CMBB the Anti Tank Rifle and the Molotov

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The RPG 43 was very common and worked well. By which I mean it was designed to strike nose first. The design worked by having two lengths of cloth emerge from the handle when it was thrown.

All the best,

Kip.

[TSword]

50 mm at under 100 m for a 14.5 mm rifle ?

What's the muzzle velocity ?

Was it a wolfram carbide core ?

The 3.7 cm Pak did around 40 mm at point blank for comparison and had a mV somewhere around 700 m/s if i remember correctly.

So the 14.5 would roughly and very optimistic need a mV of over 1000 m/s to achieve this astonishing penetration capability.

[MikeyD]

How thick was the Panther lower hull side? 30-40mm? the Russian anti-tank rifle could pierce that, but couldn't pierce the thicker Tiger I sides. That's why the Panthers got the soft metal skirts and the Tigers didn't.

[Mattias]

The vertical lower hull plates were 40 mm thick. Which places them in the penetration range of the BS-41 round that, apparently, was fired by the ATR's.

From what I have seen the sides of the Panther seems to have been relatively safe (compared to the sides of the Pz III's and IV's) from ATR fire which, I assume, is because this special type of ammunition was required to penetrate.

See again..

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons3.html

--

M.

[killmore]

Originally posted by Mattias:

I am sorry but do you have a source for these figures? They are the highest I have heard mentioned so far and would like to be able to see them in print somewhere. You mentioned a book giving the ATR's 35mm @ 90 degrees at 500 meters, what book is that?

--

M.[/QB]

[Mattias]

Originally posted by killmore:

Well, there is still no source saying that this is the case.

And what makes me wonder is that, in the same way as the known 30mm+ penetration capability led to the adoption of schürtzen on 30, and some 40mm surfaces there should have been a reaction to ATR's capable of defeating 50mm of armour.

Have you ever heard of Pz IV turret fronts and other 50 mm plates being defeated by ATR's?

--

M.

[killmore]

Originally posted by Mattias:

Well, there is still no source saying that this is the case.

Have you ever heard of Pz IV turret fronts and other 50 mm plates being defeated by ATR's?

M.[/QB]

I believe Fionn gave the source when he wrote that - unfortunatly current "search" does not let me search that far back...

Another statement was made at the time:

AT rifles were not penetrating armour - instead they would just punch a small hole in it. If the bullet itself got inside tank it would rarely have enough energy to hurt anyone inside. But second bullet going through the same hole is another story.

If you plug in these numbers into equation from

http://www.onlineconversion.com/armor.htm

you do get 50mm - that is not a reliable source in any way.

Interesting that AT rifle seems to gain ability to penetrate much faster than 20mm flak. Flak was able to penetrate 24mm at 500m and only 32 at 100m. AT rifles are at 35-40mm at 300 meters already.

Regarding 50mm armour on PzIV - only very early models had 50mm armour - the ones in CM all have over 70mm. I bet all PzIVs after mid-1942 would be immune to frontal shots from AT-Rifles.

Also remember this is at 0 degrees. It is extremly rare to get exactly 0 degree shot.

[Mattias]

KillM, I don't want to complicate the issue.

What started me off was when you said:

"By the way from a very close distance ATR were able to penetrate early PzIV from the front. (Armour was 50mm and ATR were able to penetrate 50mm under 100 meters)"

By extension this would put all Pz IV's in the danger zone as all later models have 50 mm front turret armour, inclined merely about 10 degrees. This weakness is painfully obvious to an player who has faced M3 / 5 Stuarts in CM.

I doubt that...

It would be good with a clear source stating that the 14.5 mm ATR's could penetrate 50 mm of armour, even with the "special" ammunition. It is not really a matter of not believing you or not, I just want a clear reference for something as "out of the ordinary".

As you say, this would mean penetration at the absolute maximum of the capability of the ammunition, probably lacking in effect. Hitting the same hole again sounds a little far fetched and the structural integrity of the armour is probably not overly compromised by a 14.5 mm hit.

I'll have a look around to see what I can find on the ATR's. From the perspective of German tanks and StuG's the big problem with these weapons seems to have faded with the arrival of the Schürtzen and generally thicker armour. From what I have read that is...

--

M.

[ March 25, 2002, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Bastables]

Here is Hof's page showing 40mm perforation at 100m

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust6.htm#ammo

I don't remember Fionn ever saying 50mm could be perforated at 100m I could be mistaken,but a search through the archives 99 to 01 turns up nothing.

StuG F's with 50mm front armour was proof vs 14.5mm rounds in 1942.

[Foreigner]

I might be beating a dead horse here, but I came upon some wildly conflicting pieces of info on the production of Soviet ATRs in 1941.

On one hand, the article on the Russian Battlefield site states that in 1941, "...some 600..." PTRDs were produced. On the other hand, the following Russian-language article on the OSTPANZER site (attributed to a staff member of the Central Museum of Russian Armed Forced) states that during 1941, 17688 PTRDs were produced. Interestingly enough, all other ATR production figures are practically identical in both articles.

