The shaped charge anti-tank rifle grenade had no problem knocking out Mk IVs from any angle and could take out Mk V and Mk. VI with shots to the turret ring, the flank or the rear.
Mark VI no. Penetration of an M9A1 grenade was about 60mm. Tiger (mark VI) has 80 mm armor on the side hull sponsons above the tracks. Side lower hull was 60 mm, barely possible for the M9A1 but the lower hull was behind the two sets of interleaved road wheels. A grenade hitting a road wheel is going to have penetration reduced enough to not penetrate the hull. The sliver of lower hull side above the road wheels is a very difficult target and iffy penetration to start with. Note that damaging a single road wheel won't help much as the Tiger has 16 per side. Hull rear and turret sides and rear are 80mm. Mark V is questionable but I'll concede possible. One should understand that any numbers I give are not universal across all models as individual Panthers (Mark V) had significant variation in armor layout. Hull side sponsons were 40mm sloped at 40 degrees. The slope would make penetration by an M9A1 difficult but perhaps not impossible, particularly if you had a height advantage to offset some of the slope. Lower hull was 40mm vertical. Targeting the lower hull gave you much the same road wheel issue as on the Tiger. Furthermore, Panthers were usually equipped with 5mm schurzen (side skirts) that would set off a grenade a substantial distance away from the armor causing the shaped explosive blast to dissipate before it could do its job. Turret side and rear was 45mm sloped at 25 degrees, probably penetrable by the M9A1. I have not been able to find a figure for the Panther rear armor, but usual German design principles suggest it was similar to the side armor but without schurzen.
Сказки не рассказывайте , возможно лопухам понравится , Танки без пехоты не ходят , особенно у русских , и у немцев , Так что всем этим стрелкам короткий приговор .
Andrew Coetzee The primary killer of German heavy tanks (tigers, heavy assault guns & tank destroyers, etc.) was Allied airpower, mostly ground attack planes like the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik, British Hawker Typhoon, US Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, etc. The Brits made specialized "tank-busters", such as the Hurricane Mk IID, armed with two 40mm Vickers S guns and the US fielded the North American B-25 MitchellG/H medium bomber which mounted a 75mm cannon. But rockets and bombs were mostly used on lumbering German tanks caught in the open or directed by ground troops.
Andrew Coetzee The Hawker Typhoon was a great can-opener, after they worked the bugs out. The Typhoon's powerful engine with distinctive round supercharger under it allowed the aircraft to carry a load of up to two 1,000 lb bombs, equal to the light bombers of only a few years earlier. Typhoons were also armed with four "60 lb" RP-3 rockets under each wing. The rocket's accuracy was poor, but were devastating when they hit.
Andrew Coetzee American tanks encountered Tigers in tank-vs-tank engagements only 5 times during the course of the entire war. Tigers were not invincible and an infantry team actually had a fair chance at mobility or mission killing them. Heavy tanks aren't very good at dealing with sappers.
Yes. WW2 was all hands on deck, so quite literally you had people who had guns who had never even held them before. This likely helped more than you think.
Except AT rifle grenades weren't that powerful, they had low penetration in real conditions versus there supposed performance on paper even struggling against most medium tanks and forget about any heavy tanks. On top of that there behind armor effects were severely limited by the small explosive charge they contained, you might injure or even kill some crew members if you were lucky but totally disabling a tank would be unlikely without a very lucky hit reaching the engine or miraculously setting off the ammunition. The panzerfaust on the other hand with over twice the explosive charge and far more punch could take on even the heaviest armor of ww2 and cause serious damage behind the armor easily concussing the crew with the blast, flying far more lethal shrapnel and molten metal around the interior then a puny rifle grenade and cleanly slicing though engines, ammunition and crew compartments in comparison to the rifle grenade. What you see on paper versus the reality is always different, read about the actual combat reports of the weapons to see there real effect.
I doubt it. It could probably damage it (broke a track or something like that), but against around 100mm of armor, it's really light... But there is always the chance of a lucky hit, so if a tiger would be targeted it would probably retreat to a safe distance to fight from a safe distance, which is already really useful, because it gives time to deploy bigger guns.
Optimism is normally is a good thing most of the time. This would not be one of those times.
Expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed.
WWII American propaganda never fails to make me laugh.
Imagine if we would have had AT-4's back then.
@@jamescoop8979 think about trying to take a modern tank with an AT 4, I have heard that it would be similar prospects
@@mr.factoid105 AT-4 would be easily overkill for anything on the battlefield of WWII, or even the Vietnam War
And thus you learn why the term "bulletproof" is never used professionally - because "bulletproof" is relative.
Think "bullet-resistant".
The shaped charge anti-tank rifle grenade had no problem knocking out Mk IVs from any angle and could take out Mk V and Mk. VI with shots to the turret ring, the flank or the rear.
Mark VI no. Penetration of an M9A1 grenade was about 60mm. Tiger (mark VI) has 80 mm armor on the side hull sponsons above the tracks. Side lower hull was 60 mm, barely possible for the M9A1 but the lower hull was behind the two sets of interleaved road wheels. A grenade hitting a road wheel is going to have penetration reduced enough to not penetrate the hull. The sliver of lower hull side above the road wheels is a very difficult target and iffy penetration to start with. Note that damaging a single road wheel won't help much as the Tiger has 16 per side. Hull rear and turret sides and rear are 80mm.
