German infantry anti-tank weapons (part 2)

45

Soon after the German attack on the Soviet Union, it became clear that the anti-tank rifles at the disposal of the Wehrmacht were limitedly effective against light tanks and absolutely unsuitable for fighting medium T-34 and heavy HF. In this regard, the German infantry, as during the First World War, was forced to use improvised means: bundles of grenades, engineering checkers with explosives and mines. In bundles, 5-7 Stielhandgranate 24 (M-24) grenade cases were usually used, attached to a grenade with a handle using a waist belt, wire or rope. Moreover, each grenade contained 180 g of explosives, most often the “mallet” was equipped with surrogates based on ammonium nitrate.

German infantry anti-tank weapons (part 2)

A bunch of grenades M-24




According to German instructions, it was recommended to throw a bunch of grenades under the undercarriage, or, jumping onto the tank, to lay it under the aft niche of the tank tower, after which to activate the grating fuse. It is clear that this method of destruction of armored vehicles was extremely risky for someone who dared to do this.

Similarly, but much less frequently, TNT and Melinite 100-200 g checkers were used against tanks, combined into bundles of 5-10 pieces and equipped with a rope loop or wooden handle, as well as 1 kg of Sprengbüchse 24 engineering ammunition (using handles (Sprengbüchse 1924) (also with a wooden handle) of the year). It could be thrown at a distance of up to 20 m using the handle on the outside of the waterproof box.


German engineering ammunition Sprengbüchse 24 with a detonator installed in the socket, equipped with an igniter cord and an ignitor ANZ-29

Sprengbüchse 24 was a piece of explosive (TNT or picric acid) in a waterproof zinc or steel container with a carrying handle and three holes for detonators. In the case of use as a hand-held anti-tank bomb, standard ANZ-10 ignitors were used to ignite a non-conducting cord of length 15-29 mm. Also 1 kg charges when installing pressure fuse DZ-35 could be enclosed under the tracks of the tanks.

In addition to their own grenades and engineering ammunition, the German infantry used the captured Soviet RGD-33 grenades, which in the initial period of the war captured more than 300 thousand units, for the manufacture of anti-tank bunches. RGD-33 was adopted by the Wehrmacht under the designation Handgranate 337 (r) and was actively used until the 1943 year. In addition, the Germans did not shy away from using incendiary bottles on the Eastern front, although of course on a smaller scale than in the Red Army.



As for anti-tank mines, they were used rather limitedly in the initial period of the war. However, it was envisaged that the Tellermine 35 anti-tank mines (T.Mi.35) with a push action fuse could be dragged under the chassis of tanks moving perpendicular to fire cells and trenches of infantrymen with the help of a rope or telephone wire.

To combat armored vehicles and long-term gun emplacements in Germany at the end of 30, a cumulative Panzerhandmine mine (German Anti-tank anti-tank mine) was designed, which was attached to the armor with a felt pad soaked in a sticky compound. During storage and transportation, the adhesive surface was covered with a protective cover.


Cumulative Mine Panzerhandmine


The 430 g of a mixture of TNT and ammonium nitrate and a tetrile detonator of 205 g were contained inside the 15 g mines. The main charge had a cumulative funnel with steel lining and was able to penetrate the 50 mm normal armor. Panzerhandmine was packaged with a standard grater fuse from a hand grenade, with a delay time of 4,5-7. Theoretically, the mine could have been thrown at the target as a hand grenade, but there was no guarantee that it would hit the target with its head and stick to the armor.

The real experience of the fighting demonstrated the lack of armor penetration of the sticky mine and the impossibility of fixing it on a dusty or damp surface. In this regard, at the beginning of 1942, a more sophisticated bottle-shaped Panzerhandmine 3 (PHM 3) with an aluminum alloy body was adopted.


Magnetic anti-tank mine Panzerhandmine 3


Unlike the earlier model, this ammunition was mounted on armor with the help of magnets. In addition, Panzerhandmine 3 was additionally supplied with a metal ring with studs for attaching mines to a wooden surface. On the "neck" of the mine there was a cloth loop for suspension on the belt. Panzerhandmine 3 was equipped with a standard grating fuse and a detonator cap from an Eihandgranaten 39 (M-39) hand grenade with 7 deceleration. Compared with the “sticky mine”, the magnetic mine became much heavier, its weight reached 3 kg, and the mass of explosive was 1000 g. At the same time, the armor penetration increased to 120 mm, which already allowed punching frontal armor of heavy tanks.

Soon, the magnetic form of a bottle-shaped mine in production was replaced by a mine, known as Hafthohlladung 3 or HHL 3 (it. Attached shaped charge). With armor penetration increased to 140 mm, this ammunition was simpler and cheaper to manufacture.


Magnetic anti-tank mine Hafthohlladung 3


The hull of the mine was a tin funnel with a handle attached to a getinkax plate, to the bottom of which three powerful magnets were attached, which were closed with a safety ring during transportation. In preparation for combat use in the handle placed a fuse from a hand grenade with a slowdown 4,5-7 with. Magnets withstand force in 40 kg. The mass of the mine itself was 3 kg, of which half fell on explosives.


The device magnetic mines Hafthohlladung 3


1 - Explosive. 2 - Handle. 3 - Detonator socket. 4 - Thread for fuse fuse. 5 - Location of the fuse. 6 - Magnet mounting bolts. 7 - Getenax plate. 8 - Magnets.

In the middle of 1943, an improved Hafthohlladung 5 (HHL 5) appeared. Changes made to the form of a cumulative funnel and an increase in the mass of the explosive to 1700 g allowed punching 150-mm armor or 500 mm of concrete. In this case, the mass of the upgraded mines amounted to 3,5 kg.


German soldier with a magnetic anti-tank mine


A sufficiently high armor penetration and the ability to install on armor at a right angle, regardless of the shape of the armor case, made it possible to overcome the protection of any Soviet tank used during the Second World War. However, in practice, the use of HHL 3 / 5 was difficult and associated with greater risk.


Installation of magnetic mines on the side armor of the tank


In order to fix the magnetic mine in vulnerable places of the moving armored vehicles, it was required to leave the trench or another shelter and get close to the tank closely, and after placing the mine on the armor to initiate the fuse. Taking into account the fact that the zone of continuous destruction by shrapnel during the explosion was approximately 10 m, there were few chances of surviving a fighter tank. The infantryman at the same time required tremendous courage and readiness for self-sacrifice. The opportunity to install a mine without exposing itself to mortal danger, the German soldier had only on the ground with shelter, during the fighting in the city or against a tank that had lost mobility and was not covered by its infantry. However, magnetic mines were produced in significant quantities. In 1942-1944 More than 550 thous. HHL 3 / 5 cumulative ammunition was produced, which was used in combat until the last days of the war.

In addition to anti-tank magnetic mines in service with the German infantry, there were cumulative hand grenades Panzerwurfmine 1-L (PWM 1-L). Literally, the name of the grenade can be translated as: Hand-held anti-tank mine. This ammunition in 1943 was created by order of the Luftwaffe to arm paratroopers, but was later actively used by the Wehrmacht.


Cumulative Panzerwurfmine 1-L Grenade near Stielhandgranate 24 frag grenade

The grenade had a drop-shaped tin body to which a wooden handle was attached. On the handle was placed a spring-loaded stabilizer made of cloth that opens after removing the safety cap during the throw. One of the stabilizer springs translated an inertial fuse into a firing position. A grenade weighing 1,4 kg was loaded with 525 g of an alloy of trotyl with RDX and at an angle of 60 ° could penetrate 130 mm armor; when meeting with armor at right angles, armor penetration was 150 mm. After the impact of the cumulative jet, a hole with a diameter of about 30 mm was formed in the armor, while the damage to the armor was quite significant.

Although after throwing a cumulative grenade, the range of which did not exceed 20 m, it was necessary to immediately take cover in a trench or behind an obstacle protecting from fragments and a shock wave, in general, the PWM 1-L turned out to be safer to use than magnetic mines.



In 1943, more than 200 thousand anti-tank anti-tank grenades were handed over to the troops, most of them entered the units on the Eastern Front. The experience of combat use has demonstrated that the cumulative warhead has sufficient effectiveness against the armor of medium and heavy tanks, but the soldiers noted that the grenade is too long and inconvenient to use. Soon, a short Panzerwurfmine Kz (PWM Kz) was launched in the series, which had the same head part as its predecessor PWM 1-L.


Manual anti-tank grenade PWM Kz


In the modernized PWM Kz grenade, the stabilizer design was changed. Now stabilization was provided with a canvas ribbon, which was pulled out of the handle when throwing. At the same time, the length of the grenade decreased from 530 to 330 mm, and the mass became smaller by 400 g. Due to the reduction in weight and dimensions, the throwing distance increased by about 5 m. In general, PWM Kz was a fairly successful anti-tank ammunition that guarantees the possibility of penetration of all existing armor At that time, serial tanks. This is confirmed by the fact that on the basis of PWM Kz in the USSR in the second half of 1943, the RPG-6 anti-tank grenade was quickly created, which, like PWM Kz, was used until the end of hostilities.

Hand-made anti-tank grenades and cumulative magnetic mines are widespread in the armed forces of Nazi Germany. But at the same time, the German command was well aware of the risk associated with the use of anti-tank "weapons last chance "and sought to equip the infantry with anti-tank weapons, which minimized the risk of personnel damage by shrapnel and a shock wave and there was no need to leave the shelter.

From 1939, the German infantry had an 30-mm Gewehr Panzergranate 30 cumulative rifle grenade (G.Pzgr.30) in the anti-tank arsenal of German infantry. A grenade was shot from a mortar mounted on the muzzle of a standard 7,92-mm Mauser 98k carbine using an idle cartridge with smokeless powder. The maximum range of the shot at an elevation angle of 45 ° exceeded 200 m. Sighting - no more than 40 m.


