armor absolutely helps, BTW, so for sure we can't rule out the German skirt armor completely.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Check out this Sherman. Somebody was really worried about 'fausts and 'schrecks!

http://jaaos.org/content/20/supplement/S3.full

From here

http://jaaos.org/content/20/supplement/S3.full

Concerning add-ons/skirts' enhancing hollow charge weapon effectiveness, I think it's important to note the relatively wide liner cone angles used in the period. These projectiles would be significantly degraded, given enough standoff. Contrariwise, against modern munitions of this type, it could well be fatal. The first thing we did at Hughes to upgrade TOW missile penetration was to add a standoff probe to the baseline missile. This should tell you something about the effect of standoff on modern narrow cone angle hollow charge warheads.

On balance, I think that mattress springs, which the Russians used as field expedient 'faust protection, per a Kurt Fischer (a Panzerjaeger of broad Eastern Front experience) account in AFV-G2 magazine, may well have been better--if they actually initiated premature detonation. Also, its structure may well have diffused the jet (one or more steel wires in the path of the jet as it emerges), reducing penetration. For sure, that approach was lighter than sandbags or logs.

Regards,

John Kettler

[PzKpfw 1]

Concerning sandbags on Shermans a report from a US gunner with 2nd AD describes the effects of Panzerfaust/Panzershrek hits on his sandbagged Sherman*:

We were attacking in a Sherman with a 75mm gun. Visibility was very good. There were jerries dug in about 40 yards in front of our tank in a line of foxholes. Several were flushed out and moveing to the rear when a jerry bazooka hit the left track and broke it. We were unable to back up when a second shot hit in front of the turret, but did not pierce the turrfet. The third hit the front of the tank, dislodgeing all the sandbags, about 40 in all, and cracked the front plate.

The fourth hit the same spot and cracked the front slope still wider and set the tank on fire. The fifth shot hit the extra armor plate welded to the front plate of the bow gunner, about 1 1/2 inches thick, and knocked that off and cracked the front plate".

*See: Zaloga Steve: Sherman Medium Tank 1942-1945 p.18

Regards, John Waters

[sburke]

Concerning sandbags on Shermans a report from a US gunner with 2nd AD describes the effects of Panzerfaust hits on his sandbagged Sherman*:

Regards, John Waters

wtf 5 rounds?!! Man I rarely see a Sherman survive even one.

[PzKpfw 1]

German skirting was not designed to defeat SC rounds it was meant to defeat Soviet AT rifle rounds. The Panther lower pannier armor, PzKpfw III/IV lower hull, side turret armor etc all could be penetrated by Soviet AT rifle ammunition.

The late PzKpfw IVJ might have been a difrent story as it used mesh skirts, which arn't that effective vs KE rounds, but would affect SC rounds.

Regards, John Waters

[Battlefront.com]

Bedsprings, and a fairly rare mesh used on PzJIVs (probably others), probably were better against low velocity shaped charges like Panzerfausts and PIATs. Not so sure about Bazookas and Schrecks. The idea here is that instead of detonating they bounce the round. Or at least give it such an unstable surface that it has a chance of detonating at an unfavorable angle. I'm not sure how practically effective they were at doing this, but the physics do suggest it's possible to be of some benefit. Of course they're crap against anything else, though so is anything other than thicker armor.

Steve

[womble]

wtf 5 rounds?!! Man I rarely see a Sherman survive even one.

Would the subject of the impacts be able to tell the difference between Fausts and AT rifle grenades? Would the 30K Faust have a chance of producing such "low level" damaging effects?

[Andrew H.]

I'm reading Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt: The US Army Sherman in WWII" (a great book for people who like 350 page books on the history of a tank...which I assume is everyone.) In any event, he points out that before the Schreck was developed in '43, a german infantry regiment had six AT guns capable of defeating the Sherman. Afterwards, they had the same six guns, plus 18 Schrecks, plus...a little later...hundreds of fausts.

[JasonC]

The Russians lost 102,500 tanks. The US lost a very small number, under 8,000. Adding in the UK you would reach a total around 120,000 to 125,000 as a maximum, from all causes over the whole war.

The Germans gave medals for destroying any tank with a hand held infantry weapon. They awarded 18500 of them over the whole war. Only a small number - 400 - received it more than once. The maximum number of tanks that might have been KOed by infantry AT weapons is therefore about 20,000, with 19,000 more likely. And this is about 15% of Allied tank losses.

The number of fausts fielded is well into the millions, and AT kills were made with pre faust weapons. There were also hundreds of thousands of more effective schrecks with multiple rounds issued to each. Overall, this means the chance of a fielded faust actually KOing a tank was on the order of half of one percent.

Many were lost unused, some in depots or the supply chain, but most probably in the field, simply never having any suitable target in range before their carriers were defeated operationally by the allies. Most of those fired must have been fired at non tank targets, especially infantry positions. And most of those fired at tanks must have missed.

The primary reason behind all of the above is simply that the weapon's range is not remotely sufficient for most actual combat situations. It is a suicide weapon for rare point blank brushes with enemy armor.

The average German full AFV with a high velocity tank gun undoubtly took out one enemy tank opposite. The average towed high velocity tank gun cannot have - over its entire service life, they at best got a fraction of one enemy tank each. And the chances for any hand held rocket doing so, was a matter of basis points, not even full percent.

[MikeyD]

Somehow this reminds me of the RPG-7. Widely derided some years back for being low tech and cumbersome, now whenever we want to outfit whichever army we happen to be rebuilding the first thing we do is order up a batch of Chinese RPG rocket launchers for them. What's RPG's contemporary competition? The M72 LAW and M47 Dragon? Not exactly unalloyed successes. Faust really had no American counterpart. American troops were known to scavange Fausts, keep a few in the jeep just in case.

[PzKpfw 1]

Panzerfaust/Panzershrek gave infantry the capability to take out tanks. The 30m range was more then adeaquate for the defensive fightintg the Germans did from August 43 - 45,especialy the hedgrows and uraban fighting. Ie, Berlin the Soviets suffered some of their heaviest AFV losses of the war their looseing close to 100 tanks in a single day to mainly PF as the Germans were fireing down from roofs and multi level structures.

Same thing happened again in Chechniya where they lost over 70 T-72BM/T-80U in the street fighting to RPG-7s again fired from roofs etc. As to suicide use i could say the same for our LAW as it couldn't penetrate any PACT MBT from any aspect except rear hull or roof, anyway and once you fired every OPFOR in range opened up on you as well.

Regards, John Waters

[sburke]

Overall, this means the chance of a fielded faust actually KOing a tank was on the order of half of one percent.

Funny cause that is about my success rate with the PF in CM. It was 0% until recently.

[slysniper]

Well, one point to bring up is this. before the weapon was there, it is more tempting to assault the infantry with armor. After the weapon is in the field. Now the armor has no interest in trying to roll over the enemy. The threat of the weapon has a value, even if it only gets a few kills.

I get kills with fausts on a regalur bases. I even recall one game where I was up against a enemy with about 15 tanks and sp guns, I recall I almost removed half of them with the weapon.

So if you beleive the math given, man this game is broke. I had more kills in one game than I should have had in a year of playing if I use some of the math given here.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Well, as for the maths given here I think looking at the proportion of tanks killed in the entire war by fausts is deceiving since they were in widespread use for only about the last year of so of the war in Europe. They also became progressively more capable as the war neared it's end with the PF60 and later the PF100. And you are quite right that the mere threat forces a change in tactics. The fact that US troops tended to scavenge the things and haul them around suggests they felt fausts were worth their weight.

[sburke]

Well, as for the maths given here I think looking at the proportion of tanks killed in the entire war by fausts is deceiving since they were in widespread use for only about the last year of so of the war in Europe. They also became progressively more capable as the war neared it's end with the PF60 and later the PF100. And you are quite right that the mere threat forces a change in tactics. The fact that US troops tended to scavenge the things and haul them around suggests they felt fausts were worth their weight.

That and despite anything BF may intend in their design, we don't necessarily use our units in any way at all similar to how they were actually used in the field.

Your results may vary...

[PzKpfw 1]

Well concerning panzerfaust producrion total production was Panzerfaust (Faustpatrone 30, 60, 100 and 150) was 8,254,300 units. Of which over 7,000,000 were accepted for service and shipped to front line units. A German report on Soviet AFV losses from Jan - April 1944 from an examination of 12,541 destroyed Soviet AFVs showed cause of loss by weapon type

Faustpatrone 30 and Panzerfaust 30 total 262 kills broken down by month :

Jan - 58

Feb - 45

March - 51

April - 110

The report is a small sice as the PF had just come into service in small number deployments vs production.

In comparison Panzerschreck desrtructions:

Jan - 9

Feb - 24

March - 29

April - 26

Total 88

The Soviets after capturing German factories that produced Panzerfaust kept them in operation & redesignated them RPG -1. The Panzerfaust 150 became the RPG-2, which eventually lead to the RPG-3 etc.

Regards, John Waters