Thread 63980510

>can be pulled with one hand, even a child can use it
>100 meter range possibly improvable
>200mm piercing capacity (tiger tanks only had 100mm of frontal armor)

It is literally better in every way than the early American bazoukas of the 50s, why didn't they just replicate it?

>>63980510 (OP)
>100 meter range
With a parabolaic trajectory

Because the bazooka was better.

>>63980510 (OP)
Panzerfaust had different versions designed for 30, 60, 100 and 150 meters. That in particular seems like an improved 30 (leaf sight).
The Panzerschreck was actually bad because they reusing a slow-burning propellant projectile and required the shield. But that was the best "long range" grenade launcher they had, the Panzerfaust 150 couldn't replace it before the end of the war.

>>63980510 (OP)
same reason some american boomers buy overpriced american trash cars instesd of Superior German cars.

>>63980517

you would go deaf and blind after using it, it's better to shoot twice and not be stunned than to shoot once and feel like a grenade exploded 5 meters away

>>63980510 (OP)
Winner don't learn

holy fucking esl

Unless the attack was carried out with cover and support from the kill zone, it would have been a near suicide attack.

>>63980510 (OP)
>why didn't they just replicate it?
Dogma. Yes, literally dogma. But it could be even worse, they even designed an ATGM with a sub-caliber warhead, the TOW 1.

>>63980510 (OP)
>over 8 million produced
>saw virtually no use post-war
>not even a single recorded instance of Nazi werewolves or holdouts blowing up a truck or something with them

Huh?

>>63980710
Nigga, the Panzerfaust 150 was modified to create a re-loadable RPG, the Panzerfaust 250, and soviets used it to create the RPG-2 after a few changes,

>>63980510 (OP)
they would spiral in some conditions and lose trajectory

>>63980510 (OP)
It was so superior that the Germans ended up immediately copying the Bazooka for no reason

>>63980727

I mean the original production you silly billy, not the Soviets' reverse engineering them. Even if all Soviet tanks lost in WWII (over 80,000) was destroyed by a Panzerfaust and assuming it took ten shots on average to destroy them, you'd still have over 7 million leftover.

>>63980789
I love this thing's goofy big sister

>>63980821
Idk, a plausible wouldn't a real answer.
>Panzerfaust weren't safe with all that black powder and most conflicts after WWII didn't have as many tanks as Soviets invading Germany.

>>63980540
FIRE ZE PANZERSCHREK!

>is utterly retarded in your convoys path
Imagine having to strafe Americans with more fifty cals than your entire battalion has rifles in an old trainer with black powered rokkit lobbas

>>63980789
I'm pretty sure Germany didn't have a bazouka before it ceased to exist in 1945

>>63980678

It looks like a shooting accident

I also just thought that the much larger smoke plume from the bazoukas made them much more noticeable after firing

>>63980913
But I am Das Tired!

>>63980680
i actually believe this. i read or heard somewhere. that after ww2. the us military and higher ups etc. knew the German MG34 and MG42 system of machine gun was legitimately the best machine gun in the world at that time. they didnt choose it because it was a German gun and kept the browning lol

>>63980993
>black powered

>black powder rifle
I sleep
>black power rifle
WHOA

>>63981384
That's some megafudd lore. We started developing a replacement for the Browning in 1946 (which eventually became the M60) and our jumping off point was literally slapping an MG-42's feed system on the side of an FG-42

>>63981510
>It took until 1960 to basically poorly imitate a weapon from 1942

>>63980680
>, they even designed an ATGM with a sub-caliber warhead, the TOW 1.
?

>>63981560
Ayo why they got wood in it

>>63981534
>>63981510
seriously the mg42 is a better gun than a m60 lol

>>63981560
The missile body is 6" (152 mm), the warhead is 5" (127 mm). And the first thing to be changed for the TOW 2. Imagine degrading the missile by 18% of penetration when the turret of newer enemy tanks and modernized tanks already had protection levels to stop it, at least several zones of the turret from the frontal arc. That didn't happen with French missiles that could penetrate any soviet tank from any angle since the 1950s.

https://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-tow.html

>>63981606
>The missile body is 6" (152 mm), the warhead is 5" (127 mm).
Sounds like you're mogged twice then

>>63980510 (OP)
>muzzle velocity of 148 feet per second
This is why

>>63980521
Except it wasn't which is why James Gavin (named after Mike Sparks favorite vehicle) had his troops acquire as many captured Panzerfaust as they could.

