Changes in the anti-tank brigades, early war

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[bitchen frizzy]

They were cheap and large numbers of them were available. An AT rifle, whatever its shortcomings, is better than a pointed stick.

In real life, AT rifles could do significant minor damage to vehicles that isn't modeled in CMBB. Also, the vehicles most commonly encountered in real life were light armor and unarmored. The game's fun factor skews perception of how often an AT rifleman actually saw a German tank or SP gun.

[Broompatrol]

In the CMBB scenario Viennese Waltz (I think is the one). The Russian AT rifles are very handy. The German vehicles are predominatly 1/2tracks and SP's. The Soviet troops are able to fire on the vehicles from the buildings from long range. They are are rarely detected and force frequent abandonments.

This also allows the Soviet tanks to spend more time waxing the German infantry.

That being said, yes: AT rifles aren't very good at killing tanks compared to guns. But like was mentioned before they had been in production in some form or another since 1916 and were cheap and easy to produce (compared to other anti-tank assets), there were existing stockpiles, required a team or single soldier rather than a crew, you could pass them out to partisans to annoy convoys, and was better than pointed stick.

[MOS was 71331]

There's a scenario pitting a German truck convoy escorted by PzIIs and halftracks against a company of partisans. The partisan's three AT rifles account for most of the killed German vehicles. (Many of the kills are not from single hits. There are usually a fair number of "no significant damage" hits.)

[McIvan]

It's not Viennese Waltz, which is a night game with lots of medium/heavy armour...unfortunately I don't know which scenario it actually is that you are thinking of....

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[George MC]

Hi AdamL

Perhaps one reason for having all these AT rifles is to cause the attacking German panzers to button up. That would make spotting the dug-in AT guns harder. Also as one poster metioned above, with that storm of steel projectiles you are bound to damage at least the vision blocks (I mind reading an account of one of the panzers in leibstandarte at Kursk having to pull out of action due to damage to the vision blocks). Any tank commander becoming frustrated at the lack of view risks having his head blown off when he unbuttons to take a wee look...

Cheers fur noo

George

[Broompatrol]

Sorry, its the scenario "where forefathers fought" my mistake.

AdamL, please see bitchen frizzy's earlier post. I don't think anyone really expected ATRs to blow up PzIII's. Picture all those other vehicles driving around, tractors, trucks, marders, 1/2 tracks.

But since hand held death rays were unavailable they deployed what they had. Keep in mind also that armor v AT tactics were constantly evolving as well but equipment and organization was perpetually in a state of catch-up.

As far a the actual thinking of the Soviet, you must seek the wisdom of the CM elders. I can only lay humbly at their feet and play with my plastic green army men. :cool:

[Guest Mike]

At the very start of the war there were no AT rifles in the Soviet arsenal - they started being delivered within a couple of months of the war starting, based upon an undeveloped rifle that was not proceeded with from 1938 - the Rukavishnikov.

the Soviets thought everyone ele was developing tanks with similar armour to the T34 and KV-1, so that ATR's would not be very useful!!

AFAIK AT Brigade reorg in 1941 was mainly about replacing the 107mm guns they were supposed to have, with lighter calibres - often 85mm AA guns. Again the 107 was produced on the assumption that others were putting KV-equivalent armour on their tanks of the time!!

As the war progressed the AT brigades were found to be a nedless concentration of resource - they were usually not where they were needed, leaving infantry vulnerable here they were needed.

So they were mostly allowed to wither and were not replaced until there was a great surplus of AT weapons late in the war.

[JasonC]

The really heavy guns were impractical for mobility reasons and not needed for armor ones. They were lost in the great pockets and retreats of 1941.

As German armor got thicker in 1943, 85mm AA was useful again in specialized AT battalions, but throughout 1941 and 1942, a long 76mm was adequate against practically everything in the German fleet mix. AT formations used mixed 76mm, 45mm, and ATRs.

It helps to understand the real mix of armored vehicles the Germans had through 1942. This is what they had produced -

4800 SPWs, all varieties and roles

3500 PSWs and lightly armored SPA or SPAT (JgPz I e.g.)

4600 light tanks and SPAT (Pz I, Pz II, Marder)

4600 older IIIs, IVs, and StuG with 1941 pattern armament, 50mm thick front max and sides 30mm

4500 newer IIIs, IVs and StuG, eventually with 70mm to 80mm fronts, sides still 30mm and skirts rare

84 Tiger Is, most not yet in action

Which of these is an ATR supposed to be useless against? The last category before the Tigers, they are indeed hopeless from the front and getting marginal from the sides as skirts and such appear. But those arrive only in the course of 1942, with older stuff still being common half a year later.

All the SPWs, PSWs, light SPAT stuff etc, is readily holed by an ATR. Tanks as light as a Panzer II are as common as the late stuff. A Pz 38 is about the middle of the distribution.

No more than 20% can give a 76mm long any trouble even at range, and essentially none can give an 85mm any trouble. Essentially all are vulnerable to 45mm from the sides at medium range.

Do not confuse CM cherry picking with the German armor force in Russia.

Why were ATRs considered useful, compared even to the towed guns? They were cheap enough to flood units with them and ensure any body of infantry had some. Large numbers in PAK front areas ensured side angle shots against any armor formation trying to simply drive through a defensive position, without neutralizing each defending unit. They are stealthier, the infantry can take them more places.

Is an ATR a substitute for having a 76mm long? No. But the Russians were not choosing between them. They were fielding hundreds of thousands of the former alongside tens of thousands of the later, against a total German armored vehicle fleet less numerous than either defending type, taken alone.

How were they used, tactically, in the AT formations? They were incorporated into AT regions, alongside batteries of ATGs, infantry heavy weapons, and close assault tank killer teams. The idea being to cover all range windows and to preserve some sort of AT defense even after guns had been silenced.

The effect actually achieved was to channel German armor attacks to narrow axes along which the Germans could overload the defense, while small amounts of armor on side missions would be ineffective. Then Russian tank reserves went in front of those axes, repeat as needed.

[huhr]

what scenario is the one described before with the partisans and the tank convoy? i want to try this

[Broompatrol]

Partisan action scenario = "A deadly affair"

Best played as Germans v AI or 2 player.

When playing German against AI this scenario can be a good teacher. If you are careless you will get creamed. If you are too cautious you run out of time, but is very winnable if you understand how to use your forces and are methodical and persistant.

I havn't tried it as a 2 player but my guess is that it would be a real pain in the A** winning as the Germans v a human oppoenent given your objectives.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Mike]

ATR's aren't in army level AT Brigades at teh start of the war because:

1/ there were no ATRs at thestart of Barbarossa.

2/ ATR's were intended as basic AT defence for for infantry units so they would always be on hand, not for high-level heavy AT units.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Mike]

As above - it was because the Sov's thought that ATR's would be useless, since they expected everyone else to be putting as much armour on their tanks as they were.

They put ATR's into production only when they found how thin the armour was on P-3's and P-4's - the PTRD and PTRS only took a month each to design. At the same time they canned production of heavy AT guns that would have been overkill - most notably the 107mm and 57mm - only 130-ish 107's were made before the factory was evacuated, and it never went back into production. See http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/Artillery/art_corps.htm - the M-60 is this weapon.

Only 340-ish 57mm guns were made before production stopped in 1941 - it was reinteroduced to production in 1943, after which some 13,000 were made - see http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/Artillery/art_AT.htm

Post this time I do not know - but I expect that ATR's were simply integrated wherever they could be, because they weer actually useful vs the light Axis armour of 1941-42.

[JasonC]

Adam - Stalin-O has it right, basically. There weren't any ATRs when the war broke out, they were fielded rapidly to give the infantry a weapon to stop German armor, once it was realized that it was thin enough they would actually work. They were then made in stupendous numbers - hundreds of thousands in 1941 and several times that again in 1942, tapering off thereafter because they already had tons and their utility was declining. They had so many because they are really cheap to make, so once they decided to use them they just naturally got tons.

They had so many ATRs they had to invent new ways to field them all. What they typically did was to create larger and larger dedicated ATR subformations as the weapons themselves became more numerous. This got to the point of having entire ATR battalions, with hundreds of the things. In tactical practice those would be dispersed somewhat. The portions in the AT brigades were effectively piggybacking on the deployment decision those required anyway, to focus most of the extra AT capability on the most likely armor approache routes.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Mike]

IMO you're looking for complications that dont' exist.

Soviet personnel had seen P-3's and -4's in Germany prior to the war, and assumed they were about to be replaced just as their own lighter armoured tanks were.

the error was noted when it was noticed that eh substitution hadn't happened by Barbarossa.

the thinking pattern is noted in various publications.

ATR's were never intended for large specialist AT units - they were intended for infantry who would ahve little other AT capability, so transport for them was not an issue at any time.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by George Mc:

Hi AdamL

Perhaps one reason for having all these AT rifles is to cause the attacking German panzers to button up. That would make spotting the dug-in AT guns harder. Also as one poster metioned above, with that storm of steel projectiles you are bound to damage at least the vision blocks (I mind reading an account of one of the panzers in leibstandarte at Kursk having to pull out of action due to damage to the vision blocks). Any tank commander becoming frustrated at the lack of view risks having his head blown off when he unbuttons to take a wee look...

Cheers fur noo

George

Hehe...you know how much I hate these AT rifle boys in our games! :mad: Quite annoying if you don´t have any infantry to root these out. Forcing enemy armor to button up is always a good measure anyway. :cool: