Secret Weapon? Panzerblitz: 1944 Luftwaffe Anti-Tank Rocket
Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: wtplay.link/milavihist and claim your exclusive bonus now.
- Disclaimer: This video is sponsored by War Thunder
- Get our Book -
Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/BismarckYT
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
Facebook: / militaryaviationhistory
- Sources -
BArch, RL 7-6 14, Luftwaffenkommando 6, Aktennotiz über Einsatz von Panzerschreck- und Panzerblitzflugzeugen, Erfolge und Munitionsaufwand, 17.2.1945
BArch, RL 10 464, Luftwaffenkommando West, Nr. 16 781/44 g. Kdos, Aktenvermerk über Besprechung mit Obstlt. Jansen, 25.11.1944
BArch, RL 36 261 Aktenvermerk über den Stand der Bordraketen, 11.10.1944, Übersicht
BArch, RL 36 261, B.Nr. 2707/43geh., Zusammenfassung über bisherigen Erprobungsstand MK 103, Tarnewitz: 21.10.1943
BArch, RL 36 261, Entwicklungsstelle Rechlin, Dienstreisebericht Nr. 1 des Fl. Obering. Schirrwagen, Rechlin: 29.8.44
BArch, RL 36 261, Entwicklungsstelle Rechlin, Dienstreisebericht Nr. 2 des Fl. Obering. Schirrwagen, Rechlin: 19.9.44
BArch, RL 36 261, Erprobungsstelle der Luftwaffe Tarnewitz, Bericht über Besuch Vertreter Tarnewitz bei E.Kdo.26 Udetfeld am 1. und 2.10.44
BArch, RL 36 261, Vorschlag Waffenentwicklung, Tarnewitz: 20.1.44
Dietmar Hermann, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 F und G, Stedinger Verlag: 2012
Fleischer, Wolfgang: Deutsche Nahkampfmittel Munition, Granaten und Kampfmittel bis 1945. Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2018
Ian Gooderson, Air Power at the Battlefront, Frank Cass Publishers: 2005
- Timecodes -
00:00 - Disclaimer
00:29 - Intro
01:24 - Why rockets?
03:46 - Cannons vs rockets
07:52 - All ze rockets
08:30 - Panzerschreck
11:55 - Fire & forget
14:53 - M 8
18:22 - Panzerblitz
20:30 - War Thunder Sponsor
20:40 - Panzerblitz
24:27 - Painful intermission
25:01 - Panzer(...) in the field
31:33 - War Thunder: Sponsored Segment
32:23 - Outro
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound
#Luftwaffe #Panzerblitz #Militaryaviationhistory
I always appreciate the citing sources and length of these videos. It helps avoid the pitfalls of "pop history" videos. Thanks for making great content.
Thanks very much, very appreciated
Imagine scanned documents in the video
Excellent scholarship. You have the discipline a true historiographer requires. So glad I found your channel...
Wow, thanks Bryce!
100% agree with you sir. The work Chris puts in to these vidoes is so good. Tho i must say i found him through Botime gaming, the videos he did with him playing warthunder. The banter and gameplay were fantastic in tho vidoes i was compelled to search for Chris's channel.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory why is the audio so small
@@Ok-fj4mv Because you forgot to turn It up :)
Lucky you. So much great content. I would love to find this again.
I dont know if this exact video will go public but if it does consider becoming a supporter as you'll enjoy a great viarity of videos early
Thanks Hanro!
What do you mean by "if"?
@@Yorkington I think this video mightve been released only for supporters then released publicly
27:55 It would be funny if absolutly everyone, from historians to casual readers to military men, from today to all the way back in 1945, had the same reaction at seeing this number of tanks destroyed.
