Why no German ATRs in Italy?

[ArgusEye]

Every time I run an Italian scenario fighting with the Germans against the Commonwealth, I feel a deep desire to plink the oncoming sea of *carriers with the cheap, stealthy ATR. However, the Germans have phased them out, and there are none to be found. This strikes me as odd; they must have had thousands lying around, so why not employ them against the Tommies?

[Michael Emrys]

They also might have been useful against armored cars and halftracks. But probably the reason they were phased out is that they were phasing in the ever so much more useful Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks. With those you can do some truly serious plinking.

Michael

[ArgusEye]

That is more likely overkill. The Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck are outranged by the ATR, and the ATR has more ammunition.

Am I correct in thinking that troops cannot throw handgrenades into open topped 'grenade bins' such as halftracks and carriers?

[Michael Emrys]

That is more likely overkill. The Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck are outranged by the ATR, and the ATR has more ammunition.

But the Panzerfausts were much cheaper to make and could be issued to anybody in the platoon. I'm not claiming that this was necessarily the best idea—the Soviets found uses for their ATRs right up to the end of the war—but it seems to be what was done.

Am I correct in thinking that troops cannot throw handgrenades into open topped 'grenade bins' such as halftracks and carriers?

ISTR that it could be done, but it's been a long time and I might not be right about that. For sure demo charges work, but that's another matter.

Michael

[Elmar Bijlsma]

IIRC correctly barrel wear and tungsten shortages were a real problem leading to the demise of the ATR in the Wehrmacht.

[Michael Emrys]

Ah yes, the tungsten shortage. That did throw a spanner into a lot of their works, didn't it? And when they started running out of chromium and manganese the end was in sight.

Michael

[Sergei]

Anti-tank rifles were not really meant to be used against halftracks or carriers, they were designed against the light tanks of 1930's like T-26, Pz-I and Mk VIB. As tanks got heavier, ATR's could still have been used against halftracks and such (and Soviets still lugged them around in 1945), but carriers and armoured cars weren't such offensive weapons that required special weaponry to deal with. Medium and heavy tanks were, and what worked against them also worked against light armour.

[dieseltaylor]

Elmar

IIRC then correctly is redundant : )

The Russians used them aggressivley and considered vision slits legitimate targets. Of course they were favoured by the type of terrain in Eastern Europe where long sight lines were far more common than Italy or Western Europe.

I also would imagine horses would be a legitimate [and tasty] target.

[ArgusEye]

Come to think of it, the spectacular proliferation of 20mm FlAK might have something to do with it.

[Joachim]

The ATR still has to hit something important if it penetrates. And it doesn't help much on a strategic scale if you send a single bullet thru a carrier. The carrier will easily be repaired. Total write offs or capturing vehicles hurts the enemy long term.

Light AA in frontline use and SmK ammo for the MG42 filled the roles of the ATR - and they sent several bullets thru the vehicles. Which lead to more damage and had a bigger chance to hurt the crews and passengers - or at least persuade those to abandon the carrier.

You see something similar in CM: I had good quality HT crews regularly ignore ATR hits in CMBB (of course it were my ATRs...). Low quality crews bail out. Which helps in the battle. But not much in the war.