Which of the anti-tank infantry weapons did you think was the best? The Bazooka or the Panzerschreck? Welcome back! If you are new here make sure to hit subscribe to expand your knowledge on Military History and join the growing Premier History Community!
The bazooka was the most reliable, easiest to use, etc. but the armor penetration was just adequate, against more heavily armored tanks such as the Tiger, it needed to hit the side armor to reliably penetrate. Its still the superior weapon in 95% of circumstances.
The Panzerschrek had some advantages: Bigger warhead which achieved higher penetration in latter versions despite lack of copper, much higher muzzle velocity, reliable magneto ammunition from the beginning. Downside besides greater weight were: the use of black powder rather than diglycol rocket propellant meant the Pasteurizer made considerably more smoke than the Bazooka, early versions needed a face sheild since the rocket hadn't usually burned out completely before exiting the tube. The Germans had diglycol rockets but the propellant was apparently in limited supply. The Panzerschrek had simple iron sights which could be set to 250m. The bazooka had well made optical reflector sights that could be set to 600 yards. Despite the much higher muzzle velocity I suspect the cruder sights and tolerances cut into the Panzerschreks potential.
@@joekurtz8303 Check out the 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 and you’ll understand where the pazerschrek came from. It was developed to replace a 28cm squeeze bore gun
Best is hard to determine. The PanzerSchreck offered more performance but was nearly twice as heavy. Both systems worked quite well. The US army determined that Bazooka M-1 wasn’t powerful enough for heavier armor, so upgraded to a caliber similar to PanzerSchreck.
The Schreck was only about 6lbs heavier than the M1 Bazooka. For the firepower improvement the weight was well worth it-the larger rocket however-was much more hazardous to the user as it produced a larger backblast and heat so intense the user had to wear a protective mask and poncho or risk face/body burns. Both projectors were desired by GIs/Landwehr but not for tank busting (that was of mixed value because of how unsubtle the rockets exhaust plumes were when they fired). They were liked for their use in cracking hardened shelters and bunkers more than tanks. The Panzerfaust was preferred by German infantry (and even Russian infantry, who used captured stocks whenever they could) because even though it was also very noticeable it was very light and simple and the user could easily evade right after discharging the Faust. The Schreck basically required you to abandon it...
@@capthawkeye8010 Yes, I was disappointed that the Panzerfaust was not a part of the analysis. I think in combat the simplest solution has the greatest chance of success. While the Panzerfaust had a shorter range, the poor accuracy of the Panzerschreck at longer distances meant that to have the highest probability of a tank kill, the operational effective ranges of both antitank weapons were quite similar.
The Panzerschreck was better than the original Bazooka that it was based on. The USA had an even better version in production, the M20 Super Bazooka, but it arrived too late to see service in the war. It probably would have arrived sooner, but the USA didn't feel the need to rush things into service as fast as the Germans because, they weren't losing. As such, the bazooka did a good enough job. The RPG-7 was based off a Russian review of the Panzerfaust, the Panzerschreck and the M20, integrating the elements that the Soviets found best designed.
It was more powerful-it wasn't necessary better tho. The user had to wear a heat-resistant poncho to fire the weapon because the rocket motor on the Schreck gave off such intense heat it could burn the user. Like the Bazooka the smokey backblast was a problem and gave the weapon away after it fired. Also like the bazooka it was more popular as an infantry assault-weapon like for busting hardened shelters and bunkers than as an anti-tank weapon. The Panzerfaust was the preferred anti-tank weapon for these reasons and was mainly so successful because the Russians tended to attack right into the teeth of German Urban-Festung style fortified cities in order to capture them before the Allies did...
@@capthawkeye8010 By late war, the lower range and lower penetration power of the M-1 Bazooka was starting to become a problem, which is the reason that the US military's procurement department had issued a request for a replacement that had similar size to the Panzershrek. From that I think it is safe to conclude that despite the drawbacks of size, it was an incremental improvement over the original bazooka. No one would field 40 ton tanks if a 20 ton tank could do the same job, but at some point it just can't.
@@capthawkeye8010 The issue of the Rocket motor forcing protective clothing (which on a side note was mainly goggles, but for a lack of Proper issue Goggles they had to make do with gasmasks) was A) largely dependant on the Weather and Rocket type used and B) fixed entirely with the addition of the Shield. The weapon overall was much better than the bazooka, the greater Rocket velocity paired with a better tube design resulted in higher effective range and overall much better accuracy, the electric current generator meant the weapon could never run out of power (unlike the Bazooka that used batteries) and the Plug in connector on the rocket motors also meant a significantly faster reloading of the weapon. Paired with a better designed warhead and the much higher penetration, its quiet obvious why it was so much better. As for the part of "Anti infantry weapon" the Germans stressed a lot that the weapon was not to be used against infantry and would be largely ineffective in it, while it did happen, they where mainly used as Anti tank weapon and i havent seen any source that claims otherwise. The reason why the Panzerfaust was so much more popular, was because it was available in much greater quantities and didnt require a dedicated and well trained crew to operate.
The Germans looked at what was a successful light anti-tank wepon and copied it. Like anyone else the question was "How can we make this better?", and so they did. Much like we, the USA, copied and modified the Mauser rifle bolt, or how we copied two German weapons to make our M-60 machine gun. There is a cliche that says something about copying is the greatest foum of flattery...be it so.
@@patta8388 Still the 7,62 has better ballistics, penerative qualities, and range than the 5.56 will ever have. It's the nature of the beast. And now that our military has experienced the range short comings of the lighter round are now looking for a replacement cartridge. Don't get me wrong, the 5.56 NATO round has shown that it can do the job, it's limiting factor is it's range. That was never a concern with the M-60. That's why the Navy and Coast Guard still use it. Yes it was known as "the pig", but it did the job very very well.
@@normvw4053 I'm no expert on American weapons, but isn't the 240 better? It basically replaced the 60 in every role and force. I also agree on the calibre, atleast for a machine gun. Was weirded out when I heard they replacing the good, old MG3 with a 5.56 chambered lmg
In the Osprey weapons book on the Bazooka they bring up a study that was conducted during the war using a captured German Panther tank. If I remember correctly when they tested both launchers on the damaged tank the results were more or less the same despite the size of the warhead.
Possibly an early Panzerchrek, they were improved greatly to nearly 7 inches penetration which is greater than any Bazooka. The US could afford to use copper in their HEAT warheads the Germans used iron.
It depends very much where you are hitting the tank. If you try to hit a Panther (80mm sloped armor) at the front it is difficult to penetrate with a weapon with a penetration of 100mm.
No GOOD AGAINST A MK2 TIGER ???and Us The BRITISH ???And CANADIANSFACED Most Of His HEAVY Armour ?😳And the SOVIETS DID too 😳EXCEPT the B of The Bulge g
Hey, just want to say, your videos are what i've been looking for for a long time on here. Finally found a great modern history channel to chill to in the morning. Just a week ago when I discovered your channel and first heard "subscribe to reach more history lovers" I immediately did, so don't get rid of that and continue on the interesting subjects!
This is a pretty common thing among public commentaries on armor piercing ballistics-almost all quoted figures are of "best possible performance" or penetration a given munition is theoretically capable of. In reality few munitions in ever performed as well as promised and the Bazooka's "100mm penetration" figures were no exception. The Tiger was far from the most well protected tank of the 2nd World War (for a heavy tank its protection was actually rather light) but GI's did indeed stop many Tigers and Panthers with Bazookas as the war went on and the weapon's bugs were cleared out.
@@capthawkeye8010 Capt, on one hand, that was a great reply. On the other, please allow me to remark that I was doing simple humor with my post. To address your reply and not make you feel you wasted your time, however, I have to agree, of course. Even today, as a simple firearm user, you'll see ammo with certain specs in its box that most of the time, will fail to achieve, even if meeting the criteria allegedly used to test the product. A round velocity being one of the most common examples. Scope crystal quality or characteristics I'd say is another usually overstated point, albeit, not as commonly talked about. In regards to the Tiger's armor, I'd mildly disagree. By the time it was introduced, it was without a doubt a heavy tank. As the Char B1 was in France in 1939, but just like the Tiger, not anymore as years went by. But I did mention a mild disagreement, not an entire one. That's due to the fact that even _"upon release",_ its side armor was indeed not impervious to everything. Moreover, as a matter of fact, remembering a particular paragraph in an interesting book I read over 20 years ago, one by the respected authors Hilary Doyle and Peter Chamberlain if I remember correctly, already a year after the tank was fielded for the first time, a "letter" was issued by the OKH, or maybe the OKW, my apologies in this detail, that stated that (translated and interpreted) "...Despite the Pz.Kpfw VI formidable protection (important not to go against neither the propaganda, nor troop morale), it is a vehicle that needs to be treated from now on just like any other armored one, so we'd strongly recommend (oh, the subtletly), to stop altogether (not so subtle here) with the performance of any reckless activity, as it is no longer a vehicle to take over a hill to simply take a look with impunity" (point shot across the bow straight and clear here). Anyway! Hope I didn't bore you with the phonebook length message, have a good one!
@@hansvonmannschaft9062 I should have pointed out that yes I know you're joking-i'm replying sort of half-sarcastically to just about every comment on this thread. Anyway-the chief issue with the Tiger was that it was a pre-war design. Inherited from a design study conducted by Henschel in 1937-the Vk 30.01 and later 36.01. This meant that the Tiger's design was not drastically altered before it entered serial production in order to save time and it still incorporated a number of pre-war trends in German armor-like flat unsloped plating. The issue with this was offset by just lopping heaps of armor on the Tiger but that only worked for about a year before the Soviets began fielding the T-34/85 with a gun that could defeat the Tiger's dated protection scheme-and it was only an MBT. On the other hand-the Tiger's reliability issues are also usually overstated and as far as Heavy Tanks went its serviceability and parts lifespans were fine, (they were comparable to the Panzer IVH's later variants and items such as the final drive, transmission, etc were superior to the Panther's and IS-2's equivalents) it was just too damn heavy to tow if it broke down and so many were abandoned because of it. It was no secret that the chief reason the Tiger was resurrected was due to the pressure to get the KwK 36 on the first tank that could carry it. Fun fact-although often claimed to be the Flak 18/36 88mm gun-it only shared calibers with that gun. The KwK 36 actually had more in common with the KwK 40 L/43 used on the Panzer IV-and was basically a scaled-up version of that gun, not really the Flak 88mm.
ya the pen on the bazooka was wildly unreliable. some times it struggled to pen the sides of armored cars, other times it penned the sides of tigers. for the most part, the m1 bazooka was kinda shit at its main AT jop (in the European theater) however the m9 bazooka was miles better.
You have to remember the Germans also had the Panzerfaust too. While not as good as there two it was effective against most allied tanks... there was certainly a pucker factor when going near cover in American Armor by late war.
Looking at just AT power, the Panzershreck is more lethal. However, there is a lot of utility in a lighter weapon since you've got to carry it all over and the lighter bazooka makes carrying a rifle more manageable. Saying the Panzershreck is better overall just because it's more powerful is like saying a Desert Eagle is better than a Glock 19.
The Panzer Shrek was definitely better at tanking out tanks, but the bazooka was definitely the most flexible launcher out of the two. Yes you obviously want your anti-tank weapon to be able to take out tanks like what it's intended to, but the bazooka is smaller which also allowed it to operate better as a weapon to take out infantry positions as well. Having weapon flexibility is definitely an advantage since you never know what situation you're going to be getting into.
USA: We have this bazooka! Soviet Union: Nice! Give us some! Japan: We like it, so we copied it! Germany: So did we, but we improved it! Britain: We have a springy bomb lobber!
Was gonna say that I wondered why there was no mention of that, but my guess is that this was about WW2 weapons, and the M20 did not come along until after.✌
Better is a relative term. It's about a particular side needing a weapon to fulfill a particular need. Both weapons filled the needs of their side so both weapons are equally good.
More powerful does not equal better. The 100 mm of armor penetration of the bazooka was enough to handle almost anything in the Axis arsenal; the heaviest German AFVs, like the Tiger II, had thicker armor than that, and even then only from the front. The Panzerschreck's 180 mm of penetration was overkill; the most thickly armored Allied AFV of the war, the late-war variants of the Churchill, only had 150 mm of armor at the front. So what on earth did the Germans need a weapon that big and heavy for? That was the problem with a lot of German weapons and vehicles during the war: they wasted a lot of resources making equipment far more powerful than what they needed, and then wasted more resources on the logistics to support these monstrosities. The Allies generally started from the question: what is the absolute minimum we need to get the job done? So that was why the bazooka was better: it was actually designed for the job it had to do, and for the logistics system that was going to get it where it needed to go. As an aside, you left out some of the improvements made to the bazooka during the war. They eventually got rid of the wire and put the ignition leads into the fins of the rocket, which would connect to electrical contacts on the inside of the tube, so the loader no longer had to mess around with wires, leads, etc. Also, they replaced the battery with an alternator, which the operator would activate by pulling the trigger, so that the operator no longer had to worry about the battery running out.
First, most of the time the bazooka was not used against tanks, but against machine gun nest or pillboxes. So the better mobility of the bazooka was much more important than the better armor penetration of the panzerschreck. In fact, the panzerfaust was found to be more effective than the panzerschreck because of the greater mobility on the battlefield. And in pacific, not that many Jap tanks and bazooka was more than enough to deal with them. In Europe, really Germans did not have near the number of tanks that Allies did and most of those were on eastern front. So for US forces, bazooka was much better than panzerschreck as was about 1/2 the weight. Also did not have backblast issue as rocket fuel was finished by time left tube, while not true with panzerschreck.
Of course the Panzerschreck was more powerful, being 88mm vs. 60mm for the bazooka! The bazooka was lighter, shorter, & you could carry more rockets. Both served their purpose.
On paper the Panzerschreck seems to have an edge over the Bazooka, but that really is not meaningful in practice. For example range, except out in the wide expanse of the Eastern Front, you are not going to have a line of sight out to 150 meter (490 feet). Coupled with the fog of war and weather conditions, a soldier would be lucky to see out to 200-300 yards. Because of the excessively more smoke produced by the firing of a Panzerschreck rocket, it gives away the location of the fire team and that means they must move each time after they fired a rocket. Not only is there more smoke from the Panzerschreck rocket, the smoke is toxic so the weapon cannot be fired from a building or bunker without protections for the fire team such as gas mask, and gloves. The advantage of the Bazooka was that the US was able to field a large number AND upgrade them as the combat environment changed. Both versions (especially the early models) had some serious problems such the rockets exploding; both the Bazooka and the Panzerschreck's rocket were sensitive to heat. The early models of the Bazooka's battery were unreliable and several reports of rockets exploding in the tube upon launch because the bore of the tube was of the wrong gauge cause the rocket was catching in the tube and detonating.
You make some great points, but in reality the American M1 Bazooka was ineffective against Germany's heavy tanks. That's why the US came up with the M-20 'Super' Bazooka at the end of the war, which was never deployed because the war was almost over. In Korea, the M1 Bazooka was almost useless against North Korean tanks.
Except that the Germans got to fight a lot in the wide expanse of Eastern Front, whereas the US obviously didn't. So for the Germans facing Soviet tanks, the extra range from Panzerschreck was a helpful benefit. And secondly, somewhat related to the first point, in the Eastern Front most defensive positions used by the Germans against Russian attacks were long trenches and anti-tank ditch dug in the open ground, where buildings were few and far between, if not already blown to pieces. So Panzerschreck cannot fired from enclosed space was again much less issues for the Germans. And lastly in urban combats that eventually took place, the Germans found using Panzerfausts with regular troops was much better than special Bazooka or Panzerschreck Team. In the chaotic urban battles, the AT launcher team could very likely be under fire from enemy infantry up close, and it would be much preferable if they were armed with infantry weapons along with Panzerfaust, rather than dedicated launcher like Panzerschrecks plus a pistol perhaps.