Were there not post-war studies of the effectiveness of Allied jabos like the Thunderbolt and the Typhoon that showed air-to-ground rockets were far less deadly to tanks than the pilots who fired them believed? I think the studies found it was due to the poor accuracy of the rockets, which required a direct hit on a Tiger or Panther in the proper weak spot for a kill. Allied pilots were apparently misled by the large explosion and cloud of dust produced by the rocket's relatively heavy explosive charge into thinking they had killed a tank when often all they had done was give the occupants headaches. Was this not also possibly true for the performance of German rockets fired from jabos?
Yup, the ORS reports are very good on this. It is also described very well in Gooderson's book, see the description for that. The white Panther story also comes from his book.
I recently read a book written by a Sergeant later 1st Lieutenant of the Black Watch on there advance after D Day through , France, Belgium, Holland and finally Germany. He describes in detail many encounters with German tanks and the ability to call on a "Taxi Rank" of rocket firing Typhoons to attack the tanks, Though not always destroyed the tanks usually pulled back as did the supporting troops, ( I image the rockets killed and injured many of them). These attacks from the Scots troops point of view were very good for morale and helping them achieve there objectives. So a tank kill is not the only measure of success.
I remember reading about the (Typhoon) 60lb rocket being used against surfaced submarines. I can’t remember which aircraft was being used to attack the submarines, presumably Mosquitos or Beaufighters. If my memory is correct, they found that the explosive warhead was not required and that a solid head alone easily penetrated the pressure hull resulting in the rocket careering about the compartment causing appalling damage in addition to the catastrophic leak.
"And if you don't get the kill, one of your battle buddies does." Not in TBLF though, they are more dangerous to each other than the enemy. Fantastic and informative video as always Bis.
Regarding accuracy, it isn't just a question of the rocket itself, but also of the pilot. How much opportunity did aircrews have to train with the weapon system? The more experience they can get using a given weapon system in training the better they'll perform in combat with that system. Given that the Luftwaffe by late 1944 was having plenty of trouble just getting enough pilots into aircraft, I can't imagine there was much training being given to crews so they could practice using rockets (or bombs for that matter). From what I understand, there wasn't much specific training given to Allied fighter-bomber pilots in the use of bombs or rockets either --- it was mostly, "Here's the weapon, go out and use it." Procedures and tactics on how best to deliver bombs or rockets had to be learned 'on the job' so to speak. One exception to this is some of the Coastal Command anti-shipping strike squadrons, which began to specialize in their roles. Some trained specifically in the delivery of rockets in anti-shipping strikes, and consequently the results achieved improved considerably.
Hi, from what I understand, the training of new RAF pilots on specific types (i.e. in this case bomb or rocket Typhoons) would be thorough before posting to a front line unit. In addition, squadrons would be retired from operational duties in Europe, for a period of time, and be sent to bombing and rocket camps back in the UK. This was so that all pilots could get the latest information on both their own weapons and those of the enemy, along with undertaking flights to reinforce speeds at weapon delivery points, angles of attack, release ranges of weapons and whatever else was necessary to perform their role effectively.
"Production of these really skyrocketed..." I see what you did there
Chris Linguistics Special ;-)
"Ze Rockets" "It Schrecks Panzers" LOL Easily the most amusing episode of Military Aviation History.
27:59 Best moment of the entire video
As much as I enjoy Chris' videos (and I really do appreciate them immensely), his ads are just the best! OK, on to the next video!
:)
That segue was smooth.
I love the fact that he has a timeline for the self-promotional bit. :)
I’m waiting for it to be another guy to host an episode
So, this makes the exploits of Bazooka Charlie in his L-4 Grasshopper, all the more exceptional with him being credited for 6 tanks.
Yeah but he was going low and slow, so it's not too much of a comparison.
Chris, you do such great work! The rigor of your research and strong production values are fantastic, but I also enjoy your speculations too. Thanks!
Thank you. I try to avoid speculations tbh but in this case, at the end with the data I had, I felt like pointing out this conincidence (which could really be a coincidence).
31:27 Well, that's gotta be your best transition into a sponsored section yet Chris. xD
I tried 😂
4:42 The Death Star was "ambitious but flawed." Good thing Fritz didn't have it.
I love how you cycle between English and German! Ive only been learning German for a year, so I can’t quite keep up with full dialogue . I’ve watched your videos for a long time now, but I’ve never thanked you for making them in English, so thanks!
Will you collaborate with WT and record a radio station with all your classic songs you sang for Bo?
The world is not ready for that. Yet.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I think Bo secretly misses it 😆
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Do you like Queens of the Stone Age?
Great presentation on a really interesting subject. Shows that early rocket systems whilst showing promise, were relatively ineffective in actual use. Thanks for your attention to detail Chris, and for tackling subjects that others have passed on. 🙂
Cheers Mark, glad you enjoyed it
18:32 There's a game out there called Panzerblitz. It was originally published by a company called Avalon Hill (now defunct) as a Kriegsspiel-style game with a hex-grid map and hundreds of little cardboard squares representing units. Later on, the Panzerblitz rules were adapted to sandbox miniatures. As I recall (it was a long time ago and I was a little kid) it was entirely armored infantry vs armored infantry, no rocket-firing aircraft.
The luftflotte 6 kill claims I would hazard a guess and say it's 10% of the real total
Air force kill claims are notoriously bloated for all nations
@@juslitor that's why I why I say it's probably 10% of that total per so many days at best if u add in multiple factors that affect the total amount
@@lucius6667 The way you worded it originally means that six kills is only 10% of the real total which in turn means they were 60 kills.
The data indicates that firing unguided rockets at long range using the mk 1 eyeball guidance system is a very wasteful and inaccurate method of opening Soviet tanks for their strudel inspection.
16:02 Dont worry, even if you go full german halfway through the video, we would still watch it till the end :D
"a caliber of 30-37mm was the limit of what was feasible for an aircraft to carry" B-25G laughs in 75mm freedom. XD
Yea, but rate of fire, accuracy and recoil were not so good.
@@yuppy1967 well yeah obviously. was more of a flippant joke than anything.
It was a failure. However the Mosquito with a 57 mm cannon was a success.
I LOL’d 😂 at 4:39 when you showed a Death Star icon for the 75mm cannon. BRILLIANT!!!
18:32 "Panzerblitz" to me sounds like "Spatzenschreck" or "Kochblume"
The issues with the Mk.103 on the FW-190 sounds very similar to the problems faced by the USAF when they mated a 30mm gunpod to the F-16 to replicate the utility of the A-10. It's like poetry, it rhymes...
5:30 love the token attempt to cover the 262s with a few little tannenbaums. "You cannot see me thanks to these twigs!"
Or its the opposite, not they have a proper camoflage net over the 262 in the backgroun. So the american fotograf, lets clean the camoflage so there are only some twigs left.
thanx a lot for one of the best video :narrative ,content , an footage i had the plaesure to see on yt !! great jobs !!
So much good info..Carefully researched and well presented. Had me glued to the screen for an hour. Great job, Chris!
Always top shelf videos here. Lots of facts and data clearly explained. Great job 👍
Thank you :)
I was thinking about and reading up on the topic a lot lately and love the timing of the video.
Military Aviation and Military history visualised are two of my fave youtube channels. really fantastic research and presentation.
Thank you for researching this subject and making this informative video about it for us.
All I can add Chris is what my friend Fritz Kreitl told me about III/SG4 training with anti-tank rockets. The SS was in charge of his unit. They were assigned political officer's and one PK flew in the small compartment aft of the pilot seat filming their attack. Fritz's CO Wayvert waved his hand up and down. Which Fritz performed the motion with his FW. The PK barfed all over the compartment and zero footage of the attack.
When i get gome from work on thursday nights i usualy chill outside with a beer for around 45 mins or so and your video is great for that time. Just to decompress and learn something. Keep up the great work my friend!
