You can follow Dr. Jens Wehner on Instagram, where he posts photos from air planes etc.: instagram.com/jagdfliegen/ Want to see more interviews with experts? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, more info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
Compared to the Japanese Lunge Mine / Pole Mine, German infantry anti-tank devices at least didn't expect the operator to commit suicide to operate the weapon.
I have seen picture of a Sherman with nails welded onto hatches and upper surfaces to try to prevent swarming, but I have also seen videos of Japanese civilians practicing with their poles. All it takes is one.
The British "Sticky Bomb", didn't require magnetism, so could be used on brick and stone walls as well as tanks, more useful but keep it away from your clothes or hair. Also requires inhuman courage, probably as much machine gun fire used to "sanitize" your own tanks as on the enemy directly. I believe some sticky bombs were used by British and Australian soldiers in Korea, if I'm not mistaken. Any old-timers out there that could confirm or deny? I'm an amateur military historian.
Before the Panzerfaust, there was the 1941 modified short barrelled PzB.39 with grenade launcher cup, that shot the conventional Pg.51 HEAT rifle grenade out to 300 metres. The Pg.51 could penetrate up to 89mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ all ranges, up to 83mm. of RHA @ 30 degrees @ all ranges & up to 78mm. of RHA @ 60 degrees @ all ranges.
@@ricardogarcia1172 yeah, that range seems really optimistic for a rifle grenade, especially for a freaking huge 89mm one. That's probably the theoretical range and not the practical
The Japanese were even crazier. They tried to disable Sherman’s by sticking steel rods between the spokes of the older style road wheels. Also suicide charges with explosive charges.
My dad killed 2 American tanks in close combat during the battle of the bulge when he was 17. Every time he heard the tracks of an excavator he was really nervous. Even 60 years after the war.
I can't imagine the traumata these soldiers carried for all their lives. Both of my grandfathers served in the Wehrmacht as infantrymen. One got severely wounded and nearly never talked about his experiences. The other one didn't carry physical scars, but he liked to watch war movies. I guess he had to ensure himself over and over again that it wasn't him alone in the war, but that it was normal for every man in his age. He once told me of a combat when he killed a Russian soldier. He tried to tell me how gruesome it was, but he couldn't find the words. Now they are dead, but I carry the memory of their wounds. They remind me that we must practice peaceful behaviour.
I have read that the Soviets initially had trouble with cooperating infantry and tanks. They lacked trucks to transport the infantry which meant that the tanks sometimes had to attack without infantry support. That's why the Soviets started riding on the back of the tank. If they had infantry, the trick was to try to break the connection by pinning the infantry with artillery / mortar fire, MG's or mines. Unsupported tanks were easier to deal with, especially if the terrain provided cover. Obviously the tanks could still cover one another with their MG's. Knocking out a tank with these early weapons is still a very difficult task.
It's really a difficult thing to say as that sort of thing varies wildly in time and place like all things. It must also be remembered that most of the information we have in English about fighting in the east derives from German sources which in many cases have a conscious bias. Of course that doesn't mean you're not right but those are some of the caveats.
> I have read that the Soviets initially had trouble with cooperating infantry and tanks. from my knowledge everyone had and often still has. Although in some cases the problems are a "bit" more extensive than in other cases, e.g., if tank to tank coordination is already low or barely existent than coordinating with infantry is even a bit more out of question.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized This video and comment reminds me of Heroes and Generals. A game where you at times would need to run towards a enemy tank,place your mines on them and RUN before he realized your there if you would use one of those earlier wappons :,D
@Marcelo Henrique Soares da Silva I meant it differently,. The Soviets were short on trucks early on. So when a mechanised unit had to move for example to counterattack 15 km away from their current position, the tanks would drive there but the infantry had to walk. So the tank units arrived earlier without the infantry. It had an effect on the operational level.
The officer class had been decimated by Stalin's purges,and those who followed were frightened to show any initiative,and followed orders to the letter out of fear.
One thing is visibility out of almost every single AFV during the war had very, very narrow and restricted arc of view out of slits and periscopes when button up! Even today's AFV's suffer the same thing. True fact you can stand right next (left or right on a M-1 Abrams, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2 turret and hull area) and they wouldn't even know you was there as it is a big blind spot until you are 20 feet away and so finally able to get in view of the commanders copula vision blocks. But right up against you are totally invisible. Hence why AFV's was really vulnerable to infantry attacks during the war when they didn't have infantry support in urban settings ( Stalingrad, Budapest, Warsaw, Berlin).
Jens: " I'm tired of making yet another presentation of myself on the same day, I will say the most bored hello, you exploit me too much, Bernhard" (JK)
The Japanese Type 3 Ceramic Grenade actually did use heat. In US tests, the thermite charge easily melted its way through 1.5 Inches of RHA within a second. The grenade was activated when the ceramic container was broken, against the side of a tank, allowing air to ignite the phosphorus & thermite charge.
The confusion is that "heat" means thermal energy which is how thermite grenades work, but shaped charge rounds (HEAT rounds) ablate armor with hypersonic copper.
Finnish films Unknown Soldier and Talvisota have couple of these gadget and how to use those mine and explosive. German says during the war finns don't plan they just improvise. I knew one finnish veteran sergeant who had plown up couple of dozens soviet tanks with explovives mines, molotov coctails and panzerfausts. T-26, BT, T-34 and even JS 2. Sadly he become an alcoholic after war and died long ago. But in finnish terrain there was always posibility get close to tanks and finnish worked many cases in pairs one use smg to clean up infrantry and one use what we call improvise devices agaist tanks. . During winter war when we had allmost no AT weapons our troops desroyed hundreds or even thousands of soviet armour. But like man say terrain dictate how to fight.
"Unknown Soldier" and "1944" are really good in showing the Finnish anti-tank tactics. They really took advantage of the forested terrain to ambush tanks.
@@4T3hM4kr0n Elastic defense was developed by the Germans in ww1. In military academies this is the most studied case of elastic defense of ww2 , the battle of Targu Frumos : th-cam.com/video/MrW_uHxBpzY/w-d-xo.html
Once again, great respect for Dr. Jens Wehner. One can clearly tell, English is not his mother tongue, and once in a while he searches the right words. Still he makes the effort to present his wide knowledge in English. Mr. Wehner, I couldn't do this as good as you do. Thank you.
