Backblast? -1 reply

Please wait...

ctz

FH Devolver

50 XP

16th May 2004

0 Uploads

655 Posts

0 Threads

#21 13 years ago
Archimonde0_0;4196269and BF2 Has this feature

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us...




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#22 13 years ago

They all had drawbacks but I still think the Panzerfaust ended up being the winner. for what it suffered in range it made up for in power, ease of use and quantity supplied to troops. They even designed an AT mine using the panzerfaust warhead. (issues with the firing mechanism so it was scrapped). Had the War lasted longer We'd talk about the Panzerfausts like we talk about the RPG series.

Although it was 1 shot alot more troops had them (not special teams). It was also a very simple design so very little could go wrong compaired to the other weapons.

The other shaped charge AT weapons all had bigger drawbacks. PIAT as was mentioned was Rather Useless (Design is quite interesting but they should have found a different way to launch the projectile). Imagine having to do this in the heat of battle because the weapon didn't blow the spring back properly.

Bazooka (M1) had a nice range but it was too small to actually penetrate as much armor as the panzerfaust. It required a battery to fire it, which means that if you ran out of juice you were pretty useless. Later model increased size of warhead so it was a bit better but clumsier to carry and still needed 2 men to operate. (2 pages of operating instructions).

Panzershreck Was based off of the bazooka. The germans made it a bigger diameter so that it was more effective against tanks than the bazooka was. It had a magneto that fired it so there were occasions that there wasn't enough electricity produced to fire it. (But better than a battery because it doesn't die.) Anytime there is electricity involved in a weapon there is a greater chance for something not to work.

The bazooka and panzershreck both had to use electricity to light the rocket. the panzerfaust just had a cap that set off a "Pouch" of powder so it was rather simple and idiot proof.

now I know most of you know this stuff but I had a word quota to meet this week...




wjlaslo

I've defected to the Pies

50 XP

12th August 2004

0 Uploads

2,762 Posts

0 Threads

#23 13 years ago
Stray03;4196465The bazooka and panzershreck both had to use electricity to light the rocket. the panzerfaust just had a cap that set off a "Pouch" of powder so it was rather simple and idiot proof.

Just reading this post made me remember something... A Brief History of Blowing Up Tanks By Zack Parsons The Panzerschreck (tank terror) was a reengineering of captured American bazookas. The panzerschreck fired an 88mm rocket that was superior to the projectile launched from the bazooka. Unfortunately for the soldier firing the weapon, the rocket contrinued to expel superheated exhaust for the first few meters of its flight. The Germans had not yet developed a human face capable of enduring the exhaust from their rocket without injury. In lieu of tougher faces, a fireproof shield with a mica viewport was added to the panzerschreck. This addition placed the shield in the direct path of the exhaust and turned the recoilless weapon into a weapon with a tendency to recoil its shield directly into the face of the gunner. Despite this unpleasantness, it was extremely effective and was issued to special tank hunter detachments, presumably along with bandages for their repeatedly broken noses.