Fionn: AT-rifles do penetrate 50mm under 100m

[killmore]

Ok this is a message I got from Fionn:

(By the way JasonC did you call Fionn "paranoid schizophrenic"? )

As far as I am aware some AT rifles at extremely

short ( suicidal) ranges could penetrate up to 50mm. You have to remember that this was against armours which didn't benefit from an utrageously high T/D ratio.

OTOH were shots at this range common and did

penetrations at these ranges result in the knocking out of the offending tank. No and no. An ATR doesn't do enough damage to really knock out tanks reliably. About the best you can hope for from an ATR is to have the projectile pass through a crewman or, possibly, touch off a round in the turret.

In and of itself the ATR projectile isn't really all that powerful.

I would point out that for AT rifles all of the tests assume perfect firing conditions ( stationary target, at right angles, no sloping of armour etc) so, in real life, I would expect 30 to 40mm of steel to protect me from AT rifles since I would make it my business to ensure I didn't let Soviet ATR teams get within 100 metres of me.

In reality Soviet ATR units were trained to fire at enemy tank roadwheels, periscopes and sighting

systems. In such a way they could still disable enemy tanks even if their guns couldn't actually penetrate the enemy armour. It should be noted that the Germans lost many TCs to ATR fire through viewing blocks and this is one of the reasons they developed sighting periscopes ( so that the TC or driver's head wasn't directly behind the viewing block such that a Soviet ATR team which hit the viewing block could rely on

their bullet also hitting the German's head as he

looked through it).

[kipanderson]

Hi,

killmore wrote,

“As far as I am aware some AT rifles at extremely

short ( suicidal) ranges could penetrate up to 50mm. You have to remember that this was against armours which didn't benefit from an utrageously high T/D ratio.

OTOH were shots at this range common and did

penetrations at these ranges result in the knocking out of the offending tank. No and no. An ATR doesn't do enough damage to really knock out tanks reliably. About the best you can hope for from an ATR is to have the projectile pass through a crewman or, possibly, touch off a round in the turret.”

When it comes to the penetration figures the only one I know it the commonly circulated one, including in British reports from the time, of 25mm at 500m. In my view, impressive in its self. However, given that it was such a small round I agree its penetration would greatly increase at closer range. The extent to which penetration increases and decrease, with changes in range, it directly proportional to the size of the round. To give an example, the massive 122mm round from the Soviet L43 gun hardly decreases in penetration over 500m.

One point I do disagree on is the likelihood of knocking out the tank, “if” an ATR did penetrate. Having examined a number of penetrations at the Bovington Tank Museum I can confirm that even small rounds produce a lot of spalding/ shrapnel as they move through armour. Even if you take the case of a 14.5mm round penetrating through 25mm of armour a fair number of chunks of shrapnel would travel through with the projectile into the tank. When a projectile penetrates a tank the armour it penetrates through is “pushed ahead of the projectile” into the tank. The armour that is pushed ahead of the projectile also tends to fracture into a number of smaller pieces of shrapnel. All very unhealthy even with a small round. A 14.5mm penetration would do great damage within an engine compartment.

Historically when a tank is penetrated, of a crew of five, one would be killed and one injured. But of course sometimes no one was injured and sometimes all were killed.

Of course, the 14.5m round would be at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of effects. But still very unhealthy. It is not just the round itself that it the problem.

All the best,

Kip.

[PawBroon]

I guess it would fall under the same ROE as Heavy Sniping now when against AFV.

Dunno in your armies but in France they are encouraged to fire at antenaes, laser range finder and any other useful thingies.

My bet is that Russian ATR Teams weren't expecting a catastrophic explosion but rather a crippling blow...

[JasonC]

"did you call Fionn "paranoid schizophrenic"?"

I don't know. I don't know if he is (one of?) the fellows who has supposedly contacted me by having third parties email me things he has written, or if the supposed intermediaries are making it up. I do know that I have never seen a direct communication from him, on or off forum - unless he is an alias for somebody else. And yes, I find that downright crazy. Not being on the forum I can understand, not being able to email people directly is Twilight Zone silly.

[Madmatt]

Okay, here is not the place to disucss ones opinions of someone elses style of emailing.

As his long time friend I will say this, Fionn is unique, now drop the subject!

Madmatt

[ April 10, 2002, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[M Hofbauer]

although Fionn is correct that the maximum penetration of close to 50mm for the russian M41 cartridge (as used in the PTRD and PTRS AT rifles) would only be achieved at ranges below 100 meters I feel the need to point aout a misunderstanding that might be gained from that post. These AT rifles by nop means were a close-assault weapon that only worked at very close ranges.

Although the energy of the AT bullet did bleed off a bit faster than a tank bullet's, it still held its energy well enough to have AT capabilities at reasonable ranges. the PTRD and PTRS were still considered a threat to lightly armored vehicles at ranges of 1.5km where they would still penetrate 15mm of steel.

The flight path of the high-speed projectiles of AT rifles were very flat, hence for example the sights of the polish Maroszek (used by the germans inder the designation PzB-35(p)) were not graduated but set at 300m because any range below was considered point-blank in terms of bullet-drop/sight adjustment.

Similarly, the intended combat range for the russian AT rifles was 200-400 meters.

Of course, if you want to gain the last few millimeters of AP performance out of the weapon then Fionn's observation is right in that you would have to get as close as possible, and close ranges also mean that you can go for vision slits etc. even on heavy tanks.

But that doesn't make the AT rifles a close-assault weapon in the league of Panzerhandmine or Hafthohlladung.

[Gryphon]

Not really on this topic but....

How succesful were AT rifles in real life anyway ?

and a few questions for Madmatt:

How will AT rifles exactly be moddelled? because i'm afraid they will dominate the field, especially against troop transports, armored cars and the lightly armored open-topped SPGs & SPAs.

For example how much will their point cost be?(in comparison to let's say an 50mm Pak38 AT gun or a tank, Pz IV for that matter)

How long will it take to reload the rifle?

How much ammo will they carry?

How fast will they move?

And most important how accurate are these things?

Perhaps you can't give us the data yet but i hope they are balanced out abit. One thing i would be afraid to play against is dozens of AT rifles costing 28 points each, especially when i read these posts about them being able to penetrate as much as 50mm.

Regards,

Gryphon

[killmore]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

But that doesn't make the AT rifles a close-assault weapon in the league of Panzerhandmine or Hafthohlladung.

In the CM games I am playing Tanks get within 100 meters very frequently.

(Of course CM games are not representative of real engagements)

Thus AT-Rifles might be a big threat!

[ April 10, 2002, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: killmore ]

[killmore]

Originally posted by Gryphon:

How long will it take to reload the rifle?

And most important how accurate are these things?

especially when i read these posts about them being able to penetrate as much as 50mm.

Reloads - Very fast - one of them had 5 round magazine

I believe Chinese made sniper rifle based on WWII soviet AT-Rifle. Soviet AT-Rifles were design to shoot at vision slits. These rifles had a long barrel - so I believe they were quite accurate.

Remember Soviet produced hundreds of thousands of them.

[Panzer Leader]

In books I have read, many tank commanders tell that during assaults, AT rifles from all directions would constantly be plinking them. They were a definite threat. Though small individually, the large numbers that the Russians fielded caused them to be a very real nuisance and threat to tanks. I have read memoires of tank commanders who liken them to bee or wasp-stings, and that if an AT rifle nest was sighted, it would be fired upon. As a threat I would put them third, right behind enemy tanks and AT guns (cannons.)

It seems to me that in an assault, the Tanks would first breach the main line while concealed AT rifles would still be able to fire from the flanks. In an actual defensive line, I believe they were placed in depth, both on the forward most lines, and further back to allow for longer crippling shots. That to me, shows that the Russian doctrine knew their capabilites and used them well, that being mostly harrassing fire with the small chance of real damage being increased by either a "lucky shot" or by multiple flank shots after the outermost line was overran.

Incidentally, if I remember correctly, that famous sniper from "Enemy at the Gates" also put them to use as a bunker-buster, by fitting a scope onto one and firing at MG nests with great success.

This is an excellent discussion and I hope that people with more knowledge (and data!) than myself will be able to back up what I said or refute it.

[killmore]

One of the pattern used for deploying them was Chess pattern. Something like shown below:

X_X_X_X_

_X_X_X_X_

X_X_X_X_

[ April 10, 2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: killmore ]

[Gryphon]

In books I have read....and firing at MG nests with great success.

So basically that means i can forget about using those armored cars and nifty halftracks like the 251/22

Regards,

Gryphon

[Sergei]

I wonder what will an AT rifle team look like in the game? Will it shoot from the hip or like a sniper, or like an RPG guy? Or does it actually lay low? Otherwise it, I believe, looks just silly.

[Jarmo]

I'm wondering if they'll be modeled as guns, like 20mm now,

or as infantry weapons, like the .50 cal.

If it'll be like 20mm, I hope the chance of knockout will be lessened.

[Grisha]

Jarmo,

An AT rifle was certainly no heavier or bulkier than a .50 mg, and was probably more like a medium mg when transporting it. I'd be surprised if it was represented as a gun.

[killmore]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

I'm wondering if they'll be modeled as guns, like 20mm now,

or as infantry weapons, like the .50 cal.

If it'll be like 20mm, I hope the chance of knockout will be lessened.

I certainly hope so - ATR would would someone not kill everyone.

Expect more "Abandoned" then "Knocked out"

[Mattias]

I have always been under the impression that CM:BO has some kind of behind armour effect model that takes the differences characteristics of the projectile into account. All the ATR would require is a few numbers of it's own in the formula and hey presto.

The same would go for the calculation of the actual hit location of the hit of course...

--

My bet is on an AT infantry type two man team. The weapon is more cumbersome than a Bazooka so there could be a little more fatigue. In position it is very much more accurate and has a smaller "launch signature".

Schürtzen no doubt being a real relief when they finally arrive..

--

M.

[gatpr]

All things are possible but I doubt shooting an ATR ( like the Lahti) from the hip was a common practice. I am intrigued by the use of them also and wonder if they will be employable in those secondary modes.

[killmore]

I want to apologize to Fionn. I have posted his comments about AT-Rifles without his permission. In the future I will ask permission first. Instead I just emailed to Fionn AFTER I already posted his comments about AT-Rifles.

With apologies - killmore