Soviet use of Panzerschrecks/ scenario design opinions

[Pelican Pal]

Hello, I've been working on a scenario and right now I'm "mostly done". Mostly because I'm working on AI plans/balance which is a ton of work.

Anyway I've been running into the problem that Soviet infantry is incredibly impotent against armor. Even very light armor.

I'm currently considering adding tank hunter teams or giving the soviets Panzerschreck teams. Personally I don't think that the tank hunter teams are effective enough for the AI to easily use so I'm leaning towards the Schrecks.

My two primary questions are:

Did the Soviets use captured Panzerschreks?

What is everyone's opinions on seeing a few Germans holding Schrecks in a Soviet infantry formation?

[Oddball_E8]

Well, apparantly there is a russian manual for using and firing the panzerschreck and panzerfaust so I would imagine that there was some use of it occationally.

As for seeing a few germans in the soviet infantry, I'd say it's not unheard of finding russians with german uniforms and equipment during world war 2.

It'd still be identified as an enemy so I'd just chalk it up to scavenged equipment.

[JasonC]

Pelican Pal - the Russians used a lot more captured fausts than they did schrecks. There were more of them around, there was no issue with finding reloads, etc. Admittedly in the last 18 months of the war, and most of them in the last 12.

The standard Russian infantry AT vs light armor, though, was the ATR. If you give every Russian platoon an ATR, they have some ability to hurt halftracks and such. The other item that is realistic and effective - if limited in range - is pioneers with demo charges.

A reasonable Russian infantry AT special formation might be built around 3 pioneer squads with demo charges, plus 3 tank hunter teams with tommy guns and RPG grenades (hand thrown), plus 6 ATRs, and a good company HQ unit with morale bonuses. They actually did things like that, much more so than having captured panzerschrecks.

They also kept on using towed 45mm anti tank guns to the end of the war, typically just in pairs, with tungsten ammo, and the later models with better muzzle velocity. Those will hole any light armor there is, and all the plain German armor (not Tigers) from the flank, or close enough from the front with that T ammo.

But if they needed to chase down tanks or light armor in a town, e.g., the big AT platoon described in the previous paragraph is how they'd do it.

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

The soviets found the panzerfaust very useful in urban combat, where they were used to blow holes in walls etc., to speed up movement and stay in cover.

About panzerschrecks I think they would have used them when available, but ammo would have been a problem.

[Oddball_E8]

Pelican Pal - the Russians used a lot more captured fausts than they did schrecks. There were more of them around, there was no issue with finding reloads, etc. Admittedly in the last 18 months of the war, and most of them in the last 12.

The standard Russian infantry AT vs light armor, though, was the ATR. If you give every Russian platoon an ATR, they have some ability to hurt halftracks and such. The other item that is realistic and effective - if limited in range - is pioneers with demo charges.

A reasonable Russian infantry AT special formation might be built around 3 pioneer squads with demo charges, plus 3 tank hunter teams with tommy guns and RPG grenades (hand thrown), plus 6 ATRs, and a good company HQ unit with morale bonuses. They actually did things like that, much more so than having captured panzerschrecks.

They also kept on using towed 45mm anti tank guns to the end of the war, typically just in pairs, with tungsten ammo, and the later models with better muzzle velocity. Those will hole any light armor there is, and all the plain German armor (not Tigers) from the flank, or close enough from the front with that T ammo.

But if they needed to chase down tanks or light armor in a town, e.g., the big AT platoon described in the previous paragraph is how they'd do it.

Tommy Guns??

[Michael Emrys]

Tommy Guns??

I think he means the generic name for all machine pistols, not the specific Thompson.

Michael

[Pelican Pal]

JasonC, thanks for the information. I'll try that out.

[Oddball_E8]

I think he means the generic name for all machine pistols, not the specific Thompson.

Michael

Still sounds really weird when talking about the eastern front.

[JasonC]

Michael, Oddball - tommy guns and tommy gunners is what the Russians called them. The Thompson submachinegun was famous from the roaring twenties, and just like Kleenex is used to mean tissue, tommy gun was used to mean submachinegun, generically. Of course the model was the PPsH-41, or later those mixed with the 43 model. It isn't my slang, it is theirs, a period thing not a nationality thing. (A German would say machine pistol, Russians didn't say that).

[John Kettler]

Pelican Pal,

The Russians used lots of Panzerfausts, but I've read nothing so far regarding Panzerschrecks. Infantry accounts on IRemember.ru specifically talk about using 'fausts in the Battle of Berlin to mouse hole basement walls in German row houses, so as to avoid fire swept streets and room-to-room combat inside every structure. There's excellent footage in the middle of an official Russian doc on BoB showing a single 'faust firing.

