Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:22 am Post subject: Bazooka ”HEAT” weapons vs Panther! Real live test!
Bazooka ”HEAT” weapons vs Panther! Real live test!
Good day men!
This is the report after a fire test by a Bazooka vs a Panther.
Note they try the US bazooka, not the more effective German version.
The effectiveness of spaced armour is clear, note how the HEAT fails to penetrate if it hit the exhaust pipes and wheels, same effect as schürzen.
Stalk
-------------------------------------The Report:
HEADQUARTERS
5th TANK DESTROYER GROUP
APO 758, U.S. ARMY
1. To ascertain from first hand observation the effect of bazooka fire on the Mk. V Panther tank, sixteen rounds were fired at a knocked out 130 Pz Lehr Mk. V. which had been immobilized by the 776 TD Bn's 90mm fire.
2. Diagram of tank indicating location of hits:
Description of Hits
a. Ricochet into wheel rim completely severing the tire and blasting an 8" hole in the wheel. There was no damaging effect upon the inner wheel immediately behind the one hit.
b. Direct hit upon a wheel. A 3 x 5" hole was blasted out of the wheel and two 10" radial cracks were made. There was no damaging effect upon the wheel immediately inside the one hit.
c. & d. Direct hits upon wheels. 6" diameter holes blasted - no effect upon inner wheels.
e. Hit scored one inch below upper edges of side skirt. While the deck plating served to add thickness at the point of contact, a complete penetration was made, the hole being of sufficient diameter at this smallest point to allow an ordinary pencil to pass completely into the interior.
f. A hit upon the bolt holding two adjacent track plates together. The head of the bolt was sheared away completely, though the track plates were not damaged. It is possible that the bolt could have worked out, thus severing the track.
g. A hit upon the corner of the turret, making a complete penetration, The hole was cylindrical, 3/4" in diameter, with little flaking or enlargement on the inner surface. The blast effect was evident on the inside by the particles of steel having ricocheted from one side to the other.
h. A turret hit making a similar 3/4" hole with flaking on the inner surface of about 4" in diameter around the hole. There were approximately 36 small craters on the inner surface of the opposite turret armor, each at least 1/16" deep and from 1/8" - 3/8" in diameter. As the face of each pit was smooth, the blast effect of the flying particles must be terrific. The area covered by these craters was roughly 8' - 10' in diameter.
i. A hit upon the very bottom edge of the rear plate, The projectile just grazed the armor and only a small nick was chipped out of the armor. The projectile did detonate, but the effect was underneath the tank in the ground.
j. A hit upon the towing-jack device on the rear of the tank. A small portion was chipped away, but there was no effect upon the armor plate.
k. A hit upon one of the exhaust pipes, completely blasting it away, but there was no effect upon the armor plate inasmuch as the blast had been dissipated upon the exhaust pipe.
l. A ricochet off the rear armor, detonating in the ground. m.& n. Two hits in the rear armor, each making a clean penetration, the hole being 1/2" in diameter through armor plate 2" thick.
o. A hit upon the lower portion of the front armor plate. No penetration was made. A 1-1/2" long gash, 1/2" deep, and 1/4" wide was gouged away.
p. A hit upon the towing hook on the front of the tank. No damaging effect upon the armor plate.
3. CONCLUSIONS:
The bazooka will penetrate the armor on the side, rear, and side of the turret on the German Mk. V Panther tank. The turret is very effectively penetrated and the blasted particles on the inside most certainly are lethal. The side armor is of less thickness than the turret and can be penetrated more easily.
The wheel and tracks are not profitable targets. Pieces may be blown out of the wheel or tires cut, but the possibility of stopping the tank is remote.
The rear armor is a profitable target, because the engine compartment is very susceptible to fare, even though the tool boxes, jacks and exhausts are reduce the area of vulnerability.
Upon the front armor, it is difficult to get an effective burst, as the slope of the armor will ricochet the rocket. No perpendicular hits were obtained during the trial.
For the Group Commander:
EDWARD N. STIVER
Major, F.A.
S-2
DISTRIBUTION:
Combat Observer, XV Corps - 2
CG, XV Corps - 2
1st TD Brigade - 1
Arty Sec, Seventh Army - 2
Each Division, XV Corps - 1
Each TD Battalion, XV Corps - 1
File - 2
Reading this tells me of how easy to knock out a Panther really is.
Almoast all sides can be fired upon with effect.
On the paper it seams simple, but in combat its a very different situation.
The Panther moves, there is lot of gunfire, the enemy is nearby.....
And of course....you miss the first shot and the Panther spots you.
Don't need to tell the rest.
It doesn’t say how “easy” it is to get the round at the tank, just how effective the round is if it hits there.
Bring the tank to a stand still, maybe by a mine, or a sign that there is mines.
Ambush if possible, so there isn’t any gun fire until you start fire, and you get first rounds of, and you have the advantage of know the situation, tank has not, “where is the enemy? How many are they?. What have we run into, any guns lurking, any tanks lurking, where can I move without get boggd, where are the mines if any?” Its confusion…
Added to this you ought to have the mortars to handle infantry already pre set to fire at the aria u ambush the tank in, so with a sign you get instant indirect fire support without delay. Maybe even larger calibre with preset coordinates.
Mines, Ambush from side, have MG for enemy infantry. indirect support preset.. Fire!
Even better if u have access to a gun(s), and as tanks sets of (turn) after the enemy infantry the gun(s) fires at the tanks sides!
Here is a tank kill report by the Germans form Normandy battles, as one can see close combat kill of tank is indeed a factor. ::
Germans Tank killing Report from Normandy fight, made 29 th of June.
Report is done on 29th and cover fight in June up to a day or maybe days before the 29th June.
I fined some interesting statistics about how effective Guns & tanks is compared to Screcks and Faust in Normany June, (Close Combat values).
German tank killing report 29 th of June 1944 Normandy:
17. SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Division "Götz von Berlichingen"
Sturmgeschultz.............................7
Towed AT gun ............................5
Close Combat.............................5
352 ID
Panzerjäger..................................21
Flak.............................................21
Artillery +Pak?...............................25
Close Combat...........................30
2. Pz Div
Panther bat (last 4 days in june*)....89
Towed AT gun..............................15
Artillery...........................................4
Close Combat...............................5
Pz - Lehr – Div
Tanks............................................85
Jagdpz IV.......................................18
Towed AT gun.................................7
Artillery............................................4
Close Combat................................40
12. SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend"
Tanks............................................105
Towed AT gun.................................16
Close Combat................................23
21. Pz - Div
Tanks...............................................37
Towed 88 AT....................................41
7.5 SP..............................................15
Artillery...............................................3
Close Combat....................................5
(notes by NZ, the Pzjäger in 352 ought include Stug III to)
Conclusion: The Close Combat weapons accounted for more tank kills then the AT guns in Normandy up to day-s before 29th of June 1944.
Close Combat tank kills ought to represent more then 1:3 of the tank vs tank kills.
Close Combat tank kills ought to have double the kills that Stug and SP guns and JPZ have together.
Stalky
Source: Authour N Zetterling, Normandy 1944 ISBN 0-921991-56-8 & Normandi Avgörandets Ögonblick. Authour refers to Germans report in archive BA-MA RH 19 IX/3 – Anlage 3 zu HGr. B/Stoart Nr. 630/44 g.Kdos, Panzerabschussliste 29.6.44
*BA-MA RH 10/141
Interesting that in pretty same time on Soviet-German front RKKA was capturing hundreds of thousands of working PzF in trenches and warehouses and the weapon claiming the most of tank kills was ATG...
Different terrain - different employment of weapons.
Quote:
The effectiveness of spaced armour is clear, note how the HEAT fails to penetrate if it hit the exhaust pipes and wheels, same effect as schürzen.
btw, Stalk, shuerzen were not meant as anti-HEAT source and in some areas they even gave better chance for HEAT to penetrate.
Interesting that in pretty same time on Soviet-German front RKKA was capturing hundreds of thousands of working PzF in trenches and warehouses and the weapon claiming the most of tank kills was ATG...
Different terrain - different employment of weapons.
.
No doubt a gun is preferd, still, the Close Combat AT will be next line of defence.
And adout the capturing Pzf, you meen during Operation Bagration 1944?
Dima wrote:
Quote:
The effectiveness of spaced armour is clear, note how the HEAT fails to penetrate if it hit the exhaust pipes and wheels, same effect as schürzen.
btw, Stalk, shuerzen were not meant as anti-HEAT source and in some areas they even gave better chance for HEAT to penetrate.
.[/quote]
The "protect" mainly vs HE and HEAT.
And the HEAT is focused to explode at right distance, ad space to that and the plasma is out of focus, and penetrate is less. Still used today in almost all modern AFV, and also extra added at APC against RPGs.
What you think shuerzen is for?
No doubt a gun is preferd, still, the Close Combat AT will be next line of defence.
somehow second line of defence with inf AT weapons didnt work until RKKA reached dense urban area .
Losses inflicted by Fausts (PzF/Faust/RPzB) of total losses inflicted by Arty/ATG and Fausts :
1st Bellorussian Front, June - September 1944 - 9%.
1st Bellorussian Front, January - March 1945 - 5,5%.
1st Bellorussian Front, Oder - Berlin 1945 - 10,5%.
1st Ukranian Front, January - March 1945 - 8,9%
4th Ukranian Front, January - May 1945 - 9%
2nd GvTA, Berlin Operation - 22,8%.
7th GvHTBr, Berlin Operation - total write off by arty/ATG - 28 IS-2, by Fausts - 11 IS-2, KO by tanx/arty/atgs - 28 IS-2.
u can c that when tanx reached urbanised area they started to loose high percentage of tanx to HEAT inf AT weapons.
Normandy with it's hedges was pretty much like urban area thus so high percentage of tank losses due to HEAT inf AT weapons.
Quote:
And adout the capturing Pzf, you meen during Operation Bagration 1944?
yes, that's too, almost 200.000 were captured.
RKKA has officially captured 700.000 of Fausts by the end of 1944.
3.000.000 in total by the end of GPW.
Quote:
The "protect" mainly vs HE and HEAT.
check when did they start to install shurzen? check what was the distance on which they have installed them? Why Panther/Tiger didn't have them?
Quote:
Still used today in almost all modern AFV, and also extra added at APC against RPGs.
don't u c difference in their shape in comparison to shuerzen?
there was pretty same difference in shape of soviet Anti-HEAT screens...
Quote:
What you think shuerzen is for?
easy - for same reasons Bradley has side screens - to protect vs 14.5mm soviet bullet.
anyway, do we speak here about regular shuerzen or late shuerzen that were installed since late 1944?
Obviously I don’t need to tell you about Bagration Dima, never the less I made a grapix illustration, you know how much I like that : ).
I think Bagration 1944 was the most impressive Operation in WW2.
Operation Bagration in 1944 dwarfs Stalingrad encirclement, the they advanced more then 450 km, and on a wide wide front.
(Stalingrad Op Superimposed)
The Bagration Operation lasted less then two month, and swallowed whole Germans Agmygrop, I believe Soviet estimated they destroyed, captured 25% of the Germans east front in that one month blow. (More then a 1.1 million Germans casualties, IIRC Germans say 600 thousand+) They captured howizers, tanks, MGs, Trucks and prisoners etc etc etc etc...
Did they capture Pzf there? Sure, does that prove they are useless? Not at all, the Germans had the idea that the Pzf should not be in armoires/storages, they shall be in the front, or close to the front widely spread.
How wide spread was they? (Whole year)
In 1943-44 they made 5.890.000 (5.9 millions) Pzf..
In 1943-44 they made 289.000 Raketen-Panzer-Büchse and 1.978.000 (2 million) grenades to them.
What shuerzen is for?
“"easy - for same reasons Bradley has side screens - to protect vs 14.5mm soviet bullet.”"
Hm, Germans also used fence for shuerzen. They don’t work against any bullets just HEAT.
And the solid shuerzen was not made of armour plates but out of thin steel plates.
The main threat for APC in Iraq is RPG, and road side explosives, but that is OT..
The Bradly has retrofited ERA, Explosive Reactive Armoure (they explode when hit by a HEAT and disturbs the plasmas focus), and ERA have no effect at all on a 14.5mm AP round, ERA is only effective HEAT.
This Military Magazin I recomend, Miltech, this is article 2006:
Did they capture Pzf there? Sure, does that prove they are useless? Not at all, the Germans had the idea that the Pzf should not be in armoires/storages, they shall be in the front, or close to the front widely spread.
doubt it. they captured them in warehouses and in boxes in trenches....one just couldn't use 30m AT weapon in field.
Quote:
How wide spread was they? (Whole year)
In 1943-44 they made 5.890.000 (5.9 millions) Pzf..
don't forget that these numbers r with PzF.60 (since 09/1944) and noone knows how many of them were with troops by the time Bagration has unleashed.
f.e. u perfectly know that some units didn't have PzF at all.