I wonder if the Luftwaffe got the idea of strapping the Panzerschreks on their aircraft from a certain American pilot who had bazookas on his L-4 Grasshopper
Great vids. Keep up these vids based on primary source documents. Excellent.
I’ve read about these. Interesting stuff, but I never found any decent English sources! Thank you for this!
Thank you for presenting these lesser known weapon systems.
"PanzerBlitz" was the name of a table top wargame by the Avalon Hill game company of Baltimore, published in 1970. It featured company and platoon level ground combat on the Eastern Front from 1941 to 1945. Until today I didn't know that the name was based on historical ordinance. Totally cool, and thanks. Ironically, air attacks weren't included until the sequel game "Panzer Leader", which was about the western front. Fun times. Of all the games I had PanzerBlitz was one of the few I kept.
One of the first war games I purchased in the early ‘70s.
Great film, thank you! The Panzerblitz 3, however, did not remain a paper project [21:20], prototypes were actually built and are documented by e.g. Allied reports. It was essentially a R 4/M rocket with just a shaped charge placed inside its standard warhead shell instead of a solid HE charge. Three warhead variants were proposed, and the one with liner of progressive thickness was chosen for further development; in static tests (conducted before early January 1945) it penetrated 100 mm armour plate at an angle of 60 degrees and DWM was ordered to produce prototype rockets for firing trials. Weight of the Pb 3 was just the same as the R 4/M, so both rockets should have exactly the same performances.
Regarding misfires. I read a story by the daughter of a survivor from the slave labour workers. This womans mother worked in a munitions factory which manufactured shells for ME 109 guns. She stated that the workers sabotaged the ammunition by filling every third shell with sand or any other substance they could get their hands on instead of propellant. It is probable this also happened with the anti tank rockets. Worth considering.
George Lyons: There may also be a study that shows that war prisoners and "war prisoners" (slave labours etc) that did thing like that had a better mental health later. -- Resistance like that had an extra health benefit.
@@MultiZirkon That wouldn`t surprise me. It must have been a good feeling for these poor, unfortunate "prisoners" to feel that they were doing something to defeat the Nazi`s
I own a relic panzerblitz rocket. The stubby motor unit attached to the panzershreck head was originally covered by a light metal body and fins which mine is missing, but having the warhead and rocket motor is something I'm glad to own.
Another great video. In-depth and with great insights.
I have been interested in war history in general, and aircraft specifically for most of my life. you are by far one of the best non biased sources of historical information I have had the pleasure of what I consider to be one of the fastest tech surges in modern history!
Years ago I played a board game called Panzer Blitz. I think it was made by Avalon Hill.
I've got that game in a box in my closet. My Dad bought it in the late 70's. I remember playing it a few times as a kid.
@@adamelliott2302 I think my parents threw it out. I am pretty sure I did not. If you were close by we would have to break it out and give it a go.
Outstanding research, as always.
An interesting subject. Rockets were also quite the psychological effect weapon too with that noise and all the smoke.
Rudel, the great Stuka pilot said that the best way to attack tanks was from behind where they were the weakest. And since they were always moving towards the "Front" the Stuka's momentum would carry you toward the friendly lines.
Never heard of the M8 or the Panzerblitz until today. Learning is fun!
Remember when this stuff was on the History channel, actually they never had anything this in depth. Great video
Really interesting video! I'd love to see a bit more about your study, as it looks like something like that should be one of my life goals!
Great video Chris. Maybe you can start a small series on aircraft weapons of the Luftwaffe. I have Wolfgang Fleisher's english translation of Air-Dropped Weapons, but it is a little thin on the munitions and fuses giving a general overview only.
Always an outstanding video and presentation.
The sponsor suits your channel so well that the ad stuff doesn't really bother me. I might even check the game out on a rainy day ;)
Just don’t try for top tier. The higher you go, the less fun it gets. And the learning curve is STEEP. I consider myself pretty decent, and I flipping well should be with over 1K hours. But I’ve still got a TON to learn and practice.
