Soviet AT granades - penetration 120mm

[killmore]

RPG-40 penetrates 20mm (1940)

RPG-41 penetrates 25mm (1941)

RPG-43 penetrates 75mm (1943)

RPG-6 penetrates 120mm (yes 120mm!) october 1943

Throwing range 15-20 meters. Had special stabilization system and worked similarly to Panzerfaust.

Sounds like german tanks had other things to worry about than AT rifles. These had to be deadly to german tanks if you could get close enough

Source: "Weapons of Red Army" B.H. Shunkov 1999

[Panzer_Meyer]

Yes, but how common were these?!

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The RPG 43 was very common. It was a standard piece of kit, similar to any other standard item. I have read accounts of every soldier being armed with one.

The RPG 43 was the really big breakthrough. It was a very simple, yet clever design that worked well. It was fairly compact, but it could be relied on to strike the target nose first. The source I have also gives 20m as the range. It is the sort thing CM could model very realistically. I am sure they will.

If the Soviet could separate German armour from their infantry they did have the means of destroying it at close quarters. Remember grenades, such as the RPG 43, would most often strike roof and side armour.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The RPG43 looked very like a German stick grenade, but with a HEAT warhead. You pulled the pin out and when you throw it the handle came apart and two lengths of cloth emerged, forcing the grenade to fly nose first.

[M Hofbauer]

Have to disagree with the notion that the RPG-43 was very sophisticated a la an equivalent to the PzF.

The big improvement of the RPG-43 was that it employed a shaped charge for the first time. However, this required a special means to stabilize it in flight so that the hollow charge could work as intended. And that was the catch...

In fact, it was just as good or bad as the early Panzerwurfmine since they were almost identical in concept (cloth tail for stabilization so that the head would have the right attitude when striking).

Apparently, the germans eventually did not consider this means very advanced or practical.

Even though the range was only a couple of meters (20), it was still horribly inaccurate to throw it and needed the right throwing technique (no direct throw - you needed a ballistic throw), and therefore was only a marginal AT asset.

Which was why the germans abandoned the conept and moved to other means.

IMO the PWM/RPG-43 is no comparison to a Faustpatrone or Panzerfaust. Even a PzHM (attached mine) probably had a better chance of success (albeit probably more dangerous to the user).

The russians usually had enough tanks whereever they chose their Schwerpunkt, and enough AT pieces on the defense, so that the infantry's lack of a better handheld AT weapon did not really matter as much as it would for the germans if they still would have had to rely on the PWM.

The above is from my impression from what i have learnt so far about russian AT grenades, and I am very interested if you ahve any additional informatioon as I am very much interested in the subject.

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

It was a standard piece of kit, similar to any other standard item.

No offence, but that cracks me up.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

In fact, it was just as good or bad as the early Panzerwurfmine...

...Which was why the germans abandoned the conept and moved to other means.

To me these trowing grenades sound like exactly the thing to be over modelled and over used in CM. On paper and in theory they might seem like fine weapons but in real life they turn out to be little more than dangerous and suicide provoking gadgets.

M.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mattias:

To me these trowing grenades sound like exactly the thing to be over modelled and over used in CM. On paper and in theory they might seem like fine weapons but in real life they turn out to be little more than dangerous and suicide provoking gadgets.

They belong to that period of the war when armies were desperately searching to put a weapon, any weapon, in the hands of the infantry to protect themselves from tanks. The need was as much psychological as practical. Without some means to fight back, men would tend to panic when the armor arrived. But with a weapon in their hands, however inefficient, they were more likely to stand their ground.

Michael

[ March 23, 2002, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Definitely spot on I think, and that is what makes the implementation in CM so precarious. The lack of depth in CM's psychology engine makes these things too easy to use. Without mental fatigue, tank terror, wet clothes etc etc, it is all reduced to numbers, that very often stop at hit chance percentage and penetration value.

Not that I blame BTS, would be a big one to implement

--

M.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Mattias:

Definitely spot on I think, and that is what makes the implementation in CM so precarious. The lack of depth in CM's psychology engine makes these things too easy to use. Without mental fatigue, tank terror, wet clothes etc etc, it is all reduced to numbers, that very often stop at hit chance percentage and penetration value.

I think I would disagree with this statement. A lot of these elements appear to me to be in the game, or will be. The fact that we don't see them does not mean they are not there.

E.g. yesterday I tested a new scenario, and for the first time ever I saw a PIAT team get through all six rounds in 60 secs. They were veteran, unsuppressed and unspotted, firing at 120m. I have seen PIAT teams firing just one round when under fire. Also yesterday, I returned a PBEM turn in which a squad of my crack FJs did not use their two PF-60s against a Sherman that was less than 30m away. They were under fire from three directions.

Steve has mentioned that there will be a fitness rating in CMBB, which will further increase variability.

So you could have the extreme cases of the unsuppressed, superfit, crack Siberian Übertrooper, who eats Panzer IIIs for breakfast because he likes to crap steel, executing a throw of the RPG-41 from ambush that would make Nomo blush, or the suppressed, Broken!, tired, unfit conscript former accounts clerk in the 'I.S.Stalin' Komsomol who drops the grenade on his foot. If after that it comes down to to-hit %ages and penetration numbers, I think that would be fairly realistic.

