Seeing how Russian armour are performing against modern antitank weaponry, do you think this is the end of tank warfare as we know it or is it all just down to the ineptitude of the Russians?
@@Mrtweet81 I would love to hear a military person's take on this. You could argue the writing was on the wall in ww2 with the efficiency of anti tank guns and later infantry weapons. Is there a better infantry support weapon that isn't a tank?
Well either it must be called am M-1, or am M-4. I was once issued an "M-4, Ground Effect implement, 1 Each". You would probably call it what it was, a shovel.
@@badcornflakes6374 Only the Army (and civilians who've never been in the military) call it a "bazooka". In the Marine Corps it was always and still is, called a "rocket launcher".
Just to be That Guy, the M just stands for "model", so M1 just means it's the first in that line. So while both the Sherman tank and the well-known automatic carbine have the designation M4, their proper names would be "carbine, 5.56mm, M4" and "medium tank, M4" respectively to distinguish them from previous models of carbines and medium tanks. Other militaries do it as well, for example the Swedish Carl-Gustaf recoilless rifle has models 1-4.
@@garyhewitt489 My guys were at risk from the single piece lincoln logs hurled from across the basement. BUT! All through my active duty Army days, I carried the flame thrower man in my toiletry kit. Now my daughter is in the Army and she carries a 'pink' flamethrower man with her stuff. (Her friend gave her a pink set of the soldiers when she enlisted). So now, my veteran flamethrower man sits on a shelf beside one of her pink flamethrower men.
As someone with significant training practice on one of the spin-off successors to the bazooka concept (the CG recoilless rifle) I can definitely see why the ww2 soldiers loved it.
Stuart did a good job! He’s not as relaxed as the Davids but that will come with doing more presentations. Well done. Can’t wait to see more on this topic.
I can't wait to see the PIAT episode..... I was fortunate to meet (when I was quite young, so at the time I didn't know the significance) Mr "Smoky" Smith - a man who won the Victoria Cross with a PIAT in Italy!
US forces in the Pacific theatre found the original Bazooka useful for taking out Japanese bunkers in the same way Slim's 14th Army in Burma used the PIAT.
Truely a revolutionary technology. Besides it's armor stopping power it also made enemy armor crews paranoid, a hard to quantify value in war. I recently learned about the use of the rockets inside their packing tubes being used in ambushes without the launcher. Really interesting stuff.
The Monroe effect is in essence what is known as 'plastic deformation', the steel is not liquid but rather the sheer concentration of pressure forces the steel out of the way.
My father in-law was sent to Korea by the Army possibly after that war. He had an opportunity to practice with the bazooka on a firing range. His partner and him decided it was a bit warmer than when they got up so they took off their greatcoats before firing the weapon. After a few rounds they noticed that their coats were on fire from the exhaust of the rockets!
This is why I appreciate TM so much. We get the scientific history as to realizations among scientists at the time and how that directly influenced the weapon designers trying to find new ways of grinding bones to make bread.
Always enjoy Stu's presentations, like being at school and having lessons with one of your favourite teachers. In truth, all TTM staff are like that... Thanks mate!
From a linguistic perspective, it seems interesting that portable anti tank rocket launchers did not continue to be called "bazookas" in US service. I wonder if when the M20 super bazooka was in service concurrent with the M67 recoilless rifle and later the M72 LAW if the M20 was "the bazooka" and the others were referred to by their M series numbers. Then, when the M20 went away so did the name bazooka. I would be curious to see if servicemen called the LAW Bazooka ever. I could imagine a world where we still called current SMAW and AT4s Bazookas as the weapon category.
I can't speak for the (swedish) military, where we went by weapon designations (minus the numbers as we only used one type of AT-recoilless rifle and one type of single use AT rocket, so no need to differentiate further). But growing up as a child, every type of tube type weapon was called a bazooka, regardless of origin =)
@@gg.youlubeatube6249 I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or genuinely asking so I will give a serious answer. LAW is an acronym for Light Anti-tank Weapon and when you write about the M-72 you capitalize the LAW. I hope that answered your question.
yes. and those same type of batteries were used in the bc-611 "handie talkie". there was even an adaptor to use them in the bc-1000 "walkie talkie" backpack radio.
My father learned to use the bazooka in basic training in 1945. He was taught to skip the rocket off the ground up under a tank where the armor was thin. I don’t understand how the shaped charge would work well with that technique, but that’s what they did.
I think its because it won't detonate unless the rocket hits at a close to 90 degree angle. I've heard of a similar idea with Sherman tanks. They'd bounce shots off the gun mantlet of a Panther so it hit the roof armor right above the driver where it was thinner. Although I've only ever heard it anecdotally so take that with a grain of salt.
@@curiousentertainment3008 You learn something new every day! Thanks man. I was always a little uncertain about those stories. But if they had to redesign parts of the tank to counteract it, It shows it happened enough for them to worry about it.
I think someone is trying to pull a leg here. Things bounce differently depending on what they hit, but most of the time the angle is the same or less. Bouncing off a ground is unpredictable. Ground can be soft or hard and most of the time it is not flat, so the impact angle can be what ever. Firing from a standing position, the angle over a 50m+ is so shallow that the projecctile most likely just do minor bounces and keeps going on.
The perfect time to see an antitank video, showing one more step in how we got from the antitank rock to our modern top-attack, fire-and-forget, thermal sight wonder weapons.
Great video. I prefer the early M1 bazooka for handling. it had two grips and a ambi sight system that could be used with both left or right hand shooters. The last of the 2.36 models was the M18, similar to the M9.
Thanks once again for a great video! One nice addition would be if you could somehow show the measurements also in the format that is used and understood in most part of the world, that is International System of Units.
My mother worked for the Budd Company in Chester, PA during the war on the bazooka rocket assembly line. She even rose to the position of supervisor of one of the assembly lines.
Oh man, if I had that job, I would insist on having business cards just so I could have the title "Supervisor of Bazooka Rocket Assembly" on them. Print them myself if I had to. :)
When talking about American Anti-Tank development you forgot to mention the top secret Anti-Tank rock. Yes they tried using rocks to jam tank tracks, didn’t really work though!
With so little money designated for military development between the wars you could only justify making a weapon that could counter existing targets so of course anti-armor weapons wouldn’t be developed until there was a reason to create them.
I think it’s largely because better armoured tanks were already being devolved even before the war started while it takes time to realise that you’re AT weapons are becoming ineffective and develop new versions.
It barely did, the Germans struggled to field enough of these tanks and these "advances" were simply a greater weight of armour, no real innovations like spaced armour nor composite construction. The failure of the M9 Bazooka in Korea had far more to do with the decaying quality of the munitions as they were built in a hurry to win WW2 with little regard for long term storage and they were stored in terrible conditions in Korea. During WW2, the M9 defeated armour that was as good or better than the armour the Koreans used 5 years later. Remember, even a slight delay in the time for the warhead to detonate would cause the warhead to significantly deform before proper detonation. But the M20 "super" Bazooka may have been overkill in penetration it also had a higher velocity rocket so longer effective range or more reliable hits on moving targets. The latter stages of Korean War saw the communist forces use comparatively few tanks.
The rules of engagement state that you may leave a flaming bag of dog excrement on their door step after ringing their bell or otherwise attracting attention with an air horn. However you are expressly forbidden from firing upon them with antitank weapons.
@17:49 several incorrect statements at this point. 1) "Table of Organization and Equipment No. 7-17: Infantry Rifle Company" dated February 26, 1944, has five, not eight, 'Launcher, Rocket, AT, 2.36-inch' allotted to the company. It seems you were confused; it did not increase BY five but increased TO five. This did change in Changes No. 1, 2, or 3 to the T/O&E dated June 30, 1944; January 30, 1945; and June 1, 1945, respectively. 2) "Table of Organization and Equipment No. 7-17: Infantry Rifle Company," dated February 26, 1944, does not have any dedicated rocket launcher crews. All five were allocated to the Company Headquarters and the weapons pool, to be distributed as needed much like the six 'Gun, Submachine, Cal. .45' added to the rifle company in the June 30, 1944, change. This is reflected in FM 7-10 "Rifle Company, Infantry Regiment" dated March 18, 1944, Paragraph 3(f)(6), which states, in part: "Since personnel designated to operate rocket launchers will normally function in their primary duties until a threat of mechanized attack becomes imminent or used against a secondary target is indicated, timely warning much be received (see par. 12a) in order that rocket teams may secure their launchers and ammunition and move to positions assigned by the company commander." This shortcoming is remarked upon in numerous period reports such as: -HQ ETOUSA "Battle Experiences No.17" dated December 21, 1944 -HQ ETOUSA "Battle Experiences No.20" dated December 24, 1944- HQ ETOUSA "Battle Experiences No.22" dated December 26, 1944 -HQ ETOUSA "Battle Experiences No.48" dated January 31, 1945 -HQ ETOUSA "Immediate Report No. 9: Combat Observations" dated December 12, 1944 -HQ ETOUSA "Immediate Report No. 27: Combat Observations" dated January 12, 1945 This eventually led to the Infantry Conference's "Report of Special Committee on Organization of the Infantry Division" in June 1946 to officially recommend that the rifle platoon be provided a dedicated bazooka squad composed of two rocket launchers.
Interesting, i wonder what viscosity copper has at 800C? It melts at about 1,100C so nowhere near it's point of liquidity. It's purely the shock which causes it to _act_ like a liquid, i believe it's called shockwave induced plasticity. It's implied that there's a copper jet followed by a slug, is that correct?
As told to me by a veteran of one the 7th U.S. Armored Division Infantry Battalions (and my next door neighbor) who served and fought during the Battle of the Bulge and the "Goose egg" . The Bazooka would penetrate the frontal armor of a German Panther. However, and he held up a dried blade of fine grass (smaller than a pin hole), the penetration was so small that all it did was let the tank crew know you were there. This was only one of the details he told me of, and they were always about someone else doing something which he observed.
