Questions about Soviet AT capabilities.

[Apocal]

I've heard a lot of reasons but ultimately none of them make all that much sense to me, the most prominent among them was limited effectiveness. But limited effectiveness is basically a great description for an ATR on its best day, yet the Soviets had these huge formations of the things...? What gives? Third, does anyone have a good diagram of how Soviets laid out ATGs in a gun front? There is some good stuff out there in other places, but my Russian is super-rusty so I can't really get too much mileage out of it without a decent translation.

[76mm]

1 hour ago, Apocal said:

I've heard a lot of reasons but ultimately none of them make all that much sense to me, the most prominent among them was limited effectiveness.

Sorry, but reasons for what?  What is your first question?

I guess your second question is about ATRs?  While they weren't super-effective, they could definitely take care of halftracks, and with as many ATRs as they had, my understanding is that even tanks could be driven off by a hailstorm of ATR rounds, which could break tracks, optics, weapons, etc.  I've never really understood why they kept making the things but have assumed that they had a factory somewhere which could make them but not be upgraded to something more potent so the ATRs were better than nothing.  

I will look around for stuff on ATG gun fronts, but most of my books are elsewhere.  I'm sure I could find something on Kursk, but the gun fronts there were not typical.

[Apocal]

37 minutes ago, 76mm said:

Sorry, but reasons for what?  What is your first question?

Wow, my cut-and-paste ate my first sentence. Anyway, I am asking why the Soviets didn't field a bazooka equivalent during the war. After it, certainly, but for some reason not during.

[DougPhresh]

ATRs are cheap, easy to use by conscripts, reliable, simple to maintain, logistically very easy to manufacture parts and ammo for, and work in all weather.

 

[Machor]

11 hours ago, Apocal said:

I am asking why the Soviets didn't field a bazooka equivalent during the war.

From Gordon Rottman's The Rocket Propelled Grenade (Osprey, 2010; pp. 11-16):

"It is surprising that the Soviets failed to field a practical antitank rocket launcher during the Great Patriotic War as they had such a desperate need for one. They were familiar with the US 2.36in (60mm) M1 antitank rocket launcher, or bazooka (having been provided with 8,500 of these in late 1942) as well as with the Panzerfaust from 1943, and they had their own well-developed Katyusha rocket program. Instead the Soviets persisted with their antitank rifle and grenades, and used all the Panzerfäuste they could lay their hands on, along with German magnetic hand-mines.
The Soviets had attempted to field an antitank rocket launcher, the RS-65, in 1931. This was a very crude and heavy 65mm shoulder-fired weapon. Its warhead relied on blast effect as the shaped-charge had not yet been perfected. The cumbersome weapon was none too effective and was dropped. The next attempt was the 82mm SPG-82 rocket launcher (Stankovii Protivotankovii Granatomet – mounted antitank grenade launcher). Its development began in 1942 and it saw limited fielding in 1944. This weapon was distinctly Soviet in its design – crude and unrefined. It was unnecessarily heavy at 38kg, overly long at 2,100mm, fitted with a large, awkward shield, and mounted on a two-wheel carriage which was too low to the ground. This heavy, oversized weapon was the opposite of the concept of an easily portable antitank weapon, as the bazooka and Panzerfaust were. Its HEAT round was also made less effective because of a point-detonating fuze. These ungainly characteristics, coupled with its mere 300m practical range and 175mm armor penetration – little better than the far lighter and more wieldy bazooka – immediately sent the Red Army in search of an alternative tank-killer.

...

The Red Army did capture and use Panzerfäuste, which they nicknamed Fausts, as they had no comparable man-portable antitank weapons. So many Fausts were captured that the average rifleman became as familiar with them as with his own weapons.

...

Soviet study of the Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, and bazooka led to research for a new weapon, which would combine the most desirable features of these launchers with a primary aim of keeping the new weapon compact and light, yet still lethal to modern tanks. Headed by G. P. Lominskiy, lead design engineer at the Main Artillery Directorate’s Small Arms and Mortar Research Range, development of the LPG-44 and its PG-70 HEAT round began in 1944. Prototypes were built and successfully test-fired, with the result that it was redesignated the RPG-1 in 1945, with the projectile now called the PG-1. This was a simple reloadable, shoulderfired launcher fitted with a pistol grip and trigger for percussion firing. It had a flip-up leaf sight and no forward sight. To aim it the appropriate range aperture in the leaf sight was aligned on the top edge of the warhead and with the target, as with the Panzerfaust. The 1m tube had a wooden sheath to protect the firer from heat. The 70mm warhead was fitted with a short 30mm propellant cartridge that slid into the muzzle. Over this was a sleeve that slid over the barrel with three ring-fins for stabilization. Preparations were being made to put the RPG-1 into series production, but too many unsolvable problems developed with the projectile, mainly with the base-detonating fuze and inconsistent propellant ignition at different temperatures. It had a low velocity, which affected its accuracy against moving targets, a flat trajectory for only 50m of its 75m range, and it could penetrate only 150mm of armor, less than the Panzerfaust. Work continued until 1948 when it was cancelled."

