Panzerfaust - How Effective was it? - Military History
The Panzerfaust was a hand-held German anti-tank weapon with a hollow-charge/shaped-charge warhead. It is quite known due its shape and name, but the question is, how effective was it actually? This video describe the basics working of the Panzerfaust and also looks at the kill numbers and compares them with other close combat weapons, like the Panzerschreck and anti-tank guns (PaK).
»» GET OUR BOOK: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 German/English - www.hdv470-7.com/
Military History Visualized provides a series of short narrative and visual presentations like documentaries based on academic literature or sometimes primary sources. Videos are intended as introduction to military history, but also contain a lot of details for history buffs. Since the aim is to keep the episodes short and comprehensive some details are often cut.
» HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT MILITARY HISTORY VISUALIZED «
(A) You can support my channel on Patreon: / mhv
(B) You can also buy "Spoils of War" (merchandise) in the online shop: www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
» SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS «
facebook: / milhistoryvisualized
twitter: / milhivisualized
tumblr: / militaryhistoryvisualized
» SOURCES «
Hahn, Fritz: Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945
Fleischer, Wolfgang: Panzerfaust and other German Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons
Germany and the Second World War. Volume V / 2.
Das Deutsche Reich & der Zweite Weltkrieg. Band 5 / 2.
Various links
soc.history.war.world-war-ii.n...
www.warrelics.eu/forum/world-f...
www.ebmedicine.net/topics.php...
tankarchives.blogspot.co.at/20...
tankarchives.blogspot.co.at/20...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoill...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerf...
» TOOL CHAIN «
PowerPoint 2016, Word, Excel, Tile Mill, QGIS, Processing 3, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Premiere, Adobe Audition, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Animate.
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
For an updated video including real Panzerfausts (30 to 150) see this video: kzhead.info/sun/qc2Ncsiphal6gac/bejne.html
hi
could you show us some detail of how the warhead was made? was it a sealed vacuum or just a closed can? What type of fuse did it use?
There is a problem with your statistics of number of shots needed to kill a tank. You should be looking at number of shots actually aimed at an actual tank, needed to kill a tank. You are not including shots at trucks, self propelled guns, bunkers and strongpoints and anything else a Panzerfaust gunner may feel he needs to shoot at apart from a tank. In the way you are presenting these stats, it suggests a huge amount of misses or failures to penetrate before a tank gets knocked out.
4:28 can't believe you did that rather than dividing the number by 3 🤣🤣🤣
Ah yes, I remember using the Panzerfaust during the war. I would try to use it to blow up those pesky spy planes but it didn’t seem to do any damage. Eventually it was fixed and it could take them out in one shot! But by then I had already got the glowy rainbow camp by killing 30 dogs instead.
"The operator had to be quite skilled and quite daring" *GIVES TO THE VOLKSSTURM*
does age restriction counts? :P
Afnan Zahran there is no age restriction as it is used to bring about a thousand year Reich.
you only be skilled to not burn your mates , not to fire it :P
Funny the Russian dude in your profile pic got his Ppsh kicked out of his hand in a trench and grabbed a panzerfaust and beat two Germans with it.
DaSpineLessFish I don't believe you.
fire foreward to kill tanks, fire backward to kill infantry.
"Point this side toward enemy" and this toward your friends. Don't mind, both sides are dangerous.
Point in front of face for budget tanning
Friendly Fire is turned ON
Like in Mii bowling
"Portable Flamethrower. Fun for the whole Wehrmacht!"
What the ammo consumption numbers ignore is that weapons like the Panzerfaust were also used against things like bunkers, machinegun nests, etc. not just armored vehicles
Maybe, but how many bunkers and machine gun nests were the Germans attacking in 1943 and onward. That implies they were on the offensive, which is true somewhat of 1943, but not much later on.
Jeorme McCollom it could probably be used as a mortar in situation where both sides dig in closely, plus after 1943 there were some limited offensives and definitely a lot of counter attacks.
A German veteran told me that they also used the Panzerfaust in urban combat against American troops. He said that, although they were forbidden to use the PzFst against other targets than tanks, a shot into the windows of a house where GIs had sought cover would flush them out immediately. He praised its effectiveness in that use.
@@jhonyark2308 Mortal shells are designed to use explosion and shrapnell form the casing to deal damage over larger area - With Panzer faust - it was dealing damage via small jet of molten metal (sorta pin point weapon) - in essence it wasnt as good as normal mortal shell - dont get me wrong it would be still dangerous due to the charge going off - but it wasnt the optimal tool for this kind of use.
@@jeromemccollom936 for as much I think you are right, I can't think of anything but airdropped bunkers, so you can use bunkers in offence
“more like 10 Shermans” Ah yes, the classic American way to measure things. love it
Ah yes he is Austrian
@@ara8692 i was just joking about the way he measured it. not literally him lol
I am from Yorkshire so I cost everything in the number of fish and chips...
I don’t think I’m doing it right. I’ve got 10 guys named Sherman all lined up here but I’m not getting anything close to 60 meters.
@@slayer0235 tell them to lay down, maybe it will work
Why cant all KZhead channels present hard facts and statistics? Thank you for doing actual research and presenting data quickly and effectively.
cause most people are just interested in Trivia and top 10 lists that someone pulled out of his arse.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized ... i would like to know much more about sources... are they from Soviet Union?
that's what they call deutsch qualitat ; )
Also he's German. Stats and figures are their bread and butter, increases efficiency.
@@floflo8018 deutsche Qualität xD
"What will we call this magnificent anti-armor weapon?" "Tank Puncher."
its shaped like a fist and punches holes in armor... panzerfaust seems legit.
That's a badass name
Stalin: Laughs in katusha
That about sums up the german mindset in a nutshell
@@uteriel282 "Hanz, this is a panzerfaust. It fausts panzers." "That's not a nice thing to call your wife."
The narrator is so German the top of my head turned in a pickelhaube
so you turned into Super Mario from Nintendo ;-) do you have the same moustache?
