According to globalsecurity.org/military/ … -specs.htm :
The rocket of the M9A1 is 1.6kg, but the charge is 8 oz (I have never seen such unit of measurement before, I used wiki to understand it).
_ 1oz = roughly 30ml=30cm3 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce
_ pentolite is 1.65 g/cm3 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentolite
So weight of explosive should be 8x30x1.65=396g . Less than panzershreck which has 660g according to jaegerplatoon.net/OTHER_AT_WEAPONS2.htm .
But currently, the weapon file of bazooka of Spring:1944 show us bazooka does a LOT more of damages than the panzershreck !! which should not be the case!
another source says 0.7kg for bazooka : designation-systems.net/dusr … ocket.html . which would be the same than panzershreck.
In all case, bazooka should do less (or equal in the best case) damages than panzershreck.
Yeah, Panzerschreck had a heavier rocket and larger caliber.
These silly americans are obfuscating us with unit of measurements that nobody knows .
The wikipedia is confusing the weight of the rocket with the weight of the explosive ! ! !. This strengthen the myth that the bazooka had a good warhead.
Another link to confirm that the entire rocket was 1.5kg and NOT the explosive charge : books.google.com/books?id=MuGsf0 … ka&f=false
Here is further clues about how inadequate was the M9A1 vs late war tanks : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battl … ent_Reagan
The M20 superbazooka, used later during korean war as a replacement, had nearly the same caliber than the panzerschreck…
I’ve noticed this in the pre-M test versions; in 1.06 I would need three bazookas to take out a Tiger I. Now they do a lot more damage. Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust are really the only two weapons that should be able to demolish heavy tanks in one hit.
Splitting the topic. I’ll look at the Bazooka this evening.