Red Army hand held anti-tank weapons, part duo

[Jeff Duquette]

We were talking about lend-lease bazookas provided to the Soviets a week or two ago. In case there is still any interest, here are some numbers I found embedded in one of Steven Zaloga’s works.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: S. Zaloga and L. Ness, “Red Army Handbook, 1939-1945”

The Soviets began development of similar weapons, the RPG-1 and RPG-2, but none were ready during the war. The US provided the Red Army with 8,500 bazooka anti-tank rocket launchers although there is little information about how these were used

in combat.

Small numbers of infantry anti-tank weapons were provided via Lend-Lease from Britian, including 1,000 PIAT grenade launchers and 3,200 Boys anti-tank rifles.

In the absence of novel anti-armour technologies, and especially the shaped charge, the Soviets made a number of attempts to develop improvised anti-tank weapons. The most unusual weapon deployed for the anti-armour role was the ampulomet, a crude mortar which fired a ball-shaped vial containing jellied gasoline to a range of 250 m. It weighed 28 kg and was crewed by three men. It could be fired at a rate of about eight rounds per minute, but was neither very accurate nor very lethal when fighting tanks. It was used during the desperate days of late 1941 and early 1942 but soon passed from the scene due to its ineffectiveness. Considerable attention was paid to the use of man-portable flame-throwers as an anti-tank weapon, and in 1943 the Red Army even formed separate motorized anti-tank flamethrower battalions to this end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Schwarze]

A World War 2 Soviet Rocket Launcher

RPG 43

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Schutzstaffel ]

[Schrullenhaft]

RedGuy/RedBoy/Red... mentioned the ampulomet in an earlier post (with a pic), calling it a "mole projector". Nice to see some additional info from a respected source about it.

Looks like ATRs and 45mm AT guns were about the most common AT weapons for the Soviet infantry formations. Which makes tanks a much more frightening experience on the East Front for infantry without those projectile AT weapons (but I believe that there were hordes of AT guns).

[Jeff Duquette]

This is the excerpt from the same book regarding the ever-popular Red Army employment of mine-dogs:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> During the desperate days of 1941, the Red Army trained special anti-tank mine dogs. The dogs were fitted with a saddle, which included two packets of high-explosive on either side, and a triggering mechanism on the top which set off the charges when the dog ran under the tank. The dogs were trained by feeding them only under tanks. A total of thirteen dog tank-destroyer units were formed and Russian accounts claim they destroyed 300 German armoured vehicles. German accounts dispute their effectiveness and the practice was quickly abandoned in favour of using dogs for more suitable roles, including mine detection.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps only tireless archival research by David Glantz can provide us the true answer as to the effectiveness of Soviet Mine Dogs

Regarding the flame bottle projector thingie, John Weeks in "Men Against Tanks" indicates that the British Home Guard (post France 1940) also came up with some sort of crazy Molotov cocktail projecting sling shot "do-hickie". J. Weeks goes on to indicate that the apperatus was of equal danger to the shoter as it apparently was to the intended victim.

Last note...J. Weeks indicates that the Molotov cocktail was infact first employed during the Spainish Civil War (as someone else had previously implied on the old thread).

[Stalins Organ]

Schutz that RPG 43 is NOT a rocket grenade - it is a hand-thrown grenade - you can see the ring to pull out the safety pin quite clearly, and the handle is made of wood.

The Sabot around the handle at the bottom of the warhead is to protect the striking mechanism.

Obviously short ranged, probably not wonderfully effective, but better than a smack with a wet fish!! :eek:

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]

[Stalin's Organ]

A minor correctoin - the RPG-43 "sabot" actually holds 2 fabric strips that trail out to keep the head facing forwards.

The Russians had 3 AT grenades:

RPG-40 - weighed 42 oz, don't know the size of the charge.

VPGS 1940 rifle greade - 24 oz, 11.5 oz is the charge, 30mm penetratoin, range about 65 yards.

RPG-43, weighted 42 oz.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Regarding the flame bottle projector thingie, John Weeks in "Men Against Tanks" indicates that the British Home Guard (post France 1940) also came up with some sort of crazy Molotov cocktail projecting sling shot "do-hickie". J. Weeks goes on to indicate that the apperatus was of equal danger to the shoter as it apparently was to the intended victim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's also a beautiful picture and description of it in Bishop's Encyclopedia of WW2 Weapons. The HomeGuard guys manning it are posing as if they were using it as an AA gun!