This is a good point, thanks for stating it. A lot of the English-speaking YT audience probably don't realise that many people in the content they watch are making an extra effort to put their info/ideas on record in this way.
Definitely this. I appreciate it to a degree owing to having family with English as a second language and seeing them struggle with it at times. I wouldn't do even a 10th as well in French.
I remember that early 90s German film stalingrad! That was an awesome combat scene (maybe my favorite in any war film) where they had to stop a t34 attack with these... I cannot imagine doing that, it would be so scary and dangerous to fight tanks like that! The one soldier in the movie asked "where is our artillery?" To which another answered "you are the artillery!"
Well as I recall during the time we‘re talking about (up to say the Autumn of 1942), German infantry still appears to have done extremely well against enemy tanks overall. Large-scale tank offensives like at Dubno seem to have mostly been defeated by the Infantry and Artillery, mostly because they didn‘t coordinate and went in piecemeal, which was a the main problem with Soviet tactics at this time.* It appears to have been overwhelmingly the case that tanks would go on the attack without infantry support and vice versa, pretty much up until Uranus. So if we consider that, there would then be a pretty good chance for the German infantry to actually face „ideal“ situations in encounters with Soviet tanks. An individual Platoon or Company of tanks running into well-manned German defences without support might well allow the enemy infantry to use complex tactics involving distractions and specialized attack roles. In any case, the Soviet losses of tanks and men during offensive operations at this time indicate that the infantry was able to handle them. This all changed dramatically later on, of course.
The British has something called the "Grenade, Hand, Anti-Tank No. 74". It was a sticky bomb that had a nitroglycerin charge. It was not a shaped charge.
If you can separate them from their accompanying infantry, with their limited vision, tanks get into trouble when enemy troops are able to get extremely close. Although a weapon of desperation, the magnetic mine, which I can neither pronounce or spell, was very effective. The Germans had a serious respect for these cheap devices, which is why they started using Zimmerit to protect their own vehicles. Just a suggestion, adding video footage to show the effects of a tiny shape charge would have been a help. It's quite remarkable how such a small device can create such a remarkable effect, and the simple design which makes even sloped armour become "flat" for the plasma jet to penetrate.
4.5 sec? Kinda like the blast radius of the white phosphorus grenade. Seems after the battle starts going, hearing the fuse wasn't an issue, but seeing them burn might have helped.
In the movie "Iron Cross" (1977) they put a mine on top of a tank's track so that it fell down when the tank advanced and ran over it. I saw a demonstration of an anti-tank mine, Pilz-style. Although it was just place on top of the ground, it dug an impressive crater. It is not a close combat weapon for infantry!
@Bjorn Larsson: The film "Saving Private Ryan" has a scene in which an American infantryman is literally blown to pieces by an improvised explosive device which failed to stop the tank he was attempting to attach it to.
The use of Tellermine against tank tracks is portrayed in Cross Of Iron - I don't think this came up in the video (it's late and I'm tired and writing this after, sorry if it did) but that was where I first saw something like that and it turned out to be a based-on-facts use of mines in the circumstances.
Probably the safest way to use the Wurfmine,was to either attach it on it's belly,if the soldier had a tank rolling just over him in a trench( mine might get knocked down by soil) or probably safer,to throw the later version wurfmine from a balcony,or window down onto the tank crossing on a road in an urban area.
Interesting, thank you. I'm thinking that you guys miss one of the most important earlier German anti-tank weapons: the anti-armour rifle grenades such as the Schiessbecher (which I think you do cover in another video though). If I'm not mistaken, some 1.4 million of these rifle grenade cups were made between 1942 and 1944 (enough for one per infantry squad), and the grosse hollow-charge anti-tank round could be quite effective. Quite how easy it would have been to hit a tank with one, I couldn't say, but they seem to have been an important earlier infantry anti-tank weapon. I think there was also an earlier version that was around in 1941 but not sure how widespread its use was, nor how effective.
Whilst I’ve not seen the training video mentioned, one similar video ( in idea at least) made by the US called “Crack That Tank” where a US tanker talks to the infantryman watching that he shouldn’t feel alone and scared of the enemy tanks advancing towards him, because he has a lot of back up from other units pitching in and what he can do to help the team effort behind stopping said enemy tanks
It all goes to show that if you are in the act of being overrun by tanks, you'll resort to just about any crazy method to try avoid becoming track grease. You might even go so far as to stick a block of explosives in your sock, coat it with grease, and attempt to stick it to the roadwheel of the tank running over your foxhole. That Tank Destruction Badge? If you got one, it really meant something.
The Japanese had a version of these, the Lunge Mine en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunge_mine which was a shaped charge on the end of a pole. They'd charge the tank from cover, bayonet style then stab it with the hollow end of the mine. Indications are that it performed poorly, sometimes failing to detonate. Of course - I guess that's better than sitting in a hole in front of the advancing tank with an artillery shell and a hammer ... .
Best used in ambush position.infantry support separated from tanks.i have seen pictures of 4 teller mines on a plank.when tank comes by a rope pulls it across the tanks path
And the little tank destruction badge to go on your uniform if you knocked one out. There was also a tank close assault badge but smarter people than I can describe that better. Great work guys.
Das war das erste Video von ihnen das ich sehe haben. Machen Sie alle den Videos von diesen Channel? Ich liebe das Geschichte von deutsches Militär und immer so schön deutsch zu hören 🙂
I've seen contemporary film clip of Volkssturm throwing two explosives tied together with a perhaps 2 meter long rope, on top of a tank as it passes nearby (in exercise). I couldn't make my conscription in a submarine because I'm too tall. So as a 2nd priority I wanted to get into the anti-tank branch instead. Two of the most dangerous tasks! I got to learn how to ride a horse instead, because they thought I looked good for parades. It was a very nice time.
What about the hand thrown weapon that had fins and a HEAT warhead on the front? Seemed like a big lawn dart. Can't find the name but i've seen a least a single photo of it in the past.
