Soviets WW2

[donnie]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Did the Russians have aything like the Panzerfaust/shrek, or Bazooka
or even the PIAT? I don't think so.

Why not I wonder?

Donnie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Certainly they did, the ones they captured!

However the Panzerfaust went on to be developed into the RPG series.

Also have to remember that the Russian infantryman was hardly trained - see
Enemy at the Gates, one man with the rifle, when he falls down his comrade
picks it up.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:ctkf11pprrjb0l6d21ljcilm3g7bv6boeb@4ax.com...
> Did the Russians have aything like the Panzerfaust/shrek, or Bazooka
> or even the PIAT? I don't think so.

They had anti-tank rifles in two flavours the PTRS and PTRD. The also had
some handheld anti-tank grenades later in the war (confusingly called RPGs!)
and captured panzerfausts etc. as well as Molotov cocktails.

> Why not I wonder?

The didn't develop a hollow charge infantry AT projector until after the
war, and that was essentially a rehash of German designs.

The ATRs they used weren't great but they were moderately effective as they
were used en masse as a sort of anti-tank rifle barrage. Could penetrate
25mm of armour at 500m so whilst they couldn't stop a Tiger they were useful
against the flanks of the rather more numerous Panzer IIIs & IVs and against
all the other lighter vehicles from any angle.

Like developing APCs I guess they decided that whilst the war was on they
had other priorities than developing infantry AT weapons. The Russians
didn't seem to have vast difficulties in destroying German armour although
they relied on direct fire by heavy weapons or tanks, ground attack aircraft
or individual heroics.

The deficiencies in both APCs and infantry AT were speedily rectified after
the war, the former bringing us BTRs and BMPs, the latter the RPG.

Cheers
Martin

 

[donnie]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:29:16 -0000, "Martin Rapier"
<m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote:

>"Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:ctkf11pprrjb0l6d21ljcilm3g7bv6boeb@4ax.com...
>> Did the Russians have aything like the Panzerfaust/shrek, or Bazooka
>> or even the PIAT? I don't think so.
>
>They had anti-tank rifles in two flavours the PTRS and PTRD. The also had
>some handheld anti-tank grenades later in the war (confusingly called RPGs!)
>and captured panzerfausts etc. as well as Molotov cocktails.
>
>> Why not I wonder?
>
>The didn't develop a hollow charge infantry AT projector until after the
>war, and that was essentially a rehash of German designs.
>
>The ATRs they used weren't great but they were moderately effective as they
>were used en masse as a sort of anti-tank rifle barrage. Could penetrate
>25mm of armour at 500m so whilst they couldn't stop a Tiger they were useful
>against the flanks of the rather more numerous Panzer IIIs & IVs and against
>all the other lighter vehicles from any angle.
>
>Like developing APCs I guess they decided that whilst the war was on they
>had other priorities than developing infantry AT weapons. The Russians
>didn't seem to have vast difficulties in destroying German armour although
>they relied on direct fire by heavy weapons or tanks, ground attack aircraft
>or individual heroics.
>
>The deficiencies in both APCs and infantry AT were speedily rectified after
>the war, the former bringing us BTRs and BMPs, the latter the RPG.
>
>Cheers
>Martin
>
>
>
Interesting thank you. I didn't know about the ATRs, but it does make
sense given the Soviet quantity v quality preference.

The Panzerfaust was designed to be so easy to use even housewives were
supposed to use it, which is why I couldn't figure out that the
Soviets couldn't copy something so simple that even their infantry
could "point and shoot".

Lastly of course, why didn't we send them 1,000 of Bazookas or PIATs
in Lend Lease?

Thanks again.

Donnie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
{snippity re Sov infantry AT}

> Interesting thank you. I didn't know about the ATRs, but it does make
> sense given the Soviet quantity v quality preference.

Yes, they were issued in similar numbers to western armies and used by
dedicated ATR platoons at battalion level (the platoon had 9 ATRs).

> The Panzerfaust was designed to be so easy to use even housewives were
> supposed to use it, which is why I couldn't figure out that the
> Soviets couldn't copy something so simple that even their infantry
> could "point and shoot".

