What was the best anti tank weapon of WW2? I heard that the Germans lost partly because they had no good anti tank weapons till 1943, and what they did have was bulky things like this. What was the best weapon, and what do we use today, besides missile strikes?
>>30072353
I like how the soviets used german shepards as AT during ww2
I have also heard that the panzerfaust was pretty damn good, but I think that was invented in 43, don't actually know. Landmines are also probably pretty good anti tank weapons
>>30072353
Best performance and greatest strategic impact of the weapons system are two very different things. That being said the Germans deployed some of the best anti tank weapons in both categories. Flak 88s would rip the shit out of armor that got anywhere close to it, however firing from a fixed position with a slow to move gun that has a high profile generally doesn't bode well. A weapon like the panzerfaust by comparison had very limited range and reliability. However you could produce a million of them and could issue them to soldiers with very little training and still use them to very good effect.
You are somewhat right about early war weapons mostly outdated guns ment for outdated tanks. Most countries had this problem though.
>mfw getting to see a flak 88 fire
>>30072377
which backfired when they detonated under t34s like they were trained to do
>>30072564
Is the panzerfaust the most strategically important weapon then? How is it's success rate against Russian tanks?
>>30072627
they detonated under t34s because they were trained to follow the scent of the gas, German tanks used different oil than Russian tank. Russians used diesel iirc and the dogs trained on diesel so they attacked diesel
>>30073679
Success rate was pretty good, just look at how much armour it could pen.
Not to mention that the panzerfaust gave every soldier the capability to take a tank on without AT support. It made the German soldier more versatile. Despite the close range of the weapon it didn't make the average soldier useless against tanks. It was especially effective in urban combat.
I'd say the German soldier was in terms of equipment the most versatile late in the war. (Thinking about stg-44, panzerfaust, camo gear)
>>30073756
That was a massive failure and the Soviets quickly abandoned it.
>>30072353
Flak 8.8cm
It would shred tanks before they could even see the gun.
The 37mm they had at the beginning of the war couldn't reliably penetrate the frontal armor of British Matildas and French Char B1 tanks. They presumably did better against things like the Russian BT-7.
But the Germans didn't have a lot of things they would have needed to win. No one thing would have made a difference aside from a nuke or an army of the undead.
The majority of the German weapon systems had more then enough punch to shred both American and Russian armor. Both A & R were making tanks cheap to be mass produced. Though in my opinion the M18 I feel holds top for best anti-armor that was deployed during WW2
>>30073776
>Not to mention that the panzerfaust gave every soldier the capability to take a tank on without AT support.
Not really. The panzerfaust only had a range of about 200 feet. Even the worst tanks of WW2 could shoot accurately at 5 times that amount. For the panzerfaust to be effective the infantry had to get very close, which is a very big problem if you're the infantryman.
>>30073776
>the German soldier was in terms of equipment the most versatile late in the war
>StG44, panzerfaust
So few stg44's were built they were statistically irrelevant. Germany also never fielded significant numbers of battle rifles, unlike the US and Russians (Garand, SVT40) and what they did have were too little too late. The panzerfaust had an effective range of THIRTY METERS. At that point you might as well walk up to the tank and hit it with a hammer.
If you'd said the Panzershreck, maybe. But that wasn't uniquely German as it was a literal 1:1 clone of the American Bazooka.
>b-but the Panzerfaust 150 had an effective range of 150m and could penetrate any armor of the era!
The Panzerfaust 150 was a year too late to ever actually see combat in the hands of a Nazi. Though the US and Soviet forces had fun blowing shit up during the Occupation with them.
>>30072353
that my little /k/ommando is a Pak 40; over 23k units produced, low profile, 32 degrees of traverse L or R (64.8 total) -5 +22 elevation. it lobbed a 15lb armor piercing shell @ 2580fps.....it could bitch slap just about any allied tank right up to war's end.
It was hard to move quickly, long heavy (3,200lbs)* and low..but make no mistake once in place,Total ass kicker.
*Lithe considering the allied 3 inch M5 at gun weighed 4,872 lbs
>>30074046
>The panzerfaust only had a range of about 200 feet.
