How are ATRs modelled in CMBB?

[M Hofbauer]

Grisha, careful, your shirt is showing.

Originally posted by Grisha:

I think the Wehrmacht crowd is panicking maybe a bit much.

It is NOT a Wehrmacht issue, and nobody ever said anything remotely like that. It is much more a RedArmy issue, because at the outbreak of Barbarossa, it was *only* the germans who had ATRs, and in respectable quantities, I should add. Facing, I shopuld also add because it seems neccessary for your understanding, a myriad of russian AFVs and tanks/tankettes that would have to be labeled "light armor" in this discussion (mind you, contrary to the belief of some people the red army was not entirely made up of T-34s and KVs in 1941).

Therefore, what I do not want to see is each and every russian T-60 or BT-7 or whatever to be taken out by some PzB-39 team, and every T-34 crippled by PzB-35(p) hits to vision slits, just as much as I do not want to see a late-war Panther company assault stopped cold by two PTRD teams.

Originally posted by Grisha:

Even for the PzIII, the ATR will need a close range shot to do any substantial damage, like immobilization.

wrong inclination in this statement. this is exactly the issue I addressed. these ATRs are NOT close assault weapons. their energy bleed-off is such that it is very reasonable to open harrrassment fire (and that is all you should reasonably expect from them) from several hundred yards. Only in desperate situations can you try to squeeze the last millimeter of AP performance out of them by using them within "spitting distance".

Originally posted by Grisha:

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.

(Das Heer)

mind you, production of the russian ATRs really began only in fall 1941. the germans did not lose a lot of tanks to soviet ATRs in the initial phase simply because at the outbreak the russians didn't have any ATRs; the PTRD, the first reasonable (maybe also the PTRS even though its auto-loader often failed, especially in cold temperature) russian ATR really in service after all those experimental screw-ups, was just beginning to be accepted for service August 29th 1941.

I do agree with your notion that a well-placed russian AT regiment would spell trouble for a german tank unit. But it would spell trouble without the ATRs just the same IMO.

Kip,

Originally posted by kipanderson:

(ATRs are the koolest sh*t around)

then why were they put out of use after WW II? the reasoning you give applies to all modern AFVs as well.

A PTRD would after your reasoning be the penultimate weapon for any guerilla troops, be it the Afghans battling the russians or the amis, or be it the somalis, the jungle fighters/gueriileros in south america/latin america, the palestines, the uncountable opposition and revolutionary forces in third world countries anywhere etc.

late-war russian developments of ATRs had penetration capabilities of 55 to 70mm (RES, Bljum). Still, they were not produced and filed away after the war.

Now again to your notion about how glorious those ATRs are against lightly armored vehicles. surely a shaped-charge RPG or a law derivative has even better AP performance, but this is, according to your reasoning, overkill, because your average off-the-shelf John Q. Doe APC from today or other lightly armored scout or other AC (most anti-guerilla wars are fought not with 70-ton MBTs but mainly with lots of light AFVs as support) is just as vulnerable as the light german tanks in WW II were to the russian PTRDs. And obviously it is much easier to home-build and maintain a simple bolt-action PTRD, and I am not even strating to talk about the M41/44 14.5x114 ammo for them which is practically universal in third world countries, and can be manufactured with a minimum of infrastructure. It is also much less conspicous, conceded it has a loud bang but you can use it from half a kilometer to a kilometer afar, from inside a building, and it doesn't have a big smoke cloud pointing at you. Hmm, seems like an ideal AT weapon against lightly armored targets...

kip, ever contemplated that? maybe those ATRs were not *that* effective after all?

[ April 13, 2002, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[gatpr]

Isn't it interesting how much the new generation of .50 caliber sniper rifles resemble ATRs?

[Grisha]

M Hofbauer,

Didn't mean to get you all riled up

I never stated ATRs would be effective against tanks, only lightly-armored vehicles. A hole in an engine block is never a good thing. Neither is a 14.5mm round passing through a truck/APC bed full of troops.

True, my reference to AT units has little importance wrt ATRs, but I guess it was partly to brace German players for 76mm and 85mm guns with AP rounds in mid-late '41 scenarios. What the ATR would do in this case would be to keep the German APCs away to some extent, forcing either an artillery response or, more preferable, a German armor response. Then the 'CRASH - BOOM' guns would have a chance to do their work.

Thanks for the German correction. My forte is Russian

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

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 russian M41 round (as used in the PTRD and PTRS) has a steel core, not a tungsten core.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

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.

Btw, you cannot extrapolate the ballistics (AP performance over distances) from a single date (25/500). You need two such dates and then use the respective formula. You also need to account for slope (0° in your case, I suppose). You can use a different slope for your second date, but you need a second date.

[kipanderson]

Facts on Soviet ATRs.

Hi,

A few brief facts and figures on Soviet ATRs. All that which follows refers to the 14.5mm Degtyarev Model 1941 “PRTD” ATR. The semi-auto weapon that was also produced had identical ballistics.

Source, Record of Foreign Weapons and Equipment, volume 1, USSR.

A five hundred page, 1947, British intelligence report on all Soviet WW2 land warfare equipment.

Total weight; 38bls.

Overall length; 79ins.

Operation; bolt locked by hand, unlocked by recoil, i.e. self ejecting.

Feed; single loader.

Practical rate of fire; 8-10rpm.

Ammunition; rimless AP incendiary.

Penetration; 25mm at 550 yards.

Muzzle velocity; 3320 fps.

Ammuntion.

AP/I tungsten carbide core. BS-41.

Flat-based, steel envelope, gliding metal, coated and varnished. With lead sleeve, tungsten carbide core and incendiary composition in the nose.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The tungsten core does fill the entire width of the round. Also note the practical rate of fire and the incendiary nature of the round.

[kipanderson]

M. Hofbauer, hi,

I wrote,

“This would give about 40mm at 100m and 15mm at 1000m.”

Note the word “about”.

I have been doing the same sort of work as Rexford for about fifteen years, so in common with many, including yourself no doubt, I do understand the detail of how they work.

all a good laugh,

All the best,

Kip.

[M Hofbauer]

Kip,

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Ammuntion.

AP/I tungsten carbide core. BS-41.

Flat-based, steel envelope, gliding metal, coated and varnished. With lead sleeve, tungsten carbide core and incendiary composition in the nose.

ok, you got me there. My reference calls it a steel core but since they are more fixiated on the use and employment of the 14.5 HMG, esp. the KPV, I guess they are confusing it with a later AP version of the M41/44 ammo.

You still haven't answered about my musings on relegation of ATRs, and their non-use after WW II even by guerilla troops due to their relative ineffectivity. Whaddaya think?

[M Hofbauer]

damn, now what's a friggin' 38bls in SI units ?

[ April 13, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[kipanderson]

M. Hofbauer, hi,

BTW, the reason why vehicles such as those for the new US Army Medium Brigades are not to be 14.5mm proof is weight. To build an APC that is proof against 14.5mm rounds at a base, excluding add on armour, weights about 22/23 tons. The limit the US Army is after is closer to 15 tins so as to be easily C130 transportable. The second problem is that over wet ground a wheeled vehicles, I am assuming eight wheels, has great problems if over twenty tons even with deflated tires. I have seen the graphs and test results in Jane’s Defence Weekly. Ground pressure is the problem.

Tracked APCs and IFVs of the 1970s, the ones that followed the M113, were specifically designed to keep the Soviet 14.5mm machine gun rounds out, over the frontal arc. Hence they weighed about 23 tons.

Also, no one would bother with ATRs once the RPG 7 was available. By 1945 the Soviet had their own HEAT firing weapon I could give you the details of, so they very sensibly preferred to stop using ATRs. A bazooka would have been far better than an ATR, even a 14.5mm Soviet one.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

damn, now what's a friggin' 38bls in SI units ?

14.18kg

[kipanderson]

M. Hofbauer, hi,

There was also a hardened steel round. It weighed the same as the tungsten rounds, 63.6 grams to 64 grams. Both the hardened steel and the tungsten cores were to the full width of the round, within the thin steel sleeves in which they sat. The reason they weight the same, given that tungsten has a density 50% greater than steel, is that the steel core was 50% longer than the tungsten core. It was also “tailed” rather than flat based. This may explain why one only ever sees one penetration figure. They both will have delivered the same energy, over the same surface area, thus resulting in very similar penetration against most armour. Both had the same incendiary fill in the nose.

The great thing about CM is that when we get he game we will be able to run out own private test shoots against half tracks at 500m and see if the results are reasonable.

No one should be surprised that half tracks are given a hard time by ATRs. Half tracks have the type of armoured protection these rifles were designed to overcome.

All the best,

Kip.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

damn, now what's a friggin' 38bls in SI units ?

14.18kg</font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

M. Hofbauer, hi,

BTW, the reason why vehicles such as those for the new US Army Medium Brigades are not to be 14.5mm proof is weight. To build an APC that is proof against 14.5mm rounds at a base, excluding add on armour, weights about 22/23 tons. The limit the US Army is after is closer to 15 tins so as to be easily C130 transportable. The second problem is that over wet ground a wheeled vehicles, I am assuming eight wheels, has great problems if over twenty tons even with deflated tires. I have seen the graphs and test results in Jane’s Defence Weekly. Ground pressure is the problem.

Tracked APCs and IFVs of the 1970s, the ones that followed the M113, were specifically designed to keep the Soviet 14.5mm machine gun rounds out, over the frontal arc. Hence they weighed about 23 tons.

Also, no one would bother with ATRs once the RPG 7 was available. By 1945 the Soviet had their own HEAT firing weapon I could give you the details of, so they very sensibly preferred to stop using ATRs. A bazooka would have been far better than an ATR, even a 14.5mm Soviet one.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

you misunjderstood me. That was exactly my point.

Since most vehicles are not 14.5mm proof, the ATRs would according to your reasoning (which was that ATRs would have considerable effect after penetration) be ideal terrorist's, guerilla's and poor country army's weapons against light AFVs.

The reason they choose the much more complicated, expensive and more conspicous RPGs must be that ATRs simply aren't that effective.

please see my other posts where I elaborated the advantages an ATR has over the RPG and similar type weapons.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

M. Hofbauer, hi,

There was also a hardened steel round. It weighed the same as the tungsten rounds, 63.6 grams to 64 grams.

63.4g is the data I have for the M41 (if they are referring to the M41) with steel core.

[Grisha]

Since most vehicles are not 14.5mm proof, the ATRs would according to your reasoning (which was that ATRs would have considerable effect after penetration) be ideal terrorist's, guerilla's and poor country army's weapons against light AFVs.

The reason they choose the much more complicated, expensive and more conspicous RPGs must be that ATRs simply aren't that effective

Do you think a KPV might qualify as a modern ATR? They've been around a long time, at least since the 50's.

[Michael Emrys]

If I might interject a thought, I expect the reasons armies stopped issuing ATRs was that they were ineffective not against light armor, but because they were ineffective against heavy armor. Having a weapon that was effective against both kinds of armor, it was pointless to issue a second weapon system that would only be effective against one type. Make sense?

And as long as RPGs are plentifully available on the world market, it also seems kind of pointless for insurgents to start manufacturing their own ATRs.

Michael

[Kimerik Kukka]

One thing to consider about guerillas and their weapon systems. A man armed with RPG would also be carrying an assault rifle. He would be effective agaist APCs and the enemy infantry. ATR armed fighter would have only minimal effectiveness agaist soft targets due to low rate of fire.

So I would assume the manpower poor guerillas to rather use RPG/rifle platform than ATR. Overall effectivenes being much more satisfying.

RPGs and LAWs seem to be easier to conseal than those heavy and long ATRs. Guerillas needing stealth during movement.

[Michael Emrys]

I'll bet hauling a rifle two meters long through dense foliage would be no picnic. It could be done, but not a lot of fun.

Michael

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Yes, my take on the RPG 7 and ATRs issue is that the RPG is a hugely more effective weapon, it is not a close call. An RPG can destroy a T55 at 250m or lob rounds against infantry at ranges up to 400m. If I was a guerrilla fighter it would not be close call. Also, ATRs are much heavier.

In the seventies and eighties APCs/ IFVs were designed specifically to keep the Soviet 14.5mm machine gun round out over the frontal arc. It is considered a threat.

For armour in the 20mm class Soviet ATRs will, in my view, have been something of a nightmare. Given that the designers will no doubt have had 20mm armour as one of their specific targets, this should be no surprise to anyone. In the same way the PAK 40 was designed specifically to deal with T34s, it is no surprise that it can cope with them very effectively.

Given the accuracy, rate of fire and penetration of Soviet ATRs, halftracks will have had a very tough time. To be used to transport but not assault. A 14.5mm round penetrating into the engine compartment, plus a small flash of incendiary such as phosphorus, would be very bad news. In my view.

When CMBB is launched it will be having fun running test shoots to see how ATRs are modelled.

As I say, all good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Remember the Germans went to the expense of adding extra plates to their MarkIIIs and MarkIVs and StugIIIs so as to deal with ATRs at a time when they were desperately short of resources. They must have been some threat even against 30mm plate.

[Jarmo]

Light vehicles and ATR.

Of course the vehicles can be killed with ATR's. A real threat. But the other option would be lugging the MG on foot, and then

anyone could kill you just like that.. Having 15mm of steel around would probably not have been considered a bad thing.

And I'm in the belief ATR's are not going to be more, or even as effective against light vehicles as .50 cal. Of course they'll continue to be effective against slightly heavier targets, but overall 5x13mm holes should be as bad as 1x15mm hole.

ATR today.

The reasons it's not used by guerillas has already been established. But in a specialized form, ie not against tanks, it's making/has made something of a comeback.

Barret IS effectively an ATR, not particularly good one, but ATR nonetheless. Long distance sniping, ability to kill vehicles,

helicopters and aeroplanes at long distance is a neat thing to have.

(Obviously the aeroplanes and such need to be stationary on ground.)

Put to similar use as Barret today, I'm sure ATR's could be put to good use by guerillas.

[Mattias]

My 2 cents are the idea that the development of weapons and tactics are, like most things, cyclic.

The ATR's was not the thing to have on the cold war battlefield therefore they were not produced and, consequently, not sold on to Guerillas.

As the years went by armed forces and weapon producers adapted to a ATR free environment and, bit by bit, created new systems and tactics that now, as a result of the adaption, vulnerable to ATR's

Check for example:

http://www.steyr-aug.com/amr.htm

http://www.remtek.com/arms/steyr/amr/amr.htm

--

The ATR might have a place in modern warfare, just as the Ohio class battleships saw a renaissance in an environment that had adapted to a different threat...

--

M.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mattias:

...just as the Ohio class battleships saw a renaissance in an environment that had adapted to a different threat...

You are thinking perhaps of the Iowa class?

Michael

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Yup, that's the one.

Four letters with an I and an O in it, almost got it

M.

[flamingknives]

With regards to the AMR and, to a lesser extent, the Barret, the targets they are intended to be used against targets more complex than an APC.

A good example of this would be an attack helicopter. If you were to draw a straight line through one of these, it would be difficult to not strike something important, and an attack helo is a trifle more expensive than an AMR.

The densilty of important components behind the armour is a key factor here, which is why a few US snipers were credited with IFV kills in the Gulf. The soviet style (BMP 1 and 2, I'm not so sure about the 3) IFVs are very compact, so if a round goes through the armour, it's very likely to hit crew, ammunition, engine or fuel.

To make things worse, the BMP 1 mounts fuel tanks in the main doors.

Just 2p to throw into the discussion