WW2 Bazooka vs Infantry in Woods

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Folks,

I was chatting with a friend who claims he has read that, in WW2, BAZ were "quite effective"
(his words) against infantry in woods because the BAZ round would send splinters flying
everywhere, akin to an airburst. He claims they were sufficiently effective that this use of a
BAZ became a standard tactic. Sadly, he cannot remember where he read it. Thus, he said,
ASL's prohibition on using BAZ/PSK against infantry in woods is unreasonable.

Has anyone else heard of this?

It's a bit irrelevant, but I've read a fair bit, and I cannot recall a single instance where it was
suggested BAZ were used this way, much less this being a standard tactic.

Happy Thanksgiving!

indy
 

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
Folks,

I was chatting with a friend who claims he has read that, in WW2, BAZ were "quite effective"
(his words) against infantry in woods because the BAZ round would send splinters flying
everywhere, akin to an airburst. He claims they were sufficiently effective that this use of a
BAZ became a standard tactic. Sadly, he cannot remember where he read it. Thus, he said,
ASL's prohibition on using BAZ/PSK against infantry in woods is unreasonable.

Has anyone else heard of this?

It's a bit irrelevant, but I've read a fair bit, and I cannot recall a single instance where it was
suggested BAZ were used this way, much less this being a standard tactic.

Happy Thanksgiving!

indy
Can't speak to the BAZ, but possibly related: the PIAT was mentioned in wartime officers' questionnaires put out by the Canadian Army, and cited as an effective ad hoc mortar - the HEAT round was apparently good for plunging down onto rooftops and blasting the occupants out of houses.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Shaped Charge Weapons (incl HEAT/HESH) do explode when they hit trees so long as it is not a glancing blow. The warhead has a contact detonator and does not rely on kinetic energy like an APHE shot. Wood, plaster, stone would be blown outward by the blast. HE equivalency are already 1 column to the left when fired at wall, building, rubble, pillbox so no change would be necessary.

One argument against HEAT being used in woods would be if the trees were large and close together the blast area may be reduced. Then again, a Baz/PIAT/Psk is not a one shot weapon like a PF so more than one round is likely being fired to have the HEAT effect as per C8.31.

Last argument against,.... not sure the limited ammunition carried for such weapons would be used against trees lest they do not have that ammunition when a tank shows up.
 
Last edited:

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,993
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Shaped Charge Weapons (incl HEAT/HESH) do explode when they hit trees so long as it is not a glancing blow. The warhead has a contact detonator and does not rely on kinetic energy like an APHE shot. Wood, plaster, stone would be blown outward by the blast. HE equivalency are already 1 column to the left when fired at wall, building, rubble, pillbox so no change would be necessary.

The only argument against HEAT being used in woods would be if the trees were large and close together the blast area may be reduced. Then again, a Baz/PIAT/Psk is not a one shot weapon like a PF so more than one round is likely being fired to have the HEAT effect as per C8.31.

Last argument against,.... not sure the limited ammunition carried for such weapons would be used against trees lest they do not have that ammunition when a tank shows up.
The reality of the guy in the woods trying to shoot you might override the possibility of a tank showing up to blast you.

Any port in a storm !????
 

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
I told my friend I was a bit skeptical; I wouldn't think John Hill, Greenwood, et al. would have
missed this possibility.

He asked why one couldn't fire a BAZ at infantry in woods. I told him you could, it just has no
effect...

Again, has anyone ever read something similar? (Specifically, that BAZ vs inf in woods was so
effective as to become a standard tactic.)

indy
 

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
I told my friend I was a bit skeptical; I wouldn't think John Hill, Greenwood, et al. would have
missed this possibility.

He asked why one couldn't fire a BAZ at infantry in woods. I told him you could, it just has no
effect...

Again, has anyone ever read something similar? (Specifically, that BAZ vs inf in woods was so
effective as to become a standard tactic.)

indy
As noted above, the warhead has to hit a solid object. The early PIAT rounds were often duds because the rounds were so finicky they required the target be struck at a near-perfect perpendicular angle, otherwise the contact was insufficient to detonate. This was remedied after the Sicily battles (and began a long battle to restore confidence in the weapon), but per Gerry's comments above, I suspect the BAZ was similar. An armour plate, yes, even a roof which is a flat, wide target, but admittedly not being an expert I anticipate firing into woods and hoping to hit a tree big enough to do something as unlikely.

For what it is worth, I had an ASL-playing friend in high school who asked why ground-support aircraft never had flamethrowers. Trying to find some shred of evidence in a book to explain why was a bit exhausting. Finding negative references is always harder than proving what actually was....I sit here with my copy of MEN AGAINST TANKS looking for references to bazookas and trees. If I find something I will post it.
 

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
From MEN AGAINST TANKS


There is one interesting story about the Bazooka which is little known now. In 1944, during the sticky infantry fighting around the northern France bridgeheads, a certain sergeant hit upon a field expedient for producing a more effective grenade-thrower. He unscrewed the warhead from a Bazooka projectile and in its place fitted on two standard US hand-grenades, in tandem. The attachment must have been very crude, but it worked. The loader pulled out the pins on the grenades as he gingerly inserted them into the breech of the launcher, the firer shot them off, and four seconds later there was a most satisfying explosion accompanied by a shower of shrapnel. Picatinny Arsenal was persuaded to make up 90,000 of these projectiles, which it did - under protest - and they were rushed to France. By that time the battle had moved away from the hedgerows and ditches of the Bocage and the need was less urgent. No more were ever made and now only one remains in the small museum of the Arsenal as mute evidence of the ingenuity of one man under the stress of battle.