I always crack up when Bernhard sarcastically criticizes the over complication of German words. I used to argue about this jokingly with my German friend. However, if you watch M*A*S*H, that show also criticizes the US Army for overcomplicating things. In short, BUREAUCRACY! Someone's job security depends on overcomplicating things!
You craft a long enough word and use it as a lever to jam the wheels and tracks of the enemy tank! Stabbing the driver with said word through the viewing port is also encouraged.
Hello and thank you for these historic reports. You consultant at Militärhistorische Museum der Bundeswehr Dresden is great! He adds a lot to videos, at least ;) I perceived Dr. Jens as being called by his first name, not the last name. That drove me off somewhat. Dr. Personenname Jens would be appreciated and known more. Sorry!
Perhaps the only reasonable chance of success for these weapons was against a few tanks or armoured vehicles in a difficult maneuvering scenario. Fully deployed tanks can provide mutual covering, and were usually followed by infantry. In this condition, these weapons were suicidal. I wonder how many boys were killed trying to use these things out of despair.
@@PalleRasmussen Surely. But wonder some thirty T34 with mounted infantry smashing through a poorly defended sector. I guess it was in places like that these weapons were most used.
@@marcosfernandez7207 up until mid 43 much of Red Army combined arms were amateurish, so that would have been rare. And you do not wage war around exceptions.
@@PalleRasmussen These weapons were last ditch solutions. Even the Panzerfaust was. The bazooka also, and so on. The solution to the tank is always a better tank and better tactics. But when you see yourself in the loosing end with tanks roaring around, then you will use anything you can to get rid of them. And even modern tanks can be destroyed if the infantry man have some handy AT weapons. This is not exception. This is the rule.
@@marcosfernandez7207 I am not sure you understand what I am writing, and you jump around between subjects in a way my (military historian) brain cannot find a red thread in. I am tired after a long week and a bad storm, so I am going to leave you to it. Have a nice day.
If you would throw one of those magnetic anti tank mines onto a tank and it went of, wouldnt the charge just shoot out away from the armour of the tank?
Do you mean if the mine lands correctly and detonates? If so, there are a lot of long winded physics behind it, but the bullet answer is that the shape of the explosive creates a focused jet of gasses and the vapourised cone shaped copper cover, moving at supersonic speed and hot enough to burn through a LOT of armour.
@@LeonidasRex1 I think he means if the "recoil" wouldn't be bigger than the force of the magnets keeping it on. To which i think mass inertia and speed of the charge are the key words.
Hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of running up to a moving tank, sticking one of these on it, pulling the fuse, and running for cover. Even if not moving -- even if you could throw the magnetic one a few feet (not more -- too heavy!) -- I'd have to be scared out of my wits to be that desperate. But then, I've never been in combat, and obviously have never been a young German soldier full of Nazi propaganda to despise/hate/fear Russians and everything else that went into that war. This is the most interesting aspect of these videos, to make me think, and you do a fine job of it.
Nazi propagabda has little to do with that, its the survival instinct in humans. Military trainings purpose is to convince your brain that fighting has a higher chance of survival then freezing and not moving. Also you could usually let your position get overdriven by tanks as infantery and then use this while the tank is passing close to your position or past it. The bigger problem then the tank is actually the infantery usually close to tjat tank that will try to shoot you while you are compleatly exposed. Fast way to earn some iron cross i guess...eather for the chest or for the tombstone
It’s the opposite, these men had the biggest balls As always in the most dangerous jobs in the military you find the guy with the least fear and biggest balls, because if you think you’re scared doing the scary shit, imagine the other guy WATCHING him do something suicidal, he’s gotta be shitting himself thinking the guy thinks he can win
I have read disabling a tank was just as effective of "killing " a tank. You had a good chance the crew would abandon the tank in effect removing it from the battlefield. Also placing charges on the tank would be easier nearer the tracks than climbing on a moving tank in an open battle field. Where other tank's MG and supporting infantry would discourage it. Also what of the stories on throwing/placing debris/steel pipes into tracks to disable tanks that way? Any comments on Molotov cocktails? On a lighter note: Wow never knew Harvey from TMZ was an anti tank killer trooper!
Just as shooting a soldier is just as good as killing him. He wont be able to fight and they will need to expend resources to extract him from the fight
Dr. Aryeh Nussbacher of Time Commander BBC tv fame, stated the Germans developed a CD sized explosive with which to attack tanks. Has anyone else seen this. If you research it, Nussbacher has now become Lynnette Nussbacher.
German Olympic Trials, 1942: Those who can attach the charge and get away from the tank in less than seven seconds qualify for the 50-meter dash finals. The winner must accomplish the task in less than five seconds. See John Wayne Swimming Lesson for more.
This Goebbels guy was brilliant, he realized right from the beginning that fear was the enemy #1. Anything was possible for the soldiers if they did not react to fear.
Did the Panzerschreck anti-tank weapon come out the same time as the Panzerfaust? Enter service at the same time? Thought the same year - 1943 - but maybe Panzerschreck came out a little earlier (derived from captured American bazookas)?
They both did the same year (1943) but I think Schrek was out about 4 months about April vs about Sept for Faust as none was present at Kursk but quite a few Schreks was used in that battle. At least 3 Soviet tank crew that I talked to during the late 90's said their units was attacked and lost a few T-34's and a Su-152 to them at the final days of that meat grinder of a battle. As there was no enemy armor or field guns anywhere when said vehicles went up and there was also no incoming artillery or air strikes.