>>63981237
It's called a Panzerschrek and much more powerful than the light bazooka.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/weapons/panzerschreck.html

>>63981673
Shrek is Jewish. That's why it's bad.

>>63981663
Grabbing extra AT that also work well in busting fortifications will never not be a good idea, but the Panzerfaust is way less practical weapon. 100 meters was considered short range to the bazooka, with 200 being considered fairly standard engagement range, 300 long but feasible and 500 extreme. Meanwhile the vast majority of Panzerfausts had a max range of 30-60 meters, with the late 44 ones finally hitting 100 meters. Anything beyond that never reached meaningful deployment status, while the Bazooka was in service in 42.

>>63981857
>will never not be
*Will always be

>>63980789
Panzerschreck! Time to unpimp his ride!

I'm afraid of booby traps when reusing explosives, so I'm looking for Lugers for loot.

>>63981384
>what is M60

>>63980510 (OP)
>>63980521
who's gonna tell them?

>>63980789
> Germans ended up immediately copying the Bazooka
which then 'mercia tried to re-copy (M20 Superbazooka)

>>63981919
>still can't fire as far as the bazookas ideal firing range

>>63981534
the M60 was a combination of different systems from different guns, including both the MG42 and FG42, as well as american guns

>>63981957
> still can't fire as far as the bazookas ideal firing range
the 150 in Panzerfaust 150 refers to meters and not yards doughbeit

>>63981971
Yes and? Training guides at the time gave 200 meters/yards (don't remember at this point) being a range at which point targets could reasonably be engaged, while the sights went out to 400 with a corresponding decrease in accuracy. The point being that as a practical weapon the bazooka fit neatly between the low/high mixture of Panzerfaust/schreck in a way that afforded far more flexibility than either of the German systems. It weighed roughly a third of the weight of the Schreck loaded, which permitted them to be distributed at squad level compared to the Schreck being attached to a platoon. Meanwhile they didn't require the extremely hazardous proximity that the vast majority of Panzerfausts did.

Of course the Bazooka certainly wasn't perfect, the price paid for the convenience of such a light, long range AT weapon was a rather small warhead that would struggle to penetrate heavy tanks from the front and post-penetration effects could be underwhelming.

>>63981913
A piece of shit, what about it?

>>63981970
Yes, hence "poor imitation" with its hybrid mess

>>63982000
M1A1 sight went out to only 300 yards
M9 and M9A1 apparently went out to 650 yards but this was only for harassing fire
Panzerfaust 100 sights went out to 165 yards; Panzerfaust 150 sights went out to 220 yards

either way I don't really see why the Panzerfaust 150 should have a lower ideal range (against stationary tanks) when it had a higher muzzle velocity

also the bazooka was about 8 kg with warhead while the panzerschreck was about 14 with warhead
(+ there was the RPzB54/1 which apparently was 1.5 kgs lighter than the normal Panzerschreck)
yes, bazooka was easier too handle also because it was smaller / shorter, but that didn't cause the difference in the way it was distributed

>>63982164
> that didn't cause the difference in the way it was distributed
like afaik the
> Schreck being attached to a platoon
is from the late 1943 manual (it appears that by mid 1944 the approach was slightly changed thought it is hard to find info in exact info)
so it can be a combination of all kinds of factors like German ToE having its focus on the eastern front, the lack of panzerschrecks by this point (by this point the version with the blast shield wasn't even around yet) and / or the attempt to get the most value out of the weapon by assigning it to special "Tank-Destroyer"-Battalions that could get way more value of of it than a regular rifle-man

>>63982085
they werent trying to imitate anything, they just got features that they liked out of each gun

>>63980510 (OP)
Because the Bazooka had an effective range of 140 meters and a maximum range of 300 and a penetration of 102 mm. It's not as much as the panzerfaust but like you said, the Tiger only had 100 mm of armor and not every tank was a Tiger. The fat head of the Panzerfaust made it difficult to improve and after the M20 super bazooka came out the Panzerfaust lost all appeal.