Are you forgetting why the panzerfaust existed? It just gave ground troops a chance to not be completely trounced by an armored attack.
You're also assuming that a buttoned up tank in battle has some sort of super ability to see infantry and shoot them up before closing in, which isn't true at all.
>>30074081
>are you forgetting why the panzerfaust existed?
Because it was cheaper to produce than the Panzershreck, which outperformed it in every way while being reloadable and not significantly heavier?
And any infantry capable of getting within the 200 feet of a tank without getting mowed down can get within 3 feet of the tank and throw a more effective, lighter, and even cheaper 3kg satchel charge on the fucking thing.
Also that 200 feet is really fucking pushing it for actually hitting a stationary tank in good daylight considering the fucking thing did not have a front sight.
>>30074107
>200ft and 3ft are the exact same thing
>>30074121
If you can get close enough to use a Panzerfaust without being noticed you can make the extra 5-6 second sprint to throw a satchel on it, yes.
Doubly so if you're within the ~100 feet necessary to get a 90% or higher hit rate, since the goddamn thing DOESNT HAVE A FRONT SIGHT.
best anti armor gun?
GUN?
Lahti 20mm anti-tank rifle
>>30074151
>Combat
>5-6 seconds readily available anytime
Kys
>>30074180
>without being noticed
>combat
You KYS
>>30074055
>panzerfaust only had an effective range of 30 meters (98 ft)
Your right for the first two iterations of panzerfaust and dead wrong on the last 3,
Faustpatrone 30 (30m or 98ft)
Panzerfaust 30 (30m or 98ft)
Panzerfaust 60 (60m or 196ft)
Panzerfaust 100 (100m or 328ft)
Panzerfaust 150 (150m or 492ft )
>>30074077
the pak40 is stuck between too light and too heavy.
the 57mm was lighter but still movable by manpower alone.
the 17 pounder was a lot more heavier but a lot more powerful.
the pak40 was just heavy enough that you need a vehicle, but it was still weaker than the 17 pounder.
>>30074178
What? I think you meant Solothurn.
>>30072353
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHxA9BC_Jo0
>>30074200
>>30074151
>>30074107
>>30074046
t. guy that learned about combat from video games and video games weapon stats.
>>30072353
>best anti tank weapon of WW2
>weapon
>>30072353
What's so bulky about it?
>>30073956
Flak 8.8cm was pretty shit as an AT gun. It was too easily spotted, and therefore served as artillery bait, despite what you apparently believe.
>>30074151
The panzerfaust does have a front sight. You line up the edge of the warhead with the center of the rear sight.
>>30074972
>1 to 2 shots per minute
No thanks. But being able to knock out a King Tiger with an HE shell purely because of the concussive effect is pretty friggen rad.
>>30074211
You mean the last three they only made a couple hundred of in the last months of the war and were basically irrelevant?
Okay.
>>30074972
ISU-152 - hardly. Too clumsy, poor visibility for the crew (even driver has hard time seeing where he is driving), very slow rate of fire, carried only few rounds in vehicle etc. It was intended to be used against fortifications and buildings and apparently worked well in that, but if used against tanks was best used for ambush with multiple assault guns covering the same firing sector.
What you got right is that assault guns equipped with suitable guns were remarkably effective in antitank-role. Once towed antitank-guns went beyond 6-pound/57-mm caliber range, they became so heavy that manhandling them to fire position and from it became very difficult.
Stug IIIG would be one of the leading candidates for most successful antitank-weapons - its 75-mm gun could handle almost anything in Allied inventory, optics were truly excellent by standard of that time, it was still small and light enough to be effective and affordable, but had enough mobility to get where needed faster than towed at-guns and decent armor.
>>30078747
Which AT gun was nicknamed "The Door Knocker" by the disgruntled German soldiers?
>>30080138
ur mum knocks on my door every night then we bang lmao
>>30080169
Good for her.
>>30080138
3.7cm Pak 36
>>30074972
Could we replace the main gun on that with a Gau 8?
>>30080606
Congratulations, you just invented SPAAG.
>>30080628
It keeps on happening.
