Russian AT weapons?

[Guest Mike]

The Germans also used captured Russian ATR's - wonder if they're going to be in the game??!!

[Auggy]

Didn't the russians develop a rifle grenade? Why did they quit using it? Better than nothing.

[Guest Mike]

Yes - they had the VPGS rifle-grenade from 1940. 30mm penetration and rage up to 65m.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by 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...

The Germans also had something called 'schwere Panzerbüchse 41', with a tapered barrel. The panzerfaust site sees that more as a light AT gun. TO&E strength seems to have been 3 to a battalion of Panzergrenadiers in January 1943.

[coe]

how were ATRs as infantry killers...like infantry

in fixed positions....like a house?

Conan

[Guest Mike]

Boyes ATR's weer used by Commonwealth troops in the desert in antipersonnel roles - apparently chips & splinters caused by rounds hitting rocks were quite dangerous.

Otherwise it's just a single rifle bullet with great piercing ability. Certainly cover would be less effective against it, but you still have to know there's a target and hit it if it's hiding - it's not a MG where you can spray fire around a suspected position.

[ August 26, 2002, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by coe:

how were ATRs as infantry killers...like infantry

in fixed positions....like a house?

Conan

At Dieppe, Boyes ATRs were used to shoot the locks off of doors so Canadian troops could gain shelter inside them. Those well mannered prairie-boys at Green Beach were too kind to break the windows, I guess...

[ August 26, 2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Foreigner]

Regarding "alternative" uses of ATRs...

Russian snipers frequently used ATRs to shoot more distant and important targets - like machine gun(ner)s and bunkers' firing slits. The heavier bullet and the higher muzzle velocity meant a more stable trajectory for a longer distance, and a hit was guaranteed to cause major damage. The contemporary Browning 50-caliber sniper rifle is a good illustration to that approach - it fires the "Ma Deuce" round, which some say was originally designed for AA role and then proved useful against (light) armor, and others say it was the other way round (sorry for the pun).

The most dangerous things to a tank in combat is to go "blind" when vision devices are damaged. No matter how thick and strong a glass (or plastic) block is, a strong enough round can damage it enough to render it useless - and during WWII the 14.5mm ATR round was usually strong enough. According to Soviet reports, that is exactly how one of the very first Tigers was captured - by taking out its vision equipment with ATR fire. So small arms fire at a tank is not completely useless.

[killmore]

I was wondering about ATR and MG combination.

ATR makes small hole, then MG fires at the hole. Ricoshets inside tank will kill crew quickly!

[Guest Mike]

Yeah - ATR makes a VERY small hole - and MG gunner isn't up to the task of hitting it at 200m because his weapon is optimised to spray bullets around the aiming point semi-randomly rather than all hittign the same spot, and both crews get killed by return fire!!

Please - give us a break!!

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by killmore:

I was wondering about ATR and MG combination.

ATR makes small hole, then MG fires at the hole. Ricoshets inside tank will kill crew quickly!

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Foreigner:

So small arms fire at a tank is not completely useless.

It's just a good way to get killed...

[Tero]

Originally posted by Mike:

and MG gunner isn't up to the task of hitting it at 200m because his weapon is optimised to spray bullets around the aiming point semi-randomly rather than all hittign the same spot,

That is not quite true actually.

At least early tanks were prone to sustain damage (like turret jamming and damaged vision devises) due to sustained MG fire.

[Guest Mike]

Tero read the post we're all replying to - the guy wants to know why MG's couldn't put bullets through holes punched by ATR's.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Mike:

Tero read the post we're all replying to - the guy wants to know why MG's couldn't put bullets through holes punched by ATR's.

OK. I should have checked what your it referred to.

What is being proposed is quite impossible.

He should have tried individual shots from rifles instead of MG. That would be remotely feasible.

Having said that I still say your statement about the optimization of the MG is not entirely accurate.

[Guest Mike]

well I know the Bren was regarded as too accurate when I was doing my time in the infantry because it could put all its bullets into a playing card at 500 yards in the hands of even an average gunner, and that is NOT what it was supposed to do!!

[mcgivney]

Originally posted by Mike:

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

QB]

Ah, Aberdeen. The meadow of steel. (Many with battle damage.)

Topic shift: I was at the Metro Museum of Art in NYC (yes, we're still here, come visit) and there was a circa 1600's armored breastplate... with a bullet dent right over the heart.

Makes you wonder...

[Tero]

Originally posted by Mike:

well I know the Bren was regarded as too accurate when I was doing my time in the infantry because it could put all its bullets into a playing card at 500 yards in the hands of even an average gunner, and that is NOT what it was supposed to do!!

With or without the tripod ?

A word of caution: I got FLAK for saying a SMG can be as accurate out to 300meters and beyond.

In my case it was the Suomi, which made it apparently worse since it was not an Anglo-German-American design AND a SMG is supposed to suck beyond 50meters.

Incidentaly, how did you calibrate it to spray the bullets around ?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by killmore:

I was wondering about ATR and MG combination.

ATR makes small hole, then MG fires at the hole. Ricoshets inside tank will kill crew quickly!

I'm going to believe the better of you and hope you were joking about this one and just forgot to put the smiley at the end of your post.

I'm sure SOMEWHERE on the eastern front at some point an MG bullet entered a tank interior through a hole caused by an ATR bullet and killed a crew member. I'm also just as sure that someone SOMEWHERE in New York State won the latest lotto jackpot.

Seriously, I'm really looking forward to playing with ATRs and other new IAT toys in CMBB. There's a certain David vs. Goliath satisfaction that comes with getting a tank kill with infantry.

I'm guessing that Soviet ATRs are really going to be the most useful German light armor - HTs and ACs and the like - but I doubt this is a surprise to anybody. Being able to take out your opponent's scout vehicles without revealing your heavy hitters is a very good thing IMHO.

Also, it's pretty remarkable just how much of Germany's armor production was 'light' armor, at least in terms of plate thickness. Think about all those HTs and ACs, and then add the lightly armored SPGs and SPATGs, and then add the earlier tank models that were still in some use even fairly late into the war, and you get a lot of targets that are potentially vulnerable to those ATRs. I forsee many a surprised Hetzer owner when his AFV gets flanked by Russian infantry and taken out at long range (compared to what a zook can do) by an ATR.

Hey, at least those 'gamey' flank rushes with cheap vehicles will be a thing of the past in CMBB (at least for the Soviet player) - a couple of ATRs on your flank should stop a tactic like that pretty quickly!!

At least up to PzIVs, I am also guessing that they will have some utility against more heavily armored tanks - their high ROF and low profile mean that they may not need a high kill chance to be useful. At the very least, they should be kind of like a sharpshooter on steroids - they'll at least cause the tank to button up, and just might get a lucky weak point penetration and actually cause some damage to the AFV itself. The fact that the Germans started equipping their PzIVs (and StuGs too, yes??) with Shuerzen seems to indicate that the ATRs were at least somewhat effective against non-schuerzen equipped PzIVs - why develop a countermeasure for a weapon that's not doing any harm?

Imagine this: You park your 'invulnerable' uber-cat (maybe a Tiger I not long after it was introduced) up on a small rise and challenge your opponent to come get you - you're pretty sure the best he's got are T-34/76s and at long range their chances of killing your Tiger before they are KOed by it's more powerful gun and better optics are slim.

Suddenly, your tank crew starts hearing (and feeling) the impact of ATR rounds against the hull of the tank. There's some light cover around - brush, some trees, etc., and try as they might, the Tiger crew can't figure out where the ATR fire is coming from. How long are you going to leave that Tiger up there for your opponents' ATRs to take potshots at before you decide to stop testing your luck and back it down before a lucky hit damages something (or someone!) important?

The point is, a weapon doesn't have to necessarily take out a given unit to be tactically useful against it - just forcing the target to modify it's behavior is sometimes good enough. If moving that Tiger off the rise temporarily gives you the opportunity to maneuver your T-34s closer and so even the odds against the Tiger somewhat, you're better off that you were before.

Another IAT question: I seem to remember reading somewhere that early war tanks were more vulnerable to Molotov Cocktail (or other flammable liquid) attack because the engine compartment was not sealed against liquid seeping in from the deck. As a result, fire attack was more likely to KO the tank as burning liquid in the engine compartment was pretty likely to bring about a catastrophic fire. Anybody have more concrete info on this??

Which brings up another question: flame attacks like molotov cocktails don't necessarily KO an AFV right away - it might take a while for the liquid to drip onto something important and cause serious damage. Anybody know if this is modeled in CMBB? In my imagination, I can see a PzIII driving around with fire on it's deck, while both players wait to see if it's going to go boom or not.

I would think that both concentrated ATR fire and flame attack wouldn't be very good for crew morale, either - I can imagine that either might give a green or even regular crew a serious case of the jitters.

Oh, and Tero: I would differentiate between "accurate" to 300m and "useful" at 300m. By way of comparison, most bolt-action rifles are "accurate" out to well beyond 1000m, but CM models their firepower as petering out at 500m (except when equipped with a scope and put in the hands of a trained sharpshooter). Therefore, the Soumi may well be "accurate" out to 300m, but in the hands of the average Joe soldier, it's firepower is going to be pretty weak at that range.

Cheers,

YD

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Mike:

well I know the Bren was regarded as too accurate when I was doing my time in the infantry because it could put all its bullets into a playing card at 500 yards in the hands of even an average gunner, and that is NOT what it was supposed to do!!

Incidentaly, how did you calibrate it to spray the bullets around ?

I would suggest this: drink a lot of beer or wine (for regular nationalities)or wodka (if you're a Finn) the evening before.

With your hands shaking the next day you will be able to spray the bullets.

Cheers!

Marcus

****

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by mcgivney:

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

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

QB]

Ah, Aberdeen. The meadow of steel. (Many with battle damage.)

Topic shift: I was at the Metro Museum of Art in NYC (yes, we're still here, come visit) and there was a circa 1600's armored breastplate... with a bullet dent right over the heart.

Makes you wonder...</font>

[Jarmo]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

The Germans also had something called 'schwere Panzerbüchse 41', with a tapered barrel. The panzerfaust site sees that more as a light AT gun. TO&E strength seems to have been 3 to a battalion of Panzergrenadiers in January 1943.</font>

[Determinant]

Originally posted by tero:

[snip] AND a SMG is supposed to suck beyond 50meters.

Incidentaly, how did you calibrate it to spray the bullets around ? [/QB]

Tero,

A few points old chum:

1. If SMGs don't suck beyond 50 metres then why do FINBAT in KFOR only seem to carry real rifles like everyone else?

2. Generically one of the qualities of MGs is their 'looseness'. In a Brit context the Bren is considered to be a 'tight' gun that fires quite a concentrated burst while the GPMG (Belgian MAG under license) is considered 'looser' (burst spreads out more) and thus a better area weapon; and thus a better MG particularly when fired in the sustained role from a tripod. Interestingly if you follow this analogy a bren tripod would actually be quite a bad thing for infantry combat. But let's not go there.

3. But most importantly: 'Dies Irae' - the tournament. Stop wasting your time posting and send me a move. I haven't heard a peep from your Waffen GrenadierNichtMentionTheWarMenn for weeks...

[killmore]

ATR bullet looses all its power after punching a hole. Therefore small amount of damage. Bullets going through the hole don't loose energy thus they will ricoshet inside and kill crew.

Now the chance of bullet going through ATR hole is small. But after a couple of more penetrating shots it would grow.

The penetrations would also weaken armour making it easier to penetrate with AP.

What are the real chances at close distance?

Say we are looking at front of small tank frontal surface are would be around 3 meters square... Probably less if you know where hole was made. Hole size is about 15mm square.

So how many 15mm sgr in 3 m sqr?

3000000/15 = 200000

So chance is 1 bullet for every 200,000.

Quite small.

Now you would probably fire at least 100 rounds.

So that would make it 1/2000.

So with 300 bullets from MGs and 3 holes that would be 300*3/200,000 = 1/222

Still sounds quite improbable.

Oh, well that was fun while it lasted...

My math may be wrong too, anyway I think I proved to myself it is highly unlikely...

[Guest Mike]

Yeah - your math is wrong!!

3 m square is actually 9,000,000 (9 million) square millimetres, and the area of the hole is going to be 176 square mm, so the ratio is

1/51,000 (roughly)

Also only "clean hits" on the hole are going to count - any bullets hitting half on teh hole and half on the armour are going to lose a lot of effectiveness.

so any "slanting" hits on teh hole are not goign to be much use.

Assuming the bullet is travelling perpendicular to the hole, the centre of the bullet must be within 3.44 mm of the centre of the hole to get a "clean hit" - that is the bullet does not touch the sides of the hole at all, so the effective area of only 6.88mm diameter (assuming Russian 7.62mm bullet), or about 37.2 sq mm.

The chances of this are about 1/240,000.

the chances of getting 0 (zero) "penetrations" from 300 shots in this case are about 99.875%

So you have about .125% (1 in 800) chance of getting at least 1 bullet through the hole cleanly.

And then there's the chance that it actually hits anything useful and can actually damage it - a single bullet into a cast iron crankcase is not likely to do much damage, or into a gun barrel or breech block, or even into a round of ammunition (IM) of course), or smacking into the opposite side of the armour, deforming and losing most of its energy for subsequent ricochets, hitting teh floor, the roof, stowed clothing, etc.