Talk:Panzerfaust

Faust 30 Warhead Discrepancy
The Development section has the Warhead for the 30-edition listed as 140mm, while the Specifications section has it listed as 149mm - Which value is correct? Mecheye (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Panzerfaust
Just a quick comment. The reference to "Battle of Berlin" which I believe referred to the land battles of April-May 1945 between Russia and Germany actually linked to the US/British Bombing Campaign of 1943-1944.

Category
The category Rockets and missiles is overburdened. Since the Panzerfaust is clearly a rocket and not a guided missile, it should be re-categorized appropriately. I will do so tomorrow if there is no objection. Joshbaumgartner 23:00, 2005 May 24 (UTC)


 * The problem is, it isn't a rocket...--MWAK 12:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture
Do we REALLY need a section about video games? It seems so irrelevant.

Agreed. "X in popular culture" invariably lead to large lists of japanese cartoons that have nothing to do with the article.
 * It seems only logical that games set in that era contain the Panzerfaust as playable weapon. Also in the series mentioned the Pf. doesn't seem to play a major role. Shall we axe the entire "Panzerfaust in popular culture" section? Shinobu 17:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If one is doing a list of popular culture related topics, one must include ALL related topics, including anime. There is no reason why it shouldn't. And for the record, I don't think "Fascist Zeon" is an accurate descritption.

All RELEVANT topics. "a large scale Panzerfaust weapon" is, axiomatically, not a Panzerfaust. This is an article about the Panzerfaust, not generic propelled grenades with the same general form. -- Rogerborg 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Panzerfaust vs. Gun-howitzer
Hi, just wonder what the difference(s) between Panzerfaust and Gun-howitzer is. Any hint will be greatly appreciated.


 * Panzerfaust is a rocket. The howitzer is an artillery cannon.


 * Strictly the gun-howitzer is a howitzer with some of the capabilities of a field gun. GraemeLeggett 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Panzerfaust was a recoilless gun. So it needed no recoil mechanism and no breech. It also was an expendable single-use weapon. So the tube could be made of low quality steel. All this meant it was very light and cheap. The drawback was, you couldn't hit an elephant at 30 metres with it :o).--MWAK 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

literal translation
I have removed the translation "gauntlet" for the Panzerfaust,I think it is wrong. Firstly because in german, gauntlet would be "Panzerhandschuh". Secondly because the "Panzer" originates from the primary target of the Panzerfaust, and does not form an own word together with "Faust". More evidence for this is that there are other rocket-launchers in german military that are named for their respective targets, e.g. "Bunkerfaust" or "Fliegerfaust" (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fliegerfaust)

84.133.64.91 (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It means "Tank Fist". Panzer = Tank, Faust = Fist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.75.132 (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the name Panzerfaust?
I just read about a speech from Wilhelm II on 15 December 1897, where he uses the term "die gepanzerte Faust" to refer to Germany's military power. Is it possible that the origin of the weapon's name lies in this metaphor? (Anzbevrct (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

Merging Faustpatrone into this article?
The Faustpatrone was the predecessor to the Panzerfaust, but there is considerable overlap between this weapon and the initial Panzerfaust version - apparently the Panzerfaust 30 version was also designated Faustpatrone 2 or Faustpatrone gross ("large"), while the original Faustpatrone was also called Faustpatrone 1 or Panzerfaust 30 klein ("small").

I recommend merging portions of the Faustpatrone article into this article and redirecting Faustpatrone here - agree or disagree? - GMan552 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. IIRC the Panzerfaust is basically the same as the Faustpatrone only with a different warhead.--Sus scrofa (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The later models simply had larger warheads and refined leaf sights for extended ranges. Koalorka (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A great german creation
This anti-tank weapon was the best in its class.Disposable, cheap, easy to produce and efective against any tank in World War II.The bazooka had some defects, that this weapon didn't had:


 * Bazooka wasn't reliable, because it had a weak battery.


 * Bazooka couldn't defeat all armours.Panther tank, Tiger I and Tiger II had frontal armour that bazooka couldn't defeat.


 * Panzerfaust had smaller size, than bazooka.


 * Panzerfaust was cheaper and more easy to produce, than bazooka.

