>infantry anti-tank weapon >75mm L/48
Even putting aside the fact that OP was clearly intending to talk about MANPATS, I'm 80% sure the L/48 was only used in vehicle mounts.
It was inaccurate and short ranged.
Sure it could blow up tanks but the design philosophy around it was that the weapon will be as cheap and disposable as its wielder.
Panzerschrek was solid but an overkill.
Piat and Soviet AT rifles were technological dead ends.
Bazooka has the balance of both mobility and firepower.
I agree.
But the reason why I say it's an overkill is because the idea of having infantry face a tank frontally is suicidal.
You'd either have them flank the tank or hide. Then, what use is 200mm of penetration if the infantries are going to ambush the tank? The bulkiness does not help. Not especially if the tank is guarded by enemy infantries.
Moreover, one could just hit and disable the suspensions and the crews would most of the time flee.
>You'd either have them flank the tank or hide.
good look doing that in the open fields of eastern-central Europe. Having a big frickoff weapon that can kill a heavy tank frontally made perfect sense.
>the idea of having infantry face a tank frontally is suicidal
Good luck raising the morale of the average soldier when you tell him "Yeah our so called "anti-tank weapons" actually only work if you hit the tank from the side and at close range and the weapon is also inaccurate". Everyone will tell you to frick off and go fight your war yourself with your trash weapons.
If you can't kill the tank at 50-100m with a frontal hit, it isn't an anti-tank weapon, simple as.
Bazooka had a fairly low charge diameter and a finicky battery ignition system. Panzerschreck was more unwieldy but had more penetration and a magneto igniter like later bazooka variants would have
Only people will small penises prefer the bazooka.
Not even memeing. You basically announce to the world >Hey, it's me, your boy skinny-penis
When you write stuff like that. 193 of 201 women confirmed that bazooka enjoyed do indeed give of skinny-penis vibes in a recent peer reviewed study.
Bazooka by far. The Panzerschreck was also good, but much heavier and a bit overkill.
The Panzerfaust was shit, though obviously was conceptually good hence why similar weapons continued development.
AT rifles were/are a dead end, and stopped being effective midway through the war.
PIAT was horrible and hated. It makes sense why they used it, but also why they abandoned it and never went back.
>To me it seems like something that was unrefined at the time compared to the other AT weapons
Dumb take. It was beautifully simplistic and lacked a lot of issues otgwe weapons had at the time. What we consider limited range nowadays was a massive improvement to the ranges you had to get to before with anti-tank mines/grenades or axes and the range kept improving with every iteration. The 150m version had 100k produced and optional HE wrong you could add made it every potent anti-infantry weapon. The 250m version you could reload they were working on at the end basically became the RPG2 after the war.
It was inaccurate and short ranged.
Sure it could blow up tanks but the design philosophy around it was that the weapon will be as cheap and disposable as its wielder.
Panzerschrek was solid but an overkill.
Piat and Soviet AT rifles were technological dead ends.
Bazooka has the balance of both mobility and firepower.
Panzerfaust wasn't shit - its basically a LAW of its its day. Cheap and light enough that you can hand them out like candy. And they had excellent penetration for their size - the bazooka didn't match performance in that regard until after the war with the M20.
DGMW, the bazooka is fantastic, but the panzerfausts combat record justifies the production of 18x as many PFs as bazookas by a much less resource rich and production capable nation.
To be clear, not saying they fill the same role as bazookas or that you would need to make 8.3mil bazookas to do the same thing as the faust did for Germany.
Just that being cheap and relatively ubiquitous has its uses.
The bazooka was probably the best all around in terms of cost, usability and effectiveness. The panzershreck is just an upscaled one with German autism
bazooka was a better all-rounder since it was lightweight and burned all its propellant before leaving the barrel
the panzerschrek is a better dedicated AT weapon since it penetrates further into armor
though the M9A1 bazooka closed the gap between them with a little with better penetration and a kilo lighter than the M1, though itself a kilo heavier than the M1A1 bazooka
the soviets swore that their PTRD and PTRS was way better than the bazooka or the Panzerschreck, though
claiming that the extra penetration wasnt worth losing the ability of firing from prone and being harder to detect after firing
>firing from prone and being harder to detect after firing
PIAT could also be shot prone, and didn't have a smoke trail or flames.
Of course, good luck rewienering it after a misfire.
>good luck rewienering it
overblown problem
if it was really that big a deal, PIATs would never have been *fired at all* in the first place
6th airborne used the piat with alot of success in arnhem mind you this was pretty much using them point blank lol
1st Airborne was at Arnhem
https://i.imgur.com/1eVmiS9.jpg
Was it the Panzerfaust?
