Trivial - it’s even referenced on the wiki page, although I’ve used a link to the document elseswhere 'cos the wiki reference comes up with a warning:
Handbook on German Military Forces https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/pdf-hell/article-hdbk-TM-E-30-451.pdf Washington D.C.: United States War Department. 1945. p. VII-II.
This is sufficient. Thank you.
I just wanted to know where the source came from.
There were many people who questioned it in matches, so I wanted to see some evidence.
Remember, the TOG II had a listed 17 pounder as its gun for decades until someone went and found out it actually didn’t.
I just wanted someone to show me how we know it has one.
Which they did. I also watched some footage of a King Tiger being shot by the Panzerfaust from WW2.
RPG7 has I think more than 300mm of pen, while special AT tandem grenades have much more.
Depends on rocket that it uses but the one that we see on most TV shows and movies which is PG-7VL rocket can pen more than 500 mm of armor but is useless if armor is covered with anything like the ERA or even wood since its only a single stage heat round so yeah they can be pretty useless with that rocket (It contact with anything other than armor it will explode immaturely and also that’s why we see a lot of caged (Space armor) tanks or composite armor tanks which cause erode in jet of heat round)
It was right there on the page ffs - title, link, publisher, date of publication, and if you googled it you’d find it in several other places.
I was in the hospital.
No need to be so rude. I just made a quick post asking why it was that high.
Why the hostility. I just asked for a source.
m9 bazooka with m6a3 rocket penetration is debatable on wiki. half of the sources claim that it has 4 inches penetration(102mm) and other half claim 4.7-5 inches penetration (120-127mm). also i caught some inaccuracies regarding german ammo cause data about them is mostly from same caliber cartridge from western manufacturers and not from german manufacturers.
you could have:
you are demanding that people do your research cause you dont like the penetration in game based on your feelings. if you have actually provided sources with claims of less penetration, your argument for sources with higher penetration would be valid, but you didnt.
If i came of as openly hostile then I must apologise but lets just say I was very much annoyed at the way the discussion went as:
From my point of view it looked like
You came in demanding stuff to be changed because you feel like it cant be true
Demanded to see a source but rejected it the moment it opposed your opion citing "wiki isnt a source"by which point no easy to obtain source is eligible anymore (any online source could be fake then as most are created by who knows who) but insisted that 200mm must be false because IDK…
Made yourself look like someone who does not even understand the topic he is argueing when you implied that tank HEAT from a tiger must be better than a launcher because it is a tiger (because the tiger is famous for its use of HEAT…not)
Rejected any attempts of an explanations why something work like it does and then continued saying some nonsence about the very thing i was talking about.
Tried to justify your reason with very flawed reasoning and conclusions when bringing up ambush tactics and modern lauchers having trouble with modern frontal armor and applying it retroactively to WW2 where armor is less advanced.
Insissting on discussing HEAT for the tiger is a topic better done on the WT forum and did not the enlisted forum.
Again demanding proof but rejecting any easy to reach proof because you dont feel like it but citing no sources of your own.
comparing the missinformation possibility of a 2 of prototyp to a mass produced widely used piece of equipment but in reality these are not even remotely close to be able to compared.
Edit: Feel free to flag this one aswell if you cant handle criticism it would just proof my point that the discussion was a total pain to endure.
And if you factored in some context provided by the now deleted post you might realise that the “hostile” part you mentioned isnt even aimed at you.
But instead you chose to just flag it away which deserves no respect from me.
So you only had time to waste our time on the forum with endless disscusions but no time to just google it yourself? I would assume when in hospital there is plenty of time to kill.
I did google it, but I’m not an expert and don’t really know how to dive into these things. I primarily know tanks, so I don’t know where to look for Panzerfaust documents.
And I did look, but all I got was some… things… Google and Bing aren’t the best at showing you historical documents when the word “Penetration” is involved…
I did google and Bing it, but I couldn’t find a consistent or source like the one shown. I don’t really understand Wikipedia either.
You’ve got to go somewhere to learn. I just chose here because I appreciate the feedback.
Also, you guys’ are kinda seen as the Top Secret Military Document people alongside WarThunder lol
If anyone knows what they’re talking about, they’re probably here.
I don’t recall demanding; I just didn’t believe it.
I asked for a source because that’s how this works? When I see a claim, I like to know where the information to back it up comes from. That’s how I was taught to verify information.
It’s reasonable to assume a cannon has more power than a handheld AT weapon during WW2. Especially when WW2 HEAT shells are not reliable to begin with.
I didn’t reject any explanations, I just wanted to see where the source for the penetration value came from. When I did, I accepted it instantly. I admit I was wrong.
The typical use of an AT weapon is on a vehicle’s weaker spots. It just happens that you don’t want to stand in front of a tank. Not to mention the Panzerfaust’s range means you almost need to be point blank, so it got used that way often. I’ll admit my assumption was that the weapon didn’t have sufficient penetration, when it was actually because of the weapon’s range.
It’s called a comparison. Both are an 88mm Chemical Projectile designed by the same side around the same time. It’s a reasonable comparison.
I didn’t reject proof, I rejected Wikipedia for being unreliable, which it is. Even Gaijin doesn’t allow it as a source. Hence why I asked for a Primary Source.
I don’t recall doing this.
Flag? I haven’t flagged anything…
What did I supposedly flag? I’ll screenshot and show you I didn’t.
it is quite easy to check sources on wiki. usually every paragraph or sentence has hyperlink to footnote from where it is sourced. e.g.
you can hover over it
then you follow up that source by clicking hyperlink(which may not be available cause lots of stuff is copyrighted so it gets taken down) or you google the source and try to find online copy of it.
also you have tons of books that give information about ww2 weapons and their stats, so it is really not that hard to research it.
I will do that next time, but I’d really rather just be shown the document instantly. If I sent a Wikipedia source as my main claim in the WarThunder community, I’d be burned on a stake lol
oh wow
So then it wasnt actually you who flaged it that post.
I just assumed that it was you as it was the most logical conclusion but if it really wasnt then it was most likely some othere guy not just browsing the topic.
I don’t flag things unless I’m being called names and whatnot.
I haven’t flagged any posts. If you have any that were flagged, I will show a screenshot of my perspective to prove I didn’t.
No need for that.
I know that there are some thin skinned people that love to flag everything remotely offencive on the forum and as I was only notified that I was flaged but not by who I have no idea who really was behind it.
Then I am sorry for jumping the gun on you and accusing you in the way I did.
