CM2- Did russian infantry have antitank wpns?

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Everyone knows of the fearsome German faust, the schreck, The Yankee zook, The limey Piat.

But did the Russians field antitank wpns in their infantry squads?

Someone enlighten me, or at least tell me to "do a search" in a snotty tone....

[BloodyBucket]

How dare you! Do a search! Don't you know that this topic was discussed at great length back in the pre-beta test secret society code word days?

I think they used Anti-tank rifles early on, then went to magnetic mines. No homegrown rocket launcher of WWII vintage that I know of, and I don't know if Bazookas or PIATs were lend-leased in quantity. Probably used captured German stuff, but I think they relied more on AT guns and other AFVs to do the job.

[Jeff Duquette]

As already indicated the Russians fielded a plethora of anti-tank rifles. Molotav cocktails were also apparently quite popular for those folks blessed with a large quantity of guts. Probably grenade bundles were employed for breaking tracks.

I'm not sure about the Ruskies use of magnetic mines...unless perhaps they were captured from the Germans. I think the Germans were expecting the Soviets to begin employing magnetic mines (thus the liberal us of zimmerit on Panzers), but I don't think the Soviets ever actually fielded a magnetic AT mine of their own during WWII.

Seems to me I recall reading several accounts of late war Soviet Infantry employing captured panzerfausts.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

As already indicated the Russians fielded a plethora of anti-tank rifles. Molotav cocktails were also apparently quite popular for those folks blessed with a large quantity of guts. Probably grenade bundles were employed for breaking tracks.

I'm not sure about the Ruskies use of magnetic mines...unless perhaps they were captured from the Germans. I think the Germans were expecting the Soviets to begin employing magnetic mines (thus the liberal us of zimmerit on Panzers), but I don't think the Soviets ever actually fielded a magnetic AT mine of their own during WWII.

Seems to me I recall reading several accounts of late war Soviet Infantry employing captured panzerfausts.

I believe your beliefs re: magnetic mines are correct; despite what Avalon Hill may have thought, I don't believe they ever fielded them.

Not only did they employ German PF towards the end of the war, they also produced their own copy (the RPG-1).

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

So, the extension of my query is....

What would you guys expect to see modeled in CM for the ruskies? Only a rare late war squad with RPGs? How often would you guess that at rifles will be present, and how could its effects be modeled?

I am just interested in speculations on the subject of Russian squad capabilities for CM2.

Thanks.

[Jarmo]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/017524.html

More than you ever wanted to know about the soviet AT-rifles.

[chasd]

I think the Soviets also had some lend-lease Bazookas'.

[Skipper]

AT rifles, special AT grenades, molotov's, sticky mines (not magnet, but stuck with a goo); some lend-lease zooks, though not many.

Basically, after stopgap AT rifle production in 1941, soviet war industry did not do much in the way of developing a light infantry AT weapon until the end of the war. Instead, resources were devoted to saturating the troops with generous quantities of AT guns and tank destroyers. Those did the job well enough.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I'd expect to see Molotov cocktails as their squad level, intrinsic AT weapons, not always present, like how rifle grenades and fausts are done now. And I'd expect 2 man ATR teams, instead of the zooks, piats, and schrecks the other powers have.

There have been long threads on the ATRs, and you can find some of my thoughts there along with everyone else's if you care to look. But I will briefly recap my preference, instead of the argument that leads to it, about how the ATRs might be handled.

Penetration modeled something like HMGs are today (bit more), but with a relatively low chance of KOing a vehicle penetrated. In addition, though, some chance, even if small, to bog, immobilize, shock, gun-damage, or cause a crew casualty. That is, the main difference from other AT weapon types is "hit does not equal kill", and even "penetrate does not equal kill". On the other side, they have much better range that schreck, piats, zooks.

So, facing Russian infantry, it'd be lots of needles instead of one sledgehammer, with the coup de grace administered by Molotov if the infantry can get close.

[BloodyBucket]

Interesting! I freely admit my assumption that the soviets used magnetic mines was based solely on playing UpFront. I am shocked, shocked to find historical innacuracies in a game.

------------------

"Roll on"

[Jeff Duquette]

Casd Said: I think the Soviets also had some lend-lease Bazookas'.

I’ve seen numerous war games portray late 1943 through 45’ish Soviet Infantry Teams fielding bazookas. Anybody have any hard evidence regarding possible Soviet employment of Bazookas…AAR’s? Perhaps lend-lease stats on the Bazookas?

[Michael Dorosh]

I'd be interested on "hard" data also re: Molotov Cocktails, now that the subject has been brought up, and a request made for their inclusion as a regular support weapon akin to US rifle grenades. Can anyone back such a claim?

[gunnergoz]

One thing that the Russians used to considerable effect (and which I'm sure CM2 WILL NOT model is trained anti-tank dogs.

These dogs were trained to look for food under farm tractors. They were then released on the battlefield with a mine or explosive charge strapped to their back.

Wouldn't the SPCA have a field day with that one! And if CM2 could somehow model it, I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it if a certain type of animal rights group got a hold of it.

BTW I love animals my self and deplore the practice, but history is history.

[Jeff Duquette]

Of course there was also the ever popular Anti-tank mission for the Red Army K-Nine Corps. Pavlov’s Mine Doggies.

[Jeff Duquette]

Dam gunnergoz…you bet me to the draw by seconds.

[Jeff Duquette]

Another vague memory from some past reading...were the Finish the original developers of the Molotav Cocktail?

[Michael Dorosh]

If anyone can suggest a source that states that the Mine Dog experiement actually bore fruit, I'd love to read about it. The claim that they were "used to considerable effect" seems spurious at best.

Even if they did work, wouldn't they have been more effective against tanks that were laagered but with their engine running as opposed to a moving tank in the middle of a tactical-fight like we see in CM?

Please!

I do believe the Finns invented the cocktail, and being the generous souls they are, named it after the Soviet foreign minister.

[Skipper]

While it is hardly known who invented the recipe, pretty surely it was finns who invented the name.

Btw, soviet infantry referred to these simply "bottles".

Dogs were used as smart AT mines, in numbers sufficient to deserve notion. I thuink, we are talking thousands here.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Dogs were used as smart AT mines, in numbers sufficient to deserve notion. I thuink, we are talking thousands here.

Well, I'm as guilty as Bloody Bucket - my only knowledge of them comes from the variant article in ASL Annual (another fine Avalon Hill product). Would be interested in reading more about them - is there a reliable online source that discusses them? I am still under the impression that they were trained to go under tanks by using the Pavlovian process of feeding them only under running vehicles. Not sure how this would prompt a dog to run under a tank in the middle of a battle, but as I say, I have no frame of reference. Perhaps someone could post detailed info on them?

The ASL article also mentioned that once the Germans put "bitches in heat" out near their tanks, the Mine Dogs ceased to be effective. I doubt we'll see that modelled in CM either.

[Robert Mayer]

I've been training my dog to attack tanks, too. I set a bowl of kibble under the car, and whenever she eats, I shout "boom!" really loudly.

So far I haven't been attacked by a single tank in my neighborhood!

[Panzer Leader]

Well, I am reading Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad" and he briefly goes into the details of these infamous "mine dogs." From what I can tell, they had little affect other than causing German Infantry to shoot all dogs on sight.

Actually, Beevor maintains that it was more of a morale damaging tactic than anything, since the Germans had such a great love of dogs and the soldiers became depressed at having to shoot them when they saw them.

I would feel confident in saying that no battles hinged on the correct employment of "mine dogs" and their usefulness was limited at best, more likely they will go down as one of those anecdotes of the war.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Robert Mayer:

I've been training my dog to attack tanks, too. I set a bowl of kibble under the car, and whenever she eats, I shout "boom!" really loudly.

So far I haven't been attacked by a single tank in my neighborhood!

You're one of the unsung heroes. The ingrates in your neighbourhood probably never even thanked you.

Reminds me of my own country's ingratitude - I mean, I was in the Army during the Gulf War, and despite the fact that not one single Iraqi tank ever made it as far as Macleod Trail here in Calgary, I never even got a medal.

Thanks for the info Panzer Leader. Sounds a lot like that "bat bombs' that were used in the Pacific.

[Panzer Leader]

To add to the discussion of ATR's I would say that Jason summed it up pretty well. They were not totally ineffective against tanks, but their use was limited to lucky shots.

Aninteresting thing I read (in the same book mentioned above) was that Zaitsev, the infamous sniper of "Enemy at the Gates" fame used a sniper scope attached to an ATR in order to take out MG nests. They were very effective and the technique was adopted by the Soviet army in Stalingrad.

One thing I am unsure of is just how effective were Molotov cocktails? I have not been able to find information on their use as AT weapons. Beevor mentions their prevalence in Stalingrad, especially in the building-by-building fighting, but doesn't go into any sort of detail about the actual usage of the firebombs.

I am a litle skeptical of their value. It seems to me that a grenade would be at least as effective, probably more so, and would have a better range, more accuracy, and a more stable detonation. I could however, be totally wrong.

[Red Comrade]

What about mol-projectors? Russians used it against tanks and dots. Specially in Leningrad and Tula. Mol-projector throws a glass ampoules full of napalm-like liquid. Good for burn infantry. WERY cheap. When out of ammo, it can throw Molotovs, but Molotov has a bad range and accuracy.

Weight: 26Kg (Wheeled: 41Kg)

Range: 400m

In the whole war was released 1200 mol-projectors!

The squad consist of 2 soldiers, loader and shooter

----------------

Sorry 4 BAD eNgLISh

------------------

[This message has been edited by Red Comrade (edited 04-04-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Red Comrade (edited 04-04-2001).]

[tss]

Panzer Leader wrote:

One thing I am unsure of is just how effective were Molotov cocktails?

That depends on the situation. A well-placed Molotov coctail on the engine grill will likely result in a destroyed tank, and it probably can't be easily repaired. Also, they create a lot of smoke and may blind the tank crew so that you can approach and destroy it by other weapons (like demolition charges).

However, they work best against immobilized tanks since it is difficult to get an engine hit if the target moves. Usually a tank had to be hit by several coctails before it was destroyed, and even then the destruction was not certain. Some time ago I read of an occurence when a Finnish platoon met KV tanks the first time. There were two of them, and both got numerous hits from demolition charges and Molotov coctails (and 45mm ATG and 20mm ATR), but both managed to retreat to safety.

The Finnish doctrine was that the tank should be first immobilized by a demolition charge and then finished with a Molotov coctail.

I am a litle skeptical of their value. It seems to me that a grenade would be at least as effective, probably more so, and would have a better range, more accuracy, and a more stable detonation.

A grenade may be more accurate and have longer range but it certainly is not more effective since a single hand grenade doesn't do anything to a tank barring a really lucky hit. A bundle of grenades may do something, but then you lose much of the accuracy and range.

Early in the war 1 kg demolition charges were enough to immobilize (and in a lucky case destroy) a light tank. A 2 kg charge could knock out a light tank and severely damage a medium one. A 4 kg one could destroy just about any tank before KVs came to battlefield. To destroy a KV, you had to get a 6 kg charge on its deck. That big charge has much shorter range than a 1 liter Molotov coctail and probably a lot poorer accuracy (though I'm not certain about that). A Molotov coctail was much safer to its user than a large demolition charge since it didn't have blast radius.

In any case, destroying a tank by either a demolition charge or a Molotov coctail took a lot of courage and a hefty dose of good luck and it would be almost impossible if the tanks were adequately protected by infantry.

- Tommi