UshCha | 11 Feb 2017 6:15 a.m. PST |
Volley fire of anti tank guns at a single target always seemed bizzare. Phil Barkers 1925 to 1950 rules had it in. It never made sence. However in a disscussion it appeared that the russians had lots of obsolete anti tank guns in play. It would make a kind of logic to get a battery of such guns to fire togerher at a single target. Volley fire would help to conceal the battery. Multiple hits due to repeated damage snd the potential to hit small vulnerable spots due to multiple hits may have made is plausible if loss of manpower was not an issue. Can anybody shed any light on this issue? |
Dynaman8789 | 11 Feb 2017 6:21 a.m. PST |
I've always wondered why that was doctrine in the Russian army. Just doesn't seem to make sense. |
79thPA | 11 Feb 2017 7:43 a.m. PST |
All of the guns firing at once is going to make a bigger signature than individual guns firing, so I don't see how it is going to do anything to help conceal the battery. I am no engineer, but it might be possible that multiple hits generate some type of structural weakness that is not present in single round hits, it would increase the likelihood of hits on target, and, I presume, multiple hits in quick succession would give the crew more cause for concern. |
Skeptic | 11 Feb 2017 7:55 a.m. PST |
For firsthand accounts, you might read this book: link I read it a while ago, but from memory, some of the considerations included limited stopping power, and high casualty rates, hence high turnover among crews, combined with the risk of being literally run over. |
zoneofcontrol | 11 Feb 2017 7:56 a.m. PST |
Looking from a different angle… does a "salvo" provide a morale boost factor? Also, does the use of multiple weapons present the possibility of the target assuming they are opposing a larger force? Were the Russians conceding they were working with an obsolete weapon and just trying to achieve one magic bullet from the several fired? |
Skeptic | 11 Feb 2017 8:01 a.m. PST |
@ZoC: More the latter (and mobility kills), I think. The guns were manufactured, and somebody had to crew and use them. Even well-trained artillery personnel who could have done all of the calculations for indirect fire got assigned to the light AT units instead. |
Weasel | 11 Feb 2017 9:10 a.m. PST |
Possibly to increase the morale/shock effect on the receiving end? Or it may just have been to try and get the most out of the aging 45mm. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 11 Feb 2017 9:37 a.m. PST |
Never underestimate the value of giving a tank crew a severe headache – especially if the tank carries a company commander or above. Seriously though the moral effect on one tank being hit multiple times is likely to be more important than if those shots were spread across several tanks, plus there is a better chance of multiple hits taking out communications or damaging gun mounts. |
Martin Rapier | 11 Feb 2017 9:57 a.m. PST |
Glantz discuss midwar Soviet anti-tank tactics in 'Kursk'. Generally it took several rounds to disable a tank, so the point of firing the entire battery at a single target was to increase the chance of disabling it in a short space of time. Anti-tank rifles were also used en masse. It would of course take fairly careful (or dense) placement of the guns to enable them all to engage the same target at once. |
jekinder6 | 11 Feb 2017 10:15 a.m. PST |
This is still the tactic used by Soviet tank platoons in the Cold-War era. Three tank platoons volley fired on one target. |
Jeff Ewing | 11 Feb 2017 12:47 p.m. PST |
Anti-tank rifles were also used en masse. I was going to mention this. The Soviets massed these weapons in sections, with the intention of causing mobility kills. |
shaun from s and s models | 11 Feb 2017 2:45 p.m. PST |
it was quite common for all russian guns to fire at the same target if they could |
Tgunner | 11 Feb 2017 5:17 p.m. PST |
I seen to remember hearing about platoon/mass fire being a popular Soviet tactic when I was in training. A tank platoon would engage the same target that was marked by the platoon leader. That's something we (US Army) went to great lengths to avoid. |