Panzerfaust

[ajmac]

It crossed my mind that the said weapon was wide spread according to the news reals as the war dragged on after D Day, was it responsible for a considerable number of allied tank losses in NW Europe or was it just German propaganda?

[antarmike]

Quiote Wiki"

In the Battle of Normandy, only 6% of British tank losses were from Panzerfaust fire, despite the close-range combat in the Bocage landscape. However, the threat from the Panzerfaust forced tank forces to wait for infantry support before advancing. The portion of British tanks destroyed by Panzerfausts later rose to 34%, a rise probably explained by the lack of German anti-tank guns late in the war and also the terrain where the fighting took place.

In urban combat in the late war in eastern Germany about 70% of tanks destroyed were hit by Panzerfausts, or Panzerschrecks. The Soviet forces responded by installing spaced armour on their tanks from early 1945 onwards, despite it being easily removed by exploding shells or Panzerfaust hits. Each tank company was also assigned a platoon of infantry to protect them from infantry-wielded anti-tank weapons.

Edited May 19, 2011 by antarmike

[Tony B]

Considering the RPG is the direct descendent of the Panzerfaust. It was a very effective weapon! The spaced charge concept employs the Munro Effect. That was first discovered by an American civil war officer. The Germans developed the concept , they employed shaped charges agains Fort Ebn Emael on the Belgian border. Effective homemade hollow charge projectiles have been made by many terrorist groups over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroe_effect

[antarmike]

According to published figures, Germans claimed to have destroyed 12 541 tanks on Eastern Front between January and April 1944. Of those, 8130 are listed as "cause known", and of these:

 

-262 by Faustpatrone/Panzerfaust

-88 by Panzerschrek

-67 by Hafthohlladung (ie. magnetic shaped charge AT grenade)

-22 by hand grenade

-78 by Tellermine

 

Might have been somewhat different during last months of the war, when there were lots more urban combat.

 

Statistics show that most tanks were killed by anti-tank guns, followed by other tanks and finally infantry. Despite the millions of Panzerfausts and other hand-held infantry AT weapons produced by Germany during WWII, the German authorities only awarded 18,500 silver tank destruction badges (destruction of a tank by a hand-held weapon) and 400 gold tank destruction badges (destruction of 5 tanks by a hand-held weapon). That's in any theatre.

Edited May 19, 2011 by antarmike

[eddy8men]

you often see pics of ww2 allied vehicles with spare track welded on the hull and turret this was not applique armour but a direct attempt to counter the shaped charge warhead, a kind of early bar armour.

 

eddy

[antarmike]

Here is a table from an archival document with breakdown tank and SP guns losses of the 1st Belorussian Front by type in 1944 (TsAMO f. 233, op. 2309, d. 165, l. 224; by courtesy of Dmitry Shein)

http://i057.radikal.ru/1103/e1/235be69b7a8c.jpg

According to the table out of 2235 tanks and SPguns lost from March to December 1944, only 5 were lost to panzerfausts, 31 to air bombs, 15 to aircraft cannons, 42 to mines. The most part of the it others were destroyed by guns (including tank and SP guns). As the text of the report says according to a sample study about 90% of all heavy and 77% of all medium tanks losses were caused by 75-88-mm guns. Then it's commented that although panzerfausts were employed in giant numbers, their overall effectiveness was not very high: in operation "Bagration" only 3% of losses were caused by this type of weapon, and up to 9% (after stabilization of the front). The report explains it saying that successful hits from a close distance required too much guts.

Mines were a more significant factor than it can appear from irrevocable losses statistics, but in most cases the damage inflicted by them was repairable.

 

To give another example of distribution of losses, tank and SP-guns of the 3rd Guards Tank Army from 12 January to 12 March 1945 (Vistula-Oder and Silesia operations) were:

damaged in combat - 1349 by artillery and panzerfausts, 55 by mines, 75 by aircraft

total write-offs - 530 to artillery and panzerfausts, 13 to mines, 13 to aircraft.

Numbers are from the history of the army by Shein.

One can see that mines and airplanes were of relatively small importance.

 

Or another example 15 April to 2 May 1945 (Berlin operation) losses of the same army were (all losses/write-offs):

to artillery fire - 266/119

mines - 17/5

aircraft - 1/0

panzerfausts - 129/76

technical losses - 87/0

bogged down - 3/0

This table is more informative, the short conclusion is that despite fighting in urban environment, guns accounted for more lost tanks than panzerfausts. Yet the panzerfausts were more deadly: the percentage of write-offs (irreparable) was 59% as opposed to 45%in case of guns.

Edited May 19, 2011 by antarmike

[Tony B]

Mick, are the staistics for total destructon or are mobility kills counted?

[steveo578]

In the west a report on British AFVs knocked out in the last 10 weeks of the war in NWE showed that 22% had been destroyed by hollow charge weapons -which by default would be mostly Panzerfaust with smaller numbers falling to Panzershrek and probably a few odd and sods -for example Pupchen.

 

The reason why the Panzerfaust was less evident in Normandy was that its production only started in late 1943 and that teething troubles particularly with the fuse mechanism requiring sometimes somewhat bazaar testing of each fuse prior to use -added to that the panzerfaust tended to be sent fighting units rather than those on garrison as the original weapon did not do well in storage.

 

As the war continued improved weapons came into use including the PF 100 which started production in the autumn of 1944 at the same time it became evident that the skill base of the 3rd Reich’s soldiery was declining so a cheap relatively easy to use weapon that could substitute:-\ for the more conventional and weapons requiring service skills such as artillery, mortars and anti- tank weapons, in the last 6months of WW2 the PF became almost a weapon of choice -probably more being used against none armour targets -just as its Soviet descendants the RPG2,7 and 16 have become ubiquitous in conflicts since 1945 -again often used by a comparatively unskilled militia.

 

 

The most common form of anti-tank weapon in German service in the latter part of WW2 was the 7.5cm Pak40, 7.5cm KwK40 and 7.5cm Pak39 etc in all its configurations towed SPG and tank.

[steveo578]

eddy8men

you often see pics of ww2 allied vehicles with spare track welded on the hull and turret this was not applique armour but a direct attempt to counter the shaped charge warhead, a kind of early bar armour.

A bit debatable, IMO the fitting of tracks to vulnerable sections of a tanks structure was learned from the Germans who used it on the toe plates of their tanks during the battle of France as a protection against KE rounds. Additionally they also placed track across the forward section of turret roofs of Pz3 and 4. This was probably used because of the singularly effective Polish A/T rifles such as Marosczek wz.35 in the 1939 campaign and later the British Boys mk1 and Soviet Degtyarova PTRD-41.

 

Later German tanks moved the links to cover more vulnerable areas even Tigers had track links placed on the turret flanks especially around the very vulnerable loaders station due to the proximity of ready rounds. The British took to fitting track plate as supplementary armour with a relish and even the IGAFV became involved when trying to find out why troopers were fitting track links on their tanks with such abandon. According to an article by David Fletcher the ingenuity of the fitments was only matched by the pseudo-scientific nonsense that the troops waxed lyrical to justify themselves:laugh:. Most track link "armour" was afixed only to act as an additional thickness it was rare that anyone fixed plates in a manner to act as stand off armour but occasionally some were fitted to Churchill turret fronts as a Vee pattern which might have acted as a spaced armour as would the fashion for swinging links- alleged to deflect KE projectiles:nut: -although eventually a kit was devised for Churchills to give stand off armour -mainly for service in the far east, it never saw service.

 

Bar armour is a totally different concept although I suppose von Thoma shields -schurzen made out of wire mesh sheets could be regarded as an early example by default. The purpose of bar armour is to disprupt the structure of a hollow charge shell before it explodes, not pre explode it before it contacts the main armour -alternatively to capture (snag) it. If a RPG7 explodes against wartime style schurzen armour (stand off armour) the penetrating flame lance will still penetrate the armour.

 

The first use was on the Swedish S tank with a bar system sometimes refered to as a bedstead or school gate, rarely seen on in service tanks it consisted of a series of steel bars vertical at the extremity of the glacis -it was necessary as unlike a turret tank the S tank was unable to take up a hull down firing position.

[eddy8men]

just going on what i had read in a book, i can't remember which one, it was either "tank tracks" the story of 9 rtr which was a churchill regt. or "troop commander" the story of 8th king royal irish which were cromwell.:coffee:

[steveo578]

No worries mate, probably one of the most contentious subjects around but even in the 1960s the Israelis who tend to give crew survival a high priority still fitted a track stowage rack on the M51 Isherman turret re-enforcing the loaders station so although discounted by many some still gave merit to the matter of add on armour.

 

Tanktracks is a really good book.