>bazoukas
>bazoukas
>bazoukas
>bazoukas
>piercing capacity
>pulled with one hand

I hate ESLniggers so much.
t. ESLnigger

>>63982652
> a penetration of 102 mm [...] Tiger only had 100 mm of armor and not every tank was a Tiger.
now keep in mind that not every shot hits at 0° and that add-on-armour was a thing as well


> and after the M20 super bazooka came out the Panzerfaust lost all appeal.
the M20 didn't enter production until 1948 also it - like all the other bazooka variants - saw a very low production number when compared to the Panzerfaust
less than 450k Bazookas got produced during WW II and less than 5k M20s saw service with the South Koreans. Meanwhile more than 400k Panzerfausts got sharted out per month by late 1944
yes, they were single-shot and basically the ammunition itself (at least until the 150 / 250 variants) but it does make a difference wether every second soldier has one or just every second squad, maybe not for the Americans during WW II or Korea but in some "Cold-War-Gone-Hot" it would have made a difference

Red Pill me on AT-Rifle grenades

> don't need to carry an extra weapon with you
> decent enough penetration
> longer range than early bazooka / panzerfaust
I guess having to screw on a grenade launcher on top of your rifle kinda sucks but I think it outweights the disadvantages
unironically makes me question why they bothered with early Bazookas or even the Panzerfaust at all
(yes I realize picrel is post-war)

>>63982164

The first bazoukas were complex weapons to maintain and required a soldier whose specialized role was to fire them, the Panzerfaust were more like improved grenades that anyone could easily use

In a post-war urban combat context the ease of use of the Panzerfaust clearly made it superior

>>63980540
Nah the reason why the Panzerschreck needed a shield is because the rocket had a continuous burning motor vs the Bazooka only using it for inertia inside the tube.

>>63982751

Smaller models were still used by the french army to open doors not long ago, each grenade fired was equivalent to about 10,000 shots fired by the rifle

>>63982751
They tended to have a lot of duds especially when encountering stuff like schutzen, cages, or anything improvised like sandbags and logs also tended to turn the fuse into a dud.
Meanwhile a bazooka actually was more effective against a target with schutzen.

>>63981931
Superzooka doesn't need a shield to not melt its user's face so it's not a copy.

>>63982751
I guess slightly better trajectory, penetration and rage also grenade launchers are not that cheap either
also what
>>63982767
said
> Users of the M8 needed to be careful to fire it with the M1 Carbine's stock braced sideways and cushioned on a sandbag, as the recoil could crack or break the stock.

>>63982751
You also need to carry blanks for it, and the rounds are not exactly small.
There's nothing it can do that an underbarrel can't do better.

>>63982751
On paper it's the best light at in infantry favored terrain(close range), everyone can use and carry a lot of, fire from any angle with low signal but there is a lot of fiddling, one of which directly kills you. It is already at the limit of acceptable recoil to develop more velocity. the range also limits how much mutual support it can give.
Insert grenade, gas block off for the semi auto, fuse unpin, and cock and chamber a blank either stored in the tube or comes in separate clip/mag if no bullet trap. Cock the gun again for second round.
Anything that simplify it comes with some non-standard adaptor gadget and gun parts.
Germany had the spin stabilized one with shooting cup which has its quirks.
40mm rifle grenades are nicer faster and more accurate but it's half the payload.
Personally I think rifle grenade should be carried by every rifleman so that they can project HE, smoke, illumination and what have you like rope for communication or hanging weight, lead weighted nets for drones. The fiddling can be reduced to 40mm level by using the bullet trap, a tab at the gun barrel muzzle to block gas when inserted, or the gun would naturally block gas when seeing sustained pressure more than what's needed to cycle, and fuse set to ready by sustained gas pressure in the stem. The same warhead can be modular for drone use.

