This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Panzerfaust article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
Hi, just wonder what the difference(s) between Panzerfaust and Gun-howitzer is. Any hint will be greatly appreciated.
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)
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))
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think those numbers are backwards. Herr Gruber ( talk) 00:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
(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't ( talk) 07:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Panzerfaust. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
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 {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Panzerfaust article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
Hi, just wonder what the difference(s) between Panzerfaust and Gun-howitzer is. Any hint will be greatly appreciated.
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)
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))
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think those numbers are backwards. Herr Gruber ( talk) 00:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
(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't ( talk) 07:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Panzerfaust. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
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 {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)