Anti-tank rifles

[Gary]

The 14.7 mm anti-tank rifles which were used by the Soviets throughout WWII are often denigrated by Western writers as obsolete. I doubt the Soviets were just stupid - maybe they knew something we didn't? I assume a hit by a ATR on a track would break it, thus causing a mobility kill, or am I wrong on this?

 

Also, once a track on a WWII tank was broken for whatever reason, how difficult was it to replace? Could the crew do it by themselves?

 

Thanks

[Ken Estes]

The 14.7 mm anti-tank rifles which were used by the Soviets throughout WWII are often denigrated by Western writers as obsolete. I doubt the Soviets were just stupid - maybe they knew something we didn't? I assume a hit by a ATR on a track would break it, thus causing a mobility kill, or am I wrong on this?

 

Also, once a track on a WWII tank was broken for whatever reason, how difficult was it to replace? Could the crew do it by themselves?

 

Thanks

Amplifying a little, they are also used by the NKPA and CPA in Korea against the UN forces. There were some penetrations obtained against M4 series tanks, but nothing but ancillary equipment on the M26/46 in use. Track would usually withstand a single shot and multiple hits on the same track block or connector would be tough to achieve. These are effective LR sniper weapons, however, and were ever dangerous to the crews, who might otherwise be out of range of most other weapons.

[Gabe]

The 14.7 mm anti-tank rifles which were used by the Soviets throughout WWII are often denigrated by Western writers as obsolete.

 

They weren't so much obsolete as not being cost-effective. Anti-tank rifles were too expensive to be used as everyday run of the mill anti-material rifles. However, the Soviet rifles, in particuliar the PTRD-41 was extremely cheap, it was the Sten gun of anti-tank rifles. They were made in the hundreds of thousands. Initially Soviet tungsten rounds could penetrate earlier German tanks. When enemy armor thickness improved the rifles were used to target soft-skined vehicles and crew served weapons. The Soviets didn't always have enough machine guns to go around and these big bore rifles could be used as a support weapon when nothing else was available.

[KingSargent]

The 14.5mm ATRs were not too effective against post-1939 tanks, but they could shoot up other vehicles quite well. As Ken said they also made decent sniper rifles, and they had the range to hit and disable the direct-fire support weapons the Germans were so fond of. If somebody had fuel in containers outside the tank (remember the Panzers rolling east covered with jerricans of gas), having the fuel let loose and ignited by 14.5 hits would be uncomfortable.

 

The Sovs distributed the ATRs around their direct-fire artillery and the guns could work together with the ATR firing and the tank turning to face it which would give the AT gun a flank shot.

 

As for tracks, tank crews look after their own tracks. This evolution is called "breaking track" and is probably the most loathed duty faced by tankers. I would imagine that breaking track was easier in WW2, if only because the tracks were much smaller and lighter.

[Old Tanker]

I've read accounts that the M-24 light tank deployed early in the Korean War could easily be penetrated by the 14.5 MM ATR.

I believe through that piece of armor that covers the front slope of the hull.

This led to reduction of it's use in the 1st Cav and 24Th ID.

The M-24 was considered the ideal tank for occupation forces in Japan as the heavier tanks couldn't be supported by most Japanese bridges.

[ShotMagnet]

An ATR is a great weapon against soft-skins and lightly-armored targets. A friend recounts plugging a BRDM during Just Cause with a Barrett.

 

Presumably WWII German armored cars, and trucks, and SPA, and so on could be at least temporarily rendered hors d'combat if hit by an ATR.

 

 

Shot

[scj1014]

An ATR is a great weapon against soft-skins and lightly-armored targets. A friend recounts plugging a BRDM during Just Cause with a Barrett.

 

Presumably WWII German armored cars, and trucks, and SPA, and so on could be at least temporarily rendered hors d'combat if hit by an ATR.

Shot

 

Interesting...I have a friend who claimed the very same thing. Maybe we have a mutual acquaintance?

Mine lives in Pennsylvania...

[FITZ]

The 14.7 mm anti-tank rifles which were used by the Soviets throughout WWII are often denigrated by Western writers as obsolete. I doubt the Soviets were just stupid - maybe they knew something we didn't? I assume a hit by a ATR on a track would break it, thus causing a mobility kill, or am I wrong on this?

 

Also, once a track on a WWII tank was broken for whatever reason, how difficult was it to replace? Could the crew do it by themselves?

