The main anti-tank weapons in service with the infantry at the beginning of World War II were high-explosive hand grenades and anti-tank guns, that is, weapons that originated in the last years of World War I. "Anti-tank rifle" (ATR) is not an entirely accurate term - it would be more correct to call this weapon an "anti-tank rifle". However, it happened so historically (apparently, as the translation of the German word "panzerbuhse") and firmly entered our vocabulary. The armor-piercing effect of anti-tank rifles is based on the kinetic energy of the bullet used, and, therefore, depends on the speed of the bullet at the moment of encountering an obstacle, the angle of encounter, mass (or rather, the ratio of mass to caliber), the design and shape of the bullet, the mechanical properties of the bullet material (core), and armor. The bullet, breaking through the armor, inflicts damage due to incendiary and fragmentation action. It should be noted that the lack of an armored action was the main reason for the low efficiency of the first anti-tank rifle - the single-shot 13, 37-mm Mauser developed in 1918. A bullet fired from this PTR was capable of penetrating 20 mm armor at a distance of 500 meters. In the interwar period, the PTR was tested in different countries, but for a long time they were treated more like a surrogate, especially since the German Reichswehr adopted the Mauser anti-tank gun as a temporary replacement for the TuF machine gun of the corresponding caliber.
In the 1920s and 1930s, a light small-caliber cannon or a large-caliber machine gun seemed to most specialists the most successful and versatile solution to two problems - air defense at low altitudes and anti-tank at short and medium ranges. It would seem that this view was also 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 remaining 13, 37-mm Mauser ATGMs). However, by the end of the 30s it became clear that the "universal" or "anti-tank" machine gun (12.7mm Browning, DShK, Vickers, 13mm Hotchkiss, 20mm Oerlikon, Solothurn "," Madsen ", 25-millimeter" Vickers ") by the combination of its weight and size indicators and efficiency can not be used on the front line by small infantry units. During World War II, large-caliber machine guns were usually used for the needs of air defense or for firing at fortified firing points (a typical example is the use of the Soviet 12, 7-mm DShK). True, they were armed with light armored vehicles, along with anti-aircraft guns, they were attracted to anti-aircraft guns, even included in anti-tank reserves. But the large-caliber 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 under the cartridge of an anti-tank rifle, by the time of its appearance could not play the role of an "anti-tank". After the war, it was used as a means of fighting manpower at significant ranges, air targets and light armored vehicles.
Anti-tank guns used during World War II differed in caliber (from 7, 92 to 20 millimeters), type (self-loading, magazine, single-shot), size, weight, layout. However, their design had a number of common features:
- high muzzle velocity was achieved by using a powerful cartridge and a long barrel (90 - 150 calibers);
- cartridges were used with armor-piercing tracer and armor-piercing incendiary bullets, which had an armor-piercing and sufficient armor-piercing effect. Note that attempts to create anti-tank rifles for the mastered cartridges of large-caliber machine guns did not give satisfactory results, and the cartridges were developed on purpose, and converted cartridges for aircraft guns were used in 20-mm anti-tank rifles. 20-mm anti-tank missiles became a separate branch of "anti-tank machine guns" of the 20-30s of the last century;
- muzzle brakes, spring shock absorbers, soft butt pads were installed to reduce recoil;
- to increase maneuverability, the dimensions of the mass and MTP were reduced, carrying handles were introduced, and heavy guns were quickly dismantled;
- in order to quickly transfer fire, the bipod was attached closer to the middle, for the uniformity of aiming and convenience, many samples were supplied with a "cheek", a shoulder pad, a pistol grip was used for control in most samples, it was envisaged to hold a special grip or butt when firing with the left hand;
- maximum reliability of mechanisms was achieved;
- attached great importance to the ease of development and manufacture.
The rate of fire problem was solved in combination with the requirement for simplicity of design and maneuverability. Single-shot anti-tank guns had a rate of fire of 6-8 rounds per minute, magazine guns - 10-12, and self-loading - 20-30.