Mark V is questionable but I'll concede possible. One should understand that any numbers I give are not universal across all models as individual Panthers (Mark V) had significant variation in armor layout. Hull side sponsons were 40mm sloped at 40 degrees. The slope would make penetration by an M9A1 difficult but perhaps not impossible, particularly if you had a height advantage to offset some of the slope. Lower hull was 40mm vertical. Targeting the lower hull gave you much the same road wheel issue as on the Tiger. Furthermore, Panthers were usually equipped with 5mm schurzen (side skirts) that would set off a grenade a substantial distance away from the armor causing the shaped explosive blast to dissipate before it could do its job. Turret side and rear was 45mm sloped at 25 degrees, probably penetrable by the M9A1. I have not been able to find a figure for the Panther rear armor, but usual German design principles suggest it was similar to the side armor but without schurzen.
1:03 Dat camo!
This task is especially difficult with several tanks and lots of infantry running around. Anyhow "Something is better than nothing".
Jesus that long ago and the lessons still hold up mostly
They do for a lot of things. They weren’t stupid back then.
Сказки не рассказывайте , возможно лопухам понравится ,
Танки без пехоты не ходят , особенно у русских , и у немцев ,
Так что всем этим стрелкам короткий приговор .
А руские вообще не ходят, они же в Украинской земле лежат ахахах!
@@Immortal_carp ты же сам русский .
but if a tiger rocks up you better pray there is a common wealth firefly around
Andrew Coetzee The primary killer of German heavy tanks (tigers, heavy assault guns & tank destroyers, etc.) was Allied airpower, mostly ground attack planes like the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik, British Hawker Typhoon, US Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, etc. The Brits made specialized "tank-busters", such as the Hurricane Mk IID, armed with two 40mm Vickers S guns and the US fielded the North American B-25 MitchellG/H medium bomber which mounted a 75mm cannon. But rockets and bombs were mostly used on lumbering German tanks caught in the open or directed by ground troops.
Bat Guano true. But I am a sucker for the firefly.
Andrew Coetzee The Hawker Typhoon was a great can-opener, after they worked the bugs out. The Typhoon's powerful engine with distinctive round supercharger under it allowed the aircraft to carry a load of up to two 1,000 lb bombs, equal to the light bombers of only a few years earlier. Typhoons were also armed with four "60 lb" RP-3 rockets under each wing. The rocket's accuracy was poor, but were devastating when they hit.
Bat Guano I have all ways been. Fan of the mosquito. Germany even tried to copy it.
Andrew Coetzee American tanks encountered Tigers in tank-vs-tank engagements only 5 times during the course of the entire war. Tigers were not invincible and an infantry team actually had a fair chance at mobility or mission killing them. Heavy tanks aren't very good at dealing with sappers.
1:13 awsome camo
Its says specifically, "Light or Medium tank " only..
Love how they've develop this tutorial "how to shoot a tank using rifle for dummies" during WWII. Nice job old timers.
Yes. WW2 was all hands on deck, so quite literally you had people who had guns who had never even held them before. This likely helped more than you think.
Good luck.
Wrong tank, the soldier must destroy a T34.
@perseiden2 the panzer 2 was a prewar piece of shit. The tanks shown in this video were a panzer 3 and then 4.
Now, GIVE IT TO EM!
Hello from Sweden 🇸🇪
I like that he said go to hell job if I was in that thing then there would no way
I would survive
that thumbnail tho
why was panzerfaust used if anti-tank grenade was that powerful
Jeffer Peng anti tank grenade are not that reliable......since they lots of em they make full used of it
Except AT rifle grenades weren't that powerful, they had low penetration in real conditions versus there supposed performance on paper even struggling against most medium tanks and forget about any heavy tanks. On top of that there behind armor effects were severely limited by the small explosive charge they contained, you might injure or even kill some crew members if you were lucky but totally disabling a tank would be unlikely without a very lucky hit reaching the engine or miraculously setting off the ammunition. The panzerfaust on the other hand with over twice the explosive charge and far more punch could take on even the heaviest armor of ww2 and cause serious damage behind the armor easily concussing the crew with the blast, flying far more lethal shrapnel and molten metal around the interior then a puny rifle grenade and cleanly slicing though engines, ammunition and crew compartments in comparison to the rifle grenade. What you see on paper versus the reality is always different, read about the actual combat reports of the weapons to see there real effect.
Jeffer Peng it was what the Americans used
Anti tank grenade wasn't powerful.
It's Panzer 4 F or Pz.4 G.
Good Job !!!
Nerf this
New Gaijin ATGM ammo for Russian and American tier 2 light tank.
Yo no creo q con esa granada atravesará el blindaje de un panzer alemán el tigre tenía una sola debilidad y era atras
Desdeluego
Good luck if ur enemy is blind u can practice is up like video
Couldn't have said it better 0:37
Does the bullet need to be blank or just a bullet
blank
That would destroy a tiger
No... not even close
I doubt it. It could probably damage it (broke a track or something like that), but against around 100mm of armor, it's really light... But there is always the chance of a lucky hit, so if a tiger would be targeted it would probably retreat to a safe distance to fight from a safe distance, which is already really useful, because it gives time to deploy bigger guns.
Türkish SİHAs liked this 🇹🇷😎
0:44 shoot
imposible
Peace always .....
😕
ooo very usefull
Капут!
Wtf
Sigan soñando
РПГ
khhkh
.