Justin Taylor 21 February 2005 15:21:07 [ permanent link ]
Certainly they did, the ones they captured!
However the Panzerfaust went on to be developed into the RPG series.
Also have to remember that the Russian infantryman was hardly trained - see Enemy at the Gates, one man with the rifle, when he falls down his comrade picks it up.
Martin Rapier 21 February 2005 15:29:16 [ permanent link ]
"Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:ctkf11pprrjb0l6d21ljcilm3g7bv6boeb@4ax.com...> Did the Russians have aything like the Panzerfaust/shrek, or Bazooka> or even the PIAT? I don't think so.
They had anti-tank rifles in two flavours the PTRS and PTRD. The also had some handheld anti-tank grenades later in the war (confusingly called RPGs!) and captured panzerfausts etc. as well as Molotov cocktails.
Why not I wonder?
The didn't develop a hollow charge infantry AT projector until after the war, and that was essentially a rehash of German designs.
The ATRs they used weren't great but they were moderately effective as they were used en masse as a sort of anti-tank rifle barrage. Could penetrate 25mm of armour at 500m so whilst they couldn't stop a Tiger they were useful against the flanks of the rather more numerous Panzer IIIs & IVs and against all the other lighter vehicles from any angle.
Like developing APCs I guess they decided that whilst the war was on they had other priorities than developing infantry AT weapons. The Russians didn't seem to have vast difficulties in destroying German armour although they relied on direct fire by heavy weapons or tanks, ground attack aircraft or individual heroics.
The deficiencies in both APCs and infantry AT were speedily rectified after the war, the former bringing us BTRs and BMPs, the latter the RPG.
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:29:16 -0000, "Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote:
"Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message >news:ctkf11pprrjb0l6d21ljcilm3g7bv6boeb@4ax.com...>> Did the Russians have aything like the Panzerfaust/shrek, or Bazooka>> or even the PIAT? I don't think so.>
They had anti-tank rifles in two flavours the PTRS and PTRD. The also had >some handheld anti-tank grenades later in the war (confusingly called RPGs!) >and captured panzerfausts etc. as well as Molotov cocktails.>
Why not I wonder?>
The didn't develop a hollow charge infantry AT projector until after the >war, and that was essentially a rehash of German designs.>
The ATRs they used weren't great but they were moderately effective as they >were used en masse as a sort of anti-tank rifle barrage. Could penetrate >25mm of armour at 500m so whilst they couldn't stop a Tiger they were useful >against the flanks of the rather more numerous Panzer IIIs & IVs and against >all the other lighter vehicles from any angle.>
Like developing APCs I guess they decided that whilst the war was on they >had other priorities than developing infantry AT weapons. The Russians >didn't seem to have vast difficulties in destroying German armour although >they relied on direct fire by heavy weapons or tanks, ground attack aircraft >or individual heroics.>
The deficiencies in both APCs and infantry AT were speedily rectified after >the war, the former bringing us BTRs and BMPs, the latter the RPG.>
Cheers>Martin>
Interesting thank you. I didn't know about the ATRs, but it does make sense given the Soviet quantity v quality preference.
The Panzerfaust was designed to be so easy to use even housewives were supposed to use it, which is why I couldn't figure out that the Soviets couldn't copy something so simple that even their infantry could "point and shoot".
Lastly of course, why didn't we send them 1,000 of Bazookas or PIATs in Lend Lease?
Andy O'Neill 23 February 2005 14:49:56 [ permanent link ]
"Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:153n11dg3ljcraolcpn15qfuheeik4r2vf@4ax.com... <<>>> I wonder just how many of the Spitfires, Shermans and PIATs were> actually used. I suspect that most of the stuff we sent was unsuitable> for the Soviets, but on the other hand I can't believe that even if> they had used, say, all the Shermans we sent then Stalin would have> acknowledged the contribution of "the little allies".
Stalin's policy was to deliberately downplay the usefulness of lend lease. Definitely every working sherman was used, along with pretty much the entire canadian production of valentines iirc.
I seem to recall at least some PIATs were delivered with bren carriers which I think were used as tows.
Bazookas, I can't recall ever seeing a picture of one or reading any report of their use. You do read a lot about the ATR platoons I have wondered in the past whether they just didn't bother carting the bazookas to the front because they already had a bunch of AT weapons out there and didn't want yet another strain on their over-strained logistics. Dunno. They went to some lengths to pick up pzfausts after combat, so they obviously valued those. I think mainly for demolishing houses rather than tanks though.
Oh. It's my understanding that the first russsian rpg with a rocket was pretty much a direct copy of a late german design - the 150m. I seem to recall something about german technicians working on the thing.
Lord Elphinstone 23 February 2005 18:40:50 [ permanent link ]
As someone pointed out the ATR armor penetration ability had become more or less irrelevant against tanks pretty early in the war. The Soviets used the ATR very effectively as a sniping weapon against various targets. Against soft sides it could of course penetrate. Against tanks and SPG's they fired into the driver's vision slot or any similar opening with the intention of ricocheting the round inside the tank which caused serious wounds or death to the crew. Or they took out the tank commander if he was looking out topside.
Pieces of metal flying around inside a tank are a serious problem (one of the issues with several types of tank was their tendency to throw off pieces of metal inside when hit on the outside by a non penetrating round - there's a term for this which escapes me - spalding perhaps?) because of the likelihood of serious crew injury in the confined space.
