"Soviets with lend lease piat or Bazookas?" Topic

I have never seen photos of them amongst soviet troops.Was this just soviet maskirovka propaganda to hide the extent of western aid ?

This article suggests that the Soviets got only 3,000 bazookas and less than 1½ rockets per launcher for trials, but they were not keen
link

A later article debunks the theory that the Germans captured bazookas from the Russians:
link

From what I have read, the Soviets also received around 1,000 PIATS, and an equal number of Boys ATRs. It doesn't appear that the PIATS were ever used in combat. Perhaps their effective range was insufficient, perhaps extreme cold impacted their reliability, perhaps any number of things. I wouldn't be surprised if the ATRs went into action.

I've always found it amazing that the Soviets did not develop man portable anti tank weapons in WWII. Its not like they wouldn't use them. In the last two years of the war, they captured alot of panzerfausts, and used them.
Indeed, the post war RPG systems are clearly an outgrowth of the panzerfaust.

When gaming, the lack of a bazooka type weapon with the infantry forces one to close assault German tanks. Generally an unpleasant proposition.

IIRC the ATRs were used by the USSR. The Germans mounted those side skirts in response to ATRs and other AT weapons. Didn't the USSR have their own version of an ATR too ?

As Zimmerit was also added to prevent man packed magnetic AT Grenades. Again IIRC …

Yes, the USSR produced the PTRD-41 ATR, which they used throughout the war, not just in the early years like Germany and Britain. A good representation of how it was used is demonstrated in the movie Panfilov's 28 Men, which it is shown up close in action against German tanks in the Battle for Moscow.

They did at least acknowledge the Boys anti-tank rifle, though they referred to it as the Брен (Bren), probably because it was part of their Universal carrier gift set.

It is interesting to compare Red Army anti-tank weapon development against the Germans in particular and the Western nations in general. The RKKA went a very different route during WW2, but certainly made up for it during the Cold War.

Gary

This article suggests that the Soviets got only 3,000 bazookas and less than 1½ rockets per launcher for trials, but they were not keen

The original bazookas, as provided to the Soviets, used a battery for ignition. This was found to be unreliable in cold weather … and not just arctic levels of cold, but even (as stated in the linked article) below 10c.

Also they had a bad experience with injury to the firer by rocket back-blast after leaving the tube. This was also a problem for the US Army in early models, but may well have been exacerbated by firing in cold weather (slowing the burn of the propellant).

Also, not mentioned in the article, but there was no infrastructure within the Red Army infantry company or battalion for recharging batteries. The US Army had such an infrastructure, as battery-operated radios were prevalent down to the company (and, with the Handy-Talky down to the platoon) levels. Without charged batteries the bazooka was useless.

All in all, a complex weapon not well suited to the Red Army of 1942. Seems reasonable. But surely there was something to be learned and a more simple weapons could be found or created?

I've always found it amazing that the Soviets did not develop man portable anti tank weapons in WWII. Its not like they wouldn't use them.

But they did develop man portable anti-tank weapons in WWII. And they used them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-43

"The RPG-43 (for ruchnaya protivotankovaya granata obraztca 1943 goda meaning "hand-held anti-tank grenade") was a high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) hand grenade used by the Soviet Union during the Second World War. It entered service in 1943, replacing the earlier models RPG-40 and RPG-41. The RPG-43 used a shaped charge HEAT warhead … had a penetration of around 75 mm of rolled homogeneous armour at a 90 degree angle."

A HEAT warhead on a stick hand-grenade with a canvas drogue tail to stabilize it in flight. Not very long ranged, and a single one was perhaps not useful against a moving target, but then neither was the original faustpatrone or panzerfaust. Not going to penetrate the front plate of a Tiger but then neither was a bazooka. But easier to use from a trench or back-walled position, with a much smaller firing profile, and far easier to use in multiples per target than either.

Give one or two to every frontovic and woe be to any tank without infantry support that comes within 25 meters of a trench line, or that sits still on a city street.

And there is no change to the infrastructure required. They come in a box. You open it up, and hand them out. Everyone already knows how to throw stick grenades -- they were a standard grenade form among Soviet forces.

The late-war RPG-6 was still in evidence in Iraq and Afghanistan:
YouTube link

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Actually, the Soviets did develop the RPG-1 in WWII, starting in 1944, though it proved to be less than acceptable in terms of performance:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-2

Presumably this was because tanks were rare on the eastern front?

Sundance & Mark +1 Thanks I thought I had read about the Russian ATR. And their other infantry AT weapons.

Now that I think about it … I may bhave even used some in AH's SL a long time ago.

Indeed. Russian ATRs are worth reading about.

Both the single shot bolt-action PTRD (which Sundance described) and the magazine-fed semi-auto PTRS used the Russian 14.5mm round.

If you want to understand why the Soviets kept their ATRs in service longer than other nations, consider the cartridge they were firing.

In the above image, from Tony William's excellent guns and ammunition site (quarryhs.co.uk), you can get a sense of the difference in the power of the weapons just be looking at the difference in the cartridges. The Soviet ATRs fired the 14.5mm x 114 cartridge. The Boys fired the 13.9mm x 99B cartridge.

Wargaming rules sometimes lump all ATRs together -- that's not really useful. Russian ATRs were of a different league in terms of the penetration and damage they did. The Germans never seemed to take any notice of the Boys ATR, but they took extensive measures to protect their tanks from the PTRD.

That's not to say it was the Red Army's answer to the Tiger and Panther in 1944. It certainly wasn't. Once the Germans moved to the heavier armor of the Tiger, and put schurzen all over the sides of their lighter medium tanks (including the Panther), the PTRD was mostly relegated to shooting tracks and vision devices, and of course a plethora of battlefield targets that were softer and squishier than tanks.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Bravo, Mark1, excellent knowledge)))

I can add that the PTRD-41 was widely used by the rebels in the current conflict in Ukraine and quite effectively hit lightly armored vehicles (BTR, BMP, BMD, etc.).

The RPG-43 was not really all that useful. It had to hit flat on nearly perfectly and had no real standoff distance which limited the formation of the penetrator.

Wow the PTRD-41 still in use. But yes, I'm sure light vehicles could be KO'd or damaged taking a hit from this weapon.

Mark1, excellent knowledge)))

Thank you. I do try.

But alas, there are times when my efforts to share that knowledge are perceived as showing off.

So I hope you take my following comments in the spirit of sharing information. No criticism intended…

I can add that the PTRD-41 was widely used by the rebels in the current conflict in Ukraine and quite effectively hit lightly armored vehicles (BTR, BMP, BMD, etc.).

This is an interesting statement. But the pictures you provided … all three … show the PTRS in action in Ukraine, not the PTRD!

;o)

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Oh, yes, of course. Stupid mistake)))

Just to clarify on the rpg.
The soviets did not make a panzerfaust like weapon during the war.
The rpg1 never made it off the drawing board.
The rpg2 was post war.

They did not take over any nazi factories making pzfaust.

Re-use of pzfausts by the soviets is often over stated by wargamers.
Late war, there was fairly organised collection of pzfausts. These were intended for assault engineer squads in set piece assaults.

The soviet use of atr is rather strange if you never read about it. This is a unit of 8 or 9 atr all firing at one target. Even if there were no penetrations at all this was likely to mess up suspension and morale.
Like bigger atg, these were supposed to volley fire at a directed target.

Yes, their ATR was pretty much their Infantryman's only AT weapon in many cases … Even if only marginally effective. A mobility kill is better than not.

Regarding the 14.5 x 114 mm cartridge developed for the anti-tank rifles, in the post WWII years Soviet military actually designed KPV machinegun for this cartridge. It was used on a variety of vehicular and AA-mounts, including a quad mount.

As for anti-tank rifles in WWII, there were even larger calibres in use. At least the Finnish Lahti and Swiss Solothurn anti-tank rifles used 20 mm cartridges.

Yes, their ATR was pretty much their Infantryman's only AT weapon in many cases …

Again, no, it wasn't. Soviet infantry was provided with anti-tank hand grenades. Millions were made during the war. Far more than ATRs.

The RPG-43 was not really all that useful. It had to hit flat on nearly perfectly and had no real standoff distance which limited the formation of the penetrator.

It was useful enough that the Israelis still considered it a threat in 1967 and '73.

Was the RPG-43 perfect? Certainly not. Later versions of Soviet anti-tank hand grenades included ballistic cones which provided stand-off, improving the formation of the HEAT jet and increasing penetration.

Due largely to the lack of stand-off, the RPG-43 with a 95mm diameter HEAT warhead only achieved about 75mm of armor penetration, indicating it was not a particularly efficient HEAT penetrator. And, as with any HEAT warhead (including the much vaunted Panzerfaust), if you don't strike the plate at nearly a perfect perpendicular, your penetration degrades even further. But you know what? 75mm of penetration potential, even degraded by 20 or 30%, is still pretty useful against the sides of a Panther, or the engine deck or turret roof of anything up to and including a Tiger II.

So if you decide to use your invincible uber-panzer to roll over a trenchline occupied by a platoon of frontovics you had better hope they DON'T have RPG-43s, because even 10 of the d@mned things raining down around you has real potential to ruin your day, and an entrenched platoon can easily be expected to have an issue of 1 or 2 PER soldier waiting for you.

The soviet use of atr is rather strange if you never read about it. This is a unit of 8 or 9 atr all firing at one target. Even if there were no penetrations at all this was likely to mess up suspension and morale.
Like bigger atg, these were supposed to volley fire at a directed target.

Red Army AT tactics are pretty consistent on this. Not really strange, unless you are obsessed with the model of tank warfare as armored knights at a jousting tournament.

The Soviets were inclined towards concentrated fire. It might have been a natural by-product of a political/military culture that emphasized centralized control. Or it was just a time-proven useful tactic. Once you get out of the jousting mind-set, at the tactical level as a commander you shouldn't really give much of a care about whether you penetrated the armor on a given tank. If you can direct fire at it, and make fail it's mission, then that's a useful tactic.

Enemy tanks advancing on a rail yard? Hit a couple of them 15 or 20 times, and guess what? They stop advancing. Whether you broke a few tracks, or shot out a few periscopes, or damaged a few turret rings, or shot off a couple mufflers (amazing how concerned tankers become when the engine sounds change, or the air in their fighting compartment becomes fouled by engine smoke), or actually penetrated the armor and killed some crews, the fact is that you stopped the advance and held your position. Or maybe you only slowed the advance so that the next position could be held. In any case, from my readings that kind of result is far more important to Soviet military thinking than whether your shining knight unseated their shining knight.

As for anti-tank rifles in WWII, there were even larger calibres in use. At least the Finnish Lahti and Swiss Solothurn anti-tank rifles used 20 mm cartridges.

True. And the Solothurn, at least, was used by more than one army. The Italians used it to some effect against the British in the western dessert. However it was a much heavier weapon, and so was more often vehicle mounted or transported, putting them on the fringe of what might be called infantry anti-tank weapons.

The Soviet ATRs were more reasonably man-portable (particularly the PTRD), and while the projectiles were smaller they had equivalent penetration.

The US Army's more recent fondness for .50cal Barrett and other heavy "anti-equipment" sniper rifles reflect, I think, the general usefulness that might have kept the PTRS in service, as shown in the pics above.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Again, no, it wasn't. Soviet infantry was provided with anti-tank hand grenades. Millions were made during the war. Far more than ATRs.

Yes you are correct, I forgot, I was thinking of ranged weapons. Not close assault weapons, which would include AT Grenades, and Improvised Explosives like Molotov Cocktails, etc. After having the Finns use those against the Russians before WWII and during …

The US Army's more recent fondness for .50cal Barrett and other heavy "anti-equipment" sniper rifles reflect, I think, the general usefulness that might have

What's not to like ?!?

Regarding the anti-tank rifles, there was actually a Soviet design completed already back in 1939, but it never entered mass production. PTRD and PTRS rifles that actually entered mass production were only designed after the German invasion.

Checking Chuikov's memoirs on Stalingrad, anti-tank grenades are frequently referred and mentioned as having obtained nickname "Tanyusha" while fragmentation grenades were known as "Fenyusha". In such close environment, too aggressive tanks may become quite vulnerable to brave anti-tank men armed with anti-tank grenades and Komsomol membership card.

close assault weapons, which would include AT Grenades, and Improvised Explosives like Molotov Cocktails, etc. After having the Finns use those against the Russians before WWII and during

There was no military action between independent Finland and it's somewhat larger eastern neighbour before WWII, unless you count the somewhat unofficial Eastern Karelia expedition during the Russian Civil War – and there were not many tanks involved in that campaign.

As for the Finnish close assault anti-tank weapons during WWII, the primary one was satchel charge, capable of immobilising or even destroying tanks depending on the amount of explosive included (T-28 required bigger bang than T-26 or BT-7).

Molotov Cocktail's were mainly used against already immobilised tanks, setting them on fire and ensuring that they would be destroyed for good and be non-recoverable. These cocktails were hardly improvised, as before the war plenty of research had been spent on evaluating different incendiary mixtures, and during the war a whole vodka factory was converted into mixing and bottling this brew. Curiously enough, originally these cocktails had been designed for blinding enemy tanks with flames and smoke, making them vulnerable to assault by satchel charges, until their role was changed to setting the engines alight.