Great, thank you so much; In Person, did shot several times - 1961, - w/US-Bazooka. An Adventure.. Funny Memories... Now, in actual in war Ukraine I can see f.i. the =Javelin + next targets and + Effectiveness...So I guess the tanks - are *Saurier only.. Greetings from Germany.
That was it’s original purpose. Hoping for a happy medium of quantity of rounds in a tight grouping of sufficient calibre to penetrate armour. Considering the armour thickness of inter-war AFVs it’s legit.
I really enjoy these anti-tank videos, they're well put together and informative. Is there an anti-tank section at the museum? I am due to visit there in a few months.
So this is really a question of semantics, but I'm genuinely curious of what classifies the difference. What differentiates things like the bazooka from a "recoil-less rifle" like the Panzerfaust?" I'm just curious because the description of both seem to fit each other and it seems more like whatever the operating nation deemed the weapon to be is what it was classified as. So even though one nation had a tube that launched a rocket propelled explosive charge meant for anti-armor roles and called it a "shoulder mounted rocket launcher/anti-tank rocket launcher", another nation had a different tube that launched a different rocket propelled explosive charge meant for anti-armor roles and called it a "recoil-less rifle". If there really isn't a major difference and is more semantics and vernaculars, then I'm fine with that, but I definitely would like to know when to call a duck a duck vs when to call it a "stunted goose."
It gets complicated. A recoilless gun is sort of a cannon barrel with a venturi at the back end. If the venturi is too small, the gun recoils back. If the venturi is too large, the gun will actually jump forward a little. If the venturi is just right, it is a recoilless gun. If the barrel is rifled, it sometimes is called a recoilless rifle. Most anti-tank weapons firing a shaped charge are NOT rifled; spinning makes the shaped charge less effective. Gun barrels are heavy, because they have to contain the pressure of the propellant. A rocket casing contains its pressure inside itself; it does not need a strong, heavy barrel, just a light tube to guide it and prevent the operator from getting burned. Technically, a rocket launcher is not really a "gun". Of course, the same word can have different meanings to different people. Some modern anti-tank weapons combine the two - a recoilless gun fires a rocket. It gets complicated.
its really shocking the soviets decided not to deploy the bazookas they had because some their alternative anti tank methods involved sending men to run ontop of tanks with mines that they'd stomp down on in an act of suicide. Not sure the men might have done so had they known they had an effective anti tank rocket just sitting there
Psycholucario the German was developing the Panzerfust in 1942 and copied the Bazooka from Soviet stock capture which they reverse into the Panzershrieck, the Soviet waste Human life with plain suicide charges, the Bazooka would have save more life of the ordinary Soviet infantry soldiers lives inside of using Anti rifles and Moltov cocktail.
I had a patient in my training who had operated a bazooka in the pacific theater: he was blind in his right eye and deaf in his right ear from repeated shock waves
This was great. Any sources or thoughts about bazooka vs the panzerfaust? The debate over disposable launchers vs reloadable one’s continues to this day, but it’s seems like the Faust was maybe easier to operate, with the downside of less range?
Good piece. I suspect Stuart Wheeler may be in demand for his expertise on the history of anti-tank weapons right now ... to help inquiring minds understand the history of this category of weapons ...
I’d always thought the bazooka had its debut in the pacific. I remember reading a Commando or similar Annual back in the 80’s where it had a short comic strip on the Bazooka’s first combat usage in where a bazooka armed U.S. Marine forced a Japanese pillbox to surrender after demonstrating its utility by blowing a hole in their wall.
Hmm, Japanese forces surrendering before 1945 was astonishingly rare. There was no concept of surrender, it was seen as the highest treason and cowardice to "give up". The surrender in 1945 was more of an order to deposit their arms and assemble into camps, it was just another order for them to follow.
That introduction using a .50-cal machine-gun skipped the part about how you spent 15 minutes getting the Headspace & Timing correct. I've heard they finally changed the gun so you don't have to do that. In 1950 Korea, Task Force Smith, the old bazooka shells were bouncing off the T-34/85 tanks used by North Korea. Once again, Congress saved money in peace-time, and soldiers paid for that in blood in war-time. In 1977/78 in Korea, our Mech Infantry battalions were issued the Dragon anti-tank missile, but the leg-infantry battalions were still carrying the 90mm, folding, bazooka. At 18:47 the method of connecting the two parts of the bazooka doesn't match anything I've seen before.
My father invaded Normandy with the 29th ID. During urban fighting, they’d use Shermans and bazooka crews to kill snipers. Infantry would identify a sniper then call for support. Both the bazooka and tank crews fired their rounds under the window to destroy the entire floor. In Isigny-sur-Mer, they used this tactic until German troops realized their life expectancy would be brief, and some 230 surrendered. He would be wounded later that day during the obligatory German counter-attack..
Filming the narrator being filmed during his discourse is very irritating and distracting from the subject. Especially when he is doing an excellent job, and seems to know his topic well. Thanks again for another informative video
As someone who lives in a country that does not use Imperial Measurements it is difficult for me to visualise the measurements used in this video, could you please add conversion tags in the videos?
