the Soviets were big on deploying large numbers of these things, but how well did they actually work?

the Soviets were big on deploying large numbers of these things, but how well did they actually work? would it be more desirable to have to knock out a PZIV driving around your position than a PIAT?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They were effective enough that the Germans added armored skirts to their tanks.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      German also used anti-magnetic mine paste despite no one but them using any meaningful amount magnetic mines against tanks. Taking preventative measures doesn't necessary mean that the threat would be or was effective.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >anti-magnetic mine paste
        I can't wait for total boomer death

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He's talking about Zimmerit. The Germans were literally the only ones using magnetic AT mines, but out of sheer paranoia that the Allies would copy their mines and use them against them, they developed Zimmerit as a counter.
          There was a very humorous series of tests carried out by the Allies who came across Zimmerit-covered tanks, as none of them could figure out what the frick it was supposed to do. The Soviets figured it was an attempt to improve crew survivability in a torched tank, a counter to their molotovs. I think either the Americans or the British guessed it was some kind of camouflage covering.
          The Germans continued coating tanks in Zimmerit up to 1945, and it wasn't until after the war that they figured out just how autistic the Germans were.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know but I want one

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good against everything that wasn't medium/heavy tank.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >14,5 mm
    it was effective until the krauts figured out you can just weld more plates onto a tank

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >, but how well did they actually work
    Well enough to immobilise a tank (to ease the work for AT cannons) and make germans invent armour skirts.
    Anyway, on the later stage of war they were used as antimaterial rifles.
    >would it be more desirable to have to knock out a PZIV driving around your position than a PIAT?
    No, proper HEAT charge would do more damage to a tank than a small AP bullet.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Weren't PIATs pretty useless compared to Panzershrecks or Bazookas?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      PIATs worked better than antitank rifles, that's also why shit like the Boyes was discontinued

      >wasn't second best thing worse than best thing
      yes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The PIAT's main failing was that it was essentially a shoulder mounted mortar tube. It wasn't recoilless like the bazooka, panzerschreck, or panzerfaust so the weapon had massive recoil when fired. It as also difficult to reload because you had to rewiener the spring loaded firing pin between every shot.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The spring rewienered itself after each shot, unless it was a misfire. You were supposed to carry it hot at all times. Yes, it was dangerous, but they didn't care.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It as also difficult to reload because you had to rewiener the spring loaded firing pin between every shot
        Fuddlore, it wasn't actually that difficult, it just took a bit of strength to push down

        meanwhile, let's not talk about the bazooka's reloading procedure, and heaven help you if the batteries are flat

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >, let's not talk about the bazooka's reloading procedure, and heaven help you if the batteries are flat
          The reason why soviets refused to use bazookas they got for lend-lease once. They got quite fond of Panzerschrecks and Fausts tho

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >so the weapon had massive recoil when fired
        You could just be less of a b***h.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm sure the soldiers would have enjoyed being called b***hes for choosing to carry a 12 pound AT weapon with equal or better performance to one that weighs 32 pounds.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure soldiers facing tanks will take what they can get so long as it works, and the PIAT did work.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I thought the Brits liked them on balance, because it could be fired from enclosed spaces and didn't give away your position

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    PzIV had too thick front armor on front but the less armored parts could be penetrated.

    Overall it was an "OH SHIT! they have tanks and our infantry can't fight them" weapon, and it did relatively well for those circumstances.

    However it was bad to be an anti tank rifleman, to deal with light armor and ATC you had to wait to get to a range of 150-200 meters, which meant that once you shoot you will immediately be targeted not only by the tanks but also by the enemy infantry.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They were pretty damn effective at spamming the flanks of German armour since even Panthers were lost to these fricking things and Germans had to design work-arounds.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    German tanks up to the Panthers had such weak side armor, the 14.5mm rounds could penetrate them, so they had to add the Schürzen.
    On top of that, about a third of German panzer divisions' armor was Panzer IIs, which are practically the ideal target for those rifles. So any Soviet infantry unit with the AT-rifles could potentially defend themselves against German light armor and armored recon.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >but how well did they actually work?
      they were better than nothing

      by the time panthers rolled around, panzer IIs were already phased out and the panzer III was in its last days
      1944 panzer division consisted of a panzer IV battalion and a panther battalion, and no organic light tanks

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Panzer II and I were never retired completely because of their utility against the still copious amount of under-equipped Soviets. The Panzer I in particular got some pretty ridiculous upgrades which quadrupled their armour thickness because slapping more metal was preferred to melting them down and using the metal to build a bigger tank.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Panzer II and I were never retired completely because of their utility against the still copious amount of under-equipped Soviets.
          they were totally retired with the exception of specialist vehicles like the marder
          even the panzer III was no longer in panzer divisions as standard in 1944

          only thing the PTRD could have really defeated in a late-war panzer division were their half-tracks
          the panther and panzer IVs were now the only tanks in a division, the II was retired even in the recon role

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >would it be more desirable to have to knock out a PZIV driving around your position than a PIAT?
    russians claimed that the PTRD was superior to the lend-lease bazookas they were issued because they didnt reveal the firers position as much
    but after the war, the first thing they did was discard all their PTRDs and replace them with a panzefaust/bazooka hybrid
    russians also told their PTRD gunners that their weapons were useless against both the front and sides of enemy armor and that they should be aiming for periscopes and vision slits

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP you have to keep in mind, even if these things weren’t that great against medium and heavy tanks, there were still plenty of other vehicles on the battle field. APCs and light armored vehicles along with light tanks didn’t fare well against 14.5mm guns.
    There’s a reason why the Soviets continued using 14.5mm guns after the war on their APCs.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They were used basically as man portable artillery against fortifided positions, since they couldn't do shit against late war German armor, but they could still go through brick walls and sandbags, which was really fricking handy when it came to urban fights where everyone was hiding behind walls.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've talked long before about AT rifles. I might go and copy my posts from archives. But the general consensus is, that AT rifles were OK in early war, largely useless against tanks in 40+ and really only good for tracking a tank, destroying AT guns, transports and as anti-material guns. In fact, as I've said before, in the Korean War, the American's took some AT Boys Rifles from the Canadians and then put a scope and some overcharged rounds into them and used them as long range sniper rifles to good effect.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    anti material rifles are extremely effective against light vehicles and have the ability to cause mobility kills against heavy armor by hitting tracks and drive sprockets. Ukraine is even deploying anti material rifles today against lighter Russian BMPs and trucks.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They worked on everything upto the Panzer 3's later models and got a lot less effective on everything that came after. But Germany fielded lots of panzer 3's and earlier models, plus lots of thinner skinned armoured vehicles and half tracks

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *