Be sure to check out the second Panzerfaust video: ruclips.net/video/viTBdqNwDNo/видео.html It is way better than my first Panzerfaust video, yet RUclips generally suggests the first one.
That Bundeswehrmuseum should now have the funding by the german Bundeswehr to build a replica of those missing Fliegerfaust and Luftfaust to have a better explanation object. The Bundeswehr has still the big budgets they had gotten for Afghanistan in the upcoming year(s) and so they should get that done now.
@@typxxilps why? Those weapons are of limited importance not to mention that every museum has like 90 % of their stuff in storage, since they can't show it. Completely irrelevant to do this.
Luftfaust Ausf. A probably would just be called Luftfaust, at least until Luftfaust Ausf. B was introduced. Whether the official designation would have been Luftfaust Ausf. A all along and just used Luftfaust (no Ausf. mentioned) by the troops is by now probably anybody's guess.
The line, "...suffering from enemy air superiority...", at 13:31 sounded like a line from a commercial for some medication. "Are you suffering from enemy air superiority? Ask your wehrmaterialabteilung if das Fliegerfaust is right for you."
I never played that one, but I managed to hit an aircraft with artillery support by accident in War Thunder, even on stream... and I can't find the clip anymore :(
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Its nice that they had modelled in the artillery falling from high alt, instead of spawning a couple of metres above the ground as some other games do. I play far too much WT, but yes its always a wtf moment when you get a plane kill with artillery, gotta love the random nature of artillery in that game.
When combatting ground attack, effectiveness does not necessarily require a kill, just to prevent the attacker getting a kill. Though I doubt these would be very effective in either case.
To me this just sounds like it would be more useful as a bunker banger.. not buster, but just to scare / damage hearing of bunker troops out of the range of a grenade throw.
@@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh To be able to use a MG against a plane you need a special mount for it to be able to point upwards and special iron sights on it to be able to track the plane, the normal MG mounts and iron sights for ground combat are totally useless against fast moving air targets. Thus the Fliegerfaust is a lot more flexible, you would just kneel, aim and fire.
@@theskilllessgamer5795 a fliegerfaust travels around 350m/s, an mg round travels twice-thrice that. both requires direct hit to kill an aircraft. an mg firing tracers at 12 rounds a second will dissuade any fighter bomber even if it doesn't hit. just prodding an mg on a wall can do that. a fliegerfaust can only fire 9 rockets at a time. an mg can fire continuously, the f-faust cannot.
Like the panzerfaust, one has to wonder what it's other uses were. I could only imagine that the thing might be effective against light ground vehicles, breaching strong points, or at least suppressing enemy infantry. Like a rifle grenade on steroids.
If the situation calls for it/is desperate enough the infantery will literally use everything it knows that can fire and blow up on the other side as anti tank, anti infantery or anti anything if it is effective or intendet as such beeing rather irrelevant. If you face a tank and you only got this thing, you will damn sure try to kill it with this rocket thrower simply out of desperation :D
I doubt it would be particular useful. A Panzerfaust or two would likely be far more useful against any vehicles or emplacements. It could be useful against grouped infantry, but even then you probably need to be at a very specific range to have useful dispersion but not too much dispersion.
I wonder if the American disinterest in taking the concept further might come from a lack of a perceived need. With lots of AAA weapons on-hand and an expectation their own aircraft will take care of most of the enemy’s airpower, they might not have felt there was a need to saddle ground troops with another weapon system when the machine guns they already had could scare enemy pilots and boost troops’ morale just as much. If they felt they were going to be fighting under skies filled with enemy planes, finding ways to throw more damaging explosive rounds in the air might seem more appealing.
@@F2000-q2z Yep. And they stuck with the idea of using them as AA Guns LONG after they weren't likely to do anything more than put on a light show for the enemy.
I don't know what it is today, but Air Defense when I was in was a Bradley with a Stinger crew in the back. To be sure though, our doctrine relied heavily on the idea of air superiority (for better or worse).
Just a small annotation to the term „Flieger“. „Flieger“ is not only the German synonym for plane and also an aircraft pilot but also an collective term for all soldiers serving in the airforce (engl. airmen) and furthermore is an enlisted rank of the German airforce then and today. The English translation for this rank is „airman“. Todays German rank „Flieger“ is OR-1.
In Dutch it’s called Vlieger (or vliegenier ), which is the pilot, or a kite, a plane is a vliegtuig. Vliegen is a verb for flying. We also speak of an Officier Vlieger, which is a pilot out of training.
@@joostprins3381 Is tuig like zug? In swedish that almost sounds like tyg, meaning either cloth or a fartyg, a ship. Or elddon, or if you wanna force a german word put together it'd be eldtyg.
The concept seems reasonable. Dispersion is a good thing because it is impossible to aim it accurately and 9 missiles increase the chances. At least one will get there. A range of 500 meters is sufficient to harrasse aircraft on a strafe. I suppose the weapon would be effective if it were in significant quantities and not in the chaos of 1945.
not really, a single full auto 20mm gun mounted on a halftrack or truck or retrofitted volkswagen would be far more effective, and the ammo much cheaper to produce. they should have used their volkswagen and equipped them with mg 151 and mg 151/20 if a german 20mm opens fire at CAS planes, u can be sure, that they wanna be 2km away from that gun. but the cas planes have not been the elefant in the room, it was the strategic bombing of industry hubs, that crippled germany. u cant fight that with ground bound guns, so the effort would have been futile in any way
The 20mm autocannon is beautiful, but it was not available at the Сompany level. The German Company did not have any anti-aircraft capabilities at all, and these launchers could provide air defense at the lower level. By the way, soviets used a similar design in Vietnam. It was abandoned due to guided missiles.
@@tombaripepe1782 yeah, as i found out myself, thes mg 151 is pretty expensive to produce. but there would be other suitable guns to mount on small trucks and cars to protect troops in manouvre from cas. the point u miss, is, that even if u aim the fliegerschreck correctly, with the enourmous and uncontrollable spread of the few projectiles, ur chances to hit a plane, thats in 400 metres distance is pretty low. its somewhere in the single digit % number, and that is a very generous probability estimation, i guess its even lower, somewhere in the less then 1% digit chance (if u aimed right, if u aim wrong u still have a even smaller chance to make a hit, somehwere in 0,05% area^^). The minengeschosse are no wonderweapons, u actually have to make a direct hit to get them exploding, theese are no timed fuses and also no proxy fuses, also the explosive mass in them is moderate. for every shot with such low probabilities the germans would have to construct 9 small rocket engines and mount them on minengeschosse, thats a lot of effort for such an ineffective device. thats why a gun would be much better. a 20mm gun has about double to four times the effective range (due to much higher shell velocity, and way better spray pattern), it gets better reliably, when gunners skills improve, and the ammo is much cheaper... granted with a gun u may just have double to quadruple the hit chance, but u also have much more trys in a shorter timeframe, and u even can use tracer shell shots to home in to closing in targets, so if they dont turn, they will get hit with pretty high probability.