Cumulative rifle grenade Gewehr Panzergranate 30


To stabilize the grenade in flight, in its tail part there was a belt with ready-made cuts, which coincided with the rifled part of the mortar. The head of the grenade was made of tin, and the tail was made of soft aluminum alloy. In the head part there was a cumulative funnel and a trotyl charge with a mass of 32 g, and in the back part - a detonator cap and a bottom fuse. Grenades, along with the expelling cartridges, were delivered to the troops in final form, in cases of pressed cardboard, saturated with paraffin.


German infantryman charges a 30-mm rifle grenade


A cumulative G.Pzgr.30 grenade weighing about 250 g along the normal could penetrate 30 mm armor, which made it possible to fight only with light tanks and armored cars. Therefore, in the 1942, the “big” Grosse Gewehrpanzergranate (gr. G. Pzgr.) Rifle grenade with over-caliber warhead entered service. As an expelling charge, a reinforced cartridge with a sleeve with an elongated Dultz and a wooden bullet was used, which, when fired, gave the grenade an additional impetus. At the same time, the recoil was significantly higher, and the shooter's shoulder without the risk of injury sustained no more than 2-3 shots in a row.


Cumulative Grosse Gewehrpanzergranate rifle grenade (gr. G. Pzgr.)


The mass of the grenade increased to 380 g, while its body contained 120 g of TNT-hexogen alloy in the proportion of 50 / 50. The declared armor penetration was 70 mm, and the maximum range of a shot from a rifle grenade launcher was 125 m.



Soon after the appearance of gr. G. Pzgr entered into service with a grenade with a reinforced tail section, intended for shooting from a GzB-39 grenade launcher, which was created on the basis of the PzB-39 anti-tank gun. When reworking into a grenade launcher, the PTR barrel was shortened, a muzzle attachment for shooting rifle grenades and new aiming devices were mounted on it. Like the anti-tank rifle, the PzB-39, the GzB-39 grenade launcher had a bipod folded in the stowed position and a metal butt turning down and forward. For carrying the grenade launcher used mounted on the weapon handle.


GzB-39 grenade launcher


Due to greater strength and better stability, the accuracy of firing from a grenade launcher was higher than that of rifle mortars. Effective fire on mobile targets was possible at a distance of up to 75 m, and for fixed targets - up to 125 m. The initial speed of the grenade is 65 m / s.

Although armor penetration grenade gr. G. Pzgr theoretically allowed to fight with medium tanks T-34, its striking effect in case of penetration of armor was small. At the beginning of the 1943 of the year, a large 46-mm Gewehrpanpangranate 46 (G. Pzgr. 46) improved grip 155 rifle armor-piercing grenade was developed on the basis of the Grosse Gewehrpanzergranate grenade. Due to the increase in the mass of explosive in the cumulative warhead to 46 g, armor penetration G. Pzgr. 80 is 61 mm. However, this was not enough for the Germans and soon the Gewehrpanzergranate 61 grenade (G. Pzgr. 61), which had a warhead length and diameter, was put into service. The mass of 520-mm grenades amounted to 200 g, and its warhead contained an explosive charge of 110 g, which made it possible to pierce an armor plate at XNUMX mm at right angles.


Below - Gewehrpanzergranate 46 rifle grenade. Top - Gewehrpanzergranate 61.

Shooting with new grenades could have been carried out from a rifle mortar mounted on the muzzle of a rifle, but in practice it was difficult to make more than one shot with an emphasis on the shoulder. In this regard, the rifle butt was recommended to rest against the wall of the trench or into the ground, but at the same time shooting accuracy was reduced, and it was almost impossible to hit the moving target. For this reason, G. Pzgr grenades. 46 and G. Pzgr. 61 was mainly used to fire a GzB-39 grenade launcher. According to the reference data, the maximum range of firing from a grenade launcher was 150 m, which, apparently, was made possible by the use of a reinforced expelling cartridge. Before the advent of reactive anti-tank grenade launchers, the GzB-39 remained the most powerful and long-range German infantry anti-tank weapon used in the platoon-company link.

In 1940, the Luftwaffe parachute units adopted the 61-mm rifle grenade Gewehrgranate zur Panzerbekämpfung 40 or GG / P-40 (German. Anti-tank rifle grenade).


Cumulative GG / P-40 rifle grenade


The GG / P-40 grenade with the help of a blank cartridge and a muzzle attachment equipped with a grenade launcher, could be fired not only from Mauser 98k carbines, but also from FG-42 automatic rifles. The initial speed of the grenade was 55 m / s. Stabilization in flight was carried out by six-blade tail at the end of the tail section, where the inertial fuze was also located.

A gun-shaped cumulative grenade, weighing 550 g, with an improved warhead equipped with a hexogen charge with a mass of 175 g, provided armor-penetrating capability up to 70 mm. The maximum firing range was 275 m, sighting - 70 m. In addition to the possibility of hitting armored targets, this ammunition had a good fragmentation effect. Although the GG / P-40 rifle grenade at the time of its appearance had good combat characteristics, relatively high reliability, simple design and was inexpensive to manufacture, it did not receive much attention during the initial period of the war due to the contradictions between the Wehrmacht command and the Luftwaffe. After 1942, due to the increased security of the tanks, it was considered obsolete.

