The M9A1 Bazooka: Now With Optics and Quick Takedown

[@timmersd.8663]

U.S. Army: We need anti tank munitions for our light infantry Cletus: Well I've got some irrigation pipe and a barbeque lighter

[@tommywills3794]

And then about 50 years later people start making potato guns 😁

[@wunderwaffeyt4077]

Funny thing is, that's not an exaggeration because the original launcher was a pipe that Uhl found in a scrap pile

[@ENCHANTMEN_]

I mean really it's the rocket that's the weapon, the launcher is just a launchpad 😂

[@wunderwaffeyt4077]

@@ENCHANTMEN_ well the rocket was originally a hand-thrown grenade that must've been terrifying to use within throwing range so without the rocket engine and launcher, the grenade would've been mostly combat ineffective because you'd have to be super brave to even get close to a tank in battle.

[@jonboy9734]

@@danielaramburo7648 lmao. Ask anyone but the Russians.

[@Wolfshead009]

Cheers for Major "Bazooka Charlie" Carpenter who wired six of these to his L-4 Grasshopper and went tank hunting in Normandy.

[@sheikbombalot5781]

The guy became a history teacher at High school after the war. Damn, wouldn’t mind having him as a history teacher!

[@richardlooch2109]

and now i am your history teacher for the rest of the year you all exited kids? kids: boooo booo nooo ewwwww. ok well this is my costom design for a bazooka and since there are 6 big explosive irrigation pipes my lifelong hobby is to hunt german tanks. kids: YAYY WHHHAAAA WHHYYY YYAHHHOOOOOOOOOO FFFFSH BOOM FSSH BOOM FFFFSH BOOM FFFFSH BOOM FFFFSH BOOM FFFFFSH BOOM. school is closed for like a month kids!!!!!!!!

[@asherhockersmith8271]

That sentence gets exponentially better every three words

[@zedhead2864]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mmPWp5uPo5Z7ers

[@joaquinandreu8530]

Let's nor forget that the Bazooka was used also as an anti-infantry weapon, against dug in enemy infantry and for breaking and entering into houses. Also, most German tanks were not Panthers or Tigers: they were light tanks or Panzer IVs, and the Japanese used even lighter vehicles. All in all, an excellent infantry weapon that was present in HUGE numbers.

[@czwarty7878]

While of course StuGs and Panzer IVs made up majority of german armored forces, the Panthers were very numerous, contrary to popular belief. In Normandy and Ardennes some units had more Panthers than PzIVs. However only frontal armor of Panther could withstand direct hit from bazooka as sides were very thin.

[@jarink1]

There were more StuG IIIs made than any other German armored vehicle. Most people also don't realize that the Wehrmacht also employed quite a bit of captured tanks and other vehicles. In fact, a great deal of their armor in Normandy at the time of the landings were so equipped. For example, the 21st Panzer Division's Sturmgeschütz Abteilung 200 was equipped entirely with modified French tanks.

[@czwarty7878]

Yes, Germans used shitloads of captured vehicles since they were always on shortage. 21st Panzer is very interesting and I recommend everyone read about them. Also read about Alfred Becker - he was the man who was responsible for building tank destroyers and other support vehicles from captured vehicles, mostly french. I think his creations helped German war machine A LOT, since they always had shortage of materiel and his work provided them with fighting vehicles that were no worse than comparable vehicles (like Marder II), while costing almost nothing save for manhours. Beutepanzers were one of silent heroes for Third Reich.

[@mattbatson167]

But I became a problem in Korea especially for task force Smith which was a force a little smaller than a battalion and had to hold the line against 30 t34's with just a hand full of these, a couple of 70mm recoilless rifles, and some 60mm mortors

[@seanmalloy7249]

@@czwarty7878 In point of fact, the side armor of the hull behind the running gear on a Panther could be penetrated by the standard Russian anti-tank rifle; this vulnerability jump-started the design of the Panther II, which was cancelled after the Germans found that hanging side skirts from frames on the sides of the tank -- a less-comprehensive addition than the Schurzen seen on late PzKpfw IVs -- was sufficient to degrade the penetration of anti-tank rifles to the point where they could no longer penetrate the side armor of the Panther, so the Panther II development was no longer necessary.

[@birdmonster4586]

The Bazooka went from the drawing board into combat within 30 days. Another super fast procurement.

[@koettfaers]

Really? Its alot better than the other foreign counterparts if the comments ive read are correct. Impressive regarding the short time of design it took!

[@Mr-Trox]

@@koettfaers That's America in WW2 for you. It didnt hurt that we had a lot more efficient R&D compared to everyone else. Where other countries did things like throw shit at the wall and see what sticks, we structured it a lot better, going for clear and present need, and not being frivolous. We need a light tank! M3 and later the M5 We need a medium tank with this gun, but we can't fit it in a turret yet! Stick it in the hull, and give it a 37mm in the turret. We need to destroy a tank with infantry weapons! Get a stovepipe, a cone, a magneto, some wire and a rocket engine!

