ANTI-TANK GUNS OF GERMANY
During the First World War, the participating countries developed, adopted and used in combat a number of the latest types of weapons and military equipment. One of these models was a tank, unexpectedly for the Germans, used by the British in 1916. The effect of the use of these vehicles turned out to be so strong that Germany urgently began intensive work on the creation of infantry anti-tank weapons that could successfully fight armored vehicles. This was the anti-tank rifle (ATR) model 18 caliber 18 mm, which was quite widely used in the First World War.
After the end of the war, Rekhsver, having analyzed the experience of using this anti-tank rifle, developed tactical and technical requirements (TTT) for a promising anti-tank rifle. This should be a sample of 7.92 mm caliber, weighing less than 15 kg, providing penetration of 30 mm of armor at a distance of 100 m at a meeting angle with the target of 60°. However, additional studies of the possible characteristics of promising anti-tank rifles have shown their ineffectiveness against armored vehicles of potential opponents. In 1932, it was found that the selected steel-core pointed bullet cartridges were ineffective against armored vehicles of the 1930s. XX century Nevertheless german army proposed to a number of companies to develop an anti-tank rifle chambered for the existing 7.92x94 mm cartridge, model P318. Firms created several such prototypes, which were never put into service.
In the end, for development, the Germans chose an anti-tank rifle chambered for 7.92×94 mm from Gustioff-Werke (Suhl, Germany), which submitted its sample for joint testing in 1938. The sample received the index PzB.38 and was put into production , but was not officially adopted into service, although it was used in combat already during the Second World War. The PzB-38 anti-tank rifle is a single-shot weapon with a movable barrel and a vertical wedge bolt
The sample includes a barrel with a muzzle brake and sighting device, a cover with a cartridge deflector, a bolt, a receiver, firing mechanism and a shoulder rest with a damping device. The barrel of the gun is conical, connected to the receiver using a nut, and has a muzzle brake at the muzzle, connected to the barrel using a thread. The barrel has a rear sight and a front sight with a front sight (the length of the aiming line is 940 mm). The weight of the barrel with a muzzle brake and a nut is 6.14 kg. During the firing process, the barrel moves back 90 mm, while the bolt opens and the cartridge case is ejected. The shooter then inserts a new cartridge, and the weapon is ready for battle.
The shoulder rest, folding in the stowed position on the left side, was equipped with a rubberized butt pad (in the shape of the shooter's shoulder). With the butt folded, the width of the weapon is 193 mm. The receiver is steel, made by stamping, and consists of two parts connected by spot welding. To speed up the loading of the gun, it had a container for 10 rounds, mounted on the receiver, while the width of the gun was 280 mm. A small number of samples (400 copies) were equipped with a drum container for 36 rounds, but they did not “take root” in the German army. The weight of an empty flat container for cartridges was 0.25 kg, with 10 cartridges - 1.09 kg.
To give the PzB-38 anti-tank rifle stability when firing, it was equipped with a bipod borrowed from the MG-34 machine gun. At the same time, the height of the aiming line when firing from a prone position was 350 mm. The experience of using the PzB-38 anti-tank rifle in the army and its careful analysis made it obvious that it was necessary to create a more modern model chambered for the same 7.92x94 mm cartridge. The new gun was named the Panzerbuchse-39 single-shot anti-tank rifle. We will call it the PzB-39 anti-tank rifle, as was customary in the Red Army.
It was a single-shot weapon designed to fight tanks, wedges and other armored vehicles at ranges of 300-400 m.
The shooting was carried out with special cartridges with an increased case volume with a bullet of increased armor penetration and special equipment- irritating toxic substances. Training cartridges and blanks with a wooden bullet were also used.
Structurally, the PzB-39 included a barrel with a receiver, a folding stock, a trigger frame with a reloading handle, a bolt, a bipod and two containers with 10 rounds each. Containers made it possible to speed up the reloading process. The barrel bore was locked by a wedge bolt that moved vertically in the grooves of the receiver. The top of the shutter was closed with a special shield, which automatically rose when the shutter was opened. The hammer-type impact mechanism located in the bolt consists of a hammer and a mainspring located in the hammer, and a firing pin with a firing pin. The trigger mechanism of the weapon is installed in the upper part of the frame and consists of a trigger and a trigger lever with a spring. Removal and reflection of the spent cartridge case is carried out by the ejector. The sleeve is first pulled back and then thrown out by the ejector spring.
The gun has a muzzle brake that compensates for about 60% of the recoil energy.
The stock is metal, hinged to the receiver and secured with a latch. In the stowed position, the butt folds down and forward and is held in place by a special rod with an annular groove. The sight is constant at a range of 400 m.
In the middle part of the sample there is a bipod that folds in a stowed position.
To protect against an accidental shot, there is a fuse, the flag of which is located on top of the rear part of the receiver; when turned on, it locks the trigger lever. To turn the fuse on, the flag is turned to the left (the letter “S” opens), to turn it off - to the right (the letter “F” opens). Protection against a premature shot is carried out by the latch of the handle, the shank of which locks the tail hook (with the barrel bore not completely closed).
In the PzB-39 sample, German specialists put into practice an original fire control cyclogram: when the charging handle is turned down, the bolt is lowered, and at the same time the trigger is lowered; the cocking cock of the trigger extends beyond the sear of the trigger lever. When the charging handle is turned back, the bolt rises up, while the hammer remains cocked and the mainspring is compressed. The PzB-39 anti-tank rifle was adopted by the German army in 1939. In 1933, the German arms industry received from the army the long-awaited TTT for development of an anti-tank weapon chambered for 7.92×94 mm type P318.
The cartridge had a brass sleeve with an increased volume for the powder charge. The bullet had a tombac-clad steel jacket, a lead jacket and a tungsten carbide core. At the bottom of the core there was a recess in which a tablet of chlorcecetophen (an irritating tear-producing substance) and a cup with a tracer composition were placed. The powder charge in the cartridge case consisted of pyroxylin grained powder. There was also a cartridge with a varnished steel case and an “SS” type bullet with a tombak-clad steel jacket and a lead core. For the purposes of training shooters, there were blank cartridges and training cartridges with a wooden bullet.
ANTI-TANK RIFLE MODEL 1935, CARTRIDGED 7.92x107 mm (POLAND)
In the 1930s The creation of anti-tank rifles of 7.92 mm caliber was carried out not only by gunsmiths in Germany, but also in a number of other countries, one of which was Poland. On November 25, 1935, by order of the Minister of Defense of Poland, an anti-tank repeating rifle mod. 1935 chambered for 7.92×107 mm. The weapon had a cylindrical bolt with symmetrical locking. The locking system was borrowed from the Mauser rifle. The gun was equipped with a long and thin interchangeable barrel with six right-hand rifling, having a survivability of 300 shots. Each sample was equipped with three spare barrels.
The barrel could be replaced using a special key in combat conditions. To reduce recoil, the gun has a muzzle compensator, which reduces the impact on the shooter by 65%. The weapon was equipped with an original safety system: in the rear part of the bolt there is a rotating ring, when moved to a horizontal position, the firing pin is removed from the cocking position, and the weapon is put on safety. If there is a misfire, the shooter pulls the ring towards himself, and cocking occurs without opening the chamber.
A folding bipod was attached in front of the forend.
The capacity of the interchangeable magazine is three P35 7.92×107 mm cartridges. According to rearmament plans Polish army It was planned that each infantry division would have 92 anti-tank rifles mod. 1935 During the fighting in the fall of 1939, Poland used anti-tank rifles in very small quantities. Thus, this type of weapon did not have a decisive influence on the fight against Wehrmacht armored vehicles during the Polish-German conflict. The reason was that the Polish Ministry of Defense did not organize the full equipping of troops with these weapons. Almost all anti-tank rifles were captured by the German army as trophies directly from warehouses.
After the surrender of Poland, anti-tank rifle mod. 1935 was adopted by the German and Italian armies under the designation mod. 1935 (P), and registered with the German Ministry of Defense as PzB 770 (P). During the Great Patriotic War, specialists from the USSR Art Academy in 1941-1942. assessed the armor-piercing effect of bullets from 7.92×94 mm (Germany) and 7.92×107 mm (Poland) cartridges. Firing was carried out from anti-tank rifles PzB-39 (Germany) and P35 (Poland) at plates of homogeneous armor 7 mm and 10 mm thick.
Tests have confirmed that the bullets of these cartridges have almost the same armor penetration value. German cartridges showed a slight advantage over Polish ones when firing at a distance of 200 m at an impact angle of 20° from the normal. Accordingly, 65% and 40% of through penetrations were obtained.
In comparing cartridges with high-carbon steel bullets, bullets with cores made of the following materials were also tested:
– special steels - tungsten and chromium;
– chrome vanadium steels;
– tungsten carbide.
Cores made of tungsten and chromium steels have no advantages in armor penetration compared to cores made of high-carbon steels. Cores made of chrome vanadium steels have some advantages, but their use is not economically justified. Only the use of tungsten carbide, widely used during the war years in Germany, provides a significant increase in armor penetration. German industry used tungsten carbide of the following composition: tungsten - 90%, carbon - 5-6%, nickel - 2.0-2.5%, specific gravity- 15.0-15.5 and Rockwell hardness - 88-90 units.
PRODUCTION AND USE OF ANTI-TANK RIFLES OF 7.92 MM CALIBER
At enterprises in Germany and Poland in the 1930s. serial production of anti-tank rifles was organized, respectively, PzB-38, PzB-39 and P35. By June 1941, the German army had 25,898 anti-tank rifles, including those made in Poland. Each German infantry division had 18 anti-tank rifles of the PzB-38, PzB-39 and mod models to equip the infantry, engineer and reconnaissance companies. 1935 (P) (PzB-770 (P)). For each sample, the industry in Germany and Poland produced 5,000 rounds of ammunition.
In the process of manufacturing anti-tank rifles in Germany, barrel steel with a high carbon content (up to 0.75%) was widely used, but with minimum quantity harmful impurities (sulfur and phosphorus). It was mostly tungsten steel. The use of steels with a high carbon content and alloyed with tungsten, chromium and vanadium ensured high survivability of the barrels, high wear resistance and greater resistance to tempering when heated. The disadvantage of these steels was the difficulty machining, requiring the use of special carbide tools.
German barrel steel 1930-1940. had normal strength and hardness, but reduced ductility and toughness (compared to the steel used in those years in the USSR). A study of the microstructure of the barrels confirmed that the barrel blank was made by hot rolling with subsequent upsetting of the breech. The production of rifling was carried out by cold broaching. Barrel blanks were subjected to hardening and subsequent tempering. Coating of the bores was not used to increase survivability; survivability was ensured by high-carbon and alloy steel. The tensile strength of barrel steels was 57 kg/mm2, the yield strength was 61 kg/mm2.
Bullet cores were made of carbon steel (analogous to U10 or U12) additionally alloyed with tungsten and vanadium, or tungsten carbide. The bullet core hardness value was 64-68 RC units. Studies of the microstructure of bullets showed that the cores were subjected only to hardening, without additional low-temperature tempering. The materials used for 7.92 mm cartridge cases were: with the “S” bullet and the armor-piercing tracer bullet - brass; with an “SS” and armor-piercing bullet - iron clad with tombak. Bullet shells were made of iron clad with tombak.
Iron for cartridges and bullet casings contained 0.05-0.15% carbon, 0.5% manganese, 0.25% silicon, sulfur and no more than 0.03% phosphorus. Tompak contained 90% copper and 10% zinc. Cupronickel - 60% copper and 40% nickel. Anti-tank rifles PzB-38 and PzB-39 were used in combat operations against France and Poland, in which German troops were confronted by combat vehicles that had weak armor. The armor of these tanks was successfully penetrated by bullets from the 7.92x94 mm cartridge. But in 1941, in the war with the USSR, the Germans faced a new problem: as an enemy they received Soviet T-34 tanks, which could not be hit with a 7.92 mm anti-tank rifle. These guns, created for fast-paced warfare, did not meet the new requirements.
German specialist literature indicated that the insufficient combat power of the PzB-39 was the reason for the cessation of production of this weapon. In battle, the crews of T-34 tanks simply did not notice the hits of bullets fired from PzB-38 rifles and, as a result, German infantrymen often threw away these weapons that had become useless. As for the Polish anti-tank rifle mod. 1935, then before the war an interesting situation arose in the Polish army: since 1938, weapons were supplied to the Armed Forces in sealed closures (one rifle, three spare barrels and three magazines with full ammunition). The seals could only be removed by order of the Minister of Defense; Firing training was allowed to be carried out only by a limited contingent of military personnel who signed a non-disclosure agreement (this included division and regiment commanders and their deputies, battalion and company commanders). The military personnel (soldiers) who were supposed to use these weapons in battle did not even see them, not to mention the skills to use them. The result of this policy was the seizure of these samples by the Germans as trophies directly from warehouses.
SALISHCHEV-GAPKIN ANTI-TANK RIFLE FOR 7.92x94 mm CARTRIDGE
By 1941, the German army had at its disposal 16,570 PzB-38 and PzB-39 anti-tank rifles. Thus, Germany could afford to sell even such new weapons as the PzB-39 and its cartridges to other states, even potential adversaries. Probably, such a system was purchased by the USSR in the late 1930s, because The German leadership was confident that the industry of the Soviet Union would not be able to reproduce it as a full-fledged weapon. In 1939, during the liberation of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, occupied by the Poles in 1920, the Red Army captured Polish anti-tank rifles mod. 1935 and cartridges for them.
After studying these samples by Soviet specialists, the USSR Government decided to develop a similar domestic sample. The development was entrusted to Tula gunsmith designers V.N. Salishchev. and Galkin V.A. The gunsmiths successfully coped with this task. They designed a single-shot anti-tank rifle chambered for the German 7.92x94 mm cartridge, designed to combat lightly armored targets and destroy low-flying air targets. When firing, the pressure in the barrel bore reached 3800 kg/cm2, the firing range was 300 m, the length of the aiming line was 992 mm, the number of rifling was 4, and the rifling pitch was 360 mm.
The barrel of the gun is conical, stepped, connected to the receiver with a threaded connection, the barrel is equipped with a muzzle brake with three side windows. In the tail part of the brake there is a lock nut with a notch and holes for a key to press it to the base of the front sight. The front muzzle brake ring is removable and secured with three screws. The locknut is secured with a special latch. The locking system operates by rotating the bolt stem of the longitudinally sliding bolt with the entry of four symmetrically located lugs into two annular grooves of the receiver. The stroke of the moving parts is 115 mm.
Striker-type impact mechanism. The firing pin is separate, free, and is held at the beginning of the stem by a pin. The drummer is hollow. The mainspring is cylindrical, located in the firing pin channel and rests against the bolt handle. The firing pin is cocked when the bolt is chambered and locked, when its cocking rests on the sear. When unlocked, the screw edge of the bolt stem cutout acts on the firing pin cocking and retracts it. It is prevented from turning by a combat cock, which moves in a groove in the receiver. In this case, the mainspring receives a slight compression. Single fire trigger. The design is assembled in a single body, which is secured to the receiver with two screws. The trigger rotates on an axis and its upper part interacts with the lower arm of the trigger lever. The upper arm of the lever has a sear. The design does not include safety locks, and the shooter can fire a shot with the bolt not fully closed.
The sample is non-automatic. Reloading is done manually by opening and closing the bolt. The cartridge is inserted into the chamber and sent back by the bolt when locked. The cartridge case was removed by a spring-loaded ejector supported by a protrusion. Reflection was carried out by a spring-loaded lever rotating on an axis mounted in a housing fixed in the receiver. The design of the gun does not provide for preliminary “straightening” of the cartridge case during removal. The stock of the gun with the fore-end and butt is made of hardwood. The stock is connected to the receiver and barrel with two bolts and a stock ring.
The bipod is mounted on the trunk, has two tubular legs with openers and folds along the trunk without additional fixation. In a fighting position, the legs move into working position using a spring and are fixed in the grooves. The first prototypes of the Salishchev-Galkin anti-tank rifle chambered for the German 7.92×94 mm cartridge were manufactured at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War at one of the Tula factories. In September 1941, tests of this sample were carried out at one of the test sites.
Tests revealed a number of design flaws, including fairly strong recoil for a 7.92 mm caliber sample, the possibility of firing with the bolt not fully locked, and the lack of fuses. The disadvantage was also poor armor penetration. The difficulty of supplying troops with ammunition was also noted: it was necessary to purchase it abroad, which was impossible during the war, or to organize production in the Soviet Union, which was expensive. In this regard, work on this sample was stopped, and mass production was not organized.
In conclusion, it should be noted that in the 1930s. gunsmiths abroad and in the USSR paid certain attention creation of anti-tank rifles of 7.92 mm caliber. One of the main reasons for the creation of these models and the desire of armies to adopt them was the rapid development of armored forces and the complete lack effective means anti-tank defense in infantry units. The greatest success in creating anti-tank models of 7.92 mm caliber was achieved by Germany, which created the PzB-38 and PzB-39 anti-tank rifles chambered for 7.92×94 mm; Poland with an anti-tank rifle mod. 1935 chambered for 7.92×107 mm and the USSR with an experienced Salishchev-Galkin anti-tank rifle chambered for the German cartridge 7.92×94 mm.
Only German-made models, which were successfully used in France and Poland, took part in hostilities. The success of their use was achieved due to the weak armor of combat vehicles. However, in the Soviet Union, the Germans were faced with tanks with anti-ballistic armor, which the PzB-38 and PzB-39 could not penetrate. After which these guns were removed from service.
Polish gun arr. 1935, due to mistakes by the country's military leadership, did not participate in hostilities, and almost entirely went to Germany and the Red Army as trophies.
The Salishchev-Galkin anti-tank rifle was developed for the German 7.92x94 mm cartridge, taking into account the results of the analysis of German and Polish samples and the experience of combat use of PzB-38 and PzB-39. Based on the results of testing a prototype in September 1941, the Salishchev-Galkin gun was not accepted for service and was not mass-produced. Currently, one prototype of the Salishchev-Galkin anti-tank gun is stored at one of the Russian defense enterprises.
In the fall of 1941, a new soldier’s specialty appeared in the Red Army - armor-piercing officer. This is how fighters with anti-tank rifles (PTR) began to be called. the creation and use of PTR is worthy of a separate and fairly detailed story.
For the first time, anti-tank rifles - single-shot 13.37 mm Mauser Tankgewehr - were used by the German Reichswehr in 1918, at the final stage of the First World War. This experience turned out to be rather negative, so in subsequent years the armies of the leading countries of the world intended to hit enemy tanks with the help of light guns and “universal” heavy machine guns. However, the scale of troop mechanization made the idea of a light infantry anti-tank weapon with a firing range of several hundred meters increasingly tempting. In the 30s, work on PTR intensified, including in our country. By the way, the term “anti-tank gun” was apparently borrowed from the German Panzerbüchse - after all, we are actually talking about rifled weapons.
In 1936-1938, 15 different PTR systems of caliber from 12.7 to 25 mm were tested, until it became clear that the requirements for an anti-tank rifle were initially too high. On November 9, 1938, the Artillery Directorate of the Red Army formulated a new task, which included the development of a 14.5-mm self-loading anti-tank rifle, which could constantly be with units of a rifle company on any terrain and in any battle conditions. Work on a new 14.5 mm cartridge began at the Scientific Testing Site small arms(NIPSVO) and continued at one of the Moscow factories.
With this ammunition in mind, an employee of the same training ground, N.V. Rukavishnikov, designed an anti-tank rifle, which was put into service on October 7, 1939. And yet, by June 22, 1941, the troops did not have serial anti-tank rifles. This dramatic situation is often explained by the position of Marshal G.I. Kulik, who headed the Main Artillery Directorate before the war and declared in the spring of 1940 about the ineffectiveness of light anti-tank weapons in the fight against the “newest German tanks.” The marshal's opinion probably contributed to the delay in work on the anti-tank gun (as, by the way, the discontinuation of 45-mm anti-tank guns), but did not stop it. Technical reasons played a much larger role - plant No. 2, which was entrusted with the production of the first batch, used its main capacities for the production of PPD in the winter of 1939-1940. In addition, repeated tests of the Rukavishnikov PTR showed its high sensitivity to contamination, unmasking the position by dust raised by gases from the muzzle brake. The gun needed improvement and was withdrawn from service on July 26, 1940. Tests of the converted PTR took place in June 1941, and the NIPSVO report on the results is dated the 23rd - the second day of the Great Patriotic War.
MASS SAMPLES
The urgent establishment of the production of anti-tank rifles in the conditions of the outbreak of war, when all the capacities of the existing enterprises of the People's Commissariat of Armaments were loaded, required the solution of many organizational and technological problems. In the meantime, in July 1941, temporary measures were taken to quickly supply the army with anti-tank rifles.
One of them is an attempt to urgently organize the production at the Tula Machine Tool Plant (plant No. 66) of a 7.92-mm gun modeled on the captured German Pz.B.39. Its armor penetration (at a distance of 300 m the bullet pierced armor up to 23 mm thick) was sufficient to combat light tanks Wehrmacht Yes, and it could hit enemy medium tanks when firing at the side. Plant No. 66 was supposed to produce 5 thousand of these PTRs. But even in September there were still problems with the operation of the gun’s mechanisms. In October, the machine tool plant was evacuated. According to some sources, up to 1 thousand were received by the troops; according to others, only 426 of these anti-tank rifles were received. In any case, 7.92 mm guns were used in the defense of Tula (the Tula Workers' Regiment received several of them).