In addition to rifle grenades, pistol-based cumulative grenades were used to fire at armored vehicles. Grenades were shot from a standard 26-mm rocket launcher with a smooth barrel or from the Kampfpistole and Sturmpistole grenade launchers, which were created on the basis of single-shot signal pistols with a broken barrel and a hammer-type percussion mechanism. Initially, 26-mm signal pistols by Walter, designed by Walter, were adapted for firing fragmentation and cumulative grenades. 1928 or arr. 1934 of the year.


Flare gun Leuchtpistole 34


The 326 H / LP shot, created on the basis of the 326 LP fragmentation grenade, was a feathered cumulative projectile with a contact fuse connected to an aluminum sleeve in which there was a projectile charge.


26-mm "pistol" grenade Wurfkorper 326 Leuchtpistole (326 LР)


Although the firing range exceeded 250 m, effective fire with a cumulative grenade was possible at a distance of no more than 50 m. Due to the small caliber of a cumulative grenade, it contained only 15 g of explosive, and the armor penetration did not exceed 20 mm.

Due to the low armor penetration when hit by a “pistol” cumulative grenade, it was often not possible to stop even light tanks with anti-bullet armor. In this regard, based on 26-mm signal pistols, a Kampfpistole grenade launcher with a rifled barrel was created for shooting over-caliber grenades, at the head of which it was possible to place a larger explosive charge. On the left side of the gun body was attached a new graduated sight and spirit level. At the same time, the rifled barrel did not allow the use of either the 326 LP and 326 H / LP pistol grenades, nor the signal and lighting cartridges adopted for 26-mm rocket launchers.


Cumulative Panzerwnrfkorper 42 LP Grenade


The 61-mm Panzerwnrfkorper 42 LP grenade (PWK 42 LP) had a mass of 600 g and consisted of an over-caliber head part and a rod with ready grooves. The cumulative warhead contained 185 g of the alloy of trotyl with RDX. Its armor penetration was 80 mm, but the effective firing range was no more than 50 m.


German infantry pistol grenade Sturmpistole charged cumulative grenade PWK 42 LP

Due to the large mass of the projectile and, accordingly, increased recoil, the Sturmpistole “pistol” grenade launcher, which was put into service at the beginning of 1943, used shoulder supports, and the shooting accuracy was improved by introducing a folding sight calibrated at a distance of 200 m. Einstecklauf was able to shoot grenades with ready-made grooves in the tail section, and after its removal it could be fired with old smooth bore ammunition used in signal pistols. Based on the experience of combat use, in the second half of 1943, the Sturmpistole grenade launcher was upgraded, while the barrel length was increased to 180 mm. With a new barrel and an installed butt, its length was 585 mm, and the weight - 2,45 kg. In total, before the start of 1944, the Carl Walther and ERMA firms produced about 25 000 grenade launchers Sturmpistole and 400 000 pcs. loose liner trunks for converting signal pistols into grenade launchers.



However, grenade launchers, converted from signal pistols, did not greatly enhance the capabilities of the German infantry in the fight against tanks. Since the range of the aimed shot from the “pistol” grenade launcher was small, and the combat rate of fire did not exceed 3 rounds per minute, the infantryman, as a rule, did not have time to make more than one round on the approaching tank. In addition, at a large angle of meeting with the frontal armor of the thirty-four, the inertial fuse located in the tail of the grenade did not always work correctly, and the explosion often occurred when the charge position was unfavorable for penetrating the armor. The same was true of cumulative rifle grenades, which, moreover, were not popular due to baggy application. For firing from a rifle grenade launcher, an infantryman needed to attach a mortar, put a grenade into it, load a rifle with a special expelling cartridge, and only after that aim and fire a shot. And all this is done in a stressful situation, under enemy fire, seeing the approaching Soviet tanks. It can be stated with complete confidence that until November 1943, when the first samples of rocket launchers appeared on the Eastern Front, the German infantry had no weapons to effectively deal with Soviet tanks. But the talk about the German jet disposable and reusable grenade launchers will go in the next part of the review.

To be continued ...