@Hugo Holesch LMAO someone had a bad day? maybe you're just an asshole
@Hugo Holesch People re people.
Uncle Joe Nice insult! Can I use it?
Hugo Holesch lmao
"Hans did you get the panzerfaust?" "Nein , I brought the panzer division"
LMAO
Heinz Z panzerfuast o ver sit
The Panzerfaust fists Tanks. The Panzerschreck scares Tanks
The PanzerShrek seduces tanks
CookedPotato no it converts them
@@kye6375 Panzer Shrek is all ogre now.
Dear god...
Prinz Heinz Ketchup GET OUT OF MEIN SCHWAMP!
The reason of its low "effiency" of the Panzerfaust on the eastfront (1943-1944) was, because it was mostly flat terrain, while this weapon in urban warfare (like in battle of berlin) must have totally "shined" compared to ALL other anti-tank weapons systems.
Even a kid could use it as the Russians found out when the entered Berlin. Those kids turned in into a meat grinder for the Russians.
@@jamesbascombe6869 true... a very simple and RECOILLESS weapon. no need for a "tough guy" to handle it... just aim and push the button
@@Blei1986 I saw a video of a veteran showing a bunch of volkssturm guys how to use them. He fired it at a wall with one hand. The thing had 0 recoil.
@@jakubukleja2553 yes, except the swedish AT-rifle which still has some recoil, these weapons just don´t have any, because of the backblast.
They were problematic enough for Soviet tanks to be seen wearing improvised mesh "armour" made of bed springs during the battle of Berlin
You speak very good English. I am unable to speak German. Thank you for leaning my language.
@@AK-vs9nr not Japanese but the Japanese language has a ton of English loan words. Also a tiny bit of German, such as "arubaito", which I probably don't have to explain. In tech (phones, computers, the internet) pretty much everything is just English spelled out in Japanese characters. The grammar presents a problem for many though, and some loan words don't exactly match the meanings of their English counterparts, such as "paper" in Japanese means "handouts", and "image" in Japanese means more like an "illustration for demonstration"
@@user-njyzcip just like the English language use words from others like the old norse
@@Monster3Games 40% of English words are french
most Germans start learning English in kindergarten
@@srujan00 Im german but never Heard of that i started with learning Englisch in 3 class/grade (i forgot which one of those two were how you call it in English)
As a US Marine Infantry Commander, I learned by professional experience to consider combat morale as something no less important than good equipment, but those two things are not independent of each other. Thus, for infantry facing tanks, it was and is important that the non anti-tank specialists, the rifleman, to oversimplify, has a means at his disposal by which he himself can fight a tank. Having such a means, even at a sizeable disadvantage, provides an added bolster to the resolve of defending infantry. Good tactics of course dictate that dedicated anti-tank specialists bear the primary burden, but how often does a combat engagement actually follow the textbook? Troops provided with capable tools themselves have reason to fight with added confidence even if the tools aren't quantitatively much of a game changer. The compulsion to disengage or even break due in part to the absence of AT weaponry is a major game changer that should not be overlooked.
Als nächstes solltest du lernen was Kriegsverbrechen sind .. Killing for ol is family bissnis in the USA
"No plan survives contact with the enemy"
Indeed. This reminds me of the time in the Battle of 73 Easting when a couple Bradleys ran straight into a unit of Iraqi T-72s and immediately had to shoot all their TOE missiles and barely survived the engagement...
@@tackytrooper Maybe it's a good thing if TOWs and T-72s aren't like horseshoes and hand grenades. A fellow 2nd Lt Mustang I went to TBS with was a TOW gunner (HMMWV mount). I never got his gulf war account as we both had collateral duties which kept us busy like a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest. That was the life. I reckon the spell-checker jacked up your spelling TOW-TOE Stupid Google, hate it
I'm glad you specified the difference in use compared to anti tank guns. The panzerfaust was an infantry weapon. When you are an infantry soldier with a tank closing in on you it will be close to impossible to counter without such weapons. It was not designed to take on the same role as the anti tank guns. Looking only at confirmed kills it looks bad, but in close combat it would be a much better weapon.
L4r5man and comparing ammo use isn't great without considering cost too
I guess the average footsolidier felt much relief when they finally got some good weapons to deal with enemy tanks. Panzerfausts demands much courage because a solidier had to get close to the enemy tank before he could fire - a very dangerous situation, but probably a much easier way to kill a tank than the other alternatives. And if I was a Russian tank commander I would be very reluctant to go into a city with my tank when someone could be lurking everyware with this cheap little weapon and with a single shot totally demolish my tank.
yeah , for better comparision it would need much more data, also those ammo use ,assume that all were used vs tanks is bad
Hey there Zag, at around 4:12 you can read at the bottom that anti-tank rounds are the ones taken into account. If you were refering to the Panzerfaust instead, the hollow charge type of warhead isn't very effective, if effective at all, vs infantry. May you have a nice day!
Hans Von Mannschaft yeah, shaped charges aren't going to be used like HE.
I love that a native German speaker made this. Makes it feel authentic.
Propaganda classic
'achtung spitfire!!!!'
or strongly biased
@@piligrimm2 In which way?
@wildman what
The effectiveness of these weapons are more then just their kill count. Their mere presence means the enemy has to change how they act. Its quite easy to stay out of its effective range, but doing so also means missing some great oppurtunities yourself. Kinda the same thing with manpads like stinger, igla etc. If you didnt have them then enemy air could just fly around with impunity and destroy you, having then means they have to stay back which gives you more space to manouver.
You are so right. It was the same with other weapons the Germans deployed. Let's take the Tiger for example' I have read a lot of accounts of ex servicemen that were so afraid of the Tiger tank they would open fir on outhouses because the silhouette looked like a Tiger. In other words. the Tiger did the job without having to fire a shot.
Not to mention just the difference being that every infantry unit suddenly has a muuuch more viable anti vehicle weapon, as opposed to 'nothing' meaning just bundled handgrenades at best.
