Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[mafio ball]

I understand comparing the quality and quantity of tank production of both sides, it is one of the decisive factors of the success of the operations. However, not the only one: the earlier introduction of Panzerfaust infantry weapons and their mass deployment by German infantry would also influence defensive tactics on the Eastern Front.
Could more visible shortcomings and failures lead to more drastic developments in this direction?

 

[diestormlie]

So, a quick wiki search says that the Panzerschrek was developed based off of a Bazooka captured in November 1942. But development on the Panzerfaust started in the summer of 1942. However, some more googling tells me that the Bazooka itself first entered into mass production in May 1942, which is the last month of spring.

The inference that can be drawn (and it's an inference, mind, not a solid historical fact) is that the Panzerfaust didn't start development until the Germans had encountered the idea of the Bazooka, even if they couldn't get their hands on a launcher until November.

So it seems to me that there isn't much availability of a driver to speed up the genesis of the Panzerfaust/Schrek.

More informed and qualified posters are, of course, more than welcome to contradict me.

 

[MattII]

The Germans do know about recoilless rifles.

 

[Some Bloke]

7.5 cm Leichtgeschütz 40 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It wasn't a dedicated anti tank gun, but it does show the Germans were familiar with the recoiless rifle and portable rocket system before the war.

 

[duckie]

The Germans do know about recoilless rifles.

They also used hollow charges in their assault on Eben-Emael, see https://www.battledetective.com/casefiles14.html

 

[MattII]

They also used hollow charges in their assault on Eben-Emael, see https://www.battledetective.com/casefiles14.html

And the short 75mm guns they used in France.

 

[diestormlie]

[Snip]

[Snip]

[Snip]

Well sure. But it's not enough to go 'Well, they had the individual components, so clearly they were ready to go at any time'.

As an example, Imperial Germany had all the component and pre-requisite technologies to build tanks long before they started actually developing them. Armaments Development isn't just a matter of technical possibility, but also one of politics, doctrine, resource allocation, perceived need etc.

In the case of weapons such as the Panzerfaust/Schrek, I'm imagining that the perceived need for them comes about as
A) Tanks grow armoured enough that more-or-less manhandable AT guns (like the PAK 36/38) can no longer be relied upon.
B) Doctrine envisions (and likely, experience having taught) that a common occurrence will be that small-level Infantry units (companies and smaller) have to fight enemy tanks at close-in ranges.

(A note on the LG 40: I didn't see any references in the Wiki article to it using Rocket propulsion, but I may just be residing in ignorance there.)

 

[MattII]

While they got the idea off the Panzerschreck off the Americans, the Panzerfaust seems to have been a weapon they developed themselves.

 

[diestormlie]

While they got the idea off the Panzerschreck off the Americans, the Panzerfaust seems to have been a weapon they developed themselves.

I did make an argument that it might have been promoted by encountering the Bazooka, and thus being introduced to the concept, but that's just a hypothesis on my part.

 

[Thoresby]

Well sure. But it's not enough to go 'Well, they had the individual components, so clearly they were ready to go at any time'.

As an example, Imperial Germany had all the component and pre-requisite technologies to build tanks long before they started actually developing them. Armaments Development isn't just a matter of technical possibility, but also one of politics, doctrine, resource allocation, perceived need etc.

In the case of weapons such as the Panzerfaust/Schrek, I'm imagining that the perceived need for them comes about as
A) Tanks grow armoured enough that more-or-less manhandable AT guns (like the PAK 36/38) can no longer be relied upon.
B) Doctrine envisions (and likely, experience having taught) that a common occurrence will be that small-level Infantry units (companies and smaller) have to fight enemy tanks at close-in ranges.

(A note on the LG 40: I didn't see any references in the Wiki article to it using Rocket propulsion, but I may just be residing in ignorance there.)

While they got the idea off the Panzerschreck off the Americans, the Panzerfaust seems to have been a weapon they developed themselves.

I did make an argument that it might have been promoted by encountering the Bazooka, and thus being introduced to the concept, but that's just a hypothesis on my part.

The Germans had been looking at anti tank rockets since pre war as a spin off of their rocket artillery program but until they encountered the bazooka they were thinking of a crew served weapon like what became the 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43. That's why the Panzerschreck was 88mm rather than 60mm. The Panzerfaust was a separate development program entirely.

 

[Ramp-Rat]

Why were the Germans in WWI slow to develop tanks and then in WWII infantry anti tank weapons, and the simple answer is need. In WWI the Germans had by 1916 decided that they were going to follow a basic defensive strategy in the west, and they had no need for what was essentially a short range breakthrough weapon. While in the east given just how primitive the early tanks were, and how open the front was, tanks were definitely more of an hindrance than advantage. Thus they didn’t need tanks until mid 1918, having seen what tanks were capable of, and having decided that only by a major offensive could they achieve a favourable settlement to the war in the west. They in addition to making use of a number of captured British tanks, they used a number of their own, which had been deployed with a very low priority. In WWII the situation was in many ways reversed, as up until 1942, it was the Germans who were very much on the offensive, and they were basically content with their two infantry anti tank weapons. The Panzerbluchse 39 anti tank rifle and the 3.7 cm Pak 36, anti tank gun, which given how little they had to go on the defensive, were basically sufficient for their needs. Unlike the Anglo Americans, who having seen just how ineffective their infantry anti tank weapons were, the Boys anti tank rifle, the M2 .50 Browning HMG, and the British 2 pounder anti tank gun and the American 37 mm M3 anti tank gun. Having decided that they both needed a man portable anti tank standoff weapon, the British developed the PIAT and the Americans the Bazooka . The Germans, had decided that their Pak 37 was after encountering the much heavily armoured British Matilda, the French Char 2 B, and later the Soviet T-34 and KV-1, decided that they too needed a man portable standoff anti tank weapon. And by using their knowledge of the Munro effect, hints from captured American Bazookas, along with their knowledge about recoilless weapons, developed both the Panzerfaust and the Panzerschreck. And thus just like in WWI with the initial development of German tanks, so too in WWII, once the Germans needed man portable standoff anti tank weapons, they developed them.

RR.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Here the panic the Germans had about the Matilda IOTL just keeps on going. Unlike the later cruiser tanks the Valiant has practically the same armour. So the need for a decent AT weapon will be there from 1940 onwards - the British won't helpfully produce a load of lighter tanks to make need less urgent as IOTL. I'd imagine that widespread use of HEAT would be the first solution - but absent a much greater use of recoiless weapons as suggested then they will need some kind of lightweight infantry AT weapon. Maybe an early widespread deployment of the Faustpatrone

 

[Some Bloke]

(A note on the LG 40: I didn't see any references in the Wiki article to it using Rocket propulsion, but I may just be residing in ignorance there.)

That's probably me conflating rocket launchers a d recoiless rifles.

 

[kelgar04]

Given how anything short of an 88 bounced off the Valiant wouldn't be surprised if they are pushing anti tank guns and infantry portable weapons.

 

[allanpcameron]

4 March 1942. Suez, Egypt.

Having sailed from Liverpool on 10 January the ships bound for Egypt of Winston Special Convoy (WS15A) docked and were being unloaded. The rest of the convoy (WS15B) sailing for Bombay were just arriving and DM 3 was due to arrive in Singapore in another couple of days. The monthly arrival of the Winston Specials was always greeted with great enthusiasm as among the first things off the ships were the mail parcels to be distributed throughout the Middle East.

Of particular interest to GHQ was the Royal Armoured Corps’ Special Service Regiment. Formed from volunteers, the Regiment had the usual format of an HQ and three Squadrons. The Regiment was equipped with Duplex Drive Valiant II* and Tetrarchs. B and C Squadrons had 32 DD Tetrarchs (including six armed with the 3-inch Close Support cannon), HQ and A Squadrons had twenty DD Valiant II*, of which four were Close Support variants.

This Regiment was the final piece of the amphibious jigsaw necessary for the invasion of Rhodes. Like all tanks arriving in Egypt, they would be transported to the RAC depots where they would be made fully ready for their role. The Tetrarchs were a concern regarding the cooling system, which might not be robust enough for the hot temperatures expected in the Mediterranean area. Once they were ready for operations, the Special Service Regiment would undergo a series of rehearsals, along with the Special Service Brigade and Australian 7 Division in preparation for the invasion of Rhodes.

One of the more unusual items carried as deck cargo on most of the ships were sections of Landing Craft Tanks(2). Built in four sections they could be disassembled and reassembled relatively easily. With twenty sections carried between the ships, the five LCTs would provide the RAC Special Service Regiment with the ability to lift all the Valiant II* DD tanks in one wave, each LCT capable of carrying four Valiants, allowing the older LCT(1) already in service to carry the lighter Tetrarch DD tanks.

Admiral Cunningham had persuaded the Admiralty in London to lend the Mediterranean Fleet Third Battle Squadron (HMS Ramillies, Resolution, Royal Sovereign, Revenge) for the upcoming Dodecanese campaign. Admiral Philips, under whose command the four R Class battleships should have gone to, agreed to the loan in exchange for the use of HMS Queen Elizabeth which would act along with HMS Warspite and Nelson in the Eastern Fleet. Cunningham was conscious that that left him only HMS Valiant as a modernised Queen Elizabeth Class battleship, but with the current situation of peace along the North African coast he wasn’t too worried.

HMS Ramillies was the last of the R Class battleships to arrive, and all four of them would need time to exercise together, then with the invasion fleet, and practice their shore bombardment skills in naval gunfire support. The monitor HMS Terror was now fully repaired and would be joined by her sister ship, HMS Erebus later in the month. Cunningham was therefore able to support the Dodecanese campaign with thirty-six 15-inch guns, and still have HMS Valiant available for any other task required.

8th and 10th Armies were also receiving various reinforcements and replacements from the ships that had docked. These included Self-Propelled Birch Guns for the Royal Horse Artillery regiments, and Vanguards for the Light Anti-Aircraft Regiments. The Royal Engineers were getting some Bridging tanks, Armoured Recovery Vehicles and mine-clearing tanks. A number of Viking APCs had been included for trials and evaluation.

Another new vehicle that had been sent out for evaluation was an artillery tractor based on the A15 Crusader hull. Having a tracked and protected tractor for gun crews was something that the Royal Artillery could see as a replacement for the Quad, which although popular, was somewhat vulnerable. The new 4.5-inch Mk 2 field guns for the Royal Artillery Medium Regiments would normally be towed by Matador Field Artillery Tractors. The Crusader Gun Tractor was in contention as an alternative, looking also to the future with the towed 17-pdr anti-tank gun. The tractor could transport the crew of ten for the medium guns, and there were a couple more that were fitted out to carry extra ammunition for the guns.

 

[kelgar04]

Yah know as soon as this all appears on the coast of the Islands Moral for the Italains will drop like a lead balloon in quick sand.

Also good dress rehearsal as well for future animphibous operations also air cover should be fairly consistent given they hold Crete. Additionally after this I have to wonder how much heat the fat man will be feeling in Italy as well as the Vichy French in the Lavant and North Africa.

 

[JamesHunter]

Yah know as soon as this all appears on the coast of the Islands Moral for the Italains will drop like a lead balloon in quick sand.

Also good dress rehearsal as well for future animphibous operations also air cover should be fairly consistent given they hold Crete. Additionally after this I have to wonder how much heat the fat man will be feeling in Italy as well as the Vichy French in the Lavant and North Africa.

I suspect the French will be left be since nominally they're "neutral" and the Allies have enough problems (at least until a return to France proper is in the offering). Italy will be sweating bullets as they realize the skills being practiced can be easily used on them...

Also no shock the R's are on bombardment duties. If anything goes wrong they're the ships the Navy can afford to lose.

 

[kelgar04]

I suspect the French will be left be since nominally they're "neutral" and the Allies have enough problems (at least until a return to France proper is in the offering). Italy will be sweating bullets as they realize the skills being practiced can be easily used on them...

Also no shock the R's are on bombardment duties. If anything goes wrong they're the ships the Navy can afford to lose.

Yep but the way things are going the Fatman in Italy is going to be stamping down harder and sooner than OTL since he lost his main Colonial territories and has no major victories to show for it. Heck sort of suprised the Germans haven’t paired off a second or third line division or two to support him at this point.

 

[yulzari1]

The whole PIAT, Baooka, Panzerfaust etc. all came about at about the same time due to the need arising at the same time. Previously small AT guns in the 25 to 40mm class were feasible infantry AT weapons within the capacity of a small crew to manhandle into place. Comfortable familiar technology within a designer’s comfort zone. But, by late 1940, it was clear that they would soon be marginal and the larger replacement AT guns would be too big to easily move about so everyone saw that they needed something that could be carried about and at least damage enemy armour, albeit at very close ranges.

So they turned to the technologies at hand. A throwing device and a hollow charge. Thus a rocket, recoilless gun or spigot mortar. There was no sudden discovery of a magic man portable AT weapon. Everyone had already tried simple rifle grenades for the task and found them very wanting. Several different bright groups faced the same problem at the same time with much the same data and came up with solutions at the same time . Albeit different ways of doing it.

 

[Thoresby]

The whole PIAT, Baooka, Panzerfaust etc. all came about at about the same time due to the need arising at the same time. Previously small AT guns in the 25 to 40mm class were feasible infantry AT weapons within the capacity of a small crew to manhandle into place. Comfortable familiar technology within a designer’s comfort zone. But, by late 1940, it was clear that they would soon be marginal and the larger replacement AT guns would be too big to easily move about so everyone saw that they needed something that could be carried about and at least damage enemy armour, albeit at very close ranges.

So they turned to the technologies at hand. A throwing device and a hollow charge. Thus a rocket, recoilless gun or spigot mortar. There was no sudden discovery of a magic man portable AT weapon. Everyone had already tried simple rifle grenades for the task and found them very wanting. Several different bright groups faced the same problem at the same time with much the same data and came up with solutions at the same time . Albeit different ways of doing it.

That's only true to an extent, until the Germans saw the Bazooka their plan was for what became the Panzerfaust as a replacement for the Panzerbuchse 39 and what became the Raketenwerfer 43 as a placement for the 3.7cm Pak 36, it was only when they saw the Bazooka that the light went on in their heads that they could take the 88mm rocket they had developed for the PaK 36 replacement and make it a man portable anti tank weapon. That said if the Bazooka had never gone into service I suspect the Germans would have eventually realised that they didn't need a trailed carriage to launch a 88mm rocket and would have developed something like the Panzerschrek eventually.