Based on:
http://weaponland.ru/board/
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/anti-tank-weapons.590/page-3
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/hafthohlladung.html
https://airsoft.ua/group.php?gmid=8906&do=discuss
http://wwii.space/granatyi-germaniya/
http://leuchtpistole.free.fr/Sommaire/En_Modele34.html
http://spec-naz.org/articles/oruzhie_i_boevaya_tekhnika/rifle_anti_tank_grenades_during_world_war_ii/
http://www.inert-ord.net/ger03a/gerrg2/ggp40/index.html
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    28 August 2018 06: 55
    Thanks to the author for a good article)
    1. +8
      28 August 2018 16: 10
      Quote: BORMAN82
      Thanks to the author for a good article)

      Most importantly, without imagination and not biased!
  2. +10
    28 August 2018 08: 00
    Super! good More such review articles hi
  3. +10
    28 August 2018 09: 04
    Great article. I am amazed at the abundance of types of German anti-tank ammunition of the "last line of defense" cumulative type. It can be seen that the German command attached great importance to the AT of the "near zone" and tried to provide their infantry with a really effective means of dealing with enemy armored vehicles. And it is also striking that in the Red Army nothing of the kind was even close - there was only one semi-artisanal rifle anti-tank grenade of a cumulative type with a low degree of armor penetration produced in a very small series with a low degree of armor penetration and anti-tank grenades appeared, in small numbers, again copied from the German samples and .... everything. The Soviet infantry could not even dream of anti-tank grenade launchers of the Panzershek or Panzerfaust type, and given the qualities of the Soviet infantryman such as fatalism, contempt for death, fortitude and courage, with such an anti-tank weapon it could inflict heavy losses on the Panzerwaffe and much could be different ...
    1. +3
      28 August 2018 09: 27
      The best way to deal with tanks is artillery or a tank (tank destroyer), the tank corps cannot be stopped with gun mortars.
      1. +7
        28 August 2018 09: 36
        Nobody is going to stop a "tank corps" with one "close PTO". The presence of effective means of "close anti-tank defense" significantly increases the resilience of the infantry in battle, reduces "fear of tanks" on the one hand, and on the other, increases the "faust-fear" of armored vehicle crews when attacking infantry positions and during battles within urban areas, as well as helps to knock out enemy armored vehicles with multi-echelon anti-tank equipment. If you read the memoirs of Soviet tank commanders, you could not miss the fact that it indicates that at the end of the war, losses from German melee anti-tank weapons sometimes reached 30-60%.
    2. +9
      28 August 2018 11: 04
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Great article.
      hi
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      I am amazed at the abundance of types of German anti-tank ammunition of the "last line of defense" cumulative type. It can be seen that the German command attached great importance to the AT of the "near zone" and tried to provide their infantry with a really effective means of dealing with enemy armored vehicles.

      However, before the appearance of disposable and reusable grenade launchers in the second half of the war, the Germans did not succeed.
    3. +1
      28 August 2018 15: 49
      Duc. doctrine remember then what was it? little blood, on a strange land ... They did not think what would happen exactly the opposite ...
    4. +5
      30 August 2018 05: 28
      Why amazes? The article directly states that most of them are recognized as ineffective and seem to have been produced according to the principle of "fish-free and cancer-free". Hence the variety. Until the end of the war Panzerfaust and Panzershrek were created. And then, on the streets of German cities, they became the most effective weapon against tanks.
  4. BAI
    +4
    28 August 2018 10: 07
    Look, when the Germans mastered the production of cumulative charges, even of small sizes. And we have had a problem throughout the war with cumulative shells (given that they simply did not exist at the beginning of the war).
    1. +4
      28 August 2018 13: 46
      Quote: BAI
      And we have had a problem throughout the war with cumulative shells (given that they simply did not exist at the beginning of the war).

      And this despite the fact that work on the "kuma" in the USSR began in 1939, and they were not carried out by some sharashkin offices, but by the Leningrad Chemical-Technological Institute, the Artillery Academy of the Spacecraft, Research Institute No. 6 of the People's Commissariat of Ammunition (the former Central Powder Laboratory of Okhtinsky plant, now the Central Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics - Central Research Institute of the industry of ammunition and special chemistry) and the OTB NKVD. Result - 3 years of work did not lead to positive results (quote from the official report).
      After receiving the trophy German "godfathers", the effectiveness of the work increased. But problems remained: in August 1942, domestic 76-mm cumulative shells, when firing at a 60 mm plate at an angle of 30 degrees, were able to make only recesses in it with a maximum depth of 50 mm.
      1. +9
        28 August 2018 13: 54
        Quote: Alexey RA
        But the problems remained: in August, 1942 domestic 76-mm cumulative shells when firing at the 60 mm plate at an angle of 30 degrees could only do notches with a depth of maximum 50 mm in it.

        The problem was mainly with the creation of reliable and safe fuses for artillery cumulative shells. Since they required very sensitive, reliable and at the same time safe to use instant fuses. In addition, due to the rotation of the projectile at high speed, due to the centrifugal force, the cumulative jet was "sprinkled", which greatly reduced the armor penetration.
        1. +5
          28 August 2018 16: 16
          Quote: Bongo
          The problem was mainly with the creation of reliable and safe fuses for artillery shaped-charge shells.