>>63982751
> don't need to carry an extra weapon with you
You do need to carry blank rounds with you and remember to load blanks
> decent enough pen
Against armor cars, light tanks etc then yes. The moment you start fighting medium tanks+heavy tanks then you need side shots or fire the big boi rifle grenades which cuts down the effective range vs the earlier smaller caliber 3cm-4cm grenades.
> longer range than early bazooka / panzerfaust
Depends on what round you fire, see above. The actual effective combat range can be drastically lower for a rifle grenade compared to the panzerfaust in combat. And if the user is really fucking stressed out then the effective range for both a rifle grenade and bazooka will be the same, which is less then 10 meters for a 100% hit chance and at that point you are better of with the weapon highest pen.

If you look at my image (source is filename) then the german Gewehr-Panzergranate Failed to pen a T-34 from the front and rear and only penned from the side, fired from a range of 10 meters. The KV-1 was completely immune, for that you need the Gross_Gewehr Panzergranate and in the end the germans developed two additional rifle grenades, the Gross Panzergranate 46 & 61 but at that point you might as well use a panzerfaust which has a higher pennetration
>Gross Panzergranate 46,61 does 90 mm and 130 mm respectively while the panzerfaust 30 gross 200mm against armor.


Regarding lethality of a rifle grenade vs a panzerfaust , in Steven Zalogas book "Duel, Panzerfaust vs Sherman" page 48

>US Army Ordnance officers felt that shapedcharge warheads needed at least 2in (51mm) of penetrating power beyond the energy needed to penetrate the armor plate in order to cause significant damage within the tank. To be effective against a tank such as the M4 with its 90mm (equivalent) frontal armor required a warhead with 140mm penetrating power (90+50mm) to have lethal internal effects – well within the capability of even the small Panzerfaust.

>>63982780
>schutzen, cages, or anything improvised like sandbags and logs also tended to turn the fuse into a dud.
only cages worked, and only against slower panzerfaust 30s

schurzen and sandbags could actually make things worse
the reliability issues of mechanical fuzes came from them being too insensitive and too easily sheared off by sloped surfaces
but schurzen and sandbags could actually cause the shaped charge to detonate when it otherwise wouldnt or increase the penetration by detonating it slightly further away and causing it to detonate closer to its optimum standoff
they can also slow the projectile down just enough so that it makes better contact with the targets armor and trigger it when it otherwise would have been a dud

>>63982969
>>63982751
If you aren't using a bullet trap design, you are literally, factually doing it wrong.

>>63980510 (OP)
Isnt the LAW just the same concept as a single use anti tank weapon

>>63983020
the LAW is pretty identical in terms of purpose
but the LAW fires an actual rocket rather than using a recoilless gun principle
it is, in essence, a bazooka that has been shrunk down until it was a panzerfaust

ironically, the M20 bazooka was replaced by a recoilless gun

Compared to the straight-line trajectory of a rocket, the curved trajectory of a Panzerfaust or rifle grenade seems tricky.
It seems that the advantages of being able to target the top of a tank or fire from inside a trench are not enough to make up for this.

>>63982751
>>63982969

To continue, if we look at rifle fired HEAT grenades vs later rocket propelled or disposable black powder tube launched HEAT warheads introduction time and compare that to the ever increasing number of more heavily armored tanks on both fronts
>T-34, KV-1 variants and later T-34/85 and IS heavy tanks on the eastern front
>Shermans, churchills and cromwells on the western front
>All having depending on version 70-100mm frontal protection with some late war heavy tanks having from 100mm to almost 200mm of frontal protection and roughly 80~100 side protection

The panzerfaust and panzerschreck are the only weapons that are gona be effective for the germans when dealing with allied armor. You need 160mm-200mm of penetration to deal with allied armor, even with a less then ideal hit rate in combat you are better of with a panzerfaust then a rifle firing the gross panzergranate 61 just for the chance to kill a tank, from the front hitting the tickest possible spot. Rifle grenades just cant compete without going really silly wide heavy caliber grenades for that time period.