@@jamesharding3459 "Over 1k hours", sounds like it must be quite good ;) Thanks for the info.
@@VeraTR909 I'm decent. Ever so slightly above average, according to my stats.
How is that something like the Bf-108 with Panzerfausts is more talked about than the FW-190 using Panzerschreks? I know it's usually noted as their last desperate efforts for airborne AT but it's surprising that the latter wasn't more talked about
I imagine it's a mixture of novelty and the ridiculous nature of mounting Panzerfausts on light plane. Same why Bazooka Charlie might be more famous than the more 'generic' everyday use of rockets by the RAF and USAAF. Plus, often in Western historiography we tend to focus on what happened on the Western Front. These rockets, save the very limited use of the M 8, were mainly used on the Eastern Front.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Guess it's another one of those "Us v Them" mentality. When a gross hopper gets bazooka's to fight tanks it's innovative but when the LW does it, comes off as "desperate" which I mean it was but just a weird thing of how one can view it.
Interesting what you say about the Stuka being optimal really only for point targets: I recall reading an account of the exploits of Hans Rudel, wherein he talks of taking out whole columns of ten or so Russian tanks in one firing pass. Perhaps it was only a few really elite and experienced pilots who could use the JU-87 efficiently in this way.
Finally this video was recommended to me you'd figure after watching military videos all day KZhead would know my preferred recommended by now 😂
Excellent video ! Congrats !!
Halfway through the video, I remembered that Bismark plays War thunder.
I like the "painful intermission" duration bar graph, along with everything else here. Yes.
Fantastic content, as always. Regarding the discrepancies between the numbers of fired shots vs the presumed number of carried shots --- do not forget that there very well may have been sorties flown where the full load of the weapons simply were not used. In other words, the mystery may be solved by imagining encounters where 4 of the 8 weapons were fired but the remaining 4 simply remained mounted on the planes for legitimate reasons when they returned to their airfields. Of course, there must have been some failed firings (as your data showed from the initial tests of the weapons systems). But we need not conclude that all the discrepancies in from the battle reports were due to failures.
Great video, thanks for the in depth analysis. Keep them coming! Best wishes from MS, USA!
The transition of Chris from early Bo Time vids when he was yelling scheisse kakke to this stunning channel is really amazing. Dont get me wrong, i loved chris back then too, but this is just such a great development.
I love it when Bis gets excited and starts speaking Deustch lol. Great video Bis!
Wow, the Brewster Buffalo, this sure is one plane that we don’t hear about, I can't wait.
The preferred employment of tank busters in the mopping up of penetrations is because they targets are often spotted, channelized, already mauled and have a lower density of anti-air then does the front, the shoulders of a penetration or rear march columns. Insufficient and effectively suppresses anti-air is a necessity for low level ground attackers as the tank busters.
You’re the greatest historian of aviation in the history of the earth Chris!!!!!!
Hi Chris/M.A.H. Could you go over WW2 battle damage repair at some point? I know that the British liked to machine new parts when possible, and the 109 and I think the Spitfire had their gear designed such that wing removal and repair/replacement was easier. But other than that, what kind of damage was repaired and how. What kind of damage made a plane get written off? Were there different methods for these repairs and thresholds for these decisions based on nation and time period?
As always another fascinating and excellent video, thankyou!
Outstanding information you can’t find just anywhere!
In the 1970s Avalon Hill Game Co. published "Panzerblitz", their game of armored tactical warfare on the Eastern Front.
Chris its always a great day when you post a new video.👍
Mans really added a deathstar🤣 I love that description as well
I would LOVE to have you do a segment on the P-47MS of the 56th Fighter Group. Very little is known about those late war P-47 Ms.
Accurate rocket firing, like accurate torpedo dropping, will be heavily influenced by the state of trim of the airplane. That is, any negative or positive G will influence the rockets' vertical path, while any slip or skid in the plane's flight path will influence the horizontal path. But unlike torpedo launching, where the pilots usually have ample time to get their plane trimmed, pilots zooming around at low level in 190s with AA coming up at them must've had more difficulty with this. It's unlikely that they could, for example, just pop over a hill, see some tanks and fire with any accuracy. Having said that, I read an account by a U.S. pilot in 'Nam who related that when they had time to line up on a target they could aim for and have their rockets go through the window of a building, so one could suppose that with practice the German pilots also got pretty good at it. Either way, firing rockets from a 190 must've been great fun! Auf in den Kampf!
15:01 I think it has to be distinguished first and foremost from the Soviet RS-82/M-8 rocket, which was widely used in both air and ground role since late 1930's. Given the murky development history of the German M 8, the involvement of the SS, which used a lot of captured equipment, and similar characteristics (including initial HE-only warhead - this variant was called M-8 in Soviet service since 1942) I might suggest looking further into the German documents on the captured Soviet rocket ordnance. 29:12 And I strongly doubt that these data would be in any way, shape or form corroborated by the Soviet sources, which typically state enemy ground vehicles, arty and increasingly PzF as the main threats.
It's interesting you use WT footage. I was just looking at the F8 in game and the Pb2 loadout is basically 7 per wing while your captioning say it was typically 6 per for the real life 190.
Thank you fir another wonderful video
Very refreshing to hear a presentation without speculation and hyperbole
smooth ad transition by the end
I've been watching your videos for a long time now but never took the time to honestly and truly show my gratitude for the effort you put in these videos - for which i apologize. So, big thank you for the great videos with one of the best content on the whole platform!
Thanks very much :)
Subbed. I really like having someone who can pronounce things in proper German, but also speaks English that is easy to follow... as I hate to say it, but I lot of Native German Speakers who learn English are often VERY hard to follow when they try to do KZhead videos in English. Not that I’d probably ever mention such to them, as it would probably just be rude to do so- but I wouldn’t be surprised if it affected their subscriptions. Oh well- bless them just for learning a second language, lol- I think anyone who learns a second or third language is setting themselves up for a great understanding and appreciation of their own as well as other cultures. Anyway- I’m ranting now- greeting from Central Texas pardner! Cheers and thanks for the great content my friend! :D
what did you thought of calum douglas book on WW2 engine programm? I liked it, particulary the repport quoted and all the information regarding the engine project (I did a recension for the french magazine aéro journal on that book)
For at least two decades after 1942, rockets, and of course bombs, were the preferred anti-ground aircraft armament. Then in the late 1950s and early 1960s, militaries re-considered use of cannons. The 20 mm cannon had been in use since the war but auto-cannons in 25 mm and 30 mm were tried to counter improvements in tank armor. By the very late 1950s the USAF adopted various configurations of the 7.62x 51 minigun on different designations of the venerable old C-47, and by 1965 had outfitted it with miniguns under the unofficial code name Puff. By 1967, the program had advanced and under the code named Spooky, using variants of the C-47 and then larger craft, code named Spectre; C-131s armed with the Browning .30 cal machine-gun and flares. The USAF Spectre program also deployed variants of the AC-119 armed with miniguns and Vulcan 20-mm rotary cannons as well as other smaller craft. After Vietnam, the larger Lockheed AC-130 Gunship II became the modern, post-World War II origin of the term gunship in military aviation. These heavily armed aircraft used a variety of weapon systems, including 7.62 mm GAU-2/A Miniguns, 20 mm M61 Vulcan six-barrel rotary cannons, 25 mm GAU-12/U Equalizer five-barreled rotary cannons, 30 mm Mk44 Bushmaster II chain guns, 40 mm L/60 Bofors autocannons, and 105 mm M102 howitzers, and by the 1970s they had became the typical USAF standard configuration for the fixed wing gunships in situations where localized air superiority had been achieved. They have been used in the Afghan War.
Good approach to an interesting topic! It would have been nice to mention the various "R" designations (Rüstsatz) of the equipment! Also on which FW-190 types the different rockets were used? I suppose mostly F-4 to F-8. Maybe some other F variants? G-series? Maybe A-series as prototypes for testing? This would be interesting as general knowledge. But especially for scale modellers! Greetings from Austria!
Also another question: How were these targeted considering sights? At 110 to about 400 m/s these were roughly about 15 to 50 % of the velocity cannons and MGs had. (Talking about MK103, MG151/20 and so on here, MK108 was slower, something about 500 to 600 m/s) So targeting these rockets with the standard sights would really make them impractical/inaccurate! At 110 m/s you would need a range meter and corresponding sight at even less than 200 meters to hit a tank!
Always interesting, thank you.
Hear me out, what I would love to see is an occasional episode or premiere featuring air, sea, land, and arms KZhead experts discussing crossover weapons that may have started in one role but were adapted for another. The panzershreck and the US ciws could be examples of topics. The panel could include you, chieftain, drachenafels, and Ian McCallum. Now that would be a panel to watch!!
Panzershrek had a range of 150m - the 3" rockets were fired from those Typhoons at 700m plus, so the range must have been far shorter - which might explain the difference (use at 100-150m would be dangerous in the extreme for pilots) - and each RP3 could carry a 60lb warhead - one hit and the tank almost certainly at least an M kill. Really well thought out presentation on some little known German weapons systems. Another factor reported on the western front was that where rocket armed fighterbombers of all types were used was that their presence forced enemy units to ground.
While accuracy might be quite low, it does not mean that rockets are ineffective. Rockets are excellent at making the enemy aware that they are being shot at, which would make tank crews ineffective. I've read somewhere that old Panzer hands had a hard time convincing the new guys to stay in their tanks during rocket attacks: an abandoned tank is as much disabled as a destroyed tank.
I believe it was mention in one video from military history visualized, sadly can't remember which one it was :/
"Bismark" in a video about airplane cried antitank rockets: "It seams like the production of these rockets really skyrocketed." :-D 25:06 Sorry... I will see myself out.
Bravo!
Lol, that reaction to the kill claims. :D
Very interesting video!!! It seems like they wasted too much time and resources on anti tank guns when the cost effective approach was rockets! Regarding the kill claims, they seem very bold! But then again the Luftwaffe also has some crazy good aces and nobody really doubts their number of kills. I think the most likely explanation is that the tanks usually were not taken out completely or even damaged and were either counted as a kill or damaged. However I do believe the claim of such high numbers is a testament to the confidence and skill of the pilots. The war on the eastern front was the biggest land war in history, Luftwaffe pilots would have had plenty of opportunities to gain combat experience.
I love the general comparison of rockets over cannons. It explains why smart rockets has made the more previously more accurate cannons less common. There is a reason I expect cannon-based weapons have become less common these days. Of course while rockets may be cheaper to manufacture than the cannons themselves, the shells are likely cheaper than the rocket on a per-shot basis. You use a rocket and its gone, while the cannon can continue to fire shells down upon the enemy. All that being said I still love the comparison and was not aware that rockets were easier to build and assemble with unskilled labor and basic production facilities. it makes sense now why the German forces were interested in the rocket platform.
Such a great video,knew the German's used good rockets and now I know the devolopment of them. I think you should use more relevant game footage in your production, it added more eye candy. Thanks for the video.
klasse deine infos sind viel mehr detailiert
Looking forward to the Buffalo video, and the others sound awesome as well!
Wow the gfx back in 1944 look as good as some PC games today
i found this interesting as the rockets i thought were more effective than you show
Ha, and they fixed those rockets around ;ast patch. Before it worked like laser - if you didn't sit directly in the LINE made by the jet, even 1 pixel away from the straight line, it didn't do anything. Now it creates a more realistic cone of damage.