Soviet AT rifles

[randallw]

Do they achieve anything? At some point in 1942 the rifle divisions are allotted a few hundred of them, but they still don't seem to kill anything. I know that they'd have trouble with anything as sturdy as a 1942 upgrade of Pz IIIs or IVs, but what about the German armored cars? Are bunches of Russians running around with metal sticks that do nothing but make noise?

[56ajax]

Very interesting question. Some historians pour scorn on the Soviet AT rifle and it must be said that its capacity to knock out a tank would be very slim indeed.

However the Germans called them a pest or a nuisance as the Soviets aimed at weaker parts of the tank; running gear or between the wheels and return rollers.

And then the Germans introduced 5mm spaced armor.

[king171717]

Check out this video on the PTRD 41 The Simple Soviet Antitank Rifle of WWII, by Forgotten Weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUO3Bmt5XTQ

Definitely worth watching

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: randallw

Do they achieve anything? At some point in 1942 the rifle divisions are allotted a few hundred of them, but they still don't seem to kill anything. I know that they'd have trouble with anything as sturdy as a 1942 upgrade of Pz IIIs or IVs, but what about the German armored cars? Are bunches of Russians running around with metal sticks that do nothing but make noise?

In game mechanics you mean, as opposed to in real life, where it was the war best AT rifle by a wide margin. By 42 the AT rifle TOE went up by over 400% from 41 TOE.

The BS-41 tungsten-cored armor-piercing round was able to penetrate 35 to 40mm of armor at 300 meters; the side armor of the German Mark III and Mark IV tanks was only 30mm at its thickest on the flanks. The addition of another 8mm of steel armor Schurzen,( introduced to counter the Russian AT rifle and its effects on armour, von Mellenthin complained after the war, “The Russian and his antitank weapon are inseparable; sometimes it seemed as if every infantryman carried his own antitank rifle.”, he was almost right, 1.5 million in use by 44, and Guerdian stated, “The ‘aprons’ were sheets of armor plating which were hung loose about the flanks and rear end of the Panzer III and Panzer IV and the assault guns; they were intended to deflect or nullify the effect of the Russian infantry’s antitank weapons, which could otherwise penetrate the relatively thin, vertical body armor of those types of vehicle.”) physically separate from the hull armor, in addition to providing extra thickness, caused the 14.5mm round to expend much of its energy and begin to tumble from a nose-first attitude while penetrating this first layer. It also helped to protect the more vulnerable wheels and suspension system.

For the late war tigers etc, vision slots became the target, as the AT easily made the target blind by striking them, carius was one such victim and put out of action that way.

Sergeant Ilya Derevjanko is credited with 10 AFV kills.


The Soviet Infantry Manual noted: “If no tanks and armored vehicles are present, on orders of the antitank rifle squad leader the antitank rifles can take under fire enemy machine guns, artillery and the firing slits of bunkers and forts at a range out to 800 meters and aircraft at a range of up to 500 meters.”

Private Vassily Kovtun of the 902nd Rifle Regiment was given credit for destroying four tanks, two armored personnel carriers, and two armored cars. The big antitank rifles were also handy for reaching enemy soldiers behind cover in house-to-house street fighting. Antitank rifle ace Ivan Knjazev of the 310th Guards Rifle Regiment was credited in a Soviet report with “67 AFVs, MGs, guns and mortars.” Kovtun was also credited with knocking out 20 German machine-gun nests.

It was also highly present as a partisan weapon.

[joelmar]

So to reflect that, maybe that the effect of the AT rifle would be seen more in disrupted or damaged or even logistic phase write offs than in actual AFV kills during combat?

[Hanny]

I wanted to understand why they had so many more in use after 41, this is what i found.

It should be noted that employment of single anti-tank rifles doesn't produce good results. The division didn't have a single case when hostile tanks or armored carriers were knocked out by on or two AT rifles.

Conclusion
AT rifles can be effectively employed against tanks and armored carriers within the AT rifle company.
Against hostile weapon emplacements and guns AT rifles are better to be employed separately or by squads.
https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=136229797

[randallw]

ORIGINAL: joelmar

So to reflect that, maybe that the effect of the AT rifle would be seen more in disrupted or damaged or even logistic phase write offs than in actual AFV kills during combat?

I often see very little AFV casualties ( for the Axis ) in either the 'lost' or 'damaged' portion of the battle results in the periods when the AT rifles have been heavily deployed.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: joelmar

So to reflect that, maybe that the effect of the AT rifle would be seen more in disrupted or damaged or even logistic phase write offs than in actual AFV kills during combat?

I have no idea how the combat model works for this, is it the same/similar for bazooka in WiTW?, ie its got a low combat value and produces little effect in combat but is effect in combat, shows up as a a modifier in outside of combat calculations.

[mouse707]

In the game, they do absolutely nothing to german tanks

[joelmar]

@mouse707

In the game, they do absolutely nothing to german tanks

Interesting observation that would need to be expanded on IMO. How are you so sure of this? Did you check whole battles involving panzer and AT rifles at message level 7? If deduced from combat report observation, did you take into account the next phase logistics? The effects of disruption on a battle and so on? Disruption has very important influence on a battle, but it's not so clear at first sight since those effects are not included in initial CV.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: mouse707

In the game, they do absolutely nothing to german tanks

I dont see anything in combat logs either, but thats not the whole combat model.

Historical munition expenditure of that type shows it quite extensive http://soldat.ru/doc/mobilization/mob/table43.html


SU 1941 AT rifles, 14.5mm, expended in combat and training 198,000.
SU 1942 AT rifles, 14.5mm 9,154,000


The Anti-Tank Rifle
By Steven J. Zaloga
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cHg ... re&f=false

[randallw]

I watched a battle on level 4 detail; the AT-rifles failed to do anything for the level of results ( equipment destroyed or damaged ). I tried the next battle on level 5 with the same failure. On level 6 they disrupted maybe three tanks, though again none destroyed or damaged.

[Telemecus]

But are you brave enough to try message level 7? [:D]

[randallw]

I did it ( a battle on level 7 ). The rifles shoot a little at 500 yards, then quite a bit at 175 yards then 50 yards. Most of their targets were German infantry, some shots at artillery, a little at tanks. The infantry and artillery targeting used HE shells; against the tanks, AP. The rifles did very little, even disruption.

Do AT rifles, for any country's version, have a HE rating? The Soviet 14.5 doesn't, the German 7.92 doesn't, the Finnish 20mm neither ( just as another example ).

This battle took about 3 1/2 hours on level 7 detail.[:D]

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: randallw

I did it ( a battle on level 7 )....

This battle took about 3 1/2 hours on level 7 detail.[:D]

Your medal for bravery is on the way! You have gone where most Grigsby players dare not.

[Update]

Well, Finnish 20mm AT-rifle used the same ammunition as German 20mm Flak 30 and 38 (20x138B).
It should have the same stats with those guns (AP, HE and AA),it was used also for AA fire and later made as 20 AA gun with double barrel. (20mm ITK 40 VKT)

[56ajax]

@Update - thanks for that very interesting, aka as the Elephant Gun.

At 50kgs why is it called a rifle and not a gun?

[joelmar]

Because it really was a rifle, with a similar set up to a machine-gun, operated by 2 privates.

And it was a japanese gun originally.

[56ajax]

Out of curiosity when does a rifle become a gun?

[Telemecus]

I thought a rifle was anything with a rifled barrel carried/used by one man - so assumed it no loner was when more than 1 man needed?