12, 7-mm single-shot "PTR Sholokhov" chambered for DShK, manufactured in 1941
In the USSR, a government decree on the development of an anti-tank rifle appeared on March 13, 1936. 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 Kovrovsky plant number 2 named. Kirkizha made two prototypes of the INZ-10 20-mm "company anti-tank rifle" of the M. N. Blum and S. V. Vladimirova - on a wheeled carriage and on a bipod. In August 1938, in Shchurovo, at the Small Arms Research Range, eight anti-tank weapons systems for the company level were tested:
- INZ-10 20mm anti-tank gun;
- 12, 7-mm anti-tank gun, converted by NIPSVO from the German "Mauser";
- 12.7 mm Vladimirov anti-tank rifle;
- 12.7 mm anti-tank rifle TsKB-2;
- 14, 5-mm anti-tank rifle of the Vladimirov and NIPSVO systems (14, 5-mm cartridge developed by NIPSVO);
- MTs 25-mm self-loading cannon (43-K system of Tsyrulnikov and Mikhno);
- 37-mm recoilless gun DR.
The INZ-10 light self-loading cannon showed unsatisfactory penetration and accuracy. The mass of the weapon in the firing position was also large (41, 9 - 83, 3 kg). The rest of the systems were also either found to be 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 an optical sight. However, it was also rejected due to insufficient armor penetration, a large mass (47, 2 kg) and an unsuccessful muzzle brake design. In 1938, B. G. Shpitalny, head of OKB-15, but she was rejected even before the start of tests. An attempt to convert the automatic 20-millimeter gun of Shpitalny and Vladimirov (ShVAK) into a "universal" anti-aircraft anti-tank weapon also failed. In the end, the very requirements for anti-tank guns were recognized as inappropriate. On November 9, 1938, new requirements were formulated by the Artillery Directorate. Modified a powerful 14.5 mm cartridge, which has an armor-piercing incendiary bullet B-32 with a hot steel core and a pyrotechnic incendiary composition (similar to the rifle bullet B-32). The incendiary composition was placed between the shell and the core. Serial production of the cartridge began in 1940. The weight of the cartridge was 198 grams, the bullets were 51 grams, the length of the cartridge was 155.5 millimeters, the liner was 114.2 millimeters. A bullet at a distance of 0.5 km at a meeting angle of 20 degrees was capable of penetrating 20 mm cemented armor.
14, 5-mm PTR Degtyarev mod. 1941 g.
N. V. Rukavishnikov developed a very successful self-loading rifle for this cartridge, the rate of fire of which reached 15 rounds per minute (the self-loading 14.5-mm anti-tank rifle, developed by Shpitalny, again failed). In August 1939, it successfully passed the test. 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 issue of the ineffectiveness of existing anti-tank weapons against the "newest tanks in Germany", about which intelligence appeared. In July 1940, the PTR-39 was put into production by the Kovrov plant named after V. I. Kirkiz was suspended. Erroneous views that the armor protection and firepower of tanks would increase significantly in the near future had a number of consequences: anti-tank guns were excluded from the armament system (order of August 26, 1940), production of 45-mm anti-tank guns was stopped, and an urgent design task was issued for 107- millimeter tank and anti-tank guns. As a result, the Soviet infantry lost an effective melee 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 high percentage of delays. Launching and putting this gun into production would take a significant amount of time. True, individual anti-tank rifles of Rukavishnikov were used in parts of the Western Front during the defense of Moscow. In July 1941, as a temporary measure, in the workshops of many Moscow universities, they set up the assembly of a single-shot anti-tank gun for a 12, 7-mm DShK cartridge (this gun was proposed by V. N. Sholokhov, and it was considered back in 1938). The simple design was copied from an old German 13, 37 mm Mauser anti-tank gun. However, a muzzle brake, a shock absorber at the back of the butt and installed lightweight folding bipods 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 batches.
Finally, in July, the 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 the GKO meeting suggested entrusting the development to "one more, and for reliability - two designers" (according to the memoirs of DF Ustinov). The assignment was given 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 of receiving the assignment to the test shots.