Quote:
Hm, Germans also used fence for shuerzen. They don’t work against any bullets just HEAT.
exactly!
that what i meant by late-shuerzen, since November 1944 (IIRC) they started to install fence type - for anti-HEAT defence.
Now check soviet ww2 anti-HEAT side skirts - again fence type .
And now we all like Jentz don't we?
April 1943:As a defence against Russian anti-tank rifles, Schurzen (side skirts) were mounted on both sides of the hull and surrounding the sides and rear of the turret. Panzerkampwagen IV Ausf. G, H and J 1942-45 /Hilary Doyle &Tom Jentz/ Osprey New Vanguard
Quote:
And the solid shuerzen was not made of armour plates but out of thin steel plates.
incorrect. they were made of high hardness armor plates. makes sence?
Quote:
The main threat for APC in Iraq is RPG, and road side explosives, but that is OT..
record Striker APC? fence type again.
Quote:
The Bradly has retrofited ERA, Explosive Reactive Armoure (they explode when hit by a HEAT and disturbs the plasmas focus), and ERA have no effect at all on a 14.5mm AP round, ERA is only effective HEAT.
Did they capture Pzf there? Sure, does that prove they are useless? Not at all, the Germans had the idea that the Pzf should not be in armoires/storages, they shall be in the front, or close to the front widely spread.
doubt it. they captured them in warehouses and in boxes in trenches....one just couldn't use 30m AT weapon in field.
No doubt, but still 30 meter range is far better then get to the tank and place explosive or molotovs at it. (and yes they was in front line not in armouries)
Dima wrote:
And now we all like Jentz don't we?
April 1943:As a defence against Russian anti-tank rifles, Schurzen (side skirts) were mounted on both sides of the hull and surrounding the sides and rear of the turret. Panzerkampwagen IV Ausf. G, H and J 1942-45 /Hilary Doyle &Tom Jentz/ Osprey New Vanguard
Quote:
And the solid shuerzen was not made of armour plates but out of thin steel plates.
incorrect. they were made of high hardness armor plates. makes sence?
I think we all love Jentz Dima,
I think you might just have confused the text a bit, mixed up the ”red” marked aria, with the ”green” marked aria. The red explain supplementary harden armour agains AP round, and the Green the soft steel Schurzen against HEAT.
As im sure when you read this again, you will see Schurzen was to protect from HEAT grenades.
See image:;
Stalky
Last edited by AT_Stalky on Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
I think we all love Jentz Dima,
I think you might just have confused the text a bit,
as u've prolly seen i've cited another book by Jentz from 2001, maybe when he wrote that Encyclopedia he didn't know excatly why germans have applied shuerzen?
Let's try to cite another book:
April 1943: As a defence against Russian anti-tank rifles, Schurzen (side skirts) were mounted on both sides of the hull. Sturmgeschutz III&IV 1942-1945 / H.Doyle&T.Jentz / Osprey New Vanguard / 2001.
Quote:
As im sure when you read this again, you will see Schurzen was to protect from HEAT grenades.
i'd sooner beliebe that they applied them to protect from soviet 45mm guns as 5mm high hardness armor plates could easily chnge the angle of impact of such small shell. (as was several time tested in Kubinka for both 14.5mm and 45mm).
and sometimes shuerzen gave some anti-HEAT defence and some anti-APCR defence as a bonus . But sometimes they worsen it by providing better impact angle for HEAT charges.
Well, the distance of the HEAT to detonate is really important, if u add extra space, you unfocus the plasma beam, and the penetration ability’s of the HEAT is much lost, anyone used a magnifying glass and try to capture the sun beam and burn with it, see how important the correct distance is. Same with HEAT. Any space in the armoure also unfocus the beam. Thus that how the Schurzen work.
Well, the distance of the HEAT to detonate is really important, if u add extra space, you unfocus the plasma beam, and the penetration ability’s of the HEAT is much lost, anyone used a magnifying glass and try to capture the sun beam and burn with it, see how important the correct distance is. Same with HEAT.
that all is true, but as the report u've shown stated:
The rear armor is a profitable target, because the engine compartment is very susceptible to fare, even though the tool boxes, jacks and exhausts are reduce the area of vulnerability.
same for side/rear turret of PzIII/IV, and when u have shuerzen installed the warhead hits perpendicular to armor thus will have better chnce to penetrate main armor. that was confirmed by both allies and germans.
Quote:
Any space in the armoure also unfocus the beam. Thus that how the Schurzen work.
u know that not any, as side armour was too thin in comparison to thickness of armor HEAT warhead could pen. so the longer is the distance between the armor and shuerzen the more chnce it has to disperce the plasma.
Shuerzen were not installed at sufficient distance at least in the beginning - April 1943.
Quote:
And no, the Schurzen isn’t hard, its soft.
i know GvA site. Kubinka tests showed hardness of 400-450 BHN and they were v fragile but that is of no importance for what they were meant for.
And now the hvy arty .
6-7th February 1943 - conference with Hitler where the report about protective armour suspended from the side of the hull against anti-tank rifle fire for PzIII,IV and StuG.
20th February 1943 - tests commited with 14.5mm russian ATR and "7,5cm Sprenggranate AZ Feldkanone n.A. 2. Ladung" (looks like 7.5cm HE shell with distant fuse and 2nd load - correct?).
6th March 1943 - results were shown to Hitler, he was statisfied and accepted Shuerzen to be put in production.
Spielberger: "Sturmgeschutze", 2, edition, Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 1994
...and nobody thinks again on infantry that is mounted on tanks,exposed to small arms gunfire,schurtzen is only to protect tank of course,there is no multipurpose usage of additional armour...
From a lot of the research I have been reading, HEAT rounds for AT guns...and tank guns for that matter...were not exactly on the battlefield in overwhelming numbers. Seems that the far more numerous round for tank guns and AT artillery was APBC and APCR...especially from what I have been reading about german ammo. Perhaps that has something to do with the numbers posted by Stalky
From a lot of the research I have been reading, HEAT rounds for AT guns...and tank guns for that matter...were not exactly on the battlefield in overwhelming numbers. Seems that the far more numerous round for tank guns and AT artillery was APBC and APCR...especially from what I have been reading about german ammo. Perhaps that has something to do with the numbers posted by Stalky
???? Its a real report by Germans, and we are talking LAW, in this case HEAT LAW, and how to counter em not tank gun nor AT guns.
???? Its a real report by Germans, and we are talking LAW, in this case HEAT LAW, and how to counter em not tank gun nor AT guns.
????Yes you were...I got that smart guy...but your comparison chart was referring to tank guns, AT Guns and schrecks and fausts. I was just providing some information that may help explain why the close combat type weapons accounted for more tanks kills than the longer range weapons.
From a lot of the research I have been reading, HEAT rounds for AT guns...and tank guns for that matter...were not exactly on the battlefield in overwhelming numbers. Seems that the far more numerous round for tank guns and AT artillery was APBC and APCR...especially from what I have been reading about german ammo
that's obvious as WW2-era HEAT rounds were far from beeing "the answer for all the questions", eg they didn't work good against sloped or high-hardened armor.
Plus HEAT shells didn't give much advantage over APCBC, APC, APCR shells to the guns with high muzzle velocity.
Quote:
Perhaps that has something to do with the numbers posted by Stalky
hmm, what did u mean by that?
Quote:
Its a real report by Germans, and we are talking LAW, in this case HEAT LAW, and how to counter em not tank gun nor AT guns.
Stalk, that's US report and he tells about Z. numbers .
Quote:
I was just providing some information that may help explain why the close combat type weapons accounted for more tanks kills than the longer range weapons.
i really can't c how can yer information explain that....
maybe u would explain?
My first post is a US report, second is a German report:
"Source: Authour N Zetterling, Normandy 1944 ISBN 0-921991-56-8 & Normandi Avgörandets Ögonblick. Authour refers to Germans report in archive BA-MA RH 19 IX/3 – Anlage 3 zu HGr. B/Stoart Nr. 630/44 g.Kdos, Panzerabschussliste 29.6.44
*BA-MA RH 10/141"
???? Its a real report by Germans, and we are talking LAW, in this case HEAT LAW, and how to counter em not tank gun nor AT guns.
????Yes you were...I got that smart guy...but your comparison chart was referring to tank guns, AT Guns and schrecks and fausts. I was just providing some information that may help explain why the close combat type weapons accounted for more tanks kills than the longer range weapons.
Not sure what you explaind, if any? What does tank and AT guns ammo have to do with that report that say what killed what?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
- for same reasons Bradley has side screens - to protect vs 14.5mm soviet bullet.