Yes it probably served as a good psych weapon as much as anything else. Tank crews entering a city could be hit from any angle by anyone. That’s bound to put them on edge.
These weapons were close combat weapons, unlike the anti tank guns which could engage at a far longer distance. Also, anti tank guns were more likely to be in a fixed position that was protected by troops assigned to the gun battery. The panzerfaust was a solo weapon.
Anti tank guns became uneffective when all armies started developing heavier tanks during the second half of the conflict.
He literally says this
"Two salt mines from your favourite Gnome overlord..." Jingles sure is getting around...
I saw that, it was awesome
what??
you must be new. a couple years ago he made an April fools video around tog platoons and salt mines.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that did a bit of a double take about that reference.
Remember, Salt Mines are voracious predators, eager to absorb exactly those folks with sufficient leisure time to post videos to KZhead. The rest of us are doing more manly things . . . making war . . . watching porno . . .
One thing missing is that while yes these weapons was for defeating armour they were also used for many other purposes, from attacking entrenched positions, other vehicles, bunkers and much more they did give the German infantry an easy access to explosives delivered from a distance. It is a strategical benefit that is difficult to quantify and as such no surprise you do not include it in the video but a direct comparison is impossible to make. But I for one would love for my squad to have one of these if nothing else then just to blow up the window or tower I find disagreeable or even a door you don't want to get too close to.
As far as I understand that was mostly an improvised use by the Soviets when they captured stockpiles. The Germans weren't in the position of needing to blow apart buildings for the most part in the latter half of 1944 onwards, and were in dire need of knocking out enemy tanks.
I actually think its a myth. Because it has a shaped charge and not a fragmentation charge. I think the result would be a bit underwelming.
Shaped charge would be preferable for penetrating a hardened structure over a fragmenting charge. The actual damage to the occupants would be quite low however.
M72 LAWs and M136 AT4s are often used against buildings and fortifications today, so there must be some merit.
Dont AT-4's and LAW's have ability to swap between Anti Armour and Anti infantry (HE) weaponry as opposed single purpose Panserfaust?
I love the breakdown of Meters into Shermans and T34s.
Americans use football fields, Germans use T-34s and Shermans
This is because we Americans rather use anything than the metric system. If a golf club was 1 meter long, we’d sooner measure distances in golf clubs than meters.
@@mikem6176 true
The metric system is second rate bs.
Me a Russian t-34 tank veteran that survived countless battles from 1941 onwards Some German kid in Berlin 1945 with a panzerfaust: I'm about to end this man's whole career
Ahahahahahhaha so funny man 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This thing was a nightmare for the Russians as they closed in on Berlin. The short range of the Panzerfaust was no longer a problem in the close quarter fighting that took place in and around Berlin. And it was so numerous that Russian tank losses in the Berlin assault where extremely high, specially considering that they where fighting poorly trained 15 year old boys and 50+ year old men. I watched an old documentary in which a Russian tank commander who took part in the Berlin assault said every tank commanders greatest fear was getting hit with a Panzerfaust. The thing was a true tank crew killer, spraying the inside of the tank with hot liquid metal. He also said he was very disturbed to see how many of the German casualties where young boys and that he felt terrible for having to kill them but that they where a huge hindrance to their advancement on the city.
>Russian tank losses in the Berlin assault where extremely high Eghm. It was like ~770 armored vehicles(tanks, SPG's), part of them repaired. For ALL of the Berlin offensive operation(which included, for example, The Battle of the Seelow Heights). Compare that with _thousands_ armored vehicles lost during The Battle of Kursk
You cant compare Kursk to Berlin. In Kursk Germany had thousands of tanks, ant tank guns, etc at their disposal. Berlin was not even close, a handful of German tanks where available, and out of the few, several had been dug into permanent positions due to lack of fuel and or parts to get them moving again. Berlin was defended almost entirely by infantry with zero air support and a handful of tanks.
Ingaz we talking about 'extremely high losses' or not? >a handful of German tanks where available around 1000 tanks and SPG's. You're confusing the Berlin offensive operation and the assault on Berlin itself.
Вячеслав Скопюк Im talking about the battle for Berlin, the last battle of WW2 in Europe.
Ingaz you meaning assault of Berlin itself. So, it was around 350-380 armoured vehicles lost, some of them recovered. Around half of them - due to Panzerfaust (or, perhaps, any weapon with HEAT shell). No 'extremely high' losses
Outstanding and interesting.
So cool to see you here!
How are you not verified!
The narrator is so German, that I was reflexively reaching for my Garand at the start of the video.
wouldn't an AR-15 wouldn't be more appropriate? Oh yes, nobody needs an AR-15... (til 2020 came along).
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I chose to be period correct. Now you best hop back into your Kettenkrad and beat feet, or I'm comin' over to fuck up your Biergartens and make you eat nothing but hamburgers for the next 100 years.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized, you are right no one needs ONE AR15, they need a FEW AR15s, one with a 20"-18" barrel, one 16"-14.5" and one 12.5"-10.5" at the very least.
@@BigPuddin murica
@@robertharper3754 And a Red Ball Express, along with sea-going concrete port (a maintained one)
panzerfaust: how effective was it? tanks on battlefield 5: *shivers*
**Assault Main Screeching**
vehicle hit +3
@Kurogane -sensei *laughs in fliegerfaust*
Damn thing is useless, need 3 rockets and 3 dynamite to kill any vehicle that features a cannon
@@looinrims 4
When you look at the sheer amount of equipment it's unreal on all sides.
yeah, I was quite surprised to read about the losses of the US industry, I think they lost like 10 or 100K of workers in that period, something I probably will cover in a special video.
You forgot to mention and compare its (probably) biggest advantage: It was cheap. How many Panzerfausts could be produced for the costs of a 7.5cm PAK gun plus 1000 shots of ammunition? What was the use of strategic materials in Panzerfaust production compared to anti-tank gun production? Which type of factories, which type of labor (skilled vs. unskilled/slave labor) could produce either of the two? I bet in the answer to these questions lies the true reason why the German leadership was so thrilled with this weapon.
The German leadership wasn't "thrilled" with the Panzerfaust, they were desperate. It wasn't a cost saving measure. They could not produce enough AT guns (at any "price") , nor did they have the crews to man them even though they were far more tactically valuable and useful. The produced these because they only need low quality sheet metal and could be used by infantry to increase their massed firepower.
That it was cheap and easy to use for a conscript army towards end of the war.
I absolutely love these videos, it puts everything in such a clear perspective. The amount of research and analysis you must put in to every episode is very impressive. Thank you so much!
Very interesting video although I would suggest that it's effectiveness shouldn't just be measured by armour kills. It would affect the behaviour of enemy armour in the close environment. I.e. if the panzerfaust wasn't known to exist in large number enemy tanks would manouvre with relative impunity close to German positions and the urban environment. Good commanders would ensure that armoured attacks were supported by infantry to negate the panzerfaust threat affecting planning and coordination timings. All in all the panzerfaust was a bloody good weapon both in intended performance and by the threat it posed.
3:09 Jingles reference is awesome
thank you!
Ok buys, back to the salt mines.
My uncle, who was in a US tank-destroyer unit advancing through Belgium and into Germany near the end of the war, said, "Any German who fired one of those things at us deserved an Iron Cross."
+Rickinsf Because of the backblast that could kill him?
because you need some serious balls to get within 30m of a tank
CrazyDutchguy BuT iN bAttlefield you can be veryy zclose to a tank and is noy hardr and battlefiel 1 is very realistic so stuf
I appreciate the effort, but you're going to have to a do better than that.
Shooters had to get quite close and the backblast gave away his position.
My Uncle Hans was a 15 year old Fallschirmjager during Battle of the Bulge.He received the Iron Crosses 1st and 2nd class for knocking out 5 Sherman tanks.He ended surrendering because he was tired of being hungry cold tired scared and homesick.
holy shit ! and at fifteen i was crying cause my ice cream fell off it's stick .
Sherman fan boys need to read this.
@@kellygable1668 It is hard to hold an ice cream in one hand whilst firing a Panzerfaust with the other.
@@FairladyS130 The Sherman did what it was supposed to do. We also had to ship these from the US... so size limitations were pretty big. Any tank on the field is vulnerable without infantry support, even these days.
@@jeebuzcrust The US managed to ship Coca Cola and icecream so a bit bigger tank should not have been a problem.
My father was a tanker, he drove an M4. He told me that I the last month of the war, they had intelligence that that night, hitler youth would attack at close range with panzerfaust. Dad said that terrified everyone in the column. That nite, nobody slept, guard’s were posted, and gunners manned the 50’s in the ring mounts. The hitler youth never arrived, I think Dad said they met their end when they crossed paths with an infantry platoon. I love your channel, keep up the excellent work!
Strangely, I saw a Panzerfaust in a museum that had been cut in half to show its construction and had a spherical-like shaped charge and liner rather than the expected conical shape. It turned out that in the German's haste some warheads were produced in a former lightbulb factory using the old lightbulb mouldings.
interesting, would be also interesting if it did inflict the effectiveness. Was there any information on this?
No. That said, it would certainly reduce the effectiveness against an armoured vehicle as the slug would be spread out.
A Jagdtiger (70 tons) was destroyed by it, so it's quit good.
Adamast Weight has nothing to do with it,a JG weighed a lot but didn't have that much armor considering it's size
+Younot No correlation between weight and armor? It's quite similar to the Tiger II, but I agree that not everyone must be a Tiger fan.
panzerfaust it fausts panzers
Man germans have always been kinky I guess.
Dont forget Faustpatrone :P
FISTENPATRONE? whoa easy matey...
or in English: it fists tanks xD
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Your short documentaries are SO interesting. And thoroughly researched!!
Really appreciated that info & Dance! Nice details. Danke!
I think you forgot something very important. In stories from tankmen about the end of the war you always hear about the threat of panzerfausts. They didn't overload their Sherman's with sandbags and attached bed springs to their T-34's to ward off high velocity AP shells from AT guns. This was an indication how much they feared the panzerfaust. They had to change tactics and a lot of areas were simply no-go areas because of it. A lot of places like that will have had to be cleared out by infantrymen without armored support just because of the panzerfaust threat. Of course bazooka's (and equivalent (yes, even the PIAT (oh god, the PIAT))) would have had the same impact if the situation were reversed.
Good comments and thanks for them.
One think I like about PIAT was its launch signature was almost zero. Thanks ill stay hidden rather than be surrounded in rocket or powder smoke.
Wholeheartedly agree. My Dad was in the 14th Armored Infantry (The Liberators). One of his stories revolved around the tankers having sandbags on their tanks because of the Panzerfaust, and Gen Patton going ballistic on them for doing so.
Naaa bazooka didn't had the pen to kill German tanks like panther Piat yea that would be effective but it was hard to reload heavy and big but it would have been certainly better then the bazooka
I think there were additional anti cumulative armor plates on soviet tanks
For all those people telling me it should be "Armor Fist". Well, "Panzer" means "tank" (vehicle) or "armor" (vehicle OR the protective covering), but there is also "Panzerung" in German, which means "armor" (protective covering) but NOT "tank". So Tank Fist is clearly more correct, additionally, the "Panzerabwehrkanone" is translated into anti-tank gun/cannon and not anti-armor gun/cannon.
I am a big fan of non-German speaking people (read: often Americans) advising Germans what the meaning of a German word is.
FSCB I like Bratwurst
FSCB, yes, us English get the same thing happen to us!
Paulbert Kuether Armor has not the same meaning in germany as tanks
Paulbert Kuether well there is one in russian: Stronk Tenk
Thank you for rounding in your talk.
I admire your effort and calculations. THANKS!
you are litterly the only KZheadr who puts in Meters and Feet Good job👌
thank you, you will like my next video.
consider Forgotten Weapons, for example. Ian puts meters, feets, grams and grains
Please try capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and not using "literally" incorrectly.
Princeofcups Poc why are you like this ? It’s just the comment section chill. Op might not be a native English speaker.
I like this as well, better to have types of measurements than just one
Kills is not the most correct way to determine the effectiveness of the weapon. Soviets had to dramatically change their tank tactics. Crushing with tracks anti-tank guns and infantry was no longer possible. Assault of the city became even greater nightmare than before. "Area denial weapon" In military terms.
THATS one big point in the bigger picture. Thanks for mentioning it.
Attempting to crush with tracks something like Pak. 42 isn't advisable thing. As for the infantry - german and soviet infantry had things like RPG-6 and PWM 1-L for very close distances
Example?
No body mentions the 88's, best tank killer other than a Tiger, both using the same gun
This is because, In the second half of the war, 88 as a field gun sucked ass. Pak 43 huge, heavy, awkward to maneuver. The only reason for their production, lack of wolfram for pack 40. Pack 43 has about the same penetration, but with cheap steel shells.
Keep in mind, when calculating shots fired per Tank destroyed, the Panzerfaust was also employed against personnel and hardened fixed positions.
I know this much from my father, tank commander in Sherman's, 6th Armored division/ The Panzerfaust will break the bolts and bend the front drive sprocket of the Sherman. He was poking his nose out from a hedge row when his tank was hit.
Wait, so someone destroyed a tank with a pistol? What's the story behind that?
Grenade launching pistol :)
The Sturmpistole was a modified flare gun that could shoot grenades, including shaped-charge munitions.
VieneLea Here my son. Try to lift it up... nice. Now your ready...
shooting grenades from a pistol?! Would that break your wrist??
Emanicas Look at the image of: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmpistole You see that it's a pimped up flare gun with a buttstock.
I always assumed that the 'salt mines' Jingles rules over were just a code name for playing world of tanks.
Anonamous_Quinn in deed
Jingles also plays WoW and other MMORPGs. Jingles is one of his MMORPG toons.
Anonamous_Quinn the mines are for salt to get salty.
nah, the greatest saltmines of all are laying in the LOL realms :D
Before I watch: Effective enough to inspire the continued evolution of handheld AT weapons.
Thanks for the video, well made like always ⭐️⭐️⭐️
My grandmother's brother destroyed a tank using the Panzerfaust. He was just an ordinary low rank soldier and he survived the engagement. He earned the Iron Cross (II) for this. Unfortunately, I never got to know him personally. I would have loved to listen to his stories. Don't get me wrong, I am not proud of being related to Nazi soldiers, but as a German, you do not really have a choice. ;) Really interesting video! Thx for making it.
Unless he was SS he was not a Nazi-soldier. Just a German one
_Sadlex_ A Wehrmacht soldier is not the same as a "nazi soldier". A wehrmacht soldier was a german soldier, no more, no less. It wasn't the wehrmachts fault that Germany was governed by the nazi party. That was the fault of the german majority who voted them into power. Wehacht soldiers served their country just as they were supposed to do during World War 2. It's not a soldiers place to question "why?" they're waging war. Their job is to deliver war to where the elected rulers of the country wills it. Hitler and his nazi party might not have had noble goals and ambitions, but the Wehrmacht served their country with honour, even if their leaders weren't honorable. If you want nazi-soldiers, then you should look at the. schutzstaffel.
nah don't worry about him being German all individual field soldiers no matter the nation were decent and humane men and were all victims of war even the more insane ones like the Japanese soldiers who jump of cliffs when they lose. As for the SS they weren't as black and white as people make it out to be between the Wehrmacht and SS, just darker and lighter shades of grey.
_Sadlex_ be proud. have pride in your history and bloodline. you deserve it as a fellow white man
_Sadlex_ you should be proud of your ancestors
Sehr interessantes Video. Gute Arbeit!
Heinz Guderian doch
Thank You for the books at the end.
I've played heroes and generals so much, in the game this is a common at weapon. I always wondered what it was and if it was an actual thing. Thanks for this.
I also still play it, great game
My grandmothers uncle Ville Väisänen used this in Battle of Tali-Ihantala when the enemy attacked supported by at least 20 tanks; some of the tanks managed to breach the line and started firing at our infantry in the trenches. He charged towards them and destroyed 3 tanks making the other tanks back up. He charged again masterfully using the terrain to gain advantage and destroyed next nearest tank at 10 meters. Same fate was for the tanks who tried to flank their post. He managed to destroy 8 tanks total that day(someone reported seeing him at one point with his shirt burned off); after this he disappeared. Thanks to this and other achievements he was awarded the most esteemed Finnish military decoration: the Mannerheim Cross.
Suomi perkele! Me ollaan parhaita sodissa! Tali-Ihantala oli suurin taistelu pohjoisessa, ja ME voitettiin se! :DDDDD
Ειδησεις 5αποσταγμα,
A terrific soldier
@BRYAN351 Easily! ... Since he longer had to due to the fact he'd hammered them down the barrels of two tanks after their skin had been ripped off by machine gun fire .
Has he reached level 100 after that?
You probably meant to say 'every Reichsmark counts'
The statistical breakdown was very interesting - thank you.
I hate having to say this, but thank you for including imperial measurements. Really helped me understand!
Dein accent ist absolut wunderbar :D
You sound like my great grandpa, from Indiana... How do you insult a hillbilly German? "Dieses Bier ist schwach"?
@@captainmaim dude what
@@captainmaim ha
@Alfons Falkhayn ok boomer
@@captainmaim With "That beer is weak"?