Very good idea. Although unlikely to kill a plane it will highly likely throw the pilots concentration as he does an attack run. And the morale boost to the infantry would be considerable if they feel they can fight back. So imo it would of been effective. Plus it would be a decent anti personal weapon.
@@worldtraveler930 haha i know a bit about that. They built a bloody big crane near my flying school and you can get so focused on landing that you could forget it existed. So you are indeed right.
The weapon would likely also have had a noticeable effect on the morale of allied pilots. A low level strafing run was in itself dangerous enough. Once pilots would have been faced with infantry lobbing 20mm shells at them, they'd probably become an entirely different kind of anxious about the whole affair.
@@jakobholgersson4400 IT would be very visible though do to it beeing rockets. And IF it hits a plane the plane is basically fucked 99% of the time so do to pilots never flying alone the news of "german infantery sending rockets to the sky against low flying planes, danger" would rather fast make the rounds among pilots. Main problem is that the germans have to hit in the first place with it which is...not exactly easy. But if a plane is in a strafing run it is very unlikely to change course in its pproach or final run. If the infantery guy can keep his nerves he could very much hit a plane if he is luckly. Simialr to how stationary AA defends against most plains by aiming for the area of final approach and filling it with flag shells this could work. But i very much doubt the germans could afford to mass produce these or more improtantly the ammo. I dont think it is so much cheaper then normal AA guns.
@@johnmcmickle5685 Oh, they knew. Word travels fast. When instead of the usual small arms fire, a plain is hit by one of these despite no AA in the area, they will figure out what is happening. Not even mentioning that the Axis was notoriously weak in her intelligence protection in the later stages of the war.
The suggestion of shooting at low flying aircraft, using field & infantry artillery, would only be effective if firing canister shot. Skeet shooting a strafing enemy aircraft with artillery cannister shot, would be considerably more effective than the luftfaust, especially from a 150mm. SiG.33. I remember a lecture, back in 1979 when I was training as a British army tank gunner, on the use of 120mm. cannister shot versus enemy attack helicopters. The quote, "It doesn't matter how armoured it is, it won't stay in the air without rotor blades!!", has always stuck in my mind.
The quality of the information and footage in your videos is incredible. The translations are absolutely phenomenal. Thank you so much for working so hard to keep this history alive.
This was a really informative video. I had never even heard of the Fliegerfaust. When I saw the title it really surprised me. It may not have been effective as a weapon but it shows once again that the Germans were the first to try many a new weapon. Keep up the good work MHV.
When it comes to Flak (and AA in general) during World War 2, one question that I've had for a while is: *Did anybody use Canister Shot to shoot down low-flying (strafing) aircraft?* I know modern tanks have very powerful canister shot rounds that would obliterate any aircraft that attempted a WW2-style low flying strafing run (which is why you don't fly COIN aircraft against an enemy that has tanks!) but I don't actually know if any such canister shot existed during WW2! I feel like a 75, 76, 85 or 88mm gun would be able to fire a pretty substantial canister spray into the air and do some pretty nasty damage even against late war aircraft. I imagine most tankbusting wasn't done flying low like that, but this was still the age of Dive Bombers and head-on attacks with unguided rockets.
Not very effective. Slow to load, slow to aim, lack of firepower at longer distances, you would not want to fire and aim your 88mm at a plane that is flying right at you at a distance below 1km at a speed about 400-500 km/h, you would need to specifically load this round and take an aim at the plane, without guaranteeing to hit something vital at sufficient energy. It most likely won't pierce the armored glass, nor will it pierce through the engine to kill the pilot, nor will it set plane on fire. There is a chance that it will shred the fuselage and surfaces but that's really only at short range and not guaranteed at all. It's not very useful at ranges where you would want to shoot at aircraft, when it becomes useful you better start running for cover, and even at optimal ranges it's not guaranteed to take target down.
IDK about shooting at airplanes, but they were used effectively in the Pacific by US tanks and AT guns. See the battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal, Marine M3 light tanks, and on Tawara by Shermans. In the latter case: "...and the tank crew fired a single "dream shot" canister round which dispatched at least 20 more." (Ref ACROSS THE REEF: The Marine Assault of Tarawa by Colonel Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret) The Third Day: D+2 at Betio, 22 November 1943, which I found on the NPS site )
The main issues with tanks firing at aircraft is that the guns couldn't elevate high enough and the gun's optics had too narrow a field of view to actually track something moving that fast. It's why tanks that can fire at aircraft were all open topped, such as the German 222 armored car and Wirbelwind.
It is more effective to use a normal aa gun and just fill the plane approaching you with hundreds of shells per minute. A small flag gun is hardly something with a slow fire rate and if the crew is trained it can get the job done of destroying the plane of more often (and the main goal) "convincing" the diving airfcraft to break of the dive or change his approach slightly so he doesnt hit anymore. The primary goal of AA in WW2 is NOT to shoot down planes but to defend the ground objectives. "Convincing" the aircraftr to abandon the attack or forcing it to change course and miss gets the job done as well. Also Im not sure a modern MBT can shoot down a plane with cannister shot at all. Modern ground fighter planes are fast as fuck and armed with rockets usually, so they dont have to get close to their targets to unload their arms and are absically only in the tanks range for a second at best. Only if the tank gets a big enough wartning period can he even cahnge his ammo and aim at a plane in time for possibly hitting it. There is a reason AA weapons exist.
Imagine the morale boost you get when you are firing a nine barrel weapon to a strafing P-47. I would definitely say well why don't we throw rocks at them?
N Korea built mounds of rocks and rubble with embedded explosives in them ... intended use was to put a mass of material in front of low flying aircraft. Don't know if it was all that effective but it was documented in several US manuals from the era.