[@Mr-Trox]

@@GielL96 I said efficent and structured, Germany made some groundbreaking stuff, but they had a bad habit of not giving it structure. American R&D was all about fulfilling a certain need the Military needed right that second and getting it made and built quickly. Germany R&D was much less efficient and structured regardless of what they made.

[@GielL96]

@@Mr-Trox kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKiWln6Nq6l6p7M yee... about that, watch the end of this vid my friend. America's R&D isn't all that efficient if i must say so.

[@TheAngrySaxon1]

You can't faff around during wartime. This is why I can't see any modern full scale world war - even if you take nuclear weapons off the table - lasting more than a few months, the equipment is simply too expensive and too complex to replace in a wartime scenario.

[@headforthehillsuk]

Love the typo in the description. Launcher, Rock, 2.36" M1. For when you're all out of ammo and it's getting real desperate.

[@WalkaCrookedLine]

You joke, but the army actually tested anti-tank rocks and found them ineffective. The notion was you might be able to jam a tank track by tossing a big rock in it.

[@TheArklyte]

@@WalkaCrookedLine the effectiveness of a rock depends on velocity... and orbit you drop it from:\

[@deranathonarkantos6712]

WalkaCrookedLine How about shoving one into a tank cannon’s muzzle?

[@steampunksamp80]

Deranathon Arkantos671 boom

[@Face2theScr33n]

@@WalkaCrookedLine A piece of log works. The Fins did it against the Soviets in the Winter War!

[@corecheng4833]

Is Ian's beard registered as a destructive device?

[@appalachianwolf1187]

Core Cheng yes. Yes it is

[@squadlife6644]

Core Cheng yes yes I think it is I believe the fwa class it as a highly dangerous devise

[@mlpeacecraft339]

Definite panty dropper.

[@brancaleone8895]

maybe a seductive device

[@CrysResan]

Only for ovaries.

[@klikboers]

I'm sure the Rock Island people started getting nervous when you loaded the launcher with an "inert" rocket

[@samholdsworth3957]

Why?

[@theshadowknows6969]

Gotta have a battery to activate the rocket.

[@PussyDesecrator]

@@theshadowknows6969 No, a magneto is used to generate the needed current. Did you even watch the video? 3:20

[@theshadowknows6969]

Your right. I had just watched the German rocket launcher video that ran off a battery.

[@zombieslayer7759]

Yeah they were nervous that he was going to finally escape. 🤣

[@TINTIN97477176]

I was not ready at all when he drop "atomic bomb" ahah damn I thought I was about to say M1 Garand or something like that 😂

[@vaclav_fejt]

Well, Eisenhower wasn't Patton, after all.

[@TheLoxxxton]

Same I would have bet on the M1

[@dentistguba]

Now you know how japan felt lol

[@4d4Spl]

I believe the fourth was the Higgins Boat, the landing craft used in Normandy. (I'm old and stupid, but may be right this one time)

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

I was thinking Higgins boat, it did a lot more to win the Pacific than the A-bomb ever would.

[@lakewooded4929]

If you switched the parts around you got a zookaba.

[@andrewp8284]

Lakewood Ed reminds me of this beer I've had named "Sucaba." They originally called it "Abacus" but apparently someone already had that so they threatened a lawsuit, and the brewery flipped "Abacus" to "Sucaba" lol

[@onsesejoo2605]

Or baka zoo, "crazy zoo"

[@yereverluvinuncleber]

Zoobaka is better.

[@lumox7]

Just use the back half and you have a snub nose bazooka.

[@duartesimoes508]

Yeah, it's the only weapon able to destroy a KNAT!

[@MrBackpussy]

Thank you for all you do when it comes to producing your now massive online historical weapons library. All of this info is invaluable for those who study conflicts of the 20th century.

[@ikanlol]

My grandfather used these in WW2 as he was anti-tank infantry. He gave me one of the rocket shells (inert and empty of any fuel and explosive) when I was a kid. Told me stories about needing to wait for the German tanks to crest hills so he could shoot at the weaker armor on the bottom. I really appreciate this video. Brings back childhood memories.

[@devincook2736]

4:30 imagining some hell heeled buyers talking to rock island staff as this long haired guy is wandering around muttering to himself. Ian- I just saw one.. now where was it.. here, nope.. there, nope.. Buyer- Who is that? Staff- Oh sorry, just some random guy that wouldn't leave us alone a couple years ago so we gave him a room in the back and let him rummage around in our inventory occasionally.

[@werewally3156]

It's just a tube with a magneto and some wires, but the N.F.A. classifies it as a DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE. Genius.

[@nercksrule]

were wally A shotgun is just a tube with a firing pin. The Cobray Terminator is the proof of concept.

[@planescaped]

One can make a gun out of a spring, a tube, a screw, and duct tape.

[@ファン百合]

@@planescaped you still need a firing pin and live cartridge tho

[@sorrenblitz805]

@@priv8_nobody359 you can make a bazooka out of PVC pipe, a flint striker built into an end cap of pvc pipe, hairspray and a potato

[@TheGM-20XX]

Considering the vast majority of armored vehicles encountered by US forces were Panzer 4 tanks and STUGs that 100mm of penetration was more than adequate. Hell an Artillery Observation unit blunted an entire Panther column during the battle of the bulge by shooting them in the lower glacis with bazookas, because despite it's anti-armor capability the Panther had a hell of a time dealing with infantry.

[@tillmannfischer]

That's pretty much true for any tank of WW2 (except cruiser tanks and other infantry tank designs). The concept of the MBT didn't exist yet, and tanks were basically meant to be self-propelled guns, to deal with either other tanks, or fortifications (depending on the type of tank). Sure, they had weaponry to defend themselves against infantry (namely MGs), but that certainly wasn't their main role - that's what assault guns were for. The thing with "combat capability" isn't that a lower rated weapon is incapable of defeating opposing weapon systems, but that doing so poses a great deal of risk for the soldier operating it. For example, a Stuart could theoretically destroy a Panther (and that actually happened in reality, more than once), but in most combat scenarios, a Panther would wipe the floor with a Stuart without being troubled much.

[@zepetv589]

@@tillmannfischer That's a bit misleading as a generalization, maybe true for germans but not for americans or soviets. The american 75 was preferred over the higher velocity and higher penetration 76 because it had a better HE shell. On the IS-2 development the 122 was chosen over the 100 because of better HE performance, while sacrificing penetration and rate of fire. Also the fact that Shermans had 2 to 3 M1919s and an M2, not much use besides infantry for the 30 cals.

[@sawyernorthrop4078]

Also ideally these would be used by a couple guys hiding behind a burm until they can get an ideal shot off

[@TheJohn_Highway]

The Bazooka could never go through 100mm of penetration. Those numbers were possible only in theory. In reality it was underperforming so badly that U.S troops and even Patton himself said the bazooka was hopeless even against a Panzer IV.

[@TheGM-20XX]

@@TheJohn_Highway never eh, lol, lmao.

[@RobMcGinley81]

And... And.... oh the Atomic bomb !......

[@myvids1415]

Ian's new channel is Forgotten A-bombs.com

[@Kowalski089]

Headless Chook That smile when he remembers XD

[@polygondwanaland8390]

Headless Chook is the atomic bomb a registered destructive device

[@TheRogueWolf]

Let me know when one of those comes up for auction at RIA!

[@ozdavemcgee2079]

@@TheRogueWolf I actually remember seeing deactivated A bombs for sale, mail order, for about $300 US advertised in SOF in the 1980's lol. There was even a few stories on current affair programs who bought them lol

[@jaymassengill3340]

Robert Goddard and Clarence N. Hickman should also be noted for successfully demonstrating the forerunner of the bazooka to the US Army just 5 days before the Armistice ending WWI. Development ceased with the end of the war, but Hickman also gave assistance to Skinner and Uhl during WWII when the weapon was redeveloped.

[@828enigma6]

Even if the rocket couldn't penetrate the armor, tracks were still vulnerable if exposed. A mobility kill is almost as good as a total kill.

[@tjthompson3270]

Uhh what?? A tank that can't move anymore simply turns into a stationary artillery piece, which is still a huge threat! It means you need atleast a 2-step process taking out a tank instead of a single hit taking out the whole danger at once if you can hit the inside..

[@jackandersen1262]

TJ Thompson get that tank buttoned up too, and you have a big metal box that you might be able to swarm with infantry, not to mention that it is rather easy prey to heavy weapons.

[@sheikbombalot5781]

Tell that to the Egyptian Army, who got into the habit of basically using their T55 tanks as stationary pill boxes. And proceeded to get whooped by the Israelis and their outclassed Sherman & French tanks not just once, but three wars in a row. Mobility is half of the lethality in a tank. A tank that can’t maneuver is a tank that can easily get outflanked.

[@seanmac1793]

also the morale effect of getting hit isn't pleasant while a mobility kill isn't a total kill crew almost always leave the tank because you are now totally vulnerable to AT guns other tanks or other infantry AT weapons that can now easily get around the side

[@tjthompson3270]

@digduck Yes? I never said that's not the case... But that is also so for things like cannons, mortars etc. which also still create a big danger even though they are easier to hit because they are stationary. Ofcourse it also hugely depends on the place where the unit is standing at that moment and if others are nearby to also offer protection.

[@Antigonus.]

The bazooka (especially with the later rocket designs) was a lot more effective than it is usually given credit for. It could penetrate the frontal armor of the most numerous German tanks such as the Panzer IV. The US Army's 5th Tank Destroyer Group tested the bazooka on a captured Panther (a heavy tank, more than three times as many of which were built than both models of Tiger combined) and concluded: "The bazooka will penetrate the armor on the side, rear, and side of the turret on the German Mk. V Panther tank. The turret is very effectively penetrated and the blasted particles on the inside most certainly are lethal. The side armor is of less thickness than the turret and can be penetrated more easily." The steeply sloped front armor caused the rocket to ricochet, but pretty much any other target on the hull or turret was likely to ruin the crew's day. It was far more effective than Soviet anti-tank rifles, more practical than the British PIAT, and greatly outranged the German panzerfaust. The German panzerschreck had much better armor penetration, but it was almost twice as heavy as the bazooka - and the Americans never faced heavy tanks in the numbers that the Germans did on the Eastern Front.