By the time they encountered panzerfausts in significant numbers (mid 44),
it just didn't seem to be a priority - reinforced rifle divisions used for
offensive operations had so many attached tanks and assault guns that
infantry AT capability was very low on the list of requirements. This didn't
stop the infantry from grabbing as many captured panzerfausts as they could
of course (and they captured a lot in the series of Summer 1944 offensives).

> Lastly of course, why didn't we send them 1,000 of Bazookas or PIATs
> in Lend Lease?

I believe some bazookas were sent, I came across an interesting website
here:

http://miniatures.de/html/int/shells-russian.html

Looks like I was wrong about the PTRS & PTRD, penetration of 38mm! - this
makes them damn dangerous.

Cheers
Martin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

<<>>
>> Lastly of course, why didn't we send them 1,000 of Bazookas or PIATs
>> in Lend Lease?
>
> I believe some bazookas were sent,

8,500 bazookas were sent.
And some PIATs, but i couldn't find a number.
I've never come across any reports on usage of these weapons.
It's possible that they arrived in Russia and spent the war sat in some
warehouse or something.

They also started the war with a weird personal projector, the ampulomet.
Wasn't a success and withdrawn fairly quickly.
This was a mortar which fired a ball containing jellied gasoline.

In the early 30s the Sovs experimented with a rocket propelled weapon.
This fired a normal explosive charge rather than shaped charge and the
trials weren't positive.
I guess maybe this gave rocket propelled weapons a bad rep.

> I came across an interesting website here:
>
> http://miniatures.de/html/int/shells-russian.html
>
> Looks like I was wrong about the PTRS & PTRD, penetration of 38mm! - this
> makes them damn dangerous.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
Dunno about that 38 mate.
25 to 30mil is more usually quoted.
35mil at 100yards at 90degrees using the improved ammo.
You have to take all these stats with a bunch of salt though.
With a lot of these sort of trials the different nationalities used
different hardness and quality armour for tests and different criteria for
what constituted penetration. An ATR bullet is relatively small and if it
just about penetrates into a vehicle it's quite possibly going to do little
or no damage.
Time after time, tank crews in the field found that their shells bounced off
the enemy tanks when the stats indicated they would penetrate.

The main danger to even pz3 and pz4 was usually reckoned to be via damage to
running gear and the like as opposed to direct penetration.

 

[donnie]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:55:57 GMT, "Andy O'Neill"
<aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote:

><<>>

I'm answering both of you. Thanks.
>>> Lastly of course, why didn't we send them 1,000 of Bazookas or PIATs
>>> in Lend Lease?
>>
>> I believe some bazookas were sent,
>
>8,500 bazookas were sent.
>And some PIATs, but i couldn't find a number.
>I've never come across any reports on usage of these weapons.
>It's possible that they arrived in Russia and spent the war sat in some
>warehouse or something.

I wonder just how many of the Spitfires, Shermans and PIATs were
actually used. I suspect that most of the stuff we sent was unsuitable
for the Soviets, but on the other hand I can't believe that even if
they had used, say, all the Shermans we sent then Stalin would have
acknowledged the contribution of "the little allies".

The Soviet Army DID win the war, but to what extent our Convoys helped
I don't think has yet been acknowledged. (Certainly every Truck/Lorry
we sent was used!)

>
>They also started the war with a weird personal projector, the ampulomet.
>Wasn't a success and withdrawn fairly quickly.
>This was a mortar which fired a ball containing jellied gasoline.

Weird, you'd think that with Soviet Armour design so far ahead of,
well, even the Germans, they'd have forseen the need for an infantry
held anti-tank weapon.
>
>In the early 30s the Sovs experimented with a rocket propelled weapon.
>This fired a normal explosive charge rather than shaped charge and the
>trials weren't positive.
>I guess maybe this gave rocket propelled weapons a bad rep.

