Military Review

Soviet infantry anti-tank weapons (part 1)

62
Soviet infantry anti-tank weapons (part 1)



Almost immediately after appearing on the battlefield tanks the main means of dealing with them was artillery. At first, medium-caliber field guns were used to shoot tanks, but already at the end of World War I, specialized anti-tank artillery systems were created. In the 30s of the last century, 37-mm and 45-mm anti-tank guns were adopted in our country, and shortly before the war, guns with high armor penetration were created: the 57-mm anti-tank gun arr. 1941, which later became known as the ZIS-2, and 107-mm divisional cannon of the 1940 model (M-60). In addition, 76 mm divisional weapons available in the troops could be used to combat enemy tanks. In June 1941, the Red Army units were sufficiently saturated with 45-76-mm caliber guns, for that time they were quite advanced guns capable of penetrating the frontal armor of existing German tanks at real shooting distances. However, in the initial period of the war, due to heavy losses and loss of command and control, the Soviet infantry often found themselves on their own and fought with German means at hand.

The pre-war statutes and manuals provided for the use of hand fragmentation grenades obr.1914 / 30 and RGD-33 against tanks of bundles. In the Manual on Rifle Case 1935 of the year, it was prescribed to use several hand grenades to make a bundle of grenades. 1914 / 30. The grenades were tied together with string, telephone wire or wire, with four of them turned out to be turned handles in one direction, and the fifth - the middle, in the opposite direction. When throwing a bunch was taken by the handle of an average grenade. Located in the middle, it served to undermine the other four, thereby fulfilling the role of a detonator for the entire bundle.



The main hand grenade of the Red Army to the 1941 year was the RGD-33 (Hand Grenade Dyakonov sample. 1933 of the year), developed on the basis of the Rdultovsky grenade 1914 / 30 of the year. Inside the warhead between the outer metal shell and the charge is a few turns of steel tape with cuts, which during the explosion gave a lot of light shards. To increase the fragmentation effect of a grenade, a special defensive shirt could be worn over the body. The weight of the grenade without a defensive shirt was 450 g, it was loaded with 140 g trotyl. In the offensive version, an explosion formed around 2000 splinters with a 5 m radius of continuous damage. The grenade throw range was 35-40 m. However, along with the good fragmentation effect, RGD-33 had an unsuccessful fuse that required rather complex preparation for use. For triggering the fuse, an energetic swing of the grenade was required, otherwise it was not transferred to the combat position.


A bunch of grenades RGD-33, found at the scene of the fighting


When using RGD-33 grenades, two to four grenades were attached to an average grenade, from which fragmentation shirts were preliminarily removed and the handles were unscrewed. Bundles were recommended to throw from the shelter under the tank tracks. Although in the second half of the war, the RGD-33 fragmentation hand grenade was replaced in the production with more advanced models, its use continued until the available reserves were consumed. A bunch of grenades were used by partisans until the liberation of the occupied territory by Soviet troops.



However, a more rational was the creation of a specialized high-explosive anti-tank grenade with a high coefficient of filling with explosive. In this regard, in the 1939, the designer of ammunition M.I. Bubble was designed anti-tank grenade, which received after the adoption in service in 1940, the designation RPG-40.


Anti-tank grenade RPG-40


A grenade with a percussion fuse with a mass of 1200 g contained 760 g of TNT and was able to break through armor with a thickness of up to 20 mm. An inertial fuse with a percussion mechanism was placed in the handle, the same as in the RGD-33 fragmentation grenade. As in the case of frag grenade bundles, the safe use of RPG-40 was possible only from cover.



The massive release of the RPG-40 began after the start of the war. It soon became clear that it was effective enough only against light tanks. To disable the undercarriage of the tank, it was necessary to accurately throw a grenade under the caterpillar. Under blasting under the bottom of the Pz III Ausf.E 16 mm tank, the lower armor in most cases did not penetrate, and when thrown on the roof of the grenade body it often rebounded and rolled down before the trigger went off. In this regard, M.I. Bubble in 1941 created a more powerful RPG-41 grenade with 1400 g mass. Increasing the amount of explosives inside the thin-walled body made it possible to raise armor penetration to 25 mm. But due to the increase in the mass of the grenade, the range of the throw was reduced.

High-explosive anti-tank grenades and bundles of fragmentation grenades represented a great danger to those who used them, and the fighters often after a close explosion of their own anti-tank grenade died or received heavy contusions. In addition, the effectiveness of bundles RPG-40 and RPG-41 against tanks was relatively low, by and large, they were used for want of a better one. In addition to fighting with enemy equipment, anti-tank grenades were used against fortifications, as they had a large high-explosive effect.

In the second half of 1943, the RPG-43 manual cumulative grenades began to arrive in the army. The first in the USSR cumulative anti-tank grenade was developed by N.P. Belyakov and had a fairly simple design. The RPG-43 consisted of a body with a flat head, a wooden handle with a safety mechanism and a shock-detonating mechanism with a fuse. To stabilize the grenade after the throw was used ribbon stabilizer. Inside the case there is a charge of trotyl with a cumulative notch of conical shape, lined with a thin layer of metal, and a cup with a safety spring fixed in its bottom and sting.


RPG-43


At the front end of the handle there is a metal sleeve inside which the holder is located and the pin that holds it in the rearmost position. Outside, a spring is put on the sleeve and fabric tapes are fastened to the stabilizer cap. The safety mechanism consists of a flap and checks. A folding bar serves to hold the stabilizer cap on the grenade handle until it is thrown, not allowing it to crawl or turn in place.


Incision RPG-43 anti-tank grenade


During the throw of the grenade, the flap is separated and releases the cap of the stabilizer, which, under the action of the spring, slides off the handle and pulls out the tape. The safety stud falls out under its own weight, freeing the holder of the fuse. Due to the presence of a stabilizer, the flight of a grenade took place head-first, which is necessary for the correct spatial orientation of the shaped charge relative to armor. When the grenade’s head strikes the obstacle, due to inertia, the fuse overcomes the resistance of the safety spring and imposes on the sting with a detonator cap, which causes the main charge to explode and form a cumulative jet capable of piercing an 75 mm armor plate. A grenade weighing 1,2 kg contained 612 g of TNT. A well-trained fighter could throw her on 15-20 m.

In the summer of 1943, the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.H with the 80-mm frontal armor and onboard anti-cumulative steel screens became the main tank in Pantservaff. German medium tanks with heavy armor began to be massively used on the Soviet-German front at the start of the 1943. Due to the lack of armor of the RPG-43, a group of designers consisting of LB Ioffe, M.Z. Polevanova and N.S. Zhitkikh quickly created a cumulative RPG-6 grenade. Structurally, the grenade largely repeated the German PWM-1. Due to the fact that the mass of the RPG-6 was about 100 g less than that of the RPG-43, and the head part had a streamlined shape, the throw distance was up to 25 m. The best form of shaped charge and selection of the correct focal length, with increasing thickness of the pierced armor on 20-25 mm, it was possible to reduce the charge of TNT to 580 g, which, together with an increase in the throw range, reduced the risk for the grenade launcher.


RPG-6


The grenade had a very simple and technological design, which allowed it to quickly start mass production and begin deliveries to the troops in November 1943 of the year. In the production of RPG-6 almost no lathes were used. Most of the parts were made by cold forging from sheet steel, and the thread was made by rolling. The body of the grenade was drop-shaped in which there was a shaped charge with a charge and an additional detonator. An inertial fuse with a detonator cap and a ribbon stabilizer was placed in the handle. Drummer fuse blocked check. The tapes of the stabilizer were laid in the handle and held by the safety bar. The safety pin was removed before the throw. After the throw, the escaping safety bar pulled out the stabilizer and pulled out the check of the drummer, after which the fuse was raised. In addition to greater armor penetration and better manufacturability of the RPG-6 compared to the RPG-43, it was safer because it had three degrees of protection. However, the production of RPG-43 and RPG-6 was conducted in parallel until the end of the war.

Along with bunches and anti-tank grenades, glass bottles with incendiary fluid were very widely used in the first half of the war. It is cheap, easy to use and at the same time very effective anti-tank weapon It was first widely used during the Spanish Civil War by the rebels of General Franco against republican tanks. Later, fuel bottles were used against the Soviet tanks by the Finns during the Winter War, who called them the Molotov Cocktail. In the Red Army they became the Molotov Cocktail. The leakage of burning fluid into the engine compartment of the tank, as a rule, led to a fire. In the event that the bottle broke on the frontal armor, the fire mixture most often did not get inside the tank. But the flames and smoke of the liquid burning on the armor obstructed observation, aimed fire, and had a strong moral and psychological effect on the crew.



