Soviet anti-tank rifles!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 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.

Forever Babra has posted a good picture several times of Canadian Shermans plastered with spare track. Canadian tankers used every kind of track they could get on their Shermans, and believed very strongly that it would save their lives - this included "captured" or salvaged Panther and Tiger track, Churchill track, whatever. Sandbag, or "soft" armour was also used - I don't know of ScoutPL was being facetious or not, but he has one way or another suggested exactly what Allied tank crews did in WW II. Whether or not spare track or sandbag increased protection enough to save them from an 88 or 75 mm hit (or LATW) is for others more learned than I to debate - but they routinely protected their tanks in this manner. ScoutPL is also right about performance suffering - the drive train was put under greater stress by the added weight, and obviously speed was affected. Most tankers didn't care. Commanders had mixed feelings - there is a famous photo of Patton stalking away from a US Army Sherman he has just stopped and yelled at the commander of. The tank is covered, if I remember correctly, with sandbags. I believe Patton's views on this have been discussed in another thread; I don't recall his exact reasoning - if it was concern for the mechanical reliablity, or simply a feeling that such protection was a sign of some moral weakness on the part of the crews whom he felt should be more offensive minded.

Certainly, this added armour negated the advantages of speed, gyrostabilizer (for those crews that were comfortable using them) and fast turret rotation. But as we all know, terrain often negated these advantages anyway.

[Mattias]

Scout,

I fail to see what's so complicated about this.

1. Originally the schürtzen were constructed as an added protection against ATR fire

2. But since they were found to have a lot of other benefits as well, they were retained in production and fitted when available.

Therefore you see them on photos in the west.

The original reason for fitting them does not change because other uses emerges. The whole point of discussing this detail has been to clarify the intent of the designers, not what happened afterwards.

M.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

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

Ya know, someday Jason it going to argue that water is wet, and then you'll have to argue that it's not.

Red Steel lists the T-26 as a light tank.

http://www.algonet.se/~toriert/t26.htm

The Russian Battlefield also lists it as a light tank.

http://history.vif2.ru/map.html

If want to expend a little effort and come up with your own information, to counter Jason's, you might use this page:

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat6.html

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

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or

http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or

http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

[GriffinCheng+]

Michael,

First off, I am not saying SoutPL is wrong! Please, note: I am saying about sandbag against PF and PS! (scratching head) Oh, anyway, thanks for posting the point.

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/

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng+ (edited 03-22-2001).]

[GriffinCheng+]

More about sandbags:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/014839.html

I think I was just summarizing the above thread, but...nevermind.

Just stay cool

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/

[LimShady]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Commanders had mixed feelings - there is a famous photo of Patton stalking away from a US Army Sherman he has just stopped and yelled at the commander of. The tank is covered, if I remember correctly, with sandbags.

Hi Michael,

I seen that photo too, IIRC the tank in question is a Pershing. Which begs the following (at least for me):

1.) Despite the Army's classification, I guess the TC's knew that they couldn't go toe-to-toe with a Tiger all the time.

2.) Did they know about the Pershing's suspension problems?

LimShady

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by LimShady:

Hi Michael,

I seen that photo too, IIRC the tank in question is a Pershing. Which begs the following (at least for me):

1.) Despite the Army's classification, I guess the TC's knew that they couldn't go toe-to-toe with a Tiger all the time.

2.) Did they know about the Pershing's suspension problems?

LimShady

The photo I've seen is a Sherman. Now I'm intrigued, perhaps there are more than one photo?

I wasn't aware that Pershing crews also added armour protection, but I have no real knowledge of them. Would be interesting to learn more.

The photo I speak of is on p. 465 of GREAT AMERICAN GENERALS OF WORLD WAR TWO ISBN 0 86124 157 6 (the Patton chapter, I notice for the first time, is written by Ian Hogg!!!)

There is no photo credit (ie a number for the photo) provided, unfortuntately, but it is definitely a Sherman. It is credited simply "US Army".

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

To Andrew -

I don't laugh at the 38t at all. I don't laugh as the Pz II either, or the early IIIs. But then, I also don't laugh at the 45mm armed Russian lights.

Instead, I am always amused by the idea that the Germans had great tanks the whole war and the benighted slavic hordes were trying to fight them with bailing wire and an old shoe. That'd make the Germans super dofuses for messing it up, wouldn't it?

Because the truth is, the Russians had better stuff through 42, and the Germans still kicked their keisters. Then the Tiger and Panther come out, and the Russians predictably kick the Germans teeth in. Sorta makes the tech dominance story ring a bit hollow.

As for the 38s, the Germans not only had a couple thousand of these Czech tanks, along with another couple thousand Pz IIs, but the chassis from both went on to field - 3500 marders, 300 SP assault guns of various kinds, and several thousand Hetzers. In fact, about 15-20% of the German AFV fleet for the whole war, came from the Czech chassis.

[LimShady]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The photo I've seen is a Sherman. Now I'm intrigued, perhaps there are more than one photo?

I wasn't aware that Pershing crews also added armour protection, but I have no real knowledge of them. Would be interesting to learn more.

The photo I speak of is on p. 465 of GREAT AMERICAN GENERALS OF WORLD WAR TWO ISBN 0 86124 157 6 (the Patton chapter, I notice for the first time, is written by Ian Hogg!!!)

There is no photo credit (ie a number for the photo) provided, unfortuntately, but it is definitely a Sherman. It is credited simply "US Army".

Hmm... I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time. The photo in the book I saw (I think, I could be wrong, as this was several months ago) showed a tank with shelves with loads of sandbags on. The tank was at either a crossroads or a turn in the road. Patton was walking towards the camera and looked mad as hell. Is this the photo? But, I remember the caption of the photo mentioned specifially it was a Pershing and the sandbags on Pershings exerbated suspensions problems. Maybe is was Wallace's Patton and the Third Army.

Hmm, this is gonna bug me all night...

Chris

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

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by LimShady:

Hmm... I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time. The photo in the book I saw (I think, I could be wrong, as this was several months ago) showed a tank with shelves with loads of sandbags on. The tank was at either a crossroads or a turn in the road. Patton was walking towards the camera and looked mad as hell. Is this the photo? But, I remember the caption of the photo mentioned specifially it was a Pershing and the sandbags on Pershings exerbated suspensions problems. Maybe is was Wallace's Patton and the Third Army.

Hmm, this is gonna bug me all night...

Chris

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

The guy who wrote the caption probably had it wrong. It is a 76mm armed Sherman, and you can't really see the suspension (or the hull, for that matter, under the sandbags), so it would be an easy mistake to creep into a book.

Now, sweet dreams!

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

There is a factor here that I think supports Matthias' statements on the origins of the skirts. How close the particular round was, to the particular armor plates, in penetrating power vs. thickness.

The original Pz III and IV had 30mm of armor, turret and hull, front and sides. The sides were more vunerable, because the armor was more nearly vertical. The figures we have seen for the penetration of the Russian ATR, give up to 35mm at point blank, while others give 30mm.

By the time the skirts were being fielded, the front armor of the Pz IV had been increased, to 50mm or more. But the hull sides still had 30mm, vertical plates. And the turret side and rear were 30mm, with slopes from 10 to 26 degrees (more side, less rear, varying slightly by model). There is also doubtless some variation in armor quality.

The German tests Matthias mentions were conducted at 100 yards. The Russian field manual for the ATR stresses holding fire until the range is 50-100 yards. That suggests that the issue was the maximum, point-blank penetration of the ATR round. Which our other sources variously put at 30mm or 35mm against vertical plate.

The Germans tested skirts with 5mm thickness, or in some cases 5mm hull and 10mm around the turret side and rear.

The other round the Germans tested was Russian 76.2mm HE. I don't have the exact figures for that, and it may vary by gun model. Perhaps others have exact figures, which might test my theory. But for example, the U.S. 75mm-HE in the M8-HMC is rated by CM to penetrate 34mm vertical at 500 yards, 30mm@30deg at 100 yards, 29mm@30deg at 500 yards. Right on the borderline in other words.

So, say the issue is simply that Russian 76.2mm and Russian ATRs, both have penetration abilities very close to the 30-35mm range, at combat distances (close for the ATR). Then the sides of the Pz IV, with the original armor (30deg vertical), would just barely be vunerable to these rounds. The turret might be too, with the same 30mm thickness and slight slopes. They had thickened the front armor beyond these levels of protection, but the hull sides, turret sides and rear, were still marginally penetrable by these two particular "threat" rounds.

So, they add 5mm of armor to defeat these particular rounds. It was close already. They just needed to nudge it over.

Why wire later? Perhaps to defeat the 76.2mm HE without the added weight. If the armor almost stops it as is, and it is fuse-quick...

And still later, they discover that the space is useful against HEAT, zooks, etc.

The reason I like this theory is that is accounts for the 5mm thickness of the added armor. 5mm is the extra penetration value of the upper ATR source info, and around the penetration value of 75mm HE (e.g. fired by duel purpose artillery "field guns", direct fire). It is being put on the right places on the tank - those that retained the old 30mm thickness. It explains why they didn't bother on Panthers, which have ~40mm side armor.

In other words, it started as a countermeasure to a particular threat or pair of threats, without any particular emphasis on being "spaced". That just wound up helping, so the reasons for continuing to use it, spread.

For what it is worth.

[Guest Rommel22]

The 38t was 1/4 of the German Panzer army in 41. The 38t chassi was used through the entire war on other vehicles.

YEAH CZECH PRIDE!!!

God we made good weapons for a country our size!

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

Rommel22s Kampfgruppe site:

http://rommel22diarys.homestead.com/MyPage1.html

"I saw 5 Germans walking down the side of the road, so I followed them for a few yard to get closer. Then I shot them! Later that day I found out the war has been over for a few weeks." - someone

[karch]

OK, throwing my hat into the ring...

I've really enjoyed this thread and the thought of skirts and mesh originally developed to help defeat ATR shots is very interesting and has some very good points.

I have to say I'm still convinced by the standard history line that skirts and mesh were developed to halt shaped charge munitions. Does anyone know how early the Germans were using shaped charge against tanks? I know glider troops used them against fort Eben Emal. Large shaped charge demolition charges. If they had early panzerfaust, shaped charge for low velocity 75s or that huge shaped charge that stuck down the barrel of the 37mm. If these came out the same time as armoured skirts, I'd say the skirts were developed to stop shaped charges.

My reasoning is that the Germans figured the Russians would see how powerful shaped charge weapons were, copy them and the Germans would be up against them quickly.

I'm on the "skirts were to stand off shaped charge weapons" side...

and any help they were against ATRs was secondary or just a happy coincidence. But that's just my opinion.. nothing to back it up. Does anyone know how closely German shaped charge and German armoured skirts were developed?

Scott Karch

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

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Rommel22:

YEAH CZECH PRIDE!!!

God we made good weapons for a country our size!

You also invented the Bren Gun, hailed as the best true LMG of the war. Congrats!

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by Zakalwe:

It seems to me that the Soviet ATRs have very little in common with the Lahti ATR... 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.

The Soviet designs have nothing in common with the Lahti, which was much more sophisticated, effective, and better-made. I have gotten to inspect, though not shoot, a couple.

Weeks: "How many of these superbly built guns [Lahtis] took part in the 1939 Winter War is not known, but some at least played their part in holding off the Soviet armoured threat and perhaps helped the Russian Army to decide on its own policy towards infantry anti-armour weapons." And Soviet forces should also have encountered Marosczeks (and maybe the nice Czech ATRs) in Poland.

Anyway, the notion of infantry putting a hole in an armored vehicle with a portable, shoulder-fired, team-serviced weapon was appealing, and proven, in the context of 1941.

That this led to the skirt/screen solution, which may, in turn, have proven of value in defeating shaped charge projectiles, does not seem illogical.

[Guest Rommel22]

Thanx Micheal,

We also develepod C4! I am pretty sure, I read it from different books and heard it from different people. can anyone confirm this?

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

Rommel22s Kampfgruppe site:

http://rommel22diarys.homestead.com/MyPage1.html

"I saw 5 Germans walking down the side of the road, so I followed them for a few yard to get closer. Then I shot them! Later that day I found out the war has been over for a few weeks." - someone

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

gunnergoz asked several fine questions about my statements about Russian light tanks. First a source.

http://www.siemers.com/wwii/Russia/index.htm

Add up the T-26, T-70, BT-5&7 ~28,000. Compare the T-60 ~6,000. Numbers of the other types are trivial compared to these makes. 6/34 = 17.6%

Look at the T-60 page. T-60 companies scouting for T-34 and KV-1 companies in independent tank battalions. Same period, German doctrine was Pz II company scouting for 2 companies of Pz III and one of Pz IV (short 75). I assume the latter is well-known, if you need confirmation, and easy way to find it would be any analysis of some famous panzer division action - e.g. DAK in Libya (all operations in the same time period, 1941-1942).

I am counting the T-26 as a light tank, as most sources do. It weighs 10 tons and has ~15mm of armor, on both counts about the same as a Pz II. It just has a bigger gun - and incidentally, a more cramped turret because of it, radios only in command tanks, etc.

Do I assume they were all in existence simultaneously? No, of course not. The T-26s and BT series are pre-war tanks and most were lost in 1941, the remainder almost certainly lost in 1942. No new ones were made because their factories had been overrun, or because more modern tanks were being produced instead. These were 1930s models, tested against China, in Spain, and used against the Finns.

They were available in large numbers in 1941, and with their 45mm main armament they were fine tanks for what they faced (though short on radios and turret room). The Russians had lousy tank doctrine, were strategically surprised, and were operationally out-generaled in 1941, as everybody knows. Tanks are also, in general, an expendible rather than a durable military asset on year-long time scales. As a result, most of these tanks were gone by, or lost during, 1942. The Russian tank fleet started that year at a fraction of its pre-war size.

In 1941, the Russian were building T-60s with 20mm guns, as their light tank component. That is the first six months of the war. They were making about 300 of them per month.

In 1942, the Russians starting building the 45mm T-70. Production of both types is carried out in parallel, each running about 400 per month. The T-60 is uparmored, with the 1942 versions having 25-35mm of armor, comparable to the protection of the T-70, compared to 15mm on the 1941 version. Late in 1942, the Russians are using the T-60 chassis for rocket launchers, and develop protoypes for a 76mm TD on the same chassis. A T-70 model is preferred for the new SU-76, and T-60 production is halted.

In 1943, production of the T-70 continues, still running around 400 per month, until October when all T-70 chassis production have been turned over the SU-76 production. SU-76 production goes on at the same time, at around 150 per month over the course of the year. Some of that is doubtless higher SU-76 production after October - but the first few SU-76s were delivered back at the close of 1942.

In 1944, all the light tank chassis production is making SU-76, at the rate of 600 a month. No more light tanks. The rate reaches 900 per month by the end of the war.

Let's look at what the Germans did in the same time frame. Here is a source URL for that, if you want data -

http://www.feldgrau.com/afvstats.html

In 1941 the Germans were still making Pz IIs and Pz38ts. In 1942, they continued production of the IIs and 38s, but later in the year converted all production of these chassis to marders. The marder II is a Pz II chassis with PAK on top, the marder III uses the Czech chassis of the Pz38t. The marder II versions continue production into 1943, then the Pz II chassis are switched to making Wespe SPA 105mm. The marder III are made into 1944, then teh Pz 38 chassis switch over to making Hetzers.

In other words, the Germans switched over their light chassis production to making self propelled guns, first lightly armored TDs, then a combination of lightly armored SP howitzers and more heavily armored, but still small, TDs. The Russians switched over their light tank production to making SU-76s, which acted more or less as their own version of the marder and wespe.

The Germans took tanks with 20mm and 37mm guns, out of production in the course of 1942. The Russians took their 20mm tank type out of production by the end of 1942. The Russians continued to produce a light tank with 45mm into 1943. The Germans ceased production of Pz IIIs in 1943 (the chassis went to make StuGs). The Russians were making the changes a few months later in each case. Since production changes take a while to show up on the field, the primary explanation for all of the above is that the Russians were simply copying the German moves, with a slight lag.

They built a 20mm tank in 1941 because the Germans used 20mm light tanks for scouting.

They built 20mm and 45mm light tanks in 1942 because the Germans used 20mm and 37mm tanks.

They pulled 20mm tanks because the Germans switched to marders, then wespes.

They pulled 45mm tanks because the Germans dropped the Pz III for the StuG.

They made SU-76s from the chassis, because the Germans made marders and StuGs and wespes.

Then they just made lots more of 'em.

[Jarmo]

Originally posted by Mark IV:

"How many of these superbly built guns [Lahtis] took part in the 1939 Winter War is not known

I'm not sure, but I remember reading the first ones arrived only after the war ended.

As for the skirts:

It stands to reason they were thought of after the Schreck was developed.

Up-armoring the sides would seem the logical choice against ATR's.

The skirt doesn't weigh any less than added armour, but doesn't

protect as well against solid shots. While the protection against

shaped charges is significantly increased.

Of course, if shaped charges were the reason, why not have skirts

in the front? Dunno.

It's entirely possible that both factors were thought of, but I'm

only guessing...

[Guest tero]

>Weeks: "How many of these superbly built guns [Lahtis] took part in the 1939 Winter War is not known,

Yes it is !!! 0 pieces

Perhaps the Anglo-American historians should start doing some research before they make these statements. If nothing else they should phone up the curator of the War Museum in Helsinki. A few Finns ARE known to know enough English to understand simple questions and formulate simple sentences to answer them.

>but some at least played their part in holding off the Soviet armoured threat

The only ATR's in Finnish service were not Lahtis at the time.

>and perhaps helped the Russian Army to decide on its own policy towards infantry anti-armour weapons."

It is worth noting that the Boys (of which our troops had in the region of 100 specimens in service) and the later Soviet ATR's are of the same caliber (14,5mm = .55 inch). The Lahti was 20mm.

[Skipper]

I do not remember where, but I, too, read that the screens originally were an answer to the AT rifle threat.

5 or 10 mm sheet of metal with some space between it and the main armor is noticeably better at defeating AP rounds (by breaking the tip) than just another 5 mm or 100 mm of armor. Besides, it is a lot easier to replace a holed 10 mm clip-on contraption, than a badluy dented armor plate. Ie, makes sense.

As for wire mesh screens, that is a completely different design, doesn't help against AP, but does help against early cumulative rounds. They used them on soviet tanks, too - as a field modification.

Finally, I've read that people put sandbags on T-34s in the recent yugoslavian wars. That's BAD for tank's suspension, I guess, but in some situation you just dont care.

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by tero:

The only ATR's in Finnish service were not Lahtis at the time...(snip) the Boys (of which our troops had in the region of 100 specimens in service) and the later Soviet ATR's are of the same caliber (14,5mm = .55 inch). The Lahti was 20mm.

This would not detract from the idea that Soviet experience with the noisy end of antitank rifles led them to produce their own, would it?

[tss]

tero wrote:

Yes it is !!! 0 pieces

Weren't there few prototypes that were used in combat? I'm not certain but I seem to remember that.

Certainly, mass-produced Lahtis were too late to see action in that war.

- Tommi

[Mattias]

I would be interested in seeing:

Either:

A source from around 1943 that in some way indicating that schürtzen had anything at all to do with hollow charge (HC) ammunition

Or:

A source explaining why the use of schürtzen was not extended to any armoured surface above the thickness of 30 mm, except for occasionally Panther side hulls and more frequently to some JgPz’s (all having 40 mm of armour), if indeed the HC ammunition was considered a threat.

Or:

A source showing in more precise numbers what kind of protection the schürtzen actually offered when used as was historically the case

Or:

A source indicating why the post war era saw very little use of widely spaced stand off armour. And not only that better alternatives where found.

Or:

Indeed any source that says anything at all about all this beyond the magic words, “was added to increase protection from HC rounds”.

Then at least there would be something to discuss…

As it stands now the only, and I mean only, thing that has peen presented here and speaks in favour of the HC threat stimulating the development of schürtzen is the fact that it was at some point was thought to offer some kind of protection.

Whereas, on the other hand, the case of the ATR threat is backed by, documents, dates, tests, results, conclusions and logical adoptions following a bright red thread.

Now, please stop repeating the mantra and put forth some facts.

Just keep in mind, the issue is not whether schürtzen gives protection from HC rounds, but what the original impetus of the design was.

If it can be shown that ATR’s where such a nuisance/threat as to start this it will go some way in furthering the understanding of the combat environment in the east, and that is the whole point for me.

M.

[Guest machineman]

Originally posted by Mark IV:

This would not detract from the idea that Soviet experience with the noisy end of antitank rifles led them to produce their own, would it?

They spent a good part of the 30's working on unsuccessful antitank rifle designs and ended the decade with no rifle in service but a good 14.5mm tungsten cored bullet developed.

After the Germans invaded in '41 there was a bit of an impetus to get some sort of a manportable antitank weapon developed and with the Soviets previous development experience and a good cartridge to work with whipping up and mass producing a good antitank rifle was the probably the only option they saw available.

And while they may have done them good service in '41 they were not available at that time. In '42 and later they were always of some use (being as they were the pinnacle of the art) but by '43 and on hollow charge weapons should have been developed. The reason they were not (and this is my opinion only) was due mainly to the lack of flexibility that was a characteristic of the Soviet system.

I think the Germans themselves were surprised there was not more copying going of their own hollow charge arsenal, witness the reluctance to drop Zimmerit, fearing hollow charge Soviet magnetic mines that never did materialize.

[Gregory Deych]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

The Germans took tanks with 20mm and 37mm guns, out of production in the course of 1942. The Russians took their 20mm tank type out of production by the end of 1942. The Russians continued to produce a light tank with 45mm into 1943. The Germans ceased production of Pz IIIs in 1943 (the chassis went to make StuGs). The Russians were making the changes a few months later in each case. Since production changes take a while to show up on the field, the primary explanation for all of the above is that the Russians were simply copying the German moves, with a slight lag.

They built a 20mm tank in 1941 because the Germans used 20mm light tanks for scouting.

They built 20mm and 45mm light tanks in 1942 because the Germans used 20mm and 37mm tanks.

They pulled 20mm tanks because the Germans switched to marders, then wespes.

They pulled 45mm tanks because the Germans dropped the Pz III for the StuG.

They made SU-76s from the chassis, because the Germans made marders and StuGs and wespes.

Then they just made lots more of 'em.

Jason, do you know development lead times on tank production? Even if you have completely production ready design ready to put into production, you still need to retool multiple factories, which doesn't take a week or two. In order for Russians to simply copy the Germans, they would have to start production on the first sighting of the new German model, which would be rather strange.