Certainly possible, you know how whole avenues of exploration are
blocked off by one error or by a stupid Political decision.
>
>> I came across an interesting website here:
>>
>> http://miniatures.de/html/int/shells-russian.html

Damn you sirrah! Another bloody favourite for my computer <g>
>>
>> Looks like I was wrong about the PTRS & PTRD, penetration of 38mm! - this
>> makes them damn dangerous.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Martin
>>
>>
>Dunno about that 38 mate.
>25 to 30mil is more usually quoted.
>35mil at 100yards at 90degrees using the improved ammo.
>You have to take all these stats with a bunch of salt though.
>With a lot of these sort of trials the different nationalities used
>different hardness and quality armour for tests and different criteria for
>what constituted penetration. An ATR bullet is relatively small and if it
>just about penetrates into a vehicle it's quite possibly going to do little
>or no damage.
>Time after time, tank crews in the field found that their shells bounced off
>the enemy tanks when the stats indicated they would penetrate.
>
>The main danger to even pz3 and pz4 was usually reckoned to be via damage to
>running gear and the like as opposed to direct penetration.
>
All true. But I wouldn't want to be inside any tank that had an even
partially spent bullet bouncing around in it.

Thanks again, both.

Donnie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

As someone pointed out the ATR armor penetration ability had become
more or less irrelevant against tanks pretty early in the war. The
Soviets used the ATR very effectively as a sniping weapon against
various targets. Against soft sides it could of course penetrate.
Against tanks and SPG's they fired into the driver's vision slot or any
similar opening with the intention of ricocheting the round inside the
tank which caused serious wounds or death to the crew. Or they took
out the tank commander if he was looking out topside.

Pieces of metal flying around inside a tank are a serious problem (one
of the issues with several types of tank was their tendency to throw
off pieces of metal inside when hit on the outside by a non penetrating
round - there's a term for this which escapes me - spalding perhaps?)
because of the likelihood of serious crew injury in the confined space.

There is commentary on this in at least one of the East Front German
memoirs - Carius perhaps? - where the author talks about the respect
the German crews had for the ATR. They often drove around buttoned up
to prevent ATR sniping - and of course buttoned up tanks are more
vunerable to being sneaked up on.

LE

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:153n11dg3ljcraolcpn15qfuheeik4r2vf@4ax.com...
<<>>
> I wonder just how many of the Spitfires, Shermans and PIATs were
> actually used. I suspect that most of the stuff we sent was unsuitable
> for the Soviets, but on the other hand I can't believe that even if
> they had used, say, all the Shermans we sent then Stalin would have
> acknowledged the contribution of "the little allies".

Stalin's policy was to deliberately downplay the usefulness of lend lease.
Definitely every working sherman was used, along with pretty much the entire
canadian production of valentines iirc.

I seem to recall at least some PIATs were delivered with bren carriers which
I think were used as tows.

Bazookas, I can't recall ever seeing a picture of one or reading any report
of their use.
You do read a lot about the ATR platoons
I have wondered in the past whether they just didn't bother carting the
bazookas to the front because they already had a bunch of AT weapons out
there and didn't want yet another strain on their over-strained logistics.
Dunno.
They went to some lengths to pick up pzfausts after combat, so they
obviously valued those. I think mainly for demolishing houses rather than
tanks though.

Oh.
It's my understanding that the first russsian rpg with a rocket was pretty
much a direct copy of a late german design - the 150m. I seem to recall
something about german technicians working on the thing.

--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Andy O'Neill" <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
newsdZSd.156821
{snippity}
> Stalin's policy was to deliberately downplay the usefulness of lend lease.
> Definitely every working sherman was used, along with pretty much the
> entire canadian production of valentines iirc.

Yes, although the Russians weren't sure what to make of the Valentine so
decided it must be for recce as it has such a small gun! Being heavily
armoured and reliable I gather it was actually quite popular with recce tank
crews, unlike the 'Grave for Seven Brothers', the Grant. Churchill IVs were
used as independant heavy tank regiments by 5th Guards Tank Army at Kursk
and in 1945 several complete Tank Corps were outfitted with Shermans.

> I seem to recall at least some PIATs were delivered with bren carriers
> which I think were used as tows.

Carriers were also used for armoured recce tasks to supplement armoured
cars, White Scout Cars etc.

> Bazookas, I can't recall ever seeing a picture of one or reading any
> report of their use.

Me neither.

{snippity}
> They went to some lengths to pick up pzfausts after combat, so they
> obviously valued those. I think mainly for demolishing houses rather than
> tanks though.

