Soviet WWII recoilless rifles

I have seen quite a few photos of russians with stolen panzerfausts.
Why have your own when you can just steal some.

>>30787772
Because Ruskies are morons to whom human life was worth jack shit. You were lucky to even have decent field gear in the red army.

>>30787772
They barely had rifles, why would they have good AT

>>30787795
/thread

File: Gas chamber expert.jpg (195KB, 1001x1098px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1001x1098px

>>30787787
>>30787795
>>30787797
>>30787805

>>30787772
>c-commisar, rifle is not of penetrate even top armor on Pz IV!
>Comrade, problem is lack of bolshevik initiative in YOU. Shoot tread of tank, then blow up with dog mine
>Yes commisar!

And YET, they came up with one of the most popular and effective rocket launchers EVER scant years after the war.

File: 1466719814348.png (562KB, 683x642px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 683x642px

>>30788218
>50 cal let alone 14.5 is enough to penetrate the sides of the panzer 4 and panther without side skirts up to 300 meters
>le at rifles dont work

File: Leichtgeschütz 40 75mm German WWII recoiless gun.jpg (1MB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2016x1512px

>>30788218
That's just the thing. Soviets clearly had lack of resources and expertise in certain areas, but they certainly didn't lack in adaptation. Their tanks and heavy anti-tank weapons evolved like no other, they are the reason something like a Tiger II or a PaK 44 even exists. They knew all about basic rocketry, enough to field 7000 Katyusha batteries and make Nebelwerfer look like a firecracker. So, what gives? Germans were also similarly retarded - they had plenty of rocket weapons, including heavy recoilless guns, but no personal anti-tank weapons, had to steal the design from the US.

>>30788254
I would love to see documentation of that. 1.2" RHA on the side, I don't think .50 is going through. 14.5, maybe. but then if you're within 300m and you plink the Pz IV with your little pop gun, and it goes through and the guys inside go "wow heinz just got his foot blown off, fuck that"

You're just going to get shat on.

>>30788312
well why did they make anti tank rifles then, friend

>>30787772
because the Russian tactic of AT weapons was a conscript with an AT grenade charging a Panzer

>>30788319
I'm going to make a strong recommendation to you to look up when they designed those rifles and what kinds of tanks they designed them to fight. Then get back to me and let's restart the conversation from a point where nobody looks like a fucking idiot.

>>30788326
Not just one conscript, but waves of them

File: t-34.jpg (518KB, 1500x1390px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1500x1390px

>pic not related
Anti-Tank rifles were still effective on lighter armoured vehicles and could penetrate the side armour of Panzer IV and even the Panther at closer range (Without Schürtzen).
At closer range they would rely on anti-tank mines and Satchel charges.
Soviets also had indisputable advantage in artillery support and had capable anti-tank artillery.
Also, as mentioned above, they could capture German recoilless weaponry.

>>30787772
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Kurchevsky
After this scummer execution no one in USSR wanted to touch recoilless guns area with ten feet pole fearing for their lives. Recoilless became taboo word fro soviets.

2. Also soviets bought into AT rifles meme. PTRD and PTRS was not only rifles, they had dozens other projects which promised much better results (just like Kurchevsky promised kek). And promised and promised. Nothing good came out of it times was wasted but executing last soviet engineers now from small arms industry was kinda not an option.

3. Dumb soviet engineers believed in the 1941-1942 that HEAT rounds actually melt armor. It is not a joke. And they tried to make "termite rounds" that melt armor "like Germans had". This set back soviet shaped charge warhead development too.

>>30788288
>but no personal anti-tank weapons, had to steal the design from the US.

?

Whats the Faustpatrone/Panzerfaust?

>>30788312
>>30788335
Here you go bubbi
http://sovietguns.blogspot.com/2015/09/ptrs-penetration.html?m=1

File: 48544.jpg (1MB, 1844x1896px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1844x1896px

>>30788254
>I would love to see documentation of that. 1.2" RHA on the side, I don't think .50 is going through.
Of course it wouldn't.

>>30788464
I'm guessing you have no qualms with the source on that data, do you?