          As for the fuse - yes. Shooting of August 1942 was not in vain carried out from the regiment - the initial speed is less, the risk of rupture in the bore is less.
          In fact, judging by the previous tests of the shells, there were problems not only with the fuse and rotation - armor penetration at least in caliber could not be achieved even with the detonation of a stationary shell mounted close to the plate.
        2. +3
          28 August 2018 16: 25
          You are absolutely right. The problem was in creating instant, reliable fuses with the transfer of "detonation" to the cumulative funnel. And besides, for some reason, cumulative shells were considered "armor-piercing" it was believed that they burn through the armor with their temperature, and not with the speed and type of jet of a metal funnel. And instead of designing and experimenting with different types of funnels (metal, their lining with explosives, shapes, etc.) in the USSR they were carried away by the composition of explosives - raising their explosive "combustion" temperature. And only in the middle of the war, the theory of the cumulative funnel finally became the property of Soviet science.
  5. +6
    28 August 2018 10: 37
    Great article! The armament of the "last line of defense" with all the "nuances" is described very well! But questions still remain ... of a general nature. These questions do not relate to the quality of the article ... and probably do not apply to the Author. This is something like "white spots" in the history of the Great Patriotic War ... For example, according to military literature, according to publications of military correspondents of the Great Patriotic War period, according to "military" cinema, according to review articles of military-historical sites, finally; you can find out how popular that or other German weapons in the Red Army ... how they were used (used) by the Red Army and in what periods ... These weapons include: pistols, submachine guns, MG machine guns, hand grenades, etc.; etc. ... But it is practically not known whether (and how much they used ...) in the Red Army they used German PT-grenades PWM-L, 30-mm rifle mortars and "rifle" cumulative ammunition, "pistol-grenade launchers" and "pistol" grenades, and, in particular, hand-held cumulative magnetic "mines". A certain number of the listed weapons should fall into the hands of Red Army soldiers as trophies during battles! In particular, there are many reports that the Germans paid great attention to the "anti-magnetic" coating of their tanks with zimmerite, including on the Eastern Front. But there is no information that "manual" magnetic mines were produced for the Red Army! There is also no information that captured magnetic mines were actively used by the Red Army. Here ... already a "rebus-crossword"! And there are still enough of these "neponyatushek"!
    By the way, it is also not clear why during the war the Soviet factories produced cumulative ammunition with a hemispherical funnel, while the Germans produced ammunition with a conical funnel, which had great armor-piercing ...
    1. BAI
      +4
      28 August 2018 10: 49
      A certain number of the listed weapons should fall into the hands of the soldiers of the Red Army as trophies during battles! In particular, there are many reports that the Germans paid great attention to the "anti-magnetic" coating of their tanks with zimmerite, including on the Eastern Front. But there is no information that "manual" magnetic mines were produced for the Red Army! There is also no information that captured magnetic mines were actively used by the Red Army.

      It is about the German army. Although I, too, sinfully, in the comments I leave the topic.
      1. +5
        28 August 2018 11: 33
        Quote: BAI
        It's about the German army

        ... and German weapons (!) .... although in the "service" of the Red Army!
    2. +15
      28 August 2018 11: 01
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Great article! The armament of the "last line of defense" with all the "nuances" is described very well!

      Thank you, I see God tried! It was necessary to dig not only Russian-speaking, but also English-speaking sources.
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      But questions still remain ... of a general nature.

      Very much is not clear, including the real effectiveness of one or another anti-tank ammunition. request
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      In particular, there are many reports that the Germans paid great attention to the "anti-magnetic" coating of their tanks with zimmerite, including on the Eastern Front.

      And completely unjustifiably, the Allies and the Red Army did not have compact magnetic shaped charges. No.
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      it is not known whether (and how much they used ...) in the Red Army they used German PT-grenades PWM-L, 30-mm rifle mortars and "rifle" cumulative ammunition, "pistol-grenade launchers" and "pistol" grenades ...

      It is possible that the German infantry PT-weapons created in the initial period of the war we had, but how effective was it? what
      The cumulative PWM-L grenades had a fairly high armor penetration, but they were soon replaced in the series by the PWM Kz. If we talk about 26-mm pistol and 30-mm rifles, then in my opinion it was a completely worthless weapon, ineffective even for bulletproof armor. The range and accuracy of the larger over-caliber grenades left much to be desired, handling them was very inconvenient, and the armor penetration is relatively low.
    3. 0
      28 August 2018 11: 08
      Don't you read modern editions of memoirs? Where is it published that was not advertised in Soviet times, for various reasons? For example, until 1942, it turns out that the use of captured weapons-such as "undermines faith in their weapons" was officially prohibited, and after the battle, all soldiers and officers had to surrender such weapons if they were used - everything was collected and taken away or rendered unusable. If you don’t pass, the tribunal. And only in 1942 it was allowed to use captured weapons, and even "manuals" appeared on how to use them.
      1. +10
        28 August 2018 11: 38
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        Do not you read the modern editions of memoirs?

        Personally, I didn’t have a chance to meet in the memoir literature mentions that our soldiers used captured magnetic mines, rifle or "pistol" grenades. Yes, and those who actually fought in the initial period of the Second World War, almost no longer survived. So, what to say about "modern memoir literature" in which that period is described is not entirely correct.
        request
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        For example, it turns out that before the 1942, the use of captured weapons was officially forbidden ...

        Nevertheless, normal commanders were guided by common sense and in this matter often went against the "party line" and did not miss the opportunity to increase the firepower of their units even in 1941 at the expense of captured weapons. And this, by the way, is repeatedly described in the memoir literature.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. -1
          28 August 2018 11: 46
          Going "against" is "at your own peril and risk" - and the risk is not small. Drabkin mentions in more than one place that captured weapons were immediately withdrawn after the battle, when order more or less came, even if there was a greater amount of ammunition for it. In the same Drabkin, in the book "I fought in the SS," SS veterans in their memories point out that the German command was calm about the use of captured weapons, did not pay attention to it and even contributed to this by firing shells to captured guns, so as it was considered a significant savings in the conduct of hostilities. Obviously, the Soviet command thought differently.
          1. +10
            28 August 2018 12: 05
            Quote: Monster_Fat
            Going "against" is "at your own peril and risk" - and the risk is not small.

            Everything probably depended on the situation in which this or that unit was. When it was "very hot", the ideological controllers were hardly in the trenches.
            Quote: Monster_Fat
            In the same Drabkin, in the book "I fought in the SS," SS veterans in their memories point out that the German command was calm about the use of captured weapons, did not pay attention to it and even contributed to this by firing shells to captured guns, so as it was considered a significant savings in the conduct of hostilities.

            Moreover, Waffen-SS purposefully collected and very actively used captured equipment and weapons. And there were tank battalions equipped with captured T-34.
            Quote: Monster_Fat
            Obviously the Soviet command thought differently

            Until a certain point ... German riflemen, optics, armored vehicles and even communications were highly valued and widely used. Trophy PTO 5 cm Pak. 38 and 7,5 cm Pak. 40 from the middle of the year 1943 came in separate anti-tank divisions of the Red Army.
          2. +4
            28 August 2018 13: 39
            Obviously, the Soviet command thought differently.

            1. +8
              28 August 2018 13: 43
              Quote: bubalik
              Obviously, the Soviet command thought differently.

              Order from 01.07.43 year. By that time, common sense won.
              1. +2
                28 August 2018 13: 47
                Bongo (Sergey) Today, 14: 43 Order from 01.07.43 of the year.

                Below is the encryption from 1941. but it may be in private request hi
          3. +4
            28 August 2018 16: 21
            April 8, 1942 tanks of the 107th separate tank battalion (ten trophy, one KB and three T-34s) supported the attack of the frequent 8th Army and the Venyagolovo area. During that battle, N. Baryshev’s crew on the Pz. III, together with the battalion of the 1st separate mountain rifle brigade and the 59th ski battalion, broke through to the Germans to the rear. For four days, the tankers, together with the infantry, fought surrounded, hoping that reinforcements would arrive. But there was no help, and only on April 12 Baryshev with his tank went to his own, taking out 23 infantrymen on the armor - all that was left of the two battalions ...
            But as of July 5, 1942, the 107th battalion of the 8th army of the Volkhov Front had 10 combat vehicles in its composition: KB-1. two T-34, BT-7, two Pz. III, Pz. IV, three “artillery tanks” (StuG III) and Pz. I.

            If necessary, they used all the trophy goods, which were combat-ready! Starting with grenades and ending with cars!
      2. +5
        28 August 2018 13: 09
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        For example, until 1942, it turns out that the use of captured weapons-such as "undermines faith in their weapons" was officially prohibited, and after the battle, all soldiers and officers had to surrender such weapons if they were used - everything was collected and taken away or rendered unusable. If you don’t pass, the tribunal.

        Well ... 1.Then why there is no information about the use of certain types of captured weapons in the Red Army since 1942? Although, these samples of weapons were supplied to the German troops in a "tangible" quantity.
        2. Not so zealously captured weapons were seized in 1941 too! Orders by orders, but the front command often turned a blind eye to the presence of this in the advanced units.
        Examples: 1. In the memoirs of cavalry general Belov there is a page where he describes the meeting with Stalin and members of the Military Council ... To Stalin’s question: how can I help? -Belov says that a large number of German machine guns (machine guns) were captured by cavalrymen ), but not enough ammo for them. Stalin promises to help ...
        2. Book (film) "The Living and the Dead" by Simonov ... When Serpilin's group escaped from the encirclement, it was ordered to surrender the captured weapons before being sent to the rear for re-formation ... But (!) The commanders (soldiers?) In a personal conversation with the military commander The haste of the order is explained to Ivan Sintsov by the fact that the commander of this sector of the front "had his eye" on the captured automatic weapons, which the "encircled people" had quite a few. 3.In the memoirs of Batov, it is said about the active use of MG machine guns
        41g. Girls in a fire training lesson. Armed with "Mauser"
        Old foreign weapons were also used: in the 41st part of the Kiev militia was armed with "Arisaks" ... a part of the Moscow militia - "Mannlicher"
        4. In 41, the issue of production of the German 7,92 mm PT-gun was seriously discussed ...
        5. The first reports on the use by the Red Army units of captured tanks T-II, T-III, T-I \ / ... StuG III self-propelled guns ... 41-mm PT-guns ... armored personnel carriers, auto. ..
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. +5
        28 August 2018 13: 37
        For example, it turns out that until 1942 the use of captured weapons-such as "undermines faith in their weapons" was officially prohibited and after the battle, all soldiers and officers had to beat to surrender such weapons if they were used

