The early-WW2 infantry anti-tank weapons, such as anti-tank grenades and anti-tank rifles, were quite ineffective, particularly those used by the Germans.
But the late-WW2 infantry anti-tank weapons, such as the Bazooka, Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck, seem so much better:
- able to fire from range/a much greater range
- vastly improved armour penetration, eclipsing that of many tanks (Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck)
- were reusable (Bazooka and Panzerschreck)
But how effective were they really?
The Bazooka had actually quite a low armour penetration value, around 70-100mm, but it was the first of its kind (that was mass produced and employed anyway) and also reusable. The Panzerschreck on the other hand had around 200mm, which is crazy high considering the most common anti-tank gun/tank cannon for the Germans around that time was the 75mm and had less penetration (though of course also able to fire at much greater distances). The Panzerfaust was not reusable, but also had extremely good penetration.
Also, what's up with the Germans producing and using both the Panzerschreck and the Panzerfaust at the same time? That just complicates the supply chain. Why not go with just one? I understand that they (probably) developed both to explore two different approaches to this kind of weapon and see which one is better, but once they figured out which one is better, it should be better to just stick with one, no? So then the logical conclusion must be that they were either stupid, or that those two weapons filled two very different roles in German infantry anti-tank doctrine. So, which one is it? If its the former, then which one was better? The Panzerschreck or the Panzerfaust? And if its the latter, then how were they used differently doctrine-wise?
Speaking of reusable (Bazooka, Panzerschreck) vs. single-use (Panzerfaust) infantry anti-tank weapons: The main difference here seems to be fixed (short term) costs vs. variable (long term) costs. The reusable weapons would have a greater fixed cost, as the launcher is more difficult to manufacture, but the variable costs would be lower, as one could just have to keep supplying the already existing launchers with new ammunition. You just need to produce new ammunition, as well as replace any worn out or lost launchers, but you don't need to always replace the entire weapon. Meanwhile with the single use weapon you would need to always produce an entirely new launcher as well as ammunition to replenish
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Tried Panzerschreck and it doesn't trigger DeadEye. Also out of 4 destroyed UAVs it registered only 1 for Reptilian...
Just wanted to know which of the launchers currently IS working and which isn't - so I won't spend any time on it.
3 streaks destroyed in one game does not properly track for me anymore. I have to get 4 or 5 recon planes for it to go up once. Just started happening a couple days ago. Anyone know why?
Alright boys, so I’ve been doing the launchers and the shoot down 3 streaks 30 times has been killing me, but I found a way to fast track it. Not sure if it works for just the panzer because i’m already done bazooka but worth a shot. If you shoot down 3 UAV/CUAV, every time you kill a dog after that counts as 1 towards the camo. I got 10 earlier in one game of shipment while only shooting down 3 UAV. Killing friendly dogs in HC also will give you progress. Speeds it up a lot👍
My buddy and I just started the launcher challenges.
Hit some UAV’s last night, some games got multiple and doesn’t appear to be tracking for either of us.
Anyone else having this issue? Is this a known problem?
I've been trying to play the Dynamic campaign but I often need some infantry with AT but AT rifles are just not cutting anymore.
What ingame squad has Panzerschreck/Panzerfaust ??
The early-WW2 infantry anti-tank weapons, such as anti-tank grenades and anti-tank rifles, were quite ineffective, particularly those used by the Germans.
But the late-WW2 infantry anti-tank weapons, such as the Bazooka, Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck, seem so much better:
- able to fire from range/a much greater range
- vastly improved armour penetration, eclipsing that of many tanks (Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck)
- were reusable (Bazooka and Panzerschreck)
But how effective were they really?
The Bazooka had actually quite a low armour penetration value, around 70-100mm, but it was the first of its kind (that was mass produced and employed anyway) and also reusable. The Panzerschreck on the other hand had around 200mm, which is crazy high considering the most common anti-tank gun/tank cannon for the Germans around that time was the 75mm and had less penetration (though of course also able to fire at much greater distances). The Panzerfaust was not reusable, but also had extremely good penetration.
Also, what's up with the Germans producing and using both the Panzerschreck and the Panzerfaust at the same time? That just complicates the supply chain. Why not go with just one? I understand that they (probably) developed both to explore two different approaches to this kind of weapon and see which one is better, but once they figured out which one is better, it should be better to just stick with one, no? So then the logical conclusion must be that they were either stupid, or that those two weapons filled two very different roles in German infantry anti-tank doctrine. So, which one is it? If its the former, then which one was better? The Panzerschreck or the Panzerfaust? And if its the latter, then how were they used differently doctrine-wise?
Speaking of reusable (Bazooka, Panzerschreck) vs. single-use (Panzerfaust) infantry anti-tank weapons: The main difference here seems to be fixed (short term) costs vs. variable (long term) costs. The reusable weapons would have a greater fixed cost, as the launcher is more difficult to manufacture, but the variable costs would be lower, as one could just have to keep supplying the already existing launchers with new ammunition. You just need to produce new ammunition, as well as replace any worn out or lost launchers, but you don't need to always replace the entire weapon. Meanwhile with the single use weapon you would need to always produce an entirely new launcher as well as ammunition to replenish
... keep reading on reddit ➡