[kipanderson]

RPG Model 43 AT Grenade.

Hi,

Just a few words to confirm what others wrote about Soviet WW2 anti-tank grenades.

During WW2 the Soviets used three main types of anti-tank grenade. The RGP 40, the RPG 43 and lastly the RGP 6. The RPG 40 was indeed a stick grenade with just a conventional explosive charge. As such it lacked penetrating power. The RPG 43, and later RPG 6, both had the same 76mm shaped charge and a penetration of around 76mm. Both the latter two designs were extremely clever and if you could see the illustrations I have of how they worked, you too, would conclude that they did in deed stand a reasonable chance of striking nose first. The RPG 43 was produced in very large numbers.

At this point it may be appropriate to give a brief explanation of why it was that the Soviets were so behind the other major players in hand-held anti-tank weapons during WW2.

The reason is that during one of Stalin’s purges the entire team responsible for designing such weapons was wiped out. No one thought to build up a new team until a year or so into the war. The problem was not with shaped charge technology, which the Soviets made widespread use of and had a sound grip on. (In CM2 you will find a lot of HEAT rounds available to Soviet artillery. Or you should do if Steve and Charles model things correctly which I am sure they will.) Just post war, in 1946, the Soviets introduced a number of bazooka type weapons.

My main source for all information on WW2 Soviet weapons is a stunning document I came across in the archives of the Tank Museum in Bovington, Dorset. Record of Foreign Weapons and Equipment, Volume One, USSR. It is about one thousand pages long and was produced by British intelligence in 1947. Everything you could possibly wish to know about the subject. Makes even the best books on the subject look amateur. I approached Greenhill Books, the publisher, but they said it would be far too expensive to produce properly for the size of the market.

All the best,

Kip.

PS.I had the entire document photocopied and sent to me by the staff at the Tank Museum. They will do the same for you, at a price. If you are interested ring and ask.

[Doodlebug]

The RPG-43 could penetrate 3.75 inches of armour and was apparently extensively and effectively used. You would need a steady nerve to wait for your chosen target to arrive in range but given the unquestionable close in style of the Russian infantry it has to be considered as a viable threat. The conical collar was released on throwing and dragged behind on the cloth strips to stabilise the trajectory and ensure it arrived head first at the target.

[Skipper]

RPG in that case stands for hand-held AT grenade. In fact, RPG in RPG-7 stands for almost the same - hand-held AT grenade-launcher.

Also in common use were bundles of 5 normal grenades. The index escapes me - RGD-something, iirc - the cylinder-shaped kind, without not much fragmentation.

[Zaffod]

ok.. quick question. How did one fire the british infantry AT weapon (similar to the zooka)? and what the bloody 'ell was it called again? I read a description of it and from what it sounded, you sat down and aimed up and it just sorta 'sprung' out. Ive never gotten these bleedin things to work in the game... however one took out my tiger in the villars bocage scenerio... kinda miffed me seeing as how rotten the results i get with it...

Zaff'

[empty]

You speak slightingly of the Projector, infantry, anti-tank (PIAT for short). Also known as a Spigot mortar. This was basically a tube with a spring loaded rod in it, and a shoulder piece at one end. (mind you, you did not want to place it against your shoulder when you shot it). You compressed the spring (if you were charles atlas) put the bomb in until it rested against the rod, made sure that you did no lower the barrel too far, because the projectile would slide back out, pointed it in the general direction of the enemy, and set the thing off. This sent the bomb in the general direction of the target at a somewhat leasurely pace. All you needed now was 3 minutes and a block and tackle to reload because you probably missed.

The disadvantages of this weapon (?) are pretty clear. Short range, slow reload, inaccurate, and needing a lot of physical strength (though it is not in itself very heavy), to say nothing of the projectile falling out of the barrel if you pointed it down.

It did have a couple of advantages...

No backblast - you can fire it inside a building and not have a problem, also the firer was much harder to spot.

Unpowered projectile meant that the the bomb followed a ballistic course.This meant that you could use it for indirect fire, and it was used that way. It was also used to attack the deck armour of AFVs in this manner.