Given the particular psychological effect of air attack, I can imagine this little "Goering Organ" with it's nine barrels and satisfying "whoosh" being a real comfort compared to just huddling in a ditch.
Great piece of serious historical research as usual. I like how you guys coordinated such an effective team to make this possible. Also, very good of you to bring to attention the human aspects of warfare, such as morale, even if it is not possible to quantify it.
Not quantifiable on paper, but plain as the nose on your face in the field. This is probably more a failure of language than science to explain, I think
Yes,but what they had beyond that back then? Machine guns with insufficient range.Only later did they develop automatic cannons capable of hitting aircraft.
@@kaletovhangar id imagine someone firing a machine in your general direction would be terrifying if you were in a vehicle made of wood and canvas. On the other hand, I doubt I'd personally be able to make that shot without lots of practice
There is an intact Fliegerfaust at the military history museum in Prague. First time I ever saw one was there, I was very confused on what it was at the time.
Was the use of the Windows Vista logo at 15:05 or so a deliberate comparison to show the limited speed and ineffectiveness that lead to the rejection of the Fliegerfaust almost as quickly as Vista was rejected?
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized , The Fliegerfaust would fit with a Vista logo. Thank you very much for your videos. They are well organized, documented, and detailed. Not only do I learn but you make it easy to learn.
Very nice video 👍 I love the symbols you use to visualise your message. They show a fine sense of humour. I applaud to Dr. Jens Wehner. From his accent you can clearly tell that he is not a native English speaker. He still takes on the effort to bring his knowledge to the international audience of these videos in English, which I admire. I am German myself, and I don't think I had the courage to do as he does. So thank you! 👍 I also want to appreciate, that the soil-found exhibit has not been cleared from all rust. That would have taken the majority of the years of its history away. There is an anti aircraft gun on display in the Marinemuseum in Wilhelmshaven, that has been found under the sea, stored in its watertight container on a u-boat. The container is completely rotten on the outside, but it held the sea water from the gun for seventy years. The gun itself is in near-mint condition, with only the leather belts rotten away, else completely functional. The sad state of these Fliegerfaust exhibits helps to appreciate the treasure of the AA gun in Wilhelmshaven, that was conserved in its time capsule. Maybe one could think about remaking a factory-new exhibit to show how the item looked for the actual user, but the original item is best let in its original state 👍 Edit: I added *Dr.*
Another excellent video. And a fascinating look into a desparate attempt to bolster morale towards the end of the war. With 4 & then 5 rockets flying out of this thing, I wonder what it was like to actually fire it.
It gained some fame because of its appearance in the game Battlefield 5 where it is an effective weapon against low flying planes. In reality it was just a waste of time and resources.
@@joshuaa7266 you could still hit some weak spots even later on. That's why german tanks on the eastern front were often equipped by side skirts to protect the thin "track-armor" from soviet anti-tank rifles
I've been on the resiving end of these in WWHeros. Everyone knows when it goes off due to lag and expressive firework like explosions. It's also works for light artillery shotgun uses.
First I’ve heard of this weapon. Very interesting content. I wonder if a weapon like this could have been used against light armour or personnel in a ground application.
I had two high school history teachers that were GI squad members in Western Europe from D-Day to VE Day. They mentioned finding a few of those along with boxes of rounds inside an abandoned horse drawn wagon. They figured it's purpose was for taking long distance pot shots at supply convoys with hopes that the round would hit a load of gasoline or explosives. Said they didn't bother to try one out in case those were left behind for being dangerous to use and would get in trouble with their superiors if they did. They radioed for a company ordnance truck to come get them and were told by the disposal crew how those were supposed to be used after they arrived. They decided those weren't used because they were in a forested region where the user couldn't see approaching aircraft.
Aloha; excellent! I greatly enjoy your work. I have a question about your end of video disclaimer - is it required? The disclaimer about being invited to the museum(s). Mahalo
thank you, yes, if I receive something from an organization that is equivalent or above the value of 1 Euro I have to. Generally speaking, everything you see in a video takes time (and usually (far) more than one assumes), so it is either required or I consider it important.
The most interesting part about history channels about WWII is how hard it is to get precise information on history that is only 80 years back and was at that time very well documented. Wich means when you learn about history that is for example 500 years in the past it's probably mostly not more then a wild guess then real information based on facts.
Ok I kinda wanna see how you would use a SiG 33 or LeIG 18 on aircraft, oddly enough the IG 18 could have a decent effect as it was known for high elevation and high rate of fire.
maybe a silly idea but how effective would this be against infantry? With 500 meter effective range, firing rockets across a wide area, I think it could be a sort of ghetto rocket artillery against enemy infantry. It might also be able to hit and damage large structures and fortifications occupied by the enemy. Even if it failed to do that, I think the rocket salvo alone could do some good suppresion against the enemy infantry
One thing I was wondering about (not having read any primary sources or secondary literature except websites). Was there any sort of training or aiming device on the Luftfaust B/Fliegerfaust to estimate the lead angle of a target? Otherwise the thing would only have been useable to shoot at airplanes on a direct approach with a zero deflection angle which sounds borderline suicidal but probably in line with 1945 german military thinking. I can't see how you can hit an airborne target with this in any other situation than being basically in the aircraft's gunsight.
The ballistic arc combined with the low velocity would have made this a nightmare to actually calculate lead against aircraft. Simply building more FG42's would have been a better answer.
Not sure if it helps, but I know when this was introduced to Battlefield V the morale of infantry players definitely went up. And the morale of pilots went straight to shit until the devs made it so you needed to hit a plane with like 8 20mm rockets to take it down..
Main reason why it was ineffective, in my opinion, is that most planes would attack at different angles so any Fliegerfaust operator would have to be trained in deflection shooting. Because of the slowness of any projectile, it will always miss if you aim directly at the target. Because when the projectile has bridged the distance to where the target was a few moments ago, the target itself would have continued its travel. To hit anything with a non-guided weapon, the operator has to aim at the space where the target would be *after* those few moments. So if you hand out Fliegerfausts to untrained personnel, they'll have a blast with it but only hit anything by sheer accident.
