How powerful was the Panzershrek?

In other words, how does it compare with The M-136 LAW?

And what was more powerful in World War II, and American bazooka or a Panzershrek?

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
In other words, how does it compare with The M-136 LAW?

And what was more powerful in World War II, and American bazooka or a Panzershrek?

Not sure what was more powerful, but the 'Shrek certainly kept alot of Allies from ever coming home.

From the looks of it, it appears to be the simpler to operate and maintain of the two. I have seen many pics of German children as well as seniors carrying 'Shreks during the last weeks of WWII.

It also looks like the pre-cursor to the modern day RPG-7.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by Facefirst]

Panzershrek was more powerfull and had laso greater range.

Panzershrek was made in 1943 , it was inspired by Bazooka captured during African campaign, panzershrek had bigger caliber 8.8cm VS 6 cm bazooka.
It had effective range of 150 m and was able to penentrate 100 mm of armor.
Bazooka advantage was lower weight.
LAW is of course much better than Panzersherk, it is able to penentrate 1 foot of homogene steel armor.

The Panzerschreck was more powerful than bazooka since it was developed from captured american M9A1 Bazookas . To increase its basic potential it was decided outright to use a weapon caliber of 8.8cm (3.46 in.) instead of the Bazooka's 6cm (2.36 in.)

The firing tube of the original Panzerschreck model, the Raketenpanzerb�chse 43, was 164cm (65 in.) long and weighed 9.25kg (20.4 lb) (empty).

The projectile used was the RPzB.Gr. 4322 (Raketenpanzerb�chsen-Granate / "Rocket Tank Rifle Round") that carried a shaped charge of 660g (23.3oz.) and weighed 3.30kg (7.27 lb.) there was a Sommer ("summer") (used in temperatures between -5� to +50� Celsius) and a Winter ("winter") (used in temperatures of -40� to +30� Celsius) version of the RPzB.Gr.4322 that accounted for the different thermic conditions. The projectile's flight path was stabilized by a sheet metal stabilizer ring at the rear of its shaft looking quite similar to those used on aircraft bombs. The propellant continued to burn even after it left the tube for another 2m (6.5 ft.), the projectile had then reached its velocity of 105m/s (345 fps). The first Panzerschreck model was built only in small numbers.

www.geocities.com...

Pretty dangerous to fire, too, like the Bazooka.

Kind of a fire-and-forget the gunner weapon.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Pretty dangerous to fire, too, like the Bazooka.

Kind of a fire-and-forget the gunner weapon.

It had about as much danger as any other weapon. Do you know what you're talking about

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Pretty dangerous to fire, too, like the Bazooka.

Kind of a fire-and-forget the gunner weapon.

It had about as much danger as any other weapon. Do you know what you're talking about

Yeah. I don't think you do, though.

Though it's somewhat an obscure area of knowledge, firing any shoulder-mounted rocket from the bazooka to the panzerfaust to the RPG carries considerable risk to soldiers that's much higher than using a rifle or a machine gun.

For example, there's backblast. The compression from firing any of these weapons is so extreme that you cannot safely fire them from an enclosed area, such as a room. The concussion will severely injure or kill people in the room. These weapons are self-propelled, meaning that an explosive force equal to the force of the rocket leaving the tube at hundreds of feet per second has to exit the rear of the firing tube. Otherwise the soldier's shoulder would be ripped off during firing.

The panzerfaust and bazooka had very primitive mechanisms for the self-propellant charge and the rocket charge, and also arming of the warhead. As I guess you didn't know, what happens is that the self-propellant goes off, and soon after the rocket motor ignites. What happened in a lot of cases was that the rocket motor would ignite prematurely, burning the soldier. My great uncle was burned badly in WW2 from firing a bazooka in the Pacific, and still has the scars today. Soon after it was deployed, the bazooka recieved a guard similiar to the panzerfausts that helped protect the gunner from the rocket exhaust.

Like all military toys, they are killers. They can kill you or the enemy, the don't care which, so you have some danger in using them and even when using them properly they can still be dangerous. These were very primitive, very powerful weapons and carried considerable risk in wielding.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

For example, there's backblast. The compression from firing any of these weapons is so extreme that you cannot safely fire them from an enclosed area, such as a room. The concussion will severely injure or kill people in the room. These weapons are self-propelled, meaning that an explosive force equal to the force of the rocket leaving the tube at hundreds of feet per second has to exit the rear of the firing tube. Otherwise the soldier's shoulder would be ripped off during firing.

Only if you're not trained how to use it properly, backblast is one of the first things to taught. You would have to be an idiot to fire it in an enclosed space.

The panzerfaust and bazooka had very primitive mechanisms for the self-propellant charge and the rocket charge, and also arming of the warhead. As I guess you didn't know, what happens is that the self-propellant goes off, and soon after the rocket motor ignites. What happened in a lot of cases was that the rocket motor would ignite prematurely, burning the soldier. My great uncle was burned badly in WW2 from firing a bazooka in the Pacific, and still has the scars today. Soon after it was deployed, the bazooka recieved a guard similiar to the panzerfausts that helped protect the gunner from the rocket exhaust.

Ummm the panzerfaust is nothing like a bazooka.

So basically you see my point. They are pretty dangerous to the user today, and the first ones to come out were even moreso.

Panzerschreck was nothing like the bazooka? Why, was it a lollipop instead of a shoulder fired anti-tank weapon based on the bazooka?

Originally posted by taibunsuu
So basically you see my point. They are pretty dangerous to the user today, and the first ones to come out were even moreso.

All weapons are dangerous to a user without proper training, the panzerschrek was no more or less so.

Panzerschreck was nothing like the bazooka? Why, was it a lollipop instead of a shoulder fired anti-tank weapon based on the bazooka?

You said panzerfaust not panzershreck. The panzerfaust is a different weapon that was all I was saying.

Well, to each their own. I'm related to a guy burned by a bazooka rocket he fired, so that settles the argument in my book. Bazookas were basically shaped charges on the ends of fin-stabilized rockets and the first of their kind.

From development of Super Bazooka:

"These requirements were extremely tough and caused great difficulties to the designers of the Super Bazooka. Some of them even got injured as a result of the tests - Because of the high muzzle speed the designers wanted to achieve, a great amount of repulse material was added to the rocket, flying backwards after the launch, and causing injuries to the shooter. Gas repulse was massive too, and it had been decided to reduce the muzzle speed a bit.

Another problem was a chance of 1 to 3000 to an explosion of the rocket's engine. It took 12 years to find out that the reason for the problem was a poor attachment of the front cap in the engine. At high temperatures, 2500 degrees Celsius, the hot gases melted the attaching glue, causing a fire in the engine."

Wow. I've learned more about shoulder-fired weaponry than the average person will ever in about a span of four hours!

How much damage would a Panzershrek do on an M1A1 if it got a direct hit?

And which was more powerful, the Panzerfaust or Shrek?

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
How much damage would a Panzershrek do on an M1A1 if it got a direct hit?

And which was more powerful, the Panzerfaust or Shrek?

I don't think that that a panzerschrek would do much if anything to an Abrahams, maybe it would blow the track of it and make it immobile but I could be mistaken?

As far as which is more powerful this should answer your question

"All US armored vehicles were vulnerable to attack by German Panzerfaust (�Armored Fist�) or Panzerschreck (�Tank Terror�) rocket launchers. The former was the forerunner of the modern Soviet RPG series of antitank rocket launchers, and was an inexpensive, mass manufactured weapon with a short range (50 yards or less), but with an enormously powerful rocket-propelled chemical warhead capable of penetrating the armor of any Sherman with its jet of hyper-heated gas and high explosive. The latter resembled an American bazooka, but was manufactured in a much larger caliber (88mm vs. 60mm, or 2.36 inches), making it a much more formidable weapon. "

So it looks like schreck was more powerful than the faust if I interpreted that right.

[edit on 30-9-2004 by boosted]

The damage from a panzerschrek would be very similar to that which has been inflicted by the RPG-7 in Iraq.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Wow. I've learned more about shoulder-fired weaponry than the average person will ever in about a span of four hours!

How much damage would a Panzershrek do on an M1A1 if it got a direct hit?

And which was more powerful, the Panzerfaust or Shrek?

The panzerfaust
the panzerfaust 30K (Klein) or nicknamed Gretchen (little Gretel) could penetrate 140mm of Armour at a 30 degree angle.

All other vervions of the Panzerfaust namely:
30M,60M,100M & 150M could penetrate 200mm of Armour at a 30 degree angle
where as the panzerschreck could only penetrate 100mm but at a better range, 150M