Yes - I just think infantry AT weapons weren't regarded as being especially
useful by 1944 as there were sufficient tanks, SPGs and AT guns to go around
along with all those ATRs. Point taken wrt the penetration stats, I was a
bit surprised at how high they were on that website.

> It's my understanding that the first russsian rpg with a rocket was pretty
> much a direct copy of a late german design - the 150m. I seem to recall
> something about german technicians working on the thing.

Yes, never quite sure if it was designated RPG-1 or RPG-2.

Martin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote in
news:cvi48n$n0u$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk:

> "Andy O'Neill" <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote in
> message newsdZSd.156821
[Snips]
>> It's my understanding that the first russsian rpg with a
>> rocket was pretty much a direct copy of a late german
>> design - the 150m. I seem to recall something about german
>> technicians working on the thing.
>
> Yes, never quite sure if it was designated RPG-1 or RPG-2.

The original designation of the first of the modern RPG series
was LPG-44 (from the year), firing projectile PG-70 (from the
projectile calibre of 70mm).

LPG, as your agile minds will at once grasp, must stand for
"Lyogkiy Protivotankoviy Granatomyot" ("Light Anti-tank Grenade-
launcher) and PG, just as in current usage, "Protivotankoviy
Granat" ("Anti-tank grenade").

Experimentation with the LPG-44 lasted from 1944 to 1948, under
the direction of G. P. Lominskiy of the GAU. On the completion
of firing trials in 1945 the launcher was redesignated RPG-1, RPG
in this case signifying "Ruchnoy Protivotankoviy Granatomyot"
("Hand-Held Anti-tank Grenade-launcher) as distinct from
"Reaktivnaya Protivotankovaya Granata" ("Rocket-propelled Anti-
tank Grenade") which applies to the disposable-launcher weapons.
The projectile was redesignated PG-1.

The RPG-1 was never adopted for service, the superior RPG-2
firing projectile PG-2 (originally designated DRG-40 and PG-80
respectively, after their calibres in mm) being adopted in 1949.

It seems to me highly unlikely that these weapons had any
particularly strong German influence on their development. The
development of RPG-1 was started while the war was still in full
swing, so I very much doubt that any German engineers contributed
to its development. The RPG-2 looks more Germanic, if only
because of the shape of the warhead, which is visually similar to
that of the PF-44 Lanze. The Russians were by no means behind-
hand in recoilless weapon research; B. S. Petropavlovskiy
developed a smoothbore 65mm recoilless anti-tank weapon in 1930,
but it was not considered effective, as it relied on a hard alloy
penetrator rather than a hollow-charge warhead.

Source for all this: "Protivotankoviye granatomyotniye
kompleksi" ("Anti-tank grenade-launcher systems") by Lovi,
Koren'kov, Bazilevich & Korablin, Western Horizon publishers,
Moscow, 2001.

All the best,

John.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

In message <1109169649.983485.156060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Lord
Elphinstone <elphybey@ameritech.net> writes
>As someone pointed out the ATR armor penetration ability had become
>more or less irrelevant against tanks pretty early in the war. The
>Soviets used the ATR very effectively as a sniping weapon against
>various targets. Against soft sides it could of course penetrate.
>Against tanks and SPG's they fired into the driver's vision slot or any
>similar opening with the intention of ricocheting the round inside the
>tank which caused serious wounds or death to the crew. Or they took
>out the tank commander if he was looking out topside.
>
>Pieces of metal flying around inside a tank are a serious problem (one
>of the issues with several types of tank was their tendency to throw
>off pieces of metal inside when hit on the outside by a non penetrating
>round - there's a term for this which escapes me - spalding perhaps?)
>
Spalling
--
John Secker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:h$beQsCS3NHCFw9+@secker.demon.co.uk:

> In message
> <1109169649.983485.156060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Lord Elphinstone <elphybey@ameritech.net> writes
[Snips]
>>Pieces of metal flying around inside a tank are a serious
>>problem (one of the issues with several types of tank was
>>their tendency to throw off pieces of metal inside when hit
>>on the outside by a non penetrating round - there's a term
>>for this which escapes me - spalding perhaps?)
>>
> Spalling

There is also the term "Hopkinson effect", although poor old
Hopkinson seems doomed to obscurity by comparison with Monroe,
von Neumann, Misznay and Schardin. Quite why Burney didn't get
his name in the hat I don't know.

