Using Anti-Tank Rifles and Snipers

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That's a useful fact to know JK.....20 rounds certainly seems far to few. 

[John Kettler]

Andy,

Indeed. I think part of the issue people had with what I said before in presenting that article on these weapons is that we think of anti-materiel rifles such as the excellently scoped Barrett in terms of one or a few well placed shots, negating the need for carrying large amounts of ammo. By contrast, the Russian ATRs had only rudimentary iron sights and an effective range of 500 meters vs a tank, but only 300 meters, except for a few especially skilled gunners, when it came to targeting things like vision blocks. The weapon itself is capable of hitting targets out to 1000+ meters, but the targets can't be seen at all at such range and the projectiles would bounce off doing nothing but barking the paint. What it comes down to is the Russians envisioned firing away at the tank engaged until it was no longer a threat. Consequently, the picture then becomes one of a hail of fire being generated by each ATR, with the semiautomatic PTRS41 definitely having the ROF edge over the blot action PTRD. Essentially, the PTRS41 is rather like the M1 Garand, but with three fewer rounds in each clip. The gunner has a Nagant revolver, the loader a PPSh1941 (three drums of ammo), and they still have to carry all their own kit! That ATR gunner says that they usually didn't shoot at infantry, husbanding the rounds for dealing with tanks, but it is patently obvious a weapon that can reliably hit a relatively tiny vision block at 300 meters can easily put lethal fire on an enemy infantryman at the same range, not just suppression. 

With that picture now in mind, it becomes possible to understand how an entire Tiger tank company at Kursk was rendered combat ineffective by Russian ATRs. Not only were so many vision blocks destroyed that all the tanks were rendered unfightable, but the number of blocks which had to be replaced far exceeded spares held by the unit, as well as Battalion, and had to be obtained, after significant delay, from higher. Worse, there were a number of minor, but several days disruptive, eye injuries among the TCs and one case in which the round not only wrecked the vision block but tore the substantial mounting bracket inside the cupola clean off and smashed the entire assembly into the man's face, sending him to the hospital for several weeks. All of this was done by ATRs and ATRs only. Now, imagine the volume of fire an ATR company, or multiples thereof, could put out. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited May 26, 2017 by John Kettler

[MikeyD]

I did a quick look, 50 rounds of good-old .50 cal ball ammo is 35 pounds (15 kilos). 200 rounds would therefore weigh 140 lbs. (63 kilos). Would John's numbers above work out to 50 rounds  of 14.5x114mm at 68 pounds, nearly twice the weight of .50 cal? I was never good at math.

About using PTRD as a sniper rifle. Its a powerful round with a max range of 1000m but dispersion limits its ability to snipe a man-size target much beyond normal rifle range. Shooting at the side of a light tank you don't have to much concern yourself with dispersion. Plus firing over iron sights is not the same as using a scope.

[John Kettler]

MIkeyD,

You raise an excellent point, so I did some digging. Per the authoritative Russian Ammo.org site, the weight of a complete round of 14.5 mm x 51 mm API is 200 grams. 200 rounds x 200 gm each is 40 kg, if I did the math right, meaning there is a typo in the text, since I have to presume that the man knows, exactly, how many 5-round clips he and his colleague were schlepping about the steppe. Therefore, considering ATR at 22 kg and 200 rounds of ammo at 40 kg (not counting the unknown weight of the empty clip, just for the AT side of their load alone, these men are packing (presuming a full BK of ammo) a combined 62 kg load, which is quite doable, though certainly not fun, especially with personal weapons and kit thrown in. Yet the account is clear regarding husbanding of ammo generally to defeat tanks and that the ATR units were put directly on expected tank attack axes, thus had to be able to deal with massed armor if need be, not just a few tanks. As for shooting at the side of a light tank, while that was certainly to be preferred, the truth is that the ATRs would fire on any tank or similar, regardless of size, as indicated by what I said about that Tiger Kompanie at Kursk.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by John Kettler

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Dammit, I was confusing projectile weight with the overall weight of the round.....I'll take your figures as gospel JK, I've not found anything to contradict them.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[John Kettler]

Andy,

Considering I nearly did that myself, I certainly am not going to point fingers. Not sure how I feel about that gospel stuff, since I was named for Dad's brother, a Roman Catholic priest, and was groomed for a Roman collar back in my early days (4th grade?) at parochial school!

On a cheerier note, here's a small photo essay on Russian ATRs at the link. It shows both types.

http://wio.ru/galgrnd/ww2atr.htm

 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited May 27, 2017 by John Kettler

[MikeyD]

"Dammit, I was confusing projectile weight with the overall weight of the round"

Heh heh, that almost got me too. We were probably looking at the same reference.