I would go with the Bazooka because of its versatility not only as a ground launched weapon but as air launched weapon primarily on fighters and attack aircraft which mounted them on 3 tubes on each wing configuration. The M8 Bazooka was used as air to ground rocket weapon role alongside the famous 5 inch HVAR rockets.
If the Bazooka could penetrate up to 100 mm then it could penetrate the frontal armor of a Panzer IV but probably not a Panther, correct? However, it could penetrate the side armor of both, correct? I do like it's lighter weight and it's range is about the same. I'm thinking the Bazooka may have worked better for the Germans than for the Americans because it would not have a hard time penetrating the armor of most Allied tanks other than heavy Soviet tanks. Conversely, the Panzershreck would have been the better weapon to have against Panthers and Tigers.
Btw, the last variant of the panzerfaust could cut through 300mm of armor and had a range of 100 m so I'm not sure how the panzerfaust would be superior. Maybe more accurate and easier to aim?
The Panzerfaust was lighter still and if you had a 12 man squad you could easily give 6-8 members a panzerfaust. The Panzershrek was meant to be used at platoon level (3 x 12 man squads to a platoon in German army) . PIAT was also a Platoon level weapon. Not sure how bazookas were issued in the US Army which had 4 squads to a platoon.
Fun fact - the early bazooka rocket was based on Swiss anti-tank rifle grenades. The Swiss military had, and remained doing so long time, an important place for the use of heavy rifle grenades in its doctrine. The US bought a batch of Swiss anti-tank rifle grenades for testing, but found out they were incompatible with US service rifles. In the early proof of concept testing for what became the Bazooka, a rocket motor was added to those Swiss rifle grenades.
It all depends on the doctrine how these two are used. Being on the defensive and having ambush tactics are great for the panzerschreck, the weight would be horrendous if always on the move. The bazooka obviously did great against the Japanese tanks and against fortifications like MG nests. Portable enough due to its weight to move around on the battlefield without it slowing you down.
In a letter dated May 20, 1944, Gen. George S. Patton stated to a colleague that "the purpose of the bazooka is not to hunt tanks offensively, but to be used as a last resort in keeping tanks from overrunning infantry. To insure this, the range should be held to around 30 yards.” The PIAT was a superior weapon.
The Panzershrek was heavier but more powerful The Bazooka was designed for light but effective use that anyone could really just use, it was also made to be cheap and mass produced much like the M4 Sherman In the end, the bazooka was probably the superior one due to its strategic advantages even if the Panzershrek was the better weapon
During the War in Afghanistan many were carrying the AT4, one use only, M72 was brought back in due to weight and you could carry 2 verse 1 AT4. Some applications for a hard hitting munition was needed, 90mm fit that as well, but terrain dependent munitions and weapons is by need, not design.
The reason the German weapon had a shield was a slower burn rate for the propellant. The American version was done burning by the time the projectile left the tube. The German version was still burning when it left the tube thus throwing hot games into the gunners face. I suspect the slow burn rate gave more power, but rocket thrust out side the tube might have bad effects on accuracy. It would be interesting to compare them ballistically.
All I know is when the America found out the effectiveness of the Panzerschreck, they rushed to make the super-bazooka while the British’s spigot launcher had similar results to the panzershreck.
Tactical situation is also important. Coming across any German armor was a rarity for US forces, and it was rare that infantry were in contact with attacking Panzers and there were not Tanks or TD's in the immediate vicinity. For the Ostfront it was a different story and the situation of infantry having to fight off armor alone was an every-day reality, not a relatively rare contingency like it was for the Americans.
The Bazooka was light enough to be airdropped with paratroopers and with enough ammo to take out a couple dozen armored vehicles. The Panzerschreck was too heavy to be carried during a jump. The US Ordnance Board forsaw this drawback, even when developing the Super Bazooka.
The M1A1 Rocket Launcher's missile expended its fuel while still within the tube, rendering it practically invisible in flight. The Pazerscheck's missile continued to burn fuel for several meters past the end of the tube, which is why the launcher was equipped with a blast shield. This limited the operator's view of the target, making situational awareness more difficult. Furthermore, the flame of the missile's exhaust and the smoke trail also exposed the Pazerschreck's crew to counterbattery fire that the M1A1's crew would otherwise escape. The Wehrmacht was generally dissatisfied with the Pazerschreck compared to the shorter-ranged Panzerfaust for serval reasons. Firstly, the Panzerfaust was an individual weapon with no need for a loader. Secondly, because the Panzerfaust was essentially a handheld mortar rather than a rocket, it left no smoke trail and had little backblast, thus making it easier for the operator to remain hidden from counterattack. Most importantly, the Panzerfaust operated with a simple percussion primer. It required no batteries or magneto. Its inherent lack of accuracy made expensive optics superfluous. (The Panzerfaust was aimed with a simple V-notch aligned on a small nub on the projectile.) Consequently, these characteristics made the weapon disposable and very cheap compared to the Panzerschreck. The Allies captured and used many Panzerfaust weapons in Europe. However, they saw no need to issue their own version. The Allies were winning with the weapons they had, and the usefulness of the Panzerfaust against bunkers and fortifications was extremely limited compared to the M3 105 light howitzer, the standard U.S. bunker-buster of 1944-45, and the M1A1 Bazooka. Because of its mobility and effectiveness against fortifications, the M1A1 Bazooka was the superior weapon for the Allies. The Allies faced many more bunkers and fortified strong points than they faced German armor, which is why they preferred the short-barreled M4 Sherman tanks to the 76mm Shermans from D-day until the last weeks of 1944. The M3 75mm gun installed in the earlier marks of the M4 Medium Tank was better at fighting the German opposition as it actually existed in Italy, France, and the Low Countries. At ranges under 1000 yards, the normal situation in the enclosed countryside of Western Europe, the Sherman could and usually did defeat Panzer IVs, Panthers, and even Tigers. However, after more German armor was diverted from the Eastern Front to the West in late 1944 onwards, the need for the 76mm Shermans and 90mm Pershings became obvious, as did the shortcomings of the M1A1 as an anti-tank weapon, prompting the development of the much-improved M20 "Super Bazooka" in 1944.
In practical sense bazooka and Panzerfaust have left greatest legacy. Panzerschreck is part of bazooka's legacy. RPG-7 is child of Panzerfaust and bazooka and Carl Gustav is descendant of Panzerfaust.
I once saw a documentary about the Korean War. The first Americans who were sent to stem the North Korean Army tide fired their Bazookas at NKA T-34 tanks. Not a single T-34 was knocked out.
They were using the earlier model that fired 2.36-inch rockets. Just days later they received the more powerful 3.5-inch bazooka. Supposedly the Chinese then reverse-engineered the 3.5-inch version.
Then proceeds to get reverse-engineered by every combatant. It would certainly make tanks in urban environments even more screwed than usual, but for the most part it would be overkill for the kind of threats man portable AT weapons of the time were designed to fight against. For example, the vast majority of the vehicles you're going to be targeting are going to be tanks that would've been taken out or disabled by either a Bazooka or 'Schreck anyway, or a thin-skinned truck that definitely never stood a chance no matter what.
Hey you didn't cover the panzerfaust, PIAT, type 4 and type 5 rocket launchers, yes japan had rocket launchers and I believe the type 4 was used in Okinawa.
The Panzerschreck may have been very heavily influenced however, it had superior range and double the armor penetration so I would not call it a "Copy" but an improvement. How do you rate an Anti-tank weapon? Range - Panzerschreck. Armor penetration- Panzerschreck. Portability- Bazooka. I think based on range and twice the armor penetration the Panzerschreck wins.
I think we're looking at a "blurry" argument on whether the Panzerschreck was just a copy or an improvement over the Bazooka. Clearly, it was a superior weapon with regards to penetrating power and range. What the Allies had in their favor was the industrial might of the US where morfe Bazookas were produced over the Panzerschreck.
@@TaercEum Panzerschrek was based on the 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 "baby doll" which was a 140kg in weight breached weapon firing 88mm rockets from a carriage, it had recoil. It was developed to replace the 28mm squeeze bore gun at infantry platoon level (3 x 12 man squads to a platoon). Examples of the lend lease bazookas captured from the Russians turned up at the German Armies Kumsdorf test and evaluation firing range where Panzerfaust and Raketenwerfer 43 were also being tested. The Germans simply saw the advantages of the bazooka arrangement and adapted the Raketenwerfer 43 round by fitting an electrical primer so it could be fired from an open tube like the bazooka. They seem to have had in mind the Panzerfaust to be used by individual men at the squad level and the Raketenwerfer 43 at the Platoon level by 2-3 men. -RPzB.54 Panzerschreck was a much cheaper weapon (built to lower tolerances and lower accuracy) but much ligher. It gave the Platoon a 100m-150m range weapon at the time the Panzerfaust had a range of only 30m. As Panzerfaust got to 100m range and 150m range the Panzerschrek became less attractive.
Maximum range on paper is meaningless on the battlefield. Argument of superior range fail to take into account that a soldier is rarely going to have a line of sight out to 150 meter on the battlefield. And even if you did so does your enemy; you be would forced to move while under return fire after firing just one rocket because of the excessively more smoke from the rocket gives away your position. Penetration of armor is also not relevant because the tactics of both the Axis and the Allies was to target the flanks and rear of the armored vehicle - not the front.
@@JS-ob4oh A high muzzle velocity makes aiming easy. A panzerfaust 30 had a muzzle velocity of 30 m/sec so when firing at a target 30m away you have to aim 5m high, nearly 10 degrees. Realistically 20m was effective range where fall of was 2.0m and 4.0 degree elevation is enough. -A 100m ambush range is nice. Pace it out. It’s enough to hide in the edge of forest or 2 streets away so that escape is possible.
@@gunargundarson1626 i think by the time the U.S was doing its island hopping campaign , they ,along with their allies in the pacific ,knew what to expect of the Japanese
There is no better or worse really as long as they do their job. Most peps forget that Panzer IV and Stugs were the most used tanks not Tiger Phanter or King Tiger. If a Bozoka works fine agist thease upgrading to a panzerschreck alike just means in 99% of all use cases your lugung around unnessesary weight. Just saying from expirience luging around extra gear in tandem to your service weapons isnt fun and every gram counts especaly if its bulky.
Let me help you with your English - if comparing two items the correct term is which is the "better". If comparing three or more, the correct term is which is the "best". Remember - better of two, best of three.
Yes although the Piat was pretty basic in comparison at least you could fire it from inside a building easily and didn’t give away your position as much when compared to rocket launched projectiles.
It sounds like when the limitations of the pointy Bazooka round were identified, that was corrected right away. But the military was apparently then satisfied with both the advantages (such as lighter weight) and disadvantages of the weapon. Troops in the field no doubt rapidly adjusted to the limitations of the Bazooka. They probably made a point of not shooting at the frontal armor, but waited for the opportunity for a flank or rear shot. Nothing wrong with that kind of strategy. And if troops could carry an additional couple of rockets, that was a real advantage. And perhaps concentrating on production and distribution of the weapon ASAP and having an abundance of weapons and ammo was more important than some theoretical advantage of some other weapon. If production of the weapon allowed allied AND Soviet troops to use the weapon, would reengineering the weapon and perhaps limiting the improved version to American troops only have been worthwhile? In short, I see no reason to suppose that Americans made a poor decision to keep and use the Bazooka. No record of Soviet troops throwing Bazookas away and complaining about the "POS Yankee capitalist garbage."?
The Bazooka had serious limitations to the point Parton said as follows: “In a letter dated May 20, 1944, Gen. George S. Patton stated to a colleague that "the purpose of the bazooka is not to hunt tanks offensively, but to be used as a last resort in keeping tanks from overrunning infantry. To insure this, the range should be held to around 30 yards”.
In a letter dated May 20, 1944, Gen. George S. Patton stated to a colleague that "the purpose of the bazooka is not to hunt tanks offensively, but to be used as a last resort in keeping tanks from overrunning infantry. To insure this, the range should be held to around 30 yards. - source Wikipedia. The PIAT was a superior anti tank weapon. It could take out the Panther and did so at Arnhem.
Which of the anti-tank infantry weapons did you think was the best? The Bazooka or the Panzerschreck?
Welcome back! If you are new here make sure to hit subscribe to expand your knowledge on Military History and join the growing Premier History Community!
The bazooka was the most reliable, easiest to use, etc. but the armor penetration was just adequate, against more heavily armored tanks such as the Tiger, it needed to hit the side armor to reliably penetrate. Its still the superior weapon in 95% of circumstances.
The Panzerschrek had some advantages: Bigger warhead which achieved higher penetration in latter versions despite lack of copper, much higher muzzle velocity, reliable magneto ammunition from the beginning. Downside besides greater weight were: the use of black powder rather than diglycol rocket propellant meant the Pasteurizer made considerably more smoke than the Bazooka, early versions needed a face sheild since the rocket hadn't usually burned out completely before exiting the tube. The Germans had diglycol rockets but the propellant was apparently in limited supply. The Panzerschrek had simple iron sights which could be set to 250m. The bazooka had well made optical reflector sights that could be set to 600 yards. Despite the much higher muzzle velocity I suspect the cruder sights and tolerances cut into the Panzerschreks potential.
Gotta hand it to captured & reverse engineering, with added punch. Thnx for specs caliber differences/ weight
@@joekurtz8303 Check out the 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 and you’ll understand where the pazerschrek came from. It was developed to replace a 28cm squeeze bore gun
Panzerschreck.
Longer range and more effective rocket.
Best is hard to determine. The PanzerSchreck offered more performance but was nearly twice as heavy.
Both systems worked quite well. The US army determined that Bazooka M-1 wasn’t powerful enough for heavier armor, so upgraded to a caliber similar to PanzerSchreck.
Interesting if true.
The Schreck was only about 6lbs heavier than the M1 Bazooka. For the firepower improvement the weight was well worth it-the larger rocket however-was much more hazardous to the user as it produced a larger backblast and heat so intense the user had to wear a protective mask and poncho or risk face/body burns. Both projectors were desired by GIs/Landwehr but not for tank busting (that was of mixed value because of how unsubtle the rockets exhaust plumes were when they fired). They were liked for their use in cracking hardened shelters and bunkers more than tanks. The Panzerfaust was preferred by German infantry (and even Russian infantry, who used captured stocks whenever they could) because even though it was also very noticeable it was very light and simple and the user could easily evade right after discharging the Faust. The Schreck basically required you to abandon it...
@@capthawkeye8010 Yes, I was disappointed that the Panzerfaust was not a part of the analysis. I think in combat the simplest solution has the greatest chance of success. While the Panzerfaust had a shorter range, the poor accuracy of the Panzerschreck at longer distances meant that to have the highest probability of a tank kill, the operational effective ranges of both antitank weapons were quite similar.
US had orders of magnitude more Bazookas than Germans had Panzershrecks. Quantity has a quality of its own.
@@capthawkeye8010- But the ammo ALSO was considerably lighter and smaller, allowing support troops to carry more.
The Panzerschreck was better than the original Bazooka that it was based on. The USA had an even better version in production, the M20 Super Bazooka, but it arrived too late to see service in the war. It probably would have arrived sooner, but the USA didn't feel the need to rush things into service as fast as the Germans because, they weren't losing. As such, the bazooka did a good enough job.
The RPG-7 was based off a Russian review of the Panzerfaust, the Panzerschreck and the M20, integrating the elements that the Soviets found best designed.
N now the RPG become more popular among other anti tank weapon...