"Flieger" means "Flyer" which can mean anything that flies be it the pilot or the plane. German military jargon uses "Fliegerabwehr" (Defence against Fliers) for low alltitude slow aircraft that can be shot at by any soldier of any branch (eg on a German tank the outside and on top turretmounted MG is for the "Fliegerabwehr", usually operated by the loader) and "Flugabwehr" (Flug=Flight) which are dedicated AA systems with specialised personell. "Luftfaust" (Airfist) is a name good for a lot of fart jokes, while "Fliegerfaust" is a very specific name about the weapons use and function. Thus the renaming makes perfect sense to me. In the context of "Fliegerabwehr" 700m sounds indeed like long range to me (while "Flugabwehr" would most likely call that close range). Also I doubt there were (or are) ever any effective "Fliegerabwehr"-weapons, since those are pretty much always used in desperation and as spam by troops whose usual job simply isnt to shoot at aircraft.
Huch, ich hätte schwören können das "Flyer" ein denglischer Begriff wie "Handy" ist, den es auf Englisch gar nicht gibt. Aber es gibt in doch, obwohl er auch für Flugblatt benutzt wird.
Ok, the use of the Windows symbol for slow speed and dispersion made me choke on my coffee. :) From what you say it sounds like Flyer-fist would be the best translation, because flyer can refer to someone who flies as well as the thing they fly in. Good thing to point out the moral effects! As for the allies never using them post war, I'd say at least in the west they were not really expecting to come under massive and sustained ground attack, let alone planes which came within the 300-500 meter window. Anti-air goes repetitively undeveloped for the same reasons why current NATO brigade level anti-air assets are a bit outdated compared to the equivalents in Russia.
think i read somewhere there was plans for one in 30mm calibre but not sure if thats true or not, this weapon could of been better if it was developed for much longer
Be sure to check out the second Panzerfaust video: ruclips.net/video/viTBdqNwDNo/видео.html It is way better than my first Panzerfaust video, yet RUclips generally suggests the first one.
That Bundeswehrmuseum should now have the funding by the german Bundeswehr to build a replica of those missing Fliegerfaust and Luftfaust to have a better explanation object.
The Bundeswehr has still the big budgets they had gotten for Afghanistan in the upcoming year(s) and so they should get that done now.
@@typxxilps why? Those weapons are of limited importance not to mention that every museum has like 90 % of their stuff in storage, since they can't show it. Completely irrelevant to do this.
Luftfaust Ausf. A probably would just be called Luftfaust, at least until Luftfaust Ausf. B was introduced.
Whether the official designation would have been Luftfaust Ausf. A all along and just used Luftfaust (no Ausf. mentioned) by the troops is by now probably anybody's guess.
i would use FEET per second rather than miles per hour...i dont hi9nk anyone really understands a projectile moving in miles per hour
@@mikepette4422 it's good for missiles/rockets to use the same speed scale as their target uses, and during ww2 for allied aircraft that was mph :)
The line, "...suffering from enemy air superiority...", at 13:31 sounded like a line from a commercial for some medication.
"Are you suffering from enemy air superiority? Ask your wehrmaterialabteilung if das Fliegerfaust is right for you."
lol
That's the only ad where Id actually want to buy the product...
Brilliant 😂
Bwah-hahahahaha!
Alex7x57 may have won the inter-tubes today with this comment. :D. Well done.
Fliegerfaust is still the official term for MANPADS in the Bundeswehr, the Stinger being Fliegerfaust 2 (Redeye was 1)
Germany is currently using the Panzerfaust 3 for infantry based anti tank rocket
@@musicmaster417 and the pzf44 / pzf2 before that. Makes me wonder why the G36 wasn't called a StG like the Austrians called their AUG
@@user-njyzcip that might hit too close home to be acceptable lolz
@Simon Colby The PADs for real MEN!
@@ScienceDiscoverer Fist the plane before they fist you!
Hitting Aircraft with Artillery reminds me of the good old days of PlanetSide.
I never played that one, but I managed to hit an aircraft with artillery support by accident in War Thunder, even on stream... and I can't find the clip anymore :(
I play PlanetSide 2 and it's hard but so fun
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized you ever hit your own plane with the Flak Bus while using an AP round?
*I did*
That was a fine game
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Its nice that they had modelled in the artillery falling from high alt, instead of spawning a couple of metres above the ground as some other games do. I play far too much WT, but yes its always a wtf moment when you get a plane kill with artillery, gotta love the random nature of artillery in that game.
Will be remarketed in 2022 as Dronefaust..
lol
It's a better plan than birdshot...
Just saw this a few days ago & thought relevant ruclips.net/video/pb5_F4_Eod8/видео.html ;-).
@@NesconProductions Cool thanks for sharing!
Or FlashFaust, a 4 barrel version of Fliegerfaust
When combatting ground attack, effectiveness does not necessarily require a kill, just to prevent the attacker getting a kill.
Though I doubt these would be very effective in either case.
To me this just sounds like it would be more useful as a bunker banger.. not buster, but just to scare / damage hearing of bunker troops out of the range of a grenade throw.
much cheaper to use an mg42 with tracer...
@@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh Very much so and it would have a lot more tactical flexibility.
@@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh To be able to use a MG against a plane you need a special mount for it to be able to point upwards and special iron sights on it to be able to track the plane, the normal MG mounts and iron sights for ground combat are totally useless against fast moving air targets.
Thus the Fliegerfaust is a lot more flexible, you would just kneel, aim and fire.
@@theskilllessgamer5795 a fliegerfaust travels around 350m/s, an mg round travels twice-thrice that.
both requires direct hit to kill an aircraft.
an mg firing tracers at 12 rounds a second will dissuade any fighter bomber even if it doesn't hit. just prodding an mg on a wall can do that.
a fliegerfaust can only fire 9 rockets at a time.
an mg can fire continuously, the f-faust cannot.
There are should be a meme "portable Wunderwaffle fan vs. Flugabwehrkanone enjoyer".
*Wunderwaffe
it wasn't considered as a wunderwaffe it was more likely to be a last attempt to change something
@@Chriziz "*Wunderwaffe"
Why so serious?
@@Chriziz Waffle
Like the panzerfaust, one has to wonder what it's other uses were. I could only imagine that the thing might be effective against light ground vehicles, breaching strong points, or at least suppressing enemy infantry. Like a rifle grenade on steroids.
I believe the Panzerfaust were used as a general purpose weapon especially as they had plenty of them even in the last days of the war...
