苏联的反坦克枪原来这么厉害[转帖]
Message 1 in thread
寄件者：Mukul M Patel (mukul@mpatel.demon.co.uk)
主旨：WW2 Soviet Infantry Anti-tank weapons
新闻群组：sci.military.moderated
View this article only
日期：1997/09/10
From Mukul M Patel <mukul@mpatel.demon.co.uk> Hello, The Germans and The Western allies readily adopted hand held anti tank
rocket weapons. Examples Panzerfaust and Bazooka.
Why did the Soviet’s/Russians in WW2 not adopt hand held anti-tank
rocket weapons? They were given examples of the Bazooka in the early
years of the war. They certainly had a pressing need for anti-tank weapons and workable
tactics for thier use. I would have thought given the powerful ancedotes
about the utilty of these weapons in German hands, the Soviets would
have lapped this technology and integraeted it into thier fighting
styles. They certainly gave a lot of thought and had a lot of occasions
to defeat German Armoured attacks/counter atttacks/ counterstrikes. Despite a lot of reading I never found the answer to my question. hoping for a credible answer Mukul Patel
Message 2 in thread
寄件者：Conwic (conwic@aol.com)
主旨：Re: WW2 Soviet Infantry Anti-tank weapons
新闻群组：sci.military.moderated
View this article only
日期：1997/09/15
From conwic@aol.com (Conwic) >
>Despite a lot of reading I never found the answer to my question.
>
>hoping for a credible answer Mukul Patel I suspect that there is no rational answer. Soviet units did make an
organized effort to collect German panzerfausts for re use against their
original owners. But they did not manufacture any of their own under after
the war when they took some German pangerfaust manufacturing equipment back
to the Motherland. The colection may have been enough; the Soviet infantry
was never far from their regimental 76mm multipurpose guns. Surprisingly,
the Soviets had some real blind spots in the armored warfare field.
Besides the lack of a Soviet madet man held antitank weapon, the Soviets
never seemed to have made any effort to develop armored personnel carriers
like American or German halftracks. Even the halftracks sent under
lendlease ended up transporting HQ units rather than infantry. Go figure.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3 in thread
寄件者：John M. Atkinson (Jatkins6@REMOVE.ix.netcom.com)
主旨：Re: WW2 Soviet Infantry Anti-tank weapons
新闻群组：sci.military.moderated
View this article only
日期：1997/09/17
From Jatkins6@REMOVE.ix.netcom.com (John M. Atkinson) conwic@aol.com (Conwic) wrote: >Besides the lack of a Soviet madet man held antitank weapon, the Soviets PTRD & PTRD Anti-tank rifle doesn’t count? Can’t punch the frontal
armor of most panzers, but a rear or flank shot on a PzIII would ruin
some German’s day. John M. Atkinson The ’eathen in ’is blindness bows down to wood and stone;
’E don’t obey no orders unless they is his own;
The heathen in ’is blindness must end where ’e began,
But the backbone of the Army is the Non-commissioned Man!
--Rudyard Kipling,
Message 4 in thread
寄件者：Yevgeniy Chizhikov (y.chizhikov@csu-e.csuohio.edu)
主旨：Re: WW2 Soviet Infantry Anti-tank weapons
新闻群组：sci.military.moderated
View this article only
日期：1997/09/17
From Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chizhikov@csu-e.csuohio.edu> Conwic wrote: > I suspect that there is no rational answer. Soviet units did make an
> organized effort to collect German panzerfausts for re use against their
> original owners. But they did not manufacture any of their own under after
> the war when they took some German pangerfaust manufacturing equipment back
> to the Motherland. The colection may have been enough; the Soviet infantry
> was never far from their regimental 76mm multipurpose guns. Surprisingly,
> the Soviets had some real blind spots in the armored warfare field.
> Besides the lack of a Soviet madet man held antitank weapon, the Soviets
> never seemed to have made any effort to develop armored personnel carriers
> like American or German halftracks. Even the halftracks sent under
> lendlease ended up transporting HQ units rather than infantry. Go figure. Soviets produced very large number of PTRD and PTRS anti-tank rifles.
They were used as single men fire suport, or sometimes whole units armed
with those rifles was used to stop massive armored offensive. I
remmember pictures were hundreds of people from "norodnoe opolchenie"
marching with those huge rifles. Those rifles were 2,000+ mm, calibre
14.5mm. Armour-piercing round had muzzle velocity of 1012m/s. It
defeated 40mm armor from distance of 100 meters. It’s effective range
was MUCH better than panzerfausts, however they were much bigger and
heavier. Soviets never try to rebuild panzerfausts during war, because
it would be waist of time and valuble resources. Remember that Soviets
work day and night. In order to organized new production, it would need
to TAKE resources from other productions, it means hurt your self. Those
anti-tank rifles did the job, just like small field arti did. This is
the same reason why Soviets never build armored personal carriers. You
build armored carriers or T-34, or IL-2. Armoured carrier is luxury at
that time. Tanks, fighters, sturmoviks was a nessasaty to survive. Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Message 5 in thread
寄件者：Gregory Deych (gdeych@worldnet.att.net.REMOVE)
主旨：Re: WW2 Soviet Infantry Anti-tank weapons
新闻群组：sci.military.moderated
View this article only
日期：1997/09/19
From gdeych@worldnet.att.net.REMOVE (Gregory Deych) On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:41:30 GMT, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
<y.chizhikov@csu-e.csuohio.edu> wrote: >
>From Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chizhikov@csu-e.csuohio.edu>
>
I’m curious about the role of the 45 mm gun ... I know it was used up
to the end of the war (I remember shots of Russian guardsman rolling
it through the ruins of Berlin), but what was it supposed to do by
that point? Was it just used as a light field gun or did it have an
anti tank role...
>Soviets produced very large number of PTRD and PTRS anti-tank rifles.
>They were used as single men fire suport, or sometimes whole units armed
>with those rifles was used to stop massive armored offensive. I
>remmember pictures were hundreds of people from "norodnoe opolchenie"
>marching with those huge rifles. Those rifles were 2,000+ mm, calibre
>14.5mm. Armour-piercing round had muzzle velocity of 1012m/s. It
>defeated 40mm armor from distance of 100 meters. It’s effective range
>was MUCH better than panzerfausts, however they were much bigger and
>heavier. Soviets never try to rebuild panzerfausts during war, because
>it would be waist of time and valuble resources. Remember that Soviets
>work day and night. In order to organized new production, it would need
>to TAKE resources from other productions, it means hurt your self. Those
>anti-tank rifles did the job, just like small field arti did. This is
>the same reason why Soviets never build armored personal carriers. You
>build armored carriers or T-34, or IL-2. Armoured carrier is luxury at
>that time. Tanks, fighters, sturmoviks was a nessasaty to survive.
>
>Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
> Gregory Deych
Please delete the .REMOVE portion from
my e-mail address.
Message 6 in thread
寄件者：David Joseph Greenbaum (djg7@cornell.edu)
主旨：Re: WW2 Soviet Infantry Anti-tank weapons
新闻群组：sci.military.moderated
View this article only
日期：1997/09/22
From djg7@cornell.edu (David Joseph Greenbaum) In a fit of divine composition, Gregory Deych
(gdeych@worldnet.att.net.REMOVE) inscribed in fleeting electrons: : I’m curious about the role of the 45 mm gun ... I know it was used up
: to the end of the war (I remember shots of Russian guardsman rolling
: it through the ruins of Berlin), but what was it supposed to do by
: that point? Was it just used as a light field gun or did it have an
: anti tank role... At the start of the war, of course, it was the primary anti-tank
artillery of the Red Army. Of course, over the course of the war and
over technology changes, the 45mm became inadequate for front penetration
of the front-line German tanks. However, it remained perfectly useful
for armored carriers and for bunker busting, and, the most important
thing about it was that it was half the weight of the 76mm, and troops
could manhandle the thing along the roads with a couple of men
(especially assault formations, who tended to retain a lot of off-TOE
equipment). It became a support and bunker buster gun, that could still
(even late in the war) perform a pinch anti-tank role through skillful
employment (flank or rear shots mostly). It was also obscenely cheap to
build. Dave G
--
Such fragrance -
from where,
which tree?
Message 7 in thread
寄件者：Mutarjm (mutarjm@aol.com)
主旨：Re: WW2 Soviet Infantry Anti-tank weapons
新闻群组：sci.military.moderated
View this article only
日期：1997/10/06
From mutarjm@aol.com (Mutarjm) Greetings. Thanks for a great and crisp treatment of the role(s) of that 45MM gun in WWII. Well done.
Message 8 in thread
寄件者：Yevgeniy Chizhikov (y.chizhikov@csu-e.csuohio.edu)
主旨：Re: WW2 Soviet Infantry Anti-tank weapons
新闻群组：sci.military.moderated
View this article only
日期：1997/09/22
From Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chizhikov@csu-e.csuohio.edu> Gregory Deych wrote: > I’m curious about the role of the 45 mm gun ... I know it was used up
> to the end of the war (I remember shots of Russian guardsman rolling
> it through the ruins of Berlin), but what was it supposed to do by
> that point? Was it just used as a light field gun or did it have an
> anti tank role... At the start of the war it was used as anti-tank weapon and infantry
suport weapon. It could defeat armour of light tanks. However with heavy
tanks, it was used to score mobility kills into the runing gear. Nesty
job :( However 45mm cannons was still good agaist side or back armour.
Also Soviets used tacktics that allow to do damage and destroy tanks
fast and even with weak weapons. They concentrate fire of few cannons on
a single tanks. It means scoring multiple hits after one sorty,
destroing it or score mobility kill, and switching on new target before
tank destroy cannons one by one. It was good tacktics specialy when you
got weak weapons as 45mm. However at the end of war 45mm mostly used as
infantry suport weapon. However 76mm guns such a ZIS-3 and it’s
predessasors had been our main weapon. Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Message 9 in thread
寄件者：M.Rapier (M.Rapier@shef.ac.uk)
主旨：Re: WW2 Soviet Infantry Anti-tank weapons
新闻群组：sci.military.moderated
View this article only
日期：1997/09/17
From M.Rapier@shef.ac.uk (M.Rapier) In article <EGK6II.ABB@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>, conwic@aol.com says...
>From conwic@aol.com (Conwic)
>>Despite a lot of reading I never found the answer to my question. {snip} >the Soviets had some real blind spots in the armored warfare field.
>Besides the lack of a Soviet madet man held antitank weapon, the Soviets
>never seemed to have made any effort to develop armored personnel carriers
>like American or German halftracks. Even the halftracks sent under
>lendlease ended up transporting HQ units rather than infantry. Go figure. In WWII halftrack mounted assaults were only marginally less suicidal than
truck mounted ones, as most (all) halftracks were vulnerable to MG fire at
ranges up to 1000m - the infantry generally got out and walked. Where it did limit the Soviets was in; a) cross country mobility for their infantry units (unless they rode the
tanks, another activity with a short life expectancy).
b) ability of their motorised infantry to keep up with their armoured units
through defensive artillery barrages (the halftracks of the time were quite
effective at keeping out shell splinters). They probably viewed the production of armoured vehicles without a large gun
to be a useless diversion of the limited industrial resources they had
available anyway. The infantry AT weapons is a strange one though - although they did have a
very high complement of ATRs, and hand delivered AT weapons (grenades and the
like). Of course, after mid ’43, there weren’t many German tanks around to
knock out anyway, and the ones that were could be dealt with by the armoured
units that were integral to every Soviet formation (at Army Level anyway). Cheers.
Martin. --
Martin Rapier, Database Administrator
Corporate Information & Computing Services.
University of Sheffield Tel 0114 222 1137
 http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/ Message 10 in thread
寄件者：MarkASinge (markasinge@aol.com)
主旨：Re: WW2 Soviet Infantry Anti-tank weapons
新闻群组：sci.military.moderated
View this article only
日期：1997/09/17
From markasinge@aol.com (MarkASinge) In message <EGAx7B.6wA@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com> Mukul M Patel
<mukul@mpatel.demon.co.uk> writes: >The Germans and The Western allies readily adopted hand held
>anti tank rocket weapons. Examples Panzerfaust and Bazooka.
The Panzerfaust was not a rocket weapon. It was a recoilless launcher.
The Panzerschreck was a rocket weapon. >Why did the Soviet’s/Russians in WW2 not adopt hand held
>anti-tank rocket weapons? They were given examples of the
>Bazooka in the early years of the war. I might venture a guess or two. The Bazooka may not have been rugged
enough for Russian purposes, and may have been too much of a "specialists’
weapon". The early U.S. 2.36 inch bazookas during the war were fired by a
battery-powered ingnition system (the post-war 3.5in super bazooka, and I
believe some of the later war 2.36in bazookas, mounted a generator in the
trigger mechanism instead of requiring batteries, as did the German
panzerschreck). Batteries, and battery recharging generators, were not
likely to be found widely distributed in a Soviet infantry unit TO&E.
Also, the bazooka could not be carried around in a loaded state, which
complicated its use (specialist crews were required). This may not have
fit in with the Soviet style of infantry anti-tank action, which was either
infiltration by tank-hunting teams (hard to get it loaded when you’re
sneaking around) or defense by massed infantry formations (no specialists,
please). The Soviets developed the PG-43 (or was it RP-43?), an anti-tank hand
grenade. Thrown in a looping arch, the arming mechanism released a cloth
drag tail which was supposed to align the impact-detonated hollow-charge
grenade for maximum impact against upper armor surfaces. It must have
taken considerable courage to use, but it could be issued "as ammunition"
to troops expected to engage armor, so every soldier could become a tank hunter. The Soviets did respect the Panzerfaust greatly. Captured units were
collected and re- issued in great numbers. They copied it and built it as
the RPG-1, and it seems they may have been in production before the end of
the war (Zaloga seems to indicate so in _The Red Army of the Great
Patriotic War 1941-45_). I believe that the Panzerfaust was more
appropriate than the bazooka to Soviet needs -- it was more rugged, could
be issued to common soldiers, and could be carried loaded. Combining the more rugged construction of the recoilless launcher,
including the oversized projectile (the panzerfaust), with the Soviet
innovation of late-ignition rocket projectiles, lead to the later very
successful members of the RPG series. -markasinge@aol.com
(aka: Mark A. Singer squeezed into ten characters)
| 
注册
战争研究论坛 →
讨论区 → [军事装备] → 苏联的反坦克枪原来这么厉害[转帖]
2002-2-28 15:10:36
![搜索叶子在[军事装备]的所有贴子](pic/find.gif)