It was more powerful-it wasn't necessary better tho. The user had to wear a heat-resistant poncho to fire the weapon because the rocket motor on the Schreck gave off such intense heat it could burn the user. Like the Bazooka the smokey backblast was a problem and gave the weapon away after it fired. Also like the bazooka it was more popular as an infantry assault-weapon like for busting hardened shelters and bunkers than as an anti-tank weapon. The Panzerfaust was the preferred anti-tank weapon for these reasons and was mainly so successful because the Russians tended to attack right into the teeth of German Urban-Festung style fortified cities in order to capture them before the Allies did...
@@capthawkeye8010 By late war, the lower range and lower penetration power of the M-1 Bazooka was starting to become a problem, which is the reason that the US military's procurement department had issued a request for a replacement that had similar size to the Panzershrek. From that I think it is safe to conclude that despite the drawbacks of size, it was an incremental improvement over the original bazooka.
No one would field 40 ton tanks if a 20 ton tank could do the same job, but at some point it just can't.
@@capthawkeye8010 The issue of the Rocket motor forcing protective clothing (which on a side note was mainly goggles, but for a lack of Proper issue Goggles they had to make do with gasmasks) was A) largely dependant on the Weather and Rocket type used and B) fixed entirely with the addition of the Shield.
The weapon overall was much better than the bazooka, the greater Rocket velocity paired with a better tube design resulted in higher effective range and overall much better accuracy, the electric current generator meant the weapon could never run out of power (unlike the Bazooka that used batteries) and the Plug in connector on the rocket motors also meant a significantly faster reloading of the weapon.
Paired with a better designed warhead and the much higher penetration, its quiet obvious why it was so much better.
As for the part of "Anti infantry weapon" the Germans stressed a lot that the weapon was not to be used against infantry and would be largely ineffective in it, while it did happen, they where mainly used as Anti tank weapon and i havent seen any source that claims otherwise. The reason why the Panzerfaust was so much more popular, was because it was available in much greater quantities and didnt require a dedicated and well trained crew to operate.
Ah yes, Panzershrek
The Germans looked at what was a successful light anti-tank wepon and copied it. Like anyone else the question was "How can we make this better?", and so they did. Much like we, the USA, copied and modified the Mauser rifle bolt, or how we copied two German weapons to make our M-60 machine gun. There is a cliche that says something about copying is the greatest foum of flattery...be it so.
The M60 took from the fg42 and the mg42 and was worse than both
@@JohnSmith-lf4be ...and yet it is still America's 30 caliber machine gun...
@@normvw4053 Not really. Only Navy, Coast Guard and some reserve and special units still use it / have it in their armories.
@@patta8388 Still the 7,62 has better ballistics, penerative qualities, and range than the 5.56 will ever have. It's the nature of the beast. And now that our military has experienced the range short comings of the lighter round are now looking for a replacement cartridge. Don't get me wrong, the 5.56 NATO round has shown that it can do the job, it's limiting factor is it's range. That was never a concern with the M-60. That's why the Navy and Coast Guard still use it. Yes it was known as "the pig", but it did the job very very well.
@@normvw4053 I'm no expert on American weapons, but isn't the 240 better? It basically replaced the 60 in every role and force.
I also agree on the calibre, atleast for a machine gun. Was weirded out when I heard they replacing the good, old MG3 with a 5.56 chambered lmg
In the Osprey weapons book on the Bazooka they bring up a study that was conducted during the war using a captured German Panther tank. If I remember correctly when they tested both launchers on the damaged tank the results were more or less the same despite the size of the warhead.
Possibly an early Panzerchrek, they were improved greatly to nearly 7 inches penetration which is greater than any Bazooka. The US could afford to use copper in their HEAT warheads the Germans used iron.
It depends very much where you are hitting the tank. If you try to hit a Panther (80mm sloped armor) at the front it is difficult to penetrate with a weapon with a penetration of 100mm.
No GOOD AGAINST A MK2 TIGER ???and Us The BRITISH ???And CANADIANSFACED Most Of His HEAVY Armour ?😳And the SOVIETS DID too 😳EXCEPT the B of The Bulge g
"It's the Bazooka!"
"Nein, it's the Panzerschreck!"
PIAT & Panzerfaust enjoyers:
Also Szálasi-röppentyű
Hey, just want to say, your videos are what i've been looking for for a long time on here. Finally found a great modern history channel to chill to in the morning. Just a week ago when I discovered your channel and first heard "subscribe to reach more history lovers" I immediately did, so don't get rid of that and continue on the interesting subjects!
Thanks for the support Mt Athos, glad you’re enjoying the videos!
If the bazooka rocket could go through 100mm, then Tom Sizemore was clearly given the pointy version of the rockets in Saving Private Ryan...
This is a pretty common thing among public commentaries on armor piercing ballistics-almost all quoted figures are of "best possible performance" or penetration a given munition is theoretically capable of. In reality few munitions in ever performed as well as promised and the Bazooka's "100mm penetration" figures were no exception. The Tiger was far from the most well protected tank of the 2nd World War (for a heavy tank its protection was actually rather light) but GI's did indeed stop many Tigers and Panthers with Bazookas as the war went on and the weapon's bugs were cleared out.
@@capthawkeye8010 Capt, on one hand, that was a great reply. On the other, please allow me to remark that I was doing simple humor with my post.
To address your reply and not make you feel you wasted your time, however, I have to agree, of course. Even today, as a simple firearm user, you'll see ammo with certain specs in its box that most of the time, will fail to achieve, even if meeting the criteria allegedly used to test the product. A round velocity being one of the most common examples. Scope crystal quality or characteristics I'd say is another usually overstated point, albeit, not as commonly talked about.
In regards to the Tiger's armor, I'd mildly disagree. By the time it was introduced, it was without a doubt a heavy tank. As the Char B1 was in France in 1939, but just like the Tiger, not anymore as years went by. But I did mention a mild disagreement, not an entire one. That's due to the fact that even _"upon release",_ its side armor was indeed not impervious to everything. Moreover, as a matter of fact, remembering a particular paragraph in an interesting book I read over 20 years ago, one by the respected authors Hilary Doyle and Peter Chamberlain if I remember correctly, already a year after the tank was fielded for the first time, a "letter" was issued by the OKH, or maybe the OKW, my apologies in this detail, that stated that (translated and interpreted) "...Despite the Pz.Kpfw VI formidable protection (important not to go against neither the propaganda, nor troop morale), it is a vehicle that needs to be treated from now on just like any other armored one, so we'd strongly recommend (oh, the subtletly), to stop altogether (not so subtle here) with the performance of any reckless activity, as it is no longer a vehicle to take over a hill to simply take a look with impunity" (point shot across the bow straight and clear here).
Anyway! Hope I didn't bore you with the phonebook length message, have a good one!
@@hansvonmannschaft9062 I should have pointed out that yes I know you're joking-i'm replying sort of half-sarcastically to just about every comment on this thread. Anyway-the chief issue with the Tiger was that it was a pre-war design. Inherited from a design study conducted by Henschel in 1937-the Vk 30.01 and later 36.01. This meant that the Tiger's design was not drastically altered before it entered serial production in order to save time and it still incorporated a number of pre-war trends in German armor-like flat unsloped plating. The issue with this was offset by just lopping heaps of armor on the Tiger but that only worked for about a year before the Soviets began fielding the T-34/85 with a gun that could defeat the Tiger's dated protection scheme-and it was only an MBT. On the other hand-the Tiger's reliability issues are also usually overstated and as far as Heavy Tanks went its serviceability and parts lifespans were fine, (they were comparable to the Panzer IVH's later variants and items such as the final drive, transmission, etc were superior to the Panther's and IS-2's equivalents) it was just too damn heavy to tow if it broke down and so many were abandoned because of it.
