Soviet AT deficiency, why?

[Commissar]

The Soviets seem to never be successful in developing a rocket-propelled, infantry portable AT weapon like the PIAT (Ok, this wasn't truly rocket-propelled but you get the idea), Bazooka, Panzerschreck or Panzerfaust. I know the US/Brit send some of theirs as Lend Lease but there never was a whole lot of them. Why is this? Did the Russians not request more or the US/Brit didn't have enough to hand over? I know that the Soviets has some RPG on the drawing boards but it didn't come out until after the war was over. What prevented the Soviets from doing so?

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[lcm1947]

I wasn't aware of this so good question. I will also be waiting to hear the answer. I love learning stuff and the guys on this forum are excellent - well sometimes anyway.

[Jarmo]

I'd guess it just wasn't high on the priority list.

Soviets had lots of ways to deal with tanks already.

Tanks, SP guns, AT-guns, jabo's, arty.

[Commissar]

Yes, but so did the Allies but that didn't prevent them from developing them. The Germans developed two excellent infantry-portable AT weapons. You'd think the Soviets could have at least copied the bazooka.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:

The Soviets seem to never be successful in developing a rocket-propelled, infantry portable AT weapon like the PIAT (Ok, this wasn't truly rocket-propelled but you get the idea), Bazooka, Panzerschreck or Panzerfaust. I know the US/Brit send some of theirs as Lend Lease but there never was a whole lot of them. Why is this? Did the Russians not request more or the US/Brit didn't have enough to hand over? I know that the Soviets has some RPG on the drawing boards but it didn't come out until after the war was over. What prevented the Soviets from doing so?

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mainly because their was no urgent need for one initialy, as Soviet AT rifles (PTRD & PTRS) were more then adequate against German tanks until the appearence of the Tiger E in 1942, and even after that as The Tiger E was only encountered in limited numbers.

The AT rifles could still deal with PzKpfw, III, & IV side turret armor until the appearence of skirts on the German tanks. The Germans first attempted to countere the 14.5mm round by increasing the PzKpfw III Ausf E & PzKpfw IV Ausf F side turret armor to 30mm, as well as increasing side hull armor from 14.5mm to 30mm etc, as well on both tanks. But it was still found the 14.5mm round could defeat the side armor at ranges below 400m, as well as penetrate vision ports. The PTRD fired an 14.5mm round at 3,320ft/sec (1,010m/sec) with a pen of 25mm @ 500m @ 0^.

Also the German use of armored skirting was not a result of trying to defeat shaped charge rounds, but a development to defeat the Soviet AT rifle ammunition. Soviet 14.5mm rounds could even penetrate the lower side hull, (between the suspension & side hull) armor of a Panther, which led to the use of skirting on the Panther as well.

The Soviets employed mass use of AT rifles in their organizations Ie, an 1942 Rifle Div had 279 AT rifles, an Rifle Bn had an ATR Co with 48 men in 2 Plts, with an Plt consisting of 1 Officer, 9 N CO's & 10 men with 8 AT Rifles per Plt. An prime example of mass AT rifle use was Zitadelle where the ATR's were incorperated into the extensive AT defense belts.

Soviet Inf seldom had to worry about a tank threat in the way the Germans had to after July 1943, so their was no real urgent practical need for an RPG, as their was with the Germans.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Stalin's Organ]

I think keeping things simple also had a big part to play in Soviet decision making.

They wold have had to allocate resources to R&D to develop an local version of the Bazooka (which they did get some of), and then manufacturing facilities.

Also it used a lot more explosives than the ATR alternative, and the Sov's were quite short of explosives

Then there aer some operational limits to RCL weapons - less ammo could be carried (one good thing about ATR's in CMBB is that I don't expect them to run out of ammo much!), they're hard to hide, and difficult to use in built up areas.

Overall they just felt it wasn't worth the effort of making the required resources available to replicate.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I cannot resist answering this one as I read in one of Glantz’s books, I think it was one of Glantz’s books, that the reason is that the “entire” team developing the infantry AT weapons was wiped out in the purges. Just random bad luck. The explanation goes on to make clear that the Soviets were as up on HEAT technology as anyone. You will see a lot of it in CMBB for the various Soviet guns.

I forget “exactly” where I read it but it stuck in my memory because I too have wondered about the reason for no Soviet HEAT throwing weapon. BTW the RPG 43 HEAT grenade was a fine design within its limits as a hand thrown grenade.

All the best,

Kip.

[PzKpfw 1]

Interesting Kip as the Soviet's copied German SC rounds for their 76mm & 122mm howitzers. The rounds began appearing in mid 1942, comments were that penetration due to poor workmanship was less then that of the original German round, & due to the low MV accuracy vs moveing targets was poor (nothing new their all SC round accuracy suffered from it).

Below are the Soviet Artillery guns that had SC rounds produced during the war:

- 76mm M1927 Regimental gun.

- 76mm M1902/30 L/40 Divisional gun.

- 76mm M1939 "

- 76mm M1942 "

- 107mm M1910/30 Corps Cannon

- 107mm M1940/30 "

- 122mm M1938 Howitzer

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Adam Lloyd:

John,

When did the HEAT round come into play? I really like the idea, since it has the versatility, range, and accuracy of an AT rifle but also can penetrate thick armor like a shaped charge.

Thanks!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure when exactly the term HEAT was coined I remeber it was the object of some debate on Tanker's at one time as ppl were refering to WW2 schaped charge ammunition as 'HEAT' which sparked some big bru hah on correct terminology ......

Regards, John Waters

[Tero]

The Red Army had recoilless guns deployed already in 1939 but they were dropped.

I think we are looking at rigid institutional thinking here. They had tested the SMG before the war and deemed it unsuitable for combat. Then they got a lesson on the effects of SMG's in combat and they acted accordingly. By the time they encountered manportable recoilless AT weapons they could not alter their production plans for fear of disrupting production of conventional weapons. And by the time they could have done so the German tank was being exterminated with existing assets. And they had at their disposal quantities of captured weapons. That is why they did not hurry the RPG's to the front.

[kipanderson]

John, hi,

I am happy to go with what you say.

My post was just one of those small items of information that one reads and then it sticks because it is of interest.

When it comes to the quality of Soviet HEAT rounds my information, from British sources, is that in artillery shell form we are talking about diameter to penetration ratio of 1:1. The last generation of German HEAT shells, which were produced 43/44, had a diameter to penetration ratio of 1:1.2. This means that Soviet 76.2mm HEAT shells had a penetration of 76mm and the last generation of German 75mm HEAT shells could penetrate 90mm.

For bazooka type weapons penetration is greater, relative to the diameter of the weapon, because the stand off distance is greater and the velocity less.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The RPG 43 does mean that “if” one can separate German AFVs from their infantry Soviet infantry could destroy them. The RGP 43 could penetrate the roof of any Panzer with ease, if it hit.