Author Topic: U.S. Bazookas  (Read 486 times)

Offline SunTracker

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
U.S. Bazookas
« on: December 14, 2004, 02:47:58 PM »
If German tanks were such a problem in Europe to Americans in 1944 and 1945, why wasnt an adequate bazooka designed?  The German panzerfaust and panzerblitz could both destroy any American or British tank with a single shot.  Yet American bazookas had to strike the side or rear of panzers at close range.

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Re: U.S. Bazookas
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2004, 04:05:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SunTracker
If German tanks were such a problem in Europe to Americans in 1944 and 1945, why wasnt an adequate bazooka designed?  The German panzerfaust and panzerblitz could both destroy any American or British tank with a single shot.  Yet American bazookas had to strike the side or rear of panzers at close range.


To answer that question, yhou must look at the procurement cycle.  The 2.6 inch bazooka was designed to kill a 1941 or 1942 tank, not a 1944 fire breathing monster like the Tiger.

In 1945, we fielded the recoilless rifle, seen in this link.  They were issued during the Rhine crossing to Airborne troops, and for general issue shortly afterward.

http://www.roberts.ezpublishing.com/rarmory/rrifle.htm

Offline SunTracker

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
U.S. Bazookas
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2004, 04:44:40 PM »
Thanks for the link!

At 117 pounds, this was still a huge weapon though.  

I did some googling, and found something called the M20 'Super Bazooka'.  Couldnt find when it entered service though.  It only weighed 15 pounds.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
U.S. Bazookas
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2004, 05:03:57 PM »
In order to understand this you must realize that the people that decided on the weapon were not the ones who had to use it.

This is a military truism.

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
U.S. Bazookas
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2004, 05:20:39 PM »
Here's a blurb about further bazooka development.

"The success of the 2.36-inch bazooka rocket inspired NDRC to propose development of a still more powerful type with greater range and a velocity increase from the 265 feet per second of the M6A3 to 500 feet per second.  The resulting T59 unhappily proved in tests to be dangerous to the user and quickly became a bone of contention between scientists of NDRC and the Ordnance Department.  The former, having let considerable advance publicity concerning their new "super-bazooka" rocket reach the theatres, suspected that Ordnance men were needlessly delaying its production and issue.  But post-war developments were to vindicate the Ordnance Department when more than six years' work still failed to remove the bugs from the rockets.  Work upon the T59 nevertheless led to investigation of the possibility of a larger antitank rocket, which, like the 2.36-inch, could be projected from a shoulder launcher.  While development of a 3.5-inch Navy rocket for air-to-ground fire had begun in February 1944 only to be dropped in March 1945, a 3.5-inch antitank was still wanted.  The project was initiated in August 1944.  The first experimental model, the T80, was charged with 1.9 pounds of cyclotol.  Though it obtained longer range and higher velocity than the standard bazooka rocket, it fell short of that achieved by the the T59 with its eight pounds of pentolite.  Yet the cyclotol in the T80 would, research men believed, ensure penetration of 8-inch homogeneous armor plate.  Static, flight, and pentration tests in March supplied data on which to base a revised design, but V-J Day arrived before this was proved."