Spalling is not the only source of behind-armour debris from non-
penetrating hits, as in the case of rivets with straight shanks a
hit on the head might drive the body of the rivet into the
vehicle. For this reason, the rivets in the Cromwell (and AIUI
some German vehicles) had tapered shanks, which obviated the
problem.

All the best,

John.

 

[donnie]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:29:35 -0600, John D Salt
<jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:

>"Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote in
>news:cvi48n$n0u$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk:
>
>> "Andy O'Neill" <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote in
>> message newsdZSd.156821
>[Snips]
>>> It's my understanding that the first russsian rpg with a
>>> rocket was pretty much a direct copy of a late german
>>> design - the 150m. I seem to recall something about german
>>> technicians working on the thing.
>>
>> Yes, never quite sure if it was designated RPG-1 or RPG-2.
>
>The original designation of the first of the modern RPG series
>was LPG-44 (from the year), firing projectile PG-70 (from the
>projectile calibre of 70mm).
>
>LPG, as your agile minds will at once grasp, must stand for
>"Lyogkiy Protivotankoviy Granatomyot" ("Light Anti-tank Grenade-
>launcher) and PG, just as in current usage, "Protivotankoviy
>Granat" ("Anti-tank grenade").
>
>Experimentation with the LPG-44 lasted from 1944 to 1948, under
>the direction of G. P. Lominskiy of the GAU. On the completion
>of firing trials in 1945 the launcher was redesignated RPG-1, RPG
>in this case signifying "Ruchnoy Protivotankoviy Granatomyot"
>("Hand-Held Anti-tank Grenade-launcher) as distinct from
>"Reaktivnaya Protivotankovaya Granata" ("Rocket-propelled Anti-
>tank Grenade") which applies to the disposable-launcher weapons.
>The projectile was redesignated PG-1.
>
>The RPG-1 was never adopted for service, the superior RPG-2
>firing projectile PG-2 (originally designated DRG-40 and PG-80
>respectively, after their calibres in mm) being adopted in 1949.
>
>It seems to me highly unlikely that these weapons had any
>particularly strong German influence on their development. The
>development of RPG-1 was started while the war was still in full
>swing, so I very much doubt that any German engineers contributed
>to its development. The RPG-2 looks more Germanic, if only
>because of the shape of the warhead, which is visually similar to
>that of the PF-44 Lanze. The Russians were by no means behind-
>hand in recoilless weapon research; B. S. Petropavlovskiy
>developed a smoothbore 65mm recoilless anti-tank weapon in 1930,
>but it was not considered effective, as it relied on a hard alloy
>penetrator rather than a hollow-charge warhead.
>
>Source for all this: "Protivotankoviye granatomyotniye
>kompleksi" ("Anti-tank grenade-launcher systems") by Lovi,
>Koren'kov, Bazilevich & Korablin, Western Horizon publishers,
>Moscow, 2001.
>
>All the best,
>
>John.
>
>
I wish you could meet my wife. She could throttle you not me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message
{snippity of dev history of RPG-1}

> Source for all this: "Protivotankoviye granatomyotniye
> kompleksi" ("Anti-tank grenade-launcher systems") by Lovi,
> Koren'kov, Bazilevich & Korablin, Western Horizon publishers,
> Moscow, 2001.

Fantastic John, a goldmine of information as always. Coming to COW this
year?

For those who have not heard of it - 'Conference of Wargamers', a jolly
residential wargaming weekend held at Knuston Hall in Northamptonshire every
year.

Cheers
Martin

 

[donnie]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:57:23 -0000, "Martin Rapier"
<m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote:

>"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message
>{snippity of dev history of RPG-1}
>
>> Source for all this: "Protivotankoviye granatomyotniye
>> kompleksi" ("Anti-tank grenade-launcher systems") by Lovi,
>> Koren'kov, Bazilevich & Korablin, Western Horizon publishers,
>> Moscow, 2001.
>
>Fantastic John, a goldmine of information as always. Coming to COW this
>year?
>
>For those who have not heard of it - 'Conference of Wargamers', a jolly
>residential wargaming weekend held at Knuston Hall in Northamptonshire every
>year.
>
>Cheers
>Martin
>
Oh, interesting - where please?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:jr0s11dj51vkq4d1vk3gm9jlak1lbr0cbl@4ax.com...
{snip}
>>For those who have not heard of it - 'Conference of Wargamers', a jolly
>>residential wargaming weekend held at Knuston Hall in Northamptonshire
>>every
>>year.
>>
>>Cheers
>>Martin
>>
> Oh, interesting - where please?

