Anti-tank solution

[seireikhaan]

I believe it was Rommel in North Africa who figured out that his anti-aircraft machine guns made quite suitable anti-tank weapons against the British.

[Marshal Murat]

An 88mm cannon is hardly a machine gun.

[PanzerJaeger]

20mm was enough for most of the British tanks.

The Faust was pretty innovative. Cheap, quick to produce, and effective. Fire and forget it. A normal infantryman could carry several along with his regular weapon, whereas a Panzershreck (German bazooka) required at least two devoted operators.



I would also argue that the entire Jagdpanther program was a pretty innovative AT solution. The tank hunters were highly effective, cheaper and faster to produce, and far more heavily armoured.

I recently found this original series about the Panther on youtube. Its got some great battlefield footage and deals with AT issues.

Panther Tank

[KrooK]

Hmm guys I meant something else. I didn't mean weapon to destroy tanks (panzerfausts, shrecks and rest) but untypical methods.

[Geoffrey S]

Well, they were untypical to begin with.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I believe it was Rommel in North Africa who figured out that his anti-aircraft machine guns made quite suitable anti-tank weapons against the British.

Not exactly a machine gun.

[Reverend Joe]

How about the Normandy beach defenses? I can't find any good pictures of them, but in addition to the metal "hedgehogs," the Germans set up giant poles designed to tear the bellies out of landing craft coming in at high tide.

Not anti-tank, per se, but certainly related and novel.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I can't find any good pictures of them, but in addition to the metal "hedgehogs," the Germans set up giant poles designed to tear the bellies out of landing craft coming in at high tide.

Rommelspargel?

[Marshal Murat]

Reverend might be refering to the caltrop-esque girders.

[PanzerJaeger]

What about the Panzerturm?

[KrooK]

Seems to be good option :)
I have heard about another untypical method used by Poles during ww2.
Howitzers - most of tanks had thin armour on their top.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Reverend might be refering to the caltrop-esque girders.

Those would be the hedgehogs he is referring to, not the poles that were often topped with mines and designed to tear, or blow open the bottoms of landing-craft.

[Reverend Joe]

Those would be the hedgehogs he is referring to, not the poles that were often topped with mines and designed to tear, or blow open the bottoms of landing-craft.

Yeah, I was referring to the poles pictured above.

[Veho Nex]

Not exactly a machine gun.

I dont believe rommel had to much access to 88's in africa. But he did have some 20-30 mm AA mg's that worked effectively against lightly armored british tanks but were utterly useless against a firefly unless you got it from behind and had two or 3 trained on it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Some common misconceptions have emerged in this thread..

Rommel did have 88's in Africa, where they proved highly effective. Allied tanks were able to be destroyed at ranges far beyond those of their own weapons. The cannon's superiority in the anti-tank role was well known long before that theatre emerged, though; going back to the Spanish Civil War. Rommel's use of 88's at Arras was a pivotol engagement in the Battle for France, decimating the last Allied attempts to regain momentum.

There were no firefly's in the desert. However, Africa was one theatre where the normal Sherman was actually quite on par with its opposition. Considering the British and Italian offerings, the Sherman was second only to the heavier Panzer IV and the rare Tiger, being relatively equal and even better in some respects to the the Panzer III. It was discovered that the British tanks were so lacking that even smaller anti-aircraft weapons, primarily the 20mm could be used to effect against them.

[Veho Nex]

Sorry I though fireflys were there at the end...

Hmm I trully thought 88's were a mid war invention.