A panzerfaust is actually a perfect anti-tank weapon for a Volksturm tactic as it is easy to use and can be distributed widely even with low training and access. Besides from the obvious dangers with back-blasts these weapons are very simple to use, hence why the Russians adopted the concept with their RPG-7. I've used the modern AT4 which use the exact same concept during my army time and they are very easy to use weapons compared to other weapons. There is no need for maintenance as they are one-use and the low range, though a major disadvantage, also enable you to use a very simple iron sight to achieve good enough accuracy. Anti-tank weapons like an anti-tank cannot require maintenance, horses or vehicles for transport, a two or three person crew which need to be highly trained to be effective as well as the high production costs of the cannons themselves. Of course the anti-tank cannons have superior range and penetration as well as a slightly protected crew but as a weapon for poorly trained soldiers these kind of weapons are very useful and the German army realised this quickly. After all these weapons are not to replace anti-tank guns but rather to give infantry an easy to use but effective anti-armour capability. You can just hand four of these to a squad and suddenly the squad have the ability to take down a large variety of un-armoured or lightly armoured vehicles (besides tanks there are many vehicles with less than 20mm armour) from 60m away - something which previously demanded you to get into a near-suicidal range or use a heavy high-calibre rifle.
Consider necessity to leave cover, when using Panzerfaust. And effective range of PPSh, which was about 200m
since the volkssturm mainly fought in inner cities there was plenty of cover.
montanus777 Despite that, the use of Panzerfaust caused appreciable losses only during the assault of Berlin
The thing is that if someone leave cover and get killed it is a very minor loss. Someone else can just pick up the weapon and try again. At least when soldiers are considered less valuable. Which is why Soviet liked the concept and developed the RPG which is just an improvement of the same concept. Of course, if you want to stay alive you'd prefer to use an anti-tank gun, a tank destroyer or a heavy tank. But towards the end of the war for Germany such things became luxury.
+Thomas Johansson >The thing is that if someone leave cover and get killed it is a very minor loss it's not worked in WW1. >Which is why Soviet liked the concept and developed the RPG which is just an improvement of the same concept. nope. It isn't 'just improvement', or 'the same concept'. The effective range of the RPG is hundreds of meters. Basically it's a 'man-portable cannon'
I think the important part of the panzerfaust and early rocket launchers and recoil-less rifles that made people take notice was the fact that a foot soldiers had a portable weapon that could be used to at least fight a tank
Thanks for the video! I had never heard of the Sturmpistole before so I’m looking that up now.
i am ex infantry and anti armor qualified with both th m72 and the m47 missiles.. the reason the numbers look so bad on man portable anti tank weapons is because an infantryman hardly ever gets a shot on a tank.. tanks are rare and they always seem to be somewhere else than your present location. .. so, i. the meantime you carry this stupid rocket around with nothi g to snoot at, the battlefield is a big place.... so, instead you use it on a sandbag bunker to kill a machinegunner... or you just shoot it at an enemy truck or jeep.. a roctketeer is lucky to see an enemy tank in combat, th3 tanks are always attacking someone else far away from your point of view.
"a roctketeer is lucky to see an enemy tank in combat," Might be true today but I doubt that was an issue for a Wehrmacht soldier on the eastern front in 44/45 :-)
Very useful anecdotal information. Thanks for contributing to the forum. And thanks for your service.
SilentHunterSan no it was the same back then also.. german light infantry on the eastern front wasnt normally engaged against enemy armor units, most of the time it was in places like stalingrad fighting other infantry.. and german mechanized infantry had tanks protecting it... infantry was never used against armor offensively, only defensively. That is where weapons like the panzerfoust came in. you took a rocket and got down in a basement apartment looking down a road waiting for the enemy to come down the street... when they come, you just open up on them with machineguns and rockets. .. doesnt matter if its tanks or not.. see hand held infantry anti tank weapons dont usually destroy tanks like you see in the movies, it just blows wheels off for mobility kills or it kills one of the crew members inside causing chaos inside the tank, then they all start bailing out into the machinegun fire...the rockets are being fired off in volleys, 3 or 4 guys each firing a few of them from several positions, its called anti armor ambush, you can look it up, germans had good tactics, same ones i was trained in
SilentHunterSan If you were an German infantry formation dug in and defending a sector/frontline, you would most likely be attacked by an Russian infantry formation reinforced by tanks and artillery. Imagine something like 1 infantry division with an attached tank battalion, non-divisional artillery support, on a 5km or so front. Your biggest worry would most likely be being shelled to death by the various calibers howitzers, and Katyusha rockets, then being overran by Russian infantry. If the a platoon of tanks (3-4) were to be in range for Panzerfaust, there would likely be a company or so (probably sans the casualties sustained getting to you) of pissed off Russians spraying at you with Mosins, SMGs and LMGs. You would be trying to shoot the tank at your maximum range, the Russians would be shooting you at half their max SMG range. So true, the tanks would be the least of your worries. Likewise, if you were attacking, you would face mostly infantry. In an urban defense, the occasional tanks and mostly infantry. Tanks are generally used as penetration and exploitation forces. Actually, they are most effective in that role when accompanied by mechanised (or at least motorised infantry) and its organic artillery. They can easily overrun weakly defended rear formations. The only counter is another column of tanks. Or aircraft.
Xuan Vinh To yeah you are basically correct but you got to remember that as an infantryman, you only deal with what hou personally encounter on a daily basis, that is how the war is for YOU on a personal basis...its all averages...and on the average you arent involved in some big epic battle as seen in the movies, you are actually dealing with some forgotten minor engagement with random enemy forces in random situations. Most guys didnt fight in big important battles, on average, most guys fought in little bullshit encounters. Even if you fought is some big ass important battle, chances are you only played a small part in it if you survived. .some guys thought D Day was a cake walk bc they came in on later waves or attacked an easy sector ...same with tanks, most shermans kicked ass because they didnt have a chance encounter with a Tiger, you know, shit like that.. combat is subjective and situational.
I bet the life expectancy for a panzerfaust operator was very short after he shot it.
Panzerfausts were issued to the regular infantry squads, so it propably wasn´t much worse than the rest of the infantry...
