Research Results

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

The bazooka was a replacement for the 37mm/57mm anti-tank weapons that the division had. Of course, once the Germans got hold of it, they copied it and then eventually improved it. The Russian copy (of the better German version) is still with us today... the RPG.

If we had used the 90mm, it would have been assigned to a dedicated anti-tank battalion.

Hmmm... maybe I answered my own question. Remember the Tank Destroyers were the one's that were suppossed to be killing the tanks. Started off with 76mm weapon. Even the "state of the art" TD only had the 76mm weapon. Guess sometime after that they found out it wasn't effective enough because they started to put the 90mm on the older chassis (M-36). So maybe we did realize that we should be using it.

[Wachtmeister]

The UK equivalent to the bazooka was the rightly infamous PIAT,(P? - Infantry - Anti-Tank?) which fired - by spring power mind you!- some sort of "sticky" shaped charge that was supposed to adhere to the target tank's armor before detonation. The effective range was supposed to be something like 20 or 25 yards - up close and personal. How would you like a set of orders cut assigning you to a PIAT team? Don't know to what extent these "weapons" were actually deployed. Probably better off with the old Bors .50 cal AT rifle with which Poland, UK (I think) and USSR were equipped early in the war. The Bors rifle could and did occasionally break Panzer tracks.

[JoePrivate]

The Piat had a spring-launcher, it wasn't spring powered. Here's a link with some brief info Piat

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka, Wachtmeister --

Enjoyed the replies and great info. Didn't mention the American TD as it came into wide use so late in the war. Very fast and deadly but with limited protection it reminds me of an armored vehicle version of the Battlecruiser.

Joe Private

Thanks for the clarification and a great link.

[ May 27, 2003, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

it depends what direction your firing in on an enemy tank, conditions, and overall the experience<will> of the men fighting. Even a small AT gun can be useful in taking the tracks off and then satchel charges set to the turret to kill the crew. All with proper infantry coverage can be very suicidal missions but still very effective.

I am impressed by this British Anti-Tank weapon Piat.. What if every man in a Platoon carried one? Then support platoons behind them to cover them whilst they laid the charge to the softer more vulnerable parts of the Panzers.

P.S. I suppose the high focus on anti-personal weapons kept this type of practice blacklisted. Suidical jobs... However not so on the Russian Front?

[ May 27, 2003, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Wachtmeister]

Joe Private: Thanks for the PIAT info link. I guess "spring initiated" would be the proper term for the launch method.

Liam: Any close range AT rocket system can be deadly if opposing infantry can swarm around the enemy panzers, especially in wooded or city terrain offering plenty of cover. That's why tank units without supporting infantry are at extreme risk entering such places.

[SeaWolf_48]

The different hand held AT weapons during WW2 are very intresting. The Piat was a piece of crap, the British soldiers were constantly complaining about it's short range and unreliablity. The German Panzerfaust could penetrate 5 inches of metal and had a shaped charge. The Bazooka was Okay but didn't penetrate 4 inches of armor (most German Tanks had atleast 4 inches).

The German 75mm Anti-tank gun and main gun on the PZKW-5, and later 4, could knock out almost any tank east or west. Diameter does not make it a better weaponed. Feet per second, FPS is the main element in penetration of armor during WW2. Today it's much different with HEAT rounds and shaped charges, but still modern weapons have high velocity as it's main element of penetration.

All major countries had good to adequate AT weapons, but air power became the best tank buster of all. AT weapons in SC viz. the research table do a good job, too good of a job!

P.S. By the way Dan welcome to the forum, it's a fun place to throw out ideas, do not be afraid of these guys and speak your mind, their mostly good sports!

[ May 27, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

For those of you that are curious as to why the Infantry didn't carry alot more or have more men armed with anti-tank weapons, I can help you understand that.

Its the weight.

Squad, Platoon and Company, the most effective Infantry weapons are Machine Guns. .30 caliber, 7.5mm rounds, those things are heavy, especially when you are carrying a couple hundred rounds. All effective infantry know they are nothing more than ammo carriers for the machine guns.

So even if there were effective anti-tank weapons, the Infantry wasn't going carry them. That was the job of the anti-tank units. Thats why so many attacks were stopped once enemy armor arrived, because the infantry could do nothing more than take cover until friendly anti-tank units arrived.

Satchel charges, mines, etc. That was stuff the engineers (ie pioneers) carried.

Molotov cocktails? Only in the movies. Any gasoline the military found went to vehicle use. Any alcohol was saved for party time. It was never wasted on enemy tanks. Civilians on the other hand, didn't know any better, so they were the main users of molotov cocktails.