The proof of the qualities of this weapon are, in its sucess in battle and the fact that modern anti-tank weapons, such as Panzerfaust 3 (from Germany), RPG-22 (from Russia) and M72-LAW are also disposable anti-tank weapons.Agre22 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

Bazooka was also more effective then the panzerfaust. Panzerfaust had terrible penetration against frontal armour as well. The soldier also had to throw away the Panzerfaust after he was done, so if he missed he was screwed. KommanderChicken (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If it isn't already mentioned in the article, it must be noted that the Bazooka came first and the germans designed the Panzerfaust off the tactical ideas of the Bazooka. There is no doubt that the Panzerfaust is better in some ways than the bazooka, and the page should clarify why that is. Also, these talk pages aren't for expressing opinions, they are for discussing edits. And frankly, none of you have any evidence for your claims.
 * And only the original version of the Bazooka used batteries. The later versions had a much more reliable system that is discussed on the Bazooka's page. And the panzerfaust did not need to be thrown away, it was reloadable. You can search for old stock war footage to see this in action.
 * Speaking of which, this should be added to the page. A lot people think of the panzerfaust's critical flaw being that it was single-use. But we have evidence that this false. This should be added to the page in some way. Like with a field manual or a photo of someone reloading a panzerfaust tube.Blamazon (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Pictures
Second, due to the odd shape of the warhead (see pictures) [...]

Which pictures? --Klaws 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know which one's which, the description of the picture is a bit ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.67.105 (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the photo, as it actually shows a Panzerfaust 30 (top) over a Panzerfaust 60 (bottom, with the later combination flip-up rear sight/trigger) - GMan552 (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging this article with Panzerfaust?
The Faustpatrone was the predecessor to the Panzerfaust, but there is considerable overlap between this weapon and the initial Panzerfaust version - apparently the Panzerfaust 30 version was also designated Faustpatrone 2 or Faustpatrone gross ("large"), while the original Faustpatrone was also called Faustpatrone 1 or Panzerfaust 30 klein ("small").

I recommend merging portions of this article into the main Panzerfaust article and redirecting Faustpatrone there - agree or disagree? - GMan552 (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to "Russian battlefield" site
In a recent edit, links to www.battlefield.ru were removed as sources because they were not considered reliable. I put those link into the article along with the accompanying text because that site lists literature at the end of their article. Is there any reason to doubt the truthfulness of that site? Has this been discussed before?--Sus scrofa (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslav wars?
Ive put up a "dubious" over that claim. Can anyone provide evidence? If not it should be removed Irondome (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Removed entry. 55 year old panzerfaust available and at the same time not being suicidal to use? Absurd claim. Irondome (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

weight of Faustpatrone
first part of the Faustpatrone says that it was heavier then the later panzerfaust Much smaller in physical appearance, the Faustpatrone was actually heavier than the better-known Panzerfaust but the weights giving for both is Faustpatrone 3,2kg and Panzerfaust 5,1kg so the Faustpatrone is lighter, did I miss something or is that statement just wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondria (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's hard to know what's correct when there are no sources, but I removed that statement for now. Good catch, btw.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Argentine usage?
Citation 9 gives pictures of what appear to be panzerfaust clones, but the caption to the picture which is the source of the citation refers to a Bofors weapon. A KOTT-PANZER M-46 Bofors. What is this weapon? I thought I was pretty knowledgable of most weapon system histories, but this is a totally new one on me. Was it domestically produced? What was the route of supply of panzerfaust to Argentina if they were direct exports from Nazi Germany? This needs to be seriously clarified, additional cites and text inserted into the main article. Its a noteworthy claim, and needs serious backup IMO. IF it is a Swedish or Argentine clone of a Pazerfaust it is noteworthy and MUST have its own article, even a stub to start. Please can you respond here :) Irondome (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that the "Panzer-Kott M46 Bofors." is a mangling of the Swedish word Pansarskott (~"armor shot") which is the Swedish military designation for Panzerfaust-type weapons (one-shot recoilless rifle). Bofors is the Swedish arms manufacturer. According to the article on Swedish wikipedia, Sweden manufactured the pansarskott m/46 weapon that was an almost direct copy of the Panzerfaust (m/46 = model of 46, year of adoption).--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent catch. The pics look good from the source. Def late 40s Arg infantry with "panzerfaust". Could you put the necessary cite in? Im not technically confident in cite insertion yet (not enough practice, mostly copy editing at mo) and i dont want to screw anything up. Irondome (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi wikipedians, I've just checked the online source cited for the supposedly use of this weapon by the Argentine Army. Though the weapon looks as a Panzerfaust, I doubt is of German origin, though seems that the Swedish copy/derivative could have been used by Argentina. In a forum there is a thread that mentions an Argentine derivative, the "P.A.P.I" (Proyectil Antitanque para Infanteria, Spanish for "Infantry Anti-tank projectile"), so the source cited may be showing a picture of it. The book mentioned as reference (in Spanish) may clarify this, but only having it at hand would clarify the question. Unless verifiable printed sources can clarify this question (i.e.: book X, page N), I would remove the entry for "Argentina" as a user and make a footnote with that information. Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Phillipino usage?
The use of this weapon in ww2 and immediate post war period in the Phillipines seems highly unlikely. I propose to remove in 1 month if no citations or evidence that is at least plausable is furnished. Irondome (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

→I highly doubt it was used by the Hukbalahap forces as well; they mostly used American and captured Japanese weapons. Avre44 (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Its crap. Irondome (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In service before it was produced?
I think those numbers are backwards. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Use after 1945
The article said that Panzerfaust was in use until 1945, while I know for a fact that Soviet Union kept using it until domestic designs were available, even manufaturing them in German factories they had captured, and that Swiss had started manufacturing 1:1 copies of the weapon during the war and most likely kept using them even after 1945, and even if these were not considered Panzerfausts but 'derivatives', Finland for example used the original, german-made Panzerfausts bought from Germany in 1944 well into 1950s, there are dozens of articles about weapons that consider a weapon phased-out only after the last confirmed user of the original weapons manufactured by the country that designed it has phased it out even if the country of origin hasn't used it for decades. Ape89 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On Panzerschreck the "end of use" is left open ("1943-?"), and it's reasonable to do the same here considering the large quantities of Panzerfausts left over at the end of the war. Thomas.W (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox clearly says "In service", meaning that it has nothing to do with when the Panzerfaust was produced, only when it was in service. And even if production of the original Panzerfaust ended in 1945 the large stocks of Panzerfausts left over at the end of the war could very well have been in service well into the 1950s. Which should be reflected in what it says after "In service" in the infobox. Thomas.W (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources that suggest that "large stocks of panzerfaust could very well have been in service..."? Sounds like supposition. The only thing we can be reliably sure of here is that a Swedish and apparently a Swiss version was produced and exported to other countries, notably Argentina, and there is some evidence these foreign versions were in use till the 50s. Irondome (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to what it says in the article the Finns got some 25,000 Panzerfausts and only used some 4,000 in combat. Which makes it highly probable that they had quite a few left over when the war ended. So do you have any sources that say that all Panzerfausts left over from the war were scrapped in 1945? If not we should do as it has been done in the article about Panzerschreck and leave it open. Thomas.W (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed the Finnish example would appear to be an abberation, in that Finland successfully managed to extricate itself from its alliance with Nazi Germany, and these were stocks which were rushed to Finland in July-August 44 from Germany. As such they were wartime transfers. I have never seen a reference to the Allies transferring stocks of P to donor nations post-war. I agree that the date should be left open unless clear and reliable sources Give a closing date. I am beginning to think that a Panzerfaust derivatives, manufactured and operated post-war series of short articles could be created. There is info out there on these types. Irondome (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that each derivative should have its own short article; so far I've identified Argentine ("P.A.P.I.") and Swedish (Pansarkott M-46) ones; however online sources are only "forums". Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weapons called Panzerfaust were used for 18 months by the Wehrmacht and for 65 years by the Bundeswehr. Yet this article only mentions the former model. Is there still any proof needed for the maniacal obsession of Anglo-Saxons with WW2? Maybe you should have prepared for viral pandemics instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E2:3725:3638:D80C:46D4:B54D:9869 (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. & U.S.S.R as Panzerfaust "users"? Consensus views?