My other idea was taking all the spare room on the back of the ISU and making a little bunkery machine gun nest kind of thing.Sure it might fall over when it turns too hard and travel at walking pace, and sure that's essentially what a regular tank with a traverseable turret and coaxial gun is, but it sounds neat to me.
>>30074107
>And any infantry capable of getting within the 200 feet of a tank without getting mowed down can get within 3 feet of the tank and throw a more effective, lighter, and even cheaper 3kg satchel charge on the fucking thing.
It was considered suicide and that's why Panzerfausts were developed.
Would 3kg even effectively kill a medium tank?
They were supposed to be covered from light air craft guns and mortar rounds from top.
>>30074077
>105,000 grains at 2,580 fps...
Bring enough gun, they said.
Could a B4 at a few hundred meeters stand a chance to knock out an abrams?
What calibre gun at the time would it take to penetrate an abrams hull?
The Stug III.
Most produced German AFV and probably the most successful under actual combat conditions.
Best employed against tanks which is ironic considering it was designed as an infantry support platform to take over strongholds.
>>30074219
57mm is 300kg lighter with much less firepower. Still weighs way too much to be effectively moved around without a vehicle.
>>30072353
> What was the best anti tank weapon of WW2?
That covers a pretty broad variety of weapons, everything from a tank gun to a land mine.
IMO, the best tank gun was probably the German Panther’s 75mm L/70 gun. Almost a pure anti-armor weapon, (though there were HE rounds) it was substantially smaller and lighter then the 88mm L/56 and L/71 guns yet had excellent armor penetration while being quicker firing with excellent accuracy.
The best towed anti-gun would be the British 6-pounder, (57mm L/50) capable of penetrating 80mm+ of armor while still being small and light enough to be practicle on a battlefield.
I’d suggest that the best man-portable anti-tank weapon was the U.S. 60mm bazooka, capable of penetrating 75mm+ of armor while be reasonably accurate and cheep/small/light enough to be widely issued.
>>30074200
>>30074180
Both of you KYS, ty
>>30078747
>quality posting
>>30072353
Dora.
>>30081005
>implying you need to penetrate the hull of a tank to kill it.
If you're proposing to use a 203mm gun to defeat modern armor by scoring penetrating hits, you've already missed the point by a fucking mile.
>>30080606
Why not put it on a good platform instead?
>>30081834
>Best towed anti-tank gun
>6-pdr
Are you actually retarded? Classified by weight, the 6-pdr was thoroughly out-performed by the PaK-40. The only advantage it had was being lighter, but that came at the cost of being incapable of dealing with threats such as the Panther or Tiger. (and, no, jamming the tracks and turret of a single Tiger does not make it an effective weapon.)
On top of all this, the British went on to develop the 17-pdr, which is arguably the only effective towed anti-tank gun ever put into timely service by the western allies.
>>30077619
Pzf60 was by far the most widespread in the war buddy.
>>30072353
Best WWII anti-anything coming through, at the fraction of price and triple the numbers produced, cost-efficiency, ease of maintenance and repair of any retarded, over-engineered German trash.
Also, your information is incorrect, Jerry did have a decent AT platform - the Sturmgeschütz, which was their most efficient armored tank/assault gun, far more cost-efficient than the latter Panzer series vehicles.
>>30081005
You don't need to penetrate armor to knock out a tank and/or kill crew. B4 was an awe-inspiring weapon in its time, my grandfather operated one during his service. The gun is thoroughly obsolete in our time, but if you can manage to hit any tank with it, it would be destroyed. The distance does not matter.
>pak 40
>no good anti armor weapons
>>30072353
I'd pick overwhelming air superiority. When you control the skies, it doesn't matter what the enemy tries to roll out on the ground battlefields.
>>30082467
>On top of all this, the British went on to develop the 17-pdr, which is arguably the only effective towed anti-tank gun ever put into timely service by the western allies.
The PaK-40 and the 17-pdr are huge ass field artillery pieces, so big and heavy that they need to be self-propelled to be effective, which is exactly what both the Germans and Brits tried to do as much as possible, considering the economic situation at the time.
>>30080877
>Would 3kg even effectively kill a medium tank?
According Finnish experience satchel charge with 4 kg of TNT was powerful enough against medium tanks like T-28 and T-34.
3 kg satchel charge was considered to be effective against T-26 and BT-series tanks.
Educated guess is that Panzerfaust 30 proved so much more effective than satchel charges against medium and heavy tanks not because their practical range was that much longer, but because size and weight of satchel charges needed for the job was a handicap.
>>30082765
The 6-pdr / 57mm gun was a large as a towed anti-tank could be while still being PRACTICAL.
>>30079665
Which would one of the other leading candidates, although a much later one and not without its own set of issues.
>>30082765
>so big and heavy that they need to be self-propelled to be effective
>>30082787
>The 6-pdr / 57mm gun was a large as a towed anti-tank could be while still being PRACTICAL.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "towed" means. The entire point of a towed weapon is to be towed, not manhandled over any considerable distance. If you have to do this, you've fucked up pretty seriously in some respect.
I would also argue that, as opposed to guns like the PaK 43, BS-3, and D-48, the PaK 40 was a fairly nimble gun. They inflicted grievous losses on enemy armor in both their towed and SP configurations. True enough, they saw great success in their self-propelled mounts, something we wont get into as the 6-pdr was never really widely adopted in such a role.
The point I'm making is that I don't think you really understand the purpose of a towed anti-tank artillery piece. If the assertion that you are making is true, then I think it's safe to say that your idea of a "Practical Towed Anti-Tank Gun" was outdated sometime around 1942. If we really want to go with your definition, then I'd argue that the QF 2-pdr and American 37mm guns were far superior, by virtue of the fact that two men could easily move them and they saw service through to the end of the war (That's August of 1945, not May, thank you very much).
>>30084115
>I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "towed" means. The entire point of a towed weapon is to be towed, not manhandled over any considerable distance. If you have to do this, you've fucked up pretty seriously in some respect.
Jesus christ.
The point of towed weapons is so that they can be towed by trucks over a long distance. Once they get to the battlefield, they're moved by hand. They are not towed in combat or whatever you're imagining.
Don't ever post garbage like this again.
>>30084153
So I suppose that the Pak 43, 44 D-48, BS-3, and M5 guns weren't towed anti-tank guns then? Because those weapons were all considerably heavier than the PaK 40.
You're talking about towed guns like they're either immovable objects or that they need to be light enough to be run from one end of a town to another to be effective.
I never said that you need to hook your gun up to a prime mover every time you want to shift thirty feet left or right with any given towed piece, although that may be the case with guns such as the PaK 43 and non-wheeled mounts. That being said, those types of guns were usually built to allow a full rotation of 360 degrees, or at least to have a much wider firing arc.
All I'm trying to say is that you seem to think that the effectiveness of a towed weapon is greatly impacted by it's ability to be moved around by hand. If you're doing so, however, you have failed to properly plan out your defensive position (no, you would not be attacking with towed guns). Can things go wrong? Of course. Would you want to be able to quickly rotate your gun to engage other targets? Sure you would. But at that point you're already pretty fucked anyway.
Larger towed guns aren't impractical.
Trying to pick up and run around any gun bigger than a 2-pdr is.
If the target is outside of your firing ark one of these things will happen:
>He can no longer fire back at you because you have cover now
>Another gun will then engage them
>You die because you're an idiot who set up your gun in a shitty position
Another way I can put it is this:
The 6-pdr is like the M3 Lee/Grant- It was a good stop-gap, but nothing more than that. It had major flaws and advantages, but the fact of the matter is that it was pointless to keep at it after a while.
A tank like the Tiger may have been comparatively impractical, but which would you rather be crewing in 1944?
>>30074178
when the prototypes were delivered to the front they were adequate, but once they were first deployed in any numbers in 1941 they were useless against anything newer than Finland had encountered in 1939/40, it was still usefull against pillboxes and korsus (not sure what the appropriate translation would be, "pithouse" doesn't quite cut it as the korsus used as firing positions were partially above ground for obvious reasons, and they were certainly not bunkers either since they were made of wood & as such had zero armor), but that's about it...
