How are ATRs modelled in CMBB?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Seeing as ATRs are currently being discussed on the forum I thought I would take the bull by the horns and ask a few straight questions. Given that ATRs were so numerous in the east and given that they are new to CM I am very curious to know how they are modelled in CMBB.

I would be hugely grateful to know,

1)are they modelled as AT guns are or as the .50 machine gun?

2)What are the assumptions about how they target the various different types of AFV at different ranges? By this I mean that in the case of halftracks they may just go for penetrating the armour in the usual way. Aim for the centre of the vehicle. However, in the case of a MarkIV, over the frontal arc, do they aim at the tracks or the vision slits/sights? What is the likelihood of a mobility kill on a MarkIV track at say 200m? That sort of thing.

3)Do you model their use against bunkers and building? This was very common.

Anyway, if any of the guys at BTS are willing to discus this subject it would be fun to know.

Hugely looking forward to CMBB,

All the best,

Kip.

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

I _think_ that they will be modeled into the squad, the same way Panzerfausts are, but don't hold me to it.

[Mattias]

If they are that would be so completely wrong.

Individual AT teams is the only way to go.

M.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Yeah, two-man ATR teams are the way to go.

[Gryphon]

I hope they don't shoot up every AC, halftrack and SPA or SPG.. that would make those vehicles pretty much useless.

Regards,

Gryphon

[Farnz]

I hope they don't shoot up every AC, halftrack and SPA or SPG..

ATRs stayed round for far longer than after they couldn't penetrate the average tanks armour for that very reason.

[ April 11, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Farnz ]

[Gryphon]

So much for using my 251/22

Regards,

Gryphon

[Mattias]

Unless there is something seriously wrong with BTS's research and beta teams I think they have the matter well in hand by now.

And if it turns out that ATR's were indeed "that" deadly to all thinly armoured vehicles then it's time to relearn history and keep all those armour types well back and away from the heat.

--

M.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

1)are they modelled as AT guns are or as the .50 machine gun?

Think sharpshooters with anti-armor capability.

Michael

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Mattias:

And if it turns out that ATR's were indeed "that" deadly to all thinly armoured vehicles then it's time to relearn history and keep all those armour types well back and away from the heat.

problem is that there is plenty of evidence that all those "thin" AFVs were not used that way, but were right in the thick of it. Think 251/16.

The whole problem I see with this AT rifle discussion these days is that my only fear is that they will be overmodeled.

The public opinion seems to be similar to a teeny seeing a KingTiger and thinking it's the penultimate weapon, invincible and oh so cool. Now the people hear about ATRs (for the first time, or take a closer look for the first time) and think woah boy these are oh so kewl bigbang weapons.

Fact is that most armies had the AT rifle in their arsenal immediately before the outbreak of the war, but these weapons were relegated to non-use or other use (super-sniper rifle for MG emplacements, bunkers etc) for a reason: they simply weren't THAT effective.

If you are going to aim for specific parts of a tank then a regular sniper might work just as well or even better. Besides, they do not produce a BANG that will make every pair of ears within a 500m radius turn for them, and they do not have to fear a shoulder fracture after firing a dozen shots.

They are way less effective than a 50cal which is practically a full-auto ATR for this discussion's purpose. However, if a 50cal penetrates a SdKfz 251 (or hits tracks), there will be a burst of bullets penetrating it, not just a single bullet.

ATRs did have a place, but it was a backseat place.

There's a reason why ATRs quickly went out of style and are gone today even though today's common APCs and thin-skin AFVs around the world (aluminium-M113s and BMPs) would make just the same kind of target for them as the vehicles back in WW II, and bunkers and vision slits are still the sameas 60 years ago for the sake of this discussion.

ATRs are bulky, unwieldy, conspicuous weapons with too little bang for the effort. And that even applies to the russian PTRD which is probably the most reasonably efective ATR there was.

[jgdpzr]

I think how the damage inflicted by the ATR is modelled will be very important. I would hope the damage model will permit far more penetrations with little or no damage. Therefore, even if a round does penetrate even a thin-skin, it will be far less likely to knock-out or force the abandonment of the vehicle. This is obvious stuff, but will be critical because it is my understanding that most ATR were very accurate, therefore, hit probabilities should propably be slightly higher than ATGs and MUCH higher than other infantry AT weapons. If they hit so frequently, the damage model must ensure their utility does not reach ahistorical levels, because as M.H. points out they were relegated to the shelves of history for good reasons.

[Gryphon]

Overmodelling ATRs would make the game a tank heavy game with little or no room for mechanized or otherwise lightly armored forces...

And i for one like to experiment with different light vehicles. Let's hope they are modelled correctly. And on a side note i'd really like to hear from BTS on this since we don't hear that much at all lately..

