Soviet anti-tank rifles!

[gunnergoz]

Jason, not every Russian light tank had a 45mm gun, correct? And those that did not were often employed where they were in the midst of German tanks that outclassed them. This was forced upon the Soviets by circumstance and fortune as much as deliberate decision and doctrine.

Yes, some Russian light tanks like the T-70 could take on a Pz-III with some equivalence. But there were thousands of 20mm armed T-60's and amphibious light tanks that had to be pressed into tasks outside of their originally intended recon and screening functions. They were common sights on the battlefields until they were blown up or eventually replaced by more modern and battleworty equipment.

Again, the Soviet leadership kept such tanks in production (longer, perhaps than we think we would have done so) because they were better than nothing. The factories produced them were best used making tanks than autos or trucks, at least at this point in the war. It was an intelligent tradeoff relative to the realities of the day.

My point is only that hindsight is 20-20.

We are only armchair generals and peacetime scholars. It is another thing altogether to be in the middle of a war, whether one is a common soldier or a leader in a position of influence.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

P.S. - "oh no! There is a numeral there! Run for your lives!"

In joke.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

P.S. - "oh no! There is a numeral there! Run for your lives!"

In joke.

running...

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[gunnergoz]

Jason, not every Russian light tank had a 45mm gun, correct? And those that did not were often employed where they were in the midst of German tanks that outclassed them. This was forced upon the Soviets by circumstance and fortune as much as deliberate decision and doctrine.

Yes, some Russian light tanks like the T-70 could take on a Pz-III with some equivalence. But there were thousands of 20mm armed T-60's and amphibious light tanks that had to be pressed into tasks outside of their originally intended recon and screening functions. They were common sights on the battlefields until they were blown up or eventually replaced by more modern and battleworty equipment.

One source, Zaloga's Red Army Handbook, 1939-45 indicates that 20mm armed T-60's were produced in significant numbers through 1942, in fact 1800 in '41 and 4400 in '42. In 1942 the 45mm armed T-70's appeared, some 4800 that year and 3300 the next. After this, light tank production facilities shifted their efforts to build in quantity the SU-76 assault gun, finally fielding a unit that had some chance of getting in some licks against the current generations of German tanks.

Again, the Soviet leadership kept such light tanks in production (longer, perhaps than we think we would have done so) because they were better than nothing. The factories produced them were best used making tanks than autos or trucks, at least at this point in the war. It was an intelligent tradeoff relative to the realities of the day.

My point is only that hindsight is 20-20.

We are only armchair generals and peacetime scholars. It is another thing altogether to be in the middle of a war, whether one is a common soldier or a leader in a position of influence.

Sorry about the double posting guys, pushed the wrong darn button evidently!

[This message has been edited by gunnergoz (edited 03-21-2001).]

[Guest machineman]

Reading up a little and according to Ian Hogg when the Germans invaded the Soviets had no anti-tank rifles at all, nothing. The PTRD and PTRS rifles were designed as a 'rush job', ordered in July 1941 and in production by November. In 1942 over 250,000 were produced and production was not stopped until late 1944.

On a modern note one thing anti-tank rifles of that vintage are good for apparently is shooting down helicopters. Afgan rebels were said to have favored them for going after Soviet 'Hips' and 'Hinds'. No smoke trail to give away position like a rocket would.

[Mattias]

Hofbauer,

And what pray tell does that prove? Wire mesh could be just as effective in disrupting the path as a steel plate.

I just don't understand why it is impossible to accept, if nothing else based solely on it's own merit. I mean, it does protect you from ATG shots, doesn't it?

Now, for the facts:

Let me quote Spielberger in his book on the PzKw IV:

(my no frills translation)

On the 17th of February 1943 the "Panzerkommision" decided to put forth to the Führer the suggestion of an extra protection armour for the sides and the front.

Suggested was a test armour from Daimler-Benz with 5 mm plates on the chassis and 10 mm plates around the turret (total weight around 600 kg).

The test armour was presented to the Führer at a short driving and test firing show on the 20th of February 1943 at the Kummersdorf testing range.