I hope this helps. 

[Ts4EVER]

Considering how many Fausts were captured in Bagration, it would be cool to see Soviet troops with Panzerfaust 30s in the late war module.

[MikeyD]

Here's a photo that's liable to confuse many. Until I read the post above I never knew such as thing as a SPG-82 even existed.

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by MikeyD

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Until I read the post above I never knew such as thing as a SPG-82 even existed.

Wasn't that, or something like that, in Barbarossa to Berlin? There was also a molotov cocktail mortar, and I hope I'm not confusing them.

Michael

[Machor]

I don't have Barbarossa to Berlin, but I suspect you may be thinking about the ampulomet.

[Michael Emrys]

12 hours ago, Machor said:

I don't have Barbarossa to Berlin, but I suspect you may be thinking about the ampulomet.

That is definitely one thing that I had in mind. I am vaguer about the other, which suggests that it might exist only in my confused imagination.

Michael

[Apocal]

17 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

That is definitely one thing that I had in mind. I am vaguer about the other, which suggests that it might exist only in my confused imagination.

Michael

The Puppchen?

[Michael Emrys]

8 minutes ago, Apocal said:

The Puppchen?

I do remember that. But the Puppchen is of course a German device. I was thinking, if mistakenly, of a Soviet weapon. I will poke around in some of my books and see if I come up with anything. The British of course had the Northover Projector, which I gather was as likely to hurt its users as it was the enemy.

Michael

[MikeyD]

Infantry weren't expected to do it all, the Russians were big into combined arms. Infantry came after the artillery, after the air strikes, after the direct fire cannons, after (or accompanying) the tanks.  Russia infantry did have the RPG-6 flight-stabilized hand-thrown HEAT anti-tank grenade if they found themselves in a precarious position. An updated version of this weapon was still showing up in Iraq. I recall while playing CM:Afghanistan with its stunted late war infantry squads I joked that the purpose of Russian infantry in the game was mostly to move forward over the charred corpses of their enemies after the tanks got done with them.

[Warts 'n' all]

On 8/8/2017 at 7:23 PM, Michael Emrys said:

I do remember that. But the Puppchen is of course a German device. I was thinking, if mistakenly, of a Soviet weapon. I will poke around in some of my books and see if I come up with anything. The British of course had the Northover Projector, which I gather was as likely to hurt its users as it was the enemy.

Michael

"Uncle Arthur, mum said, I don't have to use this because it's dangerous."

"Wilson, what's the matter with Pike?"

"He said that Mavis, I mean Mrs Pike, said that he doesn't have to use it because it's dangerous."

"Stupid boy."

[Sgt.Squarehead]

10 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I joked that the purpose of Russian infantry in the game was mostly to move forward over the charred corpses of their enemies after the tanks got done with them.

No joke, that was pretty much doctrine! 

[Apocal]

On 8/12/2017 at 2:11 PM, MikeyD said:

I recall while playing CM:Afghanistan with its stunted late war infantry squads I joked that the purpose of Russian infantry in the game was mostly to move forward over the charred corpses of their enemies after the tanks got done with them.

 

On 8/13/2017 at 0:24 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

No joke, that was pretty much doctrine! 

The guys who served in the more kinetic battles of Iraq said similar about entering defended buildings, "Main thing is to just poke your head around and make sure the attack-by-fire element did its job."

[Sgt.Squarehead]

& even that's risky! 

[John Kettler]

76mm,

At Kursk, ATR fire made an entire Tiger Kompanie was hors de combat for a time afterwards. So many vision blocks were shattered, leaving TCs blind when buttoned, that the Kompanie and Abteilung stocks were exhausted, causing a wait of several weeks to obtain these mission critical items from Regiment. Worse, a number of TCs suffered temporary eye injuries from bits of vision port glass, and a couple of TCs were got for two weeks after having the entire vision block, mounting and all, smashed into their faces. That's what massed ATR fire could do to the toughest tank on the battlefield at the time. What was done was entirely in keeping with official instructions to the ATR teams. When dealing with a Panzer against which the armor was too tough, tagets were vision blocks, gunsights, MG mounts and tank tracks. In case you think shooting up of vision blocks at Kursk was s a fluke, I invite you to ponder what happened to Otto Carius (wrote Tigers in the Mud) in his own scary experience. A glancing blow to one of his vision blocks not only rendered it useless, but created a secondary missile from a piece knocked loose which then ricocheted around the interior, happily for those involved hitting no one. He believed had the hit been dead on, the projectile would've penetrated outright!

http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/wwii-weapons-the-ptrs-and-ptrd-russian-anti-tank-rifles/

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited August 15, 2017 by John Kettler

[76mm]

On 8/6/2017 at 5:08 PM, 76mm said:

even tanks could be driven off by a hailstorm of ATR rounds, which could break tracks, optics, weapons, etc.  

John, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, I specifically said that ATR rounds could break optics, etc.  

But the fact that ATRs could have some effect on the battlefield does not mean that ATRs were an effective antitank weapons system, or at least effective enough to justify the numbers deployed. How many men were killed while they were plinking away at Tiger vision blocks?  How many of them do you think wished they had a panzerfaust instead of an ATR?

[Erwin]

Presumably the useful range of the ATR was much greater than for a Pzfaust.  A mass of ATR's would remain undetected by a buttoned up tank longer.  Plus it would be like hitting at bees.   While you look for one ATR firing, another 3 ATR's hit you and distract you.

[John Kettler]

76mm,

My apologies, for I think I meant to write Apocal but wrote to you instead. 

Apocal,

If you want to understand Russian antitank warfare, Artem Drabkin's Panzer Killers is an absolute must. It has personal accounts from those using towed ATGs and ATRS, too, together with a brief portion on SUs and ISUs which gradually took over some of the towed ATG's job. The first thing to know is that tank destroyer batteries have four 45 mm guns, with intervals of 25-50 meters between the guns. This interval reflects the limits of the human voice. No signal flags needed.

Second, the gun line is only three guns wide Why three? The other gun is almost invariably 300 meters in front of to the right or left flank of the gun line. Its job is to fire on the enemy's vulnerable sides and rear, causing them to turn toward it, whereupon the gun line opens fire at only a few hundred meters out against the opposite sides of the Panzers. This very short open fire range is doctrinal and is intended to pretty much guarantee a hit. The 45's accuracy was good enough to target and hit specific parts of the Panzers, with track hits being much desired on moving ones because of the resulting hull slew, which exposed the flank. Survival odds weren't good for the guys on the flank gun, who were not only machine gunned and shelled, but driven over by tanks! If you had, say, ZIS-3s, then open fire range might double, but otherwise things were as before. Positions were occupied at night, with the guns dug in and camouflaged before dawn, but life expectancy was short when a gun opened fire, for it was almost instantly detected and shot up. Some pretty extreme measures could be and were taken to reduce vertical profile, including removing the gun shield!  There were no alternate firing positions, for the tow vehicle, a horse, was always kept well to the rear. These guys fought from their original positions throughout the battle.

The tank destroyer unit casualties were astronomic, and these guys fought on even after their infantry support bugged out. One regiment was reduced to a single gun and, I think, half a crew! For higher order antitank defense, please see Biryukov and Melnikov's excellent monograph Antitank Warfare. It uses the GPW experiences to illustrate just how drastically weapons such as ATGMs have changed the combat situation. What was discovered was akin to all that modern battlefield lethality material crash inserted into FM 100-5 after it was ready for release.

Russian infantry used Panzerfausts when it had them, but there is zero mention of this being done by the tank destroyers. They were far too busy!

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited August 16, 2017 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Apocal,

Since Edit is presently in a quantum state regarding my earlier post, wanted to note that open fire range for the 45s was 200-250 meters and 500 for the ZIS-3. Obviously, this completely stands in direct opposition to the German approach to engage much farther out. Also, if you look at what I said elsewhere from Tank Archive about Russian tactical mobility via pushing for the ZIS-3 vs the British 17-pdr., (500 over Rough vs 100 over smooth) in a technical assessment, what's being talked about isn't moving the gun during battle but between them, if needed and with no transport to hand.

Regards,

John Kettler

[76mm]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

Presumably the useful range of the ATR was much greater than for a Pzfaust.  A mass of ATR's would remain undetected by a buttoned up tank longer.  Plus it would be like hitting at bees.   While you look for one ATR firing, another 3 ATR's hit you and distract you.

Yes, but...  I doubt that the useful range of an ATR when aiming at vision blocks, etc was greater than a panzerfaust's.  Moreover, I've never read that ATRs were very useful against infantry, whereas panzerfausts could be used against buildings, etc.  And finally, I just can't imagine that their utility in combat was worth the manpower expended in creating these units.  So not a useless weapon, but not especially effective either.

[Bulletpoint]

I think people focus too much on main battle tanks and tend to forget that there were huge numbers of lightly armoured vehicles fighting too, not just tanks.

Without anti-tank rifles, those light tanks and armoured cars would have be able to operate much more freely and dominate infantry much more.

[Michael Emrys]

20 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think people focus too much on main battle tanks and tend to forget that there were huge numbers of lightly armoured vehicles fighting too, not just tanks.

Without anti-tank rifles, those light tanks and armoured cars would have be able to operate much more freely and dominate infantry much more.

Good point.

Michael