[Mattias]

Absolutely Andreas you are quite right. I think the key word in my post is "precarious", as in it can be done right but it also runs a risk of being done wrong.

CM:BB looks to take things further but in my opinion CM:BO is too "clinical" in it's model of combat psychological model. Again, not criticising as much as observing.

What made me react was the way this weapon and others have been presented with, pretty much, the words "hey look, this is great, now I can kill all the tanks I want". Whereas the situation in real life was, as is continually being clarified by many posters, very different.

--

Like most players, I think, the right "feel" is what really separates the good from the truly outstanding games. To me, CM is already outstanding and it is a luxury to be able to discuss subtle effects of the game engine...

--

M.

[Skipper]

Andreas,

Pray tell us the unenlightened - what is 'I.S.Stalin' Komsomol, and is it included in CMBB???

[ March 24, 2002, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Skipper ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Andreas,

Pray tell us the unenlightened - what is 'I.S.Stalin' Komsomol, and is it included in CMBB???

It is my bad (i.e. non-existent) Russian and that will not be included in CMBB. Consider yourself lucky.

I meant Kolkhoz. Well, I am still recovering from food poisoning, so that's my excuse for messing it up and I am going to stick to it.

Matthias - misunderstood what you were trying to say. see above for excuse...

[Skipper]

Ahh! Kolhoz... (solemnly nodding). Then it's kolhoz 'Stalinskiy', 'Stalinets' or 'Kolhoz imeni I.S.Stalina', although I've never heard the latter variant in connection to a kolhoz.

OTOH, 'Stalinsky' is the name for an exemplary kolhoz - one more likely to produce a crack ubertrooper, than a Broken! buchgalter (sic! actuall russian job title for an accountant). A more appropriate name for the one you describe would be something like 'Chervono Dyshlo'.

LOL, if nothing else, when CMBB comes out, I should consider becoming the kolhoz grog of this board.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Skipper:

LOL, if nothing else, when CMBB comes out, I should consider becoming the kolhoz grog of this board.

That's fine with me... providing you promise not to always post musings that are generally as long as a Jason C's thesis.

Regards

Jim R.

[Skipper]

I'd need to quit my current job altogether to even approach Jason's standards of subject coverage. Perhaps, in 30 years from now...

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Guys, do not get too over excited, I agree that the RPG 43 was “only a grenade”.

However, in a report I have seen at the Bovingdon Tank Museum on Soviet weapons the RPG 43 gets the thumbs up from the British. I agree it only had a range of 20 metres. I disagree that the CM modelling of moral cannot handle close quarter combat. I think it does it very well in the use of German infantry anti-tank weapons in CMBO, to give just one example. I am certainly not suggesting the RPG 43 was sophisticated, nor is the AK 47, I am suggesting that it was a sound design that did what it was designed to do, no more.

However, once the enemy infantry had been taken care of, which one has to assume with a range of 20 metres, the idea that soldiers could not copy with using anti-tank grenades is not a view I share. After the first few months/year of the war, infantry on all sides often, but certainly not always, knew very well how vulnerable AFVs were without supporting infantry to protect them.

BTW there is a reason why the Soviets had no infantry anti-tank launchers in WW2, it is not that they did not feel the need for them. Just pre-war, by chance, the “entire” team working on infantry anti-tank weapons was purged. By 45 they did produce a launcher along the lines of the bazooka, and very soon after the series of weapons that evolved into the RPG 7 appeared.

All the best,

Kip.

[ASL Veteran]

I'm thinking that in order to get maximum penetration value out of the grenade you would have to have the warhead hit flush on the target. This would seem to me to be much more difficult with something thrown than it would be for something fired or propelled to the target. A human being is going to have an exceptionally difficult time getting the head of a grenage to hit flush with any vertical surface on a tank as it would most likely be in an obvious downward arc when impacting (especially the farther away from the target you are).

I'm thinking that sloped armor would be more vulnerable to this form of attack than the near vertical armor of the Tiger or Mark IV.

[JasonC]

Komsomol means the party youth movement, sort of the USSR version of the Hitler Youth, if memory serves. As opposed to a collective farm.

I sure hope CMBB will show the various anti-tank devices, much like it shows gammon bombs in CMBO today. The Germans fielded lots of them. More than half a million hand-placed magentic mines, 200K thrown AT grenades like the item that set off this discussion, and another half a million older and less effective AT hand grenades. Mostly in 1942 and 1943. I am sure there will be molotovs, and I don't see why these wouldn't be in as well.

On Russian ranged AT weapons during and after the war, I think the situation is a little more complicated than the previous fellow suggested. First off, the RPG-7 came out only in the 1960s. It is of course a marvelous weapon, with about 400 meters range (much farther just chucking HE at an area target).

