[cbo]

FWIW, WWII HEAT appears to have been very erratic performers.

First of all, the technology and the principles involved were not very well understood at the time, so warheads were rather crude, technologywise.

Secondly, wartime manufacturing standards were not high and HEAT warheads need precision manufacturing to work properly. The German Army returned hundreds of thousands of Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust warheads because they did not meet standards.

Thirdly, and partly as a function of the above two issues, WWII HEAT seems to have been extremely sensitive to any form of obstruction and really needed a perpendicular hit to do any serious damage. If it hit at angle, it might just bounce off, fail to detonate or just not make much of an impact. Bazookas failing against T34s might be explained by this, as would a known incident where several Panzerfaust hits on an M10 tank destroyer failed to do any damage.
Hitting a tool, luggage, exhaust pipe or similar would like damage the object, but also completely destroy the penetrative capabilities of the HEAT warhead.

Of course, with the low velocity and aerodynamically challenged warheads, accuary would be feeble and contribution to the above issues by rounds hitting at angles, sideways and whatnot.

With this in mind, it is probably a useless excercise to try to extrapolate actual penetration performance from battlefield stories and reports. The only real measure of performance is probably the static tests, which eliminate most of the issues mentioned. But it also by its very nature exaggerates actual performance.

cbo