Look what the big brown truck left me.....

[Tankdriver]

I understand.

Thanks

[lt.luke]

Anti-tank weapons 101....a cognac bottle with gasoline in it and a cork in it and a rag tied around the neck...

or for the real beginner,

"Anti-Tank Weapons for Dummies"

Chapter 1: The Long, Wide Ditch

(Nice haul of goodies! Gotta love that big brown truck)

RL

wouldn't that make the M1910 Entrenching tool the true, OG of anti-tank weapons systems?

[John Neuenburg]

Tankdriver,
You said you want to create a "Tank Destroyer" display of all anti-tank weapons. With capitalized letters it sounds like you mean a display of things related to Tank Destroyers, meaning the vehicles. But if you mean all weapons designed to destroy tanks, any nation or period, you have a long row to hoe!

For example the WWII British "elephant in the room" is their PIAT bomb launcher, one of the most effective infantry anti-tank weapons.

Early in the war the Brits had their Boys anti-tank rifle, a .55 cal, 5 shot weapon that was useful in the Western Desert for scaring away Italian armored cars.

Someone mentioned the "Sticky Bomb." I know of two (not counting the "Lewes Bomb" created by the British Special Air Service which originally was sticky but a time bomb, not for anti-tank): The U.S. made improvised explosive in a sticky sock, and the British production No. 74 anti-tank grenade. Staying with production weapons here, the replacement for the No. 74 which was a dangerous weapon (to the thrower) was the No. 82 "Gammon Bomb" which was a do-it-yourself grenade consisting of a cloth bag with elasticized bottom, with a contact-exploding fuse. The bag was filled by the user with enough plastic explosive to do the job, with the option of shrapnel, so ideal for units that often carried PE including paratroops, Special Air Service, and commandos. Up to 2 pounds of PE could be inserted, meaning one had to throw from behind cover. Compare that to about 1.6 pounds in a M6 bazooka rocket, and 2.5 pounds in a PIAT bomb, although the latter two were shaped charges which increased their effectiveness against armor. On the other hand, the No. 82 could be tossed so it would land on a tank engine deck, and used the "poultice charge" concept which was favored by the inventors of the Sticky Bomb. This was a soft charge that flattened against the target before exploding, increasing its effect. As the Sticky Bomb was being invented they created the "Blackard Bombard" anti-tank weapon, somewhat like a giant PIAT but on a fixed ground mount, with a 10 or 20 pound projectile I think usually with a soft headed poultice charge. This was for the Home Guard in Britain with few anti-tank guns facing a potential German invasion early in the war. Strange but pretty inexpensive to build.

I know, oddball anti-tank stuff probably low on your totem pole....

[Chuck Lutz]

Of all these anti-tank weapons, a description of how close the person using them would be interesting. Seeing as how it was generally the idea that tanks should be accompanied by infantry to disperse any such teams attempting to destroy the tanks, some would have seemed to be suicidal to contemplate using....really a "last ditch" weapon when being over-run by and enemy force. Obviously the farther off they can be deployed, the better odds they team could survive an attack...An 88mm flak gun can stand WAY off and kill tanks where as a "sticky bomb" requires contact with the vehicle to be destroyed and the odds of not being killed, wounded and/or captured decrease the closer to the target the team has to be deployed for a "kill".

John's example of the PIAT for instance required a closer distance than that of a Panzershreck for instance....add to that the thickness of the armor on the target vehicle and the ability of the weapon to overcome that armor and the viability of the weapon is exposed.

Sounds like you will have an impressive display!

[lt.luke]

Of all these anti-tank weapons, a description of how close the person using them would be interesting. Seeing as how it was generally the idea that tanks should be accompanied by infantry to disperse any such teams attempting to destroy the tanks, some would have seemed to be suicidal to contemplate using....really a "last ditch" weapon when being over-run by and enemy force. Obviously the farther off they can be deployed, the better odds they team could survive an attack...An 88mm flak gun can stand WAY off and kill tanks where as a "sticky bomb" requires contact with the vehicle to be destroyed and the odds of not being killed, wounded and/or captured decrease the closer to the target the team has to be deployed for a "kill".

John's example of the PIAT for instance required a closer distance than that of a Panzershreck for instance....add to that the thickness of the armor on the target vehicle and the ability of the weapon to overcome that armor and the viability of the weapon is exposed.

Sounds like you will have an impressive display!

WITHOUT the Infantry present, sometimes, as in boxing, a close proximity cripples the "bigger guy" (in this case, the tank). The smaller, more maneuverable infantryman has great advantage in the close fight...IF he can keep from being literally run over. Tanks are weakest in the rear.

[Tankdriver]

Actually, you could go on forever, the dog bomb, that the Russian's used, a P47, or P38 would be nice too.....

[Joe Gopan]

Two weapons my Uncle Joe found handy as a Ranger in the ETO were the Thompson SMG and the 2.36" Rocket Launcher.