[Darwin]

Hmmm, I believe the Piat was supposed to recock itself automatically and that the projectile did in fact have a catch of some sort to hold it in place until being fired.

Also wasn't it actually a spring assisted launch with the propellant igniting upon release?

Another plus for the Piat is better pentration than the bazooka.

[empty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hmmm, I believe the Piat was supposed to recock itself automatically and that the projectile did in fact have a catch of some sort to hold it in place until being fired.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately the catch did not work very well, and individuals were trained not to point the weapon down. If the projectile did fall out, it was still not armed, so at least you did not blow yourself up.

As for recocking, I had not heard that it did, and only have circumstancial evidence that it did not (biographies and medal citations) so I cannot comment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Also wasn't it actually a spring assisted launch with the propellant igniting upon release?

Another plus for the Piat is better pentration than the bazooka. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a spigot mortor, sorry if I was unclear. The rod shot forward and set off a charge in the base of the projectile, causing it to be launched. However, after the initial explosion the projectile is unpowered and therefore follows a ballistic path. So you can shoot at deck armour.

The penetration is better, but the accuracy worse

[Grisha]

Regarding the RPG-43, please correct me if I'm wrong. One pulled the pin and threw it, whereby the conical collar would unattach, and trail behind, connected by two cloth strips? The collar, by it trailing action and the fact that the strips were probably attached to the handle at the 'bottom', would stabilize the head of the grenade, insuring a reasonable chance that the grenade would function properly?

If this is correct, what a neat idea. I knew the Soviet had antitank grenades, but I never knew what that meant until now. Thanks for the info, people.

Kip Anderson, I live in Seattle, USA. Could you give me the number/address of this archive you spoke of?

[Jeff Duquette]

Greg:

Do a google search for Bovington Tank Museum (I am assuming this is where Kip is talking about)...that will put you on the mark. However, photocipied documents from Bovington arent cheap.

[Foobar]

Jeff,

Thanks for posting Part Deux.... Any word in your books about the frequency and effectiveness of the molotov vs German Armor. I got the impression from the last thread, that the Soviets mass produced them?

[Grisha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Greg:

Do a google search for Bovington Tank Museum (I am assuming this is where Kip is talking about)...that will put you on the mark. However, photocipied documents from Bovington arent cheap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, I'll do that

[Jeff Duquette]

From: Soviet infantry in Great Patriotic War:

RPG-40 anti-tank Grenade

Penetration: 20 mm

Weight: ???

Explosives: 0.76 kg

Range: 20 to 25 m

RPG-41 anti-tank Grenade

Penetration: 25 mm

Weight: ???

Explosives: 1.4 kg

Range: 15 m

RPG-43 anti-tank Grenade

Penetration: 75 mm

Weight: 1.2 kg

Explosives: 0.65kg

Range: 15 to 20 m

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is from Zaloga again…”Red Army Handbook”:

The Red Army also issued the infantry with the RPG-40 Model 1940 anti-tank grenade but this was largely ineffective against a modern tank. Another widely used anti-tank weapon was the 'Molotov cocktail', a glass bottle filled with petrol. Although these 'cocktails' were often simple field improvisations, in 1940 a team under B. Ya. Kachugin and P. Solodovnikov had developed a more reliable version using an exterior chemical packet to ignite the weapon after it shattered on the tank. These were called 'KS bottles', after their inventors, and were mass-produced early in the war for the lack of any better anti-tank weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: John Weeks “Men Against Tanks”, regarding Molotov Cocktails (from his Chapter detailing anti-tank tactics employed during the Spanish Civil War).

Out-gunned, out-manoeuvred, and hard-pressed, the Spanish had no effective answer to the tank; in desperation they resorted to hand-to-hand fighting. Men lay in ditches and trenches until the tanks were almost upon them, and then leapt out and climbed on top, firing into vision ports, jamming crow-bars into hatch covers and gun mantlets, and pouring petrol into the engine compartment and lighting it. This was the war which produced the 'Molotov Cocktail', a mixture of petrol or benzine, water and phosphorous with a piece of rubber added to make a sticky jelly with the benzine. The mixture was kept in bottles and just before throwing, it was shaken vigorously. On hitting a hard surface, the bottle smashed, the phosphorous ignited in the air and the benzine blazed merrily. A pint or so of burning petrol did not deter a tank very much, but in time the smoke was pulled into the crew compartment by the cooling fans, and the usual effect on the crew was to cause such alarm that they stopped and bailed out. In any case, the tanks of 1936 were all petrol-driven and the fuel tanks could be set alight if enough Molotovs were thrown. Molotovs are dangerous things both to carry and to throw, but the next weapon was even worse. This was a speciality of the Asturian miners of northern Spain.

They invented the satchel charge, which is simply a cloth bag filled with blasting explosives and fitted with a short-burning fuze and a pull switch. They attacked tanks by running up to them, pulling the fuze pin and throwing the charge either on to the engine deck or underneath the belly. The results were usually fatal for both tank and attacker, and the tanks soon learned to work in groups with each watching the other, but it also made them far more careful and less foolhardy. In fact so cautious did some become that the Spanish took advantage of it and used all sorts of simple ruses to deceive them. One, which became quite famous, occurred during a retreat when it became necessary to hold up some Italian light tanks which were pressing rather hard. A line was stretched across a village street a few feet off the ground and blankets were hung on to it so that they made a complete screen from one side to another. Two Italian light tanks appeared and stopped at the end of the street to fire their machine-guns through it. This had no effect, so one went back and brought up a medium tank. It fired several rounds from its gun, but refused to go through the screen; finally, after nearly half an hour, a shot cut the string, the screen fell down and the tanks gingerly felt their way forward. By this time the retreating Spaniards were well clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a side note: We may wonder in amazement as to how ill equipped the WWII Soviet Army was with respect to hand held anti-tank weapons at the start of the Russo-German war, but in reality the 1941-42ish German Army was as bad if not worse off in this same regard. At the start of Barbarossa German infantry hand held AT capability consisted of Anti-tank rifles, grenade bundles etc.

[kipanderson]

Grisha, hi,

Sorry I did not get back to you more quickly.

Tank Museum,

Bovington Camp,

Wareham,

Dorset,

BH20 6JG

United Kingdom.

Tel. 01929 405096

You will have lead in on the international code, which I think is 44 from the States.

All the best,

Kip.

[Skipper]

44 it is - anywhere in the world. He will also have to drop the zero.

> but in reality the 1941-42ish German Army

> was as bad if not worse off in this same

> regard.

Yup. Just as any other army equipped with 30-s stuff. Pre-war theory was that infantry cannot do much to the tanks, and that arty must deal with them. Large armored formations were THE novelty of WWII - practical ways and means to fight them were developed "on the go".

[Paul Lakowski]

I don't think the early war infantry units were poorly equipped ....if you look at the doctrine three things are apparent.

1st It had been recognized as far back as WW-I that infantry must have a credible Anti tank weapon organic to their force structure in order for the infantry to stand up to tank led attacks. Through out the 1930s various methods of defeating tanks were experimented and proposed for the infantry platoons .Manuals in the 30s differentiated between ‘frontal defence’ and ‘close anti tank combat’ . ‘Frontal defence’ was supposed to be a weapon that could be damage/kill enemy tanks frontal from several hundred meters [platoon defence] ,while if the squads were over run they needed there own ‘emergency’ defence Anti tank weapons . The most popular idea for the ‘frontal defence’ was to develop a super bullet to penetrate WW-I class armor, and this was developed into specialized Anti Tank rifles [PzBuch 38/39] , which was about the size and weight of a LMG and capable of 50% chance of penetrating 30 mm of armor @ 100m range and 25 mm @ 300m . For ‘emergency defence’ it was always proposed to make the troops use makeshift explosives and flame throwers etc.

2nd no one expected there enemy to amass the kind of tank numbers the germans planned to amass....not even the germans expected there enemys to amass this much.

3rd No one expected tanks to get so heavily armored so fast.

[Tiger]

With a shaped charge, projectile spin degrades the high-temperature jet that punches through the armor. So not only does the weapon have to arrive on target at a relatively flat angle, but without spin as well.

-Tiger

[Grisha]

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

Grisha, hi,

Sorry I did not get back to you more quickly.

Tank Museum,

Bovington Camp,

Wareham,

Dorset,

BH20 6JG

United Kingdom.

Tel. 01929 405096

You will have lead in on the international code, which I think is 44 from the States.

All the best,

Kip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many thanks!

[Grisha]

found a pic of RPG-43