The Terror Of The Panzerfaust: How Germany’s Deadly Anti-Tank Weapon Smashed Allied Tanks 

❤❤❤❤❤

thee RPG would be that

@@Luis-bo2uj fun fact, the Soviets used captured Panzerfausts under the designation RPG-1.

@@Luis-bo2uj The Panzerfaust is the RPG's father.

Yes I think it would be the RPG-7.

Thanks 😊

It was the fact Britain destroyed the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain leaving the NAZI invasion fleet an easy target for the huge Royal Navy to blow it out of the water with ease.

Absolutely. I've looked into this question and if they had it from 1941 onwards Soviet armor losses would have been prohibitively high and German infantry losses much lower. If they could supply the Panzerfaust 250 by 1943 and sufficient numbers to their allies then I think the Eastern Front would have gone a different way. By 1943 Soviets could not advance operationally without heavy use of armor and having infantry that could fight at a distance against armor would have blunted operational level advances.

Agreed....

Panzerfaust not really an effective weapon on the wide open Russian plains

@@Andy-co6pn yet the German infantry successfully used AT mines and crowbars in tracks in Ukraine successfully. Ukraine is not nearly as open as you think and dug in infantry are hard to spot from a buttoned up tank

Russian tanks were diesel.

@@dtbrown1335 Soviet tanks came in both, but were primarily diesel. German, American, and British tanks came in both, but were primarily gas. So my post stands as correct. "Most" WW2 tanks were gas. I think the French, Italian, and Japanese were all gas too.

It was mostly open ground terrain. So there could be nothing besides increased losses

Thanks for the info!

At least the "ronson" didn't spontaneously burst into flames on its own accord like the Panther. It also had a superior kill ratio vs the Panther. Your idol, Michael Wittman was killed when his Tiger's turret launched into the air after being hit by a round fired from a ronson. Ronsons were also used in frontline service for decades after the the war, while Tigers and Panthers were either scrapped or put in museums.

The Americans were the first to use rocket-launched antitank weapons in combat. Americans also were the first to use war-winning weapons like the atomic bomb and proximity fuzes in combat. The Germans were no where close. The Germans were way behind in electronics, radar and crytography. The Allies could read German encrypted Enigma messages as fast as the receiver on the other end. Allied superiority in technology won the war. By the way, you forgot the Maus tank -- another wunderwaffe.

@@user-ys3wf7bl4k Actually i like your reply. I'm American btw. Just respectful of German ingenuity.

@@user-ys3wf7bl4kThe Allies had the big advantage using radar with the development of the magnatron; This advantage directly affected the German U-boats and this technology gave the Allies victory over them. The Allies had the ability to break some encrypted German communications; Some area's of communication were easily intercepted, but other's were not. Apart from a few small details, Germany had superior technology across almost all industries. Their weapons and military equipment was superior. Make no mistake, every modern army is modelled on the German Army and the US, Russia and England were all trying to get as much German technology as they could. Plastics, synthetic fibres, fuel injection, missiles, jet engines, synthetic oils and fuels, the first assault rifles (a term coined by AH). They had night vision, diesel-electric submarines. The German's had seriously dangerous chemical weapons; They were never deployed to my knowledge.Their guns were better, their sights were better, the ammunition was better quality and far safer. Look up the Horton-229. The Normandy invasion confronted only a fraction of the German Forces; 80-85% were destroyed by the Red Army. The German Army suffered some strategic defeats in the East, but mostly it was overwhelmed by a seemingly endless enemy.

@@user-ys3wf7bl4k true. Really I actually saw a video on how the Germans were close to proximity fuses in a way. But most of the things that guy listed we were close to inviting or were making at the same time. If he wanted to impress us he would have said the subs the Germans came out with at the end of the war or the way the made the first v-2 or other wise known as the A4 rockets.

​@Phalanx11 The Germans were no more innovative overall than any of the major nations. They led somewhat in some fields, but were way behind in others than could win the war. I'm also tired of all this talk of "German engineering". German engineers are notorious for making things more complex than necessary, yet those engineers could not come up with a cavity magnetron or stabilized tank gun -- like that on the Sherman -- the first tank to be so equipped, thus making it more technically advanced than its Geman counterparts. German mathematicians thought that Enigma was unbreakable. They had no idea that the Allies were using the first computers to aid in code breaking. Who were the German equivalents to Alan Turing or Tommy Flowers? The Allies won not just because of numerical superiority, but because they possessed superior intelligence, in every sense of the word, as well. This festishization of German technology, is just ridiculous -- especially as you say you're an American.

“ I want to be heard “

That's not correct. You are mixing up Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck. The Panzerschreck is the equivalent to the Bazooka and inspired by it. It is way more powerful than the Panzerfaust and reloadable.

My feelings too. The tank was the terror weapon.

Not true...the Panzerfaust didn't use a rocket...it launched a grenade by a blackpowder charge .

Because the panzerfaust came to late in the war.

It's AI generated. It's a robot voice.

Like the "honorable" German soldiers that massacred thousands of Italian soldiers of the Acqui division?

​@@user-ys3wf7bl4kgli Italiani se. La sono Cercata. Studia meglio la storia!!!!.