 

Thanks

 

Unlike the British with the PIAT, and the American's with the Bazooka or the German's with the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck the Russian's had nothing more effective with which to replace these weapons. Simple enough.

[Sardaukar]

I seem to recall (might been Otto Carius) that they were quite a nuisance even for Tiger since Soviets targetted the vision slits and prisms of Tiger, sometimes almost blinding it and needing the amoured glass/prisms to be constantly replaced.

[Sardaukar]

Unlike the British with the PIAT, and the American's with the Bazooka or the German's with the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck the Russian's had nothing more effective with which to replace these weapons. Simple enough.

 

Russians tested Bazooka and they were not impressed by it's performance..they could have got lot of those via Lend-Lease but chose not to. They made quite widespread use of captured German Panzerfausts, though. One interesting use was to blow holes to building walls during urban combat.

 

AT-rifle was nice to have around in quantities..and while tanks indeed were not very vulnerable, most support vehicles were. Halftracks ec. would get punched thru quite nicely.

[Gabe]

The Soviets actually developed the first recoiless gun in 1935 and these saw action during the Winter War. Unfortunatly it wasn't developed further, possbility due to the great purge.

[Guest bojan]

...Unfortunatly it wasn't developed further, possbility due to the great purge.

 

Due the lack of the efective ammo - there was still no HEAT at that moment (IIRC Soviets introduced first HEAT weapons in early 1942) and a gun fired solid shot with very anemic performances. IIRC german 7.5cm RCL also had solid shot - I guess it was original developement, HEAT beeing introduced later.

[Ken Estes]

I've read accounts that the M-24 light tank deployed early in the Korean War could easily be penetrated by the 14.5 MM ATR.

I believe through that piece of armor that covers the front slope of the hull.

This led to reduction of it's use in the 1st Cav and 24Th ID.

The M-24 was considered the ideal tank for occupation forces in Japan as the heavier tanks couldn't be supported by most Japanese bridges.

I concur, the army accounts generally show the M24s, when faced with multiple 14.5 AT rifles working on them, are usually out of action within a half hour,

a few even disabled to the point they were abandoned. In the USMC tank units, the few M4s in use resorted to sandbags and track blocks to reinforce the sides

[they also had to watch out for the 45mm guns], but the M26/46 guys didn't even worry about AT guns unless they ran into the rare 76mm.

[ShotMagnet]

...I have a friend who claimed the very same thing. Maybe we have a mutual acquaintance?

Could be, though if the incident was true then maybe it happened quite often. This man lived in California.

 

 

Shot

[KingSargent]

Due the lack of the efective ammo - there was still no HEAT at that moment (IIRC Soviets introduced first HEAT weapons in early 1942) and a gun fired solid shot with very anemic performances. IIRC german 7.5cm RCL also had solid shot - I guess it was original developement, HEAT beeing introduced later.

The original German RCL was not an AT weapon, it was intended as lightweight artillery for the paratroops. It used "normal" 75mm (later 105mm) projectiles. The RCLs got HEAT when the artillery did.

[Guest bojan]

The original German RCL was not an AT weapon, it was intended as lightweight artillery for the paratroops. It used "normal" 75mm (later 105mm) projectiles. The RCLs got HEAT when the artillery did.

 

Yes, I know that German RCLs were light artilery reather then AT pieces, but a Soviet one was supposed to be "universal gun" for the paratroopers - and universal part includes AT duties. But when gun has problems penetrating 15mm of armor at 500m it just does not fit in AT part of "universal gun"...

[Guest bojan]

...Initially Soviet tungsten rounds could penetrate earlier German tanks...

 

It could penetrate every German medium tank and SPG (Even Panther, but at some pathetic range) from the side if there is no side-skirts...

[LeoTanker]

Were the 14.5 mm guns ever sold to Iraq? The ATRs should be an excellent weappon to pop supply cars. Especially tank trucks.

Dont mean to give the bad guys some idéas here, just speculateing...

[arcweasel]

Yes, I know that German RCLs were light artilery reather then AT pieces, but a Soviet one was supposed to be "universal gun" for the paratroopers - and universal part includes AT duties. But when gun has problems penetrating 15mm of armor at 500m it just does not fit in AT part of "universal gun"...

 

Bojan,

 

Do you have any details or pictures of this gun. I've never hear of it.

