Panzerfausts, in 1942? Something isn’t right.
I'm working my way through the "Death of the
Leaping Horsemen" book by Jason D. Mark, and there's a section where the 24th Panzer Division
is taking a bridge over the Chervlenaya Gully to form a bridgehead near Gavrilovka
(south of Stalingrad) on the 29th of August 1942.
A quick background to this raid - General Hauenschild of 24th Panzer Division
decides on his own initiative to send Kampfgruppe Lancken towards the Chervlenaya
Gully and form a bridgehead near Gavrilovka. “Leutnant Heinz Hövel, with a small group
of panzers, had the mission of taking the bridge over the gully in a surprise raid.”
15 Germans dressed in Soviet uniforms took
a Russian Ford lorry and sped towards the bridge. They were followed by two panzers,
and both groups pretended to fire at each other, to show that the lorry was being chased
by the panzers. But the ruse didn't work and they all got
taken out (except the commander [Leutnant Hövel] and his radio operator [Obergefreiter
Ernst Panse]). But the interesting part is this: to quote
the radio operator - "Their weapons consisted of submachine-guns, several hand grenades
and a few Panzerfausten." Obergefreiter Ernst Panse
Yes, Panzerfausts. In the Summer of 1942. This is a direct quote from Obergefreiter
Ernst Panse, the radio operator. So this isn't Jason D. Mark getting
it wrong. This is the only time I've come across Panzerfausts during my research on Stalingrad
(research currently at 370,000 words), and I'm quite surprised by it.
Why am I surprised? Panzerfausts weren’t invented yet.
Even the unreliable Wikipedia says that Panzerfausts were developed in the summer of 1942 (which
is wrong) and first used in 1943 (which is right).
Yet here is evidence to say they were used in the Summer of 1942?
This is an example of what historians come across all the time - a contradiction in the
source material. Sometimes these are statistical anomalies, sometimes one unit is in two places
at the same time, sometimes people lie or get things wrong.
In order to figure this one out, I purchased another book (thanks to support from my Patreons)
- the “Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek (Weapon)” book - which isn’t a bad book for the price,
although a little short. If you’re looking for some intermediate information about these
weapons, it's alright, I'll give it that.
This book confirms that work on the charge-propelled
versions of the Panzerfaust didn't begin until November of 1942.
This is roughly 2-3 months after Operation Hövel.
Also, the Faustpatrone 42, which was the first panzerfaust in development - "saw only very
limited field testing on the Eastern Front in early 1943". Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek
So there’s absolutely no chance it was given
to the Brandenburgers or 24th Panzer Division. Now there was a "Panzerwurfgranate 41" which
was a precursor to the charge-propelled Panzerfausts. Basically it was a thrown shaped-charge warhead.
But these proved to be so unsuccessful during field tests in early 1941 that they were rejected
because the users couldn’t throw them far enough and would die in the blast.
So work on the Faustpatrone 42 started in November of 1942, work on the Panzerfaust
30 (klein) began in December of 1942, and work on the Panzerfaust 30 (groß) began in
January of 1943 - and these were all the earliest models of Panzerfaust.
Therefore there is absolutely no way that the Brandenburgers had Panzerfausten in August
of 1942. And yet we have a source here that says specifically
that they did - again, one of the many contradictions that historians come across all the time.
Before I give you my opinion, I want to see what you think the solution is to this problem.
Pause the video now and comment below and let me know what you think is going on here. I’ll
give you a second or two, and… ok here we go.
My opinion is this - they must have had something. Because it's unlikely that the Brandenburgers
would ride in a truck towards tanks if they didn't have some sort of anti-tank weapon,
so they certainly must have had some way of knocking out those T-34's.
Here’s what I think they had - "Introduced in early 1942, the first Gewehr
Panzergranate ('rifle [anti-] armour grenade') was a 30mm shaped charge offering 20-30mm
penetration with an effective range of 50-100m." Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek (Weapon)
This is the only weapon that they really could have had, assuming it’s a propelled or ranged
weapon. Anti-tank rifles at this stage were ineffective against the T-34s, and while they
may have been armed with explosives, the use of the term “Panzerfausten” to me suggests
ranged weapons. But I'm wondering if "Panzerfausten" became
the term used by the troops to describe all hand-held anti-tank weapons? Or even, this
particular soldier thinks that Panzerfausten is what all hand-held anti-tank weapons were called.
So basically, any anti-tank explosive that was propelled was deemed to be a Panzerfaust-like
weapon and thus became known as “Panzerfausten”. That makes a lot of sense and then doesn’t
contradict any of the sources. The only issue with the Brandenburgers
using Gewehr Panzergranate is that "20-30mms of penetration" is probably not enough
to take out a T-34. But perhaps they knew that, which is why the Panzers were following.
Maybe they hoped that, we can't really take out these T-34s, so what we'll do is try to disable or distract them
long enough for the Panzers to knock them out.
Again, a fairly good example of what
historians have to deal with. Lots of issues like this. And I’ve come across many problems like
this during the research for my Stalingrad documentary, and may even have to mention
this problem again in that video. Again what do you think? Let us know in the comments below.
I couldn’t have bought these books without
my Patreons, these guys are making this channel possible, so thank you, you’re awesome.
Stalingrad is happening because of them. If you can support me, please do so. Link in
the description below. Thank you everyone for watching, bye for now.