You want the quick and dirty inch to MM conversion? 2.54cm per inch aka, 25mm to the inch is close enough. 6" cannons are roughly 152mm. 100mm = 4 inches. 203mm = 8 inches. 12.7mm = 1/2 inch. 100cm ~= 40 inches. It's a quick and dirty method, but it will let you get a ballpark in your head incredibly fast. Inches just quarters of 1 decimeter/10cm/100mm. I know it's not base 10, but quarters are something easy to work with.
While looking similar the Javelin is a very different weapon, being a true missile and fire and forget. I believe they are sending AT4's which are closer relatives to the bazooka though.
I had a collection of Afrika Korps and Eight Army soldiers but my Mum's cat used to bite the heads off and run off, Mum used to say there's a mountain lion watching you. a long time ago and innocent times.
Hello, Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoy this weeks Anti-Tank Chat with Stuart Wheeler, do let us know your thoughts in the comments.
I liked the video but I can't get over the fact that the man looks so distressed in the thumbnail.
He's concerned about how close he needs to get to the Panzer to knock it out.
Seeing how Russian armour are performing against modern antitank weaponry, do you think this is the end of tank warfare as we know it or is it all just down to the ineptitude of the Russians?
When covering the PIAT, please elaborate on the word spigot in this context.
@@Mrtweet81 I would love to hear a military person's take on this. You could argue the writing was on the wall in ww2 with the efficiency of anti tank guns and later infantry weapons. Is there a better infantry support weapon that isn't a tank?
"Ahhh, a great new piece of kit. Let's call it the M-1"
- every American procurement officer ever
M-1 Bazooka *
Well either it must be called am M-1, or am M-4. I was once issued an "M-4, Ground Effect implement, 1 Each". You would probably call it what it was, a shovel.
@@badcornflakes6374 Only the Army (and civilians who've never been in the military) call it a "bazooka". In the Marine Corps it was always and still is, called a "rocket launcher".
American Army typewriters must have been replaced when the Letter M wore out pretty soon.
Just to be That Guy, the M just stands for "model", so M1 just means it's the first in that line. So while both the Sherman tank and the well-known automatic carbine have the designation M4, their proper names would be "carbine, 5.56mm, M4" and "medium tank, M4" respectively to distinguish them from previous models of carbines and medium tanks. Other militaries do it as well, for example the Swedish Carl-Gustaf recoilless rifle has models 1-4.
The bazooka-man has long been my favorite little green plastic army-man, ever since I was a kid in the 70s.
I much preferred the prone machine gunner, and he's easier to hide and harder to kill with artillery rocks lobbed from behind the front lines.
@@garyhewitt489 My guys were at risk from the single piece lincoln logs hurled from across the basement. BUT! All through my active duty Army days, I carried the flame thrower man in my toiletry kit. Now my daughter is in the Army and she carries a 'pink' flamethrower man with her stuff. (Her friend gave her a pink set of the soldiers when she enlisted). So now, my veteran flamethrower man sits on a shelf beside one of her pink flamethrower men.
I agree! He’s a good keen man.
I liked the radio guy, 'cause then he could call in support from the dart gun battery.
The day of the tank is over.
The veterans I had the honor of talking with had a real appreciation of the Bazooka especially in regards to machine gun hard points .
As someone with significant training practice on one of the spin-off successors to the bazooka concept (the CG recoilless rifle) I can definitely see why the ww2 soldiers loved it.
Lesser known fact: The bazooka is also effective against giant ants (Them!)
Ah yes, Giant Ants, I prefer the BAR or Flamethrower.
Haha nice.
And killer grizzly bears
Stuart did a good job! He’s not as relaxed as the Davids but that will come with doing more presentations. Well done. Can’t wait to see more on this topic.
I can't wait to see the PIAT episode..... I was fortunate to meet (when I was quite young, so at the time I didn't know the significance) Mr "Smoky" Smith - a man who won the Victoria Cross with a PIAT in Italy!
Oh hey, the guy who took out an armoured platoon by himself. That guy is a local legend here.
US forces in the Pacific theatre found the original Bazooka useful for taking out Japanese bunkers in the same way Slim's 14th Army in Burma used the PIAT.
Truely a revolutionary technology. Besides it's armor stopping power it also made enemy armor crews paranoid, a hard to quantify value in war. I recently learned about the use of the rockets inside their packing tubes being used in ambushes without the launcher. Really interesting stuff.
It's all the more impressive because unless you take a good close look, everything about it seems childishly obvious and simple.
This channel is awesome. Whoever manages this museums digital content/PR is a legend.
Excellent. I wondered when the next episode would be as I've found the series fascinating. The level of detail is excellent as usual, thanks Stuart.
Will the anti-tank series be covering the use of farming equipment to capture enemy tanks?
the GREAT RUSSIAN TANK GRAB!
Would be a good one for 1st April.
John Deere: Military Edition!
