PF/PSK: VHS/Beta?

[Tuomo]

Why/how did the panzerfaust and panzerschreck seemingly have parallel development? Given the prevalence/availability of PFs compared to PSKs, what contributed to PFs winning that competition?

And why didn't the British develop such a weapon, like the US did with the BAZ? Surely they had the same love of variantism that the Germans seemed to display, so why not develop something more rocket-powered than the PIAT?

 

[Justiciar]

...so why not develop something more rocket-powered than the PIAT?

I am sure Weir will answer with the right answer, mine is more of an assumption. Resources: rockets require special propellents and batteries...the spring on the other had ...

 

[jrv]

Although the PIAT had a big spring in it, the spring was not the primary motive force:

When the trigger was pulled, the spring pushed the firing pin forwards into the bomb, which ignited the propellant in the bomb and launched it out of the trough and into the air. The recoil caused by the detonation of the propellant then blew the firing pin backwards onto the spring; this automatically cocked the weapon for subsequent shots, eliminating the need to manually re-cock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT

It wasn't quite a rocket, but it was not a manual weapon either. A spigot mortar has the tube attacked to the projectile. One advantage of this was that the round did not have to fit down the tube.

JR

 

[Paul M. Weir]

From what I have gathered the Germans started with the 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 Puppchen. After capturing some US bazookas, either in Tunisia or some LL to the Soviets, they decided that a simple tube was sufficient. The PSK used the same warhead but with a longer rocket motor. I suppose that delighted as the troops were with the much lighter tube (at least compared with the Puppchen) they wanted something still lighter and less awkward. The Germans displayed a tendency to tinker and produce and parallel development subsequently gave the PFk, PF-30, PF-60, PF-100 and finally the PF-150 with 30, 30, 60, 100 and 150 meter nominal ranges. The last the PF-150, was reusable for up to 10 rounds and under development was the PF-250. The PF-250 though never in combat (even the PF-150 saw only very limited service), provided the basic outline for the later Soviet RPG-2. So the PF line though starting as a one shot disposable weapon, like the later US LAWs, ended up like the Bazookas as reloadable weapons.

I have no idea why the British did not develop rocket type AT weapons. They even had so called Z-Batteries early on, a form of AA version of the Soviet Katyusha, later done as a rocket artillery system (Land Mattress). They also did a great deal of work on Recoilless rifles under Denis Burney, including RRs up to 7.2", if my memory serves me right, though no version saw WW2 service. I suspect that the PIAT had its genesis in the various Home Guard emergency weapons, some quite ingenious. The PiAT was technically a spigot mortar in that the round was held with a rod (spigot) up its tail. When fired the spigot shot forward, igniting a small propellant charge that propelled the round and hopefully recocked the spring loaded spigot. The British had some decent experience with spigot mortars as they and others had such weapons in use in WW1. Those were the equivalent to WW2's heavy infantry mortars. Maybe a case of a workable familiar idea over a potentially more advantageous but less certain development line.

The Soviets were the first to produce RRs and had a 76mm version that saw some service in the Winter War. Indeed a captured one was supposed to have been transferred to the Germans and may have influenced their 75mm and 105mm versions. The unfortunate designer Leonid Kurchevsky was purged due to problems with some versions, likely the aircraft version. As a result RRs became Un-Weapons in the USSR until post war.

 

[bprobst]

One thing to remember with the Germans is that parallel (often wasteful) developments was actively encouraged by the Nazi system. One of the great myths about the Nazi economic system is that it was super-efficient. In reality it would be difficult to picture a less-efficient system. I suppose it had the advantage of allowing multiple different ideas their day in the sun, but the overall disadvantages tended to outweigh these creative opportunities. Two competing good ideas would be more likely to get a "build them both" response from the Nazis than either the US or the USSR, despite both of the latter being much better placed to build multiple types of products than the Germans were.

One might ask, why didn't the US abandon the Bazooka concept and go for the PF concept? Or take on board the obvious improvements that the Germans made with the PSK? Partly there was probably a "it's good enough" philosophy in place (from those who weren't required to actually use them in the field) but also there would have been a strong desire to not interrupt the manufacturing cycle by rushing in radically new and/or different models.

 

[Brian W]

Considering the number that must have been captured in 1944-45, it's a wonder you don't hear more about their use against German AFV. Well, except there weren't that many German AFV left in 1945.

 

[witchbottles]

Considering the number that must have been captured in 1944-45, it's a wonder you don't hear more about their use against German AFV. Well, except there weren't that many German AFV left in 1945.

there is quite a bit of historical evidence of the use of PF by by some units of the US Army, as well as widespread use in 1945 by both Zhukov's and Koniev's spearhead armies as they cut into the Reich and shortly later, into Berlin.

 

[bprobst]

The Russians captured them (PF, at least) by the boatload and liked to use them to demolish strongpoints. I haven't seen much to indicate that they tried to use them against vehicles very often, although you'd presume they would be familiar with the technique!

One wonders how many otherwise sturdy buildings fell down after a few PF were used to remove some irritating load-bearing walls.

 

[von Marwitz]

One of the great myths about the Nazi economic system is that it was super-efficient.

True.
Though I have not heard that myth very often.

In reality it would be difficult to picture a less-efficient system.

Wrong.
Easily done by thinking of the Japanese system with many small backyard-workhops providing parts for military equipment.

von Marwitz

 

[GeorgeBates]

Wrong.
Easily done by thinking of the Japanese system with many small backyard-workhops providing parts for military equipment.

Which is the supply chain system many major manufacturers here use to this very day.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

The Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust, while seemingly a similar solution, are actually different in many ways. The panzerschreck was developed from the Puppchen once the Germans had a "doh" moment after capturing a bazooka. Somewhat ironic that a world leader in rocketry did not think of this first. I have my doubts about the actual wide-spread use of Puppchen, BTW, and the Germans did not manufacture many rounds for it once the Panzerschreck came into production. There is a famous photo of US troops messing with a Puppchen and one is actually holding a Panzerschreck round and it would not actually work in a Puppchen.

The Panzerschreck is a very expensive weapon overall compared to the panzerfaust. In fact, it is even rebuildable (tube replacement). Quite the opposite of the disposable Panzerfaust. It did not need batteries having instead a magneto type device for generating a voltage. The rocket is more expensive than a panzerfaust. The rocket features a point detonating fuse with spit-back that can attack sloped/oblique targets with some assurance. The panzerfaust had a base detonating fuse and it could have issues unless striking a solid surface. The actual amount of explosive in a Panzerfaust is quite impressive. Non-penetrating/ineffective hits on AFV could actually concuss the crew anyway.

The panzerschreck is a dedicated weapon system in the hands of a trained crew. The Panzerfaust was supposed to be a distributed weapon system, similar to grenades in that most soldiers could use them. The Germans clearly needed a means for its infantry to stand up to armored attack. As a weapon system, both had issues with range and danger for the users. The later model Panzerfaust, used at close range (less than the rated range), had a trajectory that would almost assure a hit and therefore 'accuracy'. Especially against tall sherman tanks.

The Germans built the panzerfaust to be as cheap as possible. They substituted explosive for metal in that the Panzerfaust used a soft-iron shaped charge liner. I believe the panzerfaust Klein, which was popular, did have an improved zinc liner improvement. copper, of course, was out of the question.

The Panzerfaust was a dangerous weapon and it was not to be put inside a trench but lay across the top. The base fuse apparently could lead to a detonation from artillery. Dropping one also had dangers.

A good webpage with more info than you probably want...

http://www.bergflak.com/psindex.html

 

[mi80j]

The Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust, while seemingly a similar solution, are actually different in many ways. The panzerschreck was developed from the Puppchen once the Germans had a "doh" moment after capturing a bazooka. Somewhat ironic that a world leader in rocketry did not think of this first. I have my doubts about the actual wide-spread use of Puppchen, BTW, and the Germans did not manufacture many rounds for it once the Panzerschreck came into production. There is a famous photo of US troops messing with a Puppchen and one is actually holding a Panzerschreck round and it would not actually work in a Puppchen.

The Panzerschreck is a very expensive weapon overall compared to the panzerfaust. In fact, it is even rebuildable (tube replacement). Quite the opposite of the disposable Panzerfaust. It did not need batteries having instead a magneto type device for generating a voltage. The rocket is more expensive than a panzerfaust. The rocket features a point detonating fuse with spit-back that can attack sloped/oblique targets with some assurance. The panzerfaust had a base detonating fuse and it could have issues unless striking a solid surface. The actual amount of explosive in a Panzerfaust is quite impressive. Non-penetrating/ineffective hits on AFV could actually concuss the crew anyway.

The panzerschreck is a dedicated weapon system in the hands of a trained crew. The Panzerfaust was supposed to be a distributed weapon system, similar to grenades in that most soldiers could use them. The Germans clearly needed a means for its infantry to stand up to armored attack. As a weapon system, both had issues with range and danger for the users. The later model Panzerfaust, used at close range (less than the rated range), had a trajectory that would almost assure a hit and therefore 'accuracy'. Especially against tall sherman tanks.

The Germans built the panzerfaust to be as cheap as possible. They substituted explosive for metal in that the Panzerfaust used a soft-iron shaped charge liner. I believe the panzerfaust Klein, which was popular, did have an improved zinc liner improvement. copper, of course, was out of the question.

The Panzerfaust was a dangerous weapon and it was not to be put inside a trench but lay across the top. The base fuse apparently could lead to a detonation from artillery. Dropping one also had dangers.

A good webpage with more info than you probably want...

http://www.bergflak.com/psindex.html

Great post!