How effective was the panzerfaust...

How effective was the panzerfaust, panzerschreck and bazooka during WW2 compared to contemporary anti-tank rifles like things that fire 20mm?

Attached: average german soldier 1945 colourized.jpg (1409x1730, 173K)

>he’s going to deliver the mail no matter what they throw at him
The determination in his eyes

antitank funs are basically a meme anything beyond the earliest parts of the war

>panzerfaust
Read up about the battle of Berlin, thanks to soviet ineptitude and disregard for their troops the Germans (and French SS) took out a stupid amount of tanks in the last few days of the war

magnitudes ahead. anti tank rifles became obsolete for their intended purposes fairly early in the war when shaped charge launchers started becoming prevalent. you go from something that will have trouble penetrating an inch of HRS at 50 yards and 0 angle, to something that can penetrate 4 inches of HRS at the same distance, is several times lighter, and infinitely more portable.

shaped charge there, shaped charge here, how do they even work? you shoot the shell at something, the fuze activates the explosive behind something that ejaculates out of the shell into the tank, penetrating it.

you create a cone of high explosive, and line it with copper. when the warhead hits, it detonates, and the copper liner focuses to a point in the center, instantly turned into a jet molten hot plasma, and penetrates like mad.

it's a physics principle known as the munroe effect.

Attached: shaped charge.jpg (699x490, 62K)

For the panzerfaust, by 1943 it attained for around 20% of all tank kills in battle. During the Battle of Berlin, 80+% of all tank kills. Their job was to kill and they did their job well.

Just a nitpick - the copper is superplasticized, not just molten

>superplasticized
it's hard to wrap my head around this, it doesn't make sense at all.

Fill your sink with water, now go hit it with something V-shaped and look at how the waves move.

Does it have to be copper, or will any ductile material work?

Like someone pointed out before it was because of soviet incompetence that they lost as many as they did but for actual penetration was the panzerfaust/bazooka and other weapons reliable?

When an explosive goes boom, the force and fuck you and all that stuff goes flying out perpendicular to the surface of the explosive. With the cone the explosion form each side will then meet in the middle, not head on, but rather like two cars smacking into each other while merging lanes. The violence they each carry then won't cancel out, but rather join together into a single, large and focused bit of FUCK YOU going straight ahead along the centre axis. This combined stream end sup being a lot stronger than the stream form any one part of the explosives could ever be on its own.

Attached: 1541957576754.jpg (699x490, 62K)

Copper just works the best, but you could get the effect using some other metal. Gold, incidentally, might be the next best contender.
>it doesn't make sense at all.
High-speed physics are wonky.

Attached: shaped_charge_ale2d_get_gen_2.gif (640x480, 297K)

Attached: squish.gif (400x251, 688K)

oh i see now, thank you for explaining it so well user, this has been troubling me for so long.

Yes. Seriously, why are you even asking this.

Alright everybody line up for your panzerfausts, you're all going to die in the next week.

Attached: IMG_0700.png (1136x640, 770K)

Attached: IMG_0701.png (1136x640, 952K)

It's the same principle that's used in Electrically-Formed Penetrators, which have been fucking up everything short of Abrams tanks in the desert for the past decade.

Attached: IMG_0702.png (1136x640, 979K)

Blatantly wrong. Efp's form a solid penetrator that needs distance to form and shaped charges form within the warhead. An efp will not work without standoff which is why they aren't used in mines.

The geometry is different, the principle is the same.

The copper actually isn't melted. Like the other user said, it's almost purely plastic deformation.

Does the copper have to be a particular thickness? Has anybody ever tried anything with copper laminated to another metal?

>which is why they aren't used in mines.
Not every mine is intended to be below the target.

Attached: images.jpg (222x227, 16K)

There will be some optimal thickness that gives the best result, but it won't just suddenly not work at all if it's a bit thicker or thinner. As for various laminates and whatnot odds are they've tested that, thoroughly. My guess is that there's little point in any laminate or anything else other than just a single alloy straight up as the flow during the explosion will probably just turn your metals into a somewhat uneven alloy before they impact the armor.

>the flow during the explosion will probably just turn your metals into a somewhat uneven alloy before they impact the armor.

Which I’d kinda assumed. I was wondering if any alloy or combination of metal substrates had been found to increase jet penetration, or otherwise cause significant changes in jet performance.

Thank you for the gif. Was just going to look up a video to see this in action.

>read up about battle of berlin first
Ah yes soviets killed enormous amounts of volksturm shitheads

well, against tanks at least. Weapons that could deliver a small explosive payload, such as the Soviet PTRS/PTRD and other large-caliber anit-tank rifles, were still somewhat effective against light vehicles and simple fortifications. Of course, the question is then whether or not it's worth it to carry around such a fuckhuge gun.

A laminate as opposed to a solid alloy is most likely slightly harder to manufacture, you have to make two cones instead of one, so you'd stick to the one.