Regards,

Gryphon

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

If ATRs get overmodeled for some odd reason, I'm sure BTS will patch it. They haven't let us down so far, so quit'cha worrying!

[Dirtweasle]

Still would be nice to see a BTS answer...

[Grisha]

I think the Wehrmacht crowd is panicking maybe a bit much. Even for the PzIII, the ATR will need a close range shot to do any substantial damage, like immobilization. For the German halftracks, the German player will need to have his troops dismount, then support the tanks as they both attempt to locate and destroy these ATR nests.

Of course, in 1941 the Germans lost a lot of tanks due to Soviet AT units(something like 1500 in 1941). This was due to the unique combination of ATR, 76mm field gun/85mm AA gun pressed into AT use, and liberal usage of AT mines. So, if a Wehrmacht player runs into a well-placed Soviet subunit from an antitank regiment/brigade, then it's going to be rough for die Heer.

[Moon]

Kip, you asked:

1)are they modelled as AT guns are or as the .50 machine gun?

Hehe, they are modelled as ATRs in fact (okay, cheap pun)

Michael Emrys was not far from the truth, they are similar to snipers (except it's two men teams usually), their rate of fire is mediocre to bad (depending on the rifle), and multiple penetrations often do squat, sometimes hit a crewmember or tracks, and rarely knock out a tank all be themselves. Their effectiveness rises as the distances closes, however. Do not judge from CMBO to CMBB - you will rarely see instant-post-penetration-knock-outs or bail-outs (now that's a new word!)

As for the other questions, can't comment as I haven't specifically tested it.

Martin

[kipanderson]

ATRs2.

Martin, hi,

thanks for the answer. Sounds like fun. May have a slightly different spin than you on the likely effects of a penetration, but as I always say, the fact that we do not all agree adds to the fun! One more thing I hugely look forward to giving a good workout when the game is launched.

When it comes to half tracks and such I believe ATR did indeed make life very dangerous. A 14.5mm ATR is going to be vastly more lethal against half track than a .50 machine gun. In my view. Firstly, its penetration is a little under to three times as much. Secondly they were indeed so accurate they could be used as snipers rifles. Lastly, “if” they did penetrate they would be likely to do far more damage than some believe. Again, in my view.

This is something I posted on the other ATR thread regarding damage. It is important to understand what does happen when a round penetrated through armour, even a small one.

“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 good fun,

All the best,

Kip

PS. I agree 100% that bazookas would be better, no one would disagree with that. But the 14.5mm Soviet ATRs were not useless. I have seen the SOP of the Soviets for city fighting and ATRs were very much part of the team, always right there in every assault team. The reason was for use against enemy in buildings and bunkers. Also remember, Soviet ATRs were in a different class to German and British ones.

[jgdpzr]

Thanks Moon, sounds like you have a handle on things (big shock there, eh?). As the dark lord's courtesan said, we needn't worry because you guys will get it right (or as reasonably close to right as humanely possible).

Now, get back to work!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by jgdpzr:

...it is my understanding that most ATR were very accurate, therefore, hit probabilities should propably be slightly higher than ATGs...

Color me sceptical of that assertion please. I agree that ATRs probably were pretty accurate due to their high MVs, but so were ATGs for the same reason. Furthermore, guns would have that velocity bleed off more gradually at range. Therefore, one might reasonably discover that at ranges beyond 500 meters the guns had the advantage, especially as they would more likely have the better sights, more stable platform, etc. The exception would be guns with low MV pressed into service in the AT role, obviously.

Michael

[Mattias]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Absolutely, it has been my position from the get go.

However, I have the feeling that what we need now is a hands on model, a proposal if you will, to actually relate the discussion to, or else it will just go on being a jumble of titbits thrown in from all sides.

A few test games to get the feeling of it and then back to discussing if it "works" or not

--

M.

[Mattias]

Also.. accuracy is a relative thing.. That mythical tiger and its crew that survived, among other nastier things, some 200+ ATR hits serves as one example that hitting those small vulnerable areas around crew opening and vision blocks not only requires skill and a good weapon but also a lot of luck.

It was the sheer numbers and proliferation of the weapons that caused the big problems, not necessarily one individual rifle at one time and geographical location.

--

M.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

If you put just three facts together, you do end up with a very bleak picture for half-tracks.

1)Taking into account the share from the regiment, there were eighteen ATRs in each Soviet infantry battalion.

2)Penetration at 500m was 25mm.

3)German half-tracks had frontal armour of 18mm, taking into account the effect of the slope.

Of course, although we all like to use them in CM, there were in fact quite few half tracks in use. Only one Panzergenadier battalion per Panzer division. Some in reconnaissance units also. But add the fact that only about one in ten German divisions were Panzer, and overall they were quite rare.

All the best,

Kip.

[Moon]

Which they are in CMBB. Rare

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

[snips]

This is something I posted on the other ATR thread regarding damage. It is important to understand what does happen when a round penetrated through armour, even a small one.

“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.

[snips]

PRO document WO 185/179, "Tank armament versus armour", dated 1943, has some calculations of the amount of metal pushed into a tank by various rounds perforating 75mm-thick plate, this being the total of the shot or shell and the armour plate it pushes ahead of itself. Typically this "pushed" metal accounts for about a third of the total. I reproduce a summary of the results here, updated to SI units.

Weapon_______Amn nature_______Mass of metal

88mm_________APCBCHE__________11.9 Kg

17-pdr_________APC______________9.5 Kg

75mm_________APCBCHE__________8.2 Kg

6-pdr__________APCBC____________4.3 Kg

75mm PaK 41___APCNR____________1.25 Kg

95mm_________HEAT_____________0.45 Kg

WO 291/171, "Effectiveness of British anti-tank guns", states that a tank is unlikely to survive a penetration by a weapon of 57mm calibre or larger. We might take this to mean that any weapon projecting less than, say, 4 Kg of metal into the target vehicle offer some appreciable chance of the vehicle being able to continue in action. Both WW2-era HEAT rounds and APDS were criticised for their lack of behind-armour effect, and the 17-pdr APCBC round was kept in service alongside APDS precisely because of this (I estimate that 17pdr APDS penetrating 75mm plate would drive in about 2 Kg of metal, working on the basis that it has a 38mm calibre penetrator as against the 30mm of the 75/55mm Pak 41).

Now, a 14.5mm penetration is not going to produce much in the way of metal compared to the figures given above. Apart from the tiny size of the round, it cannot dream of penetrsating 75mm of armour, so there will be a good deal less plate thickness for it to push in. One of the things that raises the Soviet ATRs into "a class of their own" when compared with other ATRs -- and I would say into the class of "almost completely useless" instead of "completely useless" -- is the provision of tungsten-cored rounds. These, admittedly, give better penetration (although the 50mm we have seen mentioned, without any authority quoted, in another thread seems to me entirely fantastic). They will suffer the penalties of diminished penetrator calibre just like their larger brothers -- I don't know what the penetrator calibre would be, but a good rule of thumb for WW2 seems to be half the overall calibre, and half the calibre means a quarter of the armour mass "pushed" in front of the round.

The low behind-armour lethality of ATR rounds was recognised by the Germans, who used the supremely impuissant 7.92mm calibre. With more ingenuity than regard for the 1925 Geneva gas protocol, they incorporated a small pellet of tear-gas into the round, in the hope that it might induce the crew of a penetrated tank to leave in a hurry. The effectiveness of this measure was such that nobody noticed it until after the end of the war.

All the best,

John.

[kipanderson]

John, hi,

Very useful figures to know, good stuff.

My real concern is that in CMBB ATRs will be penetrating half-tracks over the forward arc and having no effects. I am confident that BTS will have got the penetration figures correct. The one I am confident of is the 25mm at 500m figure. I have seen this in British post war reports that are unlikely to be wrong. This would give about 40mm at 100m and 15mm at 1000m.

Anyway, back to half tracks. Penetrating into the crew compartment is one thing, but into the engine compartment is quite another. I have seen photos of German half track engine compartments and they are certainly not as full as modern car engine compartments. However, if an engine compartment was penetrated by a ATR it still seems to me to be highly unlikely that the half track would be a runner. The residual energy of the rounds, at 500m, would still be able to penetrate 5mm plus of armour, i.e. destroy any part or engine it struck.

One small point about Soviet 14.5mm ATR rounds. When you talk about the proportion of the round that was tungsten being about one third of the diameter I agree this is the usual formula for such rounds. However, in the case of the 14.5mm ATR it has always been my belief that it was close to solid tungsten. The reason I reached this view is its muzzle velocity of 3,360 fps combined with its penetration figure of 25mm at 500m. To still have such a high penetration figure at 500m, given its muzzle velocity, such a small round would need to have more than one third its diameter as the core tungsten penetrator. Or velocity, and therefore penetration would drop off more quickly. BTW. The reason why tungsten rounds are not the full diameter of the gun is that the tungsten is so dense that it would blow the chamber if that were the case, with a full charge the chamber pressures would be too great. Assuming one still wished for high velocity so as to take advantage of tungsten’s penetrating power. The smaller the calibre of the weapon the less this applies. Chamber pressures and calibre of the gun having an exponential relationship as the calibre increases.

I may pop down to Bovington to look inside their German half track.

I feel the “general rule” should be that even small penetrations of engine compartments are vehicle kills, on all vehicles.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS in order to allow a tungsten round to take on the rifling, steel bands would have to be added to the round.