just how effective was this thing in WWII, really? I know that they did pretty well against North Korean T34s in Korea, but those were the later variants. Is there any reliable info about how well the earlier iterations of this thing did against German tanks?
>>65096488The regular bazooka absolutely did not do well against T-34s in Korea. This is one of the reasons that TF Smith was overrun at Osan in the opening engagements of the war, because they were supplied with the obsolete M9 bazooka models with the 2.36in rockets that the T-34 columns were described as shrugging off.In any case, the doctrinal role of a bazooka is basically holy fuck you never want to have to use this to fight armor. The effective range is limited (150 yards absolute maximum, more like 50 yards for a good probability of hit) and it's meant as a last line of defense to prevent the overrun of an infantry unit by enemy armor. What this ends up meaning is that, given America generally has a good track record of not getting BTFO'd, is that the bazooka was typically used against static targets as a support weapon, such as MG nests, pillboxes, et cetera.A quick perusal of wikipedia describes the bazooka as perfectly serviceable for its role as organic self-defense for infantry units against armor, though inferior to the panzerschreck because of the latter's greater penetration ability (88mm rockets, which is the same diameter as the M20 super bazooka that was issued after WW2). Like most weapons of the sort, you want to hit where the enemy armor is weakest (side, rear, top) and you will likely scare them off but rarely achieve a catastrophic kill, but the armor penetration ability was nothing to write home about.Like most things it's better to have than not at all, but I would prefer several panzerfausts distributed amongst the unit rather than a bazooka team. Greater coverage, cheap to supply en-masse, rudimentary training, and basically the same effectiveness.I don't think the disposable nature of the panzerfaust is a big deal given that after the first shot, a bazooka team in optimal range is going to either succeed in scaring/disabling the enemy tank or be promptly cut down by coaxial mg fire, which is exactly what happened at osan
>>65096508Why are you comparing its range and stopping power to field guns instead of the actual alternatives like rifle and hand grenades?Why are you ignoring that the people making panzerfuasts immediately copied it when they acquired samples? Do you think there's a kind of weapon that isn't more effective it it hits something other than the best armored part of the tank?
>>65096626Please refer to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
It's unclear why bazookas and recoilless rifles, despite hitting and exploding, had no effect on the T-34/85, which didn't have particularly thick armor.They weren't stored in such poor conditions for as long as the aerial bombs that exacerbated the damage in the 1967 Forrestal accident.
>>65096626Do you know how to read?
>>65096508>The effective range is limited (150 yards absolute maximum, more like 50 yards for a good probability of hitThe Panzerfaust was even worse in that regard, until late 44 its nominal range was 30 meters, at which point it was improved to 60. >I would prefer several panzerfausts distributed amongst the unit rather than a bazooka teamTo the best of my understanding, the bazooka was integrated into the squad level by 1944, but the Panzershreck remained part of dedicated teams
>>65096488>just how effective was this thing in WWII, really?The only thing able to stop it is a sloped Tiger 1, Panther front armor, or the fucking King Tiger.Anything else it will pierce frontally with a good shot, and absolutely punch right through any side armor.
>>65096508>This is one of the reasons that TF Smith was overrun at Osan in the opening engagements of the war, because they were supplied with the obsolete M9 bazooka models with the 2.36in rockets that the T-34 columns were described as shrugging off.This seems like a load of shit. The M9 is more than capable of penetrating the T-35/85s the Norks would have had.The Wikipedia(lol) article even has garbage like this: >Only some of these ignited, but several struck the rear plate armor of several T-34s where their armor was thinnest. The warheads failed to penetrate the armor, however,Which makes no goddamn sense.
>>65097771On paper, the penetration of the M9 bazooka with both the M6 and the M6A3 HEAT round ought to be enough to frontally penetrate a T-34-85. This is true.What is also true however is that both the M6 and the M6A3 HEAT rounds had notorious reliability issues, especially with glancing hits (which is basically every hit in combat) and also with sloped armor (which the T-34-85 has). Deflections, failed or partial detonations, et cetera.Another thing that is true is that the M6A3 HEAT rounds that TF Smith was supplied with during the Battle of Osan had been deteriorating from improper storage in pacific warehouses filled with salty air, obviously not climate-controlled, which seems to account for a greater rate of failures.What we DO know with great certainty is that TF Smith was unable to penetrate T-34-85s at Osan despite scoring many hits with both the M9 bazooka and the recoilless rifles they were equipped with. This is generally well corroborated and any history of the battle will make some mention of this. I find it hard to believe that an infantry force armed with adequate bazookas and recoilless rifles on a fortified hilltop straddling a highway with 8 miles of visibility would be so easily overrun by a tank convoy operated by a peasant army if their anti-tank assets functioned both correctly and adequately.Is this because paper tests of the M9 bazooka do not account for the reliability issues of the warheads as well as the inability to achieve clean hits in combat? Or is this because degradation of the M6A3 warhead stockpiles improperly stored in the years between WW2 and Korea? We have no way of knowing.Another thing we may want to consider is that American evaluations of the panzerschreck (88mm warhead vs. the 55ish mm warhead of the M1 + M9 bazooka) universally praised its penetration ability and preferred it to the bazooka on these grounds alone. It is likely a combo of both factors.