Battle of Berlin 1945) Битва за Берлин

3:05

0:16

5:05

Unfortunately, I haven't found the (seen repeatedly by me) sequence where almost everybody's got one and the SL firing shot after shot into upper stories of buildings not in frame.

They also had and used a limited number of bazookas, as unmistakably shown here. I estimate these are Scouts/Spetsnaz sent over first to secure the bridgehead and defend it against Panzer attack.

8:00

Regards,

John Kettler

[batteran]

Michael, Oddball - tommy guns and tommy gunners is what the Russians called them. The Thompson submachinegun was famous from the roaring twenties, and just like Kleenex is used to mean tissue, tommy gun was used to mean submachinegun, generically. Of course the model was the PPsH-41, or later those mixed with the 43 model. It isn't my slang, it is theirs, a period thing not a nationality thing. (A German would say machine pistol, Russians didn't say that).

The russian receive, from lend-lease, some Thompson SMG.

I personnaly know 3 folks that have buy one when the russian "disclassified" their stock (relatively recently)

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/84359-lend-lease-thompson-submachine-gun-group-with-acessories/

They were regular thompsons, along whith ppsh41, Mosin, DP-28, captured K98 and so from russian stocks.

[MikeyD]

Thompson SMG has a lower rate of fire than the PPSh, smaller ammo capacity and fires a round at roughly half the muzzle velocity. I suspect a Russian soldier would be about as enthused about being issued a Thompson as a tanker getting an M3 Lee.

[John Kettler]

Pelican Pal, JasonC et al.,

An outright kill by ATR fire isn't needed to defeat tanks. I've written several times of an entire Tiger 1 company at Kursk which was rendered militarily useless by wholesale destruction of vision blocks, together with numerous eye injuries and several severe injuries, such as having the entire vision block bracket and block driven into the TC's face, requiring weeks of hospitalization. The unit not only used up its entire stock of blocks and such, but also battalion's, ultimately being resolved at the regimental level days later (forget how many).

Here is the illustration showing what weapon should be used where to destroy the Ferdinand. Yes, that Ferdinand! In this case, the engagement is from the side, and the ATR is supposed to shoot the gun barrel, which is way bigger than a quite hittable vision block, therefore a great flank shot target.

http://english.battlefield.ru/how-to-destroy-ferdinand-booklet.html

The tactical manual for these ATRs specifically lists optics as vulnerable points on German tanks.

Destroy Fascist Tanks with the Antitank Rifle.

http://english.battlefield.ru/antitank-rifle-booklet.html

"The most vulnerable spots of tanks are: their flanks (fuel cells), drive sprocket, sights, vision devices, and rear hull (engine compartment); of armored vehicles - the engine, located in the forward portion of the vehicle."

Though this was obviously written when the Panzer III was the typical tank threat, note, please, that the Panzer III has a cupola, presenting a juicy vision and sighting device target which the Ferdinand does not. Obviously, this was true for the Tiger I, Panzer IV, Panther and many other German AFVs.

An unfightable tank isn't much of a threat, and in the Op Bagration case under discussion, the ATRs are quite capable of inflicting serious pain, with aimed fire against specific tank components, to something like 400 meters. ATRs carry large ammo loads and can fire at 10-15 rpm. The tactical instructions are quite clear this ROF is to be both practiced and used in battle. Thus, massed ATRs can smother the opponent with damaging shots before anything can be done about it. This wreaks havoc on the scarce Panzers. And unlike all but the smallest towed ATGs, the ATR teams routinely have alternate firing positions and are instructed to quickly relocate, after firing 7-10 rounds, to avoid counterfire. The ATR team can effectively hit out to several multiples of even Panzerschreck range, and is vastly harder to spot and target.

Had the Russians wanted the bazooka, we would've made scads of them for Lend Lease, but they in fact received a mere 3000. (Pg 4, Ln 2 at link)

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/LL-Ship-3A.html

together with a relative handful of real rockets (as opposed to practice rounds)--8500--2.8 rounds per bazooka. No wonder only special troops had them! (Pg 10, Ln 15)

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/LL-Ship-3C.html

The ATR was easy to train troops on, was available in enormous quantities, was cheap, tough (try firing an (easily) dinged bazooka, 'schreck or for real excitement, a maltreated 'faust), highly portable and good enough given all the other war toys the Russians brought out to play.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Pelican Pal]

Unfortunately all weapons in CM fire at center mass so the possible effectiveness of weapons like ATRs is much reduced.