>>30788506
yeah that's about what I figured.

>>30788431
>Leonid Kurchevsky

Expected to read that Stalinists had him killed over nothing but he actually seems like a real piece of shit.

>>30788218
>And YET, they came up with one of the most popular and effective rocket launchers EVER scant years after the war.
It was after military from front line started literally screaming: "FUCK OFF WITH YOUR FUCKING RIFLES COPY FAUSTPATRONE YOU DUMB CUNTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" Encounter with German wepons gave new breath to soviet recoilless programs and broke taboo >>30788431
that held development.

>>30788464
The major problem with that data is how they didn't account for angle pretty much at all; it's all either 0 degrees or 20, which is pretty slight. The number of times you're gonna get those angles reliably on a part of the tank you actually need to shoot to do anything worth while AFTER penetrating becomes vanishingly small.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj6cVb2Yx94

File: Panzerschreck_2.jpg (70KB, 800x536px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x536px

>>30788438
Yeah, it was trash m8, fucking suicide stick that it was.
>muh rheinmetal
Had to steal a design from Yanks, and still it was so fucking terrible you either had to wear a bloody gas mask or bolt a fucking manhole cover on it or else your bloody face would cook.

>>30787772
Soviet industry could not provide required quality of production.

File: 1452462246456.jpg (187KB, 795x503px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 795x503px

>>30790043
>muh industrial might of le ruhr valley!

File: five rounds rapid fire.jpg (242KB, 1365x975px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1365x975px

>>30787772
The PTRS and PTRD were produced in large scale to give the infantry squads firepower to knock out german tanks during the german invasion of the soviet union.

Which they did effectively, but the germans learnt and started to uparmor the pz3 and pz4. But the threat from russian anti tank rifles to germans tanks were not underestimated by the germans, the panther have a 40mm thick side hull armor which they coverd with a 5mm side skirt. The panzer 3 which have 30mm and the panzer 4 which had 20 and later on 30mm thick side hull armor at the start of the german invasion of the soviet union were vulnerable to russian anti tank rifles. The panzer 4 was even vulnerable in the front since it only had 30mm thick armor at one point.

Even after it lost its effectivness it was used as a anti material rifle which it did pretty well in and had enough power to threaten a tank at urban combat.

Only tigers were completely safe from anti tank rifles (exception is in urban enviorments), imagine a panzer 3 or 4 getting hit this many times from anti tank rifles.

>>30789240
It also had nearly 3 times to penetrative capability, and a much longer effective range.

>>30790043

That's incorrect. Anyone can manufacture a stovepipie with a crude rocket projectile.

Russians relied on field guns for AT, and German tanks were relatively scarce so it wasn't an issue.

File: 88.jpg (2MB, 4440x1824px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4440x1824px

>>30790571
>Which they did effectively
>Even after it lost its effectivness it was used as a anti material rifle which it did pretty well

>>30790818
I dont read russian.

>>30791009
First is combat report dated march 1942
>enemy forces composed of 2 light tanks, 4 medium and 1 heavy tank were engaged
>AT rifle squad consisting of 16 rifles succeded in quickly destroying light tanks, medium tank was destroyed with mine, none of the heavy tanks were damaged regardless of engagement distance ( 20-400 meters ). Summary: during combat AT rifles didn't inflict any damage to medium/heavy tanks of the enemy, which makes it impossible to calcucate effective armor penetration capabilities.
Second is a long report which basically says "Ferdinand and Tiger are too fucking thick skinned" and that AT rifle squads perform poorly while also being a burden for infantry divisions. Directly states that R&D should work on something new to replace them.
Third one is after war report which obviously states that AT rifle are outclassed by modern tank armor and cannot be used for their intended role.
>>30790818
Would've been great too see more info from the earlier stages of war, memoirs of soldiers show drastically different views on how effective AT rifles actually were.

>>30791429

iirc AT rifles were considerably more effective in urban environments. It worked out favorably that firing down at the comparatively weak top armor of the turret also put you well above their maximum traverse for the main gun.

