Dear friends, welcome to the channel the Eastern Front! In the spring of 1945,
Soviet troops stormed major German cities and faced the massive use by the Germans
of anti—tank grenade launchers - reusable "panzsershreks" and disposable "panzerfaust".
The effectiveness of this weapon still causes numerous disputes.
In the works of domestic researchers, there are claims that the mass installation of protection
against faustpatrone on armored vehicles was a completely senseless waste of time and effort
and did not provide the necessary protection against the cumulative charge of the faustpatrone.
However, in this matter, not everything is as clear as it may seem at first glance.
There is an opinion that the mass installation of anti-cumulative screens on Soviet armored vehicles
before the Berlin operation could reduce losses from faustpatrons.
Indeed, on tests conducted by the Armored Supply and Repair Department of the 2nd Guards Tank Army,
as a result of the shelling of a captured German tank Pz.Kpfw.IV two
variants of anti-cumulative screens were tested.
In the first variant, mesh screens were tested,
consisting of an iron bar with a diameter of 4 mm with a step between the bars of 40 mm.
The second method of shielding was an iron sheet 1.5 mm thick. Both versions of the screens
were mounted by welding on brackets at a distance of 600 mm from the side of the tank.
The shot from the faustpatron was fired from a distance of 12 meters. As a result, both the
mesh and the iron sheet were torn at the point of impact and had a deflection towards the armor,
and in both cases a through hole with a diameter of 30 mm was formed in the armor of the tank,
while the hole in the armor of the tank without protective screens had a diameter of up to 70 mm.
The tests have shown that both methods of shielding reduce the size of the hole
by more than two times, but the armor of the tank is not protected from penetration. In the report
of the army , in the conclusions on the testing of two versions of the screens , it is said:
"A comparison of the described shielding methods shows that the applied shielding reduces the size
of the hole by more than two times, but does not protect the tank's armor from destruction.
In order to prevent losses from faustpatrons, it is necessary to continue experiments on
shielding tanks with armored sheets, the thickness of which should be approximately
6-8 mm (the exact thickness of the screen should be determined experimentally),
installed at a distance of 600 mm from the surface of the armor.
The number of mounting brackets should ensure sufficient rigidity of the screens. "
The report on the fighting of the 2nd Guards Tank Army states the following:
"In connection with the use by the enemy on a massive scale of faustpatrons and Ofenrohr,
means of protecting tank armor in the form of protective nets
or other technical devices that weaken and protect armor from the action of
panzerfaust (shielding tanks operating as part of assault groups) are needed."
According to reports from the front, there were also such tank formations
and units in which the combat tests of the screens were successful,
as evidenced by the report on the combat operations of the corps:
"The experience of street fighting in the city of Berlin has shown that
the German anti-tank melee weapons "faustpatrone" and "panzerschreck"
caused significant damage to the advancing tanks. To reduce the vulnerability of tanks, the corps
practiced installing screens. 1.5 cm sheets of iron or a wire mesh with a cross section of 4 mm
were welded to the armor of the turret and tank body at a distance of 15-20 cm on the
brackets . This upgrade was not reflected in the work of the engine and crew of the tank.
Tanks operating in battle formations with screens installed have shown that the screen
is a reliable means of protection and in most cases protects tanks from destruction.
Due to the end of hostilities, the experience has not been developed and requires further study.
It was revealed that combined-arms infantry in street battles abandoned tanks and left
them without cover from enemy fausts. For the purpose of joint actions and reliable cover,
tanks must be given motorized infantry trained to fight together with them."
As can be seen, in this case, the experience of using screens — moreover, similar in design to
those tested in the 2nd Guards Tank Army - turned out to be positive. Berlin pictures of tanks
of the 20th Tank Brigade (tbr) with mesh screens installed on them are also widely
known. In the reports of the 65th tbr of the same corps, it is mentioned that
during the storming of Berlin, three tanks in front of the assault group were shielded.
The report states that: "The tank is well protected from being hit by a faust grenade
by a screen of 1.5 mm iron or a wire mesh with a cross section of 4 mm."
The screens, similar in design to those in the 2nd Guards Tank Army, did not withstand
the tests, in this case they were used quite successfully, and moreover in combat conditions.
Also in one of the reports we could find that In the 11th Tank Corps and in the 220th Tank Brigade,
tank troops did not experience any special difficulties when landing on
tanks with installed protective screens and moving on them. In street combat, infantry
should mainly move ahead of tanks and clear the nearest buildings from enemy grenade launchers,
while the screens on the tanks can not interfere with them in any way.
When conducting street battles, the landing troops do not land on tanks, since they bear
heavy losses from enemy machine-gun fire, mortars and bricks of crumbling buildings."
Also, in the report of the 220th tank brigade it was noted that anti-aircraft machine guns
mounted on the ISU-122 played a big role in street battles, with the help of which
the fight was waged against the fausts who were holed up on the 3rd – 4th floors of buildings.
There is also a document with the order of the commander of the 5th Shock Army dated
April 30, 1945, sent to the commanders of the tank units of the army, with the requirement to speed
up the equipment of all tanks with screens as much as possible. The order states the following:
"The tests carried out in a combat situation on tanks and self-propelled guns
covered with a mesh iron screen showed that the screen is an
effective means of protecting the tank when faust grenades hit it. The IS-122,
covered with a mesh screen, despite being hit four times by a faust grenade, remained unharmed.
Similar protection was done with their own hands on Sherman tanks by American tankers
for example, in the form of sandbags. According to the results of tests conducted by the Canadians
in the summer of 1944, it was found that a 5 mm thick steel screen installed at a
distance of 300 mm from the armor with a gap filled with sandbags
proved to be an effective protection against the cumulative jet of the faustpatrone.
"Faustpatrons were mastered in the German army and began to arrive in large numbers for infantry
armament. In addition, the German command armed the local population with faustpatrons.
This weapon played a significant role in the fight against our tanks,
so the fight against them for our troops has become one of the most important issues.
In the combat report of the headquarters of the 45th guards tank brigade dated by April 28 states:
"The enemy continues to use a large number of "faustpatrons" as the main
means of fighting tanks, in most cases firing at our tanks with volleys of 10-25
"faustpatrons", simultaneously from several houses. At the same time, the enemy uses
the fire of "faustpatrons" on our infantry, advancing in small groups and even alone."
In the report on the fighting of the 7th tank brigade says:
"In those cases when infantry hiding in the entrances of buildings and basements does not
ensure the safety of tanks from grenade launchers, tanks suffer heavy losses and cannot move forward.
Before the bridge over the Landwehr Canal south of the Anhalt railway station,
the enemy set up barricades and rubble. Behind the barricades and in the buildings
directly behind the canal, grenade launchers were sitting, who shot
tanks even when our infantry was ahead of the tanks at a distance of 20-30 meters."
It should be noted that faustpatron, of course, was not a miracle weapon, as the propaganda
of the Third Reich tried to portray it, but at the same time it was not an ineffective weapon.
Comparing the effectiveness of faustpatrons with artillery is generally meaningless,
as are the losses from these types of weapons.
For its time, the faustpatrone was quite a modern individual anti-tank weapon.
That is why the soldiers and the command of the Red army tried to adapt to the new conditions
of city combat, taking into account the large number of grenade launchers.
And as the well-known proverb says, all means are good in war. That is why,
even despite the contradictory information about the testing of protective screens on the tank.
They continued to be installed, because if it gave at least a 10% chance of staying alive, it already
made sense. I'm not even talking about the fact that it additionally raised the morale of tankers.