I suppose if the warhead itself was good in bocage (trees, basically) such a thing would not have been necessary?
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
For what it is worth, I had an ASL-playing friend in high school who asked why ground-support aircraft never had flamethrowers. Trying to find some shred of evidence in a book to explain why was a bit exhausting. Finding negative references is always harder than proving what actually was....I sit here with my copy of MEN AGAINST TANKS looking for references to bazookas and trees. If I find something I will post it.
They do, it’s called napalm.
 

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
They do, it’s called napalm.
Napalm is dropped from airplanes in canisters though, not thrown or shot at the ground directly from the plane.

Ground-mounted flame projectors such as those used in Badgers, Wasps and Crocodiles did use a form of napalm, coincidentally enough.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
Has anyone else heard of this?
Someone using an item of unverified (and possibly unverifiable) data to put forward the proposition that a particular ASL rule is completely wrong and should be changed? Happens all the time. Indeed, a cursory glance at the rules pages for Chapter W will show you multiple instances.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
As noted above, the warhead has to hit a solid object. The early PIAT rounds were often duds because the rounds were so finicky they required the target be struck at a near-perfect perpendicular angle, otherwise the contact was insufficient to detonate. This was remedied after the Sicily battles (and began a long battle to restore confidence in the weapon), but per Gerry's comments above, I suspect the BAZ was similar. An armour plate, yes, even a roof which is a flat, wide target, but admittedly not being an expert I anticipate firing into woods and hoping to hit a tree big enough to do something as unlikely.

For what it is worth, I had an ASL-playing friend in high school who asked why ground-support aircraft never had flamethrowers. Trying to find some shred of evidence in a book to explain why was a bit exhausting. Finding negative references is always harder than proving what actually was....I sit here with my copy of MEN AGAINST TANKS looking for references to bazookas and trees. If I find something I will post it.
I was recently reading Center For Military Hist Publication 10-2 The Chemical Warfare Department: From the Lab to the Field where they actually tried a FT in a plane mount to burn Kunai grasses etc. in the PTO but because of aerodynamics (and better stuff produced later on) the program was scrapped. Some interesting stuff on the developement & use of the FT by the U.S. during WW-II. I had a basic interest as one of the 1st trials was by my old unit at Buna, Papua, New Guinea Dec 43 (it didn't go well). The U.S. had dropped development & use of the FT between the World Wars and had to relearn much about their effective use, not to mention production and distribution of suitable FTs to combat units during the war. Contrary to what many may believe, use of the FT by U..S. forces was very uncommon until about mid 1944. I'll check the Ordnance developement and use materials in "The Green Books" as well for the use of the bazooka.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,993
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I was recently reading Center For Military Hist Publication 10-2 The Chemical Warfare Department: From the Lab to the Field where they actually tried a FT in a plane mount to burn Kunai grasses etc. in the PTO but because of aerodynamics (and better stuff produced later on) the program was scrapped. Some interesting stuff on the developement & use of the FT by the U.S. during WW-II. I had a basic interest as one of the 1st trials was by my old unit at Buna, Papua, New Guinea Dec 43 (it didn't go well). The U.S. had dropped development & use of the FT between the World Wars and had to relearn much about their effective use, not to mention production and distribution of suitable FTs to combat units during the war. Contrary to what many may believe, use of the FT by U..S. forces was very uncommon until about mid 1944. I'll check the Ordnance developement and use materials in "The Green Books" as well for the use of the bazooka.
Once again I'll say the information generated by the offshoots of some of these threads to be quite interesting, informative and entertaining. Well done to all of you researchers! As one who confines his " research " to the origins of ASL and associated esoteric " facts " I greatly appreciate all of the effort put into enlightening the community. Thanks!
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I told my friend I was a bit skeptical; I wouldn't think John Hill, Greenwood, et al. would have
missed this possibility.

He asked why one couldn't fire a BAZ at infantry in woods. I told him you could, it just has no
effect...

Again, has anyone ever read something similar? (Specifically, that BAZ vs inf in woods was so
effective as to become a standard tactic.)

indy
I don't think that the possibility has been overlooked as ASL allows to attack units with SCW which are behind Walls or within Buildings with HE Equivalency (quite potently). Not including Woods is IMHO based on the (justifiably) well founded difficulty to hit trees with it - more precisely the particular tree which is intended to be hit.

von Marwitz
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,993
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I don't think that the possibility has been overlooked as ASL allows to attack units with SCW which are behind Walls or within Buildings with HE Equivalency (quite potently). Not including Woods is IMHO based on the (justifiably) well founded difficulty to hit trees with it - more precisely the particular tree which is intended to be hit.

von Marwitz
True but it might give the guy in the woods something to think about.
 

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Once again I'll say the information generated by the offshoots of some of these threads to be quite interesting, informative and entertaining. Well done to all of you researchers! As one who confines his " research " to the origins of ASL and associated esoteric " facts " I greatly appreciate all of the effort put into enlightening the community. Thanks!
I couldn't agree more...often the offshoots are more interesting than the direct answers.

My question was "has anyone else heard of such a thing?" It seems the implicit answer is "no!"

That wouldn't be much of a thread!

indy
 

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
Contrary to what many may believe, use of the FT by U..S. forces was very uncommon until about mid 1944.
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
 
Last edited:
Top