      5. +4
        28 August 2018 21: 28
        no, it wasn’t near at all, according to the veterans it was different everywhere, the fronts were huge and everything depended on the command. Photo of the war years confirm this and the tribunal for each barrel if you give someone who will be at war? .Get weapons in battle! -Cry 41 years-not ubiquitous but took place
    4. +3
      28 August 2018 12: 47
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      In particular, there are many reports that the Germans paid great attention to the "anti-magnetic" coating of their tanks with zimmerite,

      I can not say 100%, but there was information that cymerite was used not as an anti-magnetic, but as an anti-cumulative coating ...
      1. +5
        28 August 2018 12: 56
        Quote: Nikolai Nikolaevich
        I can not say 100%, but there was information that cymerite was used not as an anti-magnetic, but as an anti-cumulative coating ...

        How does cymerite interfere with the cumulative jet? what
        1. +3
          28 August 2018 13: 27
          Quote: Bongo
          How does cymerite interfere with the cumulative jet?

          It was necessary to influence the cumulative stream, and if everything was simple with the screens, then in areas with thicker armor it had to be dispersed in a different way. Here a composite material comes to the rescue in the form of zimmerite, which, due to its chemical nature, disperses the jet, and it loses its breakdown power. Article on VO .Avtor: Alexander Prokurat.
          PS I think this is Alexander’s personal assumption.
          1. +4
            28 August 2018 13: 46
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            I think this is a personal assumption of Alexander.

            Did you want to say fantasy? wassat
            1. +5
              28 August 2018 15: 12
              Quote: Bongo
              Did you want to say fantasy?

              Well .... let's call it, delicately, a delusion ... feel
      2. +5
        28 August 2018 13: 21
        Yes, the information that zimmerite could "serve" to "disperse" the cumulative jet was also encountered by me ... but this statement is unsubstantiated, it is encountered as an assumption ...
        1. +4
          28 August 2018 13: 30
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Yes, the information that zimmerite could "serve" to "disperse" the cumulative jet was also encountered by me ... but this statement is unsubstantiated, it is encountered as an assumption ...

          It is difficult to imagine that a layer of coating based on barium sulfate and polyvinyl acetate with a thickness of 5-7 mm could significantly reduce the effectiveness of cumulative ammunition. Since October 1944, the use of zymmerite has been discontinued.
          1. +7
            28 August 2018 13: 38
            Here's what 19 August 1944 wrote about Albert Speer about digitalization:
            "... I also consider it my duty to notify you that the zimmerite venture is more and more like a waste of time and resources. Magnetic mines, which have proven themselves so well as an infantry anti-tank weapon in the Wehrmacht, unlike many other methods of conducting a similar Roughly the same can be said about the disinformation campaign, which is currently being implemented by the Wehrmacht's propaganda department.According to the data of the High Command of the Ground Forces, since the appearance in the Wehrmacht of tanks with zimmerite coating among the enemy's equipment (as in the East and in the West), not a single car with a similar coating was seen.This circumstance suggests that this action did not lead to the expected result with regard to measures to mislead the enemy ...
            1. +4
              29 August 2018 05: 18
              Some researchers of the history of WWII generally consider the whole venture with zimmerite to be one of the examples of "cutting" the dough in the production of weapons in the 3rd Reich.
          2. +5
            28 August 2018 15: 06
            Quote: Bongo
            It is difficult to imagine that a coating layer based on barium sulfate and polyvinyl acetate with a thickness of 5-7 mm could somehow reduce the effectiveness of cumulative ammunition.

            That's it ! Yes
  6. +2
    28 August 2018 15: 30
    Interesting article.
  7. +2
    28 August 2018 16: 09
    Panzerwurfmine 1-L (PWM 1-L). Literally, the name of the grenade can be translated as: Manual anti-tank mine

    Not manual, but throwing. Wurf - from werfen (throw).
  8. +3
    28 August 2018 20: 47
    Thank you for the article. Some of these types of weapons flashed in the cinema. So, for example, buli and magnesium mines are shown in "Stalingoad" and "Edinichka".
    1. +2
      28 August 2018 22: 55
      In "Stalingrad" the scene of the battle with tanks was filmed somehow completely without dynamics. As if these were not tanks, but moving targets at the range - without infantry escort (which could be) and almost do not fire. More mediocre only in "Officers", where the heroes in general, in view of the approaching German tanks, move lazily and do not even bend down especially.
  9. +2
    29 August 2018 09: 56
    Wehrmacht training film 1943. on the use of anti-tank German infantry.
  10. +2
    5 September 2018 10: 23
    Sergey, thanks. Very interesting, I read a lot for the first time. Thank.