>>63982990
k but was discussing AT Rifle Grenades anon?
Not the panzerfaust?

>>63982720
If you wanted platoon level anti-tank weapons you had Rifle Grenades. They didn't have the punch of a Panzerfaust but they were cheaper and easier to field. By the time anti-tank rifle grenades became useless the M72 LAW was adopted.

>>63980510 (OP)
What is the LAW?

>>63983431
The M72 is a Rifle Grenade with a propelling charge, the problem was the launcher not the grenade.

>>63982762
You just said the exact same thing in a slightly different wording

>>63983444
A miserable little pile of codes! But enough talk, HAVE AT YOU!

>>63981534
Occasionally Americans have serious trouble with converting from metric to imperial. The Hispano is the other such famous example of this happening.

>>63981566
to give the enemy splinters

>>63983108
>and roughly 80~100 side protection
fake and gay

>Grenades were propelled by a standard-issue rifle round, in 6.5×52mm Carcano, with a standard bullet. This was loaded individually into the breech. Inside the launcher was a bullet trap, a steel plug between the chamber and the grenade, with four gas ports around it.This made the lower part of the chamber into an expansion space, giving a high-low chamber pressure effect, as used by modern 40 mm grenades.
>The launcher was permanently attached to the carbine, but only one could be used at a time. It used a unique 'shared bolt' system: to use the grenade launcher, the carbine's bolt was removed from the receiver of the carbine and installed in the launcher. A single trigger worked both weapons, depending on where the bolt was installed.

>>63984290
>What is the up armored kv-1?
>What is the IS series
>What is the jumbo?
>What is the churchill heavy tank?

I think you need read my post again, im not talking specifically about the sherman tank, im talking generally about all tanks on the allied side, which includes the sherman series but also all the heavy tanks.

The IS series which uses a combination of cast and rolled armor has about "80~100" side protection, from actual measurement it can even jump up to 130mm at some spots
>https://community.battlefront.com/topic/121576-is-2-thickness-of-gun-mantlet-armor-measured/

>-the thickness of other parts of armor (the hull) is in accordance with known data. For the older hull, the upper front is 120mm cast, the slanted part 60-70mm thick, lower front hull 100mm thick cast, sides 90mm. The newer hull with single piece nose - upper front 100mm thick cast (NOT 120mm), lower front 100mm, the front-side parts of upper hull up to 135mm thick and gradually becoming thinner on their way back, to 90 or 100mm (I forgot to check) where they are welded to the rear 90mm RHA plates. Lower side hull 90mm. So I can confirm that IS-2m upper front hull plate is 100mm thick for cast front-hulls. So probably it's made from 90mm plates in RHA-made front hulls. Other thing I can confirm is that front-side belts of IS-2m upper hull are thicker than 90mm, they are up to 130mm thick. Unfortunately I didn't check them for older-hull IS-2 model from Krakow. Will do that on occasion.

Just try killing one of the IS tank with a rifle grenade, or the ISU self propelled gun tank from the side, you are statistically unlikely to kill and penetrate with one round fired even at close range simply because the armor is that thick.

>>63980510 (OP)
Because it's range and payload was shit.

>>63981931
>M20
>copy
Uhhhhh no?

>>63985695
>payload was shit.
The Pzf 60 had similar penetration to a late 1960s M72 LAW but far better post-penetration effect (even modern standards).
The Pzf 150 was the same of better than a Super Bazooka, RPG-2 and it could be useful until the late 1960s.
Only weapons considerably heavier like the M20/CG 8.4cm had better penetration.

>>63985762
Cool. Now try that against sloped or spaced armor.

>>63985744
>In October 1944, after receiving reports of inadequate combat effect of the M1A1 and M9 launchers and their M6A1 rockets, and after examining captured examples of the German 8.8 cm RPzB 43 and RPzB 54 Panzerschreck, the U.S. Ordnance Corps began development on a new, more powerful anti-tank rocket launcher, the 3.5-inch (90 mm) M20. However, the weapon's design was not completed until after the war and saw no action against an enemy until the Korean War.
Even during the first tests during 1942 there're complains about the mediocre power of the 60mm grenade but the development of a larger Bazooka only began after seeing Germans' "CopyBazooka".
>monke see
>monke doo
Twice.