[@thespartanmk1]

Panther isn't a heavy tank fam. It was built as a Medium. Could be argued as an MBT. But it most certainly was built as a Medium. A 45 ton medium...

[@joevidya]

Kernel_Kraut the tank was originally going to have less armor and weight but hitler insisted on making it tougher. They still kept it classified as a medium even though it weighed 10 more tons than a sherman and 15 tons more than a t-34. Oh and 19 more tons than their own medium tank, the panzer 4...

[@Antigonus.]

Kernel_Kraut The Germans called it a medium tank because it was for use in regular tank battalions, as opposed to the specialized heavy tank battalions that fielded the Tiger I and II. But in Allied nomenclature it would be considered a heavy tank, since it was as heavy or heavier than the Soviet KV1 and IS-2, the American T14 and M26, the British Matilda II and Churchill, and the French Char B1.

[@Apollo_1641]

Of course it would be effective against the sides/rear of a Panther, the armor is flat and only 40mm thick! Not saying that the bazooka wasn't a capable weapon, but being able to penetrate the side of a Panther isn't something to brag about. (Soviet anti tank rifles could too)

[@nutsandgum]

Another thing to remember is that german steel was also subpar in later stages of the war. 100mm+ of armour isnt any good if you cant harden it properly due to poor quality. Another reason why the 75mm cannon was good enough for 80% of the targets it faced despite it not having the same numbers as the 76mm.

[@kevinsparrow34]

happy to hear the A-10 mentioned, would love at some point to hear Ian saying " Today we are taking a look at a GAU-8 Avenger" Not a Forgotten weapon but probably one of the coolest purpose built ones in history

[@OrtadragoonX]

What I love about the A10 was they literally built a plane around a gun.

[@4rnnr_as]

I think this is insanelyt cool! Great tidbit about the A-10's designer at the end too, Ian!

[@theconductoresplin8092]

I can't believe people used These baby's to jump around on 2fort And high tower

[@Chaosrain112]

CROCKET, MAGGOT

[@alexanderthomas2660]

When is Ian going to do a live demonstration of this?

[@planescaped]

I personally wouldn't have the guts to shoot this at the ground and ride the explosion as I jumped, but hey... Men were different back then.

[@screamsinrussian5773]

@@planescaped git gud noob

[@NoaThePineconeTaker]

SAXTON HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALE!

[@jmalmsten]

Oh ... When you mentioned the atomic bomb... It made me wonder... Have you ever done a video on the nuke-chucking "Davey Crocket"? The launcher you basically had to use over hillsides because it couldn't lob the tactical nuke far enough to avoid the radioactive blast. Would love to see a video demonstration with a field strip teardown. :P

[@seanmalloy7249]

That reminds me of the old joke about the nuclear hand grenade the Army developed; it would blow a hole in the ground about a hundred yards across. They had a hell of a time testing it, though, because you could only throw it around forty feet.

[@OrigenalDarkMew]

I appreciate the fact that he took the time to unlock gold for the thumbnail first.

[@Shepard_AU]

How long until RIA starts auctioning North Korea's ICMB's?

[@NateTheBrewer]

Gmanmovies09 when they launch them and they run out of fuel over the Pacific Ocean, fail to detonate, intrepid pirates salvage them, realize they can’t do anything to make them an effective weapon, and they contract with rock island to sell them to recoup their fuel and labor costs.

[@blackwoodsecurity531]

Something about this comment thread made me think about NK ICBM's having less penetration than the M1 bazooka lol

[@clebmedia]

Blackwood Security M1 Bazooka also has a higher velocity

[@planescaped]

Mallistic Bissles?

[@ronaldcolman6211]

Those extra add ons kind of made the whole video for me. Thanks for doing what you do.

[@vitis65]

My mother worked for the Budd Co in Chester Pa during the war making bazooka rockets...possibly the one in Ian's hand right there.

[@neilwu3912]

Interesting fact on the rear tube: Early rockets were prone to detonating within the rear launch tube, so as an expedient upgrade piano wire was wound around the M9 and M9A1 bazookas, you can see how tight and how long they've wound the wire at around 8 minutes in as Ian takes a close up of the rear launch tube regarding the trigger mechanism. There's even a KZbin documentary somewhere you can watch people assemble the wiring around them as the narrator explains.

[@Mongo63a]

I was waiting for you to take one for the team and touch the contacts while pulling the trigger to see how much juice the magneto generated. All kidding aside, I guess the surface finish of the rear tube area was for cooling? I also wonder why they did not make the tubes from aluminum, its not like it contained much pressure.

[@martin111viuff]

How did you write this 4 days ago the video have only been out for 30 minutes

[@Davivd2]

Patreon members get to see it early.

[@andrewholdaway813]

Lassi Kinnunen And dents?