You mean that actually happened said absolutely no Ukrainian .
Thank You.
A weapon that I've seen so often in American WW2 movies but knew little about.
That was a fantastic episode. Learned quite a bit. Looking forward to the PIAT!
The Monroe effect is in essence what is known as 'plastic deformation', the steel is not liquid but rather the sheer concentration of pressure forces the steel out of the way.
One of the most informative videos on bazookas I’ve watched. Great video. Thanks
My father in-law was sent to Korea by the Army possibly after that war. He had an opportunity to practice with the bazooka on a firing range. His partner and him decided it was a bit warmer than when they got up so they took off their greatcoats before firing the weapon. After a few rounds they noticed that their coats were on fire from the exhaust of the rockets!
super-bazooka is the most childishly awesome weapon name in existence.
Panzer Shrek named after the big green Ogre
This is why I appreciate TM so much. We get the scientific history as to realizations among scientists at the time and how that directly influenced the weapon designers trying to find new ways of grinding bones to make bread.
A great concise explanation of the Bazooka. Thank you.
13:50 I Love the Brits: "approximately ..." and then gives a number accurate to 14 decimal places. Awesome work though. Really appreciate it.
Always enjoy Stu's presentations, like being at school and having lessons with one of your favourite teachers. In truth, all TTM staff are like that... Thanks mate!
I never knew I needed that much information about the bazooka.
Thank you for a very informative presentation on the bazooka.
From a linguistic perspective, it seems interesting that portable anti tank rocket launchers did not continue to be called "bazookas" in US service. I wonder if when the M20 super bazooka was in service concurrent with the M67 recoilless rifle and later the M72 LAW if the M20 was "the bazooka" and the others were referred to by their M series numbers. Then, when the M20 went away so did the name bazooka. I would be curious to see if servicemen called the LAW Bazooka ever. I could imagine a world where we still called current SMAW and AT4s Bazookas as the weapon category.
I can't speak for the (swedish) military, where we went by weapon designations (minus the numbers as we only used one type of AT-recoilless rifle and one type of single use AT rocket, so no need to differentiate further). But growing up as a child, every type of tube type weapon was called a bazooka, regardless of origin =)
No, I joined in 1980 and we just called it the LAW, by that time a bazooka was something our grandfathers used.
@@korbell1089 How do you express the CAPITAL letters in an ordinary spoken sentence?
@@gg.youlubeatube6249 do you mean LAW as law or L-A-W?
@@gg.youlubeatube6249 I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or genuinely asking so I will give a serious answer. LAW is an acronym for Light Anti-tank Weapon and when you write about the M-72 you capitalize the LAW. I hope that answered your question.
I was surprised at the type of batteries being put into the M1's handgrip. Eveready was around in WW2?
Eveready is from before ww2
Eveready was founded in 1896. D cells date to 1898 and AAs to 1907
yes. and those same type of batteries were used in the bc-611 "handie talkie". there was even an adaptor to use them in the bc-1000 "walkie talkie" backpack radio.
Handheld flashlights used various AA, C, D, etc., cells.
Great video as always
The soundbite at around 17:00 was a great touch! Indeed, a crackerjack story!
A well timed video given the amount of tanks being whacked by NLAW and similar weapons in Ukraine at the moment.
My father learned to use the bazooka in basic training in 1945. He was taught to skip the rocket off the ground up under a tank where the armor was thin. I don’t understand how the shaped charge would work well with that technique, but that’s what they did.
I think its because it won't detonate unless the rocket hits at a close to 90 degree angle. I've heard of a similar idea with Sherman tanks. They'd bounce shots off the gun mantlet of a Panther so it hit the roof armor right above the driver where it was thinner. Although I've only ever heard it anecdotally so take that with a grain of salt.
@@johnsturm9344 the earlier variants of the panther and I want to say panzer 4 had a shot trap on the mantlet that were later fixed
@@curiousentertainment3008 You learn something new every day! Thanks man. I was always a little uncertain about those stories. But if they had to redesign parts of the tank to counteract it, It shows it happened enough for them to worry about it.
I think someone is trying to pull a leg here.
Things bounce differently depending on what they hit, but most of the time the angle is the same or less. Bouncing off a ground is unpredictable. Ground can be soft or hard and most of the time it is not flat, so the impact angle can be what ever.
Firing from a standing position, the angle over a 50m+ is so shallow that the projecctile most likely just do minor bounces and keeps going on.
I wonder if this is actually referring to the tactic of aiming at the underside of a tank as it climbs over the crest of a ridge.
It was so revolutionary that the Germans managed to copy the captured Bazooka and with it designed the Panzershreck.
Very interesting, thanks for this video - Anti-Tank Chats is an enlightening series.
The perfect time to see an antitank video, showing one more step in how we got from the antitank rock to our modern top-attack, fire-and-forget, thermal sight wonder weapons.
I feel very well entertained indeed.
Thank you for that.
Great video. I prefer the early M1 bazooka for handling. it had two grips and a ambi sight system that could be used with both left or right hand shooters. The last of the 2.36 models was the M18, similar to the M9.
