Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "Panzerfaust - How Effective was it? - Military History" video.

  1. as an infantry support weapon Pf is basically a heavy hand-held grenade, which you can toss twice as long as Stielhandgranate
    2
  2. you forgot the crew
    1
  3. >The Pf would be much simpler to use than an anti tank gun. Of course! Shooting Pf in direct view of the enemy is much much easier, than fire AT gun from long distance
    1
  4. >While the PF is a throwaway weapon. with a throwaway operator >But think about a WW2 tank it got limited visibility. think about infantry that accompanies the tank
    1
  5. AT guns also were used "against bunkers, buildings,light vehicles and just a group of enemy infantry"
    1
  6. >If you're playing a numbers game then how about judging costs of crew training, training time, etc as well? you also may consider that tank, knocked out by AT-gun, more than likely didn't harm anyone, besides, maybe, some other AT-gun crews. Tank, knocked out by PF, more than likely rolled over your trench
    1
  7. tanks shouldn't get close to infantry, panzerfaust-equipped or not
    1
  8. You might be wrong
    1
  9. the only thing Panzerfaust shares with bazooka is the principle of shaped charge
    1
  10. After
    1
  11. as a matter of fact, no, "Carl Gustav" is a recoiless rifle and it uses not only HEAT shells
    1
  12. >You aim, you shoot and mostly you hit 1) Panzerfaust, with his limited fire range, is not the kind of weapon, capable of precision shooting 2) Not any hit means killed or seriously damaged tank
    1
  13.  @MeBallerman  you don't understand the physics. PF wasn't a short range laser, more like a short range catapult
    1
  14.  @MeBallerman  >but with 1000 rounds fired for a kill, this is a piss poor weapon maybe. Soviet soldiers loved them, though >So they needed 1000 soldiers to take out an enemy tank nope. Not all of those PF were used against tanks >In Berlin street war april may 1945 up to 70% of Soviet tank losses were to PF that's not true
    1
  15. >5 men with panzefaust have durability, they don't > survivability they don't >they can easily engage/defend a target from different sides/locations nope, they can not >needless to say that is harder to hit a man than a static cannon!!! needless to say, that it easier to hit a man, who can't use his Pf from cover an should go as close as 30 meters, than a camouflaged 'static cannon' from hundred of meters
    1
  16.  @jonhsmith5169  >pzf is a weapon for protection of infantry from armored vehicles! yep, and that fact reduces the value of your initial post to zero >The US tanks where fast and attack the enemy in close combat so the pzf was doing perfect the job that was made to do. 30 meters to engage the tank, remember? Effective range of infantry weapon those days was hundreds of meters. So, how do you attack enemy tank with Pf, when you spotted and shot long before?
    1
  17.  @jonhsmith5169  > So my post is accurate nope >you can't judge a weapon ( made to do one job) with requirements of another weapon made to do another job such as the cannon. you judge Pf by completely made up qualities >Remember that i said about forests and towns were buildings and trees hiding you 30 meters. You had to be so close to effectively shoot your Pf. You can't fire from cover or from inside the building. Enemy infantry goes before the tank and looks for likes of you
    1
  18.  @jonhsmith5169  >a few seconds only needed for use after you jump out of the cover or behind the building yeah, but with Pf effective range being about 30 meters you jump precisely in the hands of infantry escort >to protect the solders from MG 42 heavy fire I get the picture - man with a Pf sits a hundreds meters in front of firing MG42 in an ambush and waits while enemy tank goes by. Sounds 'kamikaze tactic' to me >and i have use many anti-tank weapons but you didn't use a Panzerfaust in your life. And that thing is entirely different species
    1
  19. nobody uses Panzerfaust today, luv
    1
  20.  @toothpick8858  it's entirely different weapon. Panzerfaust 3 have rocket-propelled grenade
    1
  21. > I guess that in real engagements probably 1 in 4 must have destroyed or damaged a tank that's very generous
    1
  22. antitank guns had HE shells
    1
  23.  @omnianti0  m1 doesn't have a HE shells at all. So what? > all antitank gun high velocity have few HE shells about less than 1/4 in any countrys any eras bullshit
    1
  24.  @omnianti0  what tank ammunition stock had to do with AT guns? We are talking about AT guns, not tank guns
    1
  25. Less than 3000? Really? http://tankfront.ru/ussr/losses.html rings any bells?
    1
  26. Bazooka and RPG ARE rocket launchers. Panzerfaust are not
    1
  27. they could and they were used
    1
  28. it wasn't a rocket, it had no exhaust
    1
  29. panzershrek has it own problem, being a long, heavy, unwieldy crew-served tube
    1