If the situation calls for it/is desperate enough the infantery will literally use everything it knows that can fire and blow up on the other side as anti tank, anti infantery or anti anything if it is effective or intendet as such beeing rather irrelevant. If you face a tank and you only got this thing, you will damn sure try to kill it with this rocket thrower simply out of desperation :D
Might make a devastating anti-personnel weapon if used in large numbers. A giant rocket-propelled shotgun.
I doubt it would be particular useful. A Panzerfaust or two would likely be far more useful against any vehicles or emplacements.
It could be useful against grouped infantry, but even then you probably need to be at a very specific range to have useful dispersion but not too much dispersion.
@@88porpoise inside buildings though and it would be lethal…
I wonder if the American disinterest in taking the concept further might come from a lack of a perceived need. With lots of AAA weapons on-hand and an expectation their own aircraft will take care of most of the enemy’s airpower, they might not have felt there was a need to saddle ground troops with another weapon system when the machine guns they already had could scare enemy pilots and boost troops’ morale just as much. If they felt they were going to be fighting under skies filled with enemy planes, finding ways to throw more damaging explosive rounds in the air might seem more appealing.
The Americans put 0.50 cal Brownings on everything that drives. That's plenty of AAA there :)
@@F2000-q2z Yep. And they stuck with the idea of using them as AA Guns LONG after they weren't likely to do anything more than put on a light show for the enemy.
I don't know what it is today, but Air Defense when I was in was a Bradley with a Stinger crew in the back. To be sure though, our doctrine relied heavily on the idea of air superiority (for better or worse).
Last I heard, it was the Avenger-a HMMWV with a turret in the back (which that looks a lot like the old quad-50s) carrying 8 stingers.
What they had just developed was an automatic 76mm cannon with radar guidance and proximity fuses.
Just a small annotation to the term „Flieger“. „Flieger“ is not only the German synonym for plane and also an aircraft pilot but also an collective term for all soldiers serving in the airforce (engl. airmen) and furthermore is an enlisted rank of the German airforce then and today. The English translation for this rank is „airman“. Todays German rank „Flieger“ is OR-1.
good point, I know it was the lowest rank in the Luftwaffe.
In Dutch it’s called Vlieger (or vliegenier ), which is the pilot, or a kite, a plane is a vliegtuig. Vliegen is a verb for flying. We also speak of an Officier Vlieger, which is a pilot out of training.
@@joostprins3381 Ja, en hoe ga je ze vertellen wat Fokker betekent, of Fucke Wolff, zonder dat het erg grappig wordt?
@@voornaam3191 en?
@@joostprins3381 Is tuig like zug? In swedish that almost sounds like tyg, meaning either cloth or a fartyg, a ship. Or elddon, or if you wanna force a german word put together it'd be eldtyg.
Nice that you got a good screenshot!
thanks, yeah that was quite an endeavor, thankfully Andy and vonKickass had the game.
I love how the symbol for large dispersion and slow speed is the Windows logo.
Infantry: "Mother, may we have flak?"
Wehrmacht: "We have flak at home."
Flak at home:
lol
The concept seems reasonable. Dispersion is a good thing because it is impossible to aim it accurately and 9 missiles increase the chances. At least one will get there. A range of 500 meters is sufficient to harrasse aircraft on a strafe. I suppose the weapon would be effective if it were in significant quantities and not in the chaos of 1945.
not really, a single full auto 20mm gun mounted on a halftrack or truck or retrofitted volkswagen would be far more effective, and the ammo much cheaper to produce. they should have used their volkswagen and equipped them with mg 151 and mg 151/20
if a german 20mm opens fire at CAS planes, u can be sure, that they wanna be 2km away from that gun.
but the cas planes have not been the elefant in the room, it was the strategic bombing of industry hubs, that crippled germany. u cant fight that with ground bound guns, so the effort would have been futile in any way
The 20mm autocannon is beautiful, but it was not available at the Сompany level. The German Company did not have any anti-aircraft capabilities at all, and these launchers could provide air defense at the lower level.
By the way, soviets used a similar design in Vietnam. It was abandoned due to guided missiles.
@@tombaripepe1782 yeah, as i found out myself, thes mg 151 is pretty expensive to produce. but there would be other suitable guns to mount on small trucks and cars to protect troops in manouvre from cas.
the point u miss, is, that even if u aim the fliegerschreck correctly, with the enourmous and uncontrollable spread of the few projectiles, ur chances to hit a plane, thats in 400 metres distance is pretty low. its somewhere in the single digit % number, and that is a very generous probability estimation, i guess its even lower, somewhere in the less then 1% digit chance (if u aimed right, if u aim wrong u still have a even smaller chance to make a hit, somehwere in 0,05% area^^).
The minengeschosse are no wonderweapons, u actually have to make a direct hit to get them exploding, theese are no timed fuses and also no proxy fuses, also the explosive mass in them is moderate.
for every shot with such low probabilities the germans would have to construct 9 small rocket engines and mount them on minengeschosse, thats a lot of effort for such an ineffective device.
thats why a gun would be much better. a 20mm gun has about double to four times the effective range (due to much higher shell velocity, and way better spray pattern), it gets better reliably, when gunners skills improve, and the ammo is much cheaper... granted with a gun u may just have double to quadruple the hit chance, but u also have much more trys in a shorter timeframe, and u even can use tracer shell shots to home in to closing in targets, so if they dont turn, they will get hit with pretty high probability.
@@certaindeath7776 This is a compelling argument; without a timer fuse, it's useless.
@@certaindeath7776 you keep assuming germans had cars aviable to companies of infranty back then
Tfw the mortar got described:
"Every other German soldier has an iron cross. Every other Soviet soldier has a mortar"
Very good idea.
Although unlikely to kill a plane it will highly likely throw the pilots concentration as he does an attack run. And the morale boost to the infantry would be considerable if they feel they can fight back.
So imo it would of been effective.
Plus it would be a decent anti personal weapon.
Do not underestimate a pilot with target fixation!
@@worldtraveler930 haha i know a bit about that.
They built a bloody big crane near my flying school and you can get so focused on landing that you could forget it existed.
So you are indeed right.
The weapon would likely also have had a noticeable effect on the morale of allied pilots. A low level strafing run was in itself dangerous enough. Once pilots would have been faced with infantry lobbing 20mm shells at them, they'd probably become an entirely different kind of anxious about the whole affair.
Would the pilots even notice, though? It's not exactly like these things would be able to sustain fire.
