Anti-tank rifles

In the autumn of 41, a new soldier specialty appeared in the Red Army - the armored worker. So began to call the fighters with anti-tank guns (PTR). History the creation and application of an MFR is worthy of a separate and sufficiently detailed story.

NEW TYPE WEAPONS

For the first time, anti-tank rifles - single-shot 13,37 mm Mauser Tankgever used the German Reichswehr in 1918, at the final stage of the First World War. This experience turned out to be rather negative, therefore, in the following years, the armies of the leading states of the world intended to defeat enemy Tanks with the help of light cannons and "universal" heavy machine guns. However, the scale of the mechanization of troops made the idea of ​​light infantry anti-tank weapons with a range of several hundred meters more and more attractive. In the 30s, work on the PTR intensified, including in our country. By the way, the term "anti-tank rifle", apparently, is borrowed from the German Panzerbüchse - in fact, we are talking about rifled weapons.

In the 1936-1938, 15 of various PTR caliber systems from 12,7 to 25 mm were tested, until it became clear that the requirements for the anti-tank gun were initially too high. 9 November 1938 of the Red Army Artillery Directorate formulated a new task, which included the development of a 14,5-mm self-loading anti-tank gun, which could always be with units of a rifle company in any terrain and in any combat conditions. Work on the new cartridge caliber 14,5 mm began at the Scientific Test Site of small arms (NPSVO) and continued at one of the Moscow factories.

With the expectation of this ammunition, N. V. Rukavishnikov, an employee of the same test site, constructed an APP adopted on October 7 1939 of the year. And yet, by 22 on June 1941, the troops did not have serial anti-tank guns. This dramatic situation is often explained by the position of Marshal G.I. Kulik, who headed the Main Artillery Directorate before the war and declared 1940 in the spring of the ineffectiveness of light anti-tank weapons in the fight against "the newest German tanks." The opinion of the marshal probably contributed to the delay in work on the PTR (as, by the way, the removal from production of 45-mm anti-tank guns), but did not stop them. Where the technical reasons played a major role - Plant No. 2, which was commissioned to produce the first batch, in the winter of 1939-1940, the main capacities were used for the production of PPD. In addition, repeated tests of Rukavishnikov's PTR showed its high sensitivity to contamination, unmasking the position with dust raised by gases from the muzzle brake. The gun needed refinement and the 26 July 1940 of the year was decommissioned. The tests of the converted PTR were held on June 1941, and the report of the NIHTPLO on the results was dated by the 23 number - the second day of the Great Patriotic War.

MASS SAMPLES

The urgent establishment of the production of anti-tank guns in the conditions of the outbreak of war, when all the capacities of the existing enterprises of the People's Commissariat of weapons were loaded, required the solution of many organizational and technological problems. In the meantime, in July 1941, temporary measures are taken to ensure the prompt supply of the PTR army.

One of them is an attempt to urgently organize the release at the Tula Machine-Tool Plant (plant No. 66) 7,92-mm guns modeled after the captured German Pz.B.39. His armor penetration (at a distance of 300, a bullet pierced armor with a thickness of up to 23 mm) was sufficient to fight Wehrmacht light tanks. Yes, and the average tanks of the enemy, it could hit when fired into the board. Plant number 66 was to manufacture 5 thousands of such PTRs. But in September there were still problems with the work of the mechanisms of the gun. In October, the machine-tool plant was evacuated. The troops got on one data - up to 1 thousands, on the other - only 426 such MFR. In any case, 7,92-mm guns were used in the defense of Tula (several units received the Tula Worker Regiment).

At that time, they also recalled 12,7-mm single-shot rifles, similar in type to the German Mauser Tankgever, - in 30-ies they were made in small quantities in Tula for testing the 12,7-mm cartridge, and NPSVO in 1938-m offered to develop On this basis, the store PTR. Now there was a proposal to release a single-shot anti-tank gun under the 12,7-mm cartridge DShK small workshops (the initiator is the engineer V. N. Sholokhov). Semi-handmade production began in Moscow in the workshops of the Mechanical Engineering Institute. Bauman, then - in OKB-16. The simple design of the German Mauser PTR was supplemented with a muzzle brake, butt shock absorber and a folding bipod. Especially for these guns, 12,7-mm cartridges with an armor-piercing bullet were produced, which allowed penetration of armor 400 mm thick at the 20 distance.

The finishing of the 14,5-mm cartridge continued: in August, its version with a solid core BS-41 bullet was put into service. This core is often called metal-ceramic, although it is not about ceramics, but about the use of powder metallurgy. If 14,5-mm bullet B-32 at a distance of 300 m penetrated armor with a thickness of 21 mm, then BS-41 - 35 mm.

Staging for the production of Rukavishnikov PTR was still a problem. To speed up work on more technologically advanced 14,5-mm PTR, according to DF Ustinov's memoirs, Stalin at one of the T-bills meetings offered to entrust the development to one more, and for reliability - to two designers. The task in the beginning of July was received by V. A. Degtyarev and S. G. Simonov. Soon, ready for testing samples appeared - the entire 22 of the day passed from the formulation of the problem to the first test shots. The new anti-tank rifles should have fought with medium and light tanks and armored vehicles at ranges up to 500 m.

Degtyarev and his KB-2 employees at the tool factory No. 2 in Kovrov developed two options with varying degrees of automation. Already July 14 working drawings transferred to production. On July 28, the PTP of Degtyarev was reviewed at a meeting in the Small Arms Administration. 30 July to accelerate the organization of mass production Degtyarev offered to simplify one of the samples, turning it into a single-shot, because it is the power system usually gives the greatest number of problems in fine-tuning weapons. A few days later this option was submitted.

28-29 August PTR Degtyarev tested on NIPSVO. And also 6-12 of August, the joint test of Simonov’s self-loading PTR (based on his own self-loading 1938 self-loading rifle of the year) and the modified Rukavishnikov PTR were tested here. Sample Simon showed the best results.

29 August 1941, the Degtyarev single-shot rifle and Simonov the self-loading rifle were put into service under the designation PTRD and PTRS respectively. This was done even before the termination of the PTR tests (12-13 of September passed the tests for survivability, and the final ones - of September 24).

Degtyarev's rotary longitudinally sliding bolt had two lugs in the front and a straight grip in the rear. The percussion mechanism is of the shock type with a helical mainspring, the tail of the firing pin goes out behind the bolt and looks like a hook. The cocking of the firing pin was performed when the bolt was unlocked Barrel PTRD supplied active muzzle brake, absorbing up to 2 / 3 recoil energy. The tubular stock contained a shock absorber spring. The principle of the automatic unlocking of the bolt when rolling back was creatively borrowed from artillery. After the shot, the barrel with the receiver retreated backwards, the bolt handle attacked the copy profile, mounted on the butt, and turned, unlocking the bolt. After stopping the barrel, by inertia, the bolt retreated back and stood on the bolt delay, the bolt reflector pushed the gun case into the lower window of the receiver. In the forward position, the moving system was returned by a shock absorber spring. The shutter remained open, and to prepare for the next shot, it was necessary to insert a new cartridge into the upper window of the receiver, send and lock the shutter. This made it possible to increase the combat rate of fire with the coordinated work of a two-person calculation. The aiming device was moved to the left on the brackets and included the front sight and reversible rear sight at a distance of up to 600 m and above (in the MFR of the first releases, the rear sight moved in the vertical groove).

The butt had a soft pillow, a wooden support for holding the weapon with his left hand, a wooden pistol grip, an emphasis for the cheek arrow. Foldable stamped bipod and carrying handle were attached to the trunk. The accessory included two canvas bags for 20 cartridges each. The total weight of the ATGM with ammunition was about 26 kg. In combat, the gun carried one or both calculation numbers. Imagine the load on the calculation on the march and in battle.

The minimum of parts, the use of a butt tube instead of a frame, simplified the production of PTR, and this was crucial in those conditions. PTRD production began at the Kovrov plant number 2: in early October, the first batch of 50 guns was put into assembly, 28 of October created specialized production - the task for anti-tank weapons was a priority. The first batch in the 300 PDRD was made in October and sent to the 16 Army in the beginning of November by Lieutenant General K. K. Rokossovsky. Later, the plant No. 74 (Izhevskiy machine-building) was connected to the release of the TPRD. By 30 December 1941, the 17 688 PTRD was manufactured, and for the entire 1942, the 184 800. The main production of PTRD was conducted in Kovrov until November 1943, when plant number 2 ceased production. But since October 1943, the PTDD began to be assembled in Zlatoust at plant No. 385.

Self-loading PTRS had an automatic based on the removal of powder gases through the transverse hole in the wall of the barrel. The barrel bore was locked by tilting the bolt body down. Percussion mechanism - kurkovy, with a helical combat spring. A two-row magazine with a lever feeder was hinged to the receiver, fitted with a clip (bundle) with 5 cartridges with the lid opened down. The accessory included 6 clips. By the use of ammunition shutter stood on the delay. The sighting device included a fly with a fuse and a sector sight, notched from 100 to 1500 m. The PTR had a wooden butt with a soft cushion and shoulder pad, a pistol grip. Butt neck was used to hold the left hand. The barrel was supplied with a muzzle brake, a folding bipod and a carrying handle were attached to it.

Production of PTRS was simpler than Rukavishnikov's PTR (a third fewer number of parts, 60% less machine-hours), but much more complicated than the PTD. It was planned to produce PTRS in Tula, but after the evacuation of part of the production of plant No. 66 in Saratov, the manufacture of PTRS was established there, at plant No. 614 (formerly Traktorodetal). There was not enough equipment or capacity for the rapid organization of production. They found a way out in the cooperation of enterprises: the manufacture of the shop box was entrusted to the combine plant, the hammer plant was entrusted to the mechanical workshops of the local university. November 7 first PTRS successfully passed the tests, from December in Saratov began its mass production. Izhevsk Plant No. 74 also attracted to the production of PTRS; in November, it received an assignment to organize the production of a PTDD, and already 6 in November - additionally for the production of PTRS. In November, the residents of Izhevsk manufactured the 11 PTRD, and the first two PTRS were able to pass only in December. Initially, the production of parts of the PTR was distributed in the shops of the plant, then built a separate wooden huts. Used evacuated production of the Tula Arms and Podolsk mechanical plants. 36 July 1 of the plant on the basis of the plant number 1942 was selected plant number 74 (later Izhevsk Mechanical Plant), which produced including anti-tank guns of both systems, and from the middle of 622-th only PTRS.

In 1941, the entire 77 PTRP was released, in 1942, 63 308. The establishment of mass production has reduced the cost of PTRS - from the first half of 1942 to the second half of 1943, it almost halved.