Initially, the equipment of the bottles with a flammable liquid was hand-crafted by the troops, and the various-sized beer and vodka bottles collected from the population were filled with gasoline or kerosene. In order for the flammable liquid not to spread very much, it burned longer and adhered better to the armor; improvised thickeners were added to it: tar, rosin or coal tar. A stopper made of tow was used as a fuse, which had to be set on fire before throwing the bottle into the tank. The need for pre-ignition fuse created certain inconveniences, besides, the equipped bottle with a stopper made of tow could not be stored for a long time, as the flammable liquid was actively evaporating.

7 July 1941, the State Defense Committee issued a decree "On anti-tank incendiary grenades (bottles)", which obliged the People's Commissariat of Food Industry to organize the equipment of glass bottles with mixture according to a specific recipe. Already in August, 1941 was equipped with incendiary bottles on an industrial scale. For filling the combustible mix consisting of gasoline, kerosene and ligroin was used.


Equipment of Molotov cocktails in Stalingrad


On the sides of the bottle was attached 2-3 chemical fuses - glass ampoules with sulfuric acid, bertolet salt and icing sugar. After the impact, the ampoules broke and ignited the contents of the bottle. There was also an option with a fuse fuse, which was attached to the neck of the bottle. During the siege of the city, the Tula Arms Plant developed a rather complex fuse consisting of 4 pieces of wire, two ropes, a steel tube, a spring, and a pistol cartridge. The handling of the igniter was similar to the handling of the ignition for hand grenades, with the difference that the “bottle” igniter only worked when the bottle was broken.


Incendiary bottle equipment at the Tula Distillery


In the autumn of 1941, chemists A. Kachugin and P. Solodovnikov created a self-igniting liquid CS on the basis of a solution of white phosphorus in carbon disulfide. Initially, glass ampoules with a CC were attached to the sides of the incendiary bottle. At the end of the year, 1941 switched to filling the bottles with a self-igniting liquid. At the same time, winter and summer formulations, differing in viscosity and flash point, were developed. The CS liquid had a good incendiary ability in combination with an optimal burning time. When burning, thick smoke was emitted, and after burning a hardly washed out soot was left. That, when liquid hit the tank observation instruments and sights, they put them out of operation and made it impossible to conduct aimed fire and driving with the driver's hatch closed.



Like the anti-tank grenades, incendiary bottles were used, as they say, at close range. In addition, the best effect was obtained when the bottle was broken at the engine compartment of the tank, and for this the fighter in the trench had to miss the tank over himself.



German tankers, having suffered sensitive losses from this inexpensive and fairly effective incendiary weapon, often reaching the line of Soviet trenches, began to spin, falling asleep alive to the Red Army soldiers hiding in them. To prevent the tanks from reaching our front-line line using incendiary bottles and a small amount of explosives, fire bombs were built in front of the trenches with an 10-15-area of ​​destruction meters. When the tank hit the “bottle mine,” the fuse of the TNT 220 g checkers was set on fire, and the liquid KS was scattered around by an explosion.

In addition, special rifle mortars were created for throwing bottles at the COP. The most widespread bottle design VA. Zuckerman. The shot was made using a wooden wad and a blank cartridge. For shooting were taken bottles with thick glass. The target throwing distance of the bottle was 80 m, the maximum - 180 m, the rate of fire when calculating the 2 of a person - 6-8 rds / min.



The shooting compartment was given two such mortars. Shooting was carried out with the emphasis of the butt into the ground. However, the accuracy of shooting was low, and the bottles often broke up when fired. Due to the danger for calculations and low efficiency, this weapon has not found wide application.

In 1940, specialists of the design bureau of the plant No. 145 named after SM. Kirov was created 125-mm ampoule, originally intended for firing spherical tin or glass ampoules filled with toxic substances. In fact, it was a weapon for throwing small chemical munitions in a trench war. The sample passed field testing, but it was not accepted for service. They remembered about the ampulets when the Germans approached Leningrad, but they decided to shoot it with ampoules with liquid KS.


Ampulelet


The ampoule was a low-ballistics muzzle-loading mortar, firing round thin-walled metal or glass ampoules with a self-igniting fire mixture. Constructively it was a very simple weapon consisting of a barrel with a chamber, a bolt, a simple aiming device and a gun carriage. Throwing the ampoule was carried out using a single-caliber 12 rifle cartridge. The aiming range of the ampule launcher was 120-150 m, when firing at a hinged trajectory with a large angle of elevation - 300-350 m. Rate of fire - 6-8 rds / min. Depending on the version, the mass of the ampule is 15-20 kg.



Along with such positive qualities as low cost of manufacture and simple construction, ampoulomas were quite dangerous to use. Often, during long shooting due to a large deposit, formed by black powder, which were loaded with 12 hunting caliber cartridges, the ampoules were destroyed, which was a danger to the calculation. In addition, the shooting accuracy was low, and getting into the frontal part of the tank did not lead to its destruction, although it blinded the crew. In addition to shooting at armored vehicles, ampoule guns were used to destroy and dazzle firing points and target illumination at night.


The explosion of the ampoule with liquid COP


To destroy the enemy's manpower in the trenches, ampoules with a remote fuse were produced, which gave a break in the air. In some cases, glass ampoules with liquid KS were used as hand incendiary grenades. As the troops became more saturated and secure with anti-tank weapons, they refused to use bottlelets and ampoulomas. The longest ampoule guns fought in the trenches near Leningrad, up to the lifting of the blockade.

Another little known anti-tank weapon was the VKG-40 rifle cumulative grenade (1940 rifle cumulative grenade of the year), which was fired from a Dyakonov grenade launcher. The grenade launcher was a rifled mortar caliber 41-mm, with a special tube mounted on a Mosin rifle. For aiming grenade aiming-quadrant. A folding bipedal bipod and a plate were attached to the grenade launcher to rest the butt in soft ground.


Dyakonov's rifle grenade launcher


Grenade VKG-40 had a streamlined shape. In front of the unit was an explosive charge with a cumulative notch and metal lining. The inertial detonator was located in the tail of the grenade. When firing a grenade VKG-40 used blank cartridge with emphasis butt in the shoulder. For aiming it was possible to use the standard Mosin rifle sight. According to the reference data, the armor penetration capability of the VKG-40 grenade was 45-50-mm, which made it possible to hit the average German tanks Pz.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.IV into the board. However, the Dyakonov grenade launcher had serious flaws: the impossibility of firing a bullet without removing the mortar, a small range of an aimed shot and insufficient power.

In the autumn of 1941, the tests of the VGPS-41 shompolnogo rifle anti-tank grenade began. A grenade weighing 680 g was fired with a blank rifle cartridge. An unusual solution was the use of a moving stabilizer, which increased the accuracy of shooting. During transportation and preparation for firing, the stabilizer was in front of the ramrod. During the shot, the inertia stabilizer moved to the tail of the ramrod and stopped there.



Grenade caliber 60-mm and length 115 mm contained a charge of TNT mass of 334 g with a hemispherical notch in the head part, lined with a thin layer of copper. The inertial fuse in the bottom part in the stowed position was recorded by a safety check, which was removed immediately before the shot.


VGPS-41 cumulative grenade prepared for firing


The range of aimed shooting was 50-60 m, for area targets - up to 140 m. Armor penetration along the normal - 35-mm. This was clearly not enough to break through the frontal armor of medium-sized German tanks. Serial production of VGPS-41 lasted until the spring of the 1942 year, after which the finished corps was used in the manufacture of a manual anti-personnel fragmentation grenade. To eliminate the cumulative effect that has become superfluous and to increase the filling ratio, the spherical funnel was pushed inside. In the warhead to increase the fragmentation action, a metal tape rolled into the 2-3 layer was inserted into the 0,7-1,2 mm thickness of a metal tape, the surface of which was cut with diamonds. The conical bottom of the VPGS-41 was replaced with a flat cap with a connecting sleeve into which the UZRG sunk was screwed.

Experiments with cumulative rifle grenades were not very successful. The aiming range of rifle grenades left much to be desired, and the penetrating ability of an imperfect warhead was low. In addition, the combat rate of fire of rifle grenade launchers was 2-3 rds / min, with very baggy loading.