Pfsif I heard from my Grandfather that their AT reinforcements were kids with a Panzerfaust each. They had only that one shot (to weak to carry more) and after firing it they gave away their position if they hadn't done so allready. What made it effective was that the Russians were surprised by it. In any case it was a massacre on both sides.
If he was smart he would already have a bugout plan in place before he fired his Pf. Then once he actually fired it he would simply drop the launcher and quickly bug out to his pre-selected fall out position. This would definitely be doable if the tanks were operating buttoned up with limited visibility making it easy or easier to miss the launch signature from the Pf.
Western-allied and German tankers almost never fought buttoned up. Often they did it a bit like you see in the film Fury (it got one thing right...) which was head out the hatch, but making yourself as small as possible. The Soviets liked to fight buttoned up, and they really payed for it.
To be exact - life expectancy for a panzerfaust operator was very short even before he shot it.
I should have subscribed earlier, just didn't think too. I really enjoy the detailed descriptions of the various minutiae of equipment and arms of these various videos. And even though I'm prior service and had to have an operational grasp on the metric system of weights and measures, aye, and I'm sure many others, appreciate that you are considerate enough to give weights and measures in the Imperial as well as the metric system.
Great video keep up the good work
My grandfather was wounded by one of these, some SS popped out of a cellar and hit one of the men under his command in the head, shrapnel then hit him in his shoulder. His unit was then cut off so they had to hold up in a house, he kept a grenade in his lap just in case they got overrun as the SS were infamous for not taking prisoners.
fuck me, hit in the head with a panzerfaust, thats one hell of a way to go
The SS took prisoners. It was the allies that didn’t sometimes take prisoners on the basis of allied propaganda and rumors. Hence it was often the allies that were the war criminals because of black rumors. Any allied soldier who killed surrendering SS because they war a Waffen SS uniform is a war criminal. Those are the rules.
most times they didn't...but the thought of 80-20 shot at being murdered would be quite unsettling and make me weight my chances.
trouble is Guilt by Association applies in war and there were some naughty boys wearing the black!
@@tbirum My father in law lost his leg in Germany in March '45, and he admitted they often executed German prisoners because they could not deal with them...he was a combat infantry platoon leader in the 36th Texas Division, and often in the vanguard, so he said when ya saw field gray or camo ya shot it no matter where it's hands were. Post war he was a gentle, soft spoken man, but he sadly confessed that in the heat of battle there were few rules observed.
Now I´m cürious, what killed the other 72,8% of Tanks?
Probably other tanks, but seems unlikely.
Tanks, AT, and probably a lot of kills by planes. Il-2, P47, Tempests with total-air-superiority. But that's just guestimating.
RapperFlo aircraft probably a portion, other tanks not sure
i guess even tanks that broke down could be in that number
most were destroyed by tanks.
You know I never thought that I needed to know this, but you made this and you gave me a new interest, you are great thanks!
I love that you reference Jingles, dude
not noted is how many were used just to breach a bunker or wall. Non tank usage was probably pretty high.
That's a good point.
Remember that late war germans were sedomly advancing anymore. They were in retreat on all fronts so it is unlikely they had to breach any bunkers or fortifications. I get your point though and guess they got used against all types of cover and similar
@@Nic_sxe10 But many (most?) were lobbed in the general direction of an enemy attack too. Also, his statistics were rds and panzerfausts "expended" . In retreat, ammo abandoned on the battlefield would have been been counted as fired. So there were not hundreds or thousands of rds. fired per kill as his analysis assumes.
@@Nic_sxe10 if you lost the keys for your own bunker, it could be very helpfull.
@@andreasm.7552 quite reasonable, have to admit
Whoever killed tanks with a Sturmpistole, they have my respect as soldiers
SuperGoliath56 Bruh I do that everyday
I suspect anybody who does that is using cheat codes IRL...
Great video. Although not directly connected to "effectiveness" I imagine a great deal of the weapons worth was psychological. I would sit in a tank and run over people all day long if I was only worried about them throwing grenades and molotovs at me. But it would make me think twice if I knew there was a dedicated antitank weapon that a foot-soldiers could deploy against me at any moment from any window, ditch or bush. On the flip side I would be slightly less likely to desert my foxhole and run screaming from a tank if the guy next to me had something that was designed to, and could, kill a tank even if it was a bit of a long shot.
Thank you! I just recently purchased an authentic panzerfaust and now I know all the facts and how it works
Had i been fighting in WW2, i can imagine having a panzerfaust with me at all times must have been an amazing confidence booster. I reckon a LOT of them where fired at quite long range, to stay in a safe position :)
3:10 how did you knew that Jingles was my favorite Gnome Overlord of the salt mines????
Awesome video man.
Excellent information and video
The 101st Airborne Division captured a few trucks loads of them in Normandy, and used them for the rest of the war. They liked them.
One of the most advanced tech made late war, yet redicolously simple.
Very educational and to-the-point. Thank you.
@Military History Visualized, lf you're not teaching at a major, military college, or similar institution, one of them is missing out on an extremely knowledgeable, articulate and engaging instructor. Nice work.
I KNOW ITS TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOOT A PANZERSHREK FROM AND ENCLOSED POSITION!!! DON'T READ THE F*CKING MANUAL NEXT TIME AND YOU WON'T CARE SO MUCH!!! Quote from Company of Heroes 2
Fighting the Volkssturm-way
I SUPPOSE YOU NEED CANON FODDER?
Ahh Panzergrenadiers no matter how much they claim to not be tanks, with their double panzerschreck kit they will still be used like tanks XD. Who can blame me considering how often they 1vs1 a t34 and then retreat with half of the squad dead :-P
A Panzergrenadier is a soldier who would ride in an armored infantry vehicle like the Sdkfz 250 series. I think that you are thinking of the StuG III also known as the Sturmgeschütz III.