[@MrDmitriRavenoff]

I would guess durability. Aluminum is great but in a thin tube is easily dented. Plus it would get hot from the exhaust very quickly.

[@CraigLYoung]

Aluminum would never survive the rigors of an Infantryman. Remember, they go where others fear to go.

[@Dr._Spamy]

Looked like "The Golden Bazooka" in the thumbnail somehow, but then it was just an ordinary greenish one. ;D

[@ricardodavidson3813]

The sight is technically an Albada viewfinder, the front bit has a spherical rear surface that is very lightly silvered, and reflects the sight recticle which is plated on to the front face of the rear element. The recticle is small so you cannot see it when you look through. The curvatures are such that you see a magnified (virtual) image of the recticle projected at infinity, a contrary curve in the second element compensates the refraction. If it is well made it is parallax-free, and is common in camera viewfinders today. There is some light loss, but the recticle is always seen slightly brighter than the scene because it is illuminated from the same direction as the scene. The 3.5 inch bazooka had a very complicated ladder recticle which allowed you to offset according to vehicle speed, I'm not sure but I think it was fixed, the range was taken care of by the ladder picture.

[@GunSam]

Reminds me of the video game Contra from the '80's that my friend and I played all the time.

[@NoaThePineconeTaker]

Soldiers after WW2: Finally, we can go home! The Korean War: I’m bout’ to restart this whole mans career.

[@Pattern51lover]

I just realized I bought a sight from one of these at a junk sale where a guy had a bunch of surplus parts. It was just in a tuber wear tub loose. Awesome.

[@criffermaclennan]

Rockets.... Pahhhhh We Brits simply used a big bloody spring for the awesome, universally adored, PIAT!! 😂 😂

[@andrewwaterman9240]

Sergeant: There's a German tank coming! Shoot it with the PIAT! Private: But it hurts to shoot this thing. Sergeant: Would you rather shoot the PIAT or get run over by the tank? Private: I'm thinking...

[@criffermaclennan]

Andrew Waterman just about sums it up 😂😂 I've handled one once, what were they thinking lol

[@vaclav_fejt]

"We left all our equipment in France, we need to make something against tanks. And I mean *anything* ."

[@WalkaCrookedLine]

Still less painful than firing a Boys ATR.

[@S.ASmith]

And then we developed the MILAN and Javelin in the 50s through 70s.

[@MichaelEdelman1954]

When I was a kid the local surplus store had those optical sights for about fifty cents each. We made a lot of cardboard tube Bazookas for our war games.

[@PDeRop]

This seems so much more advanced than the “Blindicide” I fired when I was in the army back in ‘93.

[@techforhire7557]

Great video as usual and extra info at the end, you’re still my favorite of all time KZbin channel!

[@matts8833]

the best anti tank weapon the infantry had is the radio so they could call in artillery fire missions. I think the time to respond with shells on target was extremely fast - well under 5 minutes.

[@charlesadams1721]

Matthew Shorter, not for WWII, except for the quoted time in the immediate Normandy theater. Certainly not North Africa, or Italy, or even France. Especially not in the Pacific Theatre.

[@petesheppard1709]

True, overall. But when a tank is shooting at you, you're down to seconds.

[@johnstacy7902]

Matthew Shorter or like 3 Shermans

[@MrGeorocks]

I think that quoted time for waiting on artillery was long because it could depend on what was happening. If there was no guns available for you then you waited but the Allies had a fire control system that was very good for its time. Generally you were only waiting a few minutes for the shots to come in. Good book to read, semi auto biographical, about a Canadian FOO in Normandy during the second World War called The Guns of War.

[@blackwoodsecurity531]

this. The whole reason the flamethrower existed was because infantry needed to be able to destroy bunkers and other fortifications instantly and didn't have time or resources to call in an airstrike, which wouldn't be all that accurate (or safe for the infantry) to begin with.

[@everettchris1]

So the A-bomb is now a forgotten weapon. Can't wait to see that video!!!

[@stewartthompson5039]

Hi, and thanks for answering a question I've had since I was a Kid watching WWII movies in the late fifties seeing the assistant winding something at the rear - it was never very clear in the grainy B&W films what they were actually doing so I always wondered how it was fired (other than a trigger I mean). Fantastic library of Vids you have, and I feel privileged to watch em all - Thank You.

[@michaelholloway8]

Oh! You got me. The drumming of the fingers? Classic!😁

[@abialo2010]

I requested this video a while ago. I am so thrilled you got your hands on one. Thank you gun Jesus!

[@RobertDecker417]

abialo2010 Thank you Gun Jesus

[@ZmieniK]

4:55 wait, this have muzle velocity of piat?!

[@Daniel-hf8qg]

Ian- you Sir are an American treasure. This video and all others are so well done and make each day better! Please keep it up and big thanks. I'm going to look and see of you have done a video on the LAW rocket. If not that would be cool. Only thing I have had the pleasure to operate in this realm was traing and live AT4. You ROCK!

[@ArcChain]

"Oh, heh, and the Atomic Bomb." You know, not that huge a deal..

[@BullDog757]

9:13 So does the rocket just fly lose from the clamp? Wouldn't there be a worry that the clamp wouldn't release the rocket? I might be underestimating the power generated by the rocket though.

[@paulgerald5808]

This model was on Combat , Hills are for Hero's part 2 . Thank you .

[@alexander0125]

Heres a WW2 instructional video from the US Army for all the actual uses of the Bazooka such as configuring the rocket to be a shaped charge; IED style. Very interesting stuff to see what the rules of engagement against armor was in WW2. /watch?v=NVWqJbPXhyA

[@petebeatminister]

Interestingly, this early version seems to work differently, and does not use the type of rocket shown here. In the army instructional film, its not required to detach a wire from the rocket and connect it to a contact on the tube. The loader guy only removes the safety pin on a piece of string, and then locks the fins to the clamp on the end. Then the thing is ready to fire. So, its not only the battery usage that was changed later, but the entire method of loading and therefore the ammunition too.

[@alexander0125]

I noticed Ian didn't cover absolutely everything. The one he has is at the end of the instructional film I linked to and it starts at 20:20.

[@petebeatminister]

I know, just saying that Ian said his rocket is a M6 AT rocket. According to the training film it is the later improved M7 type rocked (either a training or a real AT model, is hard to tell as its painted over). The M6 was the old one, with the brass contact ring instead of a wire. And I can well imagine why they changed that. If you look at the inside of the electric switch behind the trigger, it looks pretty cheapish and easy to close accidently. With the brass contact version of the rocket, it is "hot" at the moment you put the clamp in the grove on the fin. If the trigger is pressed at that time, you could easily loose a few fingers - or more. This procedure of shoulder tapping and saying "ready" was meant to prevent that, but if there are shells exploding and machine guns firing around you, that can easily go wrong.

[@knightmarex13]

That connection to the A-10 is pretty cool

[@jameskyne4127]

The nose cone is for stand-off for the shape charge, not just for aerodynamics. You need separation for the shape charge to “invert” to penetrate the armor.

[@johnoneil9188]

And here I always thught it was named after the sound it makes. You can´t fire this thing anymore I assume but it definately is a cool piece to hang over your fireplace.

[@Troy-dw1iy]

It is a fully functional weapon. Just add live rockets.

[@kevkfz5226]

Great quality content as ever, can someone give this man his own TV show?

[@dr.feelgood.m]

I like these long videos, I would love to hear in-depth about all of the weapons you come across. :D

[@God-Emperor_Elizabeth_the_2nd]

Such a nice guy. Just exudes hug-energy

[@georgechinn8882]

I believe you have a misunderstanding of how the shaped charge actually works. An essential part of a shaped charge is a high-density-metal cone which is surrounded with highly potent explosive material. Upon detonation, the shock wave makes the metal cone collapse into a thin high-velocity metal jet and a big slow chunk. The high-speed jet (going at a few miles per second) interacts with the (metallic) armour like liquid with liquid at a relatively low temperature (400-500 F, if I recall correctly). It happens because the speed of the jet is much higher than the speed of sound for the armour metal. The gas pressure, though high, cannot enter the vehicle through a tiny hole made by the jet. The gasses are spread on the outer armour surface and can actually "dive" inside by means of an open hatch. After the jet--and after the gasses have dissipated--comes the slow chunk. Usually it comes through the already softened armour. All this "burning through the armour" or "high pressure gasses" stuff is nonsense.

[@kimmer6]

I didn't know that the upgraded rocket was the round nosed version. I had a dummy one when I was a kid in the 1950's. There were no tail fins on the round nosed version. It was a round can type cylinder of sheet metal 2-14'' long that was spot riveted on to the rocket nozzle in place of the fins. The body section directly behind the warhead and in front of the rocket motor was the fuze. It had a safety clip that had a pin that extended into the fuze to keep it safe until loading. The hinged clip surrounded the fuze body and had an over center latch to keep it all in place. The fuze was about 1-1/4'' in diameter and about as long and could be unscrewed from the warhead and the rocket motor. It was also a surprise to me that the entire charge inside the rocket motor burned up before the rocket left the tube. The impulse basically threw the rocket onto the target guided only by the tube. I heard this directly from mt dad's friend who served under General Patton. He said that the blast zone behind the launcher was 100 feet.

[@marks6663]

These things would come with the best bubblegum.

[@abalcerzak1931]

I really like when you add photos and pictures to the videos

[@spoons7483]

Did anyone else think Ian was going to make a meme about the 1911 winning the war at 14:04?

[@nuclearthreat545]

2:36 GOLDEN BAZOOKA???

[@Treblaine]

James Bond 007 versus... The Man With The Golden Bazooka. Britain's best secret agent is on a collision course with the most dangerous man alive, The Man With The Golden Bazooka.

[@beachbum23]

Someone must've got max prestige weapon level

[@Shepard_AU]

Lol, how did that just slip by me.

[@Statusinator]

Not gold, Australium

[@alexanderthomas2660]

Actually in the thumbnail it really looks like it's a golden bazooka.