 

Regards,

 

Jay

[CV9030FIN]

The 14.7 mm anti-tank rifles which were used by the Soviets throughout WWII are often denigrated by Western writers as obsolete. I doubt the Soviets were just stupid - maybe they knew something we didn't? I assume a hit by a ATR on a track would break it, thus causing a mobility kill, or am I wrong on this?

 

Also, once a track on a WWII tank was broken for whatever reason, how difficult was it to replace? Could the crew do it by themselves?

 

Finnish Army used Russian 14.5 mm ATR very much as he got masses of those as a war trophy in winterwar. Finnish Army also made their own version of ATR called L-39 but it was really semi-auto auto-canon rather than rifle.

[gnocci]

Finnish Army used Russian 14.5 mm ATR very much as he got masses of those as a war trophy in winterwar.

14.5mm ATR were designed in '41...

[CV9030FIN]

14.5mm ATR were designed in '41...

 

Sorry, I wasn't exact enough. Finnish catched a lot's of 12.7X108 mm ATR's and few 14.5 mm ATR's in the Winterwar. 14.5 mm ATR was not designed in 1941, but indeed 1938 by Simonov ("In 1938, Simonov designed the PTRS-41, a magazine fed, anti-tank rifle" sorry my link is to wikipedia, but I've readed the same info from many more places) and there were also an other 1938 designated ATR called M39 which was designed by N. Rukavishnikov. M39 wasn't though suittable to mass production, so allmost M39's were replased by PTRS-41 and PTRD-41 that went to mass production in 1941.

 

 

Edit: couple of links more: PTRS-41

[gnocci]

Perhaps the confusion comes from the 14.5mm ammo design dating from '38. Both PTRD and PTRS were designed in parallel, from the same request, starting july '41. The PTRS was accepted in service the 29 august '41, production finally picking up in '42. The PTRS was based on AVS-36 mechanism.

Rukavishnikov PTR-39 was accepted in august '39, but as far as i know it was never mass produced (out of a wrong evaluation of german tank designs).

 

In russian: http://www.waronline.org/write/antitank_rifles/part_3.html

 

By the way, WW2 Soviet booklet on how to use the ATRs: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option...&Itemid=123

Edited July 8, 2007 by gnocci

[Gabe]

Perhaps the confusion comes from the 14.5mm ammo design dating from '38. Both PTRD and PTRS were designed in parallel, from the same request, starting july '41. The PTRS was accepted in service the 29 august '41, production finally picking up in '42. The PTRS was based on AVS-36 mechanism.

Rukavishnikov PTR-39 was accepted in august '39, but as far as i know it was never mass produced (out of a wrong evaluation of german tank designs).

 

The Rukavishnikov (I could never remember that name) gun was expensive and did not have the benefit of a tungsten cored ammo. Plus Soviets overestimated German armor thickness and thus his gun was neglected. After Barbarossa started the Soviets ordered Degtyarev and Simonov to design new ATRs for the new tungsten cored ammo. These two were the heavyweights of Soviet small arms design, Degtyarev in particular was the closest thing to John Browning. That the Soviets would assign two such designers to come up with two redundant designs shows just how desperate the situation was.

 

Simoniv's design was not based on the AVS-36 rifle, except maybe the gas system but not the bolt. But his PTRS-41 mechanizm was later used in the SKS. Degtyarev's design was truely ingenious. The gun barrel recoiled back locked with the bolt, and the bolt handle hit a cam - which was just a bent piece of sheet metal - which turned the bolt and ejected the shell. Truely a masterpiece of KISS design philosophy. Degtyarev's gun outproduced Simonovs by 3:1 for its simplicity and reliability in extreme cold. There was just nothing that could go wrong with it.

[Gabe]

Bojan,

 

Do you have any details or pictures of this gun. I've never hear of it.

 

Regards,

 

Jay

 

Here's what I have anyways. I would love to know more about it.

 

The gun was the 76mm K/DRP and was designed by a guy named Kurchevsky, which was apparently also mounted in aircraft. Kurchevsky was executed in 1937 with the deficiency of his gun as proof of his anti-Soviet politics. The Fins captured some and gave the Germans a sample which influenced their own designs. This was probably the father of modern recoilless guns.

 

 

There are a few pictures on this Winter War website:

 

http://www.winterwar.com/Weapons/SUartillery.htm#76RekK