No i mean what i say. Its a reference on coh2 where panzergrenadiers are a elite unit that can be upgraded from a strong anti inf squad to the best anti tank squad with double panzerschrecks
The effectiveness of Panzerfaust is probably very different in different kind of environments. An open field where the view range is great is not optimal for a short-range AT weapon, but for example in the battle of Tali-Ihantala Finns made good use of the weapon. In forested areas where the tank movement was limited they were able to get close and a hit usually destroyed the tank.
Very interesting numbers. Thank you for the research
Great video , very educational and informational!
Actually, regarding the shaped charge, its the Munroe Effect, not the Monroe Effect, very common mistake
Yes. One looks better standing over a steam jet 😛 K
Might be interesting to make a video comparing the Panzerfaust with the British PIAT with regard to effectiveness, at least if comparable data is available.
Agreed. And with Bazooka.
It's interesting because the Bazooka is clearly comparable to the PanzerShrek. But is the PIAT more comparable to the PanzerFaust or the PanzerShrek? He could be making videos about this stuff for months :)
wood1155 I know, that's why it would be interesting to see how much of a difference it really made.
As far as I can recall it was even phased out after WWII because of the fact it was not very safe to use.
According to wiki it was phased out in the early '50s. I guess it can't have been that bad.
I trust no one more than a german talking about a topic he loves, i love this channal
Great video, thanks for your info!
I'm going to name my future daughter after this, I'm sure that she'll be so proud!
lol, ''Panzerfaust, hit the bed right now.'' ''Ok, daddy.'' What a charming idea.
imagine her in her parties...or when she gets mad XP
Are you going to name your son Panzerschreck then?
probably either Balkenkreuz or Blitzkrieg XD
Papafaust (Father's Fist)
6:54 whenn the beer kicks
Sehr nützliche Informationen. Danke
Something else to consider when comparing Panzerfaust to Pak kills: the Panzerfaust was also used against bunkers, trucks, in street fighting, etc., while presumably just about all antitank solid shot was fired at what were at least presumed to be enemy tanks. That somewhat improves the relative performance of the Panzerfaust as an antiarmor weapon.
Thank you for another great video, Military History Visualized (MHV). I really enjoy your youtube channel as I am a WW2 historian myself. I have learned a lot from your channels, and love that you often cover scenarios, equipment, weapons, planes, ship etc. + both specific campaign and battles, the armed forces of the participants in the war as well as great and comprehensive answers to questions about why this and that happended as it did. However, I haven't come across a video from you regarding the Allied bomber offensive against Germany or Japan. I may have missed it. But if you haven't made a video on this yet, I would be GLAD TO HELP you out with research, sources, information search and writing. If you are interested. I have a MA degree in information science, library science + I am a trained cultural and historical educator, and I write. I hope you will consider my offer, as I would love to support your channel. It would be my privilege. I live in Denmark. Thanks again for some of the very best content on KZhead. Kind regards, Jon
Hmm this is more of a topic for military aviation history aka Bismarck.
Yes, off course you're right about that. I will redirect my offer then, but my thanks and respect goes for all your content. I especially find it delightfully interesting that you make educated, smart and in-depth analysis about topics such as "Why didn't the Bismarck shoot down the obsolote bi-plane "Swordfish" torpedo bombers? ", "How effective were the panzerfausts?" "Could Paulus have broken out from Stalingrad with the 6th Army?" etc. Thanks again. Keep it up. And off course, please contact me, if I may be of any help. Regards, Jon
I hope,you know that the Pzf 60's effective range was only 30 meters and not 60.That was how far the projectile went.The chances of hitting a target(2m×2,5m) at 30 meters range were 50-70 %,and that mostly depended on the skill of the operator.After all,the armor penetration doesn't matter if you can't hit your target.That's why they moved as close to their targets as they could.
Panzerfaust 30 was the initial version with a velocity of 30m/sec and range of 30m. Panzerfaust 60 was added a few months latter, by using more propellant and a thicker tube it had a velocity of 45m/sec and a range of 60m. A short time after that the Panzerfaust 100 was introduced. It used the same tube but added s second propellant charge separated by 10cm airgap that delayed ignition of the propellant and kept the tube pressure to the same level. It achieved a velocity of 60m/sec and a range of 100m. The Panzerfaust 150 was a reloadable version of the Panzerfaust 100 used a lighter more aerodynamic warhead to achieve a velocity of 85m/sec and a range of 150. The elevation for these ranges seems to be 5 degrees. The main production versions were the Panzerfaust 60 and 100 and they are almost indistinguishable. Panzerfaust could fire to greater ranges and had their sights adjustable to greater ranges but it was considered suitable for use against a building or bunker not a tank. I suspect the range can be regarded as equal to the velocity.
Appreciate listing the conversion
The back-blast wasn't as much of a flame as the recoil-less counter-weight. The launch charge of black powder was sandwiched between the projectile and a counter-weight. The counter-weight weighed the same as the bomb and upon firing the recoil forces were canceled out by both weight moving in opposite directions at the same time. The counter-weight was composed of scrap iron filings from industrial production. Standing too close to the rear of the tube and getting hit by those metal shards would be like getting hit with a shotgun blast. But since the shards didn't have much weight as individual particles they lost their velocity rapidly. I've constructed plastic and foam rubber Panzerfaust's for reenacting using sand for the counter-weight and it worked exactly like the original.
Jingles meme.... where is the double like button!?!?
When Finland recieved Panzerfaust in the Russian attack on karelian isthmus, the weapons were given to Lappish wild game hunters. They were waiting behind trees in forest and shot from very close distance. It was one shot/one kill. Finns were destroying almost 1500 russan tanks before Stalin ordered them to turn and go to Berlin..
Karelian isthmus was mostly open fields and good for Tanks. Most of terrain in eastern Finland was bad for tanks: Waterways, thick forests and swamps. Like designed for infantry light weapons. When red army give up in isthmus, was no reason try in harder land any more.
In the Winter War or 1944 ?
And a good lesson: strategic border areas if you have more than land enough. Plant forests in border regions, for sure if hilly, and a line, like the Mannerheim line.
Very well done.Thank you.