Russian Anti-Armor Performance

[PMCN]

I just wanted to make a quick comment about the Russian Infantry as far as anti-armor stuff goes.

To the best of my knowledge the Russians never developed any infantry anti-armor shaped charge weapons. This left their infantry using anti-tank rifles, molatov coatails, and in 42 or 43 a magnetic anti-tank mine. So the russians squads should not get an improvement in performance over the war, the anti-tank mine was, I believe, used in small quantities.

As far a ATGs go, again the russians used the 45 mm ATG for all the war. This was supplemented by lend lease equipment (British 2 and 6 lbers and the american 57 mm) and by the utilization of the 76 mm field gun in a direct fire role (I know they did this at Kursk). The effectiveness of the russian ATG's should not increase nearly as fast as the germans do but should start off initially higher (as the standard german ATG of 41 was still the 37 mm). I don't have my references here so I can't check but I realy don't think the soviets produced dedicated ATGs beyond the 45 mm ... they may have but if they did it was not with the same regularity as the germans.

This is probably a minor point. And I have to say again after playing two turns of the 41 scenario last night that the game looks VERY GOOD !!!!

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
I just wanted to make a quick comment about the Russian Infantry as far as anti-armor stuff goes.

To the best of my knowledge the Russians never developed any infantry anti-armor shaped charge weapons. This left their infantry using anti-tank rifles, molatov coatails, and in 42 or 43 a magnetic anti-tank mine. So the russians squads should not get an improvement in performance over the war, the anti-tank mine was, I believe, used in small quantities.

As far a ATGs go, again the russians used the 45 mm ATG for all the war. This was supplemented by lend lease equipment (British 2 and 6 lbers and the american 57 mm) and by the utilization of the 76 mm field gun in a direct fire role (I know they did this at Kursk). The effectiveness of the russian ATG's should not increase nearly as fast as the germans do but should start off initially higher (as the standard german ATG of 41 was still the 37 mm). I don't have my references here so I can't check but I realy don't think the soviets produced dedicated ATGs beyond the 45 mm ... they may have but if they did it was not with the same regularity as the germans.

This is probably a minor point. And I have to say again after playing two turns of the 41 scenario last night that the game looks VERY GOOD !!!!

Hear, hear!

[Randy Stead]

Re: Soviet AT guns:

I read an account of a tactic the Soviets used at Kursk 1943. Well disguised 45 mm AT guns were used to knock tracks off of German tanks in high grass to cripple them, then Soviet infantry would crawl out to said tank to finish it off. German crews were very reluctant to stay with a crippled tank in high grassy areas unless infantry was with them.

Even though they may have had other guns available, this showed how even an "inferior" gun could still be of use. After all, a gun, even an inferior one, is still a gun. The Soviets used whatever was available to them, even lend-lease tanks which were usually inferior to that which they produced themselves.

[Juba]

During the Winter War (Finnish & Russian war of 1939 people who don't know but really should) the Finnish army would let tanks infiltrate but they'd massacre the infantry then during the night they sneak close with molotovs (which were unlike popular belief invented in Finland) and get their engines and gas tanks which then made then explode. Sometimes the engine would just burn, burning the crew too, then the Finns would just replace the engine, repaint bring them to the fight.