Russian AT rifle info

[VictorCharlie]

Here's some interesting info about the axis player’s nemesis the Russian AT rifles.

“The first russian AT rifle to be discussed here, the PTRD-41....…..main disadvantage was the excessively loud firing noise.

The PTRS-41, also called simply the PTRS……..main disadvantages were the frequent jams.

Any captured russian AT rifles were immediately used by the germans,

where it received the official foreign-weapon designation Panzerbüchse 783® for the PTRD, and Panzerbüchse 784® for the PTRS.

Tanks in WWII were not as tightly packaged as today, and while the 14.5mm

cartridge was generally capable of piercing the armor of many of the tanks it faced,

often the bullet just sailed right on through, missing anything that would disable the

tank, like main gun ammunition or one of the crew members. It was not unusual to

find a German tank after a battle with as many as a dozen or more holes in the armor

as Soviet infantry anti-tank rifle teams did their jobs.”

I can’t recall the PTRS jamming too often? And a loud firing noise on the PTRD would surely make it easier to spot?

Plus a dozen or more penetrating hits from AT rifles in CMBB is usually enough to knock out any light tank.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by VictorCharlie:

Plus a dozen or more penetrating hits from AT rifles in CMBB is usually enough to knock out any light tank.

Disregarding the other arguments, I'll disagree with that. My record is roughly 20 penetrating hits to the front of a light German armoured car, without any effect. The most important quality of the AT rifles in CM is the psychological effect they have on the human opponent - no-one wants to lose a vehicle to a measly AT rifle, no matter how improbable it seems.

[Sergei]

In real life even KV's were destroyed with ATR's. (Well, once anyway... and that was when a Finnish soldier shot a Klim's external fuel tank into fire. Stooopid tankers!)

[Krautman]

I hold ATRs in high regard. They can effectively prevent your opponent from scouting/supporting with his PSW or SPW; you don't have to reveal an AT gun to do so, when his infantry is kept down by your MG fire, he'll have to send in his tanks for the task... which is when your AT guns join in... HARHAR

[Probert]

ATRs also make terrific spotting units.

[Mejsel]

One might ask if the PTRD´s were captured in such abundance as to validate a "Captured AT rifle"-option in the purchase screen...

[rum]

Originally posted by Sergei:

In real life even KV's were destroyed with ATR's. (Well, once anyway... and that was when a Finnish soldier shot a Klim's external fuel tank into fire. Stooopid tankers!)

KV was not the heavies ATR victim.

Where is a famous analysis (I remember I posted the info about it) of 21 killed Ferdinants study after Kurst battle.

One Ferdinand was abandoned by its crew because of ATR round shot through its barrel, rengering it useless.

So one of the most heavy armor was killed by single ATR hit.

[SgtMuhammed]

Then again I have read a couple accounts of various tanks returning from battle with flute like main guns from taking several ATR hits. Depends on the crew and luck I guess.

[John Kettler]

There was a combat readiness report I downloaded once from the Internet for a Tiger I Kompanie right after Kursk. The report showed practically the entire unit was rendered unfit to fight by ATR hits, the tanks being unfightable with shattered vision blocks (TC couldn't see while fighting buttoned up).

Not only were so many vision blocks destroyed that the Kompanie and battalion stocks were exhausted, but application for more had to be made to regiment, causing a standown of several days.

There were multiple injuries to TCs from eye injuries when blocks broke, and in some cases, the entire assembly got smashed into the TC's face, requiring long medical absence. Russian ATR crews were trained to aim for the cupola blocks.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Mejsel]

Aim for the cupolas? What kind of accuracy were they capable of anyways?

From the posts above here it would seem ATR´s to be comparable to snipers or at least in the same uh... rifle-size -> target-size ratio.

If so, one could argue that experienced ATR-crews should have higher chance of producing gun-hits/damage, at least on shorter distances.

Then again, ATRs are most priceworthy the way they are.

[John Kettler]

Mejsel,

I believe this translation of the Russian "how to use the ATR" manual may well answer your question. Enjoy!

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=280&Itemid=123〈=en

Regards,

John Kettler

[rum]

I think I would agree with Mejsel, perharbs not in that sharp form as he said his words though.

I read several of Soviet accounts, memoires, and statistical studies and the history of ATR deployment.

ATR were always considered as a "second-class" weapon. It was generaly disliked by the soldiers themselves. Russian war-time proverb discribe typical fate of ATR gunner: "Long barrel, short life".

Of cause, it is better to have a battery of anti-tank cannons then the ATR platoon or even ATR companie. The problem of Soviet army was that infantry did not had enough "first-class" anti-tank assets available. ATR was "mobilization" anti-tank weapon. Quite cheap to produce. Quite light to be carried by regular infantry who had to move on their own feet. And it had some (although minimal) anti-tank value. As the bottles with incendiary mixture and grenade bundles had.

The high amount of ATR in the Red Army was not because of ATR magic ability to kill Kingtiger head-on at 2 kilometers. It was because at the heavies years, Soviet industry was not able to support every infantry division with enough anti-tank guns, and logistics was not able to support enought trucks to tow those guns and to carry ammunition to them. This is the main reason why ATRs were widely used in Red Army.

ATRs never were successful weapon, and were widely used only because of desperate situation with more capable anti-tank weapon.

As for the Kursk Battle and killed Ferdinand, I just gave this example on the heaviest registered ATR victim.

Another Ferdinand, for example, was disassembled by direct hit of 203mm howitzer shell. But this lucky hit do not make 203mm howitzers a specialized anti-tank weapon

[Mejsel]

Excellent page! Thank you.

There are discussions of more detailed vehicle-damage for the upcoming CMx2. Lets hope they visit it as well...

Ah, by the way: I did a test between the PTRD and PTRS. The S(emiautomatic?)-model fires 50% faster the D model. A veteran PTRS fired 9 rounds per minute whilst a veteran PTRD fired 6 rounds in the same time. The same ratio of output persisted over several turns. Thus a PTRS is capable of 5 1/2 minustes of continuous fire whilst a PTRD may fire for about 12 1/2 minutes.

Test did not contain other experience levels.

Test also showed that TRPs work for ATR as well. Significant improvement.

[ December 07, 2005, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Mejsel ]

[rum]

Originally posted by Mejsel:

Ah, by the way: I did a test between the PTRD and PTRS. The S(emiautomatic?)-model fires 50% faster the D model.

The name is related with a person, not with how the loading works.

PTRS is russian abbreviation of ProtivoTankovoye Ruzhie Simonova. (AntiTank Rifle, Simonov). Simonov is a surname of weapon engineer who created it.

PTRD was developed by Degtiarev.

PTRS was indeed semi-automatic, with a clip containing 5 rounds, and had theoretical technical ROF of 15 rounds per minute.

[Amedeo]

I don't think that the currently modelling of ATR damage in CMBB is off the mark.

I remember reading a report of friendly fire against a T-70 resulting in more than 30 penetrations without the tank being disabled or the crew injured. Moreover the Soviets tested a captured German ATR against a T-26 with a dummy crew finding that of forty or so penetrations only one managed to "wound" a crewmember.

Regards,

Amedeo

[John Kettler]

Here's the link to an earlier thread on the ATR effectiveness topic.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=23;t=009627

Regards,

John Kettler