@@jakobholgersson4400 IT would be very visible though do to it beeing rockets. And IF it hits a plane the plane is basically fucked 99% of the time so do to pilots never flying alone the news of "german infantery sending rockets to the sky against low flying planes, danger" would rather fast make the rounds among pilots.
Main problem is that the germans have to hit in the first place with it which is...not exactly easy.
But if a plane is in a strafing run it is very unlikely to change course in its pproach or final run. If the infantery guy can keep his nerves he could very much hit a plane if he is luckly.
Simialr to how stationary AA defends against most plains by aiming for the area of final approach and filling it with flag shells this could work. But i very much doubt the germans could afford to mass produce these or more improtantly the ammo. I dont think it is so much cheaper then normal AA guns.
@@noobster4779 found the wehraboo.
@@zeitgeistx5239 why?
They acknowledged the problems and the practical impossibility of massproduction.
I'm not so sure about that, especially given how its effect IRL was so minimal that it's basically an unknown entity that no one remembered.
This was a feel good weapon, it was intended to make the infantry feel better because they could shoot back.
And also make enemy pilots feel less safe on straving runs which was fairly sigificant.
@@Arcaryon I have my doubts about the pilots even knowing those things were present.
@@johnmcmickle5685 Oh, they knew.
Word travels fast.
When instead of the usual small arms fire, a plain is hit by one of these despite no AA in the area, they will figure out what is happening.
Not even mentioning that the Axis was notoriously weak in her intelligence protection in the later stages of the war.
The suggestion of shooting at low flying aircraft, using field & infantry artillery, would only be effective if firing canister shot. Skeet shooting a strafing enemy aircraft with artillery cannister shot, would be considerably more effective than the luftfaust, especially from a 150mm. SiG.33.
I remember a lecture, back in 1979 when I was training as a British army tank gunner, on the use of 120mm. cannister shot versus enemy attack helicopters. The quote, "It doesn't matter how armoured it is, it won't stay in the air without rotor blades!!", has always stuck in my mind.
Thank you, for analyze this rare weapon!!!
The quality of the information and footage in your videos is incredible. The translations are absolutely phenomenal.
Thank you so much for working so hard to keep this history alive.
This was a really informative video. I had never even heard of the Fliegerfaust. When I saw the title it really surprised me. It may not have been effective as a weapon but it shows once again that the Germans were the first to try many a new weapon. Keep up the good work MHV.
When it comes to Flak (and AA in general) during World War 2, one question that I've had for a while is: *Did anybody use Canister Shot to shoot down low-flying (strafing) aircraft?*
I know modern tanks have very powerful canister shot rounds that would obliterate any aircraft that attempted a WW2-style low flying strafing run (which is why you don't fly COIN aircraft against an enemy that has tanks!) but I don't actually know if any such canister shot existed during WW2!
I feel like a 75, 76, 85 or 88mm gun would be able to fire a pretty substantial canister spray into the air and do some pretty nasty damage even against late war aircraft. I imagine most tankbusting wasn't done flying low like that, but this was still the age of Dive Bombers and head-on attacks with unguided rockets.
With smoothbore barrels with modern materials I can see it working, but it would probably ruin an old rifled barrel I guess
Not very effective. Slow to load, slow to aim, lack of firepower at longer distances, you would not want to fire and aim your 88mm at a plane that is flying right at you at a distance below 1km at a speed about 400-500 km/h, you would need to specifically load this round and take an aim at the plane, without guaranteeing to hit something vital at sufficient energy. It most likely won't pierce the armored glass, nor will it pierce through the engine to kill the pilot, nor will it set plane on fire. There is a chance that it will shred the fuselage and surfaces but that's really only at short range and not guaranteed at all.
It's not very useful at ranges where you would want to shoot at aircraft, when it becomes useful you better start running for cover, and even at optimal ranges it's not guaranteed to take target down.
IDK about shooting at airplanes, but they were used effectively in the Pacific by US tanks and AT guns. See the battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal, Marine M3 light tanks, and on Tawara by Shermans. In the latter case: "...and the tank crew fired a single "dream shot" canister round which dispatched at least 20 more." (Ref ACROSS THE REEF: The Marine Assault of Tarawa by Colonel Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret) The Third Day: D+2 at Betio, 22 November 1943, which I found on the NPS site )
The main issues with tanks firing at aircraft is that the guns couldn't elevate high enough and the gun's optics had too narrow a field of view to actually track something moving that fast. It's why tanks that can fire at aircraft were all open topped, such as the German 222 armored car and Wirbelwind.
It is more effective to use a normal aa gun and just fill the plane approaching you with hundreds of shells per minute. A small flag gun is hardly something with a slow fire rate and if the crew is trained it can get the job done of destroying the plane of more often (and the main goal) "convincing" the diving airfcraft to break of the dive or change his approach slightly so he doesnt hit anymore. The primary goal of AA in WW2 is NOT to shoot down planes but to defend the ground objectives. "Convincing" the aircraftr to abandon the attack or forcing it to change course and miss gets the job done as well.
Also Im not sure a modern MBT can shoot down a plane with cannister shot at all. Modern ground fighter planes are fast as fuck and armed with rockets usually, so they dont have to get close to their targets to unload their arms and are absically only in the tanks range for a second at best. Only if the tank gets a big enough wartning period can he even cahnge his ammo and aim at a plane in time for possibly hitting it. There is a reason AA weapons exist.
Imagine the morale boost you get when you are firing a nine barrel weapon to a strafing P-47. I would definitely say well why don't we throw rocks at them?
N Korea built mounds of rocks and rubble with embedded explosives in them ... intended use was to put a mass of material in front of low flying aircraft. Don't know if it was all that effective but it was documented in several US manuals from the era.
Given the particular psychological effect of air attack, I can imagine this little "Goering Organ" with it's nine barrels and satisfying "whoosh" being a real comfort compared to just huddling in a ditch.
Thanks for this, I'd never heard of these before!
Shooting at aircraft with infantry support guns gives me War Thunder vibes.
Great piece of serious historical research as usual. I like how you guys coordinated such an effective team to make this possible. Also, very good of you to bring to attention the human aspects of warfare, such as morale, even if it is not possible to quantify it.
Швейцария́ использовала неуправляемые ракеты,чуть крупнее с о́дним оператором с наземных установок 1946
Not quantifiable on paper, but plain as the nose on your face in the field. This is probably more a failure of language than science to explain, I think
I lol'd when I saw the symbol for "Large Dispersion & Slow Speed"
:)
Thanks for the great video! Very well presented.