At that time, we also remembered 12.7 mm single-shot guns, similar in type to the German Mauser Tankgewehr - in the 30s they were manufactured in small quantities in Tula to test the 12.7 mm cartridge, and NIPSVO in 1938 - proposed to develop a store-bought anti-tank rifle on this basis. Now a proposal has arisen to produce a single-shot anti-tank rifle chambered for the 12.7-mm DShK cartridge by small workshops (its initiator is said to be engineer V.N. Sholokhov). Semi-handicraft production began in Moscow in the workshops of the Mechanical Engineering Institute named after. Bauman, then to OKB-16. The simple design of the German Mauser anti-tank rifle was supplemented with a muzzle brake, a stock shock absorber and a folding bipod. Especially for these guns, 12.7 mm cartridges with an armor-piercing bullet were produced, which made it possible to penetrate 20 mm thick armor at a distance of 400 m.
The development of the 14.5 mm cartridge also continued: in August, its version with the BS-41 bullet with a solid core was adopted. This core is often called metal-ceramic, although we are not talking about ceramics, but about the use of powder metallurgy. If the 14.5 mm B-32 bullet penetrated 21 mm thick armor at a distance of 300 m, then the BS-41 - 35 mm.
Putting the Rukavishnikov PTR into production continued to be a problem. To speed up work on a more technologically advanced 14.5-mm PTR, according to the memoirs of D. F. Ustinov, Stalin at one of the State Defense Committee meetings proposed entrusting the development to one more, and for reliability - to two designers. V. A. Degtyarev and S. G. Simonov received the task at the beginning of July. Soon samples ready for testing appeared - only 22 days passed from setting the task to the first test shots. The new anti-tank rifles were supposed to fight medium and light tanks and armored vehicles at ranges of up to 500 m.
Degtyarev and his KB-2 employees at tool plant No. 2 in Kovrov developed two options with varying degrees of automation. Already on July 14, working drawings were transferred to production. On July 28, Degtyarev’s PTR project was reviewed at a meeting at the Small Arms Directorate. On July 30, in order to speed up the organization of mass production, Degtyarev was offered to simplify one of the samples, turning it into a single-shot one, because it is the power system that usually gives the greatest number of problems when fine-tuning the weapon. A few days later this option was presented.
On August 28-29, the Degtyarev PTR was tested at NIPSVO. And on August 6-12, Simonov’s self-loading anti-tank rifle (created on the basis of his experimental self-loading rifle of 1938) and Rukavishnikov’s modified anti-tank rifle were jointly tested here. Simonov's sample showed the best results.
On August 29, 1941, Degtyarev’s single-shot gun and Simonov’s self-loading gun were put into service under the designations PTRD and PTRS, respectively. This was done even before the end of the PTR tests (survivability tests took place on September 12-13, and the final ones on September 24).
The rotating longitudinally sliding bolt of Degtyarev's gun had two lugs in the front and a straight handle in the back. The impact mechanism is of the striker type with a screw mainspring; the tail of the striker came out behind the bolt and looked like a hook. The firing pin was cocked when the bolt was unlocked. The PTRD barrel was equipped with an active muzzle brake, which absorbed up to 2/3 of the recoil energy. The tubular stock housed the shock absorber spring. An ingenious feature of the design was the principle of automatic unlocking of the bolt during recoil, creatively borrowed from artillery. After the shot, the barrel and receiver moved back, the bolt handle ran onto the carbon profile mounted on the butt and turned, unlocking the bolt. After the barrel stopped, the bolt moved back by inertia and stood on the bolt stop, the bolt reflector pushed the spent cartridge into the lower window of the receiver. The moving system was returned to the forward position by a shock absorber spring. The bolt remained open, and in preparation for the next shot it was necessary to insert a new cartridge into the upper window of the receiver, chamber and lock the bolt. This made it possible to increase the combat rate of fire with coordinated work of a crew of two people. The sighting device was moved to the left on brackets and included a front sight and a flip-over rear sight at ranges of up to 600 m and beyond (in the first releases of the PTR, the rear sight moved in a vertical groove).
The butt had a soft cushion, a wooden rest for holding the weapon with the left hand, a wooden pistol grip, and a cheek rest for the shooter. A folding stamped bipod and a carrying handle were attached to the barrel. The accessory included two canvas bags holding 20 rounds each. The total weight of the PTRD with ammunition was about 26 kg. In battle, the gun carried one or both crew numbers. Let's imagine the load on the crew on the march and in battle.
A minimum of parts and the use of a stock pipe instead of a frame simplified the production of anti-tank rifles, and this was of decisive importance in those conditions. Production of PTRD began at Kovrov Plant No. 2: in early October, the first batch of 50 guns was assembled here; on October 28, specialized production was created - a task for anti-tank weapon was the first priority. The first batch of 300 PTRDs was produced in October and in early November sent to the 16th Army of Lieutenant General K.K. Rokossovsky. Later, plant No. 74 (Izhevsk Machine-Building) was connected to the production of PTRD. By December 30, 1941, 17,688 PTRDs were manufactured, and for the entire 1942 - 184,800. The main production of PTRDs was carried out in Kovrov until November 1943, when plant No. 2 ceased production. But in October 1943, the assembly of PTRD began in Zlatoust at plant No. 385.
The self-loading PTRS had automation based on the removal of powder gases through a transverse hole in the barrel wall. The barrel bore was locked by tilting the bolt frame downwards. The impact mechanism is hammer-type, with a screw mainspring. A two-row magazine with a lever feeder was hingedly attached to the receiver and was equipped with a clip (pack) of 5 rounds with the lid folded down. The accessory included 6 clips. When the cartridges were used up, the shutter was delayed. The sighting device included a front sight with a safety catch and a sector sight, notched from 100 to 1500 m. The PTR had a wooden butt with a soft cushion and shoulder pad, and a pistol grip. The neck of the butt was used to hold it with the left hand. The barrel was equipped with a muzzle brake, and a folding bipod and a carrying handle were attached to it.
The production of the PTRS was simpler than the Rukavishnikov PTR (one third fewer parts, 60% fewer machine hours), but much more complex than the PTRD. It was planned to produce PTRS in Tula, but after the evacuation of part of the production of plant No. 66 in Saratov, the production of PTRS was established there, at plant No. 614 (formerly Traktorodetal). There was not enough equipment or capacity to quickly organize production. A solution was found in the cooperation of enterprises: the manufacture of the magazine box was entrusted to the combine plant, and the striker was entrusted to the mechanical workshops of the local university. On November 7, the first PTRS successfully passed tests, and its serial production began in December in Saratov. Izhevsk Plant No. 74 was also involved in the production of PTRS: on November 6, it received the task of organizing the production of PTRS, and already on November 11 - in addition to the production of PTRS. In November, Izhevsk residents produced 36 PTRDs, and the first two PTRDs were only able to be delivered in December. At first, the production of PTR parts was distributed among the plant’s workshops, then separate wooden barracks were built. They used the evacuated production of the Tula Arms and Podolsk Mechanical Plants. On July 1, 1942, on this basis, Plant No. 622 (later Izhevsk Mechanical Plant) was separated from Plant No. 74, which also produced anti-tank rifles of both systems, and from mid-1943 - only PTRS.
In 1941, only 77 PTRS were produced, in 1942 - 63,308. The establishment of mass production made it possible to reduce the cost of PTRS - from the first half of 1942 to the second half of 1943, it almost halved.
Since PTRs were adopted urgently, the shortcomings of the new systems - tight cartridge case extraction for PTRDs, double shots for PTRSs - had to be corrected during production. Due to the tight extraction of cartridges, it was recommended to lubricate the PTR chamber before firing and every 10-12 shots. This, as well as the rather sensitive recoil, reduced the actual combat rate of fire compared to that stated in the manuals. The deployment of mass production in war conditions still required a certain period of time - the needs of the troops began to be sufficiently satisfied only from November 1942.
Production of PTRD was stopped in Izhevsk at plant No. 622 in July, and in Kovrov at plant No. 2 in November 1943, in Zlatoust at plant No. 385 in December 1944. PTRS were produced in Saratov at plant No. 614 until June 1944, in Izhevsk at plant No. 622 - until December of the same year. In total, the above five plants produced 471,726 anti-tank guns - 281,111 anti-tank rocket engines and 190,615 anti-tank missile systems. 469,700 anti-tank missiles of both systems were delivered to the troops. The peak of production - 249,642 units - occurred in 1942, when the role of anti-tank missiles in the anti-tank defense system was most significant. The number of 14.5 mm cartridges produced in 1940-1945 is estimated at 139.8 million, with peak production in 1942-1943.
COMBAT EXPERIENCE
With fairly high ballistic data, the 14.5 mm PTRs were distinguished by maneuverability and manufacturability. They, of course, were not a replacement for even light anti-tank guns, but they bridged the significant gap between the “anti-tank” capabilities of infantry and artillery. Although in 1941, the PTR had to play exactly the role of the latter - back in August, 45-mm guns were removed from the battalion and division levels and transferred to the formation of anti-tank destroyer regiments and brigades.
The first to receive new anti-tank rifles were the troops of the Western Front, who were defending Moscow (here, by the way, a number of Rukavishnikov’s anti-tank rifles were also used). The directive of the front commander, General of the Army G.K. Zhukov, dated October 26, 1941, speaking about sending 3-4 anti-tank rifle platoons to the 5th, 33rd and 16th armies, demanded “to take measures for the immediate use of this weapon, which is exceptional in strength and effectiveness. .. giving them to regiments and battalions.” And in his order dated December 29, Zhukov pointed out shortcomings in the use of anti-tank rifles: the use of their crews as shooters, lack of interaction with groups of tank destroyers and anti-tank artillery, and cases of abandonment of anti-tank rifles on the battlefield.
The most famous battle during the defense of Moscow was the battle at the Dubosekovo crossing on November 16, 1941 of the 4th company of the 2nd battalion of the 1075th regiment of the 316th Infantry Division under Major General I.V. Panfilov. Of the 30 German tanks that took part in the attacks, 18 were knocked out, but of the entire company at the front of which the attack took place, less than 20% of the Red Army soldiers survived. This battle showed not only the ability of PTR crews (there were only 4 crews in the battalion) to fight tanks, but also the need to cover them with riflemen, machine gunners and support with anti-tank and regimental artillery. Form of organizing close interaction anti-tank artillery, PTR, tank destroyers and automatic weapons infantry became anti-tank strong points.
From December 1941, anti-tank rifle companies (with 27, then 54 guns) were introduced into rifle regiments, and from the fall of 1942, anti-tank rifle platoons with 18 guns were introduced into battalions. In January 1943, the PTR company was included in the motorized rifle and machine gun battalion of the tank brigade, where the PTR companies would exist until March 1944. PTR companies were also introduced into artillery anti-tank destroyer divisions, and PTR battalions were added to anti-tank destroyer brigades. Anti-tank rifles, together with light machine guns, provided self-defense artillery batteries from sudden enemy attacks.
It should be noted that the effectiveness of the combat work of anti-tank crews is assessed differently; in the Russian literature of recent years, it is customary to focus on their shortcomings and consider that they had only “psychological significance” in conditions of a clear shortage of anti-tank artillery. However, former Wehrmacht Lieutenant General E. Schneider wrote: “In 1941, the Russians had a 14.5-mm anti-tank rifle... which caused a lot of trouble for our tanks and the light armored personnel carriers that appeared later.” Former Major General F. von Mellenthin noted: “It seemed that every infantryman had an anti-tank rifle or anti-tank gun. The Russians were very clever in disposing of these funds and, it seems, there was no place where they were not found.” In general, in a number of German works about the Second World War and the memoirs of German tank crews, Soviet PTRs are mentioned as “ worthy of respect"weapons, but credit is given to the courage of their crews. Soviet commanders already in 1942 noted new features of the Germans’ attacks involving tanks and assault guns- they sometimes stopped 300-400 m from the forward trenches and supported their infantry with fire from the spot. And these are the ranges from which Soviet anti-tank rifles opened fire. As you can see, the fire of anti-tank rifles had more than just “psychological significance.”
Having played a large role in anti-tank defense in 1941-1942, anti-tank rifles from mid-1943 - with the increase in armor protection of tanks and assault guns over 40 mm - lost their positions. If in January 1942 the number of anti-tank rifles in the troops was 8,116, in January 1944 - 142,861, that is, it increased 17.6 times in two years, then in 1944 it began to decline and by the end of the war the active army had only about 40,000 PTR.
On October 30, 1944, the chief of staff of the 1st Baltic Front, Colonel General V.V. Kurasov, reported: “The experience of using anti-tank rifles during the Patriotic War shows that they had the greatest effect in the period before July 1943, when the enemy used light and medium tanks , A battle formations Our troops were relatively less equipped with anti-tank artillery. Starting from the second half of 1943, when the enemy began to use heavy tanks and self-propelled guns, having powerful armor protection, the effectiveness of anti-tank guns has decreased significantly. The main role in the fight against tanks is currently performed entirely by artillery. Anti-tank rifles, which have good fire accuracy, are now used mainly against enemy firing points, armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers.” Unit commanders successfully used the main advantages of anti-tank rifles - maneuverability, the ability to constantly be in combat formations of small units, ease of camouflage - both in 1944 and in 1945. For example, during a battle surrounded by populated areas, when capturing and securing bridgeheads when it was not possible to use artillery.
PTRs were used to fight not only tanks and armored vehicles. Armor-piercers often silenced enemy bunkers and pillboxes. Snipers used the PTR instead of a sniper rifle to engage the enemy at long ranges or behind covers (attempts to install an optical sight on the PTR were unsuccessful due to the weapon's recoil being too strong). Anti-tank rifles were also used to combat low-flying aircraft - here the self-loading PTRS had advantages.
The PTRD is Degtyarev’s anti-tank rifle, created by the great Soviet gunsmith in the first months of the Great Patriotic War. It has an extremely simple design and is highly reliable. A soldier armed with a PTRD could effectively resist light armored vehicles, disabling them with well-aimed hits at important components.
The rifle survived the entire war, and the crews operating it more than once became heroes, showing valor and bravery in the fight against the armored vehicles of the Third Reich.
Background and history of creation
They started thinking about creating anti-tank rifles back in the early 30s of the last century. Having received the appropriate order, many designers began development, and by the end of the thirties about 15 samples had been demonstrated. After all the tests, the choice settled on the Rukavishnikov PTR. It fired a 14.5 caliber cartridge, which had excellent armor penetration properties.
However, serial production of the rifle was stopped almost immediately. The reason was to obtain intelligence information about the armored forces of a potential enemy. They indicated that the enemy had increased the frontal armor of their vehicles to 60 mm. By the way, after the capture of France, the Germans actually had vehicles with such an indicator of the thickness of the front armor plate.
The captured B1 and AMX were invulnerable opponents for the PTR.
Therefore, Marshal of Artillery Forces G.I. Kulik decided to curtail production of both anti-tank rifles and light anti-tank guns with a caliber of up to 76 mm.
Unfortunately, the beginning of the Great Patriotic War showed that the information presented was erroneous. The German army had a large number of light armored vehicles and tanks. Soviet infantry units lacked the means to fight the enemy. An urgent order was issued to resume work with small-caliber anti-tank weapons, including anti-tank weapons.
The development of new rifles lasted about a month, after which Degtyarev and Simonov presented rifles of their systems.
The rifle's combat crew consisted of two people. Directly from the gunner, who aimed the barrel and fired the shot, the reloading was carried out by a second person. He also carried the ammunition in a special bag.
Where was it used after World War II?
Despite the end of the World War, conflicts have not disappeared anywhere. Already in the early 50s of the 20th century, the Korean War broke out. The Soviet Union actively supplied weapons to both China and Kim Il Sung (Leader of North Korea). And during the conflict that began, the PTRD was used against American equipment.
The PTRD has not lost its relevance in modern times. The latest generation of tanks are too tough for him, but he remains an excellent means of fighting armored personnel carriers, in particular when shooting at armored personnel carriers, he leaves no chance for the latter.
Degtyarev's armor-piercing rifles also appeared in private collections. MMGs are made from them (models-remakes converted from military weapons into a harmless museum exhibit). Reenactors also have their own samples of PTRD. It is converted to fire blank cartridges (shp). Of course, the characteristics of this weapon do not allow it to fire live ammunition.
Video
In service with the infantry at the beginning of World War II, high-explosive hand grenades and anti-tank rifles, that is, weapons that originated in the last years of the First World War. “Anti-tank rifle” (ATR) is not an entirely accurate term - this weapon would be more correctly called an “anti-tank rifle.” However, this is how it happened historically (apparently as a translation of the German word “panzerbuhse”) and has firmly entered our lexicon. The armor-piercing effect of anti-tank rifles is based on kinetic energy the bullet used, and, therefore, depends on the speed of the bullet at the moment of meeting the obstacle, the angle of contact, mass (or rather, the ratio of mass to caliber), design and shape of the bullet, mechanical properties material of the bullet (core) and armor. The bullet, having pierced the armor, causes damage due to its incendiary and fragmentation action. It should be noted that the lack of armor action was the main reason for the low effectiveness of the first anti-tank gun - the single-shot 13.37 mm Mauser developed in 1918. A bullet fired from this anti-tank rifle was capable of penetrating 20 mm armor at a range of 500 meters. During the interwar period, PTR was tested in different countries, however, for a long time the attitude towards them was more like a surrogate, especially since the German Reichswehr adopted the Mauser anti-tank rifle as a temporary replacement for the TuF machine gun of the corresponding caliber.
In the 20-30s years easy a small-caliber cannon or a large-caliber machine gun seemed to most specialists the most successful and universal solution to two problems - air defense at low altitudes and anti-tank at short and medium ranges. It would seem that this view was confirmed by the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 (although during those battles, both sides, in addition to the 20-mm automatic cannon, used the surviving 13.37-mm Mauser anti-tank guns). However, by the end of the 30s it became clear that the “universal” or “anti-tank” machine gun (12.7 mm Browning, DShK, Vickers, 13 mm Hotchkiss, 20 mm Oerlikon, Solothurn ", "Madsen", 25-mm "Vickers"), due to the combination of its weight, size and efficiency, cannot be used at the front line by small infantry units. Large-caliber machine guns during the Second World War, as a rule, were used for air defense needs or for shelling fortified firing points (a typical example is the use of the Soviet 12.7-mm DShK). True, they armed light armored vehicles, along with anti-aircraft guns, they were used in anti-tank guns, and were even included in anti-tank reserves. But the heavy machine gun did not actually become an anti-tank weapon. Note that the 14.5-mm Vladimirov KPV machine gun, which appeared in 1944, although it was created for the cartridge of an anti-tank rifle, at the time of its appearance could not serve as an “anti-tank” one. After the war, it was used as a means of combating manpower at considerable ranges, air targets and light armored vehicles.
Anti-tank rifles used during World War II differed in caliber (from 7.92 to 20 millimeters), type (self-loading, magazine, single-shot), size, weight, and layout. However, their design had a number of common features:
- high muzzle velocity was achieved through the use of a powerful cartridge and a long barrel (90 - 150 calibers);
Cartridges with armor-piercing tracer and armor-piercing incendiary bullets were used, which had armor-piercing and sufficient armor-protecting effect. Note that attempts to create anti-tank guns for the developed cartridges of large-caliber machine guns did not give satisfactory results, and the cartridges were specially developed, and converted cartridges for aircraft guns were used in 20-mm anti-tank guns. 20-mm anti-tank guns became a separate branch of “anti-tank machine guns” of the 20-30s of the last century;
To reduce recoil, muzzle brakes, spring shock absorbers, and soft butt pads were installed;
To increase maneuverability, the dimensions of weight and anti-tank guns were reduced, carrying handles were introduced, and heavy guns were quickly disassembled;
In order to quickly transfer fire, the bipod was attached closer to the middle, for uniformity of aiming and convenience, many samples were equipped with a “cheek”, a shoulder pad for the butt, most samples used a pistol grip for control, and it was possible to hold a special handle or butt with the left hand when shooting;
Maximum reliability of the mechanisms was achieved;
Great importance was attached to ease of development and production.
The problem of rate of fire was resolved in combination with the requirement of simplicity of design and maneuverability. Single-shot anti-tank rifles had a rate of fire of 6-8 rounds per minute, magazine-loaded ones - 10-12, and self-loading ones - 20-30.
12.7 mm single-shot "Sholokhov PTR" chambered for the DShK cartridge, manufactured in 1941.