Test firings were made with Russian 14.5 mm ATR. At ranges of 100 meters there was no cracks in or penetrations of the 30 mm side armour protected by skirts.

75 mm HE grenades was fired from a field gun (charge 2) and that too failed to damage the hull sides when protected by plate or wire mesh.

Both the plates and the wire mesh was penetrated and at times torn off but remained usable.

The reason for choosing plates instead of wire mesh (despite the fact that both had been proven effective) was due to the fact that frame and mounting of the wire mesh was not yet sufficiently developed.

The skirts were not tested against hollow charged rounds as they were not foreseen as protection against this type of ammunition.

At the Führer conference on the 6th of March Hitler was informed of the successful progress of the firing trials with the skirts.

It was decided that all newly production StuG's, Pz.Kpfw.IV and Panther as soon as possibly should be fitted with skirts. Also that all such vehicles in action and repair should be fitted when possible.

From April 1943 the production Pz.IV's (model "G") were fitted with skirts.

Hofbauer, please direct me to a reliable source that makes a similarly convincing argument in favour of your standpoint, E.I. that that skirts were fitted primarily as a protection from hollow charge rounds.

It doesn’t really matter to me if I'm right or wrong as long as it is the real facts that prevail. The myths are just choking.

M.

[M Hofbauer]

I am similarly unbiased and open to believe that the skirts were for countering the ATRs if convincing fact is presented. Your quote is interesting but does not convince me. My main doubts arise among this reasoning:

1) Mesh wire is not a good thing to stop an ATR projectile; as you know, mesh wire consists of holes with wire inbetween. To *me*, that does not look like a good way to armor something. If four centimeters of *armor* won't stop an ATR round, then wire is not gonna help a lot. And holes would help even less.

2) The material from which the Schürzen were made was non-hardened /non-armor, simple metal less than 5mm thick. If they were used for a purpose of increasing ARMOR then surely they would have been made of hardened armor not simple "soft" sheet metal.

3) I have never seen the "10mm front skirts" your source talks about....? And besides if it was designed against ATRs then why 5mm on the sides and 10mm on the front when the front already was practically immune to the ATRs?

4) On a similar note to 3), many armor areas on tanks were covered by Schürzen which were already thick enough to stop the 14.5mm ATR rounds (but vulnerable to HC munitions).

I have to concede though you might have a point about the date. But even then, HC rounds for low-velocity guns had been in use long before the war had started. Also, the Germans were busy developing their own HC infantry weapons, and it was only a question of time before they would encounter them from the enemy. The British had already introduced the PIAT in 1942 IIRC. Well Mattias you *did* manage to give me doubts, congratulations :-p

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 03-21-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

83% of the Russian light tank fleet had 45mm guns. 17% had 20mm, the T-60s, used as scouts for T-34s and KV-1s, in exactly the same doctrinal role as the German Pz IIs, at the same time period.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Man, everyone laughs at the 38(t). The 38(t) was a *good* tank in '41. Wait until you have to play with the 35(t), which equipped the 6th Pz. Div. in '41.

[Mattias]

Fair enough!

1) Mesh wire is not a good thing to stop an ATR projectile; as you know, mesh wire consists of holes with wire inbetween. To *me*, that does not look like a good way to armor something. If centimeters of armor won't stop an ATR round, then wire is not gonna help a lot. And holes would help even less.

2) The material from which the Schürzen were made was non-hardened /non-armor, simple metal less than 5mm thick. If they were used for a purpose of increasing ARMOR then surely they would have been made of hardened armor not simple "soft" sheet metal.

I put forth my reasoning behind this in a previous post in this thread. I’ll say it again, the purpose of the skirts, solid or mesh, is not to stop the bullet, nor is it to bleed it of energy, the purpose is to disturb the flight path of the incoming round.

Every little environmental condition from wind and upwards influences the path of the round. Needless to say a barrier in the shape of a steel plate or woven steel mesh constitutes a major disturbance to the ballistic behaviour of the incoming round.