Glad you liked it!
Wasnt the first aircraft ever downed in the great war hit with an artillery piece?
Yes,but what they had beyond that back then? Machine guns with insufficient range.Only later did they develop automatic cannons capable of hitting aircraft.
@@kaletovhangar id imagine someone firing a machine in your general direction would be terrifying if you were in a vehicle made of wood and canvas. On the other hand, I doubt I'd personally be able to make that shot without lots of practice
Reminds me of the later french SPAA the Javelot which was proxy fuse unguided rockets at high speed fired in salvos.
Javelot lol
... yep, love "Deutsche Nahkampfmittel" which you used as a reference. Probably the best reference out there for german ordnance up to WWII.
yeah, great book!
Absolutely based and wonderful that the infographic for "Large Dispersion & Slow Speed" is the windows logo
There is an intact Fliegerfaust at the military history museum in Prague. First time I ever saw one was there, I was very confused on what it was at the time.
Was the use of the Windows Vista logo at 15:05 or so a deliberate comparison to show the limited speed and ineffectiveness that lead to the rejection of the Fliegerfaust almost as quickly as Vista was rejected?
no, I did not even know it was the Vista logo (or I forgot, made it years ago for another joke).
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized , The Fliegerfaust would fit with a Vista logo. Thank you very much for your videos. They are well organized, documented, and detailed. Not only do I learn but you make it easy to learn.
Very nice video 👍
I love the symbols you use to visualise your message. They show a fine sense of humour.
I applaud to Dr. Jens Wehner. From his accent you can clearly tell that he is not a native English speaker. He still takes on the effort to bring his knowledge to the international audience of these videos in English, which I admire. I am German myself, and I don't think I had the courage to do as he does. So thank you! 👍
I also want to appreciate, that the soil-found exhibit has not been cleared from all rust. That would have taken the majority of the years of its history away. There is an anti aircraft gun on display in the Marinemuseum in Wilhelmshaven, that has been found under the sea, stored in its watertight container on a u-boat. The container is completely rotten on the outside, but it held the sea water from the gun for seventy years. The gun itself is in near-mint condition, with only the leather belts rotten away, else completely functional. The sad state of these Fliegerfaust exhibits helps to appreciate the treasure of the AA gun in Wilhelmshaven, that was conserved in its time capsule. Maybe one could think about remaking a factory-new exhibit to show how the item looked for the actual user, but the original item is best let in its original state 👍
Edit: I added *Dr.*
The German 20mm shells were the best of the war combining high explosive with incendiary, the most effective 20 mm cannon ammo
love that you include sources-
So, they're so many planes attacking us, that if you launch some rockets randomly to the sky, maybe you're gonna hit one.
The fact that the targeting instructions includes the term “ Broad Side of the Barn” tells you everything you need to know about this weapon !
Who else caught the Windows logo when referring to "Large Dispersion & Slow Speed"? 😄
Another excellent video. And a fascinating look into a desparate attempt to bolster morale towards the end of the war. With 4 & then 5 rockets flying out of this thing, I wonder what it was like to actually fire it.
The windows logo for slow speed🤣🤣🤣
Excellent discussion. Laughed out loud at your selection of the Windows icon and the spam icon...
thank you, mission accomplished.
Love the precise detail... Thank you. Subbed here.
Awesome, thank you!
This accent combined with the sub-optimal recording location and lack of post editing is really something.
Large dispersion and slow speed
windows icon
and they same Germans have no sense of humour?
;)
Ah, but Bernhard's Austrian :-).
I had to stop the video and crack up when I saw the Windows logo, myself.
I just love your icon for Large Dispersion & Slow Speed :D
Never heard of this particular weapon before. Good thing it was not produced in quantity earlier in the war.
It gained some fame because of its appearance in the game Battlefield 5 where it is an effective weapon against low flying planes. In reality it was just a waste of time and resources.
Sounds like the Anti-Tank Rifle. Give the troops something to do, rather than just hide.
Early Anti-Tank rifles were effective enough. They just lost effectiveness as tanks got more armor, so they got replaced by better weapons.
@@joshuaa7266 you could still hit some weak spots even later on. That's why german tanks on the eastern front were often equipped by side skirts to protect the thin "track-armor" from soviet anti-tank rifles
6:15 So this thing basically uses crude facsimiles of Bolter Shells as projectiles or maybe primitive Gyrojet Anologues...
wow I never heard of this thing before if thats the case it can't have been in widespread use
BF1?
I've been on the resiving end of these in WWHeros. Everyone knows when it goes off due to lag and expressive firework like explosions. It's also works for light artillery shotgun uses.
@@luca018054646 BF1 ? Boyfriend 1 ? sorry i don't know what that means
( j/k) no i dont want to play it
First I’ve heard of this weapon. Very interesting content. I wonder if a weapon like this could have been used against light armour or personnel in a ground application.
I had two high school history teachers that were GI squad members in Western Europe from D-Day to VE Day. They mentioned finding a few of those along with boxes of rounds inside an abandoned horse drawn wagon. They figured it's purpose was for taking long distance pot shots at supply convoys with hopes that the round would hit a load of gasoline or explosives. Said they didn't bother to try one out in case those were left behind for being dangerous to use and would get in trouble with their superiors if they did. They radioed for a company ordnance truck to come get them and were told by the disposal crew how those were supposed to be used after they arrived. They decided those weren't used because they were in a forested region where the user couldn't see approaching aircraft.
Amazing vid, Glad to see!!!
Excellent as always.
A burn on Vista that hard was not expected!
Albert Speer in an interview said
The mistake which we did with the V1 and V2 was we could created the first anti aicraft quide missiles
BFV pilots be having WW2 flashbacks right now
BFV pilots deserves ww2 flashbacks
Sure 80 weapons cannot change anything this late in the war. Thanks for the video.
"Large dispersion and slow speed" combined with a Microsoft Windows logo. Well done! 15:14 :-D
As always a very cool (the old man swinging his cane at planes XD) and informative video!
Used the windows logo for “large dispersion and limited speed.” I died laughing 😂
Bfv Players fear the Flieger Faust
Yes because it was way more useful taking down planes rather then Anti-Air vehicles/installed guns
We need something similar in 2042 too btw....
True
@@Nemxkolopx manpads?
