Was the Bazooka any good? Why didn't they just copy the Panzerfaust?

>>64034576 (OP)
More range, reloadable.

>>64034576 (OP)
We already had this thread. At least come up with new shit thread ideas. Keep it original, if not interesting.

>>64034583
what use is more range when it's ineffectual at close range?

>>64034576 (OP)
>Why didn't they just copy the Panzerfaust?
The germans copied the American bazooka because of how great it was

>>64034576 (OP)
How do you look at Americans being perfectly happy with the bazooka, Russia requesting tons of them, and the Germans, copying them with the shrek, and conclude that the German design was better, and Americans should’ve copied it. The normal Wheraboo playbook here would be to call the LAW a panzerfaust copy and take credit for it or something. The panzerfaust was a menace to tanks, but was much harder to use because of its significantly shorter range. If you had an overabundance of operators, it was probably the better weapon to hand out to conscripts or Volksstrum, but America and Britain were both very “steel over flesh,” and a design that kept the operator safer would have been more appealing. A longer range weapon is also going to be more tactically flexible, and is going to allow more firepower to be available to one user, because not only was it reloadable, but it could more often be fired from a range in which the operator could safely reload it. We know that there was fairly significant research and development, going into infantry anti-tank weapons throughout the war, since the bazooka was updated multiple times, so it’s not like it was an area where America was simply not paying attention. They clearly cared a lot, but they clearly liked their design better. In fact, late and postwar development of recoiless rifles took infantry anti-tank capability in the opposite direction of the panzerfaust, being even more focused on range and reloadability than the bazooka.

>>64034761
Wah wah wah. In Korea the Norky T-34s rolled straight over the US infantry firing Super-Bazookas.

>>64034802
and the chinese regularly destroyed shermans using satchel charges and anti-tank grenades in both their civil war against the KMT and in Korea
Clearly both the bazooka and panzerfaust were wasteful western wunderwaffes that were kickback schemes with no practical application, we should all start strapping anti-tank mines on our chests and start ambushing tank convoys in the ways of the jihad.

>>64034576 (OP)
Effective range, and it could kill anything smaller than a Panther

>schizo can't understand understand that different countries have different preferences because in the end humans backing certain designs are the main factor deciding what'll be in service
>or is just baiting again...

>>64034802
A Panzerfaust 100 had 200mm of pen with a 100m effective range. A Super Bazooka (M20A1) has 280mm of pen with 300m effective range. Explain to me how copying the goddamn panzerfaust would have helped at all you mong.

>Was the Bazooka any good?

no
(eight shots to kill a tiger, 3 shots to kill a panzer 3)
> Why didn't they just copy the Panzerfaust?
because it was single shot
and americans hate single shot because they can't aim at moving targets. hence why holly wood has to have all its targets still.

it was only effective at taking out half tracks and quad cannons who had little to no armor.
btw i fought the soviets who used the export version of these things. total dog shit.


#facts

>>64034576 (OP)
The good thing about the Panzerfaust was that it used black powder to throw the projectile. That was something they could still cook up at that point.

>>64034888
The M20 saw action 5 years later...

>>64034888
More like 300 ft. 300 m is absurdly optimistic because those smoothbore launchers had an effective range barely better than their flight speed.

>>64034576 (OP)
>Why didn't they just copy the Panzerfaust?

We did, 20 years later

>>64034576 (OP)
Didn't we have this thread like a week ago? The Bazooka is better.

>>64034957
So... a football field?

>>64035037
>polaroid photo scanned on a flattop scanner with chiller font
kino

>>64034761
> The normal Wheraboo playbook here would be to call the LAW a panzerfaust copy and take credit for it or something.
Yeah right man, thats absurd, the LAW is a fin stabilized mini bazooka with-
>>64035037
Oh. Nevermind.

>>64034929
Okay? The guy brought it up. An M9 Bazooka (which predates the PzF 100 by a couple months) still has a longer effective range. The final version of the PzF 150 and 250 were BOTH reloadable designs, the 100 was the last issued version to ever be a single shot, just to counter the claim from >>64034929 that given an extra 5 years the PzF would have been better than the M20 somehow. The germans clearly saw the 100 as the limit of single shot black powder launchers. Rockets flew faster, had less felt recoil, and continue to be developed today long after black powder had been totally shelved as propellant.

>>64034957
You realize every contemporary bazooka had a faster payload than its panzerfaust equal?
M1 Bazooka (1942): 265 ft/s
Faustpatrone (1943): 98 ft/s
M9 Bazooka (1943): 265 ft/s
Panzerfaust 60 (1944) 148 ft/s
Panzerfaust 100 (1944): 200 ft/s
M20 Super Bazooka (1944): 321 ft/s
>>64034929
The M20 was designated and existed in 1944, it had the same range but less pen (267mm) which is still superior to the PzF 100’s 200mm.

>>64034910
>no (eight shots to kill a tiger, 3 shots to kill a panzer 3)
If you think that's bad youre a complete retard.