[@maskedhobo]

"I really want to blow that tank up, but I'm too far away. If only I could launch something at it from here?", Edward Uhl approximately 15 min before working on the Bazooka.

[@samuelpope7798]

Besides being a "destructive device", does the take-down feature make it a "short barreled bazooka" ? :-)

[@xanaxpig5247]

I’m always listening to ur vids while I do something

[@Joric78]

If you were to tell me that the A-Bomb would feature as a "Forgotten Weapon" I wouldn't have believed you, but Ian proved me wrong!

[@siloseeairenicus5889]

I got my hands on one of these things a few months ago, and not quite sure how to shoulder it. The sight just doesn't line up when in long range position - you know, it raise with the barrel. Not that I need to learn how to fire it, I totally forgot about that, surprised to see one appear on Ian's channel so soon. :D

[@Stripedbottom]

"...And a bell-end on the end" Every brit watching this video: *laughs in british*

[@no0channel0at0all]

I don’t understand why it was obsolete a tiger tanks armor thickness was only 80mm at the thickest point and the bazooka could penetrate more than 100mm of armor.

[@aussiebloke609]

Since you mentioned it, I'd say we now need a video on the atomic bomb - but no-one's forgotten _that_ particular weapon. :-)

[@patrickcroft3158]

Eisenhower was against using nukes on Japan, actually. He was for starving them out through continuing and strentgthining the blockade at the time.

[@jakublulek3261]

There was still Operation Downfall, invasion of Japan by McArthur, on the table. Which looked like incredibly messy affair in many ways. It always bugged me how McArthur was against inclusion of Commonwealth troops into his plains. Australians and New Zealand troops had incredible experience fighting Japanese, and British plus Indian Army were big and experienced force, in some ways much better than US could provide. These were people who fought Japanese army in pitched battles, mano-a-mano, without overwhelming firepower and material superiority. You want that kind of people on your side. And you want British cultural experience with Asian population. I get that equipment differences could be a problem but Commonwealth already used US weapons and I doubt that British industrial capacity could provide enough tanks and other vehicles that far and in sufficient numbers. I would not ditch Lee-Enfields for Garands and most Royal Army regiments would put up a fight against issuing US uniforms but you could have Gurkhas, Sikhs and Scots in your army.

[@xXxTripleHxXx]

In February 1945 the Germans introduced the Panzerfaust 150 wich was able to penetrate around 300mm [11,8 inches] of armor. The Ruhrstahl x-7 was one if not the first wire guilded antitank rocket.To me it is facinating that as early as the closing month of WW2 in europe there were weapons developed that influenced anti tank warfare for decades.

[@erikm12]

To quote Sam "Serious" Stone: "Baaaaaaaa-ZOOKA!"

[@McFlingleson]

That's a really undignified thing to name a weapon after.

[@TimperialBroadcastingAgency]

It wasn't until this video that I'd actually seen the musical instrument bazooka. Okay, that makes a lot of sense now.

[@pbr-streetgang]

Learn something every-time i watch.👍🏼👍🏼

[@Face2theScr33n]

I don't think there has been a better name than "bazooka". It just sounds cool!

[@freedomfirst5420]

Great information, especially at the end!👍👍

[@BurnDuration]

As Ian was loading a rocket into the bazooka and indexing it to prep it to fire, I was thinking "I'm pretty sure that's no longer a live round". But it would have been interesting to find out it was still live and put a hole in the RIA building.

[@shaiq-nbaiq1826]

Makes me want to go to the hobby store, buy up some Estes Rocket models and make my own bazooka

[@Elfandspartan]

I'm amazed no one ever thought to stick that optical sight on other weapons systems... Like the Thompson, Grease Gun, or even the early M-16. Seems like out could almost be a proto holographic sight.

[@derricktrucks8592]

Very informative, Great video ! Thank you

[@TheAngrySaxon1]

You had to have some major gonads to use one of these, and casualties amongst bazooka teams were awfully high.

[@JACKSONLEWISOFCANADA]

“No use firing if you can’t aim the rocket” Laughs in panzerfaust.

[@HansLasser]

Batteries in ice cold conditions like the battle of the Bulge are serious trouble. How did they kept them? Under their coat till the last minute?

[@56bturn]

Given that last bit about the Thunderbolt II, you should do a video on the GAU-8.

[@TheSonOfDumb]

That optical sight is really cool.

[@Jack2Japan]

Good add-one at the end.

[@ToastyMozart]

Kinda interesting they used a magneto to provide the ignition current, I'd have thought a hammer or striker-fired piezo crystal would have been more effective for making a momentary high voltage. Certainly could have given the trigger a more reliable/familiar break. Either way, that'd be super fun to launch model rockets out of.

[@clydebalcom8252]

Before the bazooka, fighting tanks was a three step process. 1)Bend over 2) Grab ankles 3) Kiss your ass goodbye.

[@SearchEast2069]

That sight is wicked

[@LionofCaliban]

I have to ask, didn't they also come out with a number of other rounds for it? I seem to have this idea they had a smoke round for it. Still, always interesting to see the development that goes into something. That even the simplest devices actually take a lot of work to get there. I have to wonder what the backblast coming off that would be like. My guess isn't exactly..... subtle?

