Russian AT Rifles

[gavmeister13]

How effective were the Russian AT rifles? i would imagine they were only effective on the rear or damaged armour.

[Ramirezzz]

PTRD Degtyarov 14,5 mm could penetrate 35-40 thin armor. For the time this rifle was developed (1941) it was enough.

PTRS Simonov 14,5 mm was slightly less effective, from the 300 m distance it could penetrate armor 35 mm max

When we talk about a German tanks this time, late 1941, both rifles were enough powerful weapons. Later with arrival of tigers, Pz-III with the armor shield the situtation has been changed. From this time rifles were used mainly against light-armoured targets and bunkers.

I think with a well-organized AT defense, with good placed AT guns such close combat antitank weapon isn´t really neccesary. Just remember, Germans have millions of Panzerfauste and Panzenschrecks, but they weren´t able to change situation radically. Only about 4 percent of the lost soviet tanks in WWII were destroyed by such weapons.

[gavmeister13]

4 per cent i would have thought more... so AT rifles were only effecitve at the beginnning of the war

[Darrin]

PTRD Degtyarov 14,5 mm could penetrate 35-40 thin armor. For the time this rifle was developed (1941) it was enough.

PTRS Simonov 14,5 mm was slightly less effective, from the 300 m distance it could penetrate armor 35 mm max

When we talk about a German tanks this time, late 1941, both rifles were enough powerful weapons. Later with arrival of tigers, Pz-III with the armor shield the situtation has been changed. From this time rifles were used mainly against light-armoured targets and bunkers.

I think with a well-organized AT defense, with good placed AT guns such close combat antitank weapon isn´t really neccesary. Just remember, Germans have millions of Panzerfauste and Panzenschrecks, but they weren´t able to change situation radically. Only about 4 percent of the lost soviet tanks in WWII were destroyed by such weapons.

The sovs also made almost half a million AT rifles of which millions of rounds for these were made with little actual impact on the ger tanks. While I have not seen a number for the sov tanks des by panzer faust type weapons 5% might seem a bit low unless you are comparing the number of tanks des due to PF to tanks des during the whole war. The PFs only entered combat in lim ammount in feb 44 so obviously comparing it to des during the whole war would give it an artifically low number. Esp when it was only around for 30% of the last stages of the war. The allied numbers seem to be below 10% at normandy increasing to maybe 15% at the end of the war.

[Ramirezzz]

Darrin wrote:

The sovs also made almost half a million AT rifles of which millions of rounds for these were made with little actual impact on the ger tanks. While I have not seen a number for the sov tanks des by panzer faust type weapons 5% might seem a bit low unless you are comparing the number of tanks des due to PF to tanks des during the whole war. The PFs only entered combat in lim ammount in feb 44 so obviously comparing it to des during the whole war would give it an artifically low number. Esp when it was only around for 30% of the last stages of the war. The allied numbers seem to be below 10% at normandy increasing to maybe 15% at the end of the war.

Right, I gave the % of losses during the WHOLE war. Of course since 1943-44 this % will be much higher, i think , between 12 and 20% .That depends of battle conditions, for expamle , percent of the tank losses which were inflicted by PF in Berlin (I mean in the city, not during the whole Berlin operation) is about 70%.
I just want to say PF , panzeshrecks wern´t wunderwaffe which could radically change situation and outcome on the Eastern front. Just compare this numbers with numbers of losses caused by AT artillery

[cbo]

PTRD Degtyarov 14,5 mm could penetrate 35-40 thin armor. For the time this rifle was developed (1941) it was enough.

PTRS Simonov 14,5 mm was slightly less effective, from the 300 m distance it could penetrate armor 35 mm max

When we talk about a German tanks this time, late 1941, both rifles were enough powerful weapons. Later with arrival of tigers, Pz-III with the armor shield the situtation has been changed. From this time rifles were used mainly against light-armoured targets and bunkers.

The effect of the Soviet anti-tank rifles should not be underestimated though.
IIRC there were very few of these weapons available until 1942 but when they became common, they posed a great nuissance to the German armour, often penetrating the thin (30mm vertical armour) sides of the Panzer III and IV. Combat reports from Stalingrad mentions the Soviet anti-tank rifles as being very troublesome.
In 1943, the Germans decided to mount Schürzen - 5mm armour shields on the sides of the StuG III and Panzer III and IV to combat the effects of the anti-tank rifles - a considerable effort clearly showing that they had become quite a problem.
The Panther I, the tank we know as simply the Panther was nearly cancelled in favour of the Panther II because it was feared that the anti-tank rifle rounds would penetrate the 40mm lower hull sides. Eventually, they found a way to mount Schürzen on the Panther as well, which saved the project.

So the anti-tank rifles did have quite an impact on German tank design and production and it remained a threat to vision ports and such throughout the war and of course continued to be a threat against the SPW.

I think with a well-organized AT defense, with good placed AT guns such close combat antitank weapon isn´t really neccesary. Just remember, Germans have millions of Panzerfauste and Panzenschrecks, but they weren´t able to change situation radically. Only about 4 percent of the lost soviet tanks in WWII were destroyed by such weapons.

The Germans made a study for the first quarter of 1944 showing that between 3% and 14% of enemy tanks destroyed was destroyed in close combat, on average it was 6%. "Close combat" included Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck, magnetic charges, handgrenades, anti-tank mines (used actively) etc.

Claus b

[Lateralus]

In 1943, the Germans decided to mount Schürzen - 5mm armour shields on the sides of the StuG III and Panzer III and IV to combat the effects of the anti-tank rifles - a considerable effort clearly showing that they had become quite a problem.

I was under the impression that the Germans mounted schürzen to break up shaped charge warheads, not to counter AT rifle fire.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Gavmeister 13,

Russian anti-tank rifles were a particular problem for Germany's Romanian, Hungarian, Italian and Slovak allies, who in 1941 and for most of 1942 were only equipped with light tanks vulnerable to Soviet anti-tank rifles from every direction.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Tony]

From what I've read, the Communists used the single-shot 14.5mm Russian anti-tank rifle as a long range sniper rifle during the Korean conflict.
Tony