>>64035131
>a had a faster payload than its panzerfaust equal?
And? Now check the official ranges vs the ratio range / muzzle velocity:
Pzt 30 - 100 ft (1.0)
Pzt 60 - 200 ft (1.3)
Pzt 100 - 330 ft (1.65)
Suomi reviewed some versions of the Pzt and they said in general the German official range was too optimistic but as a general rule the effective range is between 1.0 and 1.3 its muzzle velocity, The Pzt 100 had an effective range of 150 ft, 200 ft at best, the 300 ft range isn't realistic.
The Panzerschreck was faster than the SB but the official range was only 150m, very close to the range would expect for its muzzle velocity. The Carl Gustav, RPG-2, RPG-7, M72 LAW have an effective range equal to 1.0 (unrotated grenades) to 1.3 (rotated).

>>64035131
>) which is still superior to the PzF 100’s 200mm.
And? germans weren't optimizing for max penetration but for general effect, if you want to see the true potential of that Panzerfaust check the Swedish modification for penetration: 350-400mm. They main change was the fuze (to a spitback on a probe).

>>64035131
Designation isn't the same as in service.......


>) which is still superior to the PzF 100’s 200mm.
And? germans weren't optimizing for max penetration but for general effect, if you want to see the true potential of that Panzerfaust check the Swedish modification for penetration: 350-400mm. They main change was the fuze (to a spitback on a probe).

>>64035178
I understand this is probably multiple different people, but the result feels like goal post moving. The first guy said that the bazooka was heavily liked by America, which I think is true. He was rebutted to by a guy who said that the bazooka didn’t do well enough against tanks. That guy was rebutted to by someone saying that the bazooka is better against tanks than the equivalent panzerfaust, which is almost certainly true, and now you’re saying that actually the panzerfaust has an edge against things other than tanks, so its decreased effectiveness against tanks doesn’t matter. Sure, maybe, but I think that the guy implying that the Panzerfaust would have performed better against Nork T34s is obviously wrong, since it was shorter, arranged, and had less penetration. I personally agree that the panzerfaust, at basically every stage, was a superior anti-infantry grenade launcher, and due to its larger warhead, sizes was probably a better weapon against buildings or medium hard cover, assuming you could get within range. But tanks are extremely dangerous, moving, heavily, armored targets. The weapon that has a higher velocity, a longer range, and superior penetration sounds preferable in 90% of cases. Remember that velocity and accurate range are going to not only extend the limits of the weapon, but also increase the chance of hitting weak points, while within range, especially against the moving target. At 100m a Panzerfaust 100 is going to be at the limits of its capability and much slower than an M20 well inside its comfortable range reaching the target 50% faster.
Say, we suppose that the panzerfaust, in fact, had greatly increased potential over the bazooka, like you mentioned with the Swedish model. The United States probably wouldn’t have had much reason to believe that, during the war, given in every single year of the war they had a more capable antitank weapon than the German ones they were seeing.

>>64035197
The M20 got its designation in 1944, official adoption in 1945, and superceded the M9A1 in production in 1948. I don’t actually see why combat service matters here, because again the OP asked why Americans weren’t copying the panzerfaust. Even if they weren’t using it, if Americans were certain that they had access to the M20 in 1944, and they thought it was better than the Panzerfaust, which it is on paper as an anti tank device, they would have no reason to copy the panzerfaust. This thread isn’t about which one is better, it’s about why Americans didn’t copy the panzerfaust, and if they had a gun in the works that was better, which the M20 certainly is in many ways, they wouldn’t copy the panzerfaust. It’s that simple.

>>64035215
> The first guy said that the bazooka was heavily liked by America, which I think is true.
And yet some people suggested a larger version during the initial tests of the M1. I think the US Army was actually retarded with their decisions during the 1935-1950 and they refused to field better versions even if they knew they could do better. Another examples were the gimped HE shell of the 76mm or the (SAP) shell for the 37mm. Good examples of "bad by design".

>He was rebutted to by a guy who said that the bazooka didn’t do well enough against tanks.
Nose problems aside they had limited penetration, meanwhile the Panzerfaust had ENOUGH penetration.

>That guy was rebutted to by someone saying that the bazooka is better against tanks than the equivalent panzerfaust, which is almost certainly true, and now you’re saying that actually the panzerfaust has an edge against things other than tanks, so its decreased effectiveness against tanks doesn’t matter.
For urban combat it had more HE, but both were good. The bazooka had the obvious advantage of being in the Allied side and less smoke.

Panzerfaust and Bazooka are two different types of AT launchers, why are people arguing as if they were the same?
One's a disposable tube meant to be spread around the troops, other's a weapon for dedicated AT personnel.

>>64035237
> OP asked why Americans weren’t copying the panzerfaust.
Why didn't soviets copy the Bazooka instead of the Panzerfaust? Why did Swedish stopped using the Panzerfaust and chose instead the heavier and rifled CG? Why did Germany developed a new RPG that is similar to the original Panzerfaust?
Because: >>64034872

>>64035131
>>64035105
>>64035037
>>64034888
thats the wrong comparison. The bazooka and the Panzerfaust are very different weapons. compare it to a Panzerschreck if you actually want to discuss something and not bait around the whole day.

Also post foreskin

>>64035245
Take your pick
>ignore pathetic range until latest models in '45
>ignore single shot vs. reusable
>ignore time period before German infantry had any squad level AT while Allies did
>make any comparison to modern systems imaginable, but only in the Panzerfaust's favor