Definitely, one of these numbers is plainly wrong (and possibly both?). Anybody interested to provide some third-source info? By the way, according to the second article, the ATR designs were cleared for production at the end of August 1941, and they first saw action on 11/16/1941 in the defence of Moscow.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by killmore:

By the way from a very close distance ATR were able to penetrate early PzIV from the front.

(Armour was 50mm and ATR were able to penetrate 50mm under 100 meters)

Early Pz IV didn't have 50mm turrets.

A: 14.5mm (yepp, really)

B-E: 30mm

F-J: 50mm

At the time of barbaroosa, the F just began to become available, we are mostly talking 30mm turrets here.

As for sides and skirts, whhen the G got skirts in April 1943 it had 30mm side, both turret and hull. It was found that skirts of 5-10mm thickness together with this side armor stopped ATR rounds from 100m.

Source: Spielberger's Pz IV book.

[killmore]

After looking at all of this data/discussion I keep seeing that AT Rifle was "capable of defeating" or "could penetrate" X milimeters of armor. I am starting to wonder whether this means in rare cases like 10%. Maybe AT rifle info is not up to par with penetrations listed for AT guns where penetration means over 50% of the time.

Even consistant penetration of 40mm of the armor seems like a lot. I wonder if Fionn answers email any more so I could ask him whether he has reliable source.

[Bastables]

And there's the problem of penatration figures refering to effect on RHA not the perfered FH armour of pre-44 German tanks.

[JasonC]

My understanding is that the short range penetration of the ATRs was around 35mm with the standard AP ammunition, and rose - at close ranges only, the difference basically disappears by 500 meters range - to about 45mm with tungsten core ammunition. I suspect the 50mm figure refers to an extrapolation of the tungsten ammo down to at-the-muzzle, rather than 100m range. I doubt it ever had any battlefield effect.

The standard armor of almost all German tanks at the time of the invasion was 30mm. A few plates were thinner at 20mm, and the latest model Pz IIIs (H) and Pz IVs (E) had thicker front armor due to bolted-on reinforcing plates. So the only surfaces that would have stopped ATR fire in 1941 would have been the fronts of the best mediums.

But there weren't any ATRs to speak of in 1941. They began to be issued in the TOEs very late in that year, and only expanded to large amounts in the spring of 1942. By summer of 1942 there were flocks of them everywhere. Incidentally, on the 600 figure for 1941 production of one rifle type, I and others noticed that before too, and it seems to be an outright error, or to refer to the production at one location. Note that sometimes the dates aren't the same either, with some refering to "until the begining of December" and others to "through the end of December". The higher figure, but still under 20K, seems to be right for calender 1941.

In 1942, the German AFV mix was shifting to uparmored types. New production vehicles were mostly immune to ATRs from the front (a few Pz II and Pz 38t still being made were the exceptions). All of them were still vunerable to ATRs from the sides and rear. Thus the need for skirts, which were designed to prevent KOs from two rounds - 14.5mm ATR (with plain AP), and 76mm HE. The extra thickness and stand-off distance enabled a skirted vehicle with 30mm side to withstand either. The skirts were only placed over locations with armor that thin.

The 40mm side of the Panther should have withstood 14.5mm ATRs -with plain AP-. Special tungsten ammo, close range, and flat-on side shots should have allowed some side penetrations of their 40mm plate, but I have not seen confirmed instances of this. You do hear about the cumulative damage caused to tanks of all sizes even from non-penetrating hits, or from weak-point hits, by multiple ATR rounds.

Russian doctrine stressed waiting for close range and side shots to get through 30mm side plates on the standard German tanks. The targeted areas were drive sprocket and fuel cells to get an M-kill, and side of the turret to cause crew casualties. The main problem was obviously the small behind-armor-effect of even successful penetrations.

Cumulative damage to knock out the targeted vehicle's capabilities one by one was the method required. First immobilize it to allow continue shooting, then disable the weapons. SMG teams were to deal with bail outs, and cover the approach of Molotov teams to finish off tanks immobilized in this manner. These are not the sorts of things you have to do if one or two ATR shots result in whang, a lurch, and a dead tank.

In short, the penetration of the ATRs was quite good, compared to the armor on most German tanks. Not 50mm good, but with tungsten and short enough range, still impressive. The knock-out ability of achieved penetrations was a different story.

By late 43, German tanks had skirts or 40mm sides, and they were also usually defending, instead of trying to push past nests of hidden Russian defenders. That meant the ATRs got used at longer ranges, against thicker armor, and more often against front plates. They could still damage things, and undoubtedly they contributed mightily to the ability of Russian infantry to deal with isolated German tanks, unsupported by infantry or after their infantry had been defeated. But they were not of the same tactical importance as in the defensive battles of 1942 through mid 1943.