AT rifle penetration

[RCHRD]

I was trying to get into the 'Russian Battlefield' site, but no success. Can anyone tell me the penetration values for the Soviet AT rifles at 100 meters?

[Hensworth]

Why don't you just select one and hit enter ?

[John Kettler]

RCHRD,

Don't know why it's down, but from the CMBB Strategy Guide, page 2/34, it's 35mm at 100m for the PTRS and 36mm at 100m for the PTRD. Believe you'll find this item, from a juicy site for small arms, of interest.

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/antitank.pdf

These may also help.

http://www.antitank.co.uk/russian1.htm

http://www.antitank.co.uk/ptrs.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/145mm.html

http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/AT_RIFLES2.htm

Translation of Russian AT Rifle Tactics

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/atrifle/index.html

Translation of Russian Antitank Tactics

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ru_antitank/index.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[ July 08, 2006, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[RCHRD]

Thank you, John. Just what I needed.

[John Kettler]

RCHRD,

Glad to help!

Regards,

John Kettler

[jtcm]

Notice how the real-life SOP is different from CMBB-- the Russian manual tells the ATR team to let the tank come close and go for a kill, the CMBB player often lets the ATR plink away at long ranges, to button up.

So what gives-- does the CMBB simulation in fact allow us to model a better use than the actual manual ? does CMBB allow us to rediscover what was 'field practice' rather than the fieldbook's regulations ? Do CMBB players use ATRs better than actual Soviet WWII soldiers do ?

-- a question I often have when comparing CMBB performance and historical narrative or historical documents such as the manuals translated above.

[Bigduke6]

My guess, RL Soviets always tried to have a half dozen ATRs firing on a single target, and better a dozen. With mass like that ATRs can do more than plink; but you rarely see that many ATRs together in one place in CM.

[Andreas]

RL Germans did not have borg spotting, greatly increasing the chance of an ATR team opening up at short range to live through more than the next 30 secs. RL German tanks may not always have been accompanied by infantry, e.g. because it was held back by artillery or machine guns, with a similar effect in favour of the ATR team's ability to get back home.

RL Red Army formations used their ATRs for a lot more than AT work in any case, and I would not be surprised if a vast portion of them never even saw a tank to fire at.

All the best

Andreas

[MikeyD]

I recall one account of a Tiger I returning from front line infantry support and more than a hundred shell strikes could be counted on the hull - mostly AT rifle strikes around the vision port and on the drum cupola. An infantry support Tiger often couldn't pull back for long range firing because if he withdrew the spooked infantry tended to withdraw with him.

In the game AT rifles often have a different job description than knocking out armor. That's why CM tactics are different from real world tactics. The CM AT rifle's job is to keep the commander buttoned so he can't spot and fire on your other troops. For that job long range firing works just fine.

[George MC]

Just done a quick unscientific test which backs up Big Dukes assertion.

A platoon of veteran ATRs taking on a platoon of regular Pz IVG (with skirts) in July 1943 in open steppe firing from some small clumps of trees took out three of the PzIVs with multiple rear hits causing the crews to abandon the tanks. They lost two ATR teams.

So in CMBB they are effective holding fire to less than 300m and going for rear hits on Panzer IVs. I guess the reality is in CM is having that many ATRs who can take on a platoon of Panzers and hit em in the rear. More often than not the player only has a few.

edited to correct some typos.

[ July 12, 2006, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: George Mc ]

[John Kettler]

George Mc,

Have you determined whether the ATRs can do anything to those tanks from the front or the sides at the same ranges you investigated? Also, have you done any tests against earlier German tanks before skirt armor was issued?

Regards,

John Kettler

[George MC]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

George Mc,

Have you determined whether the ATRs can do anything to those tanks from the front or the sides at the same ranges you investigated? Also, have you done any tests against earlier German tanks before skirt armor was issued?

Regards,

John Kettler

Hi John

I only ran one test game as i was curious as to whether ATRs could take out a panzer IV. I waited till the AI panzers were about at 300m or so, and had all my ATRs open fire. The panzers then were receiving fire from multiple directions. Any hits to front and side did'nt appear to do much but ping off. But when the panzers rotaed to engage and ID ATR team that's when I started to get rear hits which caused penetrations. It took about 4 - 6 penetrating hits till the crew bailed out, but I'm not sure at what point they started bailing out.

I've only done this one rather on the hoof test, but I was surprised to see that ATR teams doing what the Soviet training manual says they should do were succesful in CMBB. My experience with them i guess echoes everyone elses - they fire, they die. So having a stack of ATRs, opening fire from multiple directions then having them target the rear of a panzer IV may get better results than you banked on.

I've not done any tests on armour that has no side skirts. As I said this was done out of curiosity and I was surprised. :cool:

Cheers fur noo

George

[MikeyD]

"they fire, they die."

Actually, in that regard I find ATRs do better than just about anything else! As long as my ATR isn't laying in the middle of an open field it can take quite a bit of time before he's discovered/dealt with. Compare that to proper ant-tank guns which are liable to be dead meat after 2-3 rounds. You can use this ATR trait to your advantage in the game. Instead of purchasing a German 37mm anti-tank gun try purchasing one of those taper-bore 20mm(?) heavy anti-tank rifles. They've got as much penetration at a 37mm plus their conceilment is infinitely higher. You can blaze away with the thing from scattered trees and they can't locate the source of the fire!