Thanks once again for a great video! One nice addition would be if you could somehow show the measurements also in the format that is used and understood in most part of the world, that is International System of Units.
My mother worked for the Budd Company in Chester, PA during the war on the bazooka rocket assembly line. She even rose to the position of supervisor of one of the assembly lines.
Oh man, if I had that job, I would insist on having business cards just so I could have the title "Supervisor of Bazooka Rocket Assembly" on them. Print them myself if I had to. :)
You should defiintely have Squire do the PIAT episode after his hilarious German Fury skit.😅😅😅
Thank you
7:04 Wooo @LazerPig sighted. 🚨🐷
you have brought back many happy memories of beating my brother at worms on the ps1, thank you.
excellent episode! very informative.
The panther in the background looks personally attacked by this presentation in front of it.
interesting history!
i would like to see more anti tank chats pls
thought you would be more into bunkers and stuff ;-)
@@amazinghuppifluppi359 sorry i have a next project to steal 4 more russian submarine and put at my pasha liman base
Excellent video i hope to see more on this series
When talking about American Anti-Tank development you forgot to mention the top secret Anti-Tank rock.
Yes they tried using rocks to jam tank tracks, didn’t really work though!
Clearly it was a development of the French Rock that Ian covered a few years back.
Well, Sgt Rock was expert at shooting his Colt 1911 down the gun barrels of tanks.
There with come a time whey TH-cam videos like these form school history lessons. Keep up the good work guys. 👍
Is this a joke or have you not got a spelling check?
@@tonyjedioftheforest1364 will* 😁
Thanks for a very interesting video.
I got to fire one of these at cadet camp in the late '50's but by the time I joined up in '68 the Karl Gustav was in service
That poor unsuspecting Renault FT that got hit by a Bazooka.....
No mentions of "Bazooka Charlie"?
The first known usage of a "Anti-Tank Air-to-Ground Rocket", or better 6 of them?
A great story, but a bit off topic-ish.
I’m surprised that armor protection seemed to advance faster than anti-armor weapons like the bazooka. Thanks for sharing this story.
With so little money designated for military development between the wars you could only justify making a weapon that could counter existing targets so of course anti-armor weapons wouldn’t be developed until there was a reason to create them.
@@mavfan1 I’m referring to evolution during the war. Look at the evolution of armor level from start of war to end of war.
I think it’s largely because better armoured tanks were already being devolved even before the war started while it takes time to realise that you’re AT weapons are becoming ineffective and develop new versions.
It barely did, the Germans struggled to field enough of these tanks and these "advances" were simply a greater weight of armour, no real innovations like spaced armour nor composite construction.
The failure of the M9 Bazooka in Korea had far more to do with the decaying quality of the munitions as they were built in a hurry to win WW2 with little regard for long term storage and they were stored in terrible conditions in Korea. During WW2, the M9 defeated armour that was as good or better than the armour the Koreans used 5 years later.
Remember, even a slight delay in the time for the warhead to detonate would cause the warhead to significantly deform before proper detonation.
But the M20 "super" Bazooka may have been overkill in penetration it also had a higher velocity rocket so longer effective range or more reliable hits on moving targets. The latter stages of Korean War saw the communist forces use comparatively few tanks.
Great stuff, really interesting.
Quite a step up from the M1 anti-tank rock.
Please do more of these. I was worried this series was abandoned since there was so much time between videos. Big fan
Same ❤
Sterling content, as usual. Clear and concise explanations. Think I have to get one of those, now. Neighbours are getting noisy.
Please be aware that back blast may cause minor damage to wallpaper and soft furnishings.
@@webtoedman Planned on using it from the street, so the house should be ok. Thanks for the reminder, anyway. Very kind of you.
The rules of engagement state that you may leave a flaming bag of dog excrement on their door step after ringing their bell or otherwise attracting attention with an air horn. However you are expressly forbidden from firing upon them with antitank weapons.
@@PadraigTomas a darn shame.
@17:49 several incorrect statements at this point.
1) "Table of Organization and Equipment No. 7-17: Infantry Rifle Company" dated February 26, 1944, has five, not eight, 'Launcher, Rocket, AT, 2.36-inch' allotted to the company. It seems you were confused; it did not increase BY five but increased TO five. This did change in Changes No. 1, 2, or 3 to the T/O&E dated June 30, 1944; January 30, 1945; and June 1, 1945, respectively.
2) "Table of Organization and Equipment No. 7-17: Infantry Rifle Company," dated February 26, 1944, does not have any dedicated rocket launcher crews. All five were allocated to the Company Headquarters and the weapons pool, to be distributed as needed much like the six 'Gun, Submachine, Cal. .45' added to the rifle company in the June 30, 1944, change. This is reflected in FM 7-10 "Rifle Company, Infantry Regiment" dated March 18, 1944, Paragraph 3(f)(6), which states, in part:
"Since personnel designated to operate rocket launchers will normally function in their primary duties until a threat of mechanized attack becomes imminent or used against a secondary target is indicated, timely warning much be received (see par. 12a) in order that rocket teams may secure their launchers and ammunition and move to positions assigned by the company commander."
This shortcoming is remarked upon in numerous period reports such as:
-HQ ETOUSA "Battle Experiences No.17" dated December 21, 1944
-HQ ETOUSA "Battle Experiences No.20" dated December 24, 1944-
HQ ETOUSA "Battle Experiences No.22" dated December 26, 1944
-HQ ETOUSA "Battle Experiences No.48" dated January 31, 1945
-HQ ETOUSA "Immediate Report No. 9: Combat Observations" dated December 12, 1944
-HQ ETOUSA "Immediate Report No. 27: Combat Observations" dated January 12, 1945
This eventually led to the Infantry Conference's "Report of Special Committee on Organization of the Infantry Division" in June 1946 to officially recommend that the rifle platoon be provided a dedicated bazooka squad composed of two rocket launchers.
Interesting, i wonder what viscosity copper has at 800C?
It melts at about 1,100C so nowhere near it's point of liquidity.
It's purely the shock which causes it to _act_ like a liquid, i believe it's called shockwave induced plasticity.
It's implied that there's a copper jet followed by a slug, is that correct?
As told to me by a veteran of one the 7th U.S. Armored Division Infantry Battalions (and my next door neighbor) who served and fought during the Battle of the Bulge and the "Goose egg" . The Bazooka would penetrate the frontal armor of a German Panther. However, and he held up a dried blade of fine grass (smaller than a pin hole), the penetration was so small that all it did was let the tank crew know you were there. This was only one of the details he told me of, and they were always about someone else doing something which he observed.
Great, thank you so much; In Person, did shot
several times - 1961, - w/US-Bazooka. An Adventure..
Funny Memories... Now, in actual in war Ukraine
I can see f.i. the =Javelin + next targets and + Effectiveness...So I guess the tanks - are *Saurier
only..
Greetings from Germany.
A Navy guy, Monroe, and the bazooka!
Nicely done. Thank you Stuart Wheeler.
So that's were the Solothurn's at the Camp Ripely museum probably came from. I just assumed they were war trophies.
15:38 that poor renault ft 17 got uptiered lmao
Hey, we have this new rocket launching device, what should we call it?
M1
I would have never guessed...
Wait, they actually tried using the 50cal mg to counter vehicles?!
That was it’s original purpose. Hoping for a happy medium of quantity of rounds in a tight grouping of sufficient calibre to penetrate armour. Considering the armour thickness of inter-war AFVs it’s legit.
I know now they have stuff like MLAWs and NLAWs… but I’ll still lovingly call them bazookas 😆
My favorite video in some time. Looking forward to the PIAT in the next go!
I really enjoy these anti-tank videos, they're well put together and informative. Is there an anti-tank section at the museum? I am due to visit there in a few months.
Those riflegrenades vs tanks 😬
Interesting and informative as ever. 👌 Are you going to go up to and cover modern anti-tank weapons as seen in Ukraine at this point in time?
Who remembers ‘Bazooka Joe’ bubblegum growing up ?
One of the stranger uses of the bazooka was during the Alcatraz prison riot in 1946. Bunker busting in peace time?
So this is really a question of semantics, but I'm genuinely curious of what classifies the difference. What differentiates things like the bazooka from a "recoil-less rifle" like the Panzerfaust?" I'm just curious because the description of both seem to fit each other and it seems more like whatever the operating nation deemed the weapon to be is what it was classified as. So even though one nation had a tube that launched a rocket propelled explosive charge meant for anti-armor roles and called it a "shoulder mounted rocket launcher/anti-tank rocket launcher", another nation had a different tube that launched a different rocket propelled explosive charge meant for anti-armor roles and called it a "recoil-less rifle". If there really isn't a major difference and is more semantics and vernaculars, then I'm fine with that, but I definitely would like to know when to call a duck a duck vs when to call it a "stunted goose."
Recoiless rifle means it uses solid propellent like a regular artillery piece, whereas a rocket launcher uses a rocket.
It gets complicated. A recoilless gun is sort of a cannon barrel with a venturi at the back end. If the venturi is too small, the gun recoils back. If the venturi is too large, the gun will actually jump forward a little. If the venturi is just right, it is a recoilless gun. If the barrel is rifled, it sometimes is called a recoilless rifle. Most anti-tank weapons firing a shaped charge are NOT rifled; spinning makes the shaped charge less effective. Gun barrels are heavy, because they have to contain the pressure of the propellant. A rocket casing contains its pressure inside itself; it does not need a strong, heavy barrel, just a light tube to guide it and prevent the operator from getting burned. Technically, a rocket launcher is not really a "gun". Of course, the same word can have different meanings to different people. Some modern anti-tank weapons combine the two - a recoilless gun fires a rocket. It gets complicated.
its really shocking the soviets decided not to deploy the bazookas they had because some their alternative anti tank methods involved sending men to run ontop of tanks with mines that they'd stomp down on in an act of suicide. Not sure the men might have done so had they known they had an effective anti tank rocket just sitting there
Psycholucario the German was developing the Panzerfust in 1942 and copied the Bazooka from Soviet stock capture which they reverse into the Panzershrieck, the Soviet waste Human life with plain suicide charges, the Bazooka would have save more life of the ordinary Soviet infantry soldiers lives inside of using Anti rifles and Moltov cocktail.