Back in the years of the First World War, the first anti-tank guns were created. In the USSR, by the beginning of the war, despite successful tests in 1939, 14,5-mm PTR-39 designs by N.V. Rukavishnikov, there were no anti-tank guns in the troops. The reason for this was the incorrect assessment of the security of German tanks by the leadership of the People's Commissariat of Defense and, above all, by the head of the GAU, Kulik. Because of this, it was believed that not only anti-tank guns, but even 45-mm anti-tank guns would be powerless in front of them. As a result, the Soviet infantry was deprived of an effective anti-tank melee weapons, and being without the support of artillery, was forced to repel tank attacks with improvised means.

As a temporary measure in July 1941 year in the workshops MVTU them. Bauman established the assembly of anti-tank guns for 12,7-mm cartridge DShK. This weapon was a copy of the Mauser single-shot PTR of the First World War with the addition of a muzzle brake, a shock absorber on the butt and light folding bipods.

Weapons of this design at the beginning of 30-ies in small quantities were made at the Tula Arms Plant for the needs of NIPSVO (scientific testing ground for small arms), where rifles were used for testing 12,7-mm cartridges. The production of rifles in 1941 was set up at the suggestion of engineer V.N. Sholokhov and later on were often designated as 12,7 — a Sholokhov anti-tank rifle (ПТРШ-41).


12,7 –Mmm Sholokhov's anti-tank gun


The combat rate of fire of the PTRSh-41 did not exceed 6 rds / min. Weapons weighing 16,6 kg had a meter-high barrel in which an BS-41 armor-piercing incendiary bullet with a weight of 54 g with a tungsten alloy core was accelerated to 840 m / s. At a distance of 200 m such a bullet was able to pierce the normal 20 mm armor. But the troops usually used cartridges with B-32 armor-piercing incendiary bullets of mass 49 g with a hardened steel core, which could penetrate 250 mm armor at a distance of 16 m.



Naturally, with such indicators of armor penetration, Sholokhov's anti-tank gun could successfully fight only with light tanks Pz.Kpfw.I and Pz.Kpfw. II early modifications, as well as armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers. However, the production of the PTRSh-41 continued until the beginning of the 1942 of the year, and only the start of mass deliveries to the PTR troops under the 14,5-mm cartridge was curtailed.

In July 1941, I.V. Stalin demanded to speed up the creation of effective anti-tank guns and entrust the development of several well-known designers at once. The greatest success in this was achieved by V.A. Degtyarev and S.G. Simonov. New anti-guns were created in record time. In the fall of 1941, the single-charge PTRD-41 and the semi-automatic five-charge PTRS-41 were put into service. Due to the fact that the single-shot anti-tank gun Degtyarev was cheaper and easier to manufacture, it was possible to establish its mass production earlier. PTRD-41 was as simple and technologically advanced. In the fighting position, the gun weighed 17,5 kg. With a total length of 2000 mm, the barrel length with the chamber was 1350 mm. The effective firing range is up to 800 meters. Combat rate of fire - 8-10 rds / min. Battle calculation - two people.


PTRD-41


The PTRD-41 had an open throw-over sight for two 400 and 1000 m distances. For carrying the gun for short distances when changing positions, a handle was worn on the barrel. The loading of weapons was carried out on one cartridge, but the automatic opening of the shutter after the shot increased the rate of fire. A high-performance muzzle brake served to compensate for recoil, and the back of the stock had a cushion. The first batch of 300 units was manufactured in October, and in early November she was sent to the army in the field.



The Red Army soldiers of the 1075 Infantry Regiment of the Red Army 316 Infantry Division received the first anti-tank guns. In mid-November, the first enemy tanks were managed from the PTRD-41.



PTRD-41 production rates were actively increasing, by the end of the year 17 688 anti-tank guns of Degtyarev were delivered, and by January 1 1943 - 184 800 units. Production of PTRD-41 lasted until December 1944. A total of 281 111 single-shot anti-tank guns were released.

PTRS-41 operated according to the automation scheme with a powder gas discharge and had a magazine on 5 cartridges, and it was significantly heavier than Degtyarev's anti-tank gun. The mass of weapons in a combat position was 22 kg. However, Simonov's anti-tank gun had a combat rate of fire two times higher than the PTDD-41 - 15 rds / min.


PTRS-41


Since the PTRS-41 was more complicated and more expensive than a single-shot PTRD-41, at first it was produced in small quantities. So, in 1941, the troops managed to surrender only 77 anti-tank guns Simonov. However, in 1942, the 63 308 unit was already produced. With the development of mass production, the cost of manufacturing and labor costs have been reduced. Thus, the cost of Simonov's anti-tank gun from the first half of 1942 to the second half of 1943 of the year decreased almost twice.



For firing of anti-tank guns designed by Dyagtyaryov and Simonov, 14,5x114 mm cartridges with BS-32, BS-39 and BS-41 armor-piercing incendiary bullets were used. The mass of the bullets was 62,6-66 g. Initial speed - The BS-32 and BS-39 bullets were used with a hardened core made of tool steel U12, U12XA, at a distance of 300 m their armor normal was 20-25 mm. The BS-41 bullet with a tungsten carbide core had the best penetrating ability. At a distance of 300 m she could penetrate 30 mm armor, and when shooting with 100 m - 40 mm. Also used ammunition with an armor-piercing incendiary tracer bullet, with a steel core, piercing with 200 m 25 mm armor.

In December, 1941 of the year, the company of PTR (according to 27, and later on 54 guns) was introduced into the newly formed regiments of rifle regiments. Since the fall of 1942, platoon of anti-tank guns have been introduced into infantry battalions. From January 1943, the company of PTR began to include a motorized rifle battalion of a tank brigade.



Until the second half of 1943, PTR played an important role in anti-tank defense. Given that the airborne armor of medium-sized German tanks Pz.Kpfw.IV and SAU, built on their base, was 30 mm, they were vulnerable to 14,5-mm bullets until the end of hostilities. However, even without punching the armor of heavy tanks, armored personnel carriers could create many problems for the German tank crews. Thus, according to the memoirs of the crews of the 503 heavy tank battalion who fought near Kursk on the Pz.Kpfw.VI Ausf.H1 tanks, as they approached the Soviet line of defense, heavy armor-piercing bullets sounded almost every second. The PTR calculations were often able to disable the surveillance devices, damage the gun, jam the turret, knock down the track and damage the chassis, thus depriving heavy tanks of combat capability. The targets for anti-tank guns were also armored personnel carriers and reconnaissance armored vehicles. The Soviet PTR, appearing at the end of 1941, was of great importance in anti-tank defense, eliminating the gap between the anti-tank capabilities of artillery and infantry. At the same time, it was a front-line weapon, calculations of anti-tank guns suffered significant losses. During the war years, 214 000 PTR of all models was lost, that is, 45,4% of troops received. The largest percentage of losses was observed in 1941-1942 years - 49,7 and 33,7%, respectively. Losses of the material part corresponded to the level of losses among the personnel. The presence of anti-tank guns in the infantry units allowed them to significantly increase their resistance in defense and, to a large extent, get rid of the "tank attack".


The calculation of the PTR leads fire on a German armored personnel carrier


From the middle of 1942, the MFR took a firm place in the air defense system of the Soviet front edge, compensating for the lack of small-caliber anti-aircraft guns and large-caliber machine guns. For shooting at the planes it was recommended to use armor-piercing, incendiary tracer bullets.



For firing at planes, the five-charge PTRS-41 was more suitable when shooting, from which it was possible to quickly make an amendment in case of a miss. Anti-tank rifles were popular among Soviet partisans, with their help they smashed German truck columns and blew steam boilers. The production of anti-tank guns was completed at the beginning of 1944 of the year, by which time the front edge of our troops was saturated with a sufficient number of anti-tank artillery. Nevertheless, anti-tank guns were actively used in combat until the last days of the war. They were in demand in street battles. Heavy armor-piercing bullets pierced the brick walls of buildings and barricades of sandbags. Very often, the PTR was used for firing at embrasures of bunkers and billets.

During the war years, the Red Army had the opportunity to compare the Soviet PTR and the British 13,9 anti-tank rifle - mm Boys, and the comparison turned out to be very much against the English model.