While the name Molotov Cocktail is likely of Finnish origins, incendiary bottle had been employed already in Spanish Civil War. Whether the Soviet "advisors" there had paid much attention to them, I cannot say.

My understanding is that also in Soviet Union incendiary bottles could be mass manufactured, including additional chemical ampules for ignition, though in pinch they could also be improvised by partisans etc. As for the naming, the bourgeoise term "Molotov Cocktail", deeply insulting of Comrade Foreign Minister, was not used by the Soviet military and might not even have been never heard by a common frontovik.

There was no military action between independent Finland and it's somewhat larger eastern neighbour before WWII,

What about the Russo-Finnish War of '39 ? link

Well I guess you could consider that during WWII … so that is on me …

Checking Chuikov's memoirs on Stalingrad, anti-tank grenades are frequently referred and mentioned as having obtained nickname "Tanyusha" while fragmentation grenades were known as "Fenyusha". In such close environment, too aggressive tanks may become quite vulnerable to brave anti-tank men armed with anti-tank grenades and Komsomol membership card.

Yes, I know AFVs in closed terrain are very vulnerable to close assault from Infantrymen. I know I was an Infantrymen '79-'90 and trained to do such actions.

As for the Finnish close assault anti-tank weapons during WWII, the primary one was satchel charge, capable of immobilising or even destroying tanks depending on the amount of explosive included (T-28 required bigger bang than T-26 or BT-7).
Molotov Cocktail's were mainly used against already immobilised tanks, setting them on fire and ensuring that they would be destroyed for good and be non-recoverable. These cocktails were hardly improvised, as before the war plenty of research had been spent on evaluating different incendiary mixtures, and during the war a whole vodka factory was converted into mixing and bottling this brew. Curiously enough, originally these cocktails had been designed for blinding enemy tanks with flames and smoke, making them vulnerable to assault by satchel charges, until their role was changed to setting the engines alight.
While the name Molotov Cocktail is likely of Finnish origins, incendiary bottle had been employed already in Spanish Civil War. Whether the Soviet "advisors" there had paid much attention to them, I cannot say.
My understanding is that also in Soviet Union incendiary bottles could be mass manufactured, including additional chemical ampules for ignition, though in pinch they could also be improvised by partisans etc. As for the naming, the bourgeoise term "Molotov Cocktail", deeply insulting of Comrade Foreign Minister, was not used by the Soviet military and might not even have been never heard by a common frontovik.

I was very well aware of this, but it is worth reposting for those who have not studied or been trained in this type of warfare.

though in pinch they could also be improvised by partisans etc.

Yes, and generally these type of weapons are considered "Improvised".

Molotov, sometimes shortened as Molly, is a generic name used for a variety of bottle-based improvised incendiary weapons. Due to the relative ease of production, Molotov cocktails

From this
link

Save for the Finns mass producing them as the war continued …

The UK's Home Guard were also trained in their use and production …

Even the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol made some to take out USSR Tanks.

Four types of "Molotov cocktail" were produced in the USSR. The most primitive is ordinary gasoline mixed with oil, a piece of powder cord, ignited with a special grater. The second option – with a glass ampoule, mounted on the outside of the bottle, when broken, ignition occurred. The third option is that such an ampoule is already inside the bottle. And the fourth is the most perfect. These are bottles equipped with a special KS mixture, which self-ignites from contact with air. This mixture was thick, but well flowing, giving a combustion temperature of 800-1000 degrees Celsius for several minutes, and also gave thick white smoke. In terms of effectiveness, it was similar to napalm.
By the way, the Red Army used "bottle fields" in defensive battles, when several thousand bottles of self-igniting liquid were packed in front of Soviet positions, often mixed with conventional mines. During the battle, such bottles, when damaged, gave fire flashes, hit enemy soldiers, scared tank crews.
Here is a good article about using the Molotov cocktail in the Red Army. But alas – only in Russian. Use Google translator to read:
link

And here are the discussions of what the Soviet and Finnish Molotov cocktails looked like (for those who will draw bottles on their figures):

link

Cuprum –
You provide a lot of interesting material. Thanks.

B

Yes good intel …

Of course the WWII USSR made and used Molotov Cocktails. It was pretty much almost "universal" during WWII and of course afterwards. As I said in the US ARMY we were instructed on many improvised munitions, etc. And that was way back when I was there, '79-'90.

In the Infantry we even had fuel thickener to make our own "Napalm", pre se. We were taught a number of ways to use it. Based on the experiences in Vietnam and before …

Always happy to help than I can)))