Details re Wargames Developments & COW

http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~warden/#The%20Conference%20Of%20Wargamers

Knuston Hall is in Northamptonshire.

There is also Frank Dunns (very out of date!) page:

http://www.brazen.demon.co.uk/wd.html

but it has some old pics and things - I might be seen lurking in the pic of
Operation Uranus, Monkey Orange is quite a fun little online game.

Cheers
Martin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9606BED17B0AABaldHeadedJohn@216.196.97.142...
<<>>
>>> It's my understanding that the first russsian rpg with a
>>> rocket was pretty much a direct copy of a late german
>>> design - the 150m. I seem to recall something about german
>>> technicians working on the thing.
<<>>
> The RPG-1 was never adopted for service, the superior RPG-2
> firing projectile PG-2 (originally designated DRG-40 and PG-80
> respectively, after their calibres in mm) being adopted in 1949.
>
> It seems to me highly unlikely that these weapons had any
> particularly strong German influence on their development. The
> development of RPG-1 was started while the war was still in full
> swing, so I very much doubt that any German engineers contributed
> to its development.

I don't know about the rpg-1.
I was only really interested in the thing right up to the point I realised
it wasn't used.

>The RPG-2 looks more Germanic, if only
> because of the shape of the warhead, which is visually similar to
> that of the PF-44 Lanze.

Both sources I can find indicate that the rpg-2 was a development of the
pzfaust.
Here's the clearest.
From Terry Gander's "the Bazooka, hand held hollow charge anti-tank weapons"

""HASAG had been responsible for the development of the pzfaust 150m. As
the war ended they were still working on that weapon's proposed successor
the pzfaust 250m....
Postwar panzerfaust 250m development under Soviet supervision resulted in
the RPG-2 the forerunner of the much copied RPG-7"

The pzfaust250m had tan improved version of the 150m warhead with it's
fluted pattern which will be familiar to anyone has seen an rpg-7 and was
reloadable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Andy O'Neill" <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.vk> wrote in
news:mAHTd.183432$B8.3925@fe3.news.blveyonder.co.vk:

> "John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.vk> wrote in message
[Snips]
>>The RPG-2 looks more Germanic, if only
>> becavse of the shape of the warhead, which is visvally
>> similar to that of the PF-44 Lanze.
>
> Both sovrces I can find indicate that the rpg-2 was a
> development of the pzfavst.
> Here's the clearest.
> From Terry Gander's "the Bazooka, hand held hollow charge
> anti-tank weapons"
>
> ""HASAG had been responsible for the development of the
> pzfavst 150m. As the war ended they were still working on
> that weapon's proposed svccessor the pzfavst 250m....
> Postwar panzerfavst 250m development vnder Soviet
> svpervision resvlted in the RPG-2 the forervnner of the mvch
> copied RPG-7"

I can also find statements to this effect in Fleischer's
"Panzerfavst" (Schiffer, Atglen, 1994), where it says of the PF-
150 that "The resemblance to the Rvssian RPG-2 is striking and
not accidental" and "The development of the Panzerfavst was also
evalvated thorovghly in the Soviet Union. The resvlt was the
Panzerbvsche PRG-2", and Hobart's "Janes' Infantry Weapons 1975",
which says that "the RPG-2 was developed from the wartime German
Panzerfavst".

However, I am natvrally svspiciovs of svch statements, as they
seem on a par with the often-repeated bvt qvite erroneovs idea
that the AK-47 was developed from the German SG-44 (or MP-44, or
MKb42 or whatever early assavlt rifle yov like).

I wovld be very wary of the assvmption that the Rvssians weren't
bright enovgh to work these things ovt for themselves, and relied
on copying ideas from those brilliant Germans. This ignores the
facts that the Rvssians had prototyped the first shovlder-
lavnched recoilless ATk weapon (as mentioned in my previovs post)
and the first shovlder-fired selective-fire intermediate-calibre
weapon (the Avtomat Fedorov).

If there were a strong resemblance between the designs of the
weapons, then the argvment might be convincing. In the case of
the SG-44 and the AK-47, the resemblance goes as far as the vse
of an intermediate cartridge and a cvrved magazine, which most
people wovldn't consider svfficient to say that one had been
"developed from" the other.

In the case of the PF-250, things are complicated by the fact
that I have never seen a pictvre of one. However, it seems to
have been qvite a different beast from the RPG-2. Gander &
Chamberlain's "Small Arms, Artillery and Special Weapons of the
Third Reich" says that it was to vse a magneto firing system
instead of the previovs percvssion one; yet the RPG-2 (according
to Hobart) vses a percvssion system. Gander & Chamberlain give
for the PF-250 an initial velocity (V0) of 120-150 m/sec, while
Lovi et al. give the V0 for the RPG-2 as 84 m/sec. This is qvite
close to the figvre Gander & Chamberlain give for the V0 of the
PF-150, 82 m/sec, and the penetration performance claimed for
both warheads seems similar. However, it is obviovs at a glance
(Fleischer notwithstanding) that the RPG-2 and PF-150 are qvite
different weapons, the former being re-loadable, wood-clad and
with a pistol grip at the front of the tvbe, the latter
disposable, all-metal and with no pistol grip. The visval
similarity of the warhead is the only strong resemblance (jvst as
the banana mag is really the only strong resemblance between the
SG-44 and AK-47).

> The pzfavst250m had tan improved version of the 150m warhead
> with it's flvted pattern which will be familiar to anyone
> has seen an rpg-7 and was reloadable.

The RPG-7 embodies a different innovation again, whereby the
projectile is ejected from the tvbe by a recoilless charge and
then a rocket motor lights after abovt 10m of flight. That, I
believe, is an original Rvssian idea.

Of covrse, everyone tried to svck as mvch jvice ovt of captvred
German scientists after the war as possible, bvt the
overwhelmingly strong resemblance between the RPG-2 and 1944-
vintage RPG-1 lavnchers convinces me that the design was a native
Rvssian one in all important respects.

Still, it wovld be interesting to know what became of Dr.
Langweiler of HASAG after the war...

All the best,

John.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

one thing I noted from first hand accounts of German tank crews and
Jagepanzer crews was that they actually feared the ATR barrages even the
crews of tigers and panthers simply because the barrage of these heavy
rounds were difficult to impossible to identify the source of, and second
the massed volley fire of 4-6 of them targeted at exposed crew, and at
vision ports forced the crew to opperate under cover and with reduced vision
which made them more vulnerable to heavier AT weapons or stachal charge
attacks.



"Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cvcgmg$mad$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk...
> "Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:ctkf11pprrjb0l6d21ljcilm3g7bv6boeb@4ax.com...
>> Did the Russians have aything like the Panzerfaust/shrek, or Bazooka
>> or even the PIAT? I don't think so.
>
> They had anti-tank rifles in two flavours the PTRS and PTRD. The also had
> some handheld anti-tank grenades later in the war (confusingly called
> RPGs!) and captured panzerfausts etc. as well as Molotov cocktails.
>
>> Why not I wonder?
>
> The didn't develop a hollow charge infantry AT projector until after the
> war, and that was essentially a rehash of German designs.
>
> The ATRs they used weren't great but they were moderately effective as
> they were used en masse as a sort of anti-tank rifle barrage. Could
> penetrate 25mm of armour at 500m so whilst they couldn't stop a Tiger they
> were useful against the flanks of the rather more numerous Panzer IIIs &
> IVs and against all the other lighter vehicles from any angle.
>
> Like developing APCs I guess they decided that whilst the war was on they
> had other priorities than developing infantry AT weapons. The Russians
> didn't seem to have vast difficulties in destroying German armour although
> they relied on direct fire by heavy weapons or tanks, ground attack
> aircraft or individual heroics.
>
> The deficiencies in both APCs and infantry AT were speedily rectified
> after the war, the former bringing us BTRs and BMPs, the latter the RPG.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