In the USSR, a government decree on the development of an anti-tank rifle appeared on March 13, 1936. The design of 20-25 mm shotguns weighing up to 35 kilograms was entrusted to S.A. Korovin M.N. Blum and S.V. Vladimirov. Until 1938, 15 samples were tested, but none of them met the requirements. So, in 1936 at the Kovrov plant No. 2 named after. Kirkizha made two prototypes 20-mm "company anti-tank rifle" INZ-10 system M.N. Blum and S.V. Vladimirov - on a wheeled carriage and on a bipod. In August 1938, eight company-level anti-tank weapons systems were tested at the Small Arms Research Site in Shchyurovo:
20mm anti-tank rifle INZ-10;
- 12.7 mm anti-tank rifle, converted by NIPSVO from the German Mauser;
- 12.7 mm Vladimirov anti-tank rifle;
- 12.7 mm TsKB-2 anti-tank rifle;
- 14.5 mm anti-tank rifle of the Vladimirov and NIPSVO systems (14.5 mm cartridge developed by NIPSVO);
- 25-mm self-loading gun MTs (43-K Tsyrulnikov and Mikhno systems);
- 37 mm DR recoilless rifle.
The INZ-10 light self-loading gun showed unsatisfactory armor penetration and accuracy. The weight of the weapon in the combat position was also large (41.9 - 83.3 kg). The remaining systems were also either considered unsatisfactory or needed serious improvements. At the beginning of 1937, NIPSVO tested an experimental Tula self-loading 20-mm anti-tank rifle (gun) TsKBSV-51 developed by S.A. Korovin. This gun had a tripod and optical sight. However, it was also rejected due to insufficient armor penetration, large mass(47.2 kg) and poor design muzzle brake. In 1938, B.G. proposed his light 37-mm anti-tank gun. Shpitalny, head of OKB-15, but she was rejected even before the tests began. An attempt to convert the Shpitalny and Vladimirov automatic 20-mm cannon (ShVAK) into a “universal” anti-aircraft anti-tank weapon also failed. In the end, the requirements for anti-tank rifles themselves were considered inappropriate. On November 9, 1938, the Artillery Department formulated new requirements. We have modified a powerful 14.5-mm cartridge that has an armor-piercing incendiary bullet B-32 with a hardened steel core and a pyrotechnic incendiary composition (similar to the B-32 rifle bullet). The incendiary composition was placed between the shell and the core. Serial production of the cartridge began in 1940. The mass of the cartridge was 198 grams, the bullet - 51 grams, the length of the cartridge was 155.5 millimeters, the cartridge case - 114.2 millimeters. A bullet at a range of 0.5 km at an impact angle of 20 degrees was capable of penetrating 20 mm cemented armor.
14.5 mm PTR Degtyarev mod. 1941
N.V. Rukavishnikov used this cartridge to develop a very successful self-loading gun, the rate of fire of which reached 15 rounds per minute (the self-loading 14.5-mm anti-tank gun developed by Shpitalny was again unsuccessful). In August 1939, it successfully passed the tests. In October of the same year it was put into service under the designation PTR-39. However, in the spring of 1940, Marshal G.I. Kulik, the head of the GAU, raised the question of the ineffectiveness of existing anti-tank weapons against the “newest German tanks” about which intelligence data had appeared. In July 1940, the PTR-39 was put into production by the Kovrov plant named after. Kirkizh was suspended. Erroneous views that in the near future the armor protection and firepower of tanks would significantly increase had a number of consequences: anti-tank guns were excluded from the weapon system (order dated August 26, 1940), the production of 45-mm anti-tank guns was stopped, and an order was issued for the urgent design of 107- millimeter tank and anti-tank guns. As a result of this, the Soviet infantry lost an effective close-combat anti-tank weapon.
In the first weeks of the war, the tragic consequences of this mistake became visible. However, on June 23, tests of Rukavishnikov’s anti-tank rifles showed a still large percentage of delays. Finishing and putting this gun into production would require considerable time. True, individual Rukavishnikov anti-tank rifles were used in parts of the Western Front during the defense of Moscow. In July 1941, as a temporary measure, the workshops of many Moscow universities began assembling a single-shot anti-tank gun chambered for the 12.7-mm DShK cartridge (this gun was proposed by V.N. Sholokhov, and it was considered back in 1938). Simple design copied from an old German 13.37 mm Mauser anti-tank rifle. However, a muzzle brake, a shock absorber on the back of the butt, and a lightweight folding bipod were added to the design. Despite this, the design did not provide the required parameters, especially since the armor penetration of the 12.7 mm cartridge was insufficient to combat tanks. Especially for these anti-tank rifles, a cartridge with an armor-piercing BS-41 bullet was produced in small series.
Finally, in July, a 14.5-mm cartridge with an armor-piercing incendiary bullet was officially adopted. To speed up work on a technologically advanced and effective 14.5-mm anti-tank rifle, Stalin at a meeting of the State Defense Committee proposed entrusting the development to “one more, and for reliability - two designers” (according to the memoirs of D.F. Ustinov). The task was issued in July to S.G. Simonov and V.A. Degtyarev. A month later, the designs were presented, ready for testing - only 22 days passed from the moment the task was received to the test shots.
V.A. Degtyarev and employees of KB-2 plant named after. Kirkizha (INZ-2 or plant No. 2 of the People's Commissariat of Armaments) on July 4 began developing a 14.5-mm anti-tank rifle. At the same time, two store options were developed. On July 14, working drawings were transferred to production. On July 28, Degtyarev’s anti-tank rifle project was discussed at a meeting at the Red Army Small Arms Directorate. On July 30, Degtyarev was offered to simplify one sample, converting it into a single-shot one. This was necessary to speed up the organization of mass production of anti-tank rifles. A few days later the sample was already presented.
At the same time, work was underway to fine-tune the cartridge. On August 15, a version of the 14.5 mm cartridge with a BS-41 bullet having a powder metal-ceramic core (bullet weight was 63.6 g) was adopted. The bullet was developed by the Moscow Hard Alloy Plant. The 14.5 mm cartridges differed in color: the B-32 bullet nose was painted black and had a red belt, while the BS-41 bullet was painted red and had a black nose. The cartridge capsule was covered with black paint. This coloring allowed the armor-piercer to quickly distinguish between cartridges. A cartridge with a BZ-39 bullet was produced. Based on the BS-41, an “armor-piercing-incendiary-chemical” bullet with a capsule with a gas-forming composition of the HAF in the rear part was developed (the German “armor-piercing-chemical” cartridge for the Pz.B 39 served as a model). However, this cartridge was not accepted. Acceleration of work on anti-tank guns was necessary, since the problems of anti-tank artillery units of rifle units worsened - in August, due to a lack of anti-tank artillery, 45-mm guns were removed from the divisional and battalion level for the formation of anti-tank artillery brigades and regiments, the 57-mm anti-tank gun was removed from production due to technological problems.
On August 29, 1941, after a demonstration to members of the State Defense Committee, Simonov’s self-loading model and Degtyarev’s single-shot model were adopted for service under the designations PTRS and PTRD. Due to the urgency of the issue, the guns were accepted before the end of the tests - survivability tests of anti-tank guns were carried out on September 12-13, the final tests of the modified anti-tank guns were carried out on September 24. The new anti-tank rifles were supposed to fight light and medium tanks, as well as armored vehicles at a range of up to 500 meters.
14.5 mm Simonov PTR mod. 1941
Production of PTRD was started at plant No. 2 named after. Kirkizha - in early October, the first batch of 50 guns was put into assembly. On October 10, a special unit was created in the Chief Designer's Department. documentation development group. A conveyor was urgently organized. Equipment and tools were prepared out of turn. On October 28, a specialized production of anti-tank rifles was created under the leadership of Goryachiy - at that time the task for anti-tank weapons was a priority. Later, Izhmash, the production of the Tula Arms Plant, evacuated to Saratov, and others joined the production of anti-tank rifles.
Degtyarev's single-shot anti-tank rifle consisted of a barrel with a cylindrical receiver, a longitudinally rotating sliding bolt, a butt with a trigger box, trigger and impact mechanisms, a bipod and sighting devices. The barrel bore had 8 rifling with a stroke length of 420 millimeters. The active box-shaped muzzle brake was capable of absorbing up to 60% of recoil energy. The cylindrical bolt had a straight handle at the rear and two lugs at the front, which housed a striking mechanism, a reflector and an ejector. The impact mechanism included a mainspring and a hammer with a striker; the tail of the striker looked like a hook and went out. The bevel of its frame, when the bolt was unlocked, pulled the firing pin back.
The receiver and trigger were connected rigidly to the inner tube of the butt. An inner tube with a spring shock absorber was inserted into the butt tube. The moving system (bolt, receiver and barrel) moved back after the shot, the bolt handle “ran” onto the carbon profile mounted on the butt, and when turned, unlocked the bolt. After stopping the barrel, the bolt moved back by inertia, getting into the bolt stop ( left-hand side receiver), while the cartridge case was pushed by the reflector into the lower window in the receiver. The shock absorber spring returned the moving system to the forward position. Inserting a new cartridge into the upper window of the receiver, chambering it, and also locking the bolt was done manually. The trigger mechanism included a trigger, a release lever and a sear with springs. Sights were placed to the left on brackets. They included a front sight and a reversible rear sight at ranges of up to and over 600 meters (in the first releases of anti-tank rifles, the rear sight moved in a vertical groove).
On the butt there was a soft cushion, a wooden rest designed to hold the gun with the left hand, a wooden pistol grip, and a “cheek.” Folding stamped bipods were attached to the barrel using a collar with a wing. A handle was also attached to the barrel, with the help of which the weapon was carried. The accessory included a pair of canvas bags each holding 20 rounds. The total weight of Degtyarev's anti-tank rifle with ammunition was approximately 26 kilograms. In battle, the gun was carried by the first or both crew numbers.
A minimum of parts and the use of a butt pipe instead of a frame greatly simplified the production of an anti-tank rifle, and the automatic opening of the bolt increased the rate of fire. Degtyarev's anti-tank rifle successfully combined simplicity, efficiency and reliability. The speed of production was of great importance in those conditions. The first batch of 300 PTRD units was completed in October and already in early November it was sent to Rokossovsky’s 16th Army. On November 16 they were used in combat for the first time. By December 30, 1941, 17,688 Degtyarev anti-tank rifles were produced, and during 1942 - 184,800 units.
The Simonov self-loading anti-tank rifle was created on the basis of the experimental Simonov self-loading rifle of the 1938 model, which worked according to a scheme with the removal of powder gas. The gun consisted of a barrel with a muzzle brake and a gas chamber, a receiver with a butt, a trigger guard, a bolt, a reloading mechanism, a trigger mechanism, sights, a bipod and a magazine. The bore was the same as that of the PTRD. Gas chamber open type fastened with pins at a distance of 1/3 of the barrel length from the muzzle. The receiver and barrel were connected by a wedge.
The barrel bore was locked by tilting the bolt frame downwards. Locking and unlocking was controlled by the bolt stem, which had a handle. The reloading mechanism included gas regulator three positions, rod, piston, tube and pusher with spring. A pusher acted on the bolt stem. The bolt return spring was located in the stem channel. The hammer with a spring was placed in the channel of the bolt frame. The bolt, having received a movement impulse from the pusher after the shot, moved backward. At the same time, the pusher returned forward. The spent cartridge case was removed by the bolt ejector and reflected upward by the protrusion of the receiver. After the cartridges ran out, the bolt stopped in the receiver.
