[Cross]

Originally Posted by chuckfourth

Hi Cross

Unlike a AP shell the thicker the armour the -smaller- the hole a HEAT round makes, so at -maximum- penetration the hole is tiny and the effect becomes the same as lighting a match in the tank. Hoggs "effective" penetrations would be the thickness of armour the weapon can penetrate and still have enough punch to destroy the vehicle. Though the oft quoted maximum penetration is greater than Hoggs effective penetration, at the maximum penetration value the effect on the tanks interior becomes negligable as the HEAT round uses up all its energy 'drilling' the hole.
For example from your reference
http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html
Note from test "e" that after the bazooka round penetrated only 50mm of armour the hole has already decreased to the size of a pencil, 1/4 inch.

Hi Chuck,

Despite the small hole made by the Bazooka, they concluded the damage would easily be lethal to the occupants:

Here's the quote:

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.

I recall reading that tiny holes and even non-penetrating rounds (causing spalling inside the crew compartment) could often be lethal/cause casualties. But I think this was regarding AP rounds.

It sounds like Hogg sets the bar a little higher, to the catastrophic penetration range. One of the things I like about SPWW2, is it allows full penetration with no casualties or minor damage, or a round that barely makes it though the armour brews up the tank.

Originally Posted by chuckfourth

Even though a bazooka or panzershreck operator may be 'feeling' tense he can still follow his training and gently squeeze the trigger to get of an 'accurate' shot. A PIAT operator can't do this he has to 'fight' the stiff trigger.

Having held a PIAT and pulled the (uncocked) trigger, my sense is that I could tug on the trigger and the PIAT wouldn't move; because a loaded PIAT weighs from 35 to almost 40 pounds. But now we are delving into the inane...

BTW, the Panzershreck weighed just over 30 pounds (loaded) and was almost 6 ft long, yet the PIAT has the reputation of being 'unwieldy'; perhaps the Tommies just complained more

Originally Posted by chuckfourth

The recoil from a bazooka or panzershreck is due to the rocket exhaust hitting the protective sheild. As this cannot happen until the round is clear of the launch tube it doesnt effect accuracy. As the PIAT's heavy recoil is caused by having to overcome the bombs inertia it does affect the weapons accuracy.

The PIAT also has a much shorter 'barrel' PIAT it is in fact a spigot mortar, normally not an accurate weapon.

I'm not claiming the PIAT was 'accurate'. But it easily 'held it's own' against the weapons of the day.

Originally Posted by chuckfourth

PIAT is mentioned as more 'effective' in your reference because it fires multiple munition types not because it is more accurate or has better penetration values.

Here's the quote in context, let it speak for itself:

Nevertheless, the PIAT proved to be more effective than her American (Bazooka series) and German (Panzerfaust series) counterparts, with the PIAT sporting a grenade capable of defeating contemporary armor of the time and a launcher capable of launching multiple munition types.

Originally Posted by chuckfourth

As regards Panzershreck (in)accuraccy the same reference you quote goes on to decribe how accurrate they may have been. So juries out on that one I guess.

Here's what the site says:

The Panzerschrecks were initially less successful than Panzerfausts because Panzerschreck gunners - trusting in the impressive size of the Panzerschreck - tended to open fire at larger ranges of around 100m (330 ft.), which was also necessified by the relative cumbersomeness of the large Panzerschreck which was a hindrance when retreating into cover after the shot. Panzerfausts were easier to handle and usually shot from a distance of 30m (100 ft.) after which the soldier quite easily could get under cover again.

At early trials, out of 12 Panzerschreck rounds fired at a static T-34 at a range of 100m only 3 hit the target.

There is still some controversy around the range of this weapon. Sources give figures for anything from 150m to 1,000m as range: The Panzerschreck's technical data call for a theoretical engagement range of 700m (!), practical engagement ranges are usually cited with 400m for static targets and 100 to 230m for moving targets. Then again, an army report on the fighting around Posen dated March 1st 1945 emphasizes the effectiveness of the Panzerschreck and states that static targets such as AT gun and infantry emplacements had been successfully attacked at ranges up to 1000m (!). Engagement procedures called for the Panzerschreck teams to open fire against attacking (oncoming) tanks at 180-150m. Laterally moving tanks were to be attacked at a range of 120m. These later figures of course take into account the fact that fire should only be opened (and hence the chance of detection and counter fire) when a high chance of hit probability is given.

The technical theoretical range of 700m, is just that, 'theory'.

The supposed 'army report' from March 1945 of successfully attacking an AT gun emplacement at 1000 yards is hilarious; and reflects the hyperbolic propaganda by portions of the German army at that point in the war. It would be quitea few years before a rocket could be aimed at a gun emplacement at 1000 yards.

The quote's consensus:

The Panzershreck could engage moving targets between 120-180m. Stationary targets at 400m. Which is what I've been saying.

The PIAT could engage stationary targets at 350m, moving targets at 100m.

Originally Posted by chuckfourth

Also of interest,
http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_6.htm#p127
"The 1st Battalion refused to panic and set to work with bazookas against the flanks of the blinded tanks. One of the panzers was crippled, but the crew ompartment proved impervious to bazooka rounds (perhaps this was a Tiger)"
Apparently bazooka couldnt penetrate tiger side armour, this makes sense as Tiger side armour is 80cm coinciding with Ian Hoggs penetration value for bazooka.

This seems to back up my suspicion that the Bazooka had less pentrating ability than the PIAT. The PIAT was credited with a number of Tiger 'kills'.

cheers,
Cross