"Boys anti-tank rifle in Normandy?" Topic

Hi,

I would like to know if Boys ATR were still used in Normandy by scout troop within the Reconnaissance Regiment (for infantry divisions) or the Scout Platoon of an Infantry or Motor Battalion?

Or most (all?) of them were already replaced by PIAT in their Universal Carriers?

Is there any evidence about the (un)common use of ATR in Normandy or NE Europe?

Regards,

JPI

I've only ever seen one photo – on a Morris LRC belonging to an Army Group Liaison Regiment. They were long gone from front-line units.

The boys atr was not well liked in the first place.
Dad's platoon deliberately "lost" several of the things back in 1940/41. Eventually replacements stopped coming and so they effectively never had one.
That was before they even started jungle training.

Gamers see honking great big rifle thingummies as extra firepower. To real men they were way too heavy, ineffective and bruised your shoulder when you fired the flippin things.

Dad's comments on the sticky bombs they trained with briefly were more negative ( and hilarious ) but the boys was there vying with rifle grenades for 2nd place most hated.

Indeed.

The Boys atk rifle does make an odd final bow in WEs, with the Abn Armd Recce Regt, but not the version used in Normandy. In the Tps of two carriers and two scout cars, each carrier had an LMG and 2-in mortar, then one had a PIAT and the other a Boys (actually named as such). Quite what caused them to make a comeback, even on such a modest scale, as late as Nov44, I can't imagine. At least they were vehicle mounted so no one had to lug them around, and they may not have actually been carried on ops.

Couldn't the Boys' round still penitrate the armor of most German armored cars? That would give a reason for equipping reconnaissance elements with it. Might not make sense to "Snuffy" at the time or to "us" now, but I can see why it would make perfect sense to staff officers in 1944 who had to consider so many factors. Weight and "cube" to ship gear into the theater; lethality against the likely opponent vehicles eencountered; weight and availability of ammunition, and other things. Perhaps the most important -- we have the "conventional wisdom" that the Allies enjoyed unlimited supplies of everything in 1944 thanks to the "arsenal of democracy." That was far from the case.

There are differences in sources on the armour penetration for the .55-in round. I'd got 21-mm at best, while a quick search finds slightly more offered, up to 23-mm. 8-mm was quite common for side armour for halftracks and armoured cars, though frontal thickness could be up to 30-mm on later variants. The .55-in round remained effective against certain types of buildings, if not purpose built strongpoints, and of course personnel.

I think there was a late war attempt to reintroduce the Boys for Abn units, unless I'm just rambling? A PIAT weighed less than a Boys, but the weight of six bombs was considerably more than 50 rounds of 0.55-in I'd imagine, and the loading of gliders in particular was all about weight and its correct distribution.

The .55-in round remained effective against certain types of buildings, if not purpose built strongpoints, and of course personnel.

I believe the Soviets kept their PTRD and PTRS in service until the end of the war for the same purposes.

The Soviets didn't have anything equivalent to a bazooka or panzefaust to replace the PTRD/PTRS so it was their only option for man portable AT during the war. Also the 14.5mm round from the PTRD/PTRS did have better performance than other combatants smaller calliber ATRs.

Chris

On the Soviet end, they would deploy them in groups. Apparently they can bother even relatively heavy vehicles with a barrage of flank shots and I imagine anyone in an armoured car or half track would be very very unhappy.

Not just flank shots, periscopes and vision blocks are very good targets.

Knock out a gunner or drivers eyes' and you have at least temporarily disabled the tank. Putting a replacement vision block in takes some time and there wasn't an inexhaustible supply on board.

At least in reading 'Panzer Aces,' it was noted as a concern by Tiger crews…

dont forget that the BOYS was the worst ATR …

from left to right , for those not reading french :

a : 12,7mm MG

b : Boys ATR

c & d : Solothurn ATR

e : 25mm Hotchkiss

f : sPzB 41

I would hesitate about categorising 20mm, 25mm and 28/20mm anti-tank guns as 'anti-tank rifles', even if e.g. the Solothurn was marketed that way.

"Portable cannon" ? :-)

Speaking of big anti-tank rifles, don't forget the Finnish 20 mm L-39 rifle.

link

If it is needs wheels to move it, it isn't exactly portable.

But yes, I agree with the original sentiment, the Boys was one of the less good examples of an ATR.

6th airborne armoured recce regiment had at least one recce carrier carrier armed with a Boyes ATR.

Andy P Can you supply any references for this?

Can you supply any references for this?

"British and Commonwealth Armies 1944-45. vol.2" by Mark Bevis.

And more than one, four in fact. One in each troop of the Recce Sqn. to start with, later reorganised into one in each troop of 'B' Sqn.

deephorse – thanks for that but I have to say that I am very suspicious of Mark Bevis's books.

Any reason why?

Poor Mark! Is it because he's from Lancashire?

Anyway, none of the examples given are an excuse to field a full company of carriers armed with .50 cals, or 20mm guns or Pak 36s or whatever. Although I am sure someone will try.

I would hesitate about categorising 20mm, 25mm and 28/20mm anti-tank guns as 'anti-tank rifles'

The armies of WWII didn't hesitate to call them that.

For example German 28/20mm gun (memories of Airfix 1st version Germans!)was called the Panzerbüchse 41 – literally 'tank (hunting) rifle' and was a development of the shoulder fired Pzb 39

Having played host to a 14mm kidney stone for a little while, I'm definitely sure I wouldn't want to be hit by an armor piercing bullet that size traveling at high speed. No matter what the rules say.