as far as I know the Panzerfaust came out before the Panzerschreck. How much the Panzerschreck was derived from the Bazooka is debatable, some argue it was a copy, some argue it wasn't, likely the bazooka influenced existing German concepts and/or even prototypes.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Or typical Germans after looking at it decided we can go bigger, just like the 75mm L70 that the Panther and Jp IV/70 had after looking at the F34 76.2mm cannon on KV-1's and T-34's. I notice that is how most times the Germans operated after running into something that outclassed them when it came to firepower they went bigger. Same case with the 2.75 inch Bazooka and Panzerschrek, in fact the US came out with the Super Bazooka after the war due to testing and being on the receiving end of the Schrek.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Interesting points - thank you for the response. Seems the Encyclopedia Britannica leans towards a case of influence: " The United States claimed that the Germans had copied the design of the Panzerschreck from the U.S. Army’s bazooka, which was supplied to the Soviet Red Army in 1942 and had fallen into German hands. In any case, the bazooka certainly stimulated the Germans in their own efforts to design a similar weapon." The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum seems to lean in the other direction: "The German Raketenpanzerbüchse (rocket tank rifle) 54, popularly known as the Panzerschreck (tank terror) or Ofenrohr (stove pipe), was an anti-tank weapon with origins in American bazookas captured in North Africa in early 1943." Meanwhile, the Osprey work on "The Rocket Propelled Grenade" by Gordon L. Rottman seems say it was based on the bazooka: "The Germans developed another antitank rocket weapon in 1943, the 88mm Raketenpanzerbuchse R.PzB.43, wihch was based on the bazooka ..." But suspect the concept was out there for some time in one shape or another. Heck, even Robert Goddard worked with "tube-launched rockets" in 1918, and demonstrated prototypes a few days before the armistice. (pages 77 and 78 or "Rocket Man: Robert H. Goddard and the Birth of the Space Age"). That led to a legend that Goddard invented the bazooka, when "The Goddard tube-launched rockets of 1918 and the bazooka were distinct contraptions; their most important common element was C.N. Hickman, who worked on both." ..."That idea would have use in the future, but there were few people in 1918 who could predict the armored vehicles and tactics yet to come."
I will tell you a college tale. A few of us were horsing around, and one guy, driving his car, tried to climb an embankment, slid back, and the engine cut out. At the bottom of the embankment, he kept trying to start his car, to no avail. Remembering a "potato over the exhaust pipe" thing from a TV show, I suggested he check out the exhaust pipe, since he'd dug a long, shallow ditch-let in the grass-covered "hill." Sure enough, the tail pipe was plugged. He took off most of the exhaust pipe, and was soon roaring hither and yon without the muffler!
Pretty sure they had something similar to the stick charge and where well know for massive use of Anti tank rifles while also i think there most common gun the 76,2 mm
You can follow Dr. Jens Wehner on Instagram, where he posts photos from air planes etc.: instagram.com/jagdfliegen/
Want to see more interviews with experts?
Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, more info here:
» patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
Can u do a video on smk rounds vs armor
Compared to the Japanese Lunge Mine / Pole Mine, German infantry anti-tank devices at least didn't expect the operator to commit suicide to operate the weapon.
Hiding in a hole with an Artillery shell and hammer included.
I have seen picture of a Sherman with nails welded onto hatches and upper surfaces to try to prevent swarming, but I have also seen videos of Japanese civilians practicing with their poles. All it takes is one.
The Japanese also tried to jam steel rods in between the spokes of early Sherman road wheels.
tbf mine-on-a-stick at least gave you the stick's distance's chance of surviving - unlike later Japanese AT efforts.
The British "Sticky Bomb", didn't require magnetism, so could be used on brick and stone walls as well as tanks, more useful but keep it away from your clothes or hair. Also requires inhuman courage, probably as much machine gun fire used to "sanitize" your own tanks as on the enemy directly. I believe some sticky bombs were used by British and Australian soldiers in Korea, if I'm not mistaken. Any old-timers out there that could confirm or deny? I'm an amateur military historian.
Before the Panzerfaust, there was the 1941 modified short barrelled PzB.39 with grenade launcher cup, that shot the conventional Pg.51 HEAT rifle grenade out to 300 metres. The Pg.51 could penetrate up to 89mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ all ranges, up to 83mm. of RHA @ 30 degrees @ all ranges & up to 78mm. of RHA @ 60 degrees @ all ranges.
That gun is called the Granatebüchse 39.
@@ricardogarcia1172 yeah, that range seems really optimistic for a rifle grenade, especially for a freaking huge 89mm one. That's probably the theoretical range and not the practical
@@Legitpenguins99 then again, it was a modified AT rifle
No denying the bravery of the soldiers who used these weapons.
The Japanese were even crazier. They tried to disable Sherman’s by sticking steel rods between the spokes of the older style road wheels. Also suicide charges with explosive charges.
Soviets trained K9 units deployed as anti tank weapons
@@ifv2089 the dogs would sometimes run to the Russian tanks because the dogs were trained with the Russian ones. There is a video somewhere about it
@@trappenweisseguy27 Holy Shit that's news to me absolute size of the brass balls you need to have.
@@ifv2089 But failed as sometimes the dogs would crawl under their own tanks - as its been already stated.
My dad killed 2 American tanks in close combat during the battle of the bulge when he was 17. Every time he heard the tracks of an excavator he was really nervous. Even 60 years after the war.
That's fascinating, which role did he serve in? I mean like rifleman, or AT gunner or what?
I can't imagine the traumata these soldiers carried for all their lives. Both of my grandfathers served in the Wehrmacht as infantrymen. One got severely wounded and nearly never talked about his experiences. The other one didn't carry physical scars, but he liked to watch war movies. I guess he had to ensure himself over and over again that it wasn't him alone in the war, but that it was normal for every man in his age. He once told me of a combat when he killed a Russian soldier. He tried to tell me how gruesome it was, but he couldn't find the words. Now they are dead, but I carry the memory of their wounds. They remind me that we must practice peaceful behaviour.
Rifleman. He was badly wounded and was saved by the Americans.
Thanks for sharing.
Dr. Wehner's measured pause and "...hello" each time never fails to deliver a laugh. We know what you're doing Jens, and we like it.
I have read that the Soviets initially had trouble with cooperating infantry and tanks. They lacked trucks to transport the infantry which meant that the tanks sometimes had to attack without infantry support. That's why the Soviets started riding on the back of the tank. If they had infantry, the trick was to try to break the connection by pinning the infantry with artillery / mortar fire, MG's or mines. Unsupported tanks were easier to deal with, especially if the terrain provided cover. Obviously the tanks could still cover one another with their MG's. Knocking out a tank with these early weapons is still a very difficult task.
It's really a difficult thing to say as that sort of thing varies wildly in time and place like all things. It must also be remembered that most of the information we have in English about fighting in the east derives from German sources which in many cases have a conscious bias.
Of course that doesn't mean you're not right but those are some of the caveats.
> I have read that the Soviets initially had trouble with cooperating infantry and tanks.
from my knowledge everyone had and often still has. Although in some cases the problems are a "bit" more extensive than in other cases, e.g., if tank to tank coordination is already low or barely existent than coordinating with infantry is even a bit more out of question.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized This video and comment reminds me of Heroes and Generals. A game where you at times would need to run towards a enemy tank,place your mines on them and RUN before he realized your there if you would use one of those earlier wappons :,D
@Marcelo Henrique Soares da Silva I meant it differently,. The Soviets were short on trucks early on. So when a mechanised unit had to move for example to counterattack 15 km away from their current position, the tanks would drive there but the infantry had to walk. So the tank units arrived earlier without the infantry. It had an effect on the operational level.
The officer class had been decimated by Stalin's purges,and those who followed were frightened to show any initiative,and followed orders to the letter out of fear.
One thing is visibility out of almost every single AFV during the war had very, very narrow and restricted arc of view out of slits and periscopes when button up! Even today's AFV's suffer the same thing. True fact you can stand right next (left or right on a M-1 Abrams, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2 turret and hull area) and they wouldn't even know you was there as it is a big blind spot until you are 20 feet away and so finally able to get in view of the commanders copula vision blocks. But right up against you are totally invisible. Hence why AFV's was really vulnerable to infantry attacks during the war when they didn't have infantry support in urban settings ( Stalingrad, Budapest, Warsaw, Berlin).
That's why tanks need armored infantry for support .
They could have used some mirrors?
Jens: " I'm tired of making yet another presentation of myself on the same day, I will say the most bored hello, you exploit me too much, Bernhard"
(JK)
I think that was only the third or fourth video that day :)
Thank you Jens thank you Bernard love your content!
Glad you enjoy it!
I like jens. Bernard, you are very good at getting guests that want to teach people
true
I find listening to his voice immensely relaxing
The Japanese Type 3 Ceramic Grenade actually did use heat. In US tests, the thermite charge easily melted its way through 1.5 Inches of RHA within a second. The grenade was activated when the ceramic container was broken, against the side of a tank, allowing air to ignite the phosphorus & thermite charge.
Type 4 was ceramic, Type 3 was hollow charge.
@@JamesCalbraith I stand corrected as I was working from memory.
The confusion is that "heat" means thermal energy which is how thermite grenades work, but shaped charge rounds (HEAT rounds) ablate armor with hypersonic copper.
@@polygondwanaland8390 the cone of the shape charge pushes through the armour.... that is some physics.
@@polygondwanaland8390 Hypersonic Copper - great metal band name, there.
Finnish films Unknown Soldier and Talvisota have couple of these gadget and how to use those mine and explosive. German says during the war finns don't plan they just improvise. I knew one finnish veteran sergeant who had plown up couple of dozens soviet tanks with explovives mines, molotov coctails and panzerfausts. T-26, BT, T-34 and even JS 2. Sadly he become an alcoholic after war and died long ago. But in finnish terrain there was always posibility get close to tanks and finnish worked many cases in pairs one use smg to clean up infrantry and one use what we call improvise devices agaist tanks. . During winter war when we had allmost no AT weapons our troops desroyed hundreds or even thousands of soviet armour. But like man say terrain dictate how to fight.
thats because you guys used a tactic known as "elastic defense"
The Finns were amazing, the greatest defense against an empire since Thermopolae.💪🇫🇮
"Unknown Soldier" and "1944" are really good in showing the Finnish anti-tank tactics. They really took advantage of the forested terrain to ambush tanks.
@@4T3hM4kr0n Elastic defense was developed by the Germans in ww1. In military academies this is the most studied case of elastic defense of ww2 , the battle of Targu Frumos : th-cam.com/video/MrW_uHxBpzY/w-d-xo.html
@@scratchy996 I think that the Finnish resistance to Soviet tyranny is one of the most noble and heroic acts of all time.💪
Once again, great respect for Dr. Jens Wehner. One can clearly tell, English is not his mother tongue, and once in a while he searches the right words. Still he makes the effort to present his wide knowledge in English.
Mr. Wehner, I couldn't do this as good as you do. Thank you.
This is a good point, thanks for stating it. A lot of the English-speaking YT audience probably don't realise that many people in the content they watch are making an extra effort to put their info/ideas on record in this way.
Definitely this. I appreciate it to a degree owing to having family with English as a second language and seeing them struggle with it at times. I wouldn't do even a 10th as well in French.
Love these vids with Dr Wehner.
Thank you, Dr Wehner, for your expert explanation, and for the German words for the weapons.
Thanks!
thank you very much!
Jedes Video mit Jens ist immer eine Freude
I remember that early 90s German film stalingrad! That was an awesome combat scene (maybe my favorite in any war film) where they had to stop a t34 attack with these... I cannot imagine doing that, it would be so scary and dangerous to fight tanks like that! The one soldier in the movie asked "where is our artillery?" To which another answered "you are the artillery!"
Well as I recall during the time we‘re talking about (up to say the Autumn of 1942), German infantry still appears to have done extremely well against enemy tanks overall. Large-scale tank offensives like at Dubno seem to have mostly been defeated by the Infantry and Artillery, mostly because they didn‘t coordinate and went in piecemeal, which was a the main problem with Soviet tactics at this time.*
It appears to have been overwhelmingly the case that tanks would go on the attack without infantry support and vice versa, pretty much up until Uranus.
So if we consider that, there would then be a pretty good chance for the German infantry to actually face „ideal“ situations in encounters with Soviet tanks. An individual Platoon or Company of tanks running into well-manned German defences without support might well allow the enemy infantry to use complex tactics involving distractions and specialized attack roles.
In any case, the Soviet losses of tanks and men during offensive operations at this time indicate that the infantry was able to handle them. This all changed dramatically later on, of course.
Wirklich toll!
And another great video.Thank you so so much ,for quality and non-bias explanations,interesting topics
vielen Dank !!!
Glad you like them!
Excellent video, as always!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I'll have the one on the top shelf, thanks!
The British has something called the "Grenade, Hand, Anti-Tank No. 74". It was a sticky bomb that had a nitroglycerin charge. It was not a shaped charge.
If you can separate them from their accompanying infantry, with their limited vision, tanks get into trouble when enemy troops are able to get extremely close. Although a weapon of desperation, the magnetic mine, which I can neither pronounce or spell, was very effective. The Germans had a serious respect for these cheap devices, which is why they started using Zimmerit to protect their own vehicles. Just a suggestion, adding video footage to show the effects of a tiny shape charge would have been a help. It's quite remarkable how such a small device can create such a remarkable effect, and the simple design which makes even sloped armour become "flat" for the plasma jet to penetrate.
Beehive shaped charge. Also Useful for demolitions, bunker busting etc.
To use any of these close range anti-tank weapons had to be terrifying. Very brave men indeed.
4.5 sec? Kinda like the blast radius of the white phosphorus grenade.
Seems after the battle starts going, hearing the fuse wasn't an issue, but seeing them burn might have helped.
In the movie "Iron Cross" (1977) they put a mine on top of a tank's track so that it fell down when the tank advanced and ran over it. I saw a demonstration of an anti-tank mine, Pilz-style. Although it was just place on top of the ground, it dug an impressive crater. It is not a close combat weapon for infantry!
@Bjorn Larsson: The film "Saving Private Ryan" has a scene in which an American infantryman is literally blown to pieces by an improvised explosive device which failed to stop the tank he was attempting to attach it to.
The use of Tellermine against tank tracks is portrayed in Cross Of Iron - I don't think this came up in the video (it's late and I'm tired and writing this after, sorry if it did) but that was where I first saw something like that and it turned out to be a based-on-facts use of mines in the circumstances.
We need more about anti-tank axe use. Never heard of that before.
They tried and they tried and then they died. The utmost bravery and blindness. Such a testament to the insanity of war.
Probably the safest way to use the Wurfmine,was to either attach it on it's belly,if the soldier had a tank rolling just over him in a trench( mine might get knocked down by soil) or probably safer,to throw the later version wurfmine from a balcony,or window down onto the tank crossing on a road in an urban area.
Excellent as ever - would love a lot more on Infantry anti tank esp training manual sources if possible? Many many thanks again
Very interesting discussion!
thank you!
Interesting, thank you. I'm thinking that you guys miss one of the most important earlier German anti-tank weapons: the anti-armour rifle grenades such as the Schiessbecher (which I think you do cover in another video though). If I'm not mistaken, some 1.4 million of these rifle grenade cups were made between 1942 and 1944 (enough for one per infantry squad), and the grosse hollow-charge anti-tank round could be quite effective. Quite how easy it would have been to hit a tank with one, I couldn't say, but they seem to have been an important earlier infantry anti-tank weapon. I think there was also an earlier version that was around in 1941 but not sure how widespread its use was, nor how effective.
Whilst I’ve not seen the training video mentioned, one similar video ( in idea at least) made by the US called “Crack That Tank” where a US tanker talks to the infantryman watching that he shouldn’t feel alone and scared of the enemy tanks advancing towards him, because he has a lot of back up from other units pitching in and what he can do to help the team effort behind stopping said enemy tanks
It all goes to show that if you are in the act of being overrun by tanks, you'll resort to just about any crazy method to try avoid becoming track grease. You might even go so far as to stick a block of explosives in your sock, coat it with grease, and attempt to stick it to the roadwheel of the tank running over your foxhole.
That Tank Destruction Badge? If you got one, it really meant something.
Meanwhile in 🇬🇧:
"Lets give our troops an explosive toffee apple in a sock!" 👍
The Japanese had a version of these, the Lunge Mine
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunge_mine
which was a shaped charge on the end of a pole. They'd charge the tank from cover, bayonet style then stab it with the hollow end of the mine. Indications are that it performed poorly, sometimes failing to detonate.
Of course - I guess that's better than sitting in a hole in front of the advancing tank with an artillery shell and a hammer ...
.
My heartrate goes up when running to kill a tank in RO2, I can't imagine the terror the soldiers felt.
Best used in ambush position.infantry support separated from tanks.i have seen pictures of 4 teller mines on a plank.when tank comes by a rope pulls it across the tanks path
yeah, those are discussed in my visualized video.
Still a thing in the Swedish infantry during the 90is.
I learned the exact same tactic in the Danish Army in the early 90ies. I would rather stick to my Carl-Gustav RCL for AT work 😁
And the little tank destruction badge to go on your uniform if you knocked one out. There was also a tank close assault badge but smarter people than I can describe that better. Great work guys.
I think the word uniform here is spelled c-o-f-f-i-n.
Das war das erste Video von ihnen das ich sehe haben. Machen Sie alle den Videos von diesen Channel? Ich liebe das Geschichte von deutsches Militär und immer so schön deutsch zu hören 🙂
‘The description of the badge was very precise but they didnt like it because it wasn’t complicated enough’. 😂👍
I've seen contemporary film clip of Volkssturm throwing two explosives tied together with a perhaps 2 meter long rope, on top of a tank as it passes nearby (in exercise).
I couldn't make my conscription in a submarine because I'm too tall. So as a 2nd priority I wanted to get into the anti-tank branch instead. Two of the most dangerous tasks! I got to learn how to ride a horse instead, because they thought I looked good for parades. It was a very nice time.
What about the hand thrown weapon that had fins and a HEAT warhead on the front? Seemed like a big lawn dart. Can't find the name but i've seen a least a single photo of it in the past.
Special badge for the fighting down of armored fighting vehicles by individual fighters. Those Germans liked to fight!
I always crack up when Bernhard sarcastically criticizes the over complication of German words. I used to argue about this jokingly with my German friend. However, if you watch M*A*S*H, that show also criticizes the US Army for overcomplicating things. In short, BUREAUCRACY! Someone's job security depends on overcomplicating things!
“... if you lived long enough to use them several times.”
