During the Second World War, tanks would run over infantrymen

Were there anti-tank weapons that were widely used by infantrymen during World War II?

nvoigt

There were some devices that were supposed to perish with or after the destruction of the tanks, but none of them were manned:

The Goliath, a kind of bomb on rails.

The Soviets tried trained dogs, but it didn't work out so well. Although it could be called "MAD" it would be cheated because the dog didn't know about either the mutual or the destructive part.

So no, no "retaliatory measures" or MAD weapons were officially issued. Obviously, any weapon can not be used for close combat thought is to continue to be used as such. And many weapons were so dangerous that they weren't far from MAD territory. But they all contained them chance and were issued in the sense that the user would get away unharmed. As far as I know, suicide weapons were never officially sanctioned in the land warfare of World War II.

Tom Au

I did not ask about "ranged" weapons for attacks, but "hand weapons" for "retaliatory measures".

nvoigt

@ TomAu From the PoV of Goliath or a dog it's pretty close ...

Tom Au

I tried to clarify the question (and maybe I didn't), but the point of the question was not, "Was there a weapon that a soldier could use" others "(dogs, Goliaths) to fight tanks, rather, was there a weapon a soldier could use if he was attacked by a tank that was about to kill him anyway?

nvoigt

Well, what I meant by "none of them were manned" is that there were no such devices that were inherently MAD weapons. Many were dangerous (see other answer), but none were inherently self-destructive.

nvoigt

Of course, any "crazy" person can take an anti-tank mine and shove it in the trench and under the tank, but this weapon was never designed for a suicide attack.