[John Kettler]

George Mc,

I appreciate the additional info on what you did and how you did it. I can personally attest to the difficulty of spotting ATRs, based on bitter ROW IV experience. In one battle, I had several of the British variety banging away at me turn after turn, losing first an MG turret, taking a bunch of penetrations, spanging dozens of shots, and I believe ultimately succumbing to the effects of crew losses and a shattered track. You could've knocked me over with a feather when I finally got to see where all that fire had been coming from. Turned out that I'd identified and fired on only one of several British ATR teams. Of the remainder, I'd known nothing.

MikeyD,

I love your idea. It's smart and delightfully perverse, not to mention a Gerlich 28/20 has got to be lots more mobile than a standard antitank gun. I need to take a look at the weapon pricing. Maybe you could get two 28/20s for what one Pak 36 cost. Rarity might be a problem, though.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

I spot checked June '42 and June '43. For the former, the 28/20 is a bit cheaper than a Pak 36; for the latter; it's the other way around. There is definitely no two for one to be had in either case if unit quality is held constant. With Rarity on, in June '43 the 28/20 is astronomically pricey. Even for June '42, though, Rarity is still an issue, albeit minor, for the 28/20. I fail utterly to grok why both weapons should be classed as Very Slow, seeing as how the 28/20 weighs roughly half what the Pak 36 does. The mobility ratings for guns in the CMBB Strategy Guide seem to have been given with minimal actual consideration of the actual size and weight of the weapons.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ July 12, 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[George MC]

Hi John

I must admit my comment about you spot em they die was hastily written and poorly thought out! I've just minded that as I like playing with SPW a lot, they are the bain of my SPW life, being difficult to spot - bit of a brain fart on my part

Another aside and it has been mentioned but mutiple ATR hits on panzers can seriously degrade their combat effectiveness. I mind well one account written during Kursk where a Panzer IV heading into the gloom to rescue Peiper's mob had pretty much all it's vision blocks smashed to the extent that looking out the vehicle from inside was night impossible. the tank still ran just no-one could see out. Guess in that context you would be inclined to get out of the there fast, or more likely bail out and take your chances outside rather than sit in the tank, blind, and wait for some Soviet tank hunter team to pick you off.

On the SPW side I've read acounts where the inside of the SPW were fitted with wooden beams to reduce the behind armour effect of AT fire and shell splinters. Also the front armoured covering was up-armoured (at least in peiper's unit) by bolting on extra armour. They found that out by firing a captured AT rifle at the front of one of their brand new SPW prior to being deployed at Kharkov in early 43.

Cheers fur noo

George

[MikeyD]

The reason why the 28/20 ATR price spikes as the war progresses is because it uses a tungsten core round and Germany quickly ran out of its supply of tungsten. But by the time the 28/20 gets too expensive to use it and the 37mm are both obsolete anyway. Time to switch to either 'real' AT guns or zooks.

[John Kettler]

I wish I could find that Tiger Kompanie readiness report I found on the Net back in my Panzer Elite days. An entire Tiger Kompanie was rendered hors de combat during Kursk by so many smashed cupola vision blocks that both unit and Bataillon stocks were exhausted, causing days of delay until new stocks could be gotten from Regiment. Meanwhile, the tanks were unfightable because TCs couldn't see when buttoned. Many TCs received face and/or eye injuries from splintered blocks, and a few had multiweek hospital stays as a result of having a vision block or bracket driven right into the face. Such was the real power of ATRs, even halfway through 1943.

I've asked for help tracking down this report before, but no joy so far. You'd think something this big would appear in, say, one of the Jentz books or somesuch.

Regards,

John Kettler

[George MC]

Hi John

Can you mind if it was a Heer or SS unit?

Cheers fur noo

George

[MikeyD]

Huh! John, your description of the smashed vision blocks sounds an awful lot like CM's 'gamey' use of AT rifles to keep TCs buttoned and blind! That'll teach me to underestimate CM.

Next thing, we're going to find out that advancing troops really DID hug the edges of maps when they advanced!

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Heck yeah, infinite nothingness makes a great flank defender. :cool:

[John Kettler]

George Mc,

Unfortunately, no I don't. That was many years ago, and I failed to bookmark the site. Dumb!

MikeyD,

Russian ATR crews were taught that the cupola was one of the aimpoints when engaging German tanks.

Here's the text from the Russian ATR crew training manual. Sadly, the supporting graphics aren't back up yet following a server crash at Russian Battlefield, nor do the links work.

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

Here's a thread regarding a JasonC analysis of Russian ATR effectiveness, as well as my real world data point.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=009627

Regards,

John Kettler

[ July 14, 2006, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[RCHRD]

I just saw that the Russian 45mm AT gun had a 100 metre penetration of 42mm, making the ATR almost exactly as effective. Why have the AT gun at all? 38mm penetration seems kind of generous.

[Andreas]

A comparatively big HE charge in the round makes for a better behind-armour effect. Also, the game simulates manufacturing flaws in the early war ammo for the 45, reducing its penetration capability.

All the best

Andreas

[c3k]

John,

ISTR that the 28/20 was only issued to German paratroop units. I'm wide open to being corrected on that as my source documents are not at hand. But, depending on your penchant for historical accuracy in your scenarios, that could have a large affect on rarity.

Regards,

Ken