Ouch!
That's a hell of a knocking devise .
War ar declared. You can choose one of two weapons for an unknown mission: the anti-tank ax, or the anti-submarine hammer. Choose wisely.
They used German grammar against the tanks?
lol
If you think German grammar is hard, you should try Russian grammar
German grammar is one of the most severe and effective weapons known to man...
You craft a long enough word and use it as a lever to jam the wheels and tracks of the enemy tank!
Stabbing the driver with said word through the viewing port is also encouraged.
@@LucioFercho like driving over barbed wire, it jams up everything and you have to clear with wire cutters.
I saw the "sticky hollow charge" in the movie "Stalingrad" Didn't look very much fun to use.
well, not much fun in Stalingrad: th-cam.com/video/cYBugb7h5AQ/w-d-xo.html
Did the anti-tank mine have a delayed action setting? You wouldn't want to be within an arms length of an exploding anti-tank mine.
I gather the bar mine (on the right) wasn't part of the discussion.
what about molotov cocktails?
"You there! Gunther! See that jerry over there? Give them a hug!"
Hello and thank you for these historic reports.
You consultant at Militärhistorische Museum der Bundeswehr Dresden is great! He adds a lot to videos, at least ;)
I perceived Dr. Jens as being called by his first name, not the last name.
That drove me off somewhat.
Dr. Personenname Jens would be appreciated and known more.
Sorry!
No excuses! Only knowledge!
I do like a video with an Anti-Tank Capability (even if it is only limited).
This is a very satisfactory video on the subject.
Perhaps the only reasonable chance of success for these weapons was against a few tanks or armoured vehicles in a difficult maneuvering scenario. Fully deployed tanks can provide mutual covering, and were usually followed by infantry. In this condition, these weapons were suicidal. I wonder how many boys were killed trying to use these things out of despair.
Normally mortars or mgs would supress the infantry, and the view from a T-34 really sucks.
@@PalleRasmussen Surely. But wonder some thirty T34 with mounted infantry smashing through a poorly defended sector. I guess it was in places like that these weapons were most used.
@@marcosfernandez7207 up until mid 43 much of Red Army combined arms were amateurish, so that would have been rare. And you do not wage war around exceptions.
@@PalleRasmussen These weapons were last ditch solutions. Even the Panzerfaust was. The bazooka also, and so on. The solution to the tank is always a better tank and better tactics. But when you see yourself in the loosing end with tanks roaring around, then you will use anything you can to get rid of them. And even modern tanks can be destroyed if the infantry man have some handy AT weapons. This is not exception. This is the rule.
@@marcosfernandez7207 I am not sure you understand what I am writing, and you jump around between subjects in a way my (military historian) brain cannot find a red thread in. I am tired after a long week and a bad storm, so I am going to leave you to it.
Have a nice day.
What about the Panzerbüchse 39?
Or Granatbüchse 38
If you would throw one of those magnetic anti tank mines onto a tank and it went of, wouldnt the charge just shoot out away from the armour of the tank?
Do you mean if the mine lands correctly and detonates? If so, there are a lot of long winded physics behind it, but the bullet answer is that the shape of the explosive creates a focused jet of gasses and the vapourised cone shaped copper cover, moving at supersonic speed and hot enough to burn through a LOT of armour.
@@LeonidasRex1 I think he means if the "recoil" wouldn't be bigger than the force of the magnets keeping it on.
To which i think mass inertia and speed of the charge are the key words.
@@nirfz Probably would throw the casing off. But that doesn't matter as the copper hey would continue unhindered on its path.
Was the Panzerfaust only used against heavy armor?
nope, initially they had a small one and "large" one, whereas the small was intended for light to medium tanks but that idea was ditched soon.
Hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of running up to a moving tank, sticking one of these on it, pulling the fuse, and running for cover. Even if not moving -- even if you could throw the magnetic one a few feet (not more -- too heavy!) -- I'd have to be scared out of my wits to be that desperate. But then, I've never been in combat, and obviously have never been a young German soldier full of Nazi propaganda to despise/hate/fear Russians and everything else that went into that war. This is the most interesting aspect of these videos, to make me think, and you do a fine job of it.
Nazi propagabda has little to do with that, its the survival instinct in humans. Military trainings purpose is to convince your brain that fighting has a higher chance of survival then freezing and not moving.
Also you could usually let your position get overdriven by tanks as infantery and then use this while the tank is passing close to your position or past it.
The bigger problem then the tank is actually the infantery usually close to tjat tank that will try to shoot you while you are compleatly exposed.
Fast way to earn some iron cross i guess...eather for the chest or for the tombstone
It’s the opposite, these men had the biggest balls
As always in the most dangerous jobs in the military you find the guy with the least fear and biggest balls, because if you think you’re scared doing the scary shit, imagine the other guy WATCHING him do something suicidal, he’s gotta be shitting himself thinking the guy thinks he can win
An American prototype weapon for anti tank was a rock with a metal triangle on it
The magnetic grenade sounds about as much fun to use as the British sticky grenade/bomb.
I have read disabling a tank was just as effective of "killing " a tank. You had a good chance the crew would abandon the tank in effect removing it from the battlefield. Also placing charges on the tank would be easier nearer the tracks than climbing on a moving tank in an open battle field. Where other tank's MG and supporting infantry would discourage it. Also what of the stories on throwing/placing debris/steel pipes into tracks to disable tanks that way? Any comments on Molotov cocktails?
On a lighter note: Wow never knew Harvey from TMZ was an anti tank killer trooper!
Just as shooting a soldier is just as good as killing him. He wont be able to fight and they will need to expend resources to extract him from the fight
@@alexisXcore93 Not really. A tank is still a big armoured box with a ginormous gun. It can still do a fair bit of damage.
To shorten things- you had to have balls of steel to use such devices to knock out a tank!
which makes getting into cover in 4.5 or 7.5 seconds even harder.
@@nirfz the germans had different Brennzünder. Not only those with 4.5 and 7 seconds. They also used that with 20 seconds.
Correction: „special badge for the destruction of ‚armored fighting vehicles‘“. „Tanks“ would be if it just said ‚Panzer‘
You can find many stories from the Finnish battles where similar things were used.