>>65098236Why do you type like an LLM?
>>65098247no em dash i don't think i sound like an LLM. i think your literacy is the problem
>>65096977That and the Cyclonite explosive used in Pfaust's warheads had an unfortunate tendency to "occasionally detonate" when the launch charge fired.Yeah, that big warhead right in front of you, just going "TIME TO POP!" the instant the propellant charge hits it.
>>65098303LLM confirmed.
>>65096488the super bazooka was made for a reason
>>65098319Source? RDX is highly insensitive. If this was such a common occurrence it must have been a fuze issue, or QC issues with RDX manufacture.
>>65098303Interesting how you suddenly stopped capitalizing words and using proper grammer
>>65098357No em dash, I don't think I sound like an LLM. I think your literacy is the problem.There. How's that? Fixed.but now im speaking in lowercase with improper punctuation oooOooOooOoif i was using an llm i would suspect my original response >>65098236 wouldn't be so replete with run-on sentences and incorrect clause separationNow I'm using proper punctuation, capitalization, and grammar.now im not.See how that works? funny. It's almost like I can type however I want when I want. and when i'm writing a one line response maybe i don't feel like using correct syntax and punctuation and capitalizationBut maybe sometimes I do.or dont
>>65096508>thread is just (You) baiting like a retard>>65098372dogshit thread, get a hobby
>>65096977>The Panzerfaust was even worse in that regard, until late 44 its nominal range was 30 meters, at which point it was improved to 60.Biggest bang for buck, leading armor killer. Breakthrough Soviet heavy tank formations typically raw dogging without infantry, and stripping infantry off with MG/whatever would duplicate the situation. They should've increased the warhead size toward very late war specs much faster.
>>65098420>leading armor killer
>>65096488Just read Ian holloways answers on quora. He pretty much answers all your questionshttps://www.quora.com/Can-an-American-Bazooka-projectile-penetrate-the-side-of-a-T-34/answer/Ian-Holloway-8>>65097771>The M9 is more than capable of penetrating the T-35/85s the Norks would have had.Except it proved to not be capable. There are two reasons why the 2.36 inch bazooka failed while the 3.5 inch did not. First being bad fuzes (improper storage or just bad production quality etc) and second being insufficent penetration (3, 4 or 5 inches of penetration for the 2.36 inch bazooka vs the 10-11 inches of penetration for the 3.5 inch bazooka). Pic related is a 1951 test of the 3.5 inch bazooka and 3 out of 14 rounds fired into a main 4 inch plate angled at 40 degrees with plates stacked behind it failed to achive the 7-7.5 inches of penetration that the 11 other rounds did, instead only doing slightly above 4 inches (almost 50% reduction in penetration). Now if those 3 underperforming 3.5 inch rockets struck a T-34/85 on the side then they would still have penetrated the armor. The 2.36 inch however with the same 50% penetration reduction would have done nothing or had insufficent post armor penetration damage (zaloga mention in his "duel panzerfast vs sherman" that a minimum of 2 inches of penetration behind the main armor for HEAT warheads was considered to be the energy needed to set things on fire, kill crew or detonate the ammo).The "History of the shaped charge effect, The first 100 years" by Donald R. Kennedy mentions on part 2 page 23 that the author on a training range in 1951 was observing 2.36 inch bazooka rockets underperforming, instead of behaving as an HEAT round they were detonating like HESH rounds (no holes on the armor targets, only blast marks) which again according to the author has to do with bad fuzes.
The Germans literally copied it, but made it more effective
>>65097041>sloped Tiger 1
>>65098516Behold, a Tiger 1 with sloped armor and wet ammo storage
>>65096508>This is one of the reasons that TF Smith was overrun at Osan in the opening engagements of the war, because they were supplied with the obsolete M9 bazooka models with the 2.36in rockets that the T-34 columns were described as shrugging off.Are you sure that was it? Not that the armored column had to stop, get out, and ask them why a glorified platoon was being so stupid or if they actually wanted to commit suicide?
>>65098549>540 men incl. howitzer battery>glorified platoon
>>65096488
>>65098516A Tiger 1 which is at a 45 degree angle as the Tiger handbook suggests doing.
>>65098490Bad fuzes explain it completely, alright. If it's such a crapshoot in term of penetration, no wonder they had trouble.
>>65098689That is called angled, not sloped
Re-posting the 3.5 inch rocket test against armor since I found a different quality source (Transactions of Symposium on Shaped Charges Held at the Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland on November 13-16 1951 AD0001531). It is part of a much larger (36 articles/reports in total) 407 page pdf that is all about shaped charges. Highly recommend this for anyone that wants to read more about the US post world war 2 development of shaped charges.
>>65098372>heh I'll just remove these dashes after I copy my ai slop article. that'll fool 'em.
>>65098903I was tired as hell when I made the post, sorry a minor synonym freaked you out.
>>65098236>posting in obvious bait thread FWIW I believe you're not using Ai, not just because you lack the tells, but also because you write just like I do