 * I dont know about the validity of the US or USSR in the users section. I have come across a couple of references to US forces using panzerfaust in engagements myself, but does that make them a user? Also Sov forces used them especially in the final months. See Beevor for its Soviet use in the Berlin CQBs for mouseholing. The British 12th Army group used them for exactly the same purpose, I believe that is referenced in Hastings' Armegeddon. Its pretty certain that in many engagements throughout the war opposing sides would and did use captured weapons found on the field. That would logically make any weapon user lists chaotic. I would assume users means Officially issued to be acceptable? Irondome (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that including incidental capture use makes the user list too broad. --Sus scrofa (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo mixup somewhere?
(For all I know, the error's on the German page.) Take a look at the photo in article+section http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raketenpanzerb%C3%BCchse_54#Technik. The caption there says "Front: A Panzerschreck projectile. In back: A Panzerfaust." Note that if the present English article and English Panzerschreck have the correct photos, then apparently it would be the German caption that has them reversed...?

(Then again, I could be totally wrong... But somebody take a look.)

I expect to post this at Panzerschreck as well.IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell both pages have it right, they just use different terms. The German article says that the Panzerfaust is furthest from the camera and the Panzerschreck rocket is closest. The English uses left/right instead which is also correct. The tan object is the Panzerfaust and the object with the dark green warhead is the Panzerschreck rocket.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I see I've complicated this needlessly. I'm comparing the picture at the top of the present English-language Panzerfaust article ("Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-672-7634-13, Russland, Luftwaffensoldat mit Panzerabwehrwaffe.jpg") to the picture with the front-and-back display (Panzerfaust.jpg). In the latter picture, the nose of the Panzerfaust's warhead is of a much blunter shape, whereas the warhead in the former picture is much more streamlined and comes to a point at its nose – just like the Panzerschreck in Panzerfaust.jpg. For someone less familiar with armaments as myself, the first thing they're probably going to notice is the shape of the nose in the first picture, and then when they try to identify the same weapon in the second picture, they'll wonder if perhaps Panzerfaust.jpg's caption has the two weapons reversed.


 * I hope my issue is now a little clearer. Sorry for referencing the German article at all – it happens that when I surfed my way to the present article and saw just the bit at the top, I got curious and went immediately to the "Deutsch" link, so that is where I first saw Panzerfaust.jpg, and why I referred to it as being there.--IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The weapon in the top-most image is a Faustpatrone a.k.a. Panzerfaust klein, an early version of the Panzerfaust that used a smaller warhead. The later versions of the Panzerfaust used the broader warheads seen elsewhere in the article. --Sus scrofa (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Use in Greek Civil War?
I've just removed from the "Infobox" reference to usage in the Greek Civil War, as there is no text or citations in the article supporting this. It can be assumed that most WWII-era weapons could have been used in that war, given the period when it happened. This is a similar case to the US/USSR use during the war. If verifiable evidence is produced that it was used substantially in that conflict by any participant, then it might be useful to add the info again to the Infobox. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Panzerfaust 150 penetration capability
I was reviewing the stats that I've added yesterday, and seems curious to me that the Panzerfaust 150 has greater penetration than the Panzerfaust 100, though the warhead diameter is much smaller. If I recall correctly, the penetration of a hollow-charge warhead depends mainly on its diameter and the geometry of the internal explosive cavity. Can anyone please explain further how the 150 had better penetration? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Panzerfaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Image change
The old panzerfaust image with a soldier aiming it was so much better then the current one. The old one was a soldier aiming a model 60, which was much more widely used then the F1. The current one looks ugly AF as well, and is in a museum. not even one in action. I see no reason to change the image from a soldier actually using one to some sickly green rod with a cone on the end. KommanderChicken (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Reloadable Panzefausts
We can prove that the Panzefaust was reloadable, but the entire world still believes that the Panzerfaust's biggest flaw was that it was disposable and single-use. Using old war footage, we can be sure that german soldiers would reload Panzerfausts and that they were not useless once fired. I think this page should be changed to convey this.Blamazon (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

AT4 Copied?
the article states "This design was later copied in the modern day AT-4 to produce the same effect against modern main battle tanks." i find this highly unlikely. 75.117.143.29 (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This refers to the shape and internal destruction effect of the warhead. --Denniss (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)