about 10 percent of the Soviet war effort was Lend lease supplied, they
loved the Sherman (approximately 20 full divisions worth of armor was
provided and about 10 divisions were actually US tank equiped,
supriseingly the majority of these were Guards Formations) for thier follow
up forces because of its reliability, US trucks and jeeps outnumbered
russian built models about 2 to 1 and were the logistical back bone of the
russian army. russian wire and radio communications were almost
exclusively US supplied russian field wire was almost useless due to poor
quality control and insilation problems while the US wire was about 1/3
has heavy per mile and very very tough because of a combination of wire
types (steel and copper I believe ) that made it very resistant to damage.


the 22,000 western allied aircraft supplied were widely appriciated
especially the P-39 used in ground support, more importantly the supply of
high grade aviation fuel not available through soviet manufacture allowed a
20-30% improvement in performance of the aircraft useing it as well as
better serviceability.


Stalin of course played down the numbers, and with a strangle hold on the
media he could forbid the publishing of photo's of Western equipment, its
interesting to note that US trucks continued to be a primary part of the
transport of front line units right up through the late 1950's
"Donnie" <donnieitaly@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:153n11dg3ljcraolcpn15qfuheeik4r2vf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:55:57 GMT, "Andy O'Neill"
> <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>
>><<>>
>
> I'm answering both of you. Thanks.
>>>> Lastly of course, why didn't we send them 1,000 of Bazookas or PIATs
>>>> in Lend Lease?
>>>
>>> I believe some bazookas were sent,
>>
>>8,500 bazookas were sent.
>>And some PIATs, but i couldn't find a number.
>>I've never come across any reports on usage of these weapons.
>>It's possible that they arrived in Russia and spent the war sat in some
>>warehouse or something.
>
> I wonder just how many of the Spitfires, Shermans and PIATs were
> actually used. I suspect that most of the stuff we sent was unsuitable
> for the Soviets, but on the other hand I can't believe that even if
> they had used, say, all the Shermans we sent then Stalin would have
> acknowledged the contribution of "the little allies".
>
> The Soviet Army DID win the war, but to what extent our Convoys helped
> I don't think has yet been acknowledged. (Certainly every Truck/Lorry
> we sent was used!)
>
>>
>>They also started the war with a weird personal projector, the ampulomet.
>>Wasn't a success and withdrawn fairly quickly.
>>This was a mortar which fired a ball containing jellied gasoline.
>
> Weird, you'd think that with Soviet Armour design so far ahead of,
> well, even the Germans, they'd have forseen the need for an infantry
> held anti-tank weapon.
>>
>>In the early 30s the Sovs experimented with a rocket propelled weapon.
>>This fired a normal explosive charge rather than shaped charge and the
>>trials weren't positive.
>>I guess maybe this gave rocket propelled weapons a bad rep.
>
> Certainly possible, you know how whole avenues of exploration are
> blocked off by one error or by a stupid Political decision.
>>
>>> I came across an interesting website here:
>>>
>>> http://miniatures.de/html/int/shells-russian.html
>
> Damn you sirrah! Another bloody favourite for my computer <g>
>>>
>>> Looks like I was wrong about the PTRS & PTRD, penetration of 38mm! -
>>> this
>>> makes them damn dangerous.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>Dunno about that 38 mate.
>>25 to 30mil is more usually quoted.
>>35mil at 100yards at 90degrees using the improved ammo.
>>You have to take all these stats with a bunch of salt though.
>>With a lot of these sort of trials the different nationalities used
>>different hardness and quality armour for tests and different criteria for
>>what constituted penetration. An ATR bullet is relatively small and if it
>>just about penetrates into a vehicle it's quite possibly going to do
>>little
>>or no damage.
>>Time after time, tank crews in the field found that their shells bounced
>>off
>>the enemy tanks when the stats indicated they would penetrate.
>>
>>The main danger to even pz3 and pz4 was usually reckoned to be via damage
>>to
>>running gear and the like as opposed to direct penetration.
>>
> All true. But I wouldn't want to be inside any tank that had an even
> partially spent bullet bouncing around in it.
>
> Thanks again, both.
>
> Donnie
>