>>63980546
This is bait
Germans lease machines now

>>63981606
I'm guess what they did is they accommodated a target warhead weight, and then someone else (subcontractor?) provided the "optimized HEAT package" that was indeed optimized for penetration but not cross-optimized to the specific diameter as well. Yeah its a fuckup.

>>63985770
> spaced armor.
WWII spaced armor improved the penetration of the Pzt
>t against sloped
Still capable of penetrating, Germans used a blunt nose from the start because unlike the US they did understand that a pointy tip like the Bazooka was an error. Their fuze required far more work though, using an inertial fuze for a lot velocity grenade was indeed an error partially fixed in the Pzt 60.
Only very sloped armor would give problem to a Pzt, but the same armor would ricochet any non-piezo design, but that is a common problem in all AT grenades pre 1960s.

Only the US had problem to understand that a AT grenade needs a blunt nose instead of a pointy meme.

What was the cause of the malfunction of 60mm bazookas at the beginning of the Korean War?
Could the explosives have deteriorated to the point where the HEAT effect was completely eliminated after about five years of storage?

>>63985762
>The Pzf 150 was the same of better than a Super Bazooka

The panzerfaust 150 actually had the same penetration as the panzerfaust 30-60-100, it used a more efficent design to achieve it. The super bazooka did 280mm (11 inches) against armor.

But on a different note do you know how much explosive filling a panzerfaust warhead had?
According to the book "Duel, bazooka vs panzer battle of bulge 1944" and this forum that links to the super bazooka manual, specifically the third one
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/unguided-rocket-public-release-operator-and-maintenance-manual.58430/

>>The normal bazooka had 0.5 pounds of pentalite (0.22 kilo) equal to 0.83 pounds tnt (0.37 kilo)
>The super bazooka had 1.93 pounds of composition B (0.87 kilo) equal to 2.56 pounds of tnt (1.16 kilo)

https://www.jaegerplatoon.net/OTHER_AT_WEAPONS1.htm
>Year 1936 Captain Kaarlo Tuurna, who served in Engineer Battalion (Pioneeripataljoona) started testing explosive charges against armour. He came to conclusion that 500 grams of TNT (trinitrotoluene, the de facto standard military explosive of that time) was enough to break 12-mm thick armour plate if pressed against it. The conclusion was that satchel charge with explosive charge corresponding 800 grams of TNT was the smallest practical useful explosive charge size for antitank-grenade to be used against armoured vehicles. This was closely equal to bundle of six old German M/1917 stick hand grenades:

>6 x stick hand grenade M/17 á 125 grams of TNT = 750 grams of TNT

The super bazooka has more then twice the power to break a 12mm steel plate with explosive force alone making it suprisingly decent at demolition work. I know the panzerfaust was used to attack bunkers and other hard targets but I dont know how much explosive filling it had.

>>63986031
The Catalog of Enemy Ordnance removed the page of the Panzerfausts but suomis (they didn't modify it like swedes) report it like:
Klein: 400 g "Comp. B" 46.6 % TNT, 53,4 % Hexogen
Panzerfaust 30/60: increased to 800 g

The US reported the Panzerschreck:
>8.8cm R.Pz. B. Gr. 4322. This fin-stabilized rocket projectile … has a maximum effective range of 165 yards. Eight and one-half-inch armor penetration has been obtained in static tests. … The bursting charge is Cyclotol (41.2% TNT, 58.8% Cyclonite) weighing 1 lb., 7.2 ozs. ~ 660 g

And yes, germans left (swedes modified the Pzt for best penetration) a lot of potential for better penetration in the Panzerfaust, the hole was huge tho, 4-5cm of diameter instead of 1-2 cm of grenades like the PG-7.