A trigger mechanism was mounted on the trigger guard. The trigger striking mechanism had a screw mainspring. The design of the trigger mechanism included: a trigger sear, a trigger lever and a hook, while the axis of the trigger was located at the bottom. The magazine and lever feeder were hinged to the receiver; its latch was located on the trigger guard. The cartridges were placed in a checkerboard pattern. The magazine was equipped with a pack (clip) of five rounds with the lid folded down. The rifle included 6 clips. The front sight had a fence, and the sector sight had notches from 100 to 1500 meters in increments of 50. The anti-tank rifle had a wooden butt with a shoulder pad and a soft cushion, and a pistol grip. The narrow neck of the butt was used to hold the gun with the left hand. A folding bipod was attached to the barrel using a clip (swivel). There was a handle for carrying. In battle, the anti-tank rifle was carried by one or both crew numbers. The disassembled gun on the hike - the receiver with the butt and the barrel - was carried in two tarpaulin cases.
The production of the Simonov self-loading anti-tank gun was simpler than the Rukavishnikov gun (the number of parts is one third less, the machine hours are 60% less, the time is 30%), but it is much more complicated than the Degtyarev anti-tank gun. In 1941, 77 Simonov anti-tank rifles were produced, in 1942 the number was already 63,308 units. Since anti-tank rifles were adopted urgently, all the shortcomings of the new systems, such as tight cartridge case extraction in the Degtyarev PTR or double shots in the Simonov PTR, were corrected during production or “adjusted” in military workshops. Despite all the manufacturability of anti-tank rifles, the deployment of their mass production in war time required some time - the needs of the troops began to be met only in November 1942. The establishment of mass production made it possible to reduce the cost of weapons - for example, the cost of the Simonov anti-tank rifle from the first half of 1942 to the second half of 1943 decreased by almost half.
Anti-tank rifles bridged the gap between the "anti-tank" capabilities of artillery and infantry.
Since December 1941, companies armed with anti-tank rifles (27, and later 54 rifles) were introduced into the rifle regiments. Since the fall of 1942, platoons (18 rifles) of anti-tank rifles were introduced into the battalions. In January 1943, the PTR company was included in the motorized rifle and machine gun battalion (later - the submachine gun battalion) of the tank brigade. Only in March 1944, when the role of anti-tank rifles decreased, the companies were disbanded, and the “armor-piercing men” were retrained as tank crews (since they were re-equipped with the T-34-85, whose crew consisted of not four, but five people). Companies were assigned to anti-tank destruction divisions, and battalions were assigned to anti-tank destruction brigades. Thus, attempts were made to ensure close interaction between PTR units and infantry, artillery and tank units.
The troops of the Western Front, engaged in the defense of Moscow, were the first to receive anti-tank rifles. Directive of Army General G.K. Zhukov, commander of the front forces, dated October 26, 1941, speaking about sending 3-4 platoons of anti-tank rifles to the 5th, 16th and 33rd armies, demanded “to take measures for the immediate use of this exceptionally effective and powerful weapon... giving their battalions and regiments." Zhukov's order of December 29 also pointed out the disadvantages of using anti-tank rifles - the use of crews as shooters, lack of interaction with anti-tank artillery and groups of tank destroyers, cases of leaving anti-tank rifles on the battlefield. As you can see, the effectiveness of the new weapon was not immediately appreciated; the command staff simply had little idea of the possibilities of its use. It is necessary to take into account the shortcomings of the first batches of anti-tank rifles.
Degtyarev's anti-tank rifles were first used in combat in Rokossovsky's 16th Army. The most famous battle was the clash on November 16, 1941, at the Dubosekovo crossing during the defense of Moscow, between a group of tank destroyers of the 2nd battalion of the 1075th regiment of Panfilov’s 316th Infantry Division and 30 German tanks. 18 tanks that took part in the attacks were knocked out, but less than a fifth of the entire company remained alive. This battle showed the effectiveness of anti-tank grenades and anti-tank rifles in the hands of "tank destroyers". However, he also revealed the need to cover the “fighters” with riflemen and support them with light regimental artillery.
To understand the role of anti-tank rifle units, it is necessary to remember tactics. In battle, the commander of a rifle battalion or regiment could leave a company of anti-tank rifles entirely at his disposal or transfer it to rifle companies, leaving at least a platoon of anti-tank rifles in the anti-tank area of the regiment in defense as a reserve. A platoon of anti-tank rifles could operate in full force or be split into half-platoons and squads of 2-4 rifles. The anti-tank rifle squad, acting independently or as part of a platoon, in battle had to “choose a firing position, equip it and camouflage it; quickly prepare for shooting, and also accurately hit enemy armored vehicles and tanks; during the battle, covertly and quickly change the firing position.” Firing positions were chosen behind artificial or natural obstacles, although quite often the crews simply took cover in bushes or grass. The positions were chosen in such a way as to ensure all-round fire at ranges of up to 500 meters, and a flank position was taken to the direction of movement of enemy tanks. Cooperation was also organized with other anti-tank formations and rifle units. Depending on the availability of time at the position, a full-profile trench with a platform was prepared, a trench for all-round firing without or with a platform, a small trench for firing in a wide sector - in this case, shooting was carried out with the bipod removed or tucked in. Fire at tanks from anti-tank rifles was opened, depending on the situation, from a distance of 250 to 400 meters, preferably, of course, in the stern or side, however, at infantry positions, armor-piercing soldiers quite often had to “hit them head-on.” Anti-tank rifle crews were divided in depth and along the front at distances and intervals from 25 to 40 meters at an angle back or forward, and during flanking fire - in one line. The front of an anti-tank rifle squad is 50-80 meters, that of a platoon is 250-700 meters.
During the defense, “armor-piercing snipers” were deployed in echelon, preparing the main position and up to three spare ones. An observer-gunner on duty remained at the squad position until the enemy armored vehicles began to advance. If the tank was moving, it was recommended to concentrate the fire of several anti-tank rifles on it: when the tank approached, fire was fired at its turret, if the tank overcame a barrier, a scarp or embankment - along the bottom, if the tank was moving towards a neighbor - along the engine part, side and external tanks, in if the tank is removed - to the stern. Taking into account the increased armor of tanks, fire from anti-tank rifles was usually opened from a distance of 150-100 meters. When they approached directly to positions or when breaking into the depths of the defense, armor-piercing fighters and “tank destroyers” used anti-tank grenades and Molotov cocktails.
The commander of an anti-tank rifle platoon could allocate a squad participating in the defense to destroy enemy aircraft. This was a common task. For example, in the defense zone of the 148th Infantry Division (Central Front) near Kursk, 93 easel and light machine gun and 65 anti-tank rifles. Anti-tank rifles were often placed on improvised anti-aircraft installations. A tripod machine created for this purpose at plant No. 2 named after. Kirkizh was not accepted into production, and this is perhaps fair.
In 1944, staggered placement of anti-tank rifles in depth and along the front at a distance of 50 to 100 meters from each other was practiced. At the same time, mutual shooting of the approaches was ensured, and dagger fire was widely used. In winter, anti-tank rifles were mounted by crews on drags or sleds. In closed areas with non-shootable spaces for anti-tank rifle positions, groups of fighters with incendiary bottles and grenades were positioned in front of them. In the mountains, anti-tank rifle crews were, as a rule, located at road turns, entrances to valleys and gorges, and when defending heights - on tank-accessible and most gentle slopes.
During the offensive, a platoon of anti-tank rifles moved in rolling formations in the battle formation of a rifle battalion (company) in readiness to meet enemy armored vehicles with fire from at least two squads. The anti-tank rifle crews occupied positions in front between the rifle platoons. During an offensive with an open flank, armor-piercing units are usually kept on this flank. A squad of anti-tank rifles usually advanced on the flanks or in the gaps of a rifle company, and a platoon of anti-tank rifles - a battalion or company. Between positions, crews moved under cover of mortar and infantry fire along or hidden approaches.
During the attack, anti-tank rifles were located at the attack line. Their main task was to defeat enemy fire (primarily anti-tank) weapons. If tanks appeared, the fire was immediately transferred to them. During the battle in the depths of the enemy’s defense, platoons and squads of anti-tank rifles supported the advance of rifle units with fire, ensuring its protection “from surprise attacks by enemy armored vehicles and tanks from ambushes,” destroying counterattacking or dug-in tanks, as well as firing points. The crews were recommended to hit armored vehicles and tanks with flanking and crossfire.
During battles in the forest or populated areas, since the battle formations were dismembered, anti-tank rifle squads were often attached to rifle platoons. Moreover, a reserve of anti-tank rifles remained mandatory in the hands of the regiment or battalion commander. When advancing, anti-tank rifle units covered the rear and flanks of rifle regiments, battalions or companies, firing through vacant lots or squares, as well as along streets. When occupying defenses within the city, positions were placed at street intersections, squares, basements and buildings in order to keep alleys and streets, breaches and arches under fire. When defending a forest, anti-tank rifle positions were placed in depth, so that roads, clearings, paths and clearings were fired upon. On the march, a platoon of anti-tank rifles was attached to a marching outpost or followed in constant readiness to meet the enemy with fire in the column of the main forces. Anti-tank rifle units operated as part of forward and reconnaissance detachments, especially in rough terrain that made it difficult to carry heavier weapons. In the advanced detachments, armor-piercing detachments perfectly complemented the tank brigades - for example, on July 13, 1943, the advanced detachment of the 55th Guards tank regiment With the fire of anti-tank rifles and tanks in the Rzhavets area, he successfully repelled a counterattack of 14 German tanks, knocking out 7 of them. Former Wehrmacht Lieutenant General E. Schneider, an expert in the field of weapons, wrote: “The Russians in 1941 had a 14.5-mm anti-tank rifle, which caused a lot of trouble for our tanks and light armored personnel carriers that appeared later.” In general, in some German works about the Second World War and the memoirs of Wehrmacht tank crews, Soviet anti-tank rifles were mentioned as weapons “worthy of respect,” but tribute was also paid to the courage of their crews. With high ballistic data, the 14.5 mm anti-tank rifle was distinguished by its manufacturability and maneuverability. Simonov's anti-tank rifle is considered the best weapon of this class of World War II in terms of its combination of operational and combat qualities.