>best infantry anti-tank weapon of WW2
M9 Bazooka
Panzerfausts are useful as cheap short-ranged weapons, but when you say "best" I assume you mean "if you could only issue your troops with one", in which case I'd never want to have my army kitted out with nothing but Panzerfausts
I specifically mentioned "after a misfire". The PIAT was self-rewienering after a successful launch, meaning that, if things went smoothly, you'd never have to rewiener it manually. However it needed two men and a sturdy wall to rewiener in case of misfire.
The PIAT would also occasionally fail to rewiener even after a successful firing, although it was consistent enough to be just a "oh goddamnit not again" sort of thing and not a "this fricking shit doesn't work" sort of thing.
I remember playing wolfenstein multiplayer on the original xbox and people would troll by triggering the whistle sound it makes and then would change weapons before it fired. does it even make that sound in real life?
I would argue that molotov wienertail had great results, for cheaper and probably the same range. No idea if it performes better but I think it would be worth a shot compared to a lot of options talked about here.
Black person show me how you throw a molotov wienertail 150m.
And no, they mostly did nothing unless you hit specific parts, late war tanks were better protected and even if you did hit actually doing any damage took a while since the fire had to work for a while first.
Pretty suicidal and even soviet tanks tended to have a pistol hatch pointing backwards after the winter war despite them being the most blind war machines on any battlefield.
>Black person show me how you throw a molotov wienertail 150m
Show me a panzerfaust with a range of 150m >
350 during winter war, 2429 on the eastern front (lower bound, and only inflicted by the soviets)
The only number for panzerfaust I could find is 265 between january and april 1944.
Both weapon are useless when there is an infantry screening, but one is moronicly easy to produce (it can be done on the field) and even easier to use (lot of panzerfaust were wasted because used from too far).
Looking into numbers reinforce my idea that the molotov is a good contender for the same kind of use (short range AT without much training).
Not him, but you should know that the 2429 number is from soviet numbers that are known to be inflated for propaganda reasons, and also includes a lot more than tanks. Disabling an open topped Marder 1 would count for example.
>Show me a panzerfaust with a range of 150m
How about the Panzerfaust 150?
Can you guess the origin of that name, you subhuman Black person?
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and literally everything you wrote is wrong.
Consider suicide.
>Germany
75mm L/48
>britian
6pdr
>US
Also 6pdr
>USSR
100mm AT gun
>infantry anti-tank weapons
Lift more bro, what are you a gymlet?
>infantry anti-tank weapon
>75mm L/48
Even putting aside the fact that OP was clearly intending to talk about MANPATS, I'm 80% sure the L/48 was only used in vehicle mounts.
probably
>cheap and easy to mass produce
>easy to use
>high penetration
cons:
>low range
It was inaccurate and short ranged.
Sure it could blow up tanks but the design philosophy around it was that the weapon will be as cheap and disposable as its wielder.
Panzerschrek was solid but an overkill.
Piat and Soviet AT rifles were technological dead ends.
Bazooka has the balance of both mobility and firepower.
>Panzerschrek was solid but an overkill.
Germany didn't just fight against Shermans, you know
IS-2s and ISUs were a problem too
I agree.
But the reason why I say it's an overkill is because the idea of having infantry face a tank frontally is suicidal.
You'd either have them flank the tank or hide. Then, what use is 200mm of penetration if the infantries are going to ambush the tank? The bulkiness does not help. Not especially if the tank is guarded by enemy infantries.
Moreover, one could just hit and disable the suspensions and the crews would most of the time flee.
>You'd either have them flank the tank or hide.
good look doing that in the open fields of eastern-central Europe. Having a big frickoff weapon that can kill a heavy tank frontally made perfect sense.
>the idea of having infantry face a tank frontally is suicidal
Good luck raising the morale of the average soldier when you tell him "Yeah our so called "anti-tank weapons" actually only work if you hit the tank from the side and at close range and the weapon is also inaccurate". Everyone will tell you to frick off and go fight your war yourself with your trash weapons.
If you can't kill the tank at 50-100m with a frontal hit, it isn't an anti-tank weapon, simple as.
Bazooka had a fairly low charge diameter and a finicky battery ignition system. Panzerschreck was more unwieldy but had more penetration and a magneto igniter like later bazooka variants would have
Only people will small penises prefer the bazooka.
Not even memeing. You basically announce to the world
>Hey, it's me, your boy skinny-penis
When you write stuff like that. 193 of 201 women confirmed that bazooka enjoyed do indeed give of skinny-penis vibes in a recent peer reviewed study.
>193 of 201 women confirmed that bazooka enjoyers do indeed give off skinny-penis vibes
He does look like a bazooka fan
Bazooka by far. The Panzerschreck was also good, but much heavier and a bit overkill.
The Panzerfaust was shit, though obviously was conceptually good hence why similar weapons continued development.
AT rifles were/are a dead end, and stopped being effective midway through the war.
PIAT was horrible and hated. It makes sense why they used it, but also why they abandoned it and never went back.
>The Panzerfaust was shit
It was great for the job and was made to be a cheap tool that 12 years old and 80 years old could use without issue.
I moreso meant shitty rather than shit. To me it seems like something that was unrefined at the time compared to the other AT weapons
>To me it seems like something that was unrefined at the time compared to the other AT weapons
Dumb take. It was beautifully simplistic and lacked a lot of issues otgwe weapons had at the time. What we consider limited range nowadays was a massive improvement to the ranges you had to get to before with anti-tank mines/grenades or axes and the range kept improving with every iteration. The 150m version had 100k produced and optional HE wrong you could add made it every potent anti-infantry weapon. The 250m version you could reload they were working on at the end basically became the RPG2 after the war.
>and optional HE wrong
*the optional HE ring
>every
*A very
I swear to god my autocorrect was programmed by a chink
Panzerfaust wasn't shit - its basically a LAW of its its day. Cheap and light enough that you can hand them out like candy. And they had excellent penetration for their size - the bazooka didn't match performance in that regard until after the war with the M20.
DGMW, the bazooka is fantastic, but the panzerfausts combat record justifies the production of 18x as many PFs as bazookas by a much less resource rich and production capable nation.
To be clear, not saying they fill the same role as bazookas or that you would need to make 8.3mil bazookas to do the same thing as the faust did for Germany.
Just that being cheap and relatively ubiquitous has its uses.
The bazooka was probably the best all around in terms of cost, usability and effectiveness. The panzershreck is just an upscaled one with German autism
bazooka was a better all-rounder since it was lightweight and burned all its propellant before leaving the barrel
the panzerschrek is a better dedicated AT weapon since it penetrates further into armor
though the M9A1 bazooka closed the gap between them with a little with better penetration and a kilo lighter than the M1, though itself a kilo heavier than the M1A1 bazooka
the soviets swore that their PTRD and PTRS was way better than the bazooka or the Panzerschreck, though
claiming that the extra penetration wasnt worth losing the ability of firing from prone and being harder to detect after firing
>firing from prone and being harder to detect after firing
PIAT could also be shot prone, and didn't have a smoke trail or flames.
Of course, good luck rewienering it after a misfire.
6th airborne used the piat with alot of success in arnhem mind you this was pretty much using them point blank lol
>good luck rewienering it
overblown problem
if it was really that big a deal, PIATs would never have been *fired at all* in the first place
1st Airborne was at Arnhem
>best infantry anti-tank weapon of WW2
M9 Bazooka
Panzerfausts are useful as cheap short-ranged weapons, but when you say "best" I assume you mean "if you could only issue your troops with one", in which case I'd never want to have my army kitted out with nothing but Panzerfausts
I specifically mentioned "after a misfire". The PIAT was self-rewienering after a successful launch, meaning that, if things went smoothly, you'd never have to rewiener it manually. However it needed two men and a sturdy wall to rewiener in case of misfire.
The PIAT would also occasionally fail to rewiener even after a successful firing, although it was consistent enough to be just a "oh goddamnit not again" sort of thing and not a "this fricking shit doesn't work" sort of thing.
The very last panzerfausts
(150)
I remember playing wolfenstein multiplayer on the original xbox and people would troll by triggering the whistle sound it makes and then would change weapons before it fired. does it even make that sound in real life?
I would argue that molotov wienertail had great results, for cheaper and probably the same range. No idea if it performes better but I think it would be worth a shot compared to a lot of options talked about here.
Black person show me how you throw a molotov wienertail 150m.
And no, they mostly did nothing unless you hit specific parts, late war tanks were better protected and even if you did hit actually doing any damage took a while since the fire had to work for a while first.
Pretty suicidal and even soviet tanks tended to have a pistol hatch pointing backwards after the winter war despite them being the most blind war machines on any battlefield.
>Black person show me how you throw a molotov wienertail 150m
Show me a panzerfaust with a range of 150m
>
350 during winter war, 2429 on the eastern front (lower bound, and only inflicted by the soviets)
The only number for panzerfaust I could find is 265 between january and april 1944.
Both weapon are useless when there is an infantry screening, but one is moronicly easy to produce (it can be done on the field) and even easier to use (lot of panzerfaust were wasted because used from too far).
Looking into numbers reinforce my idea that the molotov is a good contender for the same kind of use (short range AT without much training).
Not him, but you should know that the 2429 number is from soviet numbers that are known to be inflated for propaganda reasons, and also includes a lot more than tanks. Disabling an open topped Marder 1 would count for example.
>Show me a panzerfaust with a range of 150m
How about the Panzerfaust 150?
Can you guess the origin of that name, you subhuman Black person?
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and literally everything you wrote is wrong.
Consider suicide.
A grenade thrown down the hatch of a German tank is the best
Tanks have these things called hatches and locks so that doesn't happen
But it did happen
How could it be the best if they lost?