Can't find the source for that right now but I think it was a show about Pavlov's House

File: 1466757644511.jpg (218KB, 555x555px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 555x555px

Pretty strange that the russians did not develop sights for their anti tank rifles. If they had developed sights then it would improve the tactical situation since now they would actually be able to engage tanks at long range with a better chance then before to score a hit on vision ports etc after they were found to be unreliable to destroy enemy tanks from the front.

>>30787772
The answer to this question is like all other related questions on ww2 tech. Namely, which part of which year. The germans didn't even have standoff anti-tank weapons besides 37mm AT cannons or the 88 when Operation Barbarossa started, they first started using russian ones , plus the 76mm russian AT field gun.

>>30791631
1. AT rifles straggle to do anything against side tank armor even close, front was never an option.
2. PTRD/PTRS are about 12 MOA guns, good luck with sniping, my pedo friend.
3. There were attempts to put optics on AT rifles in USSR during WWII, none of the used sights could survive recoil.

They had some hollow charge anti-tank grenades and of course molotov cocktails. You rarely see pics of them using lend lease gear because the party supressed them since they'd make the red army look poor.

>>30790714

That's a no, early M1 Bazooka was rated for about 80mm while early Panzerschrek was slightly higher than 100. Late war M1 was around 100mm while Panzerschreck was around 150mm.

Significantly higher, but not "3 times".

>>30791926
12MOA? More like 4, had to meet the same accuracy requirements of ALL rifles.

File: 11.jpg (88KB, 292x452px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 292x452px

>>30791980
Yes, 12 MOA.

File: 1466787921065.jpg (32KB, 327x322px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 327x322px

>>30791926
>1. AT rifles straggle to do anything against side tank armor even close, front was never an option.
You are aware that it can penetrate 35mm at 500 yards and 40mm at 100 yards with BS-41 API rounds?

>front was never an option.
You are aware that germans tanks were lightly armored on the front during the start of operation barbosa? Even after they were armored russian training manuals and posters show that visions ports etc were targeted?

> PTRD/PTRS are about 12 MOA guns
[Citiation needed]

>3. There were attempts to put optics on AT rifles in USSR during WWII, none of the used sights could survive recoil.
A bad effort considering that they used anti tank rifles during the whole war and the 14.5mm round have a big effective range which was hurt by the fact that they had only iron sights which limited the effective range to use the anti tank rifles.

>>30792070
Mind posting the translation and source?
I can say from experience they are not 12 MOA weapons.

File: 123.jpg (447KB, 1619x1137px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1619x1137px

>>30792087
>You are aware that it can penetrate 35mm at 500 yards and 40mm at 100 yards with BS-41 API rounds?
At exactly perpendicular impact. At some angle (30 degrees) penetration range for T-III/T-IV side armor was mere 100m. This is for unobtanium BS-41 which was issued like 3-4 rounds per fireteam and not for every team. Standard issue BS-32 was simply hopeless.

>[Citiation needed]
Rifles FM.

>14.5mm round have a big effective range
>30mm penetration/30 degrees at 100 meters
>12 MOA
>effective range

>>30792315
How convinent that there is a translation of that image on tankarchive.

>>30792070
At what range?

>>30787772
AT rifles did the job against Panzer 3 and 4.
By the time the Germans deployed more heavily armoured tanks the Russians were already on the offensive and had more than enough tanks and guns to do the job.
The Germans used so many Panzerfausts because they were on the defensive and desperate for AT weapons.

>>30792315
100 meters is already twice the effective range of a Panzerfaust. Plus you get more than 1 shot.

>>30788506
I'm calling total bullshit on that graph. There's no fucking way any manfired caliber round could achieve 10 inches of penetration through plates. Fake and gay.

>>30790571
Riddle me this then, why even bother with main guns then on other tanks? If an HMG round could knock out other tanks, why did any side bother issuing high-caliber main cannons? If I could knock out a panzer with just a few shots from a .50, why bother with a 75mm gun? Shit doesn't add up.

>>30790155
>"Germany was a shit-tier country during WWII. They didn't even have trucks! Their supply lines consisted entirely of horses!"