It was based on its predecessor, the RPG-2, which was based on the captured plans of the German faust-150, in the prototype stages at the end of the war. (The faust-150 was also a reusable spigot mount, and they are quite similar in other respects as well). The RPG-2 was also used by the Chinese in Korea; their version was called the Type 59. So the immediate post war version the other fellow probably meant is the RPG-2, not the later RPG-7.

But there are conflicting reports about the RPG-1, before even the RPG-2. It was definitely the desgination for an item used during the war, but there are conflicting reports on what it referred to. Some think it referred to lend lease bazookas, which I think unlikely. Others think it meant captures panzerfausts, which I think far more likely. And I've seen some say that production capability for fausts was captured and used by the Russians at the end of the war, while it was still in progress, and the products of those facilities were designated RPG-1.

If anyone has more exact info on the RPG-1 its use (during the war, not, whatever the story is), I'd sure like to hear it.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

ASL Veteran, yup, I agree with all that you say, penetration for the RPG 43 will, in effect, have been a lot less than the official figure of 76mm due to the strike angle. BTS will have to model the strike angle, one way or another. However, remember it will normally have been striking roof armour of 10mm-15mm and often side armour of 30mm-50mm.

JasonC, sure, of course I meant the RPG 2 as the one that lead to the RPG 7. When it comes to the immediate post-war, quote from Record of Foreign Weapons and Equipment, volume 1, USSR, ( 1947, 500 page British intelligence report on all Soviet ground warfare weapons, by far the best such report I have ever seen, )

“there is some evidence to suggest that the weapon has a calibre of 82mm, fires a hollow charge warhead with an effective range of 150m, and is capable of penetrating 210mm.”

The above refers to what one might call a bazooka like weapon. It would be surprising if the Soviets had not made use of their experience of bazookas and German weapons. Everyone copies everyone else, did then no doubt, certainly do today.

All the best,

Kip.

[Skipper]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

...

BTW there is a reason why the Soviets had no infantry anti-tank launchers in WW2, it is not that they did not feel the need for them. Just pre-war, by chance, the “entire” team working on infantry anti-tank weapons was purged.

Would you mind to clarify - who was the head of this team and within which institution did it work? Also, what happened to them?

Actually, rocket-propelled launcher was clearly far from the top of terchnological priorities list during the war. Like a "nice to have, but can do without" kind of thing.

In the first half - because it was not something that could be made fast; in the second half - because artillery and armor was in ample availability, and infantry AT capability provided by existing weapons (AT rifle and grenades) was deemed sufficient to keep RPG off the priorities list.

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Skipper:

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

...

BTW there is a reason why the Soviets had no infantry anti-tank launchers in WW2, it is not that they did not feel the need for them. Just pre-war, by chance, the “entire” team working on infantry anti-tank weapons was purged.

Would you mind to clarify - who was the head of this team and within which institution did it work? Also, what happened to them?

Actually, rocket-propelled launcher was clearly far from the top of terchnological priorities list during the war. Like a "nice to have, but can do without" kind of thing.

In the first half - because it was not something that could be made fast; in the second half - because artillery and armor was in ample availability, and infantry AT capability provided by existing weapons (AT rifle and grenades) was deemed sufficient to keep RPG off the priorities list.</font>

[kipanderson]

Skipper, hi,

All I have read is what I repeated above. I do not remember where I read it but the most likely sources are a Glantz or Prof. Erickson book or article. About as good a source as a non Russian reader can get. Or, may have been one of the Frank Cass books.

Grisha has clearly heard something along the same lines.

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

A human being is going to have an exceptionally difficult time getting the head of a grenage to hit flush with any vertical surface on a tank as it would most likely be in an obvious downward arc when impacting (especially the farther away from the target you are).

My impression (though I do not know and could be mistaken) is that for the guys actually using this thing at least, the idea was not to go after the vertical armor, but the thinner armor over the engine deck. In this case, the ideal toss would be an underhanded high, arcing trajectory coming down almost vertically and in good orientation to get a penetration. The crew of the now immobile tank could then be dispatched at leisure by small arms fire as they exited their stricken vehicle. Whether all this worked out in actual practice is of course another matter.

Michael

[Skipper]

I am not saying that it definitely didn't happen. Just that I've not heard about it.

Rockets development was going on full speed. RKKA deployed rocket rounds and MLRS well ahead of anybody else, as yuo must know.

Here is an article (in Russian) about RPG-1 and RPG-2 development.

http://www.ostpanzer.boom.ru/Arpg.html

What it says is that development of RPG-1 started in 1942, and was finished in 1944. GAU (Main Artillery Directorate) did not accept it, because of various problems with the grenade.

I.e., it was not a pzfaust clone, and it was not never mass produced.

In a way, the article confirms that it was not a high priority for GAU.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Skipper:

RKKA deployed rocket rounds and MLRS well ahead of anybody else, as yuo must know.

LOL. no, actually I did not know until now, but I would be glad to be enlightened.

If you're referring to rockets as such, I had always been under the impression that the chinese did them first a couple thousand years ago, and as far as MLRS goes, I didn't know the russians developed it, I was under the impression it was a combined project of the USA, germany, france, italy and the UK.

I didn't know they stole it from the Russians :eek: