stalingrd Posted June 17, 2002 Share Posted June 17, 2002 I was wondering about Russian Infantry anti-tank capabilites in 1945. Ive been reading that many Russian soldiers took up Panzerfausts to use against thier former owners. Not only for knocking out tanks, but for knocking out walls in house to house fighting. (Germans could have used them in a little town along the Volga eh?) I noticed during an archeological visit to the Stalingrad battlefields there were still TONS of ATR's all over the place (yes still buried & being unearthed!). I figure these were pretty ineffective against tanks by '45, but there were enough of them to be carried and used for taking out halftracks ect. Any hope of Russians being able to use Panzerfausts in say Berlin 4/45 in CMBB? and did the Russians field anything like the faust by 45? thanks, the stalingrad kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 I believe the Russians fielded a direct copy of the PF called RPG-1, no? Where is M. Hofbauer when you need him.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I believe the Russians fielded a direct copy of the PF called RPG-1, no? Where is M. Hofbauer when you need him....The RPG-1 was not a direct copy of anything. Development was started in 1944, but continued until 1948, and the weapon was not finally accepted for service. The weapon is a recoilless launcher that looks like a long, thin tube with a pistol grip, trigger assembly and sight very near the front. The tube aft of this assembly is covered with wood cladding for thermal insulation. The grenade is bulbous and bottle-nosed in appearance. Details of the weapon are as follows: Launcher calibre: 30mm Projectile calibre: 70mm Length of launcher: 1000mm Length of projectile: 425mm Mass of launcher: 2.0 Kg Mass of projectile: 1.6 Kg Initial velocity: 40 m/sec Penetration (RHA at normal): 150mm All details are taken from "Protivotankovie granatomyotnie kompleksi" ("Anti-tank launcher systems") by Lovi, Koren'kov, Bazilevich and Korablin, Vostochniy Gorizont, Moscow, 2001. All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 You mean to tell me I should take your word and your dubious source over the esteemed people at Osprey Men at Arms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zitadelle Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 To quote S. Zaloga (Red Army Handbook 1939-1945, 1998): "The Soviets began development of similar weapons, [reference to the Panzerschrek and Panzerfaust] the RPG-1 and RPG-2, but none were ready during the war." He continues by stating that the United States provided the USSR 8,500 bazookas, although there is little information about how these were used in combat. S. Zaloga also states that about 1,000 PIATs and 3,200 Boys ATRs were provided from Britain. I wonder how many Bren tripods were provided through lend-lease. Any word on whether the Soviets will have the "Ampulomet" mortar in CMBB? Highly inaccurate, but it could be fun- especially in very dry conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Paulus Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Yeah Russian troops recieved some Bazookas and PIAT but they never had their own AT-rocket launcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stalingrd Posted June 18, 2002 Author Share Posted June 18, 2002 also on the topic of AT stuff, the russian tanks used matresses & bedsprings attached to the sides to ward off those pesky fausts in Berlin. Now that would be a cool mod for your T-34/85's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zitadelle Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Originally posted by stalingrd: [QB]also on the topic of AT stuff, the russian tanks used matresses & bedsprings attached to the sides to ward off those pesky fausts in Berlin....QB]Ah, no. Recent evidence is that the Russians created screens for the sides of their T-34/85s. They did not mount bedsprings since they would have not been durable enough to handle combat- nor strong enough to offer any protection from a Panzerfaust round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 AT rifles were effective... not as much as AT rocket-based weapons but theydid their work anyway. I hope that well-trained troops handling AT rifles (in CMBB) will have a great chance of making a Knock Out with a "Penetration at weak point" because AT riflemen were trained just to do this, kick tracks, wheels, turret rings and even visors of heavly armoured vehicles. They should be very effective against HT and other light armoured vehicles also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 "They did not mount bedsprings since they would have not been durable enough to handle combat- nor strong enough to offer any protection from a Panzerfaust round." No bed springs? Quoting from "Soviet Tanks in Combat 1941-1945" Concord Publications Company (also by Steven J. Zaloga): [...] Although some units appropriated bed springs from German homes [...] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stalingrd Posted June 18, 2002 Author Share Posted June 18, 2002 I got the bedsprings information from "The Fall of Berlin 1945" - author Antony Beevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 They were probably grabbing the springs and mattresses to sleep on. Don't laugh; such things happened! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Well, maybe thay were referring to materesses... thery surely don't make a great job in defence... they are full of cotton, wool, or dry grass... but springs, and any other kind of spaced armour (even not so thick) make the warhead explode taking abit of advantage against a direct hit. Also: not only "springs", we must consider that beds were fitted in a different way than ours actually... We can't be sure, think that also there's someonewho thinks that sandbags and track links had pratically NO effect in tank protection... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zitadelle Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 The Missing Lynx web-site discussion forums has had several threads in the past correcting the mis-conception regarding the bedspring myth. In addition, Steve Zaloga stated in a recent publication that they were not bedsprings either (I will try to find the exact source tonight...). Finally, a quick look on the Russian Battlefield web-site: T-34/85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 I think the original poster has something with captured panzerfaust usage, which I haven't seen the responders address, really. The Russians did not have large numbers of effective Allied-made HEAT AT, whether home made or lend lease. But by 1944, particularly after the summer operations, they undoubtedly had access to very large numbers of captured fausts. The Germans were making fausts like crazy in the last year of the war. And the Russians were overrunning large German units. You probably couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a discarded panzerfaust. Not all of them can have been fired, because there just aren't enough dead things for them to have been fired at. Lacking anything as good themselves, the Russians probably picked them up and used them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts