Anti-Tank Rifles

[Rick]

My limited understanding of these weapons was that tank armor in the early part of WW2 became thick enough to withstand these weapons. Where they capable of ruining a track or roadwheel? I would think in the heat of battle it would take a point blank shot? Where they accurate? Did early tanks have bullet-proof glass in their viewing devices?

Was wondering while reading a book Ken Estes recommended, "Iron Hulls and Iron Hearts." I don't remember these weapons being mentioned.

Thank you.

[Ken Estes]

In general, tank suspensions and fire control remained vulnerable to AT rifles through WWII and Korea, except for the heavy and larger medium tanks, say post-1944. That said, the 14.5mm in the Korean War could remove an M24 from action in 15 minutes of hitting, and a Sherman could be out of action in 45 minutes, if it remained exposed too long. The M26, M46 did not suffer much.

[Blunt Eversmoke]

In 1941 at least, it was understood by the Soviets that side and rear armor of tanks used by Wehrmacht had, for the,re most part, been heavily overestimated - Reich rushed all and any armor it could get its hands on into Barbarossa, war trophies from France and Czechia as well as Pz II in the park. Many of these could be penetrated by 14.5 mm anti-tank rifles from sides and rear at distances under 300 meters or so. Result was that Soviets rushed not one but two models of anti-tank rifles into massed production - rifles which remained moderately effective till 1942 or so (IIRC, so anyone please correct me on the exact timeline - Roman, what say you?..). After that, they were largely relegated to anti-materiel duties, notably, by partisans - which remained their main use till end of war.

[Mobius]

There weren't many PTRD and no PTRS in 1941. Not until 1942 were these common on the battlefield. And the more effective rounds were introduced 4/42. In 1941 there were only a smattering of some less effective AT rifles.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Mobius

[Markus Becker]

With the right ammo and at close range they could penetrate the lower hull armour of a Panther and a Tiger. 30mm if I remember bojan correctly.

 

The Polish AT rifle relied on spalling, not penetration. It was quite effective, beat the German ones too IIRC.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Markus Becker

[bojan]

Panter's 45mm of armor was vulnerable in theory in short range, but Tiger was not. Otoh concentrated fire was able to blind tanks hitting TC turrets and vision blocks.

[toysoldier]

Concentrated as in every ATR soldier in a company shooting mercilessly at one single tank, kinda?

[Inhapi]

Panter's 45mm of armor was vulnerable in theory in short range, but Tiger was not. Otoh concentrated fire was able to blind tanks hitting TC turrets and vision blocks.

 

Hence the side skirts on the Panther ? To protect a thin slice of side armour not covered by the road wheels ?

 

 

geetings,

 

Inhapi.

[Inhapi]

There weren't many PTRD and no PTRS in 1941. Not until 1942 were these common on the battlefield. And the more effective rounds were introduced 4/42. In 1941 there were only a smattering of some less effective AT rifles.

 

What about the improved rounds ?

 

I remember reading an autobiography by Sakharov, in which he describes how he invented a mechanism to radically improve quality control of 14.5 mm rounds. (it consisted of copper coils that created a magnetic field trough which the round was dropped, a round having internal cracks would give an abnormal reading and thus be taken to be recycled afaik)

 

This book is now buried somewhere in my home. Since i cannot find it, does anybody have more info on this ? I was always fascinated how the young Sakharov invented such a simple and effective device....what a talent...

 

Inhapi

[Inhapi]

Another question:

 

What about a smaller, more portable version of the German 28/20 mm squeeze bore (say 15-8 mm or so) ?

 

I guess such a gun would have been too difficult and expensive to manufacture and after armour effects of the smaller rounds would be quite insufficient.

 

any feedback ?

 

Inhapi

[Markus Becker]

 

Panter's 45mm of armor was vulnerable in theory in short range, but Tiger was not. Otoh concentrated fire was able to blind tanks hitting TC turrets and vision blocks.

 

Hence the side skirts on the Panther ? To protect a thin slice of side armour not covered by the road wheels ?

 

 

geetings,

 

Inhapi.

Yes, see Nick's Panther video.

 

[Mobius]

 

There weren't many PTRD and no PTRS in 1941. Not until 1942 were these common on the battlefield. And the more effective rounds were introduced 4/42. In 1941 there were only a smattering of some less effective AT rifles.

 

What about the improved rounds ?

It seems from this they were APCR with tungsten core. The original round seem to have a hardened steel core.

 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2015/10/ptrs-penetration.html#comment-form

[GARGEAN]

Nope, full jacket tungsten core.

[KV7]

I think the obvious use is against halftracks and lightly armored SPG and TD. Enemy AT guns can easily be flushed out of one area, allowing lighter stuff to move up, but this is not really the case if there are AT rifles around. The advance will be slowed as you need a more extensive use of infantry to flush out all potential positions before letting light stuff move around out of cover. At the same time you cannot make extensive use of lighter vehicles as CS.

[Inhapi]

Interestingly Wikipedia gives the following bullet types for 14.5 x 114 cartridges:

 

• BS: Armor-piercing incendiary original anti-tank round. The projectile weighs 64.4 grams and is 51 millimeters long with a 38.7 gram core of tungsten carbide with 1.8 grams of incendiary material in the tip. The overall round weighs approximately 200 grams and is 155 millimeters long. The projectile has a muzzle velocity of approximately 1,006 meters per second and can penetrate 30-32 millimeters of RHA steel at an incidence of 0 degrees at a range of 500 meters, or 40 millimeters at a range of 100 meters.^[1][2][3]
• B-32: Armor-piercing incendiary full metal jacket round with a hardened steel core. Projectile weight is 64 g and muzzle velocity is 1006 m/s. Armour penetration at 500 m is 32 mm of RHA at 90 degrees.
• BZT: Armor-piercing incendiary tracer full metal jacket round with a steel core. Projectile weight is 59.56 g and muzzle velocity is 1,006 m/s. Tracer burns to at least 2,000 m.
• MDZ: High-explosive incendiary bullet of instant action. Projectile weight is 59.68 g.
• ZP: Incendiary tracer round

 

Strangely enough the steel cored B-32 has the same penetration as the tungsten cored BS round. Anybody has more info on this and on the introduction date of those two types ?

 

Inhapi

[GARGEAN]

Interestingly Wikipedia gives the following bullet types for 14.5 x 114 cartridges:

 

• BS: Armor-piercing incendiary original anti-tank round. The projectile weighs 64.4 grams and is 51 millimeters long with a 38.7 gram core of tungsten carbide with 1.8 grams of incendiary material in the tip. The overall round weighs approximately 200 grams and is 155 millimeters long. The projectile has a muzzle velocity of approximately 1,006 meters per second and can penetrate 30-32 millimeters of RHA steel at an incidence of 0 degrees at a range of 500 meters, or 40 millimeters at a range of 100 meters.^[1][2][3]
• B-32: Armor-piercing incendiary full metal jacket round with a hardened steel core. Projectile weight is 64 g and muzzle velocity is 1006 m/s. Armour penetration at 500 m is 32 mm of RHA at 90 degrees.
• BZT: Armor-piercing incendiary tracer full metal jacket round with a steel core. Projectile weight is 59.56 g and muzzle velocity is 1,006 m/s. Tracer burns to at least 2,000 m.
• MDZ: High-explosive incendiary bullet of instant action. Projectile weight is 59.68 g.
• ZP: Incendiary tracer round

Strangely enough the steel cored B-32 has the same penetration as the tungsten cored BS round. Anybody has more info on this and on the introduction date of those two types ?

 

Inhapi

Yeap, definitely dud. BS-41 round with tungsten core was pretty much more potent that B-32. Both was accepted in summer 1941.

[Mobius]

This page has some cut-away views.

http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_145mm.html

[rmgill]

[rmgill]

By a certain point the only light stuff was German Armored Recce (SdKfz 232s, 251s, etc) and after a certain point Boyes AT Rifles were replaced with PIATs for man portable purposes.

[KV7]

By a certain point the only light stuff was German Armored Recce (SdKfz 232s, 251s, etc) and after a certain point Boyes AT Rifles were replaced with PIATs for man portable purposes.

The Marder series vehicles would be suitable high value targets.

Edited September 26, 2017 by KV7

[rmgill]

That's a point, some of the supporting vehicles that had AT guns on open topped setups would be good targets for a Boyes user, problem is getting a Boyes to where you could kill such a vehicle that was usually laying in ambush.

[KV7]

That's a point, some of the supporting vehicles that had AT guns on open topped setups would be good targets for a Boyes user, problem is getting a Boyes to where you could kill such a vehicle that was usually laying in ambush.

(1) delaying/defending forces kept hidden till the main force bypasses them

(2) infiltration attempts/ambushes/partisan/commando activity etc.

(3) infantry (especially mechanized) exploiting a successful local breakthrough and getting into the rear/flank to cause havoc

[Markus Becker]

Maybe I remember things worng but didn't the Russians use the AT rifles against machine gun nests too? The idea was what penetrates several centimeters of armor also penetrates logs and sandbags.

[bojan]

They were used vs anything and everything, including armored trains. In Yugoslavia Boys ATR was favored over PIAT for that role as it gave better range, accuracy and rate of fire.

[Rick]

I've read somewhere that the Boys had little effect on Japanese tanks in 1941-42. Don't know if the problem was training or Japanese tanks. Also I have not read about anti-tank rifles in North Africa.