>>63986159
Alright so using
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#Relative_effectiveness_factor

To calculate tnt equivalence then
>klein equal to 532 gram tnt or a bit more then 4 german stick grenades
>panzerfaust 30/60/100 equal to 1064 gram of tnt or 8 german stick grenades
>panzerschreck with cyclonite also known as Hexogen (RDX) equal to 1056 gram of tnt or 8 german stick grenades

Damn that is actually really potent, panzerfaust 30-60-100 and panzerscheck have almost the same explosive force as the super bazooka, makes perfect sense why you would fire them at bunkers, pillboxes, sandbag walls and other hard targets. I know the soviets captured alot of panzefaust and reused them immediatly to break german fortifications, soviet combat engineers carrying a fuck ton of them.

Unlike tanks bunkers cant move so you can just peek, point and fire a panzerfaust instead of crawling in a ditch to throw a satchel charge with your arm.

>>63980510 (OP)
>Why were the panzerfaust anti-recoil gun systems abandoned for American bazoukas?
They weren't. The Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust were used at the same time and (a newer version of) the Panzerfaust is still used today, though it's closed to an RPG.

>>63986031
>>6 x stick hand grenade M/17 á 125 grams of TNT = 750 grams of TNT
The comparison seems kinda retarded since the whole point of HEAT rounds is that the explosion is guided.
6 Stick hand grenades did not have that luxury.
In other words, you need less TNT in a shaped charge.

>>63986391
His point is the blast, the overpressure inside a building. Under that circumstance the only thing that matters is explosive mass.

>recoiless weapon
>has recoil

>>63986401
>looks inside
>no cat staring

>>63986391
Well I was mainly thinking of useage against bunkes etc. If you manage to shove a grenade inside a bunker then you will kill or wound the guy inside. If you manage to shove 8 grenades inside or the explosive force of just one panzerfaust launched from 30 meters away then you are gona kill him even harder and stun the other dudes 10 meter deeper in the bunker complex.

The bazooka may have been developed (slapped together one night) for AT, but it was ultimately used to great effect against fortifications/emplacements instead. The US never managed to issue a decent AT recoilless rifle until decades later, since the super bazooka was a failure.
The Shrek and Panzerfaust were the result of reverse-engineering Bazookas captured in the early stages of the war, and had larger warheads better suited for the AT role.

>>63981384
It’s funnier than that, actually. We tried converting some MG42s to 30-06, but didn’t bother to lengthen the receiver, so the guns beat themselves to death and were unreliable, so the project got shelved

>>63987314
The M60 and M240 are loosely based on the MG42.

>>63987824
Yes, on its belt feed system which has nothing to do with operation of the rest of the weapon.

>>63985677
Sherman and T-34 were absolute majority of Allied tanks.

>>63988549
That is not my argument, if you go back and read
>with some late war heavy tanks having from 100mm to almost 200mm of frontal protection and roughly 80~100 side protection
Then im talking specifcally about heavy tanks, not shermans and T-34's.

I'll even break it down for you in this post, my argument is that the panzerfaust + panzerschreck has a capability which none of the german rifle grenade have, which is the ability to penetrate and kill ever single possible armored vehicle that was fielded by the allied nations which include heavy tanks that were not the majority of the allied tank fleets.

If you are a german infantry man part of a tank hunting team tasked with stopping a group of soviet heavy tanks that just broke through the frontline along with T-34's then you want the ability to kill both types of tanks, even from the front.

Rifle grenades are so lackluster in performance that sand filled jerrycans mounted on the side of shermans cant stop them from penetrating
>"The protection of the thinner side armor of the M5A1 light tank and M4 medium tank remained a technical challenge because there was no simple way to attach sandbags. Another firing test was conducted on July 28 with spaced armor and jerrycans filled with sand. Unit records do not describe what type of spaced armor was used, but this may in fact have been a reference to the jerrycans themselves rather than an additional layer of steel armor. The test found that the improvised jerrycan armor was effective against rifle grenades but that it did not diminish the degree of penetration by the Panzerschreck rocket projectile. Following the test, the reports were forwarded to the FUSA Armored Section which was starting to show interest in this idea due to the number of losses to Panzerschreck strikes during Operation Cobra."