Having played a significant role in anti-tank defense in 1941-1942, anti-tank rifles had already lost their position by the summer of 1943 - with the increase in armor protection of assault guns and tanks over 40 millimeters. True, there were cases of successful combat between infantry anti-tank formations and heavy enemy tanks in previously prepared defensive positions. For example, a duel between the armor-piercing gunman Ganja (151st Infantry Regiment) and the Tiger. The first shot to the forehead did not produce any results, the armor-piercing officer put the anti-tank rifle in the trench and, letting the tank pass over him, fired at the stern, immediately changing position. While the tank was turning around to move to the trench, Ganzha fired a third shot into the side and set it on fire. However, this is the exception rather than the rule. If in January 1942 the number of anti-tank rifles in the troops was 8,116 units, in January 1943 - 118,563 units, in 1944 - 142,861 units, that is, in two years it increased 17.6 times, then in 1944 it began to decline. By the end of the war in service Active Army there were only 40 thousand anti-tank rifles (their total resource as of May 9, 1945 was 257,500 units). Largest quantity anti-tank rifles were supplied to the army in 1942 - 249,000 units, but in the first half of 1945 only 800 units. The same picture was observed with 12.7 mm and 14.5 mm cartridges: in 1942 their production was 6 times higher than the pre-war level, but by 1944 it had decreased noticeably. Despite this, production of 14.5 mm anti-tank rifles continued until January 1945. A total of 471,500 units were produced during the war. The anti-tank rifle was a front-line weapon, which explains significant losses - during the war, 214 thousand anti-tank rifles of all models were lost, that is, 45.4%. The highest percentage of losses was observed in 41 and 42 - 49.7 and 33.7%, respectively. Material losses corresponded to the level of personnel losses.
The following figures indicate the intensity of the use of anti-tank rifles in the middle of the war. During the defense Kursk Bulge On the Central Front, 387 thousand rounds of anti-tank rifle ammunition were spent (48,370 per day), and on the Voronezh Front - 754 thousand (68,250 per day). During the Battle of Kursk, more than 3.5 million rounds of anti-tank rifle ammunition were used. In addition to tanks, anti-tank rifles fired at firing points and embrasures of bunkers and pillboxes at a range of up to 800 meters, and at aircraft - up to 500 meters.
In the third period of the war, anti-tank rifles of Degtyarev and Simonov were used against light armored vehicles and lightly armored self-propelled guns, which were widely used by the enemy, as well as to combat firing points, especially in battles within the city, right up to the storming of Berlin. Often, guns were used by snipers to hit targets at a considerable distance or enemy shooters located behind armor shields. In August 1945, Degtyarev and Simonov's anti-tank rifles were used in battles with the Japanese. Here this type weapons might have come in handy, especially considering the relatively weak armor of Japanese tanks. However, the Japanese used tanks very little against the Soviet troops.
Anti-tank rifles were in service not only with rifle units, but also with cavalry units. Here, to transport Degtyarev's gun, they used packs for cavalry saddles and pack saddles of the 1937 model. The gun was mounted above the horse's croup on a pack on a metal block with two brackets. The rear bracket was also used as a swivel support for firing from a horse at ground and air targets. At the same time, the shooter stood behind the horse, which was held by the handler. To drop anti-tank rifles to partisans and paratroopers, an elongated UPD-MM parachute bag with a shock absorber and a parachute chamber was used. Cartridges were quite often dropped from low level flight without a parachute in closures wrapped in burlap. Soviet anti-tank rifles were transferred to foreign formations that were formed in the USSR: for example, 6,786 guns were transferred to the Polish Army, 1,283 units were transferred to Czechoslovak units. During Korean War 50-53 soldiers North Korean army and Chinese volunteers used Soviet 14.5-mm anti-tank rifles against light armored vehicles and hitting point targets at a considerable distance (this experience was adopted from Soviet snipers).
The improvement of anti-tank rifles and the development of new schemes for them continued continuously. An example of an attempt to create a lighter anti-tank rifle can be considered the Rukavishnikov single-shot 12.7-mm anti-tank rifle, tested in February 1942. Its mass was 10.8 kg. The shutter system allowed it to fire at speeds of up to 12-15 rounds per minute. It was possible to replace the barrel with a 14.5 mm one. Lightness and simplicity prompted the range specialists to recommend Rukavishnikov’s new gun for mass production. But the increase in armor protection of enemy assault guns and tanks required a different approach.
The search for anti-tank weapons that would be capable of operating in infantry units and fighting the latest tanks went in two directions - “enlargement” of anti-tank guns and “lightening” anti-tank guns. In both cases, ingenious solutions were found and quite interesting designs were created. Blum's experimental single-shot anti-tank rifles and "PEC" rifles (Rashkov, Ermolaev, Slukhodky) aroused great interest from the GBTU and the GAU. Blum's anti-tank rifle was developed for a 14.5 mm cartridge (14.5x147) in which the muzzle velocity was increased to 1500 meters per second. The cartridge was created based on the cartridge case of a 23-mm aircraft cannon shot (at the same time, a 23-mm shot was developed based on a standard 14.5-mm cartridge to lighten the aircraft cannon). The gun had a rotary, longitudinally sliding bolt with two lugs and a spring-loaded reflector, which ensured reliable removal of the cartridge case at any speed of movement of the bolt. The barrel of the gun was equipped with a muzzle brake. The butt had a leather pad on the back of the head. Folding bipods were used for installation. RES anti-tank rifles were developed for a 20-mm shot with a projectile having an armor-piercing core (without explosives). The RES barrel was locked by a horizontally moving wedge bolt, which was opened manually and closed by a return spring. The trigger mechanism had a safety lever. The folding stock with a buffer resembled Degtyarev's anti-tank rifle. The gun was equipped with a muzzle brake-flame arrester and a wheeled machine with a shield. In April 1943, at the GBTU training ground, a captured Pz.VI "Tiger" was fired upon, which showed that Blum's anti-tank rifle was capable of penetrating 82 mm tank armor at a range of up to 100 meters. On August 10, 1943, both anti-tank guns were fired at the “Vystrel” course: this time they recorded the penetration of 55-mm armor by a bullet from a Blum anti-tank gun at a distance of 100 meters, and from the “RES” 70-mm armor was penetrated (at a distance of 300 meters the projectile RES penetrated 60 mm armor). From the commission’s conclusion: “in terms of armor-piercing action and power, both tested samples of anti-tank guns are significantly superior to the anti-tank guns of Degtyarev and Simonov, which are in service. The tested guns are a reliable means of combating medium tanks of the T-IV type and even more powerful armored vehicles.” Blum's anti-tank rifle was more compact, so the question of its adoption was raised. However, this did not happen. Small-scale production of 20-mm RES was carried out in Kovrov - in 1942, plant No. 2 produced 28 units, and in 1943 – 43 units. This is where production ended. In addition, at plant No. 2, Degtyarev’s anti-tank rifle was converted into a “double-caliber” one with an increased initial speed chambered for a 23-mm VYa cannon (the production of the gun at the plant began in February 1942). Another version of the Degtyarev anti-tank gun with an increased initial speed used the principle of sequential firing of charges along the length of the barrel, according to the multi-chamber gun scheme theoretically calculated in 1878 by Perrault. At the top, approximately in the middle of the barrel of the anti-tank rifle, a box with a chamber was attached, which was connected by a transverse hole to the barrel bore. A blank 14.5 mm cartridge was placed in this box, locked with a conventional bolt. When fired, the powder gases ignited the charge of the blank cartridge, which in turn increased the speed of the bullet, maintaining pressure in the barrel. True, the weapon’s recoil increased, but the system’s survivability and reliability turned out to be low.
The increase in armor penetration of anti-tank rifles did not keep pace with the increase in armor protection. In a journal dated October 27, 1943, the GAU artillery committee noted: “The anti-tank rifles of Degtyarev and Simonov often cannot penetrate the armor of a German medium tank. Therefore, it is necessary to create an anti-tank gun capable of penetrating 75-80 millimeters of armor at 100 meters, and nailing 50-55 millimeters of armor at an angle of 20-25°.” Even the “two-caliber” Degtyarev anti-tank rifles and the heavy “RES” had difficulty meeting these requirements. Work on anti-tank rifles was virtually curtailed.
Attempts to “lighten” artillery systems to the parameters infantry weapons corresponded to the 1942 infantry combat regulations, which included anti-tank guns among infantry fire weapons. An example of such an anti-tank gun would be the experimental 25-mm LPP-25, developed by Zhukov, Samusenko and Sidorenko in 1942 at the Artillery Academy named after. Dzerzhinsky. Weight in combat position - 154 kg. The crew of the gun is 3 people. Armor penetration at a distance of 100 meters - 100 millimeters (sub-caliber projectile). In 1944, the airborne 37-mm ChK-M1 cannon of Charnko and Komaritsky was adopted. The original recoil damping system made it possible to reduce the combat weight to 217 kilograms (for comparison, the weight of the 37-mm gun of the 1930 model was 313 kilograms). The height of the line of fire was 280 millimeters. With a rate of fire of 15 to 25 rounds per minute, the gun sub-caliber projectile penetrated 86 mm armor at a range of 500 meters and 97 mm armor at 300 meters. However, only 472 guns were manufactured - they, like the “reinforced” anti-tank guns, were simply not needed.
A source of information:
Magazine "Equipment and weapons" Semyon Fedoseev "Infantry against tanks"
Anti-tank rifle (ATR) - firearms hand weapon, characterized by high muzzle energy of a bullet and designed to destroy enemy armored vehicles. Typically has a larger caliber than regular small arms and a longer barrel. The armor penetration of anti-tank rifles allowed them to fight lightly armored targets. Some types of weapons classified as anti-tank guns had a relatively large weight and were actually structurally small-caliber anti-tank guns.
First special means The rifles and large-caliber machine guns created at the end of the First World War, which were just enlarged samples of existing weapons, were used against tanks. The earliest anti-tank rifles, the Tankgewehr M-1918, were used by the Germans against the British and French tanks. Their distinctive properties were special cartridges equipped with armor-piercing bullets, significant dimensions and weight of the weapon (caused by the need to use a long and massive barrel), and significant recoil when firing. These guns demonstrated extremely low effectiveness - only 7 French tanks were destroyed with the help of anti-tank guns. The low effectiveness of this type of weapon was partly compensated by the relative simplicity of manufacturing anti-tank guns, the mobility of the crew and the convenience of camouflaging the firing position.
In the interwar years, there was a fairly active improvement of tanks, but their armor remained relatively thin, and therefore anti-tank guns were developed in many countries in the thirties. During this period, three approaches to the creation of these weapons can be distinguished.
The first, laid by the Germans, preferred special 12-15 mm caliber cartridges, equipped with armor-piercing bullets that penetrated armor with a thickness of 20 to 30 mm. Weapons chambered for such a cartridge turned out to be quite bulky and heavy, but the powerful cartridge provided not only reliable penetration of armor, but also, importantly, an armor-protecting effect, in particular when using incendiary bullets.
