WW2 Bazooka vs Infantry in Woods

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Way back in the early 60s, I received some Bazooka training prior to Viet Nam.
Firing a BAZ into trees was not mentioned as a viable tactic.
And I would not try it.

Really good to know...as I've said upstream, I've never heard nor read it before, and
I can't imagine Hill, Greenwood, et al. missing it.

Thanks again!

indy
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Really good to know...as I've said upstream, I've never heard nor read it before, and
I can't imagine Hill, Greenwood, et al. missing it.

Thanks again!

indy
But they did miss the 6xBAZ mounted on an L5 reconnaissance aircraft. (At least one known instance that I know about at least). o_O
 

JRKrejsa

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
3,667
Reaction score
1,094
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Great summary, I pick out the above comment. Canadians grew to love flamethrowers, along the same timeline, and the Wasp kits were issued to all the infantry battalions for their carrier platoons in I believe October 1944. If anyone played Operation SWITCHBACK (the scenario in the old Rogue Series recently redone by Jim Stahler) or CLEARING THE BRESKENS POCKET they will recall the attack on the Leopold Canal which opened not with an artillery barrage, but a flame barrage by WASP flamethrowers.

Staff at 3rd Div. headquarters prepared a plan that would involve Wasp flamethrowers in support of the attack. Experiments demonstrated that when the reverse slope of the dike was used to angle the Wasp, the flame could reach the other side of the canal. (Divisional commander Major-General Dan) Spry decided to use this method instead of an artillery barrage in the hope of achieving both suppression and tactical surprise. He also approved the use of a sound effects troop that was to simulate the noise of bridge building and troop movement at a potential crossing point well to the east of the real objective. Those who witnessed the trials of the flamethrowers were impressed and there was some hope that the shock effect would stun the enemy during the early stages of the attack. Copp, Terry "Crossing The Leopold: Army, Part 34", Legion Magazine, January 1, 2001
Well, did it work? How did the crossing go?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
15049

It was slow going and pretty miserable fighting in flat, flooded terrain. The Germans determined to make a stand and launch heavy counter-attacks. In seven days of fighting one Canadian brigade lost over 500 men. The Germans lost several hundred killed and 400 captured. But the initial flame attack was a success.

From the regimental history of the Canadian Scottish Regiment:

The preliminary mortar and artillery bombardment was already whistling overhead when at 5:25.am "the flames shot across the canal in very good co-ordination and the sky lit up in a scarlet glow which was visible for miles." Quickly scrambling into the assault boats, the leading companies followed the last flames to the enemy-held bank. The liquid fire was still burning whatever it struck, and some houses 30 yards north of the canal were set on fire. Flaming gobs of liquid fire were even burning on the water. Any enemy in the trenches immediately opposite the "Wasps" was put out of action, and many who escaped were terrified. Within minutes all the leading platoons were across. By this time enemy machine gunners who were beyond the range or outside the target area of the "Wasps" were coming to life and bringing their fire to bear on the area.
 

Old Noob

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
2,330
Country
llUnited States
Against a wooden building, I'd use a bazooka/PIAT/PSK. Against a tree, no way.
 

skarper

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
515
Reaction score
133
Location
Vietnam
Country
ll
I think it could have some effect. In Vietnam RPGs were fired into treetops to get an airburst effect.

I don't think it would be effective enough to justify allowing it for WW2 era shaped charged weapons though. Basically, you have to stop somewhere. There are no special rules for rifle grenades for example. They are just subsumed into FP.

So, maybe it happened a few times. Maybe it was effective now and then. If a scenario depicts an action when it was a significant tactic, the designer could SSR it in.
 

jyoung

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
371
Reaction score
442
Country
llAustralia
Chapter W (Forgotten War) W.8A: "The BAZ 50 and Type 51 may be fired at Infantry/Cavalry not receiving a wall/building/rubble/pillbox TEM with a 1 FP HE equivalency", presumably because of the larger warhead rather than any change in tactics?
 

jyoung

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
371
Reaction score
442
Country
llAustralia
Simple fluid mechanics? (see previous posts about peeing into the wind :)). Speaking as someone with an aerodynamics background, I do not recommend this. At all. ;)
I stand corrected...
 

holdit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
414
Reaction score
568
Location
Ireland
Country
llIreland
Simple fluid mechanics? (see previous posts about peeing into the wind :)). Speaking as someone with an aerodynamics background, I do not recommend this. At all. ;)
In addition you only have to look at the speed of a flamethrower in action. It's pretty slow, and a strafing aircraft doesn't have time to hang around so accurate aiming would be very difficult, and to be able to strafe/walk the fire onto the target would probably require a huge amount of fuel. And yes, that's assuming your flamethrower's power can beat a 200+ knot wind head on. :eek:
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,361
Reaction score
10,215
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine

fanatic+1

Ryan Kent
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
100
Location
San Rafael, CA
Country
llUnited States
Perhaps one of the design conceits was that infantry in buildings and behind walls are bunched up next to a viable target for the bazooka, while they would be more dispersed in woods.
 

Del

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
102
Reaction score
154
Location
Frozen North
Country
llDenmark
Against a wooden building, I'd use a bazooka/PIAT/PSK. Against a tree, no way.
In his book “Quartered Safe Out Here” about his Burma experiences, the Flashman author G MacDonald Fraser talks of using a PIAT against a bunker very effectively, and against a river raft, which sunk it. New rule section maybe? 😀 Excellent book BTW.
 
Top