Great video! When speaking of soldier morale it should be pronounced Mo-rAl. Love your work.
Aloha; excellent! I greatly enjoy your work. I have a question about your end of video disclaimer - is it required? The disclaimer about being invited to the museum(s). Mahalo
thank you, yes, if I receive something from an organization that is equivalent or above the value of 1 Euro I have to. Generally speaking, everything you see in a video takes time (and usually (far) more than one assumes), so it is either required or I consider it important.
4:16 It seems odd that there's nothing certain about the name "Luftfaust A" given the 4 barrel version clearly existed as the first version.
The most interesting part about history channels about WWII is how hard it is to get precise information on history that is only 80 years back and was at that time very well documented. Wich means when you learn about history that is for example 500 years in the past it's probably mostly not more then a wild guess then real information based on facts.
Probably some guys book collection was dispersed or junked after he died.
Last time I was that early the wehrmacht had scored a kill with the luftfaustflieger
Ok I kinda wanna see how you would use a SiG 33 or LeIG 18 on aircraft, oddly enough the IG 18 could have a decent effect as it was known for high elevation and high rate of fire.
How is this so effective in accuracy agenst infentry compared to my dedicated Polish Anti Tank Rifle in my WW2Heros Game?
maybe a silly idea but how effective would this be against infantry? With 500 meter effective range, firing rockets across a wide area, I think it could be a sort of ghetto rocket artillery against enemy infantry. It might also be able to hit and damage large structures and fortifications occupied by the enemy. Even if it failed to do that, I think the rocket salvo alone could do some good suppresion against the enemy infantry
1:47
I just love this channel. Talking about german weapons and the first flag we get to see is the Polish one. Are you trying to tell us something?
One thing I was wondering about (not having read any primary sources or secondary literature except websites). Was there any sort of training or aiming device on the Luftfaust B/Fliegerfaust to estimate the lead angle of a target? Otherwise the thing would only have been useable to shoot at airplanes on a direct approach with a zero deflection angle which sounds borderline suicidal but probably in line with 1945 german military thinking. I can't see how you can hit an airborne target with this in any other situation than being basically in the aircraft's gunsight.
The ballistic arc combined with the low velocity would have made this a nightmare to actually calculate lead against aircraft. Simply building more FG42's would have been a better answer.
What’s the engine at 7:08? Anyone can tell me please or perhaps a link to explain WW2 engines
I been trying to find a replica of both for a collection sadly I haven’t found any yet
It was an innovative idea that needed a little more work...back at the drawing board.
Can you get the museum to measure the length of the B model ? Wikipedia says 1500mm
wonder if it fired ripple, would it have been more effective?
But what about the Flugzeug Abhwer Spüle?
lol
I would not be surprised to find an old german manual describing how to throw a rock at an airplane
Thank you. Great video.
What a research! Congrats!
thank you!
0:22
Beee... cause its more effective to have your infantry have something they can shoot with too then to limit your fire power only to artillery?
Poor man's flak !!! So, US had better portable flak at that time ???
Wasn't the Panther Ausf d. a development version? Hence the small d. It was incorrectly identified as Ausf D. by the allies.
o.O Development in German is "Entwicklung" and then go from A to G and to the F...
How would the effect of such a weapon have been against unarmored ground targets like trucks?
Things to add to my anti drone shopping list
Not sure if it helps, but I know when this was introduced to Battlefield V the morale of infantry players definitely went up. And the morale of pilots went straight to shit until the devs made it so you needed to hit a plane with like 8 20mm rockets to take it down..
Main reason why it was ineffective, in my opinion, is that most planes would attack at different angles so any Fliegerfaust operator would have to be trained in deflection shooting. Because of the slowness of any projectile, it will always miss if you aim directly at the target.
Because when the projectile has bridged the distance to where the target was a few moments ago, the target itself would have continued its travel.
To hit anything with a non-guided weapon, the operator has to aim at the space where the target would be *after* those few moments.
So if you hand out Fliegerfausts to untrained personnel, they'll have a blast with it but only hit anything by sheer accident.
"Flieger" means "Flyer" which can mean anything that flies be it the pilot or the plane.
German military jargon uses "Fliegerabwehr" (Defence against Fliers) for low alltitude slow aircraft that can be shot at by any soldier of any branch (eg on a German tank the outside and on top turretmounted MG is for the "Fliegerabwehr", usually operated by the loader) and "Flugabwehr" (Flug=Flight) which are dedicated AA systems with specialised personell.
"Luftfaust" (Airfist) is a name good for a lot of fart jokes, while "Fliegerfaust" is a very specific name about the weapons use and function. Thus the renaming makes perfect sense to me.
In the context of "Fliegerabwehr" 700m sounds indeed like long range to me (while "Flugabwehr" would most likely call that close range). Also I doubt there were (or are) ever any effective "Fliegerabwehr"-weapons, since those are pretty much always used in desperation and as spam by troops whose usual job simply isnt to shoot at aircraft.
Huch, ich hätte schwören können das "Flyer" ein denglischer Begriff wie "Handy" ist, den es auf Englisch gar nicht gibt. Aber es gibt in doch, obwohl er auch für Flugblatt benutzt wird.
Amazing how advanced the krauts were
Ok, the use of the Windows symbol for slow speed and dispersion made me choke on my coffee. :)
From what you say it sounds like Flyer-fist would be the best translation, because flyer can refer to someone who flies as well as the thing they fly in. Good thing to point out the moral effects!
As for the allies never using them post war, I'd say at least in the west they were not really expecting to come under massive and sustained ground attack, let alone planes which came within the 300-500 meter window. Anti-air goes repetitively undeveloped for the same reasons why current NATO brigade level anti-air assets are a bit outdated compared to the equivalents in Russia.
think i read somewhere there was plans for one in 30mm calibre but not sure if thats true or not, this weapon could of been better if it was developed for much longer
Jehns Wehner: “As far as we know the Fliegerfaust was not effective“
Battlefield V: “HA HA HA“
In BFV, these things are basically railguns that one-shot planes lol. Part of the reason I stopped playing the game
I love that audible fist clap just after 0:10. Rather appropriate.
Wow amazing video, very well done
I’m never going to use this information
Innovative and constructive thinking back then, and it sure as hell beats sticking explosives to tanks manually with a bamboo stick xD
i like how you used the windows icon for large dispersion & low speed. lol