You clearly don' know dick about the Eastern Front. Trucks weren't used because they weren't as reliable as horses and horses required much less maintenance.

File: 1419196475546.jpg (377KB, 500x1250px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 500x1250px

>>30793266
Are you absolutely retarded that you dont understand the difference between tank guns and anti tank rifles? They got two different purposes.
Destroying vision ports does not "knock out" tanks but degrade their combat effectivness which will result in the vehicle getting knocked out the more you hit it. You also seem to be so stupid that you dont know that german AFV had thin armor during the start of operation barbarosa and the year following it. They had panzer 1, 2, 3, 4, stugs, czech vehicles, shit ton of armored cars and they all had rather thin armor which was vulnerbale to anti tank rifles. Anti tank riflemen dont usually engage above 500 meters since they are more effective the closer the enemy vehicle is and they do not shoot high explosive rounds to destroy buildings and infantry. They got simply two different purposes and it is painfully obvious.

This is so obvious that you dont need to ask the question. Kill yourself.

>>30793266
>why did any side bother issuing high-caliber main cannons?

Because you can't pack an HE charge worth anything into a machinegun cartridge. The tank is there to make the infantry's lives easier.

>>30793403
>>30793555
Thats my point. Why not produce small, high speed trucks with .50 caliber, or an equivalent, HMG to knock out tanks instead of issuing Anti-tank rifles and building AFVs like the Stug? The answer is because Anti-tank rifles were absolutely dog-shit useless against anything other than a half-track or a truck. Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but the only man portable anti-tank weapon worth even mentioning during WWII were Panzerschreck and Panzerfausts. Everything else was almost useless.

>>30794041
When introduced they could kill any tank. They also proved just fine for killing early german, soviet, and every japanese tanks.

>>30794041
>Thats my point.
You dont have a point, you are stupid and it shows.

File: Anti-tank-Dog2[1].jpg (44KB, 629x383px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 629x383px

They had puppers.

File: tmp_11930-T-26 BPK_with 76mm recoilless_gun1060257111.jpg (26KB, 314x191px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 314x191px

>>30787772
Funny, they actually were putting a decent amount of work into researching recoilless rifles in the interwar period, but that work came grinding to a halt when the lead of the program was sent to the gulag because the recoilless rifles were experiencing problems. Still, a few truck mounted 76mm recoilless rifles saw service during the beginning of the war

>>30793266
>>30793555
Also, a tanks main gun carries much more penetrative power over distance because of the rounds mass in comparison to anti-tank rifles and smaller

>>30793224
>I can't fucking read

The highest penetration achieved in that graph is 3 inches.

>>30787772

ITT: The Germans had invincible tanks and the Russians only won because of overwhelming human wave tactics like in Enemy at the Gates and the Russians were very stupid and the Germans so very smart OMG so much better the Reich shall live for a thousand years!!!!

Except that is all total bullshit.

In the Battle of Stalingrad (you know, like in Enemy at the Gates where human waves were thrown at the Germans mercilessly) the Axis suffered 850,000 casualties and the Soviets suffered 1,129,619 casualties.

Certainly the Soviets took more, but it was hardly "hurr durr muh five Sherman's to take a single Tiger durr hurr wave tactics" sorts of losses.

Whatever the Soviets were doing worked. They stopped the German advance then then bend the Reich over and fucked it all the way to Berlin where they ravaged it over and over again. Get over it, the Soviets were a vastly better military than the Nazis, and for all their "hurr durr human wave tactics memes" they at least weren't so monumentally, overwhelmingly, unbelievably stupid as to attack the vast land mass that is Russia.

>>30793266
an at gun can knock out a tank at hundreds of yards or more. a .50 cal could only penetrate tank armor at close range, if at all.

>endless shitposts in these types of threads.

Anti tank grenades, tank support, and anti tank guns were sufficient.

Don't you think that if the Soviets really had trouble without anti tank weapons, they would've made some?

>>30794587
Within about 200yards for a pre30mm side armored pz4.

>>30794041
>Thats my point. Why not produce small, high speed trucks with .50 caliber, or an equivalent, HMG to knock out tanks instead of issuing Anti-tank rifles and building AFVs like the Stug?