Since the PTRs were taken on an urgent basis, the shortcomings of the new systems — tight extraction of the liner from the PTRD; double shots from the PTRS — had to be corrected during production. Due to the tight extraction of the sleeves, it was recommended to lubricate the cartridge chamber of the MFR before firing and every 10-12 shots. This, as well as rather sensitive recoil, reduced the real combat rate of fire compared to the stated in the manuals. The deployment of mass production in wartime still required a certain period of time - the needs of the troops began to be satisfied to a sufficient degree only from November 1942.

TTRD production was stopped in Izhevsk at plant number 622 in July, and in Kovrov at plant number 2 - in November 1943, in Zlatoust at plant No. 385 - in December 1944. PTRS were produced in Saratov at plant number 614 until June 1944 of the year, in Izhevsk at plant number 622 - until December of the same year. In total, the five plants indicated produced 471 726 PTR - 281 111 PTRD and 190 615 PTRS. The troops delivered 469 700 PTR of both systems. The peak of production - 249 642 units - falls on 1942 year, when the role of anti-tank weapons in the anti-tank defense system was the most significant. The number of 14,5-mm cartridges released in 1940-1945 is estimated at 139,8 million, the peak of production is 1942-1943 years.

BATTLE EXPERIENCE

With sufficiently high ballistic data, 14,5-mm MFR was distinguished by maneuverability and adaptability. They, of course, were not a substitute for even light anti-tank guns, but eliminated a significant gap between the "anti-tank" capabilities of infantry and artillery. Although in the 1941, the PTR had to play precisely the role of the latter - back in August 45-mm guns were withdrawn from the battalion and divisional level and transferred to form anti-tank regiments and brigades.

The first new PTR were the troops of the Western Front, defending Moscow (here, by the way, a certain amount of Rukavishnikov's PTR was used). The directive of the front commander, General of the Army G.K. Zhukov from October 26 of 1941 of the year, referring to sending an anti-tank platoon to 5, 33 and 16 of the army on 3-4, called for immediate use of this exceptional weapon. .. giving them regiments and battalions ". And in his order from December 29, Zhukov pointed out shortcomings in the use of anti-tank weapons: using their calculations as shooters, lack of interaction with groups of tank destroyers and anti-tank artillery, cases of abandonment of anti-tank weapons on the battlefield.

The most famous battle during the defense of Moscow was the battle at the Dubosekovo 16 junction in November 1941 of the 4 Company of the 2 Battalion of the 1075 Regiment of the 316 Rifle Division of Major General I.V. Panfilov. Of the 30 German tanks that participated in the attacks, 18 was shot down, but less than 20% of Red Army soldiers survived from the entire company, at the front of which the attack took place. This battle showed not only the ability of the PTR calculations (in the battalion there was the entire 4 calculation) to fight with tanks, but also the need to cover them with arrows, machine gunners and support for anti-tank and regimental artillery. Anti-tank strongholds became a form of organizing close cooperation between anti-tank artillery, anti-tank guns, tank fighters and automatic infantry weapons.

From December 1941, the company of PTR (on 27, then on 54 rifle) was introduced into the infantry regiments, and from the autumn of 1942, the platoon of PTR on 18 rifles entered the battalions. In January, the 1943-th company of the PTR was included in the composition of the motorized rifle-machine-gun battalion of the tank brigade, here the companies of the PTR will survive until March of the 1944 year. The PTR companies were also introduced into the anti-tank artillery battalions, and the PTR battalions were introduced into the anti-tank brigade battalions. Anti-tank guns, along with light machine guns, ensured the self-defense of artillery batteries from surprise attacks by the enemy.

It should be noted that the effectiveness of the combat work of the PTR calculations is evaluated differently, in the Russian literature of recent years it is common to focus on their shortcomings and assume that they had only "psychological significance" in the context of a clear lack of anti-tank artillery. However, the former Wehrmacht Lieutenant General E. Schneider wrote: "In 1941, the Russians had 14,5-mm PTR ... which caused a lot of trouble to our tanks and later light armored personnel carriers." Former Major-General F. von Mellentin noted: “It seemed that every infantryman had an anti-tank rifle or anti-tank gun. The Russians very skillfully disposed of these funds and, it seems, there was no such place where they would not be. ” In general, in a number of Germanic works on World War II and the memories of German tankers, Soviet PTR are referred to as “respectable” weapons, but due also to the courage of their calculations. The Soviet commanders, already in 1942, noted the new features of the Germans' attacks with the participation of tanks and assault guns - they sometimes stopped at 300-400 from the advanced trenches, supporting their infantry with fire from the spot. And these are the ranges from which Soviet PTRs opened fire. As you can see, the fire of anti-tank guns had not only “psychological significance”.

Having played a large role in the anti-tank defense in 1941-1942, the PTR from the middle of 1943-th - with the growth of armor protection of tanks and assault guns over 40 mm - lost their positions. If in January 1942 the number of PTRs in the troops was 8116, in January 1944 was 142 861, that is, it grew 17,6 times over two years, then in 1944 it began to decline and by the end of the war the current army had only about 40 000 PTR.

October 30 1944, Chief of Staff of the 1 of the Baltic Front, Colonel-General V.V. Kurasov reported: “The experience of using PTRs during World War II shows that they had the greatest effect in the period before July 1943, when the enemy used light and medium tanks , and the combat formations of our troops were comparatively weaker than they were saturated with anti-tank artillery. Starting in the second half of 1943, when the enemy began to use heavy tanks and self-propelled guns with powerful armor protection, the effectiveness of the MFR decreased significantly. The main role in the fight against tanks is currently entirely carried out by artillery. MWDs with good fire accuracy are now used mainly against firing points, armored vehicles and enemy armored personnel carriers. ” The subunit commanders successfully used the main advantages of the MFR - maneuverability, the ability to constantly be in the combat formations of small subunits, and the simplicity of disguise - both in 1944 and 1945. For example, when fighting in the environment, in populated areas, with the capture and consolidation of bridgeheads, when it was not possible to use artillery.

PTR was used to fight not only with tanks and armored vehicles. Armored workers often led to silence bunkers and bunkers of the enemy. Snipers used PTR instead of a sniper rifle to defeat the enemy at long distances or behind closures (attempts to install an optical sight on the PTR were unsuccessful due to too strong recoil of the weapon). Anti-tank guns were also used to fight low-flying aircraft - here the advantages were of self-loading PTRS.

Comments

[FREGATENKAPITAN]

PTR is probably the same legendary weapon of the Second World War as the T-34 and "Katyusha"
In any case, in the first half of the war, this seemingly unpretentious weapon, along with Molotov-cocktails, was the only effective means of combating armor ..........

[Yoshkin Kot]

our grandfathers and, frankly speaking, forced weapons fought! Glory to Them! Eternal Glory! Those who returned from the War and those who did not return!

[Nuar]

Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN

In any case, in the first half of the war, this seemingly unpretentious weapon, along with Molotov-cocktails, was the only effective means of combating panzers ....

nonsense would not write. In battles near Lutsk (the first week of the war), 1 APR threshed more than 200 tanks.

True, after the battle for Kiev, the brigade ended (mainly with weapons and tractors, but also with people - also quite strongly).

In those cases when there was no artillery or airplanes, the Soviet soldier was a rather effective anti-tank weapon (without reference to nationality, as if no one wanted it)

Here in the article it is written:

Beginning in the second half of 1943, when the enemy began to use heavy tanks and self-propelled guns with powerful armor protection, the effectiveness of the PTR decreased significantly.

this is half the truth, the second half - the caliber of artillery slightly increased, the saturation of troops with artillery increased incredibly, and the interaction between the clans was well established. And against their background, PTR calculations could no longer boast of big bills.

PeSe. Article of course ++.

[Vladimirets]

Quote: Nuar

Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
In any case, in the first half of the war, this seemingly unpretentious weapon, along with Molotov-cocktails, was the only effective means of combating panzers .... they wouldn’t write nonsense. In battles near Lutsk (the first week of the war), 1 APR threshed more than 200 tanks.

Well, what did the blasphemous man write? The weapon is actually unpretentious, cheap and effective for German tanks of the beginning of the Second World War.

[Nuar]

Quote: Vladimirets

Well, what did the blasphemous man write?

blasphemous - nothing. But: "unpretentious" and the only thing "is stupidity.

Before you is an article in which it is painted How decisions were made whether to make weapons multi- or single-row (or unpretentious weapons are very moody), how many state tests were carried out, also for cheap, unpretentious weapons developed a special cartridge.

This is a real, full-fledged military weapon, the development of which was carried out in the prewar years. in all armies of the world. Here below Uncle Serozha published a wonderful collection of pictures.

Yes, the PTR had its own characteristics in the construction of production chains and features of combat use. But already "sole means"- it never happened. (This is the same nonsense as one rifle for three in Stalingrad and other" liberal " higher .. uh opus)

PeSe. But "St. George's ribbon" and the inscription "we will win" - yes, blasphemy, however.

[omsbon]

I would like to add a story about the history of PTR.

In 1944, it began to decline, and by the end of the war the army in force had only about 40 PTRs.

However, when the war with Japan began, the PTRs were very useful, they were used with great success against Japanese tanks, pillboxes, etc.
In the summer I was in Belarus, on the Stalin line there I shot from PTRS single - very impressive!

[Yuri11076]

At the beginning of the war, German. tanks had a reservation allowing them to successfully deal with them using anti-tank rifles. so quite a good weapon, and the partisans used it against enemy echelons ...

[cgk]

that these guns remind me of modern anti-sniper rifles)))
maybe it just seemed ....

[boris.radevitch]

The best rifle in the world is Mosin no doubt!
She saved the lives of many soldiers, and rightly so!

[Uncle Serozha]

Of course, thanks to the author for the article. But there is something strange with the illustrations. One of the pictures shows the ENGLISH Boys Mk.1 anti-tank rifle, which is not mentioned at all in the article.

At the same time, the PTR of Rukavishnikov, with whom they started the war, is not shown at all. Fill the gap: here it is:

For some reason, the Sholokhov anti-tank rifle of 12,7 mm caliber under the DShK cartridge (with special bullets), the production of which was established in 1941 in the workshops of the Moscow Military Technical University and which was used at the front for some time, was not mentioned. Here it is:

By the way, there were anti-tank rifles and large calibers. The Finns successfully used their Lahti L.39 caliber 20 mm, made on the basis of an aircraft gun. The initial velocity of the bullet was small - only 800 m / s, but due to the large mass, armor penetration of up to 50 mm was ensured at a distance of 100 m. True, it was a difficult thing, but it had a regular ski run:

And finally, the famous German system - the Panzerbüchse 41 caliber 28mm easel anti-tank rifle. True, it had a conical barrel and an output gauge, sort of like it was 20 mm.

It was called by our tankers "viper" or "viper" and a lot of blood spoiled. It was also installed on half tracks. So one hundred Germans also respected anti-tank rifles very much and kept in service until the end of the war.

[Voodoo]

A good addition to the article. Respect!

[dedroid71]

The article is unambiguous, +. Comment, perhaps, two +.

[Beltar]

You will bother to find the French 25 mm cannon, as well as similar projects from other countries, so that everyone can see what exactly the PTR bottom is.

[Beltar]

full-time weapons that no army would massively arm outside of the conditions of total war and lack of artillery. Actually, before the war, no one particularly armed. And do not compare this stuff with a conical 28/20 mm gun, this is already a slightly different class.

[Old skeptic]

With this "trash", as you fought, you can also beat modern tanks (like Abrashi) into the side. Shmalnul and change position.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Old Skeptic

With this "trash", as you fought, you can also beat modern tanks (like Abrashi) into the side

I doubt about Abramsov, but that American tankers had to get acquainted with our PTRD and PTRS is a historical fact. It happened in Korea, where they sent the retired anti-tank missiles. They got the nickname Buffalo guns from the Americans and quickly made themselves afraid. Medium tanks really took aboard, and the M24 managed to do so in the forehead ...

[Old skeptic]

APU "Abrams" makes its way from the DShK

[pinachet]

I fully confirm that the APU "ABRAMSA" is fighting from the DShK, there were many articles about this. Moreover, the tank can be completely destroyed because of this "Achilles heel"
"2. The rear of the turret is vulnerable even to hit by large-caliber machine guns (12.7mm DShK). The defeat of this part leads to damage to the power plants, penetration of fuel tanks and the fire of the tank."

[Leksander]

http://topwar.ru/21990-samurayskaya-mogila-halhin-gol.html
Do not write nonsense.

[Old skeptic]

Why nonsense? The Abrams' APU has almost no armor, and it makes its way from a large-caliber small arms weapon, that's a fact.

[family tree]

It was. They already hid him in the MTO.

[Leksander]

Quote: Old Skeptic

Why nonsense? The Abrams' APU has almost no armor, and it makes its way from a large-caliber small arms weapon, that's a fact.

I'm wildly sorry! The replica was sent to fellow Beltar about:

Quote: Beltar

no army would massively arm

, and:

Quote: Beltar

And do not compare this stuff with a conical 28/20 mm gun, this is already a slightly different class.

And at the expense of "Abrams" I agree.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

full-time weapons that no army would arm en masse outside the conditions of total war and lack of artillery

Beltar, do not write nonsense, okay? But what about the Wehrmacht, armed before the war with anti-tank rifles Pz.B 38

... and Pz.B 39

AND? The Germans were fools too? By the way, the Pz.B 41 is still an anti-tank rifle according to German classification, and not a cannon.

What to do with the already mentioned English Boyce, which was in mass production? What about the Swiss S18-100, which was in service with the Wehrmacht, as well as Hungary, Finland, Italy, Romania, Switzerland, the Netherlands?

What to do with the magnificent Czech MSS-41, which massively entered the Wehrmacht?

What to do with Japanese Type 97?

Your discussion of artillery gives you a complete amateur. An anti-tank rifle is a weapon of the MILITARY and (sometimes) BATALON unit. For a long time, have these companies and battalions own artillery?
Do not shame, you are our democratic!

[Beltar]

And can I find out exactly what I'm wrong in? Is the fact that the Soviet dviziya of the 41st year had 54 45 mm guns in the state, and the PTR in it were only at the company level? Or maybe that 45 mm guns were just at the battalion level? They were then removed from there, and without a replacement they began to poke PTR even at the regimental level. As things began to improve at the end of the 42nd, they returned 45 mm to the battalions. A company, by the way, is not an independent combat unit and the presence of anti-tank weapons and any heavy weapons in it before the appearance of modern grenade launchers is doubtful. It is just concentrated in the battalion, or higher.
Or is it that Germany entered World War II with only 62 PTRs?
Or maybe the fact that even having started the production of PTRs, the Fritz themselves used up 41 times less ammunition for them in the 2.4st year than for a 37 mm cannon? But 37 mm guns were even less at the beginning of the war. It turns out an absurd picture that the more numerous weapons were not specifically used in the battles, they might just have been thrown somewhere in the transport.

But the instructions for use:
"A cartridge with a BZ-39 bullet for a 14.5 mm gun and a B-32 cartridge for a 12.7 mm gun pierces only the lower side part of the hull between the first and second rollers, hitting the driver and between the fifth and sixth rollers, piercing the radiator."
The command would be happy to give the soldiers a normal 45 mm cannon and drive the armor-piercing "shell" into the frontal plate, but they had to, like this, hope that out of dozens of people, someone would end up "between the first and second rollers."

And you still dare to accuse me of dilettanism.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

And can I find out exactly what I'm wrong in?

In your statement that the PTR could be produced only in war conditions with a lack of artillery - your post is higher. Alas, the facts cited do not confirm this in any way.

Quote: Beltar

Is the fact that the Soviet dviziya of the 41st year had 54 45 mm guns in the state, and the PTR in it were only at the company level?

This is what they say to you. There is no artillery at the company level. At the battalion level, as early as July 1941, there were no guns either.

Quote: Beltar

Or is it that Germany entered World War II with only 62 PTRs?

Yes, and you are wrong in that too. PzB38 was adopted in 1938. In 1939, production was discontinued, after the release of 2000 pieces. So you tell someone else the tales of 62 PTR in the Wehrmacht at the beginning of WW2. In 1939, PzB39 went into production. What about other countries? You are welcome:
The Polish PTR Wz.35 was put into service in 1935, the British Boyce in 1937, the Japanese Type 97 also in 1937, the Finnish L.39 in 1939. So your version that this could only be produced in the conditions of "total war and the whole lack", alas, is not confirmed in any way.

Quote: Beltar

Or maybe the fact that even having started the production of PTRs, the Fritz themselves used up 41 times less ammunition for them in the 2.4st year than for a 37 mm cannon?

And what does it have to do with it? PaK 35/36 solves a wider range of tasks, not just VET. In addition, as already indicated, the PTR is a weapon of the company and battalion level. Above, there are only guns and it is clear that they also consume ammunition. Do not forget that the same ammunition was spent 37 mm tank guns. So the argument with the amount of ammunition is all about nothing.

[Beltar]

Again. It was possible to experiment with anything, even with rogue weapons, it would not be more effective from this, well, they gave the company the opportunity to shoot at an armored car, this does not cancel serious artillery. I don’t understand how such a simple fact doesn’t reach you that a full-fledged gun with ammunition from all the necessary types of shells is an order of magnitude more effective than rubbish with 20-30 mm armor penetration at a minimum distance. The issue of simplicity, dimensions, etc. is irrelevant here, otherwise one could argue that the most effective weapon is a club. Well, or at worst it’s cold, which in World War II, 1% of all soldiers actually used. It’s just that PTR already at the turn of the 30-40s did not really solve the task of fighting tanks.
By the way, both the Polish, Finnish, and Japanese armies in terms of tanks and anti-tank bottom defense. The British, for some reason, remember not some PTR there, but a 17-pound.

As for tank guns, the 37 mm anti-tank gun was 14 thousand. The Germans had all the tanks several times less, and the same third "groove" in the USSR already basically had a 50 mm cannon, because the Germans stumbled upon heavily armored tanks in France. So the tanks don't make the weather here.

Regarding the Britons, the armor penetration of their rifle according to pedagogy:

"Armor penetration:
bullet W Mk.1 (steel core, bullet weight 60 g) penetrates 16 mm of armor at a distance of 100 m at an angle of 90 °;
bullet W Mk.2 (tungsten core, bullet mass 47.6 g) penetrates 20 mm of armor at a distance of 100 m at an angle of 70 °. "

That is, even with the use of ultra-deficient tungsten, it is already problematic to break through the armor of even a light tank.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

Again. It was possible to experiment with anything, even with rogue weapons, it would not become more effective from this

We read carefully. This is not about experiments. The above is a list of European countries that were armed and produced PTR before (before!) The beginning of the 2nd m.v.
What is the proof of the fallacy of your statement that PTR is

Quote: Beltar

weapons that no army would massively arm outside the conditions of total war and lack of artillery

As we see armed. what they pointed out to you. And while you have no arguments.

About the expenditure of ammunition - there are also no arguments, as I understand it - the above shows that it has nothing to do with it. For the gun solves a wider range of tasks, is present not only at the company and battalion level, and there is also a tank.

[Beltar]

France didn’t produce a PTR, I already pointed out to you that it had a normal 25 mm gun. The USSR did not practically produce PTR before the war, and the first Soviet mass PTRs were a copy of the German ones.

So I don’t understand what you want to prove to me. That a weapon that by definition is not capable of solving the tasks of anti-tank defense, and which was given into the hands of soldiers since there were not enough guns, can be called effective?

As for the English. Boyce, then the same pedivic gives a mark. Old:

"Although useful against early German and Italian tanks in France and North Africa, such as the Panzer I, Panzer II and early models of Panzer III, increases in vehicle armor during the Second World War left the Boys largely ineffectual as an anti-tank weapon . A shortened version was issued in 1942 for issue to airborne forces and saw use in Tunisia, where it proved completely ineffective because of the reduced velocity caused by the shortened barrel. [6] The Boys was so unpopular that the Canadian government commissioned a Disney training film, Stop That Tank, to oppose the rifle's "jinx" reputation. [7] Nonetheless, in the European theater it was soon replaced by the PIAT (Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank) in 1943, which first saw service during the Allied invasion of Sicily. In other roles the Boys saw some use against bunkers, machine gun nests and light-skinned vehicles but was rapidly replaced in British and Commonwealth service by the US .50 BMG caliber M2 Browning machine gun [8] a s quantities of the latter weapon became available. "

Pay attention to this "jinx reputation". Our PTR soldiers were in the same "respect". And this despite the noticeable circulation of 60 thousand copies. Although about the number, we released more tanks during the War ...

There were 37 mm fewer guns, they spent more shells, I don’t see what was unclear. Again, I’m explaining this to you that even a cannon of the smallest caliber solves a wider range of tasks, and if so, it is much more preferable.

Similarly, a self-loading rifle with a muzzle energy of 4000 J is more preferable, or at least an "assault rifle" like modern AK and M16 with an energy of 2000 J, than a bare PPSh with a pistol bullet and a muzzle energy hardly more than 500 J and a meager firing range. One thing is bad, the rifle cost a piece, the PPSh was several tens of rubles and was manufactured anywhere. And before the war, however, the troops were massively armed with SVT, and not with all sorts of "automatic weapons".

And no one even in a nightmare thought of tanks like the T-60. The pre-war light T-50 exceeded this scrap metal by an order of magnitude. And note that no one T-60 considers anything else but the brainchild of a total war and terrible defeats of the 41st. But both PTR and PPSh, and what else I forgot there, are no better.

No need to give out need for virtue.

[dedroid71]

Dear Uncle Seryozha, +, of course, for an interesting info. But, IMHO, such cars are not for tanks. And against BPM or armored personnel carriers - what you need. Again, RPGs are both easier and more powerful (mb?) I don’t see why a company type unit has such a heavy weapon (after all, no less than 30 kg + ammunition, but the barrel probably needs a replacement, two people?) If you have information on the effectiveness of such weapons, please share

[Beltar]

Efficiency is close to zero even with scarce tungsten bullets.

[AlexMH]

Beltar,
You're not right. it was before the war that anti-tank rifles were made in England, Poland, Germany, well, everything was already told about the USSR ... While the tanks were mainly with bulletproof armor, such rifles were considered quite effective. Another example of this approach is gun grenades, also adopted by most countries before the war. Of course, with an increase in the thickness of the armor, the guns lost their effectiveness or practically turned into guns, which we see on the example of a German easel gun with a conical barrel. But with the advent of rocket-propelled anti-tank grenade launchers (panzerfaust, panzer shrek, bazooka, PIAT) the guns finally began to look like an anachronism. But since there were a lot of them, they remained in service until the end of the war.

[Beltar]

You never know who experimented with what. Before the war, we had EMNIP in the staff of 48 45 mm guns. There was no talk of any 300 ATR per division. Let's think it's better, a 45 mm cannon near Kursk, which pierced a sub-caliber "panther" into the turret and is capable of effectively firing at infantry and light fortifications, or a pipe useless against infantry with 23 mm armor penetration at 100 distances and a bullet close to zero armor action.

When you have hundreds of thousands of people lost and thousands of barrels you don’t have to choose, and the infantry is handed all the rubbish from rifles pulled out from warehouses 50 years ago, to PTRs and submachine guns with a firing range of 100 meters. To assess the situation, take into account that until the very end of the war, the USSR could not fully equip the troops with full-fledged and very effective ZiS-2 cannons.

The only bad thing is that then, this trash, which can cause not so much damage to the enemy as its fighters encouraged, they begin to consider almost a miracle weapon.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

Let's think that it is better, a 45 mm cannon near Kursk, which pierced the turret with a sub-caliber "panther" and was capable of effectively firing at infantry and light fortifications, or a pipe useless against infantry with armor penetration of 23 mm at 100 distances and a bullet close to zero armor action.

Not an argument. With the same success, I can ask: which is better - a 45mm stick, or a full 100mm gun? The answer will also be obvious. Once again: PTR - weapons of the company and battalion level. And he doesn’t need a fur coat and the norms for supplying his ammunition correspond to the logistics of this level. In my opinion, I have already explained it 10 times.

[Nuar]

Quote: Uncle Seryozha

In my opinion, I have already explained it 10 times.

comes out a little. Better in the pictures: here is the PTR, it weighs 40 kilograms, but a couple of uncles will carry it on the shoulders, and here is the 76 mm gun with awesome armor penetration, but the tractor (tractor) must carry it. And the traction fur doesn’t have spare parts, it’s fuel ... and the size of the ammunition for timely delivery is a little difference.

... hm. though there are times when you can’t explain in the pictures.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Nuar

... hm. though there are times when you can’t explain in the pictures.

Yes, in my opinion, he himself understood everything a long time ago. But stubbornness is a great thing ... And funny, by the way!

[Beltar]

What did I understand that a 76 mm gun needs a tractor or a horse? Estimate, I knew it without you. Well, there’s more benefit from one 76 mm than from a whole company of armor-piercers.
By your logic, you don’t need nafig airplanes either, since they are most of the time on the ground and each one needs a bunch of maintenance personnel. And to make a plane, so it is in general.

However, I'm tired of arguing with you, so I'll just refer to "10 Myths of World War II" by A. Isaev, who chews in some detail what anyone who has seen a cannon and an anti-tank rifle can understand.

[Beltar]

Automatic guns


With the dubious effectiveness of anti-tank rifles
the leadership of the Red Army considered it appropriate to adopt rifle companies
something more perfect than mtr. In 1940, the views of the military turned to
automatic guns. 23-mm gun became a competitor of PTR Rukavishnikov
Taubina-Baburina. She weighed a little more, 78 kg, and was mounted on that
same wheeled machine as Rukavishnikov’s gun. It was decided to work
suspend over the PTR, because "the results with an infantry cannon
Taubin-Baburin with a receiver for 9 rounds are more preferable. "
hovered in the air, the Germans developed for similar purposes "2-cm Erd Kampf
Geraet "(literally -" device for ground fighting "), created on the basis
20 mm anti-aircraft machine gun. Another similar development was the machine
"2-cm-MG. C / 34" by "Rheinmetall", weighed only 45 kg. but
promising company anti-aircraft anti-tank gun before the war in the USSR
was not brought.
The solution was sought on the field of guns, in particular because
At least minimal universalization of anti-tank weapons was required.
For example, on the advancing and defending infantry from an anti-tank gun
shooting is almost useless. On the contrary, from an anti-tank gun
caliber 37-50 mm shoot at infantry with high-explosive fragmentation grenades
perhaps this opportunity was often used. For example, in
1942 by the Germans from the 50-mm anti-tank gun "PAK-38"
more than twice as many high-explosive shells as armor-piercing shells and
sub-caliber combined. High-explosive / fragmentation explosives released 1,
armor-piercing - 477 450, and sub-caliber - 113 850. Accordingly
automatic gun with a caliber of 20-23 mm possessed quite powerful
a high-explosive fragmentation shell to fire on enemy infantry.
Of course, it is possible to shoot infantrymen from an anti-tank rifle, but this
it will be a waste of effort and money.

[Beltar]

PTR as a panacea?


A deep misconception is the thesis that adoption
and the production of PTR before the war could save the USSR from German motorcyclists
in Khimki. Before the summer campaign of 1941, the Red Army had more than enough
anti-tank weapons superior to anti-tank
Shotguns: 12 470 mm cannons of the 45 model and 1937 4900 mm cannons of the 45 model
Anti-tank properties were also possessed by over 8 thousand. 76-mm division
guns. If several thousand PTRs were added to this quantity, then fate
they would have had the same one, they would have been lost in the battles of the summer of 1941 with
dubious effect on the panzervaff. Just like not
helped Poland in September 1939. 7610 7,92 mm anti-tank rifles
Maroshek sample 1935. Reasons for the success of the armored forces of Germany in 1941.
and in 1939 they lie in the plane of tactics and operational art, and not in
planes of the weapon system of their opponents.
The reason that prompted the start of mass production of anti-tank
guns, it was by no means the effectiveness of this weapon, conscious after the start
war, and the need to make up for the huge losses of the summer of 1941. Similar
the reasons prompted the start of production of PTR Germany. Wehrmacht war in September
1939 met with ... 62 pieces of 7,92-mm PTR "Pz.B.38", which looks rather
as an experiment with this tool to combat armored vehicles. Need
quickly saturate troops with anti-tank weapons forced to produce anti-tank
in huge quantities. In 1940, 9645 "Pz.B.39" and 705
"Pz.B.38", in 1941 - 29 587 "Pz.B.39". In 1940-1941. to them
the heavy Pz.B.41 PTR with a tapered barrel was added. To replace the "Pz.B.41"
a heavy gun "Pz.B.42" with a tapered barrel in
27/37 mm, which was subsequently acquired in small quantities by the SS men. AT
1942-1943 continued production of "Pz.B.41" and "2Gr.B.39"
(a grenade launcher firing from a mortar at the end of the barrel
anti-tank grenade with a blank cartridge of 7,92 mm caliber). In the army it
weapons were until 1945
However, we will return in 1941. The catastrophic development of events forced
the Soviet leadership to take steps that before the war could not have been imagined
even in a "deep sleep after dinner". Such solutions include, in particular,
production of copies of the German anti-tank gun of the First World War under
12,7 mm caliber cartridge (the so-called Sholokhov PTR) and an attempt to copy
"Pz.B.39" in September 1941. These improvisations were followed by quite
full-fledged "ersatz" - 14,5-mm anti-tank rifles Degtyarev and Simonov.
It would be a mistake to attribute the PTR successes of the Red Army near Moscow: far more
a significant factor were 76 mm and 85 mm anti-aircraft guns mounted on direct fire
Moscow air defense, capable of hitting any German tanks at a distance of over 1000
м.

[Beltar]

Place PTR in the Red Army


If we try to trace the place of PTR in the organizational structure
infantry division, it is quite clearly visible the role of this weapon as
replacements of anti-tank guns. If before the war PTR was considered as a weapon
companies, then in December 1941 in state No. 04/750 a PTR platoon was introduced on
regimental level. In total, there were 89 PTRs in the state division, and 45 mm guns were
expelled from the battalion back in July 1941. The flourishing of "ground cones" was
1942 According to the March state No. 04/200, a company of PTR was at the regiment level (27
rifles), each of the battalions of the rifle regiment also received the PTR company
(instead of the pre-war 45 mm anti-tank vehicles), another company of anti-tank vehicles was in anti-tank
division. In total, the state provided for 279 PTR. 45 mm anti-tank guns
there were 30 units instead of 54 guns in the pre-war state. However, almost three
Hundreds of PTR in the infantry division did not prevent the Germans from reaching the Volga and the Caucasus.
By 1943, the PTR star in the Red Army began to lean down. December
state No. 04/550 of 1942, the rifle division received forty-eight 45-mm
guns, "forty-five" returned to the battalions, and the number of anti-tank rifles dropped to 212
units. This number of PTR remained in the division and state No. 04/550 July 1943
Bringing the number of 45-mm guns to pre-war 54 pieces in December 1944
led to a decrease in the number of PTR to 111 units. And this despite the fact that on
the battlefield formally had ample targets for anti-tank rifles, in
particular armored personnel carriers.
Anti-tank rifles were more a means of psychological
protection of personnel than a real means of struggle. Enough
an objective characteristic of the demand for weapons is consumption
ammunition. For example, in the 1st Tank Army in the battle on the Kursk Bulge of the PTR
were the leader from below by a wide margin. During the period of the defensive phase of the battle
only 0,5 ammunition of 14,5 mm cartridges was used up. Rifle
rounds of ammunition was used 1,2 ammunition, 76 mm rounds - 2,1
ammunition, and 45-mm rounds of all types - 1,5 ammunition. Similar
the picture is also observed in the Wehrmacht. Starting a war with 25 thousand PTR and 14
thousands of 37 mm anti-tank guns, the Germans by the end of 1941 expended
Ammunition for the Pz.B.39 is 2,4 times less than for the 37 mm PAK-35/36. Consumption
ammunition for "Pz.B.41" for the same period was equal to the consumption of rounds to ...
305 mm captured French mortar. Comments, as they say, are unnecessary.

[Uncle Serozha]

A long copy-paste with a lot of mistakes does not cancel the simple fact that there is no artillery at the company and battalion levels. And VET means are needed there even for fighting light armored objects, which the Germans had the majority at the beginning of the war. I did not find a refutation of this in your quotes, so think again ...

[Beltar]

I do not understand what you want to prove to me? That a company is in dire need of anti-tank weapons when the army has special units with powerful anti-tank weapons? What PTR is able to ensure the effectiveness of the pain with armored vehicles comparable to full guns? So you have already brought a lot of examples and instructions.
What PTR were used against armored personnel carriers, etc.? I highlighted it in bold that even this was not an argument and the number of PTR declined. They stopped producing before the end of the war.
At the same time, no one objects to the inclusion of the PTR in the companies, well, set aside the armored personnel compartment, if there are people, the armored car can help to shoot at once. But to talk about the PTR, as the main anti-tank weapon, this is excuse me.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

Well, there’s more benefit from one 76 mm than from a whole company of armor-piercers.

And from 122 mm even more. But you won’t give them to your mouth. And this is an argument that you cannot yet refute.

[Beltar]

On the issue of 100 mm cannons or more precisely about 76 mm, then there were clearly defined restrictions on weight (drag something with horses), so there was no need to suffer garbage and exaggerate. At headquarters, not fools sat and thought out all well. 37-45 mm guns even on the battlefield were rolled by calculation forces and could well conduct circular fire, which for 75-76 mm could no longer be required.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

To the question of 100 mm guns or more precisely about 76 mm

This issue is not relevant to the outline of the discussion. For neither the 76-mm nor 100-mm anti-tank guns are NOT a means of anti-tank and company battalion level. So past ...

[avt]

Beltar ______ Well, what then should we do with the Hanses, they probably also had a dick with artillery, since the PzB-39 was armed with 7,9 caliber and 12,1 kg empty

[Beltar]

Well, ours was pretty good at breaking this artillery, so the Hans had to drag every kind of super-budget junk to the front line.

[Uncle Serozha]

In the initial period of the Second World War, the Wehrmacht had no shortage of artillery. However, they used PTRs. Because you won’t be carrying a convoy with shells for every company, and you won’t give it a mechtyag either.

[Beltar]

I have already described how they used them.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

I have already described how they used them.

You were mistaken and VM explained it.

[Simon]

It was a good weapon, simple, maneuverable and reliable.

[Yoshkin Kot]

especially in a bayonet attack a joke, but indeed, in the lack of fish (loss of a significant share of artillery in the early days of the war) and fish cancer, the PTR has its own narrow niche, infantry reinforcements and nothing more

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Yoshkin Cat

ptr has its own narrow niche, infantry reinforcements and only

PTR (subsequently grenade launchers) really has its own niche - the company and battalion unit. Artillery begins with a regimental link and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. For it requires mechtyagi.

[Beltar]

The 45 mm gun belonged to the battalion level, no need to write bullshit if you yourself are not competent.

[Uncle Serozha]

Since July 1941, there were no 45 mm guns at the battalion level. Read something at your leisure ...

[Beltar]

Do you know why? Because the losses had to be compensated with something, but the PTRs themselves did not become more effective from this. At the end of 42, the "forty-fives" were returned to the battalions.

[Uncle Serozha]

No way. Since, as shown above, PTRs were adopted and produced BEFORE WWII began in England, Finland, Japan, and Germany (2000 Pz38 for 1939). What did they also need to reimburse something in the late 30s?

[Yoshkin Kot]

like the Mosin rifle, although at 41 they wanted to rearm the Red Army for self-loading, the Germans got a lot of them, they even took them into service, by the way, watch a movie about the defense of Odessa and Sevastopol, you will hardly see any mosquitoes there, fleet depots were not lost

[Beltar]

So the mosquito was 10 times cheaper. Naturally, it was issued to those who basically did not fight with personal weapons. To manufacture several million units of new weapons even now is not a trivial task.

[Yoshkin Kot]

when did the horses become mechanized? in the Second World War, what we have, what the Germans mostly carried guns

[Beltar]

In the fur. parts of the machine, otherwise the meaning of the fur. there is no part if something in it will be in cars, but something will be a horse. In general, in the Red Army, the degree of mechanization is even higher than the Germans planned, but failed.

[Beltar]

A good anti-tank weapon is the 57 mm ZiS-2 gun. That’s why this article infuriates me, because all the rubbish of the era of total war is exposed not by what it was - little useful rubbish, but by some effective weapon.

Excuse me, but do you seriously think that a weapon with a penetration of 20-25 mm, which in order to hit a light tank had to hit it on board in a vulnerable place, was at least of some value in the 42nd? Or maybe the fools in the headquarters were sitting that instead of an iron fishing rod with a calculation of a couple of people, they ordered full-fledged guns?

[Beltar]

And before zamusnovat, remember your own tantrums in the forums that the soldiers are not given heavy armored personnel carriers on a tank base, etc. things, when the country is forced to save on the army.

[Kars]

Nahhhh.

Quote: Beltar

A good anti-tank weapon is the 57 mm ZiS-2 gun

a little more and her wings will grow and she will fly. It would be better to make a normal PT gun from the SPM like the Fritz did with trophies.

Quote: Beltar

tank had to hit him aboard in a vulnerable place, was at least some value in the same 42nd

And the German armored personnel carriers? Hanamagi Sd.Kfz. 251, Sd.Kfz. 10/5. Scouts, Cougars, etc. throughout all of the ZIS-2 shoot?

maybe just grin?

Quote: Beltar

the headquarters were sitting that instead of an iron fishing rod with a calculation of a couple of people ordered full guns?

they ordered both, the USSR industry is not rubber.

In the photo Breslau 1945 (somewhere near the second grandfather on the ISU-122)

[Beltar]

In practice, even for armored personnel carriers and other soft targets, which are tens of times more than tanks from anti-tank vehicles, they were not particularly shot. And the photo is yes, cool, you can immediately see from it that the 20-30 mm ultralight gun is already more effective due to the high-explosive shell and fragments. After all, it is necessary to shoot at the infantry too. And why is PTR better than a rifle in this regard?

Actually, it would be them that the Red Army would have received at the company level if the war had not started in the 41st.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/УСВ

Let's read what it is all about. And this is a tool of a high level of submission, which is essentially a mini-howitzer and redoing it for lay shooting at tanks is nonsense, although it was also used. The question is with what effect, a small barrel length is striking. However, you obviously do not know about this, but there was not a divisional, but a completely regimental ZiS-3, which also stabbed the tanks well.

The requirements for anti-tank guns and all sorts of divisional weapons are generally directly opposite.

[Kars]

Quote: Beltar

In practice, even for armored personnel carriers and other soft targets, which are tens of times more than tanks from anti-tank vehicles, they were not particularly shot

Share statistics?

Quote: Beltar

from it it is immediately clear that a 20-30 mm ultralight gun

and this is to the doctor, maybe still unknowingly.

Quote: Beltar

Let's read what it is all about

Yes, read as much as you want, it is still cheaper and more economical than the ZIS-2, which was also not for every platoon.

In general, my advice to you - Learn the mat part.

Quote: Beltar

The question is with what effect, a small barrel length is striking.

The barrel length, mm / klb 3200 / 42,1 is longer than the ZIS -3, we can say the most common anti-tank gun of the Red Army, of normal caliber.
and 3 calbras shorter than the German PAK-40

resume - free, to school. And then you generally laugh.
it's just a masterpiece

Quote: Beltar

which is essentially a mini-howitzer

Mini, maxi howitzer))))) with a unitary ammunition)))))) I'm in shock.

[Beltar]

Above, I cited statistics on the German army from which it is clear that the 37 mm gun was dragging, and the PTR was almost never used.

If you think that a 20-25 mm shell in which there is at least 10-20 grams of explosives and giving at least some fragments is worse than a 12.7 mm bullet, then you should go to the doctor. The French, by the way, had such a gun. Yes, and until the 37th year, not a single PTR was even allowed before the tests. About 62 German PTR cm above.

Actually, all countries tried to come up with a 20-25 mm cannon, which can be serviced by a couple of people and which, in addition to tanks, beats infantry. This includes our 23 mm Taubina-Baburin and the German experimental 20 mm anti-aircraft gun, etc. And the PTR is a complete and absolute bottom, which is armed only when there is nothing else. Glory to those who had eggs of steel and nerves that managed to knock tanks out of "fishing rods", but to call them "effective weapons" is a great sin against the truth.

[Kars]

Quote: Beltar

Above, I gave statistics on German

Is that what the internet went crazy?

that you give me statistics on the consumption (total) of ammunition you bring. You said

Quote: Beltar

In practice, even for armored personnel carriers and other soft targets, which are tens of times more than tanks from PTR

So bring statistics. The Fritz, for your information, even for K98 had armor-piercing bullets.

Quote: Beltar

If you think that 20-25 mm

Give us a working portable sample with the same cost-effectiveness and manufacturability, and we'll see. It can be mass-produced in bed factories and not spend 800 machine hours on Solothurn.

Quote: Beltar

About 62 German PTR cm above

That's bullshit.

Quote: Beltar

Glory to those who had eggs of steel and nerves that managed to knock tanks out of "fishing rods"

By the way, about ZIS-2, they themselves also said Death to enemies, pi - for calculation,

generally repeat learning mat part

Quote: Beltar

than 12.7 mm

By the way, 14.5 mm (pictured), but it makes no difference to you.

[Beltar]

My dear, the weapons produced in bed factories are a mobilization ersatz, which in peacetime will often not even be allowed to be tested. Because your soldier is more expensive. Putting a machine gun on a jeep is also possible and it is very cheap, but for some reason only all kinds of armies from countries of the 4th world do this, which they don’t understand, either armies or gangs, but normal armies for some reason prefer full-fledged armored personnel carriers.

By the way, about ZIS-2, they themselves also said Death to enemies, pi - for calculation,

Well, with a fishing rod, you can safely remove "death to enemies". And I had to write about the funeral more often.
However, everything is clear to you, for you, that ZiS-2, that PTR is one hell. The ideal army for you is a bunch of hungry men with machine guns and anti-tank guns, neither tanks, nor artillery, nor aircraft are needed, because you can’t produce them in a bed factory.

[Kars]

Quote: Beltar

My dear, weapons manufactured in bed factories

So what are you raving about hand guns?

Quote: Beltar

which in times of peace, even trials are often not allowed.

It’s just stupid, you have repeatedly poked your noses at the adoption of weapons in the foreign armies of the PTR but it doesn’t reach you.

were PTR in the Soviet troops in 1941, at least at the rate of 10-20 for the Wehrmacht company would not have reached Moscow.

Quote: Beltar

Put on a jeep machine gun

Are you in a jeep? 1941-45?

Quote: Beltar

For some reason, normal armies are preferred by full-fledged armored personnel carriers.

The funny thing is that there I meet all sorts of buggies and jeeps - but this is to the Professor.

Quote: Beltar

However, everything is clear to you, for you, that ZiS-2, that PTR is one hell

Actually, this is one for the ace, for me there is a big difference between 1000 kg of weapons of submission to a division or RGK and individual anti-tank weapons.

Quote: Beltar

The ideal army for you is a bunch of hungry men with machine guns and anti-tank guns, neither tanks, nor artillery, nor aircraft are needed, because you can’t make them in the bed factory

You can clearly see your sharp mind (naturally in parentheses). An ideal Army is a phantom which does not exist.
And there is an army that was christened in the process of war and there is an industry that is armed with it.

But your mind cannot understand this. You give ZIS-2 to each department.

[Beltar]

A jeep can drag a maximum of 82 mm mortar, or they will not carry recoilless soldiers and soldiers into battle. Yes, and armored personnel carriers with infantry fighting vehicles in local wars, when instead of fighting taxis and attacks 500 meters behind their tanks they encounter ambush fire, they have already become a byword.

ZiS-2 not in each compartment, but to each battalion commander. I repeat 4354654654 times, spraying a mass of low-power anti-tank weapons does not make anti-tank defense stronger, unlike well-used heavy weapons.

[Kars]

Quote: Beltar

I repeat 4354654654 times

Better head against the wall.

Quote: Beltar

ZiS-2 not to each compartment, but to each battalion commander

How many were able to produce them? and PTR somewhere 400 thousand (and by the way obsolyutno does not mean that instead of them they could have done more ZIS-2 they did not occupy the same machines)

Quote: Beltar

mass of low-power anti-tank weapons does not make anti-tank defense stronger

How many hand grenade launchers are in the company now? Can they withdraw?

Quote: Beltar

from well-used heavy weapons.

if it is, if there is something to bring, if it was brought there where it should be, if it was not crushed by artillery, etc. But tanks and armored vehicles are just notable for mobility.

But you don’t get it.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

If you think that a 20-25 mm shell in which there is at least 10-20 grams of explosives and giving at least some fragments is worse than a 12.7 mm bullet, then you should go to the doctor

Similarly - if you think that a 20-25-mm shell is worse than a 152-mm shell, then you should go to the doctor. Give howitzers to the infantry squads!

[Beltar]

Actually really worse. When you have all heaps, you can throw a couple of extra 152 mm from the division. Then the infantry will have less work.

And there is no need to write nonsense about howitzers to infantry squads. It is not a handful of soldiers or individual tanks that fight in the army, and the solution to the problem of fighting tanks, emplacements, etc. is not at all in the plane of equipping each soldier with anti-tank grenades, anti-tank missiles and other "weapons of despair."

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

About 62 German PTR cm above

And they told you above that this is not true. PzB38 at the beginning of World War II was available in the Wehrmacht in the amount of about 2000 pieces. In 1939, the production of PzB39 began. Where did the figure in 62 PTR come from ?? Do not share?

Quote: Beltar

A PTR is a complete and absolute bottom, which is armed only when there is nothing else.

In this case, how do you explain the fact that before the outbreak of war the PTRs were in service with Great Britain, Switzerland, Holland, Finland, Poland, Japan, Hungary and (last, but not least) Germany (2000 pieces)?

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

And the photo is yes, cool, you can immediately see from it that the 20-30 mm ultralight gun is already more effective due to the high-explosive shell and fragments.

A 152 mm howitzer is even more effective. Give them to their mouths? :)

[Beltar]

No, we will leave them in the division, and we will use them to destroy everything that interferes with the infantry squads, and cannot be broken by either the battalion "forty-five" or the regimental "three-inch" guns so that the soldiers can get as little bullets as possible. And we will make a hole for the tank out of 85 mm anti-aircraft guns in the forehead 500 meters before our positions so that the armor-piercers with wet pants would not crawl towards it.

[Yoshkin Kot]

and you did not notice the progress of armored vehicles for 30-40 years? aphid twos and t-40 was a good weapon, for 3 and t-34 it is already rather sickly

[Kars]

Quote: Yoshkin Cat

the progress of armored vehicles for 30-40 years?

What are you? Has all the armored vehicles received ballistic armor?
The infantry should have the maximum number of anti-tank weapons, although you probably think that having a COP bottle is more fun than half armored vehicles than shooting it from hundreds of meters.
And here it’s just interesting, probably from poverty, that the US Army armed its Bazookas, really didn’t have enough money to give everyone a point of cannon?

[Kars]

_________________

[Beltar]

No, it’s more fun to shoot at enemy soldiers jumping out of a conveyor lined with a battalion cannon.
The maximum number of anti-tank weapons should not be with the infantry, but with the compound.

[Kars]

Quote: Beltar

No more fun

To the doctor, then teach the materiel)))))))))))

[Beltar]

There is no special difference between a bottle and a PTR. A bottle will even be more effective, especially if you drop it in an open armored car.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Kars

And the German armored personnel carriers? Hanamagi Sd.Kfz. 251, Sd.Kfz. 10/5. Scouts, Cougars, etc. throughout all of the ZIS-2 shoot?

Exactly. I also cannot understand this moment. The Germans have a lot of light armored vehicles, which are perfectly obtained from the PTR. But no, we must immediately remove the PTR from our mouths to please Beltar - let them destroy German half-tracks and armored vehicles with bayonets!

[Beltar]

And no one removed them from their mouths, only they didn’t stab the armored vehicles, but 45 and 76 mm guns. The company itself does not conduct a combined arms battle at all.
And what suddenly didn’t please you shooting from ZiS-2 on armored personnel carriers? ZiS-2, after all, will not just make a hole and hit a couple of people at best, but will inflict quite serious damage inside.

You generally have some strange ideas. The battles of millions of armies are underway, operations are being conducted where hundreds of thousands of people are strength and a company sits somewhere and independently tanks tanks.

EMNIP artillery during the Second World War inflicted 80% of all combat losses, neither planes, nor tanks, nor even submachine guns, and no one is close to the god of war.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

And no one removed them from their mouths, only armored vehicles weren’t stabbed by them, but 45 and 76 mm guns

Armored vehicles were stabbed by both. And if you remove the PTR from your mouth, then they will have nothing to fight even with lightly armored targets. What they patiently explain to you for the 10001th time. Therefore, PTR were necessary and were available in almost all European armies;

Quote: Beltar

The company itself does not conduct a combined arms battle at all.

Which does not mean for the company commander the ability to use artillery when (and there) when (and where) he needs it.

Quote: Beltar

And what suddenly didn’t please you shooting from ZiS-2 on armored personnel carriers?

And what didn’t please you shooting at them from BS-3? Give BS-3 to the companies? Or branches?

[Kars]

Quote: Uncle Seryozha

And what didn’t please you shooting at them from BS-3?

I would prefer the A-19

interesting Beltar,
What will such a phrase from hikipedia say?

In 1941, the ZIS-2, according to the approved organizational structure, could enter the anti-tank divisions of rifle divisions or brigades (in both cases - 3 batteries of 4 guns, 12 guns in total), or to the anti-tank regiments of the RGK (from 16 to 24 guns, depending on the number of batteries per shelf). Since the spring of 1942, due to the withdrawal from production and a small number of manufactured guns, ZIS-2 guns are excluded from the states [15]. With the restoration of ZIS-2 production in 1943, the guns entered the fighter-anti-tank artillery regiments (iptap), 20 guns per regiment. Since December 1944, the ZIS-2 was introduced into the states of the guards rifle divisions - into regimental anti-tank batteries and into the fighter-anti-tank division (12 guns). In June 1945, regular rifle divisions were transferred to a similar state [15]. Also at the end of the war, 4 ZIS-2s were in service with the cavalry regiments

[Beltar]

I know the history of ZiS-2, and I understand that an anti-tank gun cannot be simple and cheap, you need high-alloy steels, you need the work of thousands of skilled workers, or the PTR case assembled in a bed workshop. But in the end, a normal cannon is a burning enemy tank and our live crew, and a bed PTR, these are dozens of our guys crushed by caterpillars and shot 300 meters away, until one of them manages to get into the viewing gap, between the rinks or somewhere else that will stop the tank for a while.

The war was ultimately won by howitzers, tank aircraft, and not 300 PTRs per rifle division.

[Beltar]

Armored personnel carriers and other rubbish will simply be shot from battalion or regimental guns. What is not clear to you ?? It is possible from BS-3, a land mine. It is unlikely that someone inside will have time to understand what got into them.

PTR or anti-tank grenades are a weapon of last resort in essence. In itself, it will not hold a position.

And it pisses me off that in all sorts of bad films like "They Fought for the Motherland" they show how the calculations of the MFR prick tanks like "nuts". Probably because the ZiS-3 regiment disguised in the depths of the defense, turning the advancing "groove" into a pile of metal, is not cool, and most importantly not heroic, but toss a bottle with a Molotov cocktail into the tank, or shoot a "tiger" from an ATR it's cool and heroic. Along the way, the image of the Red Army is being created as a beggar, unable even to provide its soldiers with normal weapons, since any person, in principle, understands that not only a "tiger", but also an easier tank from the PTR is problematic to stop.

Unfortunately, the war is won not by heroism, although without it, too, nowhere, but by the density of troops and artillery barrels on the km front. And the merit of the Soviet leadership, that despite the catastrophe of the 41st year, it gave into the hands of the soldiers not only PPSh and PTR, but also tens of thousands of T-34, ZiS-3, Il-2, D-30, etc. machines for converting German scum into worm feed in bulk quantities.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

Armored personnel carriers and other rubbish will simply be shot from battalion or regimental guns. What is not clear to you ??

With the same success, it can be argued that armored personnel carriers and other rubbish will be shot from the A-19 reserve of the main command. Alas, they are not everywhere. In the companies and battalions they are not. What is not clear to you ??

[wax]

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/grabin/23.html
Memories of Grabin about the ups and downs of guns, Kulik, Stalin, etc.

[zadorin1974]

dear Beltar- above you spoke out for the baton, so the PTR and were at one time that very club - before you find fault with the PTR, read the instructions for the shooter - armor-piercing ": hit in the viewing slots, hit the goose-front sprocket - if the goose is damaged, the tank will not deploy lose the moment, hit the side, hit at the base of the tower (witch the turning mechanism) "read the practice of placing the same ATGM on the front edge. Also, ATGMs were used not only in the infantry, but also as additional weapons on armored boats and sea hunters

[Beltar]

My dear, you still have to get into the viewing slots or any other vulnerable place. You don’t even understand what exactly such instructions mean, in fact it’s an admission that a PTR can disable a tank only by reaching certain points, in other cases you are a corpse, and the tank will go on quietly. You can’t even see the viewing gap on the tank for 20 meters with the naked eye, well, you can see it for 150 meters, but this is much less than the range with which any tank can simply shoot you. You can think of any tactics you want, but you will still bear terrible losses.

But if you have at least a 45 mm cannon, then even the later modifications of the "carapace" -4 can be stopped 500 meters away from it.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

You don’t even understand what exactly such instructions mean, in fact it’s an admission that a PTR can disable a tank only by reaching certain points, in other cases you are a corpse, and the tank will go on quietly.

The same was true for 345 mm guns. However, the fact that the weapon is not omnipotent does not make it unnecessary. It can work for one purpose and cannot work for others. It is for this reason that both the 45 mm guns and the PTR were produced.

[Yoshkin Kot]

he says that this had to fight from our poverty, from the loss of the artillery park at the beginning of the war and the Germans perfectly shot us from our own guns!
Glory to Our Grandfathers Winners! They paid with blood for the Victory, but the PTR played a role, but it would be better, for more artillery and tanks, more of them would return home!
Ie it is good that there were PTR, but the PTP division would be better than the PTA

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

Excuse me, but do you seriously think that a weapon with a penetration of 20-25 mm, which in order to hit a light tank had to hit it on board in a vulnerable place, was at least of some value in the 42nd?

Not an argument. Firstly, the Wehrmacht was full of lightly armored targets against which the PTR worked perfectly. And secondly, the fact that some system cannot hit ALL armored objects does not make it trash. German PaK36 also could not hit HF. So what? Are we now going to give 100 mm guns to infantry companies?

[Skavron]

Plus, it was easier for fighters with PTR to disguise themselves, easier to transport, and easier to dump if something happens ...)
And with the same 45th PTP there would be more problems, although the weapons would be more powerful.

[Beltar]

Yes, it's easier. The only sense is from camouflage, if you shoot only at the side between the rollers. "A rod is long - life is short," that's the whole tale of the armor-piercing men themselves about this squalor.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

Yes, yes, easier. Only sense from camouflage, if you shoot only at the side between the rollers

Yes of course. Only sense from this gun, if the company does not rely on it ... And we will destroy the half-tracks from the PPSh. That’s the whole story of the foot soldiers about this squalor.
They have already explained to you 100 times that:
1) The Wehrmacht did not consist entirely of vehicles with anti-shell armor, especially in 1941.
2). PTR, like artillery, has its own place. Decisive system absolutely all tasks on a global scale does not exist yet. But there is a compromise between mobility, weight and combat effectiveness.

[Beltar]

My dear noob, a company is conducting a combined arms battle as part of a battalion. The battalion already had 45 mm. Yes, and any meaningful operation is already being carried out by the forces of the regiment, and the regiment is already a combined arms formation with its artillery. If a company of partisans is looking for in the forests, then it does not need any anti-tank missiles.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

My dear noob

Well, this is due to powerlessness and lack of arguments, as I understand it.

Quote: Beltar

The company is conducting a combined arms battle as part of the battalion. The battalion already had 45 mm.

... and as part of the regiment, and, as a result, as part of the Armed Forces. Thus, a simple company commander could easily use B-4 howitzers from the Artillery Reserve of the Supreme High Command at any time.
You already in my opinion have reported in a desire to prove the unprovable ...

[Beltar]

And in your opinion, the commander of the enemy company could safely use the tanks? But I know that at that time there was 1 tank for every 100 people. And the tanks themselves, as a rule, were not even included in rifle battalions (although Pyltsin in his book "The Truth About Penal Battals" gives infa that they had a T-60 in the penalty battalion, but the penal battalion itself was part of the regiment level with the corresponding powers of the commanders, in small numbers tanks were in the reconnaissance battles). And all heavy tanks, both here and among the Germans, went to separate formations attached to the troops on decisive axes.
So it’s not necessary to write nonsense, the ability of individual fighters and even lower-level formations to engage in battle with tanks was determined not at all by the presence of light anti-tank weapons in them, but by the organization of the battle of combined arms units.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

And in your opinion, the commander of the enemy company could safely use the tanks?

Not an argument. The company commander must use their own anti-tank weapons to combat light armored objects. Who exactly uses the attacking tanks he, in fact, does not care. So pass by, colleague!

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

So it’s not necessary to write nonsense, the ability of individual fighters and even lower-level formations to engage in battle with tanks was determined not at all by the presence of light anti-tank weapons in them, but by the organization of the battle of combined arms units.

Alas, the argument is past. The organization of the battle of combined arms units does not in any way abolish the need to have own anti-tank equipment in companies and battalions. That is why in the countries of Europe before the war and produced PTR. There was no question of any shortage of anything then. And you have not yet disproved this stubborn fact ...

[wax]

Dear Beltar, everything that you say is true, but the variety of combat situations, as well as the composition of the Nazi armored vehicles at the beginning of the war, is also true. The production of anti-tank rifles speaks for itself, otherwise Stalin would not have customized the factories. Well, artillery is the god of the past war, which is not in dispute.
Memories of Grabin: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/grabin/index.html

Of the 140 thousand field guns that our soldiers fought during the Great Patriotic War, more than 90 thousand were made at the plant, which was headed by V.G. Grabin as the Chief Designer (in the book this plant is called Privolzhsky), and another 30 thousand were manufactured on Grabin's projects at other factories in the country. Few people knew the name of V.G. Grabin, but everyone knew the famous divisional gun ZIS-3, which absorbed all the advantages of the famous Russian "three-inch" gun and multiplied them many times, appreciated [4] by the highest world authorities as a masterpiece of design thought. These cannons to this day stand on memorial pedestals on the fields of major battles - like a monument to Russian weapons. So the people appreciated them. The T-100s and KV heavy tanks were armed with Grabin cannons, the Grabin XNUMX-millimeter “St.

[Beltar]

The situation then was succinctly characterized by a short Russian word with the letter "x" and it was necessary to arm people with what they have, reconciling with increased losses.

By the way, to the question of the mass of PTR in other countries.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Военное_производство_во_время_Второй_мировой_войны

It turns out that the United Kingdom formally cheap and mass weapons produced 2 times less than normal guns.

I am not surprised if in the modern Russian army there are still hand-held anti-tank grenades in warehouses, and there are still 100 and 115 mm anti-tank guns, and there are probably more shells by 100 mm. In principle, the good old BS-3 will pierce any modern tank on board, except that the DZ will save, and any infantry fighting vehicle will be thrown right through, and a grenade from the 50s can be thrown into an armored vehicle with some success, but this does not mean that we should give up " Cornet "," Chrysanthemums "and 125 mm" Octopus ".

[Kars]

Quote: Beltar

By the way, on the issue of the mass of PTR in other countries

You are a real clown.

Express your opinion why now in the arsenal of different countries there are antimaterial rifles?

[Beltar]

And why not be a large-caliber rifle? Especially useful for specials. units, you can break through wooden barriers, low-quality thin steel. But whether they are needed in linear parts is another question.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

But whether they are needed in linear parts is another question.

And an unambiguous answer was given to this question in almost all European countries: yes, we need it. That is why the PTRs were in service before the war, contrary to your claims about their military ersatz nature.

[Beltar]

In addition to the strongest France at that time.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

In addition to the strongest France at that time.

... defeated by Germany, in which the PTR were ...
And you did not refute the thesis: PTRs were in service before the war, contrary to your claims about their military ersatz nature.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

In principle, the good old BS-3 will pierce any modern tank on board, except that the DZ will save, and any infantry fighting vehicle will be thrown right through, and a grenade from the 50s can be thrown into an armored vehicle with some success, but this does not mean that we should give up " Cornet "," Chrysanthemums "and 125 mm" Octopus ".

You argue with a statement that you yourself have advanced. No one suggested replacing the PTR artillery. This is just your statement - that PTR, they say, is a cheap ersatz of wartime. They convincingly showed you that:

1. PTR has its own place in the structure of armaments different from anti-tank artillery.
2. PTR produced and were in service before the war in most European countries.

And so far you have nothing to cover ...

[Beltar]

I repeat the 158th time, the company doesn’t fight on its own, by the way, if light armored objects are so nervous about you, then the DShK tore them at a time, from 12.7 mm, and now not every armored car is protected. It would be more logical then to give it to every company, and this even makes sense, when fighting in a forest, in a village, etc. a large-caliber machine gun will penetrate a significant part of the obstacles, it’s easy to set fire barriers and even shoot down planes when the shooter is fortunate.

The failure of an individual soldier, or even a platoon to kill a tank, does not mean that the division is not capable of grinding dozens of tanks.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

I repeat for the 158th time, the company does not conduct a battle on its own

I repeat the 159th time that this does not mean that the company does not need its own anti-tank weapons. As we observed in the European armies BEFORE the war. So once again by.

Quote: Beltar

By the way, if you are so nervous about light armored objects, then the DShK tore them at times, from 12.7 mm and now not every armored vehicle is protected

DShK is more expensive and heavier than PTR and its armor penetration is lower.

Quote: Beltar

The failure of an individual soldier, or even a platoon to kill a tank, does not mean that the division is not capable of grinding dozens of tanks.

... and even more so does not mean that the company and the battalion do not need their own means of vocational training.

[dievleha]

You argue well here, but Beltar is right arming 45 mm cannons is much more effective quote from the article "Soviet commanders already in 1942 noted new features of the Germans conducting attacks with the participation of tanks and assault guns - sometimes they stopped 300-400 m from the forward trenches , supported their infantry with fire from their place. And this is the range from which the Soviet anti-tank systems opened fire, "if they tried to do it with 45 mm armament, the result would have been one USSR lost too much in 41 and he tried to compensate for the lack of 45 mm cannons with ersatz products. were also subordinate to the battalion and not the company http://topwar.ru/13190-otechestvennye-protivotankovye-ruzhya.html

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: dievleha

You argue well here, but Beltar is rightly armed with 45 mm guns much more efficiently.

And 100mm cannons are even more effective. Will we give them to the companies? You read for a change!

[dievleha]

Yes, what does the company have to do with, read the tactics of using the PTR and learn that they were NOT in the companies, they were the same as the 45 mm battalion submission, but the gun is by definition more effective as trying to explain to you
Beltar

[Uncle Serozha]

Firstly, there were PTRs in the companies, and secondly, since July 1941 there were NO guns in the battalions. So past ...

[Kars]

Quote: Beltar

By the way, to the question of the mass of PTR in other countries.

For the first time "Boyes" were used in combat conditions not by the British, but by the Finnish army during the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940. Orders for the PTR "Boyes" were issued by the British army until January 1942, when it became obvious that they were already ineffective. They were replaced by RIAT grenade launchers. In total, about 69,000 shotguns were produced, some of which were supplied to the USA and Canada. Anti-tank rifles "Boyes" armed with a reconnaissance version of the armored personnel carrier "Universal" - "Scout Carrier

In October 1938, the Polish army received the first 2,000 rifles.

In August 1939, there were already 3,500 of them, which amounted to approximately 45% of the planned 7,610 units. Excessive secrecy led to the fact that this powerful anti-tank weapon remained undeveloped and was not used properly in September 1939. The Wehrmacht received 886 guns as trophies. Got index PzB 35 (p) guns were in service in the Waffen SS and was used by them in the war against the USSR. Part of the PTR PzB 35 (p) was transferred to the Italian and Hungarian armies

Together with the PzB.39, the 7.92x94 cartridge under the designation "318" (full designation Patrone 318 SmK-Rs-L'spur or Patrone 318 SmKH-Rs-L'spur) was adopted for service with the PzB.XNUMX.

His bullet weighing 14.5 g accelerated in the barrel to 1,180 m / s. The fairly high armor-piercing effect of a bullet, piercing at a distance of 400 m, 20-mm armor set at an angle of 20 ° to the normal, was provided by a tungsten core. To increase the effectiveness of the impact on armored vehicles, an irritating composition (chloroacetophenone) was located in the bottom recess of the core. Bullets with chloroacetophenone were not widely used. Production of the "318" cartridge continued until August 1942. A total of 9,417,000 rounds were produced.

In September 1939, the Wehrmacht had only 62 PTRs, and by June 1, 1941, the Wehrmacht was already armed with 25,298 PzB.38 and PzB.39 rifles. PzB.39 was the main anti-tank weapon of the German infantry, and was included in almost all units of the Wehrmacht

[Beltar]

Funny how the weapon with a penetration of 20 mm became the basis of anti-tank defense?

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

Funny how the weapon with a penetration of 20 mm became the basis of anti-tank defense?

Do not replace our theses with yours. Neither Kar nor I spoke of the PTR as the basis of anti-tank defense. We talked about them as a means of vocational training of the company and battalion level. And while you have no arguments refuting this thesis.

[dievleha]

in the continuation of the dispute started in the topic "anti-tank guns" for England, the anti-tank rifle was the same lifesaver as for the USSR, Large losses of anti-tank guns in France, the unsuccessful design of the 3-inch (17-pounder) anti-tank gun was forced to rush to the anti-tank rifle, which explains a lot the released quantity about germany the same factors the more losses in the guns of the battalion subordination of the PTO, the more ATR is taken

[dievleha]

Sorry for the inaccuracy, not the 3-inch (17-pound) but 2-pound (40-mm) Mk I anti-tank gun

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

Funny how the weapon with a penetration of 20 mm became the basis of anti-tank defense?

And no one called him the main weapon of the anti-terrorist operation; they just convincingly demonstrated to you that your assertion that the anti-tank missile can be produced only in conditions of total war is totally wrong. Along with other anti-tank weapons (and not instead of them), anti-tank missiles have their place in the structure of infantry armaments and that is why many countries had them in service before the war.
And so far you cannot prove the opposite.

[Beltar]

They clearly showed you that all normal countries were more interested in 20-25 mm guns, France received them, in other countries there were prototypes.
The curtailment of such developments in the conditions of the already begun war only confirms that even more powerful systems had little combat value. After all, they did not spare resources for the development and modernization of heavy weapons. In fact, the question was how to equip a soldier on the battlefield, so that he wouldn’t run to the enemy with bare hands and how to strengthen an already powerful weapon, and all the trash was produced only afterwards, because he was super cheap.

In general, as far as I know, even the 37 mm cannon could be pierced by the same T-34, but the projectile simply crumbled into dust without causing any damage in the space beyond. And you're talking about 12.7 mm ...

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

They clearly showed you that all normal countries were more interested in 20-25 mm guns, France received them, in other countries there were prototypes.

You just haven’t shown this. Quite the opposite - you have shown the opposite. For 20-30 mm guns remained in the prototypes (according to you), and PTRs were mass-produced before the war and were in service with almost all European countries. And you have nothing to argue with this yet ...

[Beltar]

Well cheaper PTR, this is the only plus. During a major war, heavy weapons come to the fore, then what comes with it is a soldier who can run into the attack. All other samples, in principle, are not particularly needed. Well, there will be a 23 mm gun stronger than the PTR and Kotsi infantry, even up to 45 mm far away. PTR can be copied, which is what they did, to bring the gun up, is it worth wasting time if its combat value is still low?

The SVT rifle during the war also did not receive distribution, although the PCA compared to it is simply squalor, but cheaper. In the first years of distribution ZiS-2 did not receive due to technological problems, however, troops would have suffered much smaller losses if there were no PTR in them at all, but ZiS-2 is always abundant.

You look strange somehow, you see that something was produced there, but you don’t see for what reason, and what the real effect of this production was. In general, I believe that the production of PTR was a mistake, even in conditions of shortage of guns.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

Well cheaper PTR, this is the only plus. During a major war, heavy weapons come to the fore, then what comes with it is a soldier who can run into the attack. All other samples, in principle, are not particularly needed.

This is exactly what the data you provided testify to. Small-caliber guns were developed, but the PTR was adopted. That is, their value was anyway higher.

Quote: Beltar

PTR can be copied, which is what they did, to bring the gun up, is it worth wasting time if its combat value is still low?

Once again: before the war, countries (see the list above) were armed with specially developed, but not copied PTR. So alas ...

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

troops would have suffered much smaller losses if there were no PTR in them at all, but ZiS-2 is always in abundance.

... and much smaller losses if the ZiS-2 were not in them at all, but the A-19 is always in abundance. Thanks, have fun ...

[Beltar]

In general, I would like to see the real statistics of the combat use of the PTR, the Sycock was nevertheless shot, even if not by tanks, but by armored personnel carriers, which no one had ridden with during the attack.

[Beltar]

And here is the order of Zhukov. G. K.
http://www.battlefield.ru/under-appreciation-antitank-rifles-grenades.html

What do we see? And we see the following, that Georgy Konstantinovich has to take measures so that the soldiers use PTR and grenades in battle. That is, despite assurances of the effectiveness of this weapon (the commander will not write that we handed you the crap, because there was nothing better), the soldiers simply abandon it, and the commanders of the companies often see simply additional shooters in the PTR calculations, which will be more useful if they shoot from a three-ruler, or machine gun. This is the question of how the company oh how to protect themselves from light armored vehicles. The soldiers didn’t believe in the PTR, and it’s not surprising if they see the artillery stabbing tanks from a safe distance, and they need to let the car go 50-100 meters.

I am far from the idea of ​​exaggerating the combat capabilities of the lower level of the Red Army of 41-42. For poorly trained infantry, it is generally typical to expect that artillery will do all the work for it, and it itself is not capable of solving even the simplest tactical tasks, and is afraid to attack. The same A. Isaev cites an example when, in order to eliminate one lousy machine-gun nest, the advice of the front command was needed, since the commanders of the company and battalion were not finished before they sent quietly several submachine gunners who, as a result, easily removed the obstacle. The Americans in Normandy in the 44th also suffered from this. But the fact remains, the infantry in the PTR did not believe, and in order to force the soldiers to use the PTR, orders from the front command were required. Because the front commander needs to somehow stop the tanks when he doesn’t have enough artillery, but for armored soldiers this means climbing almost under the tracks, and everyone wants to live.

I recommend thinking about the preparation factor especially, because the fact that the weaker the infantry is trained, the more it will depend on the heavy weapons of the regimental and divisional levels, and the less useful it will be to give it something more powerful than the rifleman.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

The soldiers didn’t believe in the PTR, and it’s not surprising if they see the artillery stabbing tanks from a safe distance, and they need to let the car go 50-100 meters.

The link you provided does not in any way confirm your thesis. Soldiers might or might not believe what they liked. In particular, at the beginning of the war they did not believe in the need to dig in. But this absolutely cannot shake the fact that the PTRs in many European armies were a valuable combat tool for fighting light armored vehicles. Comparing them with artillery is pointless, because there was no artillery at the company and battalion levels. And for now you have nothing to object to.

[Beltar]

Do you even read what they write to you? In companies, armor-piercers were given a three-line or PPSh, and the PTR was thrown, the soldiers themselves on the battlefield did not see much use in the PTP. Find me pliz info that the soldiers did not use the three-line or "forty-five" in battle. And, for example, reviews of the T-34 and KV from combat units, albeit not enthusiastic, but the vehicles have good protection and firepower, the crews are not afraid to go into battle on them, unlike the same "Shermans" in the 44th year, who were especially afraid of tank battles.

Similarly, in the 44th year, our troops will collect stacks of abandoned fauspatrons:

This weapon, as well as anti-tank rifles, has also become a kind of
symbol of the era. However, for some reason they forget that, despite the release of a huge batch, over 8 million units, the faustpatron steadily occupied the bottom lines in the statistics of Soviet tank losses. As a rule, the share of losses from the faustpatron did not rise above 10% of the total number of lost tanks, even in an operation such as Berlin. The maximum was reached only in the 2nd Guards Tank Army in the Berlin operation - 22,5% of the losses from faust cartridges. In operations in open areas, the proportion of tanks hit by faust cartridges dropped to 5%. Note that the column "faust cartridges" often featured hand-held cumulative anti-tank grenades.
What is characteristic, during the breakthrough of the German defensive lines in
Operation "Bagration" and the Lvov-Sandomierz operation of 1944, our troops found a large number of faust cartridges abandoned in the trenches unused. It was concluded that it is morally very difficult to use such a weapon against a tank from a distance of 30-50 m (here, of course, the decline in the general level of training of Wehrmacht soldiers in the last year of the war played a role).

[Andrey77]

You're lying. VET guns were at the company level and above. There were decent artillery systems at the battalion level.

[Uncle Serozha]

Quote: Beltar

Do you even read what they write to you? In the companies, the armored personnel carriers were given a three-ruler or PPSh, and they were abandoned by the PTR; the soldiers themselves on the battlefield did not see much benefit in the PTR.

That you do not seem to read what they write to you. The irrational disbelief of the soldiers in the need to dig in also took place. What does not cancel this need. In the absence of light armored shells, PTR calculations could operate with small arms, which also means nothing. And it certainly cannot shake the fact that the PTR was a valuable means of the technical and vocational education of the company. The Zhukov’s order you have cited is precisely what this indicates, because if the PTR was useless, no one would demand their use. So again you are past something ...

[Andrey77]

And it certainly can not shake the fact that the PTR was a valuable means of VET company management
--
Yah? Valuable company PTO? Maybe we’ll translate bottles from the COP to the company level?

[Tankist_1980]

In the film "Brest Fortress" the soldier says: "Now I would like to have an anti-tank rifle" ... And this is June 22 ...