Dr. Aryeh Nussbacher of Time Commander BBC tv fame, stated the Germans developed a CD sized explosive with which to attack tanks. Has anyone else seen this. If you research it, Nussbacher has now become Lynnette Nussbacher.
from what I know he made some rather unsophisticated claims.
German Olympic Trials, 1942: Those who can attach the charge and get away from the tank in less than seven seconds qualify for the 50-meter dash finals. The winner must accomplish the task in less than five seconds. See John Wayne Swimming Lesson for more.
We need a giant "panzerknacker" hydraulic press to put old, busted tanks in to!
This is why you must use infantry as tank support
Bernhard is so great he could probably take out a T-34 with his bare hands!!!!
;)
@Paul Thiessen Whille speaking softly to the crew. That could get them startled.
Even today we have scary stuff like that. Shooting a AT4 or similar at 25 to 50 m. The tank crew won't appreciate your attention
Did the Russians ever use lend lease Bazookas?
The Russians were the first to use them in combat.
The original Sticky Bomb.
This Goebbels guy was brilliant, he realized right from the beginning that fear was the enemy #1. Anything was possible for the soldiers if they did not react to fear.
What they should have done is fill a GI sock with comp B, cover it in axle greese so it would stick to Soviet tank tracks.
Road wheels. They stuck 'em to the roadwheels....except the dummy wearing the non-Airborne gear. It wenr boom.
Anyone else getting medal of honour flashbacks from panzerknacker?
The Finns put timber logs in the tracks of Russian tanks.
8 people drove Soviet tanks during WWII.
Did the Panzerschreck anti-tank weapon come out the same time as the Panzerfaust? Enter service at the same time? Thought the same year - 1943 - but maybe Panzerschreck came out a little earlier (derived from captured American bazookas)?
They both did the same year (1943) but I think Schrek was out about 4 months about April vs about Sept for Faust as none was present at Kursk but quite a few Schreks was used in that battle. At least 3 Soviet tank crew that I talked to during the late 90's said their units was attacked and lost a few T-34's and a Su-152 to them at the final days of that meat grinder of a battle. As there was no enemy armor or field guns anywhere when said vehicles went up and there was also no incoming artillery or air strikes.
@@ChrisS-fh7zt That is interesting. Thank you for the post and additional detail.
as far as I know the Panzerfaust came out before the Panzerschreck. How much the Panzerschreck was derived from the Bazooka is debatable, some argue it was a copy, some argue it wasn't, likely the bazooka influenced existing German concepts and/or even prototypes.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Or typical Germans after looking at it decided we can go bigger, just like the 75mm L70 that the Panther and Jp IV/70 had after looking at the F34 76.2mm cannon on KV-1's and T-34's. I notice that is how most times the Germans operated after running into something that outclassed them when it came to firepower they went bigger. Same case with the 2.75 inch Bazooka and Panzerschrek, in fact the US came out with the Super Bazooka after the war due to testing and being on the receiving end of the Schrek.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Interesting points - thank you for the response. Seems the Encyclopedia Britannica leans towards a case of influence: " The United States claimed that the Germans had copied the design of the Panzerschreck from the U.S. Army’s bazooka, which was supplied to the Soviet Red Army in 1942 and had fallen into German hands. In any case, the bazooka certainly stimulated the Germans in their own efforts to design a similar weapon."
The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum seems to lean in the other direction: "The German Raketenpanzerbüchse (rocket tank rifle) 54, popularly known as the Panzerschreck (tank terror) or Ofenrohr (stove pipe), was an anti-tank weapon with origins in American bazookas captured in North Africa in early 1943."
Meanwhile, the Osprey work on "The Rocket Propelled Grenade" by Gordon L. Rottman seems say it was based on the bazooka: "The Germans developed another antitank rocket weapon in 1943, the 88mm Raketenpanzerbuchse R.PzB.43, wihch was based on the bazooka ..."
But suspect the concept was out there for some time in one shape or another. Heck, even Robert Goddard worked with "tube-launched rockets" in 1918, and demonstrated prototypes a few days before the armistice. (pages 77 and 78 or "Rocket Man: Robert H. Goddard and the Birth of the Space Age"). That led to a legend that Goddard invented the bazooka, when "The Goddard tube-launched rockets of 1918 and the bazooka were distinct contraptions; their most important common element was C.N. Hickman, who worked on both." ..."That idea would have use in the future, but there were few people in 1918 who could predict the armored vehicles and tactics yet to come."
Steadfast infantry are needed to go up against tanks.
Eben LUKE used a weapon like that, to fight that "doggy-machines" in STAR WARS.............
German AT weapons had nothing on the ultra deadly American "Anti Tank Rock"
I've destroyed over 1,000 T-34's on Red Orchestra 2 with the HHL. It works! :)
❤
No mention of Eddie Murphy’s banana in the tail pipe trick? I guess bananas were a little hard for the Germans to get a hold of at that time.
Lots of potatoes though....or potato mashers?
I will tell you a college tale. A few of us were horsing around, and one guy, driving his car, tried to climb an embankment, slid back, and the engine cut out. At the bottom of the embankment, he kept trying to start his car, to no avail. Remembering a "potato over the exhaust pipe" thing from a TV show, I suggested he check out the exhaust pipe, since he'd dug a long, shallow ditch-let in the grass-covered "hill." Sure enough, the tail pipe was plugged. He took off most of the exhaust pipe, and was soon roaring hither and yon without the muffler!
👍👍👏👏
Interesting
I wonder if there is anything about how soviet infantry lacking cool stuff fought tanks
Pretty sure they had something similar to the stick charge and where well know for massive use of Anti tank rifles while also i think there most common gun the 76,2 mm
„Petting Tanks, The German way“
And a Soldier putting a Hafthohlladung on a Tank, LMAO!
Nobody
Goebbels: _Bro chill, tank is just imagination. Take this & throw!_
Two Germans talk English together - warum nicht auf deutsch?
th-cam.com/video/ti6Vwt04sWw/w-d-xo.html
Schwere Panzer streicheln.