The introductory music is a bit too loud and this drowns out Mr. Wheeler.
I had a patient in my training who had operated a bazooka in the pacific theater: he was blind in his right eye and deaf in his right ear from repeated shock waves
This was great.
Any sources or thoughts about bazooka vs the panzerfaust? The debate over disposable launchers vs reloadable one’s continues to this day, but it’s seems like the Faust was maybe easier to operate, with the downside of less range?
Russian Army is in Ukraine studying the Monroe effect firsthand.
Content is great but the presentation is clunky.
Very good content! Keep up the good work! This AT-series is fitting addition to this fine channel. Well done!
Good piece. I suspect Stuart Wheeler may be in demand for his expertise on the history of anti-tank weapons right now ... to help inquiring minds understand the history of this category of weapons ...
Waiting for the pro-tank crowd to enter the room.
Instructional video for Ukraine
Great video
This gentleman's presentation is by far the easiest from The Tank Museum for this Yank to follow.
Evil Tank Museum be like
_Anti-Tank Chat_
Wheeler and Fletcher engage in fisticuffs to see who gets to post; tank or anti-tank.
I’d always thought the bazooka had its debut in the pacific.
I remember reading a Commando or similar Annual back in the 80’s where it had a short comic strip on the Bazooka’s first combat usage in where a bazooka armed U.S. Marine forced a Japanese pillbox to surrender after demonstrating its utility by blowing a hole in their wall.
Hmm, Japanese forces surrendering before 1945 was astonishingly rare. There was no concept of surrender, it was seen as the highest treason and cowardice to "give up".
The surrender in 1945 was more of an order to deposit their arms and assemble into camps, it was just another order for them to follow.
That introduction using a .50-cal machine-gun skipped the part about how you spent 15 minutes getting the Headspace & Timing correct. I've heard they finally changed the gun so you don't have to do that. In 1950 Korea, Task Force Smith, the old bazooka shells were bouncing off the T-34/85 tanks used by North Korea. Once again, Congress saved money in peace-time, and soldiers paid for that in blood in war-time. In 1977/78 in Korea, our Mech Infantry battalions were issued the Dragon anti-tank missile, but the leg-infantry battalions were still carrying the 90mm, folding, bazooka. At 18:47 the method of connecting the two parts of the bazooka doesn't match anything I've seen before.
Brighter tie, perhaps m
My father invaded Normandy with the 29th ID. During urban fighting, they’d use Shermans and bazooka crews to kill snipers. Infantry would identify a sniper then call for support. Both the bazooka and tank crews fired their rounds under the window to destroy the entire floor. In Isigny-sur-Mer, they used this tactic until German troops realized their life expectancy would be brief, and some 230 surrendered.
He would be wounded later that day during the obligatory German counter-attack..
I actually hadn't heard how the bazooka got its name.
If the rifle grenade did a _"GO TO HELL"_ job on targets, IMO the Bazooka was a full on _"F**K YOU!."_ 😉
Filming the narrator being filmed during his discourse is very irritating and distracting from the subject. Especially when he is doing an excellent job, and seems to know his topic well. Thanks again for another informative video
As someone who lives in a country that does not use Imperial Measurements it is difficult for me to visualise the measurements used in this video, could you please add conversion tags in the videos?
You want the quick and dirty inch to MM conversion? 2.54cm per inch aka, 25mm to the inch is close enough. 6" cannons are roughly 152mm. 100mm = 4 inches. 203mm = 8 inches. 12.7mm = 1/2 inch. 100cm ~= 40 inches.
It's a quick and dirty method, but it will let you get a ballpark in your head incredibly fast. Inches just quarters of 1 decimeter/10cm/100mm. I know it's not base 10, but quarters are something easy to work with.
Interesting relevance given the current Russo-Ukraine war.....
Seems its descendants have all but immobilized the whole russian armour...
@@feedingravens, descendants, not ancestors.
While looking similar the Javelin is a very different weapon, being a true missile and fire and forget. I believe they are sending AT4's which are closer relatives to the bazooka though.
@@Chilly_Billy 👌Corrected. 👍
You get 4 likes, my comment none... shows how many people thought "such an idiot"
@@feedingravens not many admit to their mistakes these days though. Have a like...
I had a collection of Afrika Korps and Eight Army soldiers but my Mum's cat used to bite the heads off and run off, Mum used to say there's a mountain lion watching you. a long time ago and innocent times.
It doesn't resemble a fluid at all, the inverted copper cone remains a SOLID
You can't substitute mass for speed, unless you are fighting in Space
Rocket PLUS Explosive.
What's NOT to love? 😉
👍