[@Wolfshead009]

They had a White Phosphorus round for the M20. I can't find one for the earlier ones.

[@LionofCaliban]

That's the problem I'm having. Might be I'm confusing a game with the real world too. So many WW2 games I've played over the years.

[@MichaelOZimmermannJCDECS]

Thanks, Ian!

[@slthbob]

FYI..... inert rockets were a favored souvenir of the WW2 vets.... unfortunately it requires an xray of the item to determine if an unknown is live or not.... ran many in my career as EOD, got one myself on the shelf :D

[@garrettmcguinness3885]

Ian we need a video on the Panzerfaust!!!

[@BigSwede7403]

I wonder, would it be possible to fire it without the front end attatched? I mean, it will melt the face of the firer sure, but if desperate enough...? Or does it have some kind of safety mechanism to stop that?

[@randomstuff1019]

It takes 30seconds to wire up the rocket and was fired in 2 man teams. As the guy with the Zook wouldn't have rockets on him, it likely never was fired that way. As for safety.... I don't think so, but that's pure speculation

[@BigSwede7403]

Yes, but i was thinking more in the line of if the front part was lost or damaged beyond use.

[@glynwelshkarelian3489]

I apologise if this has been already posted. The link is to a US Army training film for, I'd guess, the first and second generation of this weapon. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z565lomFrbOEqJY If you watch it then also take look at the other films from the same source. They show just how much the USA managed when it started with some sticks, a rock, and a rifle that could shoot loads, but was only judged on shooting a standard target at a set distance.

[@charlesadams1721]

Ian, I couldn’t find if you’d ever done segment where you went over the ancestor to this - the Panzerfaust. After all, you went over the ancestor to both the bazooka and the Panzerfaust - the RPG. Not sure there are any of them still around as they probably are real difficult to deactivate, but is read somewhere, Finland had a lot of them left over after WWII?

[@charlesadams1721]

Oh yeah, you’ve also done the PIAT and many anti-tank rifles as well as a few anti-tank guns.

[@petesheppard1709]

Ah, no. The Bazooka and Panzerfaust were contemporaries, but the American weapon was fielded first. The RPG is derived from the Panzerfaust.

[@czwarty7878]

He probably meant "successor", it would make sense

[@charlesadams1721]

Pete Sheppard, um, well no not exactly. They perhaps were a little, maybe contemporaries, but they actually really weren’t the same weapons. The actual contemporaries were the American “bazoozka” and the German Faustpatrone, which was more of a considerably less sophisticated recoilless rifle, and the ?American weapon a rocket propelled shaped charge weapon. Both these developments occurred in 1942, however, the German writings during the war credited much of 5he development to the US Weapon. As Ian mentioned in his segment the US weapon was upgraded later on in the war, but actually the German weapon was upgraded in 1943 due to the significant problems with the Faustpatrone, to the Panzerfaust 30. This considerably shorter range compared to the US weapon shows the need that drove the development of the Panzerfaust 60 and again 100 in 1945. Lets also not forget that the Germans recognized (and contemporaneously commented) about the superiority of the bazooza, developing the Panzershreck, which was a rocket propelled weapon. The RPG, according to Soviet records copied the last iteration of the Panzershreck, which as in the Panzerfaust used a black-powder charge to initiate the firing, which then allowed the firing of the rocket motor to propelled the projectile.

[@MrSolLeks]

Charles Adams - I own a panzerfaust in my collection. They are very rare. Here are some pictures - imgur.com/ueORdXQ and the projectile itself, note the fins were connected to the wood and are mostly gone - imgur.com/a/Cwun8Jl

[@warriorwolf77]

"coolest tank destroying aircraft ever built" so uh when's the disassembly?

[@larryfontenot9018]

The bazooka was such a good idea that the Germans quite happily copied it, although they increased the diameter to 88mm so that it could use parts from an existing anti-tank rocket launcher, the Raketenwerfer 43. The Raketenwerfer was a short, heavy launch tube on a wheeled chassis, so it was much less handy. About 3,000 Raketenwerfers were produced, but the idea was dropped when they discovered the joys of having a system that could be man-carried and didn't take up a lot of space. The copy was named the Raketenpanzerbüchse (RPzB) 43, although it was popularly nicknamed the Panzerschreck (tank-terror) or the Ofenrohr (stovepipe). But then they took it one step farther than the USA had thought of. They designed a hand-held rocket launcher that was lighter and which featured a one-shot, disposable launch tube, which was called the Panzerfaust (tank-fist). In a turnaround, the USA would adopt the basic concept of the Panzerfaust in time for the Viet Nam conflict in the form of the M72 LAW (Light Antitank Weapon).

[@M.H.D.actual]

We need to get Ian to Sweden so he can shoot and discuss a Carl Gustav. And other cool things like various bofors cannons, swedish Mausers, and of course the ak5 platform.

[@chaserydosz7729]

If at all possible would love to see a video on the panzerfaust and panzershrek.