The result of this disturbance is that the round strikes the main armour at an sub-optimal angel. It might very well start turning or wobbling, thus substantially lessening the damage potential of the hit. This is why the test are successful with mesh as well.

It works this way. The ATR tests show it. On a slightly less authoritative level, I had plenty of opportunities during my military service to observe the results of 7.62 mm rounds going through sheet metal targets, and the rounds went in all kinds of odd directions after going through.

Thus, if you accept my reasoning, points 1 and 2 should be explained.

3) I have never seen the "10mm front skirts" your source talks about....? And besides if it was designed against ATRs then why 5mm on the sides and 10mm on the front when the front already was practically immune to the ATRs?

4) On a similar note to 3), many armor areas on tanks were covered by Schürzen which were already thick enough to stop the 14.5mm ATR rounds (but vulnerable to HC munitions).

Generally this misses some of the benefits of the skirts, as I am convinced that the front would also have been helped by increased protecting of the various driver, hull MG, cannon barrel, sight opening etc, weaknesses in the front. It is reasonable to assume though, that this was not done due to the difficulty of fitting the skirts in a way that would not be a considerable hindrance in the regular use of these items.

However…

Reading again I realise that I made an error, I read it right but wrote it wrong. The exact text reads “seitlich und hinten” which of course means “on the side and rear”. Neither of which is “sufficiently” armoured.

The term “around” the turret might be confusing but is in reality limited to what we can see on the Pz IV (note that the skirts actually extent slightly to the front though). If I have ever used the term “in front” it might be that I have erroneously interpreted the German term “vor dem Turm”, which hear mean “in front of the turret –armour-“.

None of this really matters though as the real world application of skirts supports my general reasoning. If it can be applied in an ergonomically sound way it should be placed there.

Finally Hofbauer:

Would it not be reasonable and in line with your arguments to see even more skirts on HEAT protected tanks as none of the armour surfaces are safe from penetration? If indeed this was the idea from the outset?

A Panther or King Tiger would certainly be an asset valuable enough to warrant skirts if they were meant to stop HEAT rounds.

Well Mattias you *did* manage to give me doubts, congratulations :-p

I won’t stop at that

M.

[This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 03-21-2001).]

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

83% of the Russian light tank fleet had 45mm guns. 17% had 20mm, the T-60s, used as scouts for T-34s and KV-1s, in exactly the same doctrinal role as the German Pz IIs, at the same time period.

Fine, Jason, but I'd love to see your sources and how you came up with those percentages. And, I'd like to pose a question or two of my own:

- Are you counting the T-26 as a medium or light tank?

- Are you assuming that there were different doctrines for the use units armed with 45mm vs 20mm gunned lights?

- Are you assuming that all of these tanks were in existance at the same moment?

Just wondering...

BTW, I'll make a point of not referring to your reply -if any- as "silly" no matter how I think about it.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Man, everyone laughs at the 38(t). The 38(t) was a *good* tank in '41. Wait until you have to play with the 35(t), which equipped the 6th Pz. Div. in '41.

I have respect for the 38T myself, so did Guderion.

[ScoutPL]

You know I dont really "know" the facts about the skirts, I was just wondering in my original post since I thought the skirts were kinda early precursers to todays reactive armor. In other words, dissipate some of the energy of the incoming round before it struck the main hull. And since most tof the skirts I've seen in photos from the era look very thin I just assumed it was there mainly as a defense against explosive charges that detonated when they impacted with something i.e. bazookas and piats. If MASS PRODUCED skirts predated the rocket launchers then perhaps they were developed to counter the ATR's. Though I'm not entirely convinced the ATR's were effective enough to warrant such a wide upgrading of armor.

Personaly if I had been a tank commander in WWII I would have welded on skirts and shelving, then stacked a couple rows of sandbags on the shelving. Sure I would have only managed a top speed of approx. 10 mph, but at least I wouldnt have had to worry about "death from a thousand needles!"

(For the uninitiated that last paragraph was written with dark sarcasm.)

[Mattias]

Ok, I cannot really relate to any of the doubts you guys hold with regards to the origin of the schürtzen, there are just so many facts that can be stacked up in favour of an idea after all.

