Russian AT weapons?

[Speedy]

Originally posted by CaptPigglesbeThe3rd:

PS...Are there any Fins in CMBB?

Oh No! Not again!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Speedy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CaptPigglesbeThe3rd:

PS...Are there any <font color=red>Fins </font> in CMBB?

Oh No! Not again!</font>

[CaptPigglesbeThe3rd]

"AH HA" the Missing "N"

Wondered were that went.

Just thou it would be great if they were

in the order of battle.Hell there looks

to be enough there to keep me going.

Thanks for the list

[ August 21, 2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: CaptPigglesbeThe3rd ]

[MikeyD]

Never underestimate the guys at Battlefront.com. That's all I'm going to say.

[Tha_Field_Marshall]

IIRC A few years back the game close combat (I believe that was the name of the game) :the russian front gave the russians bazookas.

[killmore]

Soviet AT rifle can penetrate over 50mm of armour under 100m! So they were able to penetrate front of PzIV early and still front of the turret of PzIV at the end of the war. (If memory servers me right!)

Soviet AT-Granades were able to penetrate 120mm of armour.

Once you punch a hole in the tank with At-Rifle ANY BULLET is capable to take out the tank!

Why?

Bullet which goes through the ATR hole and ricoches inside tank. It will kill crew and can cause ammo explosion or engine fire

Now this is probably not modeled - TOO BAD!

Couple of ATRs with MGs support should be easily capable to take out PzIV (at close distance)

[MikeyD]

CMBB does field dedicated anti-tank teams but if you don't count anti-tank rifles it's mostly up-close-and-personal work, until the Germans finally field the panzershrek. very tough fighting - there was a reason why casualties reached the ten of millions on the Eastern Front!

Early in the war a lot of different stuff gets hand-tossed at passing tanks in CMBB. A molotov cocktail dropped onto an open-topped Hummel can have quite dramatic results!

[Mattias]

Originally posted by killmore:

Soviet AT rifle can penetrate over 50mm of armour under 100m! So they were able to penetrate front of PzIV early and still front of the turret of PzIV at the end of the war. (If memory servers me right!))

Whats your source on this Kill? The same subject and numbers were brought up earlier this year and turned out to be a bit hard to substantiate.

Once you punch a hole in the tank with At-Rifle ANY BULLET is capable to take out the tank!

Why?

Bullet which goes through the ATR hole and ricoches inside tank. It will kill crew and can cause ammo explosion or engine fire

Now this is probably not modeled - TOO BAD!

Couple of ATRs with MGs support should be easily capable to take out PzIV (at close distance)

Somehow I can't wrap my mind around this idea? Of all the things that could conceivably happen on the battle field this could be one, at random. But as a standard tactic, well, it's a stretch isn't it?

Anyway, your ATR's would be stopped by the schürzen hence preventing the danger of, eh, preperforation

M.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Such as what, 55 Chevies?

If you are trying to intimate that the '55 Chevy had tailfins, Dorosh, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! [slams fist on table]

Heh, that felt good.

Not only did the '55 not have fins, the '56 didn't either. They were only introduced on the '57 model.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by killmore:

Once you punch a hole in the tank with At-Rifle ANY BULLET is capable to take out the tank!

Why?

Bullet which goes through the ATR hole and ricoches inside tank. It will kill crew and can cause ammo explosion or engine fire

What's this, the Walt Disney version of World War Two? Are we in Fantasyland yet?

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Such as what, 55 Chevies?

If you are trying to intimate that the '55 Chevy had tailfins, Dorosh, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! [slams fist on table]

Heh, that felt good.

Not only did the '55 not have fins, the '56 didn't either. They were only introduced on the '57 model.

Michael</font>

[Farnz]

I don't know if they would really be classified as antitank but the Russians will be fielding "Molotov Thowers" (as seen in Red Barricades ASL) in CMBB. I suspect they were a bit more urban fighting orientated.

Personally I'm looking forward to ATRs and plugging those pesky German halftracks.

[MikeyD]

The often-quoted 50mm (or is it 40mm?) penetration for Russian anti-tank rifles I believe is largely based on the Germans having to add skirts to their Panthers because they were getting anti-tank rifle penetrations on the lower hulls above the roadwheels. That penetration stat should be regarded as anecdotal only and should be considered the EXTREME limit of performance for a tungsten-core round.

A fun thing to consider. On the Beta board there were debates about anti-tank rifle company TO&Es. I believe one person said as many as 36 anti-tank rifles could be in a single unit! Imagine the mayhem!

[Guest Mike]

IIRC a ATR platoon had 9 ATR's, and there'd be 1 such platoon per infantry battalion, plus a company of 3 or 4 platoons at regiment/brigade.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Early in the war a lot of different stuff gets hand-tossed at passing tanks in CMBB. A molotov cocktail dropped onto an open-topped Hummel can have quite dramatic results!

Outside of Disneyland Minsk that is unlikely to happen though, since there was no Hummel in the early war.

Looking at pictures of mid-late war Hummels though, they have these nice metal baskets over the opening, to keep them from falling out during a bumpy ride.

Alles Gute kommt von oben, evidently.

[killmore]

Anyway, your ATR's would be stopped by the schürzen hence preventing the danger of, eh, preperforation

M.[/QB]

Well Nope...

There were no schürzen in 1941 and few in 1942.

I am not talking 1944 here.

By the way Soviets frequently fired at tanks with machine guns (early war) even if it was sensless.

It is 35mm at 300m so if you do the math using various armour penetration web page calculator you do get 50mm under 100m.

For an exact source you need to ask Fionn. He had a source.

Now would the ATR penetration then MG fire work on a tank? I don't see a reason why not! Therefore it should also work in a simulation.

Even if penetration would not happen on PzIV why would it not work on side of lesser tank? You do get them in CMBB so why the MG fire would be ineffective?

[Determinant]

Originally posted by killmore:

Show me the infantryman that wouldn't fire a machine gun at a tank - or throw something - or spit even. Sadly the sick truth is that: rifle bullets (and in case you missed an earlier episode MGs only fire rifle bullets) will not even so much as scratch an armoured vehicle.

But all that said in the post-war British Army there is a fine tradition, on the Prairie Block at Medicine Hat in Alberta, where our generous Canadian cousins allow us to train in armoured warfare, for the infantry to fire their MGs into their own passing tanks out of nothing more than ugly spite. And the effect: punctured external tank stores. No tank or tanker has yet been harmed.

There's probably a lesson there in relation to any armoured vehicle post - oh - 1917?

Toodle pip!

[Mattias]

Originally posted by killmore:

Well, neither am I

The Russian didn't have very many ATR's in '41 but as they increased, radically, in number in '42 the Germans began to ponder a way of counteracting them, thus the schürtzen were born in late 1942.

By the second quarter of '43 they were picked up rapidly by most tanks and StuG's that were in danger of puncturing by ATR's, thus making them, if not immune, then at least considerably much less vulnerable to these weapons.

... But schürtzen and ATR development aside...

You mean the idea of regularly hitting a 14.5mm hole on a moving target from anything but close combat range doesn't strike you as a bit, well, ambitious

Reports so far seems to indicate that multiple ATR hits may well fail to stop even the "lesser" tanks in CMBB, why would a machine gun bullet be any different in this respect?

--

I'm really not out to bash your ideas, it's just that, firstly, the capabilities of ATR's have been discussed a lot here and, secondly, that the idea of "preperforation" seem kind of far fetched

M.

[JasonC]

On ATR penetration, my understanding is that 35mm was the achievable figure for regular AP ammo, meaning sides were vunerable without the skirts but were not vunerable with them. Panther sides should have worked even without skirts. However, they also had modest amounts of tungsten core ammo with higher penetration, which is apparently were the 50mm point blank maximum comes from. Which would have been dangerous (from close enough) even to Panther sides. Whether they would be dangerous to skirted 30mm is an open question - probably, but it could depend on issues about round tumbling and such.

[coe]

hey what about German ATR's. Didn't the Germans use them too? What will they do in CMBB

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Determinant:

But all that said in the post-war British Army there is a fine tradition, on the Prairie Block at Medicine Hat in Alberta, where our generous Canadian cousins allow us to train in armoured warfare, for the infantry to fire their MGs into their own passing tanks out of nothing more than ugly spite. And the effect: punctured external tank stores. No tank or tanker has yet been harmed.

[snips]

Well, of course, what the folks at BATUS are trying to do is chop up the sleeping bags of the tank crew. This will cause them considerable annoyance at laagering time, and also produce the spectacle of Chieftains/Challengers/Challenger 2s [adjust according to vintage] driving around shedding a coud of feathers.

Seriously, you stick in enough tracers and the target AFV might have a stowage fire; and you might just have a bullet chop down a radio antenna. These are firmly in the "annoyance" rather than the "system kill" category, though.

All the best,

John.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Whether they would be dangerous to skirted 30mm is an open question - probably, but it could depend on issues about round tumbling and such.

Indeed, as it is by deforming the projectile and disrupting the flight path that the skirts work.

When they were first tested it was shown that 30mm armour surfaces suffered no tears or penetrations what so ever from 14.5 mm ATR rounds (no mention of ammunition type) when protected by mesh or plate skirts (100 meters @ 90 degrees).

I'm not much into ballistics but I would think that it is, primarily, the mass of the projectile in relationship to, primarily, the resistance of the obstacle that dictates to what extent the flight path will be affected. My impression, based on this, is that the skirts would have been about as effective against tungsten projectiles as they were against normal AP, the difference being significant but not exactly radical.

M.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Determinant:

Not so - the Jagdtiger at Aberdeen PG has at least 1 rifle calibre bullet embedded in its armour!!

Also remember that in 1941 many tanks had direct vision slits, pistol ports, unarmoured glass periscopes, unarmoured (or poorly armoured) external recoil mechanisms for their cannon and other externals that could be damaged by rifle fire.

It was not a pointless exercise - jsut not a very efficient or effective one.

[JasonC]

The Germans did indeed use ATRs - 7.92 mm ones, in 1941 and 1942. Fewer in the latter year. Not very effective, because they are only firing rifle caliber ammo, not 14.5mm ammo. But then many of the 1941 Russian light tanks have only 12-15mm of armor, so perhaps...

[Bimmer]

FYI, the German PzB39 (7.92x95) fired a 224 grain AP bullet at a muzzle velocity of about 3800fps. The Soviet PTRS-41 (14.5x114) used a 994 grain API bullet that left the muzzle at 3200fps. I don't have the muzzle energy figures handy, nor the formula to calculate them, but the above numbers make it obvious that the Soviet round will have been quite a bit more effective, with the incendiary component aiding in destroying enemy armor.

(Figures from The Armory, Volume 1, by Kevin Dockery)