Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-2020, 06:05 AM   #41
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders View Post
The perfidious Western Allies insisted on bombing their factories, which was really unsporting of them.

What did the Russians use for handheld AT-capability?
Home grown stuff was 14mm+ anti tank riles and hand grenades of various types. They had some LL bazookas IIRC.


Going more experimental:

Dogs with explosive harnesses were tried but didn't work (dogs preferred the more familiar Russian tanks they had been trained on)
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation.
*not too high of course
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 06:21 AM   #42
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders View Post
The perfidious Western Allies insisted on bombing their factories, which was really unsporting of them.

What did the Russians use for handheld AT-capability?
14.5mm anti-tank rifles, mostly. the KPV heavy machinegun uses that round to this day. Stats and write-up for the KPV are in HT (HT134, 137), so that shows the performance of the round. There were two rifles in general service, the PTRS-41 and the PTRD-41. With tungsten cored bullets they could penetrate the sides of Panthers at close ranges (which means 100m or less, which is actually longer than the accurate range of most of the shaped-charge based LAWs available in WWI), as well as Pz.IIIs, Pz.IVs, STuGs, etc. (reflected in the game stats). That's why the Germans started adding all those sheets of steel to their tanks - not as an anti-shaped charge measure, but to stop AT-rifle fire (and it worked on the Panther, at least). These rifles were also very useful for shooting up APCs, armoured cars, light tanks, and of course unarmoured trucks, etc.

A penetrating hit with such a rifle wouldn't usually do critical damage to a tank, but multiple shots mean that sooner or later something important gets a hole in it - crew, fuel lines, control lines, etc.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 07:39 AM   #43
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
14.5mm anti-tank rifles, mostly. the KPV heavy machinegun uses that round to this day. Stats and write-up for the KPV are in HT (HT134, 137), so that shows the performance of the round. There were two rifles in general service, the PTRS-41 and the PTRD-41. With tungsten cored bullets they could penetrate the sides of Panthers at close ranges (which means 100m or less, which is actually longer than the accurate range of most of the shaped-charge based LAWs available in WWI), as well as Pz.IIIs, Pz.IVs, STuGs, etc. (reflected in the game stats). That's why the Germans started adding all those sheets of steel to their tanks - not as an anti-shaped charge measure, but to stop AT-rifle fire (and it worked on the Panther, at least). These rifles were also very useful for shooting up APCs, armoured cars, light tanks, and of course unarmoured trucks, etc.

A penetrating hit with such a rifle wouldn't usually do critical damage to a tank, but multiple shots mean that sooner or later something important gets a hole in it - crew, fuel lines, control lines, etc.
The Russians also experimented with a thing like the Northover projector -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampulomet
...there we are.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 07:50 AM   #44
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby View Post
Oh, yes. All of those, thus the need for terrain that allows you to get close. But still specially the larger version had the biggest penetration and largest effect after armor of the listed weapon. But in the more open spaces it was.. not very good, to say the least.

But in close terrain it allowed things like Ville Väisänen to destroy 8 T-34s in a single morning on june 28. 1944.
The other advantage of the Panzerfaust was that you could never tell who had one - any infantry position could potentially deploy a weapon to which no tank at the time was actually immune - and could do so with very little indication or warning, and unlike earlier ATW, it had (a bit of) range. It did serve to make AFV crews a lot more wary of enemy infantry than had previously been the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor View Post
It was obsolete when it came out. A tank that you have to regularly reinforce bridges for isn't much of an asset. The Germans seem to have had an overtactical mentality.
Reinforcing bridges for tank operations is still at thing in the modern era, and it was even more normal back in WW2 when roads an bridges were often built for horse-carts. IIRC there are reports from the invasion of Poland of panzerpioneer units having to reinforce bridges for PzIIs to cross...
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 08:28 AM   #45
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colonel View Post
The other advantage of the Panzerfaust was that you could never tell who had one - any infantry position could potentially deploy a weapon to which no tank at the time was actually immune - and could do so with very little indication or warning, and unlike earlier ATW, it had (a bit of) range. It did serve to make AFV crews a lot more wary of enemy infantry than had previously been the case.
Which earlier anti-tank weapons? Anti-tank rifles out-ranged panzerfausts, though most became obsolete fairly quickly once WWII kicked off. Anti-tank guns massive out-ranged panzerfausts, though were far heavier and clumsier and weren't something a section of infantry could just carry with them. About the only ones it out-ranged were satchel charges and anti-tank grenades (another AT weapon the Soviets used a lot).
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 09:46 AM   #46
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Which earlier anti-tank weapons? Anti-tank rifles out-ranged panzerfausts, though most became obsolete fairly quickly once WWII kicked off. Anti-tank guns massive out-ranged panzerfausts, though were far heavier and clumsier and weren't something a section of infantry could just carry with them. About the only ones it out-ranged were satchel charges and anti-tank grenades (another AT weapon the Soviets used a lot).
That's pretty much what I meant - anti-tank grenades, magnetic mines (the Germans had a pretty impressive example which scared them so much they developed zimmerit in case anyone copied it) and bundle/satchel charges - any of these the tank had to be pretty much on top of an infantry position to be hit by them, whilst a panzerfaust had at least some range.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 10:31 AM   #47
sgtcallistan
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chatham, Kent, England
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

A bazooka, A PIAT: get as close as you dare, shoot at: 1 rear, 2 side, 3 tracks.

Escape. Expensive.

A teller mine, A panzerfaust: lay the mine / set up a booby-trap wherever the tank will probably go, then retreat to a safe distance and repeat.

Single booby-traps cause delays out of all proportion, successful or not, as the victims look for the other ones. Cheap.

A panzerfaust can be wired to a fencepost /door-frame / table at about three feet off the ground and activated by a tripwire or object acting as a lever, look up the panzerfaust manual's diagrams.

Hope this helps.
sgtcallistan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 04:06 PM   #48
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtcallistan View Post
A bazooka, A PIAT: get as close as you dare, shoot at: 1 rear, 2 side, 3 tracks.

Escape. Expensive.

A teller mine, A panzerfaust: lay the mine / set up a booby-trap wherever the tank will probably go, then retreat to a safe distance and repeat.
I would guess the top and bottom also make good targets if you can hit them - one of the reasons the bocage was so much fun for tankers before the Cullen Device was invented was that the tanks exposed their undersides when mounting the earth banks.

Also, several movies that I recall show German troops (and, in one I think Finns) placing AT mines on top of the tracks of a Soviet tank in close assault. Not clear whether this was a historical tactic and whether they were expected to follow the track round and be triggered when they were drawn under it (or around the idler or drive or something) or whether they were to be fired some other way...
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 04:46 PM   #49
borithan
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
A radio and 5-man crew are poor metrics. The radio is an accessory that could usually fit on the same or nearly the same design, and the fifth crewman is only needed in combination with a (relatively early war) radio.
When I talk about 5 man crews, it was really the 3 man turret I am talking about (though I will admit including it alongside the radio made that confusing). Contemporaneous early war tanks were often stuck with 2 or even 1 man turrets. By the mid-war the 3 man turret was clearly preferred, but not all comparable tanks of the period managed to fit one.

Quote:
Compared to mid-war Shermans and T-34s, late-model Pz IVs had serious weight distribution issues from fitting an acceptable gun and armor onto a chassis designed with no notion of what 'acceptable' would mean at that point. And a blatantly dated front armor design.
Lets look at some other mid-war tanks:

The Lee/Grant: A poor layout, but the only way to get a 75mm gun into the field quickly. Allegedly known as "a coffin for 7 brothers" to the Soviets, but that may be apocryphal. To be fair, it was always intended as a stop-gap. Still much appreciated by British tankers who finally had something beefy which they could properly attack anti-tank positions with, rather than trying to charge down with machine guns. Difficult to compare directly due to it's odd layout, but probably not as good vehicle all round, but starting to be a contender.

The various British cruisers, which were as close to a "medium tank" as Britain produced: Various shades of bad to mediocre. Fast, sure, usually, but often suffered reliability problems, and often either had to choose between being undergunned (2pdr armed designs) or 2 man turrets (many of the 6pdr armed tanks), and a tendency to be lightly armoured, and lacking much (if any) HE capability until outside the mid-war period. You do have the odd duck which is the Valentine, which was allegedly an infantry tank, but was used in both roles. Had the same firepower problems, but was reliable, and decently armoured for the period. In balance, all probably inferior tanks to a mid-war panzer 4.

The T34 - 2 man turret, with worse visibility. There were various other issues, but the rest could arguably be put down to problems caused by rushed production, poor production quality, and the inexperience of the crews. However, otherwise it was a more advanced design. Superior in terms of protection and mobility, and comparable in terms of firepower (significantly superior initially, putting aside accuracy issues, probably slightly outclassed once the long 75 was adopted, but still fully capable to take on it's main opponents when it could find and hit them, which were probably the major difficulty). These obviously improved as the war went on, which it had more space to do than the Panzer 4, but in the "mid war" period, probably overall a comparable vehicle to the Panzer 4 with the long 75.

Sherman: Yup, definitely a more advanced design. Firepower probably comparable again, and not hampered by a 2 man turret. Armour again superior. Mobility was apparently comparable in the mid war period. The slight edge the Panzer 4 probably has in firepower (a gun with superior penetration, at least in most cases by the time the Sherman was in action), is probably countered by the inferior levels of protection it has. Both could knock each other out at typical engagement ranges.

So, looking at it's "mid war" contemporaries, the Panzer 4 was a good tank. It was a little outdated in it's design, but not by any margin that didn't mean it couldn't stand up to its opponents. The best of the mid war designs (the T34 and the Sherman) were more advanced, but really had not had the time to get to their full potential yet. Those tanks had matured a bit more by the late war period, where I can agree the panzer 4 was long in the tooth, and arguably obsolete but I still think it is a stretch to say grossly so, given it could still take other medium tanks on in a straight fight (whereas a Panzer 3 probably could not). The main advantage they had was they were both still capable of receiving further improvements where it could not.
borithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 05:31 PM   #50
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Knocking out a WW2 tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by borithan View Post
So, looking at it's "mid war" contemporaries, the Panzer 4 was a good tank. It was a little outdated in it's design, but not by any margin that didn't mean it couldn't stand up to its opponents. The best of the mid war designs (the T34 and the Sherman) were more advanced, but really had not had the time to get to their full potential yet. Those tanks had matured a bit more by the late war period, where I can agree the panzer 4 was long in the tooth, and arguably obsolete but I still think it is a stretch to say grossly so, given it could still take other medium tanks on in a straight fight (whereas a Panzer 3 probably could not). The main advantage they had was they were both still capable of receiving further improvements where it could not.
Also worth noting that the PZ IV shows up in the post war period - IIRC one or more of the Arab states used them in the Six day war in '67 - so still a useable, if not a first class, medium tank in '45. Given that late model T34s and Sherman variants were kicking about into the C21, my guess would be that it was parts supply that killed off the Pz IV in the end.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
tank, wwii

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.