The second approach professed the idea of using high-velocity bullets of a standard rifle caliber (7.62 - 8 mm). Specially designed cartridges with armor-piercing bullets accelerated a bullet weighing 12-14 grams to speeds of over 1100 meters per second, ensuring a highly flat trajectory. The Poles were the first to adopt such weapons, creating a 7.92 mm anti-tank rifle in 1935. A little later, the Germans also developed their own version of the high-velocity cartridge, adopting a number of anti-tank rifles of their own and Czech design for it. Compared to anti-tank rifles of 13-15 mm caliber, rifle-caliber systems were somewhat lighter and had less recoil, but with comparable theoretical armor penetration, their main problem was their insignificant armor effect.
The third approach used ammunition of the largest possible caliber. This made it possible, in addition to increasing the armor protection of anti-tank rounds, to use other types of ammunition - high-explosive fragmentation, incendiary, etc., thereby increasing the versatility of the weapon. The price for such versatility was the excessive mass of the weapon (from 40 to 60 kg) and its dimensions, the complexity of the mechanisms, high cost, significant mass of ammunition and, of course, powerful recoil. However, 20mm anti-tank rifles have been developed and adopted by several countries.
With the outbreak of World War II, tanks in most countries underwent significant changes, one of which was a sharp increase in the thickness and effectiveness of armor. If before the war the thickness of the armor could be 20-30 mm, then by 1942 the thickness of the frontal and side armor of the most popular medium tanks exceeded 40 mm, and by the end of the war typical tank armor reached 80 mm or more. At the same time, anti-tank rifles still could not provide reliable penetration of armor thicker than 30-40 mm, which determined their rapid decline. Most of the anti-tank rifle systems were discontinued by 1943, although medium (14-15 mm) and large (20 mm) caliber anti-tank rifles remained in service with the troops for much longer. This was facilitated by both the remaining, albeit limited, capabilities to combat medium and heavy tanks (mainly when firing at tracks), and the possibility of using these weapons to destroy other targets - light armored vehicles, fortified firing points, etc.
Anti-tank rifles used during World War II differed in caliber (from 7.92 to 20 mm), type (self-loading, magazine, single-shot), size, weight, and layout. However, their design had a number of general characteristics:
- high muzzle velocity was achieved through the use of a powerful cartridge and a long barrel (90 - 150 calibers);
— cartridges with armor-piercing tracer and armor-piercing incendiary bullets were used, which had armor-piercing and armor-piercing effects. Moreover, the cartridges were specially developed. Guns adapted for existing cartridges turned out to be ineffective;
— to reduce recoil, muzzle brakes, spring shock absorbers, and soft butt pads were installed;
— to increase maneuverability, the dimensions of weight and anti-tank rifle were reduced, carrying handles were introduced, and heavy guns were made quick-dismountable;
- to quickly transfer fire, the bipod was attached closer to the middle, for ease of aiming, the gun was equipped with a “cheek”, a shoulder pad for the butt, a pistol grip was used to control the fire, it was possible to hold it with the left hand by a special handle or butt when shooting;
— maximum reliability of mechanisms was achieved;
— great importance was attached to ease of development and production.
The problem of rate of fire was resolved in combination with the requirement of simplicity of design and maneuverability. Single-shot anti-tank rifles had a rate of fire of 6-8 rounds per minute, magazine rifles - 10-12, and self-loading ones - 20-30.
Total in pre-war years and during the war, 543.3 thousand anti-tank rifles were produced, including: Great Britain - 3.2 thousand, Germany - 46.6 thousand, Poland - 7.6 thousand, USSR - 471.7 thousand, Finland - 1, 8 thousand, Sweden – 5 thousand, Switzerland – 7 thousand, Japan – 0.4 thousand.
Since the USSR was a leader in the production of anti-tank rifles, let us consider the reasons for their mass production, which began a month after the start of the war. There is an opinion that the use of anti-tank guns is caused by the lack of anti-tank artillery, and not by the effectiveness and convenience of the weapon. That the hasty development of anti-tank guns in 1941 was associated with the need to provide troops with some effective means of combating enemy tanks given the loss of a significant part of anti-tank guns in the initial period of the war. However, this point of view is not entirely true.
Firstly, during the first month of the war, artillery losses were not catastrophic, and the army had sufficient means to combat tanks. Another question is how effectively the command could manage it.
Secondly, the first month of the war showed that the overwhelming majority of German tanks were lightly armored and not heavy tanks, as the Red Army command believed based on intelligence reports.
Thus, anti-tank rifles were sufficient to combat enemy armored vehicles, and their massive use made it possible to significantly strengthen anti-tank defense with “little loss” - i.e. cheap weapons to produce, without lengthy preparation of calculations, lack of traction for transportation, etc. In addition, in most cases, the success of the PTR calculation did not mean the tank was definitely disabled. Success was considered to be the cessation of an enemy vehicle's combat mission caused by loss of mobility, damage to a gun, or the death of a crew member hit by an anti-tank rifle shot.
As the Red Army achieved superiority in tanks and anti-tank artillery, and with the increasing thickness of the armor of the newest German tanks, anti-tank rifles gradually lost their relevance. Production of the PTR was completely discontinued in January 1945.
The practice of combat use of anti-tank guns has once again proven that the use of any type of weapon is justified at a certain level of development of the enemy’s technology against which it is intended.
As army units became saturated with anti-tank rifles, specific tactics for their use were developed.
Basic Requirement tactical application anti-tank rifle - maneuverability in all cases of combat. The lightness of the gun, ease of carrying, simple equipment of firing positions, the ability to use natural barriers as cover - all this together makes the crew of an anti-tank gun difficult to attack. At the same time, effective fire on armored targets could be fired from a distance of 150-200 meters, which was very difficult psychologically. It was not enough to hit the tank, it was not enough to penetrate the armor, it was necessary to hit the crew or vital parts of the tank. At the same time, German tanks and the accompanying infantrymen shot with impunity from machine guns the armor-piercing fighters that pretended to be clouds of dust or snow from the muzzle brakes of the PTR. During the war, on average, 46% of anti-tank missiles and crew personnel were lost.
A platoon of anti-tank rifles could operate in full force or be split into half-platoons and squads of 2-4 rifles. The anti-tank rifle squad, acting independently or as part of a platoon, in battle had to “choose a firing position, equip it and camouflage it; quickly prepare for shooting, and also accurately hit enemy armored vehicles and tanks; during the battle, covertly and quickly change the firing position.” Firing positions were chosen behind artificial or natural obstacles, although quite often the crews simply took cover in bushes or grass. The positions were chosen in such a way as to ensure all-round fire at ranges of up to 500 meters, and a flank position was taken to the direction of movement of enemy tanks. Depending on the availability of time at the position, a full-profile trench with a platform was prepared, a trench for all-round firing without or with a platform, a small trench for firing in a wide sector - in this case, shooting was carried out with the bipod removed or tucked in. Fire at tanks from anti-tank rifles was opened, depending on the situation, from a distance of 250 to 400 meters, preferably, of course, in the stern or side, however, at infantry positions, armor-piercing soldiers quite often had to “hit them head-on.” Anti-tank rifle crews were divided in depth and along the front at distances and intervals from 25 to 40 meters at an angle back or forward, and during flanking fire - in one line. The front of an anti-tank rifle squad is 50-80 meters, that of a platoon is 250-700 meters.
During the defense, anti-tank missiles were deployed in echelon, the main position and up to three reserve positions were prepared. If the tank was moving, it was recommended to concentrate the fire of several anti-tank rifles on it: when the tank approached, fire was fired at its turret, if the tank overcame a barrier, a scarp or embankment - along the bottom, if the tank was moving towards a neighbor - along the engine part, side and external tanks, in if the tank is removed - to the stern. Taking into account the increased armor of tanks, fire from anti-tank rifles was usually opened from a distance of 150-100 meters.
In winter, anti-tank rifles were mounted by crews on drags or sleds. In closed areas with non-shootable spaces for anti-tank rifle positions, groups of fighters with incendiary bottles and grenades were positioned in front of them. In the mountains, anti-tank rifle crews were, as a rule, located at road turns, entrances to valleys and gorges, and when defending heights - on tank-accessible and most gentle slopes.
During the offensive, a platoon of anti-tank rifles moved in rolling formations in the battle formation of a rifle battalion (company) in readiness to meet enemy armored vehicles with fire from at least two squads. The anti-tank rifle crews occupied positions in front between the rifle platoons. During an offensive with an open flank, armor-piercing units were usually kept on this flank. A squad of anti-tank rifles usually advanced on the flanks or in the gaps of a rifle company, and a platoon of anti-tank rifles - a battalion or company. Between positions, crews moved under the cover of mortar and infantry fire along hidden approaches.
During the attack, anti-tank rifles were located at the attack line. Their main task was to defeat enemy fire (primarily anti-tank) weapons. If tanks appeared, the fire was immediately transferred to them. During the battle in the depths of the enemy’s defense, platoons and squads of anti-tank rifles supported the advance of rifle units with fire, ensuring its protection “from surprise attacks by enemy armored vehicles and tanks from ambushes,” destroying counterattacking or dug-in tanks, as well as firing points. The crews were recommended to hit armored vehicles and tanks with flanking and crossfire.
During battles in the forest or populated areas, since the battle formations were dismembered, anti-tank rifle squads were often attached to rifle platoons. Moreover, a reserve of anti-tank rifles remained mandatory in the hands of the regiment or battalion commander. When advancing, anti-tank rifle units covered the rear and flanks of rifle regiments, battalions or companies, firing through vacant lots or squares, as well as along streets. When occupying defenses within the city, positions were placed at street intersections, squares, basements and buildings in order to keep alleys and streets, breaches and arches under fire. When defending a forest, anti-tank rifle positions were placed in depth, so that roads, clearings, paths and clearings were fired upon. On the march, a platoon of anti-tank rifles was attached to a marching outpost or followed in constant readiness to meet the enemy with fire in the column of the main forces. Anti-tank rifle units operated as part of forward and reconnaissance detachments, especially in rough terrain that made it difficult to carry heavier weapons.
Anti-tank rifles were in service not only with rifle units, but also with cavalry units. Here, packs for cavalry saddles and pack saddles of the 1937 model were used to transport the gun. The gun was mounted above the horse's croup on a pack on a metal block with two brackets. The rear bracket was also used as a swivel support for firing from a horse at ground and air targets. At the same time, the shooter stood behind the horse, which was held by the handler. To drop anti-tank rifles to partisans and paratroopers, an elongated UPD-MM parachute bag with a shock absorber and a parachute chamber was used. Cartridges were quite often dropped from low level flight without a parachute in closures wrapped in burlap.
Loading...