There is commentary on this in at least one of the East Front German memoirs - Carius perhaps? - where the author talks about the respect the German crews had for the ATR. They often drove around buttoned up to prevent ATR sniping - and of course buttoned up tanks are more vunerable to being sneaked up on.
John Secker 23 February 2005 23:47:30 [ permanent link ]
In message <1109169649.983485.156060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Lord Elphinstone <elphybey@ameritech.net> writes>As someone pointed out the ATR armor penetration ability had become>more or less irrelevant against tanks pretty early in the war. The>Soviets used the ATR very effectively as a sniping weapon against>various targets. Against soft sides it could of course penetrate.>Against tanks and SPG's they fired into the driver's vision slot or any>similar opening with the intention of ricocheting the round inside the>tank which caused serious wounds or death to the crew. Or they took>out the tank commander if he was looking out topside.>
Pieces of metal flying around inside a tank are a serious problem (one>of the issues with several types of tank was their tendency to throw>off pieces of metal inside when hit on the outside by a non penetrating>round - there's a term for this which escapes me - spalding perhaps?)>
John D Salt 24 February 2005 00:49:23 [ permanent link ]
John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:h$beQsCS3NHCFw9+@secker.demon.co.uk:
In message> <1109169649.983485.156060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,> Lord Elphinstone <elphybey@ameritech.net> writes
[Snips]>>Pieces of metal flying around inside a tank are a serious>>problem (one of the issues with several types of tank was>>their tendency to throw off pieces of metal inside when hit>>on the outside by a non penetrating round - there's a term>>for this which escapes me - spalding perhaps?) >>
Spalling
There is also the term "Hopkinson effect", although poor old Hopkinson seems doomed to obscurity by comparison with Monroe, von Neumann, Misznay and Schardin. Quite why Burney didn't get his name in the hat I don't know.
Spalling is not the only source of behind-armour debris from non- penetrating hits, as in the case of rivets with straight shanks a hit on the head might drive the body of the rivet into the vehicle. For this reason, the rivets in the Cromwell (and AIUI some German vehicles) had tapered shanks, which obviated the problem.
Martin Rapier 24 February 2005 16:57:23 [ permanent link ]
"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message {snippity of dev history of RPG-1}
Source for all this: "Protivotankoviye granatomyotniye> kompleksi" ("Anti-tank grenade-launcher systems") by Lovi,> Koren'kov, Bazilevich & Korablin, Western Horizon publishers,> Moscow, 2001.
Fantastic John, a goldmine of information as always. Coming to COW this year?
For those who have not heard of it - 'Conference of Wargamers', a jolly residential wargaming weekend held at Knuston Hall in Northamptonshire every year.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:57:23 -0000, "Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote:
"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message>{snippity of dev history of RPG-1}>
Source for all this: "Protivotankoviye granatomyotniye>> kompleksi" ("Anti-tank grenade-launcher systems") by Lovi,>> Koren'kov, Bazilevich & Korablin, Western Horizon publishers,>> Moscow, 2001.>
Fantastic John, a goldmine of information as always. Coming to COW this >year?>
For those who have not heard of it - 'Conference of Wargamers', a jolly >residential wargaming weekend held at Knuston Hall in Northamptonshire every >year.>
Martin Rapier 25 February 2005 16:47:11 [ permanent link ]
"Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:jr0s11dj51vkq4d1vk3gm9jlak1lbr0cbl@4ax.com... {snip}>>For those who have not heard of it - 'Conference of Wargamers', a jolly>>residential wargaming weekend held at Knuston Hall in Northamptonshire >>every>>year.>>
Andy O'Neill 25 February 2005 19:34:42 [ permanent link ]
"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message news:Xns9606BED17B0AABaldHeadedJohn@216.196.97.142... <<>>>>> It's my understanding that the first russsian rpg with a>>> rocket was pretty much a direct copy of a late german>>> design - the 150m. I seem to recall something about german>>> technicians working on the thing. <<>>> The RPG-1 was never adopted for service, the superior RPG-2> firing projectile PG-2 (originally designated DRG-40 and PG-80> respectively, after their calibres in mm) being adopted in 1949.>
It seems to me highly unlikely that these weapons had any> particularly strong German influence on their development. The> development of RPG-1 was started while the war was still in full> swing, so I very much doubt that any German engineers contributed> to its development.
I don't know about the rpg-1. I was only really interested in the thing right up to the point I realised it wasn't used.
The RPG-2 looks more Germanic, if only> because of the shape of the warhead, which is visually similar to> that of the PF-44 Lanze.
Both sources I can find indicate that the rpg-2 was a development of the pzfaust. Here's the clearest. From Terry Gander's "the Bazooka, hand held hollow charge anti-tank weapons"
""HASAG had been responsible for the development of the pzfaust 150m. As the war ended they were still working on that weapon's proposed successor the pzfaust 250m.... Postwar panzerfaust 250m development under Soviet supervision resulted in the RPG-2 the forerunner of the much copied RPG-7"
The pzfaust250m had tan improved version of the 150m warhead with it's fluted pattern which will be familiar to anyone has seen an rpg-7 and was reloadable.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
