More Panzerfausts!

nyudnik

Banned
The Panzerfaust was first produced in 1943. Cheap and disposable, by the end of the war, millions (models 30-150) had been produced, taking a heavy toll of Allied tanks.

The Allies never produced an equivalent weapon.
WI the Panzerfaust had been liberally available to the Germans in 1941 or 42?

The British Matildas and Crusaders in the desert and Soviet T34s and KV1s would have taken even more of a pumelling than they did in our time-line.

Could more earlier available Panzerfausts have won or delayed the end of the war for the Germans, and what would have been the Allied counter-tactics, if any?
 

Karlos

I don't think that would have made a big difference. The germans got great numbers of panzerfaust when they most needed them, in defensive battles against allied and soviet armour in 1944-45. It was very usefull, but not enough.
Other weapon that might have made a difference was something I read about some time ago, it was called Luftfist and was the first real shoulder-fired anti-aircraft rocket. Close protection against allied jabos in 1944 was IMHO more important for the germans, at least in the west.
 

Redbeard

Banned
An earlier Panzerfaust would be most significant if available to the allies (incl SU). That would change early WWII blitzkrieg from armoured spearheads cutting through soft infantry to armoured spearheads quickly being blunted in bloody infighting. I doubt the desert war will be changed much as fighting rarely got so close, but Barbarossa would be different and more difficult for the Germans.

The Germans having Panzerfausts from 41 would I guess not change that much, although the scare over T34's and KV-1's might be less prominent. AFAIK Panzerfausts were not available in great numbers in before 44, but If availabale before I guess the Romanian and Hungarian forces being run over at Stalingrad in 42/43 would have chance to be well supplied with Panzerfausts. The Soviet encirclement move at Stalingrad bogging down could have significant influence. But on the other hand, if Hitler still insists on no ground being given up, it will only be a matter of time before a new Stalingrad scenario is born.

An effective man held AA weapon (was Luftfaust that?) available in numbers in late WWII certainly would have made it costly for the allies to utilise their air superiority, but the allies could pay the bill so I guess the German defeat will only be postponed. But imagine the French infantry in 1940 having an AA weapon they trust!

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

nyudnik

Banned
On checking, the number of tanks destroyed by Panzerfast was interestingly not very high.

The 1945 numbers for the Eastern Front (without Luftwaffe):

Jan, Feb, March, April
Tanks destroyed: 4227, 2273, 2663, 2878
thereof known with which weapon: 3670, 1905, 1031, 1542
thereof with tanks: 1401,853, 122, 820
thereof with AT-Gun: 1050, 341, 327, 251
thereof with Assault-Guns and Tank Destroyer: 757, 472, 297, 263
thereof with Artillery and Mines: 348, 148, 142, 63
thereof in close combat: 114, 91, 143, 172

From the kills in close combat:
with Panzerfaust: 58, 45, 51, 110
with Panzerschreck: 9, 24, 29, 26
with Hafthohlladung: 21, 13, 14, 19
with hand grenade: 6, 5, 5, 6
with T-Mines: 20, 4, 43, 11
with Kampf and Sturmpistole: -, - , 1, -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top