Anti-tank rifle Boys Mk 1


The British five-shot anti-tank rifle with a longitudinally sliding gate weighed 16, 7 kg - that is a little less than the 14,5-mm PTRD-41, but was much inferior to the Soviet PTR on armor penetration. At a distance of 100 m at an angle of 90 °, a W Mk.1 bullet with a steel core weighing 60 g, ejected from a barrel of 910 mm length with a speed of 747 m / s, could penetrate an 17 mm armor plate. The 12,7-mm Sholokhov anti-tank gun had about the same armor penetration. In the case of using a W Mk.2 bullet with a mass of 47,6 g with an initial speed of 884 m / s, an armor with a thickness of 100 mm could be broken along the normal range of 25 m. Such indicators of armor penetration when using cartridges with a steel core were used by Soviet MTRs at a distance of 300 m. Because of this, the British Boyres MTR in the Red Army did not use popularity and were used mainly in secondary areas and in rear units.



In addition to the infantry version, the 13,9-mm PTR was installed on the reconnaissance version of the BTR "Universal" - "Scout Carrier". In total, 1100 "Boys" was sent to the USSR.

Already in the middle of 1943, it became clear that the armament-carrying PTRs were not able to effectively deal with German heavy tanks. Attempts to create larger-caliber anti-tank guns have demonstrated the futility of this direction. With a significant increase in weight to obtain the characteristics of armor penetration, guaranteeing penetration of frontal armor, even medium tanks failed. The creation of light anti-tank weapons, which fired a jet feathered cumulative projectile, looked much more attractive. In the middle of 1944, the tests of the reusable RPG-1 anti-tank grenade began. This weapon was created by specialists of the Research and Development Range of Mortar Weapons of the GRAU under the guidance of the leading designer GP. Lominsky.

On tests RPG-1 showed good results. The range of a direct shot of an 70-mm over-caliber cumulative muzzle-loading grenade was 50 meters. A grenade weighing about 1,5 kg at right angles punched 150 mm homogeneous armor. Stabilization of a grenade in flight was carried out by a rigid feather stabilizer that opened after exiting the barrel. The grenade launcher with a length of about 1 m weighed a little over 2 kg and had a fairly simple design. On the 30-mm barrel, a trigger type trigger with a pistol grip, an aiming bar and wooden thermal protective pads were mounted. The top edge of the grenade when aiming served as a front sight. As a propellant charge was used paper cylinder, equipped with black powder, which gave a thick cloud of well-visible white smoke when fired.

However, the fine-tuning of the RPG-1 was delayed, because for several months it was not possible to achieve stable operation of the fuse. In addition, the propellant charge absorbed water and refused to wet weather. All this led to the fact that the military lost interest in the grenade launcher, when it became clear that they would succeed in victoriously ending the war in the near future without the RPG-1. Thus, during the war in the USSR, anti-tank grenade launchers, similar to the German Panzerfaust or the American Bazooka, were never created.



In part, the lack of specialized anti-tank grenade launchers in the Red Army was offset by the widespread use of captured German grenade launchers, which were very widely used by our foot soldiers. In addition, German tanks at the final stage of hostilities were mainly used as a mobile anti-tank reserve, and if they went on the attack to our front line, they were usually destroyed by anti-tank artillery and assault aviation.

Продолжение следует ...

Based on:
http://warbook.info/item/protivotankovaya-granata-rpg-40-i-rpg-41
https://www.yaplakal.com/forum2/topic1239962.html
http://warbook.info/item/obzor-butylkometa-tsukermana
http://russian7.ru/post/ampulomet-gde-primenyali-universaln/
http://www.sinopa.ee/sor/bo001/bo05sv/bo05sv12/ptrd001.htm
Author:
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. fdgf
    fdgf April 2 2018 15: 22
    +4
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    and shortly before the outbreak of war, guns with high armor penetration were created: a 57-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1941, which later became known as ZIS-2

    This is how to count. If experienced (small-scale) production, then in 1941. And if a working production sample, then in 1943,
    Usually, of course, consider the serial samples.
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    and 107 mm divisional cannon of the 1940 model (M-60)

    This generally is not out of the stage of pilot production. Those. In the series did not go. Therefore, it may not be mentioned at all.
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    In June 1941, the Red Army units were sufficiently saturated with 45-76-mm caliber guns, for that time they were quite advanced guns capable of penetrating the frontal armor of existing German tanks at real shooting distances.

    45 mm guns in the forehead could puncture ONLY German tanks of old models. Which was not so much.
    The same goes for 76 mm guns. Due to the lack of armor-piercing shells.
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    The weight of a grenade without a defensive shirt was 450 g; it was equipped with 140 g of TNT. In the offensive version, the explosion generated about 2000 fragments with a radius of continuous destruction of 5 m.

    These are grenades of the pre-war model and the summer-early fall of 1941. Further, Soviet grenades and shells were equipped with explosive surrogates and their performance characteristics had nothing to do with those about which they were written in the manuals.
    For example, 76 mm OF-350 wartime was approximately equivalent to the pre-war 57 mm OS.
    1. Bongo
      April 2 2018 15: 45
      +13
      Quote: fdgf
      This is how to count. If experienced (small-scale) production, then in 1941. And if a working production sample, then in 1943,

      Around 300 guns in 1941 year. Tank version set even on the T-34.
      Quote: fdgf
      This generally is not out of the stage of pilot production. Those. In the series did not go. Therefore, it may not be mentioned at all.

      Come on... No. M-60 serially produced in Perm and Novocherkask. Two batteries of 107-mm guns fought near Kursk.
      Quote: fdgf
      45 mm guns in the forehead could puncture ONLY German tanks of old models. Which was not so much.

      After the introduction of sub-caliber projectiles, M-42 could penetrate the forehead of Pz.Kpfw.IV. Although by the end of the war the 45-mm guns were outdated, but they fought before the Victory.
      Quote: fdgf
      The same goes for 76 mm guns. Due to the lack of armor-piercing shells.

      Those. Would you like to say that in the 1941 year, for 76-mm divisional guns there were no armor-piercing shells at all?
      Quote: fdgf
      These are grenades from the pre-war sample and summer-early autumn 1941.

      Their reserves were very large, and there is no reason to say that these grenades were not used in combat.
      1. fdgf
        fdgf April 2 2018 15: 55
        +5
        Quote: Bongo
        About 300 guns in 1941.

        All were made in pilot production. Yes, and it did not work. By 1943, the ZIS-2 was in many ways different. And even 20% heavier.
        Quote: Bongo
        M-60 was mass-produced in Perm and Novocherkask.

        It has never been serially produced. The total release amounted to 137 pcs. Of these, 11 are in Perm.
        Quote: Bongo
        Two batteries of 107-mm guns fought near Kursk.

        Cool. But the serial release does not pull.
        Quote: Bongo
        After the introduction of sub-caliber shells, the M-42 could pierce the forehead of Pz.Kpfw.IV.

        Could But on the "pistol" distance.
        Caliber shells are kamikaze weapons from artillery. Gunners do not fight with submunitions.
        Quote: Bongo
        but they fought before the Victory.

        It is important how to fight.
        Quote: Bongo
        Their stocks were very large

        Yes. And the Germans were very pleased.
        Quote: Bongo
        and there is no reason to say that these grenades were not used in the fighting.

        Since 1942, almost nothing has been used before the war. Even from the unthinkable armada of Soviet tanks, Gulkin's nose remained.
        1. Colonel
          Colonel April 2 2018 16: 41
          +4
          Quote: fdgf
          Yes, and it did not work.

          A very professional assessment, you find yourself in special vocational training, and I thought only in small arms.
          1. fdgf
            fdgf April 2 2018 16: 58
            0
            Quote: colonel
            you find yourself in special vocational training, but I thought only in small arms.

            In artillery. And in several related areas.
            I am writing as short as possible. Here it will do. Although it would be possible recoil mechanism ZIS-2 mod. 1941 to describe in more detail. At ZIS-2 arr. 1943, it was different.
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga April 3 2018 06: 56
              +3
              Quote: fdgf
              In artillery. And in several related areas.

              Yeah, from modesty you will not die. No.
              1. Golovan Jack
                Golovan Jack April 3 2018 07: 08
                +8
                Quote: zyablik.olga
                from modesty you will not die

                It has already "died." From talkativeness, I understand.
                Wait for reincarnation laughing
        2. Bongo
          April 2 2018 17: 00
          +8
          Quote: fdgf
          All were made in pilot production.

          The guns were adopted and built on serial factories.
          Quote: fdgf
          Yes, and it did not work.

          What was it expressed in?
          Quote: fdgf
          ZIS-2 has become much different. And even 20% is heavier.

          But with this I agree. But it is rather connected with the production technology.
          Quote: fdgf
          Could But on the "pistol" distance.

          You will not believe it, but 45-mm VET usually opened fire from a distance of less than 500 m, and more often with 200 m.
          Quote: fdgf
          Gunners with sabotage shells do not fight.
          Here I even have nothing to say. wassat Before that, you seem to have written sane comments.
          Quote: fdgf
          It is important how to fight.

          How? The 45-mm guns themselves were fully justified.
          Quote: fdgf
          Yes. And the Germans were very pleased.

          There is a logical flaw in your reasoning. To remind you of what period of the war grenade bunches were used and why? Given that RGD-33 was withdrawn from production shortly after the start of the war, there was simply no special need to equip it with surrogate explosives. It rather refers to high-explosive anti-tank grenades. For example, in besieged Leningrad, RPG-40 was equipped with a mixture of ammonium nitrate and wood flour.
          Quote: fdgf
          Since 1942, almost nothing has been used before the war. Even from the unthinkable armada of Soviet tanks, Gulkin's nose remained.

          In my opinion, you are overly categorical and tend to exaggerate and simplify. hi
          1. fdgf
            fdgf April 2 2018 17: 20
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            The guns were adopted and built at serial plants.

            In the pilot production of a defense enterprise.
            A defense enterprise is such a big thing. It consists of many divisions and industries.
            Quote: Bongo
            What was it expressed in?

            In design lightness, in short.
            Quote: Bongo
            But it is rather connected with production technology.

            This is due to the fact that many nodes ZIS-2 arr. 1943 were original.
            Quote: Bongo
            45 mm anti-tank missiles usually opened fire from a distance of less than 500 m, and most often from 200 m.

            I say, kamikaze, not gunners. Forced.
            In vain, her calculations were “loved” and called affectionately - “Farewell to the Motherland”, “The ruble is long, life is short”.
            Quote: Bongo
            Before that, you seem to have written sane comments.

            An artilleryman is one who attacks targets from safe and relatively safe distances from a cannon. The forty-captains did not belong to them. In general, they were on special account and they had no opportunity to take a break from VET.
            Quote: Bongo
            The 45 mm guns justified themselves.

            PaK40 quite justified themselves. Forty heels are not at all like them.
            About M-42 words can only be obscene.
            53-K was nothing. But by the beginning of the war it was outdated and at one time Kulik completely correctly removed them from production. I forgot to come up with something in return.
            Quote: Bongo
            In my opinion, you are overly categorical and tend to exaggerate and simplify.

            Do you want numbers? I have them. Search only reluctance. But they are amazing.
            1. Monarchist
              Monarchist April 2 2018 20: 41
              +3
              Magpies are unlike them at all. ”It so happened that I talked with a front-line soldier, the commander of a 82 mm mortar battery. He knew the magpies well and spoke positively about the model that had appeared by early 1943.
              1. fdgf
                fdgf April 2 2018 21: 01
                -1
                Quote: Monarchist
                It so happened that I talked with a front-line soldier, a battery commander of 82 mm mortars. He knew the magpies well and spoke positively about the model that appeared by early 1943.

                Alas, few people are interested in his private opinion on this subject. Much more important is the opinion of specialists.
        3. svp67
          svp67 April 2 2018 17: 02
          +10
          Quote: fdgf
          Could But on the "pistol" distance.

          But the VET is just fighting, otherwise it will quickly be crushed or even destroyed.
          Quote: fdgf
          Caliber shells are kamikaze weapons from artillery. Gunners do not fight with submunitions.

          Lord, then explain to people WHAT gunners are fighting?
          1. fdgf
            fdgf April 2 2018 17: 22
            -1
            Quote: svp67
            But the VET is just fighting, otherwise it will quickly be crushed or even destroyed.

            Tell the Germans with their PaK40.
            Quote: svp67
            Lord, then explain to people WHAT gunners are fighting?

            Full artillery. And not an ambush.
            1. svp67
              svp67 April 2 2018 17: 31
              +9
              Quote: fdgf
              Tell the Germans with their PaK40.

              Judging by the fact that OUR FLAG turned out to be above the Reichstag, I am glad that no one told them how to fight the VET
              Quote: fdgf
              Full artillery. And not an ambush.

              ..... !!!!!!!!!! You offer to charge the guns "full artillery" ...... ??????????? And you can’t tell how this is done.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 April 2 2018 17: 51
                  +6
                  Quote: fdgf
                  There was a "legendary" weapon, but there was no normal one.

                  That's why our grandfathers drove them into history. Speaking of PAK-40 ... Take a close look at this video and it will become clear to you why the Germans tried to act at great distances, the gun’s design simply didn’t allow them to catch a shot coming from the front, or even aim. .
                  1. fdgf
                    fdgf April 2 2018 18: 11
                    -1
                    Quote: svp67
                    That's why our grandfathers drove them into history.

                    There are many whose grandfathers drove into history. Even Romanian and Bulgarian.
                    Quote: svp67
                    Take a look at this video carefully.

                    You have less fun with pictures. And better remember how many BTTs were in the Red Army on 22.06.41/08.05.1945/XNUMX, add wartime output, add Lend-Lease supplies, and then subtract the remainder on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX.
                    And then you’ll probably understand that the Germans had good anti-tank artillery or not.
                    As for the forty-five, the Germans even abandoned the much more efficient PaK38. Disdained. But in terms of performance characteristics the forty-five was something like PaK36.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 April 2 2018 18: 19
                      +7
                      Quote: fdgf
                      That's exactly what was not there, it was your flag.

                      If you are ashamed of yours, then I am proud of this flag
                      and even changing the state, we REMEMBER and DO NOT FORGET ...
                      And you better not touch this topic.
                      Quote: fdgf
                      Even Romanian and Bulgarian.

                      There are many who want to cling to Victory, but we REMEMBER and DO NOT FORGET
                      Quote: fdgf
                      And better remember how many BTTs were in the Red Army on 22.06.41/08.05.1945/XNUMX, add wartime output, add Lend-Lease supplies, and then subtract the remainder on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX.
                      And then you’ll probably understand that the Germans had good anti-tank artillery or not.

                      And no one says that the Germans were bad wars and that they had a bad TVET, but that would dot all the “ё” again, take another look at the photo whose flag developed over Berlin in May 1945
                      1. fdgf
                        fdgf April 2 2018 19: 20
                        -1
                        Quote: svp67
                        If you are ashamed of yours, then I am proud of this flag

                        Do not distort. And do not "pathetic speeches." I wrote you only what I wrote. And you perfectly understood that I am right.
                        Quote: svp67
                        but we REMEMBER and DON'T FORGET

                        What do we remember? What did not forget?
                        The phrase "anti-Hitler coalition" is an empty phrase for you? Don't you remember her? Did you forget her?
                        You have some kind of selective memory.
                        Quote: svp67
                        look again at the photo whose flag fluttered over Berlin in May 1945

                        What about the photo? Besides, I already remember.
                        American, British, Soviet and French. Polish still fluttered over the Brandenburg gate.
                        What's next?
            2. Monarchist
              Monarchist April 2 2018 20: 49
              +4
              fdgf, and how do you like the testimony of the tiger commander? Karius "Tanks in the Mud" he actually spoke with respect with respect to our VET, but it is worth a lot
              1. The comment was deleted.
      2. CTABEP
        CTABEP April 8 2018 18: 51
        0
        Those. Would you like to say that in the 1941 year, for 76-mm divisional guns there were no armor-piercing shells at all?


        In general, there was a serious problem with armor-piercing shells in the Second World War. Firstly, a huge percentage of non-standard 45 mm shells, and secondly a very small number of 76 mm shells.
  2. Amurets
    Amurets April 2 2018 16: 03
    +8
    In the years of the First World War, the first anti-tank rifles were created. In the USSR, by the beginning of the war, despite successful tests in 1939, the 14,5-mm PTR-39 design by N.V. Rukavishnikov, anti-tank rifles in the troops were not.
    Sergey, thanks, interesting. In addition to these PTRs in the USSR, in small quantities were produced PTR RES "20-mm anti-tank rifle RES model 1942 (Rashkov, Ermolaev, Sluhotsky systems). Quick service guide" https://armyman.info/books/id-10711 .html, Davydov. BV "Soviet anti-tank missiles. Unknown about the well-known" Well and Bolotin "Soviet small arms:" To accelerate the production of anti-tank rifles, an unjustified attempt is made as a temporary measure to launch the mass production of the 7,92-mm German anti-tank rifle PzB-39. During the tests, technical and design flaws of the system were revealed in the manufactured prototypes, including non-extraction of the sleeve after firing, piercing the capsule,
    as a result, the guns failed after 30-40 shots, as well as weak armor penetration. “Several dozens of rifles were made,” Colonel Bakanov, head of the Directorate of Small Arms, reported to the head of the Main Artillery Directorate, colonel general of the artillery N.D. safety during firing (at the factory there were two cases of injured shooters). ”
    1. avt
      avt April 2 2018 16: 11
      +3
      Quote: Amurets
      Sergey, thanks, interesting.

      Yes. good Nice review.
  3. RaptorF22
    RaptorF22 April 2 2018 16: 25
    0
    It’s interesting that they were created in caliber 12.7 back then, but how much does it cost now? I read somewhere that the Chinese Norinka imports such products and the price is like 250000 or 300000, it seems like we have 12.7 in civilian. It would be funny to see 12.7 in civilian smooth-bore type 366 tkm
  4. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 2 2018 16: 48
    +6
    Attempts to create larger-caliber anti-tank rifles have demonstrated the futility of this area.
    Nevertheless, attempts were made .... In 1942, the 20-mm PTR "RES" was developed .... At the end of the 1942-beginning of the 1943, 70 pieces were produced somewhere ... sent to the front ... . fought.
    Somewhere from the 1942, the Red Army received a 1000 bazook (more 550 in 44 ...); St. 800 PIATs; 250 mortars Spigot
    the lack of specialized anti-tank grenade launchers in the Red Army was compensated ...
    1. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem April 2 2018 17: 35
      +3
      And still there were attempts ..

      Now, modern, large-caliber sniper rifles can be compared with the PTR ..
  5. Bongo
    April 2 2018 17: 02
    +2
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    1942 developed the 20-mm PTR "RES" .... At the end of the 1942-the beginning of the 1943-th was produced somewhere 70 pieces ... sent to the front .... fought.

    With what efficiency?
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Somewhere from the 1942, the Red Army received a 1000 bazook (more 550 in 44 ...); St. 800 PIATs; 250 mortars Spigot

    A drop in the sea...
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 3 2018 00: 34
      +1
      Quote: Bongo
      With what efficiency?

      Specially for PTR RES, we designed our own 20x150R cartridge with an armor-piercing shell with a tungsten core. The shell had an aluminum head. The basis for the cartridge case was the cartridge case for the 45-mm anti-tank gun.



      Caliber, mm 20x150R
      Barrel length with a chamber, mm 1850
      Weight, kg
      - without machine and shield
      - in a stowed position
      58.0
      72.0
      Rate of fire, rds / min 8
      Distance of the actual fire, m 300
      Horizontal angle of fire, city 60
      Initial bullet speed, m / s 800
      Penetration,
      (distance / angle of meeting / penetration) 100 m / 90o / 70 mm
      300 m / 90o / 50 mm
      Quote: Bongo
      Drop into the sea

      I do not argue! Now there is even a problem - to find evidence of the use of the Red Army of these weapons (bazooka, PIATs ...). There is a photo about the crossing of the Vistula in 1944, on which the Red Army men with bazookas are captured ...
      1. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga April 3 2018 10: 02
        +3
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        The shell had an aluminum head. The liner from the shot for the 45-mm anti-tank gun.

        Sorry, I certainly don’t have much sense in weapons, but what dimensions should this “gun” have if it had a sleeve from an 45 mm gun? Are you sure about this?
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I April 3 2018 10: 55
          +4
          This is indicated by "sources". And this is not the only case when, to ensure high power, they use a sleeve from a much larger caliber than the bullet (shell) of this weapon.
  6. shuravi
    shuravi April 2 2018 17: 27
    +2
    A superficial article, the author did not even note the shortcomings of domestic PTR.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  7. Sander113
    Sander113 April 2 2018 17: 44
    +6
    Sergey, thanks for the article. You are one of the few authors for which it’s worth going to VO.
  8. bnm.99
    bnm.99 April 2 2018 17: 52
    -1
    The role of the M-60 as an anti-tank gun is doubtful - it is painfully heavy to roll its calculation across the battlefield. So the 152 (!) - mm M-10 division can be called anti-tank ...
  9. Helmet
    Helmet April 2 2018 18: 35
    +4
    about RPG-40
    "An inertial fuse with a striking mechanism, the same as in the RGD-33 hand fragmentation grenade, was placed in the handle."
    I apologize, but did the author hold RPG-40, RGD-33, fuses for them? The fuse in the RPG-40 was placed in the grenade itself, and not in the handle, as well as in the RGD-33. On this their similarity ends. The fuses they have are different. In the heat of the RPG-40, there is no moderator. That is why the fuses are made different in size so that the fighter does not stick the fuse from the RPG-40 in the RGD-33. If the fighter did so, he would not feel very well from the explosion of a grenade in his hand when trying to throw it.
  10. svp67
    svp67 April 2 2018 19: 26
    +5
    Quote: fdgf
    And you perfectly understood that I am right.
    You ... yes you are not right already that you got into this dispute.
    Quote: fdgf
    What do we remember? What did not forget?

    Who made every effort in the fight against Nazism. And what did it cost our people
    Quote: fdgf
    I remember so.
    American, British, Soviet and French. Polish still fluttered over the Brandenburg gate.
    What's next?

    That's it, that no further ... Above Reichstag they WASN’T. That's what.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 3 2018 03: 46
        +3
        Quote: fdgf
        Judging by the post-war division of trophies, four countries, the USSR, the USA, Britain and France, made approximately the same efforts.

        Politics and nothing more.
        Quote: fdgf
        True, the Anglo-Saxons also occupied Italy.

        And in how many countries did Soviet troops remain?
        Quote: fdgf
        "Perfectly" prepared for war.

        Much better than the anointed of God - Nicholas 2
        Quote: fdgf
        Is this somehow fundamentally important?

        Judging by the fact that we are trying, such as you to convince otherwise, it is VERY.
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist April 2 2018 21: 42
      +3
      Dear svp, in some ways fdgf is right: 45 was good until the autumn of 1942, about DET at Drabkin I read a story from the former anti-tank, interesting. Regarding the "anti-Hitler coalition": remember Stalin's toast "for American engines" without which they would not have won. Zhukov, when his "maize" fired ("thanked" for the help), 1956 said that by 1942 we had nothing to equip rifle cartridges: there weren’t any gunpowder!
      Pokryshkin respectfully spoke about American "cobras" (the site was about them), Katukov in the winter of 1941-1942, praised the English tank "Matilda": reliable armor and a good gun. Without the help of the Allies, it would be much more difficult for us. I heard very good reviews from old drivers about: “Studebaker”, “Dodge,“ Vilissa. ”We have one“ Vilissa ”in the city, in the summer I saw it was supposedly a native motor, and the wheels and tires are modern. I suspect that its contents are working state goes into chaos "penny"
      1. fdgf
        fdgf April 2 2018 22: 19
        0
        Quote: Monarchist
        that for 1942 we had nothing to equip rifle cartridges: there were no gunpowder.!

        When testing at the Aberdeen Proving Ground 2's of Soviet tanks with a BR-350A projectile, the Americans measured the three-inch diameter n / s 620 m / s. In this case, the passport n / s of such a three-inch projectile was 662 m / s. Artillery shells were stuffed with such gunpowder.
        Quote: Monarchist
        Pokryshkin respectfully spoke about the American "cobras"

      2. Amurets
        Amurets April 3 2018 00: 15
        +3
        Quote: Monarchist
        I heard very good reviews from old drivers about: “Studebaker”, “Dodge,“ Vilissa. ”We have one“ Vilissa ”in the city, in the summer I saw that it was supposedly a native motor, and the wheels and tires are modern.

        Studebaker - yes, but for the American army it was a non-standard machine and was offered for export or for deliveries under a lend-lease. The rest of the cars, especially the Dodge, demanded high-quality fuel and lubricants and therefore quickly left the stage. "Willis" was a standardized car, produced in mass series and in various modifications. It was produced until the mid-80s, in various countries. So spare parts for him are not in short supply. Information about army vehicles can be obtained from the books of Kashcheev: a series of US military vehicles or M. Sokolov. "Autos INVASION in the USSR. Trophy and lendlization cars." Series "War of Motors".
      3. svp67
        svp67 April 3 2018 03: 42
        +4
        Quote: Monarchist
        45 was good until the fall of 1942,

        Have you read it carefully? He just does not approve?
        Quote: fdgf
        45 mm guns in the forehead could puncture ONLY German tanks of old models. Which was not so much.

        He misses as the moment that the 45 mm anti-tank missile we were armed with was of THREE type. And the M-42 was a fairly powerful gun.
  11. Curious
    Curious April 2 2018 20: 31
    +6
    It’s interesting, but on the site, what is the statute of limitations after which the author can print his article for the second time?
    https://topwar.ru/40483-protivotankovye-sredstva-
    sovetskoy-pehoty-v-gody-voyny.html - 1 March 2014. The only difference is that the article got worse, got old, or something. Author, what do you say?
    1. shuravi
      shuravi April 2 2018 20: 48
      +2
      Quote: Curious
      It’s interesting, but on the site, what is the statute of limitations after which the author can print his article for the second time?
      https://topwar.ru/40483-protivotankovye-sredstva-
      sovetskoy-pehoty-v-gody-voyny.html - 1 March 2014. The only difference is that the article got worse, got old, or something. Author, what do you say?


      Five points for your observation. I myself just watched this very article, but the author’s name didn’t even look. laughing
    2. K.A.S.
      K.A.S. April 2 2018 22: 38
      +2
      Glory to you Lord! And then I just could not figure out where I already read it !!! I thought something with my head !!!
      The author of the article answer the question!
      1. Bongo
        April 3 2018 02: 11
        +3
        Quote: K.A.S.
        The author of the article answer the question!
        Probably You wanted to write - "please answer"?
        Probably, someone is not up to date, but before publication on HE, all articles are checked for originality. So, just copy the old one and publish it on the new one - such a number will not work. This publication is the beginning of a cycle in which it will be reviewed. all anti-tank armament of our infantry with the Second World War until the collapse of the USSR. I do not see anything wrong with the fact that materials previously published were used, especially since they have been substantially revised and supplemented.
        1. K.A.S.
          K.A.S. April 3 2018 07: 19
          0
          No need to guess! if I wanted to write like that, I would write!
          I do not want to disappoint you, but the words: originality, exclusive and others do not affect me because I know what it is and how these indicators are increased to increase the percentage of originality!
          if you process and supplement, it would be nice to explain this nuance to the readers in order to avoid misinterpretations and misunderstandings!
          The content of the article has satisfied me!
          1. Bongo
            April 3 2018 09: 40
            +1
            Quote: K.A.S.
            No need to guess! if I wanted to write like that, I would write!

            Well, in that case, next time you will not wait for an answer. No.
            Quote: K.A.S.
            I do not want to disappoint you

            And you tried to charm me? wassat
            Quote: K.A.S.
            if you process and supplement, it would be nice to explain this nuance to the readers in order to avoid misinterpretations and misunderstandings!

            If someone has a claim to me, he can always write about this site administration. At the same time, I sometimes meet my publications “for authorship” of other persons not only on outside resources, but also on HE. And I have to explain to everyone what and how? No. Who needs to figure it out.
            Quote: K.A.S.
            The content of the article has satisfied me!

            And why are you actually unhappy?
            1. Mikado
              Mikado April 5 2018 17: 18
              +1
              Good afternoon, Sergey! 1. Congratulations on your new cycle. 2. The photo caught the eye "The calculation of PTR fires on a German armored personnel carrier". The feeling that this is Sd.Kfz. 247. If so, then the picture is rare - only 68 cars were produced. yes Although it may be the Protze tractor, you can’t tell from afar. hi
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. Monarchist
    Monarchist April 2 2018 20: 59
    +1
    Quote: fdgf
    Quote: svp67
    That's why our grandfathers drove them into history.

    There are many whose grandfathers drove into history. Even Romanian and Bulgarian.
    Quote: svp67
    Take a look at this video carefully.

    You have less fun with pictures. And better remember how many BTTs were in the Red Army on 22.06.41/08.05.1945/XNUMX, add wartime output, add Lend-Lease supplies, and then subtract the remainder on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX.
    And then you’ll probably understand that the Germans had good anti-tank artillery or not.
    As for the forty-five, the Germans even abandoned the much more efficient PaK38. Disdained. But in terms of performance characteristics the forty-five was something like PaK36.

    They had very effective 88 mm PAKs that worked great on airplanes and tanks. There is even about them in the old Soviet-Polish film "Four Tankers", you may remember how Tomek reports to YanKosa that he saw four anti-aircraft guns at the bridge
    1. fdgf
      fdgf April 2 2018 21: 22
      -1
      Quote: Monarchist
      They had very effective 88 mm PAKs that worked great on airplanes and tanks.

      PaK43 were anti-tank guns. They could not shoot at planes.
      FlaK37 were anti-aircraft guns. They could work on tanks. But this did not happen often. More talk on this subject than real events.
      Yes, and here, despite the same 88 mm caliber, there was nothing more in common between them.
      Quote: Monarchist
      Ak Tomek reports to YanKos that he saw four anti-aircraft guns at the bridge

      Exactly. Anti-aircraft guns if tanks run into them could well open fire on them. But, I repeat, this did not happen so often.
      And the main anti-tank gun of the Germans was PaK40. Unfortunately, she was pretty damn good. And the 88 mm FlaK37 anti-aircraft gun in terms of armor penetration at a range of 1000 m was inferior to only 15%. And only 3% of this indicator was inferior to the Soviet 85 mm guns. And it went head to head with the Soviet 57 mm ZIS-2 arr. 1943 At the same time, unlike all of them, it was cheap, technologically advanced and easy to manufacture.
      1. Nehist
        Nehist April 3 2018 15: 03
        +2
        Flak37 as well as Flak41 were used as anti-tank with an enviable consistency since the French company. To your comments above, the Germans opened fire on tanks from a distance of 600 meters and oh my God what a heresy of sub-caliber and shells which they were the main in the vocational school
  14. Monarchist
    Monarchist April 2 2018 21: 10
    +3
    Quote: fdgf
    Quote: svp67
    If you are ashamed of yours, then I am proud of this flag

    Do not distort. And do not "pathetic speeches." I wrote you only what I wrote. And you perfectly understood that I am right.
    Quote: svp67
    but we REMEMBER and DON'T FORGET

    What do we remember? What did not forget?
    The phrase "anti-Hitler coalition" is an empty phrase for you? Don't you remember her? Did you forget her?
    You have some kind of selective memory.
    Quote: svp67
    look again at the photo whose flag fluttered over Berlin in May 1945

    What about the photo? Besides, I already remember.
    American, British, Soviet and French. Polish still fluttered over the Brandenburg gate.
    What's next?

    And then read the correspondence between Cherchel and Stalin, it gives a lot of information.
    1. Dam
      Dam April 3 2018 02: 08
      +6
      And he already knows, just trolls are thick and thin, he is thin. And so all the same, the manual goes through the red line through all the white noise. The main directions: 1 German weapon is the best 2 exaggeration of the role of the Allies 3 Russia is not the heiress of the USSR, 4 Stalin is a tyrant, he blew all the polymers. Didn’t forget anything? And he argues not about technical details, but simply works.
    2. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem April 3 2018 05: 34
      +4
      fddf is an ordinary demagogue and provocateur.
  15. Two handed
    Two handed April 3 2018 04: 28
    +3
    Quote: fdgf
    Quote: Monarchist
    But what about the testimony of the tiger commander? Karius "Tanks in the Mud" he actually spoke with respect with respect to our VET, but it is worth a lot

    It does not cost anything. But the lives of 19 million soldiers of the Red Army were and still are expensive.
    And the "merit" in this huge figure is of little use for Soviet technology and weapons is not in last place.

    why not immediately 100500 million Red Army soldiers shot from Pak 40 on unsuitable wagons.
  16. Two handed
    Two handed April 3 2018 04: 37
    +2
    Quote: fdgf
    Quote: svp67
    That's why our grandfathers drove them into history.

    There are many whose grandfathers drove into history. Even Romanian and Bulgarian.
    Quote: svp67
    Take a look at this video carefully.

    You have less fun with pictures. And better remember how many BTTs were in the Red Army on 22.06.41/08.05.1945/XNUMX, add wartime output, add Lend-Lease supplies, and then subtract the remainder on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX.
    And then you’ll probably understand that the Germans had good anti-tank artillery or not.
    As for the forty-five, the Germans even abandoned the much more efficient PaK38. Disdained. But in terms of performance characteristics the forty-five was something like PaK36.

    They disobeyed Pak 38 so they released about 10 thousand))) There is no secret about the loss of BTT, all the equipment on 22.06.1941/26/5 is either morally and physically worn out junk or an extremely unreliable remake without spare parts and ammunition. The whole thing even without the influence of German Fri perished on marches. Although the Germans and lovers of captured equipment, they practically didn’t have any t-41s and bt-XNUMXs, except piece pieces in the rear units and the ss, since the whole mass of abandoned equipment was in worthless condition after the XNUMXst.
  17. Mavr-85
    Mavr-85 April 3 2018 05: 42
    +3
    Thanks for the interesting article
  18. shuravi
    shuravi April 3 2018 10: 12
    0
    Quote: Bongo

    Probably, someone is not up to date, but before publication on HE, all articles are checked for originality. So, just copy the old one and publish it on the new one - such a number will not work. This publication is the beginning of a cycle in which it will be reviewed. all anti-tank armament of our infantry with the Second World War until the collapse of the USSR. I do not see anything wrong with the fact that materials previously published were used, especially since they have been substantially revised and supplemented.


    I made two screenshots.
    Then:



    Now:




    In short, this is called: the same eggs, side view. laughing
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. shuravi
        shuravi April 3 2018 10: 52
        0
        Quote: zyablik.olga

        Willingly believe that you are an egg specialist. yes

        But where am I? Against the backdrop of a pro like you.


        But how is this related to this publication? In essence, is there a claim to what is written?


        Do you have trouble understanding? Shiyo is another "pony launch in a circle."

        Here, after all, no one offered to shoot down rockets with machine guns.



        How do you like to show your stupidity. More than once you have been poked with your nose that the idea of ​​using SPPU against anti-aircraft missiles is as old as the anti-aircraft missiles themselves.
        However, to convince you that throwing beads. hi
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. shuravi
            shuravi April 3 2018 18: 23
            0
            [quote = zyablik.olga] [quote = shuravi]
            Yeah, where am I? I'm a woman. But even I understand that getting from a machine gun into a maneuvering supersonic missile is extremely unlikely. [/ Quote]

            Since when did MANPADS maneuver steel? laughing
            And yet it’s definitely noticeable that you are a woman, because judging by the words, for you SPPU is something akin to a machine gun on a cart, well, maximum NUV-1 with a manual drive.
            You have not heard about remote control and automatic guidance.
            And to ask you about the rate of fire of the GShG-7,62, the dispersal of bullets, the ejection of flame from the trunks, is an empty matter. Clear.

            [Quote]
            This is your common sense problem. fool This is the beginning of the cycle, and the fact that the author used the material published by him in the past does not depreciate this cycle. [/ quote]

            When the same thing is launched twice, alas. Depreciates.

            [quote] I don’t know where you are, what you poke there, but I manage my nose myself. [/ quote]

            It only seems to you.
            [Quote]
            And where is this idea embodied, besides your imagination? [/ Quote]

            Yes, at least on that Tu-22M and subsequent modifications. The aft installation is intended, among other things, to protect the rear hemisphere from any VTs. including rockets.

            [quote] Do not confuse beads with caviar, and toad. [/ quote]

            Nothing, wait for your prince yet. bully


            [quote] Are you expecting someone to prove something to you? [/ quote]

            For God's sake. only in this case the brand of balabol.
            [Quote]

            Serezha certainly did not destroy dozens of Afghan and Chechen tanks like you. He just was on duty at command posts and communication centers, [/ quote]

            Wow. Thanks for that. love
            I even assumed that everything was even so.



            [Quote]but you are never destined to reach his level of knowledge and erudition. No. In addition, he knows how to communicate with others, and no one has ever told him that he talks like a squabble old woman or about complex impotence. [/ Quote]

            Level of knowledge and erudition speak?
            Well then, please explain what source such wisdom is from.

            And then he is silent, but I’m very curious:
            https://topwar.ru/127829-aviaciya-protiv-tankov-c
            hast-7.html
            [quote] Too powerful and heavy GSH-30K was also fixed motionless, and only the pilot who controlled the helicopter and drove the bombs and launched the NAR could fire from it. Thus, the navigator, the operator at whose disposal the ATGM guidance station, often remained without work in local conflicts of low intensity and various kinds of “anti-terrorist” operations. [/ Quote]
  19. shuravi
    shuravi April 3 2018 10: 31
    0
    Quote: Bongo

    If someone has a claim to me, he can always write about this site administration. At the same time, I sometimes meet my publications “for authorship” of other persons not only on outside resources, but also on HE. And I have to explain to everyone what and how? No. Who needs to figure it out.



    In fact, when they make such statements, they give examples. Otherwise, an empty concussion.
    Especially when the author is such a versatile soldier (from outer space to the deep sea) that we, so to speak, narrow specialists within our military-industrial complex simply smoke aside.
    True, when in between smoke breaks we look at the author’s creations on the topic of birth, it becomes clear that the author has bad habits as well.
    Example:
    https://topwar.ru/127829-aviaciya-protiv-tankov-c
    hast-7.html
    Too powerful and heavy GSH-30K was also fixed motionless, and only the pilot who controlled the helicopter and drove the bombs and launched the NAR could fire from it. Thus, the navigator-operator, who had the ATGM guidance station at his disposal, often remained without work in local conflicts of low intensity and various kinds of “anti-terrorist” operations.
  20. shuravi
    shuravi April 3 2018 11: 42
    +1
    Quote: fdgf
    Quote: Monarchist
    that for 1942 we had nothing to equip rifle cartridges: there were no gunpowder.!

    When testing at the Aberdeen Proving Ground 2's of Soviet tanks with a BR-350A projectile, the Americans measured the three-inch diameter n / s 620 m / s. In this case, the passport n / s of such a three-inch projectile was 662 m / s. Artillery shells were stuffed with such gunpowder.
    Quote: Monarchist
    Pokryshkin respectfully spoke about the American "cobras"




    And Sergeant Kozhedub came to the front in the 1943 year and in the domestic La-5 - La-7, as a result of the 64 victory.
  21. geniy
    geniy April 4 2018 00: 00
    0
    Recently, a television series Zvezda showed a serial documentary about the artillery of World War II. And the plot was shown about how the calculation of one ML-20 howitzer cannon of caliber 152 mm in one battle knocked out 4 German tanks, in another battle it knocked out 6 German tanks, but in general for the whole war this calculation (unfortunately I do not remember their names) destroyed the RECORD NUMBER of 27 German tanks! Of course, this post has nothing to do with the topic of the article, but nevertheless it is curious for what reasons the 152 mm caliber gun, which was in no way intended to fight tanks, destroyed their record number. And probably much more than any magpie, and even the 57-mm ZIS-2. How to explain this? I think the reason for this is the huge striking power of a heavy 152 mm shell, which made it possible to destroy tanks from very large distances compared to 45 mm and 57 mm guns. And this means that at large firing ranges, German tanks almost didn’t have the chance to get into the ML-20, while magpies could effectively shoot from 200 meters, and in most cases were destroyed by German tanks. It is known that each 45 mm cannon destroyed on average destroyed 0,48 German tanks, and 57 mm destroyed approximately 2,16 German tanks. From this it can be seen that the larger the caliber of the gun and the greater its effective range of destruction of tanks, the more tanks it can destroy. And I want to ask: do any of you even know what the largest number of German tanks destroyed any other calculation of anti-tank or field guns?
  22. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 5 2018 03: 05
    +2
    As for the 125-mm ampoules ...... "Alternative experts" regret that during V.O.V. no one guessed to offer cumulative grenades for ampoules (they could be "sub-caliber" - less than 125 mm ...)
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. Ice
    Ice April 12 2018 22: 09
    0
    Quote: geniy
    It is known that each 45 mm cannon destroyed on average destroyed 0,48 German tanks, and 57 mm destroyed approximately 2,16 German tanks.

    Where does this data come from?