What could an American infantry really do against a German tank? I've gotton many different answers from books and I don't know which is correct.
First off, they often had tank destroyer units in support. These were essentially quite fast but lightly armoured tracked vehicles, with a more powerful gun than the standard American tanks and an open topped turret. Several models saw service in WWII. Second, they had anti-tank guns. I think 57mm was standard, roughly equivalent to the British 6 pounder at the time of D-day, but not powerful enough for the heavy German armour. Gen. Bradley did ask for British 17 pounders, which in 1944 were very effective, but production could not keep up with British demand, so there were none to spare. Thirdly, there was the bazooka, which fired a free flight rocket with a hollow charge warhead, but this also was lacking in punch and by the time of Korea a 3.5" "super bazooka" was introduced, which could take on T34 tanks of Russian WWII design, which perhaps can roughly be equated with the Panzer V. Perhaps the most devastating weapon they had for dealing with tanks was close air support, with forward air controllers deployed with the infantry units. The 57mm guns and bazookas were effective against Japanese tanks and could certainly take on Panzer IVs.
It depends on many things, like what weapons they had, what was the terrain like and if they had air/artillery support. Lets say that it was a regular Army rifle squad made up of 12 GIs. Ten of them have M1 Garands, One has a BAR, one has a M1903 One or two GIs with Garands would also have Rifle Grenades, they would have to be accurate to do any type of damage to a tank like a Panther. Rifle grenades would be dangerous to a halftrack or a "jeep". The Rifle grenade was fired like a mortar and the user had to have good judgement on the where the grenade would fall. I heard from some vets that they used the rifle grenade like as if it was a regular bullet, they would have to be close to the target, aim high (like above the head of a man),fire and then duck for cover or run like hell. If the infantry unit had access to the Bazooka, the Rocket Launcher used by the Yanks, then they could pose a threat to tanks. You had to have balls of steel when you used a bazooka, and you would have to know the right time to fire it. Keep in mind that infantry will always be able to take a tank if it is allone. You can always wait until it runs out of gas, out of bullets/shots or if it is trapped. The Top/Bottoms are the tanks weakess spots. If you take out its treads then it cant go anywhere.
Thanks I was mostly thinking of the Infantry right after D-day with just the weapons they were carrying on them (probably bazookas). I had read somewhere that It took about four shots from a bazooka to pierce the armour of a Tiger tank and I wasn't sure how true that was.
Originally posted by Dpalme01@May 27 2004, 11:53 AM It took about four shots from a bazooka to pierce the armour of a Tiger tank May be that statement is true, if your were aiming for the thickest armour spot on the tank. Usually a bazooka team would try to flank the tank's position and hit it from the rear or in the treads. If it was a Tiger tank it may take 2 or 3 rounds to demobilze the tank.
Originally posted by angie999@May 26 2004, 06:14 PM Thirdly, there was the bazooka, which fired a free flight rocket with a hollow charge warhead, but this also was lacking in punch and by the time of Korea a 3.5" "super bazooka" was introduced, which could take on T34 tanks of Russian WWII design, which perhaps can roughly be equated with the Panzer V. I also read some where, I think it was General Gavin's On to Berlin ( a very good book) that the americans had not done any more improvements on the bazooka after the war and were still using the same one in Korea. I found that rather doubtful.
Originally posted by Dpalme01+May 28 2004, 07:21 AM-->(Dpalme01 @ May 28 2004, 07:21 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-angie999@May 26 2004, 06:14 PM Thirdly, there was the bazooka, which fired a free flight rocket with a hollow charge warhead, but this also was lacking in punch and by the time of Korea a 3.5" "super bazooka" was introduced, which could take on T34 tanks of Russian WWII design, which perhaps can roughly be equated with the Panzer V. I also read some where, I think it was General Gavin's On to Berlin ( a very good book) that the americans had not done any more improvements on the bazooka after the war and were still using the same one in Korea. I found that rather doubtful. [/b]The bazooka in use in WWII fired a 2.36" rocket, with an effective range of 120 yards and the capability of penetrating 5" of armour. But this was under ideal conditions. Sloping and rounded armour, which appeared in WWII and was a feature of the T34 (and the Panzer V and VIAusfB in terms of sloping armour) often caused the rockets to glance off or detonate at an angle which did not cause penetration. I have not tracked back all the models of the launcher tube, which went through a number of modifications, but the one in use in Korea was the M9A1. This was certainly used in Korea and one reason for this may well have been that it was the equipment issued to the US army divisions in Japan, which were the first to be depolyed. As an occupation army they were not necessarily first in the queue for new equipment. After WWII, the M20 3.5" bazooka was developed. This had an effective range of 150 yards and could penetrate 11" of armour, so it was very effective against the T34 when it also was used in Korea. This weapon is sometimes called the "super bazooka". It was purchased and issued to the British army in the 1950s and large ammunition stocks were still held in the 1970s, by which time it had been superceeded in service by the 84mm Karl Gustav shoulder fired recoilless gun. If Gavin did say this, then he was wrong.