But if you are going to cling on to your version of reality, please produce some facts to substantiate your claims when posting on the forum.

For all I know I could be wrong about the whole concept of schürtzen but at least it is clear how I came to hold this misconception.

M.

[GriffinCheng+]

ScoutPL,

Kinda OT, but sandbags would be great for moral but of not much use in real situation, against PS and PF. Last night, I am reading "M4 - Medium Tank" from Ospey while sitting in the restroom. I came across a paragraph which mentioned some M4 crews actually wield the armor plate from KO Panther thank instead.

Griffin.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

Get the CMSOD at Combat Missing Command Post (CMCP) at http://www.angelfire.com/games3/CMCP/

[Mattias]

Hofbauer,

You being a bit of an authority on the subject could you confirm whether WWII wintage HEAT rounds had metal liners (the metal “cone” ), or not?

Did the German hand held AT weapons have it, and did different nations use radically different technical solutions?

M.

[M Hofbauer]

Mattias,

I am not an authority I merely collect and compare data and info I read about.

I cannot speak for WWII HEAT rounds per se. Also, I do not even know about all german shaped charges.

Sometimes mention of a liner is being made, or you see cut-open sketches with drawings that look suspiciously like a liner, but I haven't seen one yet, therefore I *am* pretty positive that the regular PzF up to the PzF 60 (and probably 100 too) did *not* have a metal liner. I think I read somewhere that the totally redesigned PzF 150 had one, and this would indicate respective findings by the development team in the process of experimenting with the weapon's development, but frankly I doubt it (but that's just my personal impression).

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Mattias]

I’m sorry if I came through sounding a bit aggressive on this Hofbauer, nothing personal though.

It’s just that the skirt “question” is a clear example of one of those many off hand interpretations of historical facts that seem to take on a life of their own as time goes by. The further we get from the original sources the more confusing it gets. You no doubt know all about it.

In the end however, it gets sort of old having these history channel big glossy picture book truisms swooping in again and again. Not that they are always wrong, it’s just that they can never be sufficiently substantiated to stand up to close scrutiny. Because of this they are, in my opinion, of limited interest.

The biggest problem of course being that they are often wrong or at least grossly simplifies reality.

They muddle, distort and unnecessary polarises the debate of what really was.

M.

[Mark IV]

AT rifles started by accident in WWI. The Germans had been issued "K" bullets for the standard Mauser and for MGs in 1915, with heavier slugs with tungsten-carbide cores. They were made with special precision ("match grade" in shooting parlance) and were issued for MGs and some snipers. The greater weight, precision loads, and perfect shape of the premium rounds enable long-range accuracy. According to Weeks in "Men Against Tanks", they were used to penetrate the thin metal plates used by sentries in the trenches for protection.

It was when the Germans captured two British tanks at Bullecourt in 1917 that it was discovered that they had penetrated the British armor. Infantry were immediately issued 5 rounds each of K bullets for use in the standard Mauser.

The Brits also realized this and the Mark IV debuted in June 1917 with thicker and harder armor, which stopped ordinary K bullets. So the Germans began work on the first antitank rifle, a 13mm single-shot based on the Mauser (the Mauser T-Gewehr).

Between the wars, it was the Polish who revived the ATR idea in 1935, with the Marosczek, using a huge powder charge necked down to a 7.92 bullet. It could penetrate 3/4" at 300 yds., very good stuff for the day.

So the British developed the Boys rifle, the Germans went back into business with Pzb38, and the Finns with the Lahti, probably the best of the bunch. This is what is supposed to have impressed the Soviets so much as to introduce their own ATR. They were the only ones to keep issuing them through the remainder of the war (though the Japanese and others continued using the ones they had).

Weeks theorizes that the PTRD and PTRS were the only designs available, and that Soviet factories were busy making "more important guns and tanks". He wonders, as do many, why they never copied the US bazooka.

Anyway, the AT rifles in production at the start of WWII were effective enough to penetrate any German tank made at the time, though not always from the front. That would be a good reason to have them. In 1941 they would still have the ability to disable a large percentage of the German tanks and other vehicles used in Barbarossa (infantry are also interested in stopping half tracks and armored cars).

So, not so dumb. You use whatcha got.

The other benefit to the screens would be pre-deformation of an incoming projectile, as the shape of the round is critical to its ability to penetrate. Flatten out the nose (easy to do at those velocities, twigs will do it) and you seriously hinder its effectiveness.

[M Hofbauer]

Mattias,

no problem, I've known you for too long as to take offense. From your point of view your annoyance with this is understandable. I must admit that currently my opinion has changed a bit compared to before your statements.

I know it wasn't supposed to STOP them, but even then I have a problem with this "influence the flight path" theory (which I originally meant with my comment). It's that the skirts are too close and flimsy to the armor to make for much change in the bearing / attitude / flight path of the bullet, especially considering the projectile has a momentum of over 30,000 Joule...

Nevertheless, my personal opinion right now has swayed in favor of the skirts having been developed to help both against ATRs and shaped charges. Coincidentally, that's also what Hahn's statement on the issue is. I had discarded it before due to the doubts I have outlined above.

[M Hofbauer]

hmmm...thinking about it, the fact alone that the Germans might not yet have encountered shaped-charge infantry AT weapons (PIAT and HC inf. gun ammunitions notwithstanding) to any significant degree at the time the skirts were introduced is not conclusive. Remember they didn't need any enemy magnetic-attached mines at all to develop Zimmerit. Just another thought.

So date of introduction alone does not tell a lot. Historic documents about the skirts being developed specifically to counter ATRs are another thing, however.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

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

"Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ)

[Mattias]

Hofbauer,

Well, topping it off with this fine point from Mark IV the issue really is moot for me.

The other benefit to the screens would be pre-deformation of an incoming projectile, as the shape of the round is critical to its ability to penetrate. Flatten out the nose (easy to do at those velocities, twigs will do it) and you seriously hinder its effectiveness.

In conclusion there is everything pointing in favour of the ATR theory and nothing but unsubstantiated assumptions speaking for the HEAT theory.

The only thing even remotely supporting the idea that protection from hollow charges was the factor that initiated this development is the fact that we now can say that it might have offered such protection and that more modern designs have used a similar looking solutions. Had this not been the case no one would have given this a second thought.

I’m convinced that the idea that skirts were mounted because of the fear of hollow charge rounds is based on a fundamental misconception that has then lived on in the post war literature because no has questioned it. The matter hardly decided the war after all.

M.

[Guest Kimerik]

I read from British source that skirts were added to defeat the penetrating cap of the shot. The penetrating cap was meat to pivot the shot upon impact on sloped armour to enable the shot to attack the plate at 90 degree angle.

The source: Peter Gudgin - Armour 2000

[Zakalwe]

Originally posted by Mark IV:

So the British developed the Boys rifle, the Germans went back into business with Pzb38, and the Finns with the Lahti, probably the best of the bunch. This is what is supposed to have impressed the Soviets so much as to introduce their own ATR. They were the only ones to keep issuing them through the remainder of the war (though the Japanese and others continued using the ones they had).

It seems to me that the Soviet ATRs have very little in common with the Lahti ATR. Rather, they were products of different design approaches - PTRD and PTRS were far lighter weapons, they could actually be called rifles without stretching the concept too far. The Lahti ATR, however, was halfway between a rifle and an AT-gun; a design philosophy also evident in the Swiss Solothurn ATR, and taken to the extreme with the German 28mm taper-bore gun, which straddled the line between ATRs and ATGs.

I doubt that the Soviet designers were familiar with Lahti, as the weapon was not in service with the Finnish Army during the Winter War.

[ScoutPL]

Ok Mattias has plainly stated his position and has almost convinced me I dont need to stay in this any longer. I'm pretty much done arguing points with folks who's onoly reply to a suggestion or opinion is to lash out. I would like to know why the "glossy photos" of the western european front show skirts on a lot of german tanks when ATR's werent used by the vast majority of the allied armies there.