It was no secret that the chief reason the Tiger was resurrected was due to the pressure to get the KwK 36 on the first tank that could carry it. Fun fact-although often claimed to be the Flak 18/36 88mm gun-it only shared calibers with that gun. The KwK 36 actually had more in common with the KwK 40 L/43 used on the Panzer IV-and was basically a scaled-up version of that gun, not really the Flak 88mm.
ya the pen on the bazooka was wildly unreliable. some times it struggled to pen the sides of armored cars, other times it penned the sides of tigers. for the most part, the m1 bazooka was kinda shit at its main AT jop (in the European theater) however the m9 bazooka was miles better.
You have to remember the Germans also had the Panzerfaust too. While not as good as there two it was effective against most allied tanks... there was certainly a pucker factor when going near cover in American Armor by late war.
You could reload the panzerfaust ?? But after fired the tube was disposable it was expendable maybe not as accurate as panzerscreck
Looking at just AT power, the Panzershreck is more lethal. However, there is a lot of utility in a lighter weapon since you've got to carry it all over and the lighter bazooka makes carrying a rifle more manageable. Saying the Panzershreck is better overall just because it's more powerful is like saying a Desert Eagle is better than a Glock 19.
The Panzer Shrek was definitely better at tanking out tanks, but the bazooka was definitely the most flexible launcher out of the two. Yes you obviously want your anti-tank weapon to be able to take out tanks like what it's intended to, but the bazooka is smaller which also allowed it to operate better as a weapon to take out infantry positions as well. Having weapon flexibility is definitely an advantage since you never know what situation you're going to be getting into.
USA: We have this bazooka!
Soviet Union: Nice! Give us some!
Japan: We like it, so we copied it!
Germany: So did we, but we improved it!
Britain: We have a springy bomb lobber!
"Nice! Give us some!"😂💀
Already made my day, thanks!
Then came the super bazooka
Was gonna say that I wondered why there was no mention of that, but my guess is that this was about WW2 weapons, and the M20 did not come along until after.✌
Panzerschreck looks cooler tho imo
Better is a relative term. It's about a particular side needing a weapon to fulfill a particular need. Both weapons filled the needs of their side so both weapons are equally good.
Bazooka 100% you got me on the weight comparison
More powerful does not equal better. The 100 mm of armor penetration of the bazooka was enough to handle almost anything in the Axis arsenal; the heaviest German AFVs, like the Tiger II, had thicker armor than that, and even then only from the front. The Panzerschreck's 180 mm of penetration was overkill; the most thickly armored Allied AFV of the war, the late-war variants of the Churchill, only had 150 mm of armor at the front. So what on earth did the Germans need a weapon that big and heavy for? That was the problem with a lot of German weapons and vehicles during the war: they wasted a lot of resources making equipment far more powerful than what they needed, and then wasted more resources on the logistics to support these monstrosities. The Allies generally started from the question: what is the absolute minimum we need to get the job done? So that was why the bazooka was better: it was actually designed for the job it had to do, and for the logistics system that was going to get it where it needed to go.
As an aside, you left out some of the improvements made to the bazooka during the war. They eventually got rid of the wire and put the ignition leads into the fins of the rocket, which would connect to electrical contacts on the inside of the tube, so the loader no longer had to mess around with wires, leads, etc. Also, they replaced the battery with an alternator, which the operator would activate by pulling the trigger, so that the operator no longer had to worry about the battery running out.
As we are possibly slipping into WW3 we still arguing about WW2
First, most of the time the bazooka was not used against tanks, but against machine gun nest or pillboxes. So the better mobility of the bazooka was much more important than the better armor penetration of the panzerschreck. In fact, the panzerfaust was found to be more effective than the panzerschreck because of the greater mobility on the battlefield. And in pacific, not that many Jap tanks and bazooka was more than enough to deal with them. In Europe, really Germans did not have near the number of tanks that Allies did and most of those were on eastern front. So for US forces, bazooka was much better than panzerschreck as was about 1/2 the weight. Also did not have backblast issue as rocket fuel was finished by time left tube, while not true with panzerschreck.
Of course the Panzerschreck was more powerful, being 88mm vs. 60mm for the bazooka! The bazooka was lighter, shorter, & you could carry more rockets. Both served their purpose.
Yes for low armour thete was panzerfaust
以反坦克武器來說，能夠打穿並造成足夠的傷害 (對裝甲or對陣地 )才是重點
以 巴組卡來講，100毫米的穿透早就足以打穿大部分的德軍裝甲，所以是優秀的武器
以德軍的坦克殺手來講， 他們需要面對的還有蘇聯的T-34、KV系列甚至IS重型坦克，美軍的 JUMBO、潘星、以及各式各樣的裝甲，的確需要更好的火力，而他們也的確做到了
就我個人的觀點來看，坦克殺手無疑是更好的武器，因為目標是坦克，你需要更遠的射程、更好的穿透性、更高的傷害能力，確保"每一發砲彈都發揮出有效的打擊" 而且面對"更危險的目標 、更裝甲的坦克"，有更好的成功率
english pls?
On paper the Panzerschreck seems to have an edge over the Bazooka, but that really is not meaningful in practice. For example range, except out in the wide expanse of the Eastern Front, you are not going to have a line of sight out to 150 meter (490 feet). Coupled with the fog of war and weather conditions, a soldier would be lucky to see out to 200-300 yards. Because of the excessively more smoke produced by the firing of a Panzerschreck rocket, it gives away the location of the fire team and that means they must move each time after they fired a rocket. Not only is there more smoke from the Panzerschreck rocket, the smoke is toxic so the weapon cannot be fired from a building or bunker without protections for the fire team such as gas mask, and gloves. The advantage of the Bazooka was that the US was able to field a large number AND upgrade them as the combat environment changed. Both versions (especially the early models) had some serious problems such the rockets exploding; both the Bazooka and the Panzerschreck's rocket were sensitive to heat. The early models of the Bazooka's battery were unreliable and several reports of rockets exploding in the tube upon launch because the bore of the tube was of the wrong gauge cause the rocket was catching in the tube and detonating.
You make some great points, but in reality the American M1 Bazooka was ineffective against Germany's heavy tanks. That's why the US came up with the M-20 'Super' Bazooka at the end of the war, which was never deployed because the war was almost over. In Korea, the M1 Bazooka was almost useless against North Korean tanks.
Except that the Germans got to fight a lot in the wide expanse of Eastern Front, whereas the US obviously didn't. So for the Germans facing Soviet tanks, the extra range from Panzerschreck was a helpful benefit. And secondly, somewhat related to the first point, in the Eastern Front most defensive positions used by the Germans against Russian attacks were long trenches and anti-tank ditch dug in the open ground, where buildings were few and far between, if not already blown to pieces. So Panzerschreck cannot fired from enclosed space was again much less issues for the Germans.
And lastly in urban combats that eventually took place, the Germans found using Panzerfausts with regular troops was much better than special Bazooka or Panzerschreck Team. In the chaotic urban battles, the AT launcher team could very likely be under fire from enemy infantry up close, and it would be much preferable if they were armed with infantry weapons along with Panzerfaust, rather than dedicated launcher like Panzerschrecks plus a pistol perhaps.
The shaped charge was not invented in the USA though... thats a whole other video, lol. 💥
👍🏽
I would go with the Bazooka because of its versatility not only as a ground launched weapon but as air launched weapon primarily on fighters and attack aircraft which mounted them on 3 tubes on each wing configuration. The M8 Bazooka was used as air to ground rocket weapon role alongside the famous 5 inch HVAR rockets.
The American bazooca was better. as it was safer and simpler to operate, lighter to carry and easier to mass produce.
If the Bazooka could penetrate up to 100 mm then it could penetrate the frontal armor of a Panzer IV but probably not a Panther, correct? However, it could penetrate the side armor of both, correct? I do like it's lighter weight and it's range is about the same. I'm thinking the Bazooka may have worked better for the Germans than for the Americans because it would not have a hard time penetrating the armor of most Allied tanks other than heavy Soviet tanks. Conversely, the Panzershreck would have been the better weapon to have against Panthers and Tigers.
It depends on the angle of attack.
It depends on the angle of attack.
tbf though the US wasn't really seeing Panthers and Tigers that often
Btw, the last variant of the panzerfaust could cut through 300mm of armor and had a range of 100 m so I'm not sure how the panzerfaust would be superior. Maybe more accurate and easier to aim?
If I was going up against tanks, the panzerschrek for sure. Just bunkers, the bazooka was lighter to carry
The Panzerfaust was lighter still and if you had a 12 man squad you could easily give 6-8 members a panzerfaust. The Panzershrek was meant to be used at platoon level (3 x 12 man squads to a platoon in German army) . PIAT was also a Platoon level weapon. Not sure how bazookas were issued in the US Army which had 4 squads to a platoon.
Fun fact - the early bazooka rocket was based on Swiss anti-tank rifle grenades. The Swiss military had, and remained doing so long time, an important place for the use of heavy rifle grenades in its doctrine. The US bought a batch of Swiss anti-tank rifle grenades for testing, but found out they were incompatible with US service rifles. In the early proof of concept testing for what became the Bazooka, a rocket motor was added to those Swiss rifle grenades.
It all depends on the doctrine how these two are used. Being on the defensive and having ambush tactics are great for the panzerschreck, the weight would be horrendous if always on the move.
The bazooka obviously did great against the Japanese tanks and against fortifications like MG nests. Portable enough due to its weight to move around on the battlefield without it slowing you down.
In a letter dated May 20, 1944, Gen. George S. Patton stated to a colleague that "the purpose of the bazooka is not to hunt tanks offensively, but to be used as a last resort in keeping tanks from overrunning infantry. To insure this, the range should be held to around 30 yards.”
The PIAT was a superior weapon.
2,127 Rocket launcher, 2.36", M1 & M9 Lend Leased to Britain plus 171 LL to Canada. page 4
Hyperwar Lend Lease shipments Ordnance--General Supplies
@@nickdanger3802and the point is?
What does a Panzerschreck do?
It schrecks Panzer!
4:54 Context.
First video ever on youtube that i used the speed up- function for. 1.25x is a perfect normal video pace, highly recommended
The Panzershrek was heavier but more powerful
The Bazooka was designed for light but effective use that anyone could really just use, it was also made to be cheap and mass produced much like the M4 Sherman
In the end, the bazooka was probably the superior one due to its strategic advantages even if the Panzershrek was the better weapon
During the War in Afghanistan many were carrying the AT4, one use only, M72 was brought back in due to weight and you could carry 2 verse 1 AT4.
Some applications for a hard hitting munition was needed, 90mm fit that as well, but terrain dependent munitions and weapons is by need, not design.
The reason the German weapon had a shield was a slower burn rate for the propellant. The American version was done burning by the time the projectile left the tube. The German version was still burning when it left the tube thus throwing hot games into the gunners face. I suspect the slow burn rate gave more power, but rocket thrust out side the tube might have bad effects on accuracy. It would be interesting to compare them ballistically.
What was the cost of each one?
Having the superior tank destroyer would mean little if it cost 5 times as much as the other one.
Can you say something about PIAT anti tank gun
Panzerschreck if I am not mistaken had a longer range and more penetrating power.
After M1 the M9 Bazooka arrived which fired 76mm rockets. Making it dangerous. And in 1950s arrived the M20 Super Bazooka firing 90mm rockets.
I have read bad things about the 2.36 inch bazooka, particularly in Korea
14 vs 25 lbs. As a former infantryman, 11 extra lbs (+ the weight difference in rockets) matters.
All I know is when the America found out the effectiveness of the Panzerschreck, they rushed to make the super-bazooka while the British’s spigot launcher had similar results to the panzershreck.
US ordnance was going to make a bigger version either way, given the performance of the M1 version against heavier armor.
Tactical situation is also important. Coming across any German armor was a rarity for US forces, and it was rare that infantry were in contact with attacking Panzers and there were not Tanks or TD's in the immediate vicinity. For the Ostfront it was a different story and the situation of infantry having to fight off armor alone was an every-day reality, not a relatively rare contingency like it was for the Americans.
The Bazooka was light enough to be airdropped with paratroopers and with enough ammo to take out a couple dozen armored vehicles. The Panzerschreck was too heavy to be carried during a jump. The US Ordnance Board forsaw this drawback, even when developing the Super Bazooka.
What about the Panzer Faust and the first Patron
We need to consider how many people got shot in the face shooting the bazooka
So how does the Panzerfaust compare?
The M1A1 Rocket Launcher's missile expended its fuel while still within the tube, rendering it practically invisible in flight. The Pazerscheck's missile continued to burn fuel for several meters past the end of the tube, which is why the launcher was equipped with a blast shield. This limited the operator's view of the target, making situational awareness more difficult. Furthermore, the flame of the missile's exhaust and the smoke trail also exposed the Pazerschreck's crew to counterbattery fire that the M1A1's crew would otherwise escape.
The Wehrmacht was generally dissatisfied with the Pazerschreck compared to the shorter-ranged Panzerfaust for serval reasons. Firstly, the Panzerfaust was an individual weapon with no need for a loader. Secondly, because the Panzerfaust was essentially a handheld mortar rather than a rocket, it left no smoke trail and had little backblast, thus making it easier for the operator to remain hidden from counterattack. Most importantly, the Panzerfaust operated with a simple percussion primer. It required no batteries or magneto. Its inherent lack of accuracy made expensive optics superfluous. (The Panzerfaust was aimed with a simple V-notch aligned on a small nub on the projectile.) Consequently, these characteristics made the weapon disposable and very cheap compared to the Panzerschreck.
The Allies captured and used many Panzerfaust weapons in Europe. However, they saw no need to issue their own version. The Allies were winning with the weapons they had, and the usefulness of the Panzerfaust against bunkers and fortifications was extremely limited compared to the M3 105 light howitzer, the standard U.S. bunker-buster of 1944-45, and the M1A1 Bazooka. Because of its mobility and effectiveness against fortifications, the M1A1 Bazooka was the superior weapon for the Allies. The Allies faced many more bunkers and fortified strong points than they faced German armor, which is why they preferred the short-barreled M4 Sherman tanks to the 76mm Shermans from D-day until the last weeks of 1944.
The M3 75mm gun installed in the earlier marks of the M4 Medium Tank was better at fighting the German opposition as it actually existed in Italy, France, and the Low Countries. At ranges under 1000 yards, the normal situation in the enclosed countryside of Western Europe, the Sherman could and usually did defeat Panzer IVs, Panthers, and even Tigers. However, after more German armor was diverted from the Eastern Front to the West in late 1944 onwards, the need for the 76mm Shermans and 90mm Pershings became obvious, as did the shortcomings of the M1A1 as an anti-tank weapon, prompting the development of the much-improved M20 "Super Bazooka" in 1944.
Which one was the most accurate?
Panzerschreck is better but the volume of the US Bazookas probably wind the day
the PIAT is punching air right now
In practical sense bazooka and Panzerfaust have left greatest legacy. Panzerschreck is part of bazooka's legacy. RPG-7 is child of Panzerfaust and bazooka and Carl Gustav is descendant of Panzerfaust.
Panzerschreck was an improved bazooka. M3 bazooka was an improved Panzerschreck. .
What about the PIAT? Certainly, effective at breaking my dad's shoulder. Flaxen Saxon
I watched the video so you’d tell me which is best!
What about the Panzerfaust?
a few Panzerfausts aren't bad either.
I once saw a documentary about the Korean War. The first Americans who were sent to stem the North Korean Army tide fired their Bazookas at NKA T-34 tanks. Not a single T-34 was knocked out.
Did they still use the 60mm version at the start of the Korean war?
Apparently.
@@mardiffv.8775 Because the 90mm version would punch through the armor.
They were using the earlier model that fired 2.36-inch rockets. Just days later they received the more powerful 3.5-inch bazooka. Supposedly the Chinese then reverse-engineered the 3.5-inch version.
@@Page-Hendryx Thanks for the info.
Imagine going back to 1940 and giving the Germans the RPG-7.
Then proceeds to get reverse-engineered by every combatant. It would certainly make tanks in urban environments even more screwed than usual, but for the most part it would be overkill for the kind of threats man portable AT weapons of the time were designed to fight against. For example, the vast majority of the vehicles you're going to be targeting are going to be tanks that would've been taken out or disabled by either a Bazooka or 'Schreck anyway, or a thin-skinned truck that definitely never stood a chance no matter what.
Ìn 1945 germans had prototype 200m panzerfaust similar to rpg7
As an American I have to go with the home team's bazooka. However I have to admire the Germans copy of our weapon system.
Subtitle: Panzer Shrek
Hey you didn't cover the panzerfaust, PIAT, type 4 and type 5 rocket launchers, yes japan had rocket launchers and I believe the type 4 was used in Okinawa.
The Panzerschreck may have been very heavily influenced however, it had superior range and double the armor penetration so I would not call it a "Copy" but an improvement. How do you rate an Anti-tank weapon? Range - Panzerschreck. Armor penetration- Panzerschreck. Portability- Bazooka. I think based on range and twice the armor penetration the Panzerschreck wins.
I think we're looking at a "blurry" argument on whether the Panzerschreck was just a copy or an improvement over the Bazooka. Clearly, it was a superior weapon with regards to penetrating power and range. What the Allies had in their favor was the industrial might of the US where morfe Bazookas were produced over the Panzerschreck.
@@TaercEum Panzerschrek was based on the 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 "baby doll" which was a 140kg in weight breached weapon firing 88mm rockets from a carriage, it had recoil. It was developed to replace the 28mm squeeze bore gun at infantry platoon level (3 x 12 man squads to a platoon). Examples of the lend lease bazookas captured from the Russians turned up at the German Armies Kumsdorf test and evaluation firing range where Panzerfaust and Raketenwerfer 43 were also being tested. The Germans simply saw the advantages of the bazooka arrangement and adapted the Raketenwerfer 43 round by fitting an electrical primer so it could be fired from an open tube like the bazooka.
They seem to have had in mind the Panzerfaust to be used by individual men at the squad level and the Raketenwerfer 43 at the Platoon level by 2-3 men.
-RPzB.54 Panzerschreck was a much cheaper weapon (built to lower tolerances and lower accuracy) but much ligher. It gave the Platoon a 100m-150m range weapon at the time the Panzerfaust had a range of only 30m. As Panzerfaust got to 100m range and 150m range the Panzerschrek became less attractive.
@@williamzk9083 Hey - I can't argue with that! 😎👍
Maximum range on paper is meaningless on the battlefield. Argument of superior range fail to take into account that a soldier is rarely going to have a line of sight out to 150 meter on the battlefield. And even if you did so does your enemy; you be would forced to move while under return fire after firing just one rocket because of the excessively more smoke from the rocket gives away your position. Penetration of armor is also not relevant because the tactics of both the Axis and the Allies was to target the flanks and rear of the armored vehicle - not the front.
@@JS-ob4oh A high muzzle velocity makes aiming easy. A panzerfaust 30 had a muzzle velocity of 30 m/sec so when firing at a target 30m away you have to aim 5m high, nearly 10 degrees. Realistically 20m was effective range where fall of was 2.0m and 4.0 degree elevation is enough.
-A 100m ambush range is nice. Pace it out. It’s enough to hide in the edge of forest or 2 streets away so that escape is possible.
I think the panzerfaust was more effective than either of these
Which WWII Anti-Tank Launcher Was BETTER?
I mean, if they were REALLY effective, we wouldn't be using the tanks at all.
I'm surprised you chose the panzerschreck.
because it's the most comparable to the Bazooka?
Just the name bazooka makes it much better
I wonder how many Shermans and T34s the Panzerschreck destroyed in total.
I prefer the Panzerfaust. Mass-produced and effective.
I love Shrek 😂
You could knock out a WW2 Japanese tank with a tin opener launched from by a catapult.
You could take out a whole U.S battalion sleeping on an island with a mute Japanese person armed with a knife.
@@gunargundarson1626 i think by the time the U.S was doing its island hopping campaign , they ,along with their allies in the pacific ,knew what to expect of the Japanese
Without watching the video i would say the Panzerfaust 250.
Limited choice. Predictable though?
panzershrek!
For demolition range was much further
The U.S. Army had one filled chemical/gas and a HE as well!
Panzerschreck
Pander shreck!
Panzerschreck was vastly superior to the Bazooka it was reverse engineered from.
these have ot be fighting for 2nd place. everyone knows the piat was the best. it didn't even have any backblast!
The upgraded version of the US bazooka came for the Korea war.
There is no better or worse really as long as they do their job. Most peps forget that Panzer IV and Stugs were the most used tanks not Tiger Phanter or King Tiger. If a Bozoka works fine agist thease upgrading to a panzerschreck alike just means in 99% of all use cases your lugung around unnessesary weight. Just saying from expirience luging around extra gear in tandem to your service weapons isnt fun and every gram counts especaly if its bulky.
bazooka with 1000 rounds
Let me help you with your English - if comparing two items the correct term is which is the "better". If comparing three or more, the correct term is which is the "best". Remember - better of two, best of three.
Sad piat noises
I will take the on that does not Require batteries. and if you know which one that is you know you're weapons sir/mam.
The bazooka.
Panzerschrek was a copy of captured bazookas
that is what he said in the video yes
Maybe but it was way better.
Bazooka looks like it was made cheap
The bazooka was more versatile but for performance and raw power the Panzer cleans up easy.
The Panzershrek "smashed" plenty of Soviet tanks, without a doubt.
Personally i think PIAT was the best
2,127 Rocket launcher, 2.36", M1 & M9 Lend Leased to Britain plus 171 LL to Canada.
page 4
Hyperwar Lend Lease shipments Ordnance--General Supplies
Simple answer?
Who Won?
Thank you.
Yes, because the anti tank launcher is the sole reason the Allies won
Whot no PIAT LOL!
Yes although the Piat was pretty basic in comparison at least you could fire it from inside a building easily and didn’t give away your position as much when compared to rocket launched projectiles.
It's the PIAT
The bazooka became its American made
Panzerschrek was definitely better
It sounds like when the limitations of the pointy Bazooka round were identified, that was corrected right away. But the military was apparently then satisfied with both the advantages (such as lighter weight) and disadvantages of the weapon.
Troops in the field no doubt rapidly adjusted to the limitations of the Bazooka. They probably made a point of not shooting at the frontal armor, but waited for the opportunity for a flank or rear shot. Nothing wrong with that kind of strategy.
And if troops could carry an additional couple of rockets, that was a real advantage.
And perhaps concentrating on production and distribution of the weapon ASAP and having an abundance of weapons and ammo was more important than some theoretical advantage of some other weapon. If production of the weapon allowed allied AND Soviet troops to use the weapon, would reengineering the weapon and perhaps limiting the improved version to American troops only have been worthwhile?
In short, I see no reason to suppose that Americans made a poor decision to keep and use the Bazooka.
No record of Soviet troops throwing Bazookas away and complaining about the "POS Yankee capitalist garbage."?
The Bazooka had serious limitations to the point Parton said as follows: “In a letter dated May 20, 1944, Gen. George S. Patton stated to a colleague that "the purpose of the bazooka is not to hunt tanks offensively, but to be used as a last resort in keeping tanks from overrunning infantry. To insure this, the range should be held to around 30 yards”.
In a letter dated May 20, 1944, Gen. George S. Patton stated to a colleague that "the purpose of the bazooka is not to hunt tanks offensively, but to be used as a last resort in keeping tanks from overrunning infantry. To insure this, the range should be held to around 30 yards. - source Wikipedia. The PIAT was a superior anti tank weapon. It could take out the Panther and did so at Arnhem.