V. A. Degtyarev and employees of KB-2 of the plant. Kirkizha (INZ-2 or plant # 2 of the People's Commissariat of Armament) on July 4 began the development of a 14.5mm anti-tank rifle. At the same time, two store versions were developed. On July 14, the working drawings were transferred to production. On July 28, the Degtyarev anti-tank rifle project was considered at a meeting at the Red Army's Small Arms Directorate. Degtyarev on July 30 was offered to simplify one sample by 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, they adopted a version of the 14.5-mm cartridge with a BS-41 bullet having a sintered powder core (the mass of the bullet was 63.6 g). The bullet was developed by the Moscow Plant of Hard Alloys. 14, 5-mm cartridges differed in color: the nose of the B-32 bullet was painted black, there was a red belt, the BS-41 bullet was painted red and had a black nose. The cartridge capsule was covered with black paint. This color allowed the armor-piercer to quickly distinguish between cartridges. A cartridge with a BZ-39 bullet was produced. On the basis of the BS-41, an "armor-piercing incendiary-chemical" bullet was developed with a capsule with a gas-forming composition of the KhAF in the rear (the German "armor-piercing chemical" cartridge for Pz. B 39 served as a sample). However, this cartridge was not accepted. Acceleration of work on anti-tank guns was necessary, since the problems of anti-tank defense of rifle units were aggravated - in August, due to a lack of anti-tank artillery, 45-mm guns were withdrawn from the divisional and battalion level for the formation of anti-tank artillery brigades and regiments, the 57-mm anti-tank gun was removed production due to technological problems.
On August 29, 1941, after a demonstration to members of the State Defense Committee, the self-loading Simonov model and the single-shot Degtyarev were adopted under the designations of the PTRS and PTRD. Due to the haste of the issue, the guns were adopted before the end of the tests - tests of anti-tank rifles for survivability were carried out on September 12-13, the final tests of the modified anti-tank rifles were carried out on September 24. New anti-tank guns were supposed to fight light and medium tanks, as well as armored vehicles at a distance of up to 500 meters.
14, 5-mm ATR Simonov mod. 1941 g.
The production of the PTRD was started at the plant number 2 named. Kirkizha - in early October, the first batch of 50 guns was put on assembly. In the Department of the Chief Designer on October 10, they created a special. a group for the development of documentation. A conveyor was urgently organized. Out of turn, equipment and tools were being prepared. On October 28, a specialized production of anti-tank rifles was created under the leadership of Goryachiy - at that time the task of 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 rotary sliding bolt, a butt with a trigger box, trigger and percussion mechanisms, bipods and sighting devices. There were 8 rifling grooves in the bore with a stroke length equal to 420 millimeters. The active box muzzle brake was capable of absorbing up to 60% of the recoil energy. The cylindrical shutter had a straight handle in the rear and two lugs in the front, a percussion mechanism, a reflector and an ejector were installed in it. The percussion mechanism included a mainspring and a striker with a striker; the tail of the striker looked like a hook and went out. The bevel of its frame, when unlocking the bolt, took the drummer back.
The receiver and trigger boxes were connected rigidly to the inner tube of the butt. The inner tube, which has a spring shock absorber, was inserted into the butt tube. The movable system (bolt, receiver and barrel) retreated after the shot, the bolt handle "ran" onto the copier profile attached to the butt, and when turned, unlocked the bolt. After stopping the barrel by inertia, the bolt retreated, standing on the bolt lag (left side of the receiver), while the sleeve was pushed by the reflector into the lower window in the receiver. The shock absorber spring returned the moving system to the forward position. The insertion of a new cartridge into the upper window of the receiver, its ramming, as well as the locking of the bolt were done manually. The trigger included a trigger, a trigger and a sear with springs. Sights were carried out to the left on the brackets. They included a front sight and a reversible rear sight at a distance of up to and over 600 meters (in the anti-tank rifles of the first releases, the rear sight moved in a vertical slot).
On the butt there was a soft cushion, a wooden stop designed to hold the gun with the left hand, a wooden pistol grip, a "cheek". Folding stamped bipods on the barrel were attached with a lamb clamp. A handle was also attached to the barrel with which the weapon was carried. The accessory included a pair of canvas bags, each for 20 rounds. The total weight of the Degtyarev anti-tank rifle with ammunition was approximately 26 kilograms. In battle, the gun was carried by the first or both numbers of the calculation.
A minimum of parts, 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 setting up production was of great importance in those conditions. The first batch of 300 PTRD units was completed in October and in early November it was sent to the 16th Army of Rokossovsky. On November 16, they were first used in battle. By December 30, 1941, 17,688 Degtyarev anti-tank rifles had been released, and during 1942 - 184,800 units.
The Simonov self-loading anti-tank rifle was created on the basis of an experimental Simonov self-loading rifle of the 1938 model, which worked according to a scheme with a powder gas discharge. 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 firing mechanism, sighting devices, a bipod and a store. The bore was the same as that of the PTRD. The open-type gas chamber was attached with pins at a distance of 1/3 of the barrel length from the muzzle. The receiver and the barrel are connected by a wedge.
The barrel bore was locked by tilting the bolt skeleton downward. Locking and unlocking was controlled by the bolt stem, which has a handle. The reloading mechanism included a gas regulator for three positions, a rod, a piston, a tube and a pusher with a spring. A pusher acted on the stem of the bolt. The return spring of the bolt was in the stem channel. A striker with a spring was placed in the breechblock channel. The shutter, having received a movement impulse from the pusher after the shot, moved back. At the same time, the pusher was returning forward. At the same time, the firing sleeve was removed by the bolt ejector and reflected upward by the protrusion of the receiver. After the cartridges ran out, the bolt stood up to stop in the receiver.
A trigger mechanism was mounted on the trigger guard. The hammer percussion mechanism had a helical mainspring. The design of the trigger included: the trigger sear, the trigger and the hook, while the trigger axis was located at the bottom. The store and the lever feeder were hinged to the receiver, its latch was located on the trigger guard. The cartridges were staggered. The store was loaded with a pack (clip) with five cartridges with the lid folded down. The rifle included 6 clips. The front sight had a fence, and the sector sight was notched from 100 to 1500 meters in increments of 50. The anti-tank rifle had a wooden stock with a shoulder pad and a soft pad, 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 of the crew numbers. The disassembled gun on the campaign - the receiver with the butt and the barrel - was carried in two canvas covers.
The manufacture of Simonov's self-loading anti-tank rifle was simpler than the Rukavishnikov rifle (the number of parts is one third less, machine-hours less by 60%, the time by 30%), but much more complicated than Degtyarev's anti-tank rifle. In 1941, 77 Simonov anti-tank rifles were produced, in 1942 the number was already 63,308 units. Since anti-tank rifles were accepted urgently, all the shortcomings of the new systems, such as tight extraction of the cartridge case from Degtyarev's PTR or twin shots from Simonov's PTR, were corrected during production or "brought" in the military workshops. With all the manufacturability of anti-tank rifles, the deployment of their mass production in wartime required a certain time - the needs of the troops began to be satisfied only from November 1942. The establishment of mass production made it possible to reduce the cost of weapons - so, for example, the cost of the Simonov anti-tank rifle from the first half of 1942 to the second half of 1943 almost halved.
Anti-tank guns 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 guns) were introduced into the rifle regiments. In the fall of 1942, platoons (18 rifles) of PTR 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 declined, the companies were disbanded, and the "armor-piercing" were retrained into tankers (since they were rearmed on the T-34-85, whose crew consisted not of four, but of five people). Companies were deployed in anti-tank battalions, and battalions - in anti-tank destroyer brigades. Thus, attempts were made to ensure close interaction of the PTR units with infantry, artillery and tank units.
The first anti-tank rifles were received by the troops of the Western Front, engaged in the defense of Moscow. Directive of General of the Army G. K. Zhukov, commander of the front forces, on October 26, 1941, speaking of 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 weapon of exceptional efficiency and power … giving them to battalions and shelves. Zhukov's order of December 29 also pointed out the disadvantages of using anti-tank rifles - the use of crews as riflemen, the 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 a poor idea of the possibilities of using it. 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 junction during the defense of Moscow, a group of tank destroyers of the 2nd battalion of the 1075th regiment of the 316th Panfilov rifle division and 30 German tanks. 18 tanks that participated in the attacks were destroyed, but less than a fifth of the entire company survived. 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 with light regimental artillery.
To understand the role of anti-tank rifle units, it is necessary to remember the 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 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 split into half-platoons and squads of 2-4 rifles. A detachment of anti-tank rifles, acting independently or as part of a platoon, in battle had to “select a firing position, equip it and camouflage it; quickly prepare for shooting, as well as accurately hit enemy armored vehicles and tanks; in the course of the battle, covertly and quickly change the firing position. " The firing positions were chosen behind artificial or natural obstacles, although quite often the crews were simply hiding in the bushes or grass. The positions were chosen in such a way as to provide circular fire at ranges of up to 500 meters, and occupied a flanking position to the direction of movement of enemy tanks. Interaction was also organized with other anti-tank formations and rifle subunits. Depending on the availability of time at the position, a full-profile trench with a platform was prepared, a trench for circular firing without or with a platform, a small trench for firing in a wide sector - in this case, the shooting was carried out with the bipod removed or bent over. Fire on tanks from anti-tank rifles opened, depending on the situation, from a distance of 250 to 400 meters, preferably, of course, in the stern or side, however, in infantry positions, armor-piercers quite often had to "hit in the forehead." The crews of anti-tank rifles were dismembered in depth and along the front at distances and intervals from 25 to 40 meters with an angle backward or forward, during flanking fire - in one line. The front of the squad of anti-tank rifles is 50-80 meters, the 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. At the position of the squad until the start of the offensive of the enemy armored vehicles, the gunner-observer on duty remained. If the tank was moving, it was recommended to focus the fire of several anti-tank rifles on it: when the tank approached, fire was fired at its turret; if the tank is removed - in the stern. Taking into account the strengthening of the armor of tanks, fire from anti-tank rifles was usually opened from a distance of 150-100 meters. When they approached the positions directly or when breaking through into the depths of the defense, armor-piercing and "tank destroyers" used anti-tank grenades and Molotov cocktails.
The platoon commander of anti-tank rifles could allocate a squad participating in the defense to destroy enemy aircraft. This task was familiar. So, for example, in the defense zone of the 148th SD (Central Front) near Kursk, 93 heavy and light machine guns and 65 anti-tank rifles were prepared for the destruction of air targets. Often, anti-tank guns were placed on improvised anti-aircraft guns. A tripod machine created for this purpose at the plant No. 2 named after Kirkizha was not accepted into production and this is perhaps fair.
In 1944, a staggered arrangement of anti-tank rifles in depth and along the front was practiced at a distance of 50 to 100 meters from each other. At the same time, mutual shooting of approaches was ensured, dagger fire was widely used. In winter, anti-tank rifles were installed in calculations for sledges or sledges. In closed areas with impenetrable spaces for the positions of anti-tank rifles, groups of fighters with incendiary bottles and grenades were located in front of them. In the mountains, the crews of anti-tank rifles were located, as a rule, at the turns of the roads, the entrances to valleys and gorges, in the defense of heights - on the tank-accessible and most gentle slopes.
In the offensive, a platoon of anti-tank rifles moved in rolls in a combat formation of a rifle battalion (company) in readiness to meet enemy armored vehicles with fire from at least two squads. The crews of anti-tank rifles took up positions in front of the rifle platoons. During an offensive with an open flank, armor-piercing units are usually kept on this flank. A detachment of anti-tank rifles usually advanced on the flanks or in the intervals of a rifle company, a platoon of anti-tank rifles - a battalion or company. Between the positions, the crews moved under the cover of mortar and infantry fire along or hidden approaches.
During the attack, anti-tank guns were located at the line of the attack. Their main task was to defeat enemy fire (primarily anti-tank) weapons. In the event of the appearance of tanks, the fire was immediately transferred to them. During the battle in the depths of enemy defenses, platoons and squads of anti-tank rifles supported the advance of rifle subunits with fire, providing protection from "sudden raids of enemy armored vehicles and tanks from ambushes", destroying counterattacking or entrenched tanks, as well as firing points. The calculations were recommended to hit armored vehicles and tanks with flank and crossfire.
During battles in the forest or in settlements, since the battle formations were dismembered, anti-tank rifle squads were often attached to rifle platoons. Moreover, in the hands of the commander of a regiment or battalion, a reserve of anti-tank rifles remained mandatory. During the offensive, anti-tank rifle subunits covered the rear and flanks of rifle regiments, battalions or companies, firing through vacant lots or squares, as well as along the streets. When taking up a defense in the city, positions were placed at the crossroads of streets, in squares, in basements and buildings, in order to keep lanes and streets, breaches and arches under fire. During the defense of the forest, the positions of anti-tank rifles were placed in the depths, so that roads, glades, paths and glades were fired upon. On the march, a platoon of anti-tank rifles were attached to a marching outpost or followed in constant readiness to meet the enemy with fire in a column of the main forces. Anti-tank rifle units operated as part of forward and reconnaissance detachments, especially in rough terrain, making it difficult to carry heavier weapons. In the forward detachments, armor-piercing detachments were perfectly complemented by tank brigades - for example, on July 13, 1943, the advance detachment of the 55th Guards Tank Regiment successfully repelled a counterattack of 14 German tanks in the Rzhavets area with anti-tank guns and tanks, knocking out 7 of them. Former Lieutenant General of the Wehrmacht 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 the Wehrmacht tankmen, Soviet anti-tank guns were referred to as weapons "worthy of respect", but they also paid tribute to the courage of their calculations. With high ballistic data, the 14, 5-mm anti-tank rifle was distinguished by its manufacturability and maneuverability. The Simonov anti-tank rifle is considered the best weapon of this class of the Second World War in terms of the combination of operational and combat qualities.
Having played a significant role in anti-tank defense in 1941-1942, anti-tank guns by the summer of 43 - with an increase in the armor protection of assault guns and tanks over 40 millimeters - lost their positions. True, there were cases of successful combat of infantry anti-tank formations with heavy enemy tanks in pre-prepared defensive positions. For example - the duel of the armor-piercer Ganzha (151st Infantry Regiment) with the "Tiger". The first shot in the forehead did not give any result, the armor-piercer removed the anti-tank rifle into the trench and, letting the tank pass over him, fired at the stern, immediately changing position. During the turn of the tank in order to move to the trench, Ganzha made a third shot at 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 43rd - 118,563 units, in 1944 - 142,861 units, that is, in two years it increased 17.6 times, then already in 1944 it began to decline. By the end of the war, the active army had only 40 thousand anti-tank rifles (their total resource as of May 9, 1945 was 257,500 units). The largest number of anti-tank rifles were supplied to the ranks of the army in 1942 - 249,000 pieces, but already in the first half of 1945, only 800 pieces. The same picture was observed with 12, 7-mm, 14, 5-mm cartridges: in 1942, their output was 6 times higher than the pre-war level, but by 1944 it had significantly decreased. Despite this, production of 14.5 mm anti-tank rifles continued until January 1945. In total, 471,500 units were produced during the war. The anti-tank rifle was a weapon of the front line, which explains the significant losses - during the war, 214 thousand anti-tank rifles of all models were lost, that is, 45.4%. The largest percentage of losses was observed in 41 and 42 years - 49, 7 and 33, 7%, respectively. The losses of the material part corresponded to the level of losses among the personnel.
The following figures indicate the intensity of the use of anti-tank rifles in the middle of the war. During the defense on the Kursk Bulge on the Central Front, 387 thousand cartridges for anti-tank rifles were used up (48 370 per day), and on Voronezh - 754 thousand (68 250 per day). During the Battle of Kursk, more than 3.5 million rounds of anti-tank rifle cartridges were used up. In addition to tanks, anti-tank rifles fired at firing points and embrasures of bunkers and bunkers at ranges of up to 800 meters, and at planes up to 500 meters.
In the third period of the war, the anti-tank rifles of Degtyarev and Simonov were used against light armored vehicles and lightly armored self-propelled guns, widely used by the enemy, as well as to combat firing points, especially in battles within the city, up to the storming of Berlin. Often, rifles were used by snipers to hit targets at a considerable distance or enemy shooters who were behind armor shields. In August 1945, Degtyarev and Simonov's anti-tank rifles were used in battles with the Japanese. Here, this type of weapon could be in place, especially given the relatively weak armor of Japanese tanks. However, the Japanese used tanks very little against the Soviet troops.
Anti-tank rifles were in service with not only rifle, but also cavalry units. Here, to transport Degtyarev's rifle, packs for cavalry saddles and pack saddles of the 1937 model were used. The gun was attached over the horse's rump on a pack on a metal block with two brackets. The rear bracket was also used as a swivel support for shooting from a horse at ground and air targets. At the same time, the shooter stood behind the horse, which was being held by the groom. An elongated UPD-MM parachute bag with a shock absorber and a parachute chamber was used to drop anti-tank rifles to partisans and airborne assault forces. Cartridges were quite often dropped from low-level flight without a parachute in burlap-wrapped closures. Soviet anti-tank guns were transferred to foreign units that were formed in the USSR: for example, 6,786 rifles were transferred to the Polish Army, 1,283 units were transferred to Czechoslovak units. During the Korean War of 50-53, soldiers of the North Korean army and Chinese volunteers used Soviet 14, 5-mm anti-tank guns against light armored vehicles and hitting point targets at a significant distance (this experience was adopted from Soviet snipers).
The improvement of anti-tank rifles and the development of new schemes for them went on 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 equal to 10, 8 kg. The shutter system made it possible to shoot at a speed of up to 12-15 rounds per minute. There was a possibility of replacing the barrel with a 14.5 mm one. The lightness and simplicity prompted the landfill specialists to recommend the new Rukavishnikov rifle for mass production. But the growth of the armor protection of assault guns and enemy tanks required a different approach.
The search for anti-tank weapons that would be able to operate in infantry units and fight the latest tanks went in two directions - "enlargement" of anti-tank rifles and "lightening" of anti-tank guns. In both cases, ingenious solutions were found and rather interesting designs were created. Experienced single-shot anti-tank rifles of Blum and rifles "PEC" (Rashkov, Ermolaev, Slukhodkiy) aroused great interest in GBTU and GAU. Blum's anti-tank rifle was designed for a 14.5mm cartridge (14.5x147) in which the muzzle velocity was increased to 1500 meters per second. The cartridge was created on the basis of a 23-mm shot from an aircraft cannon (at the same time, a 23-mm shot was developed on the basis of a standard 14, 5-mm cartridge to facilitate an air cannon). The shotgun had a longitudinally sliding breechblock with two lugs and a spring-loaded reflector, which ensured reliable removal of the sleeve at any speed of movement of the shutter. The barrel of the gun was supplied with a muzzle brake. On the butt there was a leather pillow on the back of the head. Foldable bipods were used for installation. RES anti-tank rifles were developed for a 20-mm round with a projectile having an armor-piercing core (no explosive). The RES barrel was locked by a horizontally moving wedge gate, which was manually opened and closed by a return spring. There was a safety catch on the trigger. A folding stock with a buffer resembled Degtyarev's anti-tank rifle. The gun was equipped with a muzzle brake-flash suppressor and a wheeled machine with a shield. In April 1943, a captured Pz. VI "Tiger" was fired at the GBTU training ground, which showed that Blum's anti-tank gun was capable of penetrating 82-mm tank armor at a distance of up to 100 meters. On August 10, 1943, both anti-tank guns were fired at the Shot course: this time they recorded the penetration of 55-mm armor by a bullet from Blum's anti-tank rifle at a distance of 100 meters, and 70-mm armor was pierced from the RES (at a distance of 300 meters) RES pierced 60 mm armor). From the conclusion of the commission: "in terms of armor-piercing action and power, both tested models 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 fighting 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 42 at plant No. 2 it produced 28 units, and in 43 - 43 units. This was the end of the production. In addition, at factory # 2, Degtyarev's anti-tank rifle was converted into a "two-caliber" rifle with an increased muzzle velocity chambered for a 23 mm VYa cannon (the development of the production of a gun at the plant began in February 1942). In another version of the Degtyarev anti-tank rifle with an increased initial speed, the principle of sequential firing of charges along the length of the barrel was used, according to the scheme of a multi-chamber gun, theoretically calculated in 1878 by Perrault. Above, 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 with the barrel bore. A blank 14.5 mm cartridge, locked with a conventional bolt, was put into this box. When fired, the powder gases ignited the charge of the blank cartridge, which in turn increased the speed of the bullet, maintaining the pressure in the bore. True, the recoil of the weapon increased, and the survivability of the system and reliability turned out to be low.
The growth in armor penetration of anti-tank rifles did not keep pace with the increase in armor protection. In a magazine 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 armor of the order of 75-80 millimeters at 100 meters, and nailing armor of 50-55 millimeters at an angle of 20-25 °. " Even Degtyarev's "two-caliber" anti-tank rifles and heavy "RES" could hardly meet these requirements. Work on anti-tank rifles was actually curtailed.
Attempts to "lighten" artillery systems to the parameters of infantry weapons were consistent with the 1942 Infantry Combat Regulations, which included anti-tank guns in the number of infantry fire weapons. An example of such an anti-tank gun can be an experienced 25-mm LPP-25, developed by Zhukov, Samusenko and Sidorenko in 1942 at the Artillery Academy named after V. I. Dzerzhinsky. Weight in firing position - 154 kg. The crew of the gun - 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 mass of a 37-mm cannon of the 1930 model was 313 kilograms). The height of the line of fire was equal to 280 millimeters. With a rate of fire of 15 to 25 rounds per minute, the cannon with a sub-caliber projectile pierced 86-mm armor at a distance of 500 meters and 97-mm armor at 300 meters. However, only 472 guns were made - they, as well as the "reinforced" anti-tank guns, were simply not needed.
Sourse of information:
Magazine "Equipment and weapons" Semyon Fedoseev "Infantry against tanks"