StuGs and tanks were BUILT to support infantry by lobbing gratuitous amounts of high explosives at pillboxes, machinegun nests, buildings, fortifications, and so on. A machinegun is going to do jack fuck against these targets.

>>30794456
>assmad slavboo detected
i dont even like nazis but the russians were shit and wouldve been steamrolled if it werent for the lend lease or the winter.

Fun fact: AT rifles were the reason the Germans came up with spaced armor fo Pz. IV, but then it was discovered that it just happens to work against shaped charges (stolen Panzerfaust I assume).

>>30795002
Gee, you'd think a country with a reputation for martial prowess like Germany would take the fucking change of season into account in their planning. But no, we can definitely reach Moscow and force Brest-Litovsk 2: Electric Boogaloo in 3 months :^)

>>30787797
>They barely had rifles
They had much more rifles then soldiers, actually. All these nuggets from 1930s.

>>30790747
That is correct, read about RPG-1.

File: BsFPj44IMAAWzqj.jpg (60KB, 599x401px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 599x401px

>>30787772
14.5 mm rifle can pen Panther side with ease

>>30788438
>Whats the Faustpatrone/Panzerfaust?

a recoilless launcher designed a year after the bazooka, based off copied examples. Same with the panzerschrek.

the panzerfausts were at least a bit innovative in that they used a supercaliber warhead.

>>30793224
You missed decimal point when read the graph.

>>30795621
>but then it was discovered that it just happens to work against shaped charges (stolen Panzerfaust I assume).
It didn't
http://dr-guillotin.livejournal.com/36033.html

File: x2kdewaclexu3t8s8e9w[1].jpg (392KB, 2464x1632px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 2464x1632px

>>30787772
Russia most likely viewed panzerfaust as a drain on fuel/supply/ammo logistics, which is something that communist countries were very good at - to be able to run and conduct fairly effcient warfare with the least amount of paperwork and oversight, a huge contrast to the super-beurocraftic states of the time: notably the british, the USA, australia, france too.

They probably saw RPG styled technology as "too new to field", which coincides with so many sovietbloc, slavic, and other countries still fielding horse-drawn cannons

Russia is particularly slow with adapting to new western tech and tactics because they are not the west.

And another huge difference is that almost the entire west had a PRIVATE and Capitalist war industrial complex.

The War-industrial complex's job is to sell weapons, therefore if the government asks "can you field X weapon in X months" the private company, in our case would probably be Harris, Boeing, Lockheed, Grumman, they will always say yes to new ideas.

In a communist country there is no communication between industry and military. The decision to field something comes directly from the military and if the powers at be don't agree with the resources and logistics drain it would cost to field, then it doesn't go.

Western capitalist countries have valued "bigger, faster, more autonomous" advancement of technology since probably around the time TC railroad was built and the hoover dam was being constructed, thats why the USA kicks ass and why the soviets had a much higher casualty rate than anyone else. There military tactics and humility at the time were caveman level

>>30787772
Soviets had HEAT AT grenades. Probably also some lend-lease M1 Bazookas.

Why do you need a recoilless rifle when you already have everything you need to destroy tanks.

For example: soviet combined arms vs enemy tanks:
>tanks, field guns and artillery support the infantry, maybe immobilize enemy tanks
>infantry advance, get close enough to throw AT grenades, even if they suffer massive casualties
>tanks are destroyed

I mean the soviet doctrine was to throw units at something until it went away. If the infantry had to sustain massive losses in order to get into grenade range, so be it, they would still get there in the end and no armored vehicle could take HEAT AT grenades on the top facing, except maybe a Jagdtiger or Tiger II.

Russians did go on to create some of the most iconic and long lasting anti-tank systems in history - the RPG. You can't fault them for being slow to adapt. They were working on the RPG-1 by 1944

>>30788464
panther had like 40 mm side armor angled though.

>>30792621
bait?

>>30797381
45mm

>>30797430
How many do you think can read russian? This image is completely useless without translation.

>>30797381
The lower hull side is flat tho, the area that is coverd by the 5mm skirt.