How effective was the Panzerfaust IRL

[slysniper]

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

At least this is some hard numbers as too the percentage of losses which were due to them. Not very high, and by this point in the war. the Germans did not have large amounts of tanks and AT guns floating around either. So that makes the numbers even less impressive.

[Andrew H.]

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.

[snip]

This is interesting. But I think including tank losses from the time before the shrecks and fausts were fielded is going to understate the effectiveness of these weapons. I.e., the fact that the USSR lost 20,000 (?) during Barbarossa, none to shrecks or fausts, isn't relevant because there were none fielded.

Of course, using losses after late '43 seems like it would still only raise the effectiveness of a particular weapon to 1 or 2%. Although that might mean that losses to shrecks and fausts would be more like 25-30%, which may be right, but which is way higher than I would have expected given the limitations of the weapons.

[PzKpfw 1]

The report also included other weapons systems Ie,:

Hafthohlladung: = 67:

Jan - 21

Feb - 13

March - 14

April - 19

Hand grenade:= 22:

Jan - 6

Feb - 5

March - 5

April - 6

Tellermine = 78:

Jan - 20

Feb - 4

March - 43

April - 11

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

Noticed an above post stated 102,000 tank losses below are tank /SU loss totals. Below are Soviet AFV losses for 44 -45.

From January 1 1944, thru Dec 31 1944, the Soviets lose 16,900* tanks, broken down as 900 Heavy tanks, 13,800 Medium tanks, & 2,300 Lt. tanks. 40% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

From January 1 1945, thru May 10, 1945, the Soviets lose *8,700 tanks broken down as follows, 900 Heavy tanks, 7,500 Meduim tanks, 300 Lt. tanks, 25.7% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

*Totals do not include SU loss totals, below is SU Production & losses in ( )'s:

1943 - 4,400 (1,100) 25%%

1944 - 16,900 (6,800) 40.2%

1945 - 15,900 (5,000) 33%

Total Tank/SU losses combined 1943 - 1945 were:

1943 - 23,500

1944 - 23,700

1945 - 13,700

Threw SU production/loss % for 43.

Regards, John Waters

[ArgusEye]

I find this (ab)use of statistics a bit odd. Statistically for small arms, one enemy casualty can be expected for every 7000 rounds expended. Try applying that to a real firefight.

The main strength of the PzF wasn't so much that it wiped out entire armoured divisions, but:

1) It gave the troops a proven remedy for Panzerfieber. It was much easier for a MG crew to stick to their gun when enemy tanks were around if they would be able to fight their way out.

2) It was more portable than most of its ilk. It had a better effect than most of its ilk. This was a potent combination, despite its short range.

3) It gave enemy tankers something to think about. Early in the war, just barging through enemy lines was commonplace, especially if the tanker could know that the terrain had not been entered by prime movers depositing guns. The worst you could get was a close assault. After the PzF appeared, you had to keep away at least 45 meters from any cover that could hide a soldier, even at top speed. That denies a lot of terrain to the tank.

4) It was a beloved weapon for many purposes, and as such did great things for morale. You got shot at from a building down the street? Chuck a PzF, and if it didn't kill the enemy, at least they don't see you for the smoke so you can relocate. Need a hole in the fence/light wall/barbed wire/door? Faust it. Bunker? Faust it. MG nest? Faust it. Trench? Faust it. Don't trust that depression in the ground over there? Faust it. You might have limited ammo for most weapons, but the PzF gets replenished with some regularity. Oh, and it kills tanks.

[slysniper]

.

4) It was a beloved weapon for many purposes, and as such did great things for morale. You got shot at from a building down the street? Chuck a PzF, and if it didn't kill the enemy, at least they don't see you for the smoke so you can relocate. Need a hole in the fence/light wall/barbed wire/door? Faust it. Bunker? Faust it. MG nest? Faust it. Trench? Faust it. Don't trust that depression in the ground over there? Faust it. You might have limited ammo for most weapons, but the PzF gets replenished with some regularity. Oh, and it kills tanks.

This does remind me it would be nice to have a few more options with these type of weapons.

I sure would like to have the option to make possible holes in walls. plus some other things

[YankeeDog]

This does remind me it would be nice to have a few more options with these type of weapons.

I sure would like to have the option to make possible holes in walls. plus some other things

In general, relatively small HEAT warheads like the 'faust, 'zook etc. are very poor at making holes through walls big enough for a human to pass through. The whole point of a HEAT warhead is to concentrate the forward-moving part of the blast into a very narrow penetrating jet. Through steel armor, the penetration hole is often very small -- just a couple of centimeters in diameter. Against other materials like brick or cement, the hole is usually somewhat wider, but still rarely wide enough for a human to step or even shimmy through.

Now, if the wall is flimsy enough that the overall blast of the warhead simply knocks down a section of the wall, that's a different story. But warheads like this don't have a huge blast effect and in CM terms, a wall this weak is probably better represented by rubble or something like that -- among other things, a soldier could probably knock a hole through a weak wall like this using just an ordinary hand grenade, or even maybe with a minute or so of work with an entrenching tool.

[Baneman]

Should it be effective against bunkers though ?

With a crew in a confined space, they'd seem to be targets the faust could/should hurt ?

[YankeeDog]

Should it be effective against bunkers though ?

With a crew in a confined space, they'd seem to be targets the faust could/should hurt ?

Sure. If the HEAT warhead has enough power to penetrate the bunker wall, it will inject a whole bunch of hot gas, smoke, secondary projectiles, etc. into the bunker interior. Depending on just how confined the interior space is, there might also be overpressure effects. Depending on the size of the HEAT warhead and the degree of overpenetration, it might not kill everyone inside the bunker outright, but it will certainly suppress them and make it difficult to fight the bunker. Even if it doesn't cause critical damage, it might even force temporary evacuation due to smoke and fumes. It's not really much different from what happens when a HEAT warhead penetrates into the crew compartment of an AFV.

But what the HEAT warhead is very unlikely to do is actually blow a hole in the wall of the bunker large enough for a soldier to pass through.

IME, HEAT warheads are fairly effective against bunkers in CMx2. You shouldn't necessarily expect a smaller HEAT warhead like a rifle grenade or bazooka rocket to always KO a bunker on the first hit, but one hit will usually cause damage/casualties, and it's rare to see a bunker survive multiple penetrating HEAT hits.

[slysniper]

Sure. If the HEAT warhead has enough power to penetrate the bunker wall, it will inject a whole bunch of hot gas, smoke, secondary projectiles, etc. into the bunker interior. Depending on just how confined the interior space is, there might also be overpressure effects. Depending on the size of the HEAT warhead and the degree of overpenetration, it might not kill everyone inside the bunker outright, but it will certainly suppress them and make it difficult to fight the bunker. Even if it doesn't cause critical damage, it might even force temporary evacuation due to smoke and fumes. It's not really much different from what happens when a HEAT warhead penetrates into the crew compartment of an AFV.

But what the HEAT warhead is very unlikely to do is actually blow a hole in the wall of the bunker large enough for a soldier to pass through.

IME, HEAT warheads are fairly effective against bunkers in CMx2. You shouldn't necessarily expect a smaller HEAT warhead like a rifle grenade or bazooka rocket to always KO a bunker on the first hit, but one hit will usually cause damage/casualties, and it's rare to see a bunker survive multiple penetrating HEAT hits.

Thanks for the imput, i was getting all excited about blowing holes in side walls of buildings and entering in from a unexpected direction. But your points make sence, back to the demo charges for me. at least they can do a wall if given some time.

[ArgusEye]

You're not going to get a door-sized hole from a PzF, but it will blow doors off their hinges. On stone walls you should expect a hole 30-50cm across. Perfect for sticking an SMG through.

[John Kettler]

slysniper,

I have read accounts, from the Bulge, I think, of GIs holed up in stone barns with stout wooden doors being forced to surrender when a couple of Panzerfaust rounds were fired into the doors, completely shattering them and no doubt filling the interior with great quantities of sharp high velocity wood splinters. Unfortunately, I haven't yet found the source I read the account in.

Regards,

John Kettler