The combat effectiveness of the ptrd in WWII. Degtyarev anti-tank rifle (PTRD), Simonov anti-tank rifle

World War II became the "finest hour" of the tank forces. The massive use of armored vehicles and the improvement of its basic combat characteristics also required the improvement of the means of combating them. One of the simplest yet most effective ways to stop tanks opposing infantry units is with an anti-tank rifle (ATR).

Infantry against tanks

The main burden of the offensive of tank armadas fell on the infantry, which did not have powerful means to resist armored vehicles, especially in the early stages of the Second World War. In the conditions of highly maneuverable combat operations of mobile enemy units, conducted with an unprecedented intensity and scope, the "queen of the fields" was in dire need of its own simple, affordable, cheap anti-tank weapons that can be used in battle formations, fighting tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment in close combat.

The role of infantry close combat anti-tank weapons (PTS) remained significant throughout the course of the war, even as the warring parties en masse introduced more and more armored and protected tank models. The war gave birth in the infantry to such new specialties of fighters as "armor-piercer", "tank destroyer", the main weapon of which was an anti-tank rifle.

anti-tank weapons

During the Second World War, cardinal changes took place in the arsenal of close-range combat vehicles and in the methods of their use. If at the beginning of the Second World War the main anti-tank weapons of the infantry were simple in design anti-tank guns, then by the end of the war, prototypes of guided anti-tank weapons appeared.

High-explosive grenades, bundles of hand grenades, and incendiary bottles were also of great help to the soldiers in the trenches. By the middle of the military campaign, cumulative grenades, mounted and hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers of recoilless and reactive schemes were already being used.

Purpose of PTR

The anti-tank guns of World War II played a very significant role in the victory. Of course, the main burden of anti-tank defense (ATD) fell on guns (guns) of various types. However, when the course of the battle took on a complex, highly maneuverable and "tangled" character with the massive use of armored vehicles, the infantry needed its own armor-piercing means. At the same time, it is important that the soldiers be able to use them directly in combat formations and fight tanks and armored vehicles in close combat. Soviet engineers, under the guidance of outstanding weapons designers Simonov, Degtyarev, Rukavishnikov, presented the fighters with simple but reliable means against armored vehicles.

The term "anti-tank gun" is not entirely correct. A more precise designation is "anti-tank rifle". However, it has developed historically, apparently as a literal translation of "panzerbuchse" from the German language.

Ammunition

A few words should be said about the anti-tank rifle cartridge and its damaging effect. For anti-tank rifles, ammunition of a larger caliber than traditional small arms has been developed. In domestic samples, armor-piercing bullets of 14.5 mm caliber were used. Its kinetic energy was enough to break through 30 mm armor or inflict damage on weakly protected armored vehicles.

The effect of an armor-piercing bullet (projectile) on a target consists of an armor-piercing (impact) action and a damaging effect behind the armor (armor-penetrating action). The action of PTR bullets is based on their kinetic effect on the armor and its penetration by the hull or solid core. The thickness of the pierced protection is the higher, the higher the kinetic energy of the projectile (bullet) at the moment of collision with the armor. Due to this energy, work is done to break through the metal.

Damaging armor action

The WWII anti-tank rifle was very effective. Of course, with its help it was impossible to overcome the armor protection of the turret and hull of medium and heavy tanks, however, any vehicle has vulnerable zones, which were amazed by experienced shooters. Armor only protects the engine, fuel tanks, mechanisms, weapons, ammunition and crew of the combat vehicle, which, in fact, must be hit. In addition, anti-tank missiles were used against any equipment, including lightly armored ones.

The action of the damaging element and armor on each other is mutual, the same energy is spent on the destruction of the bullet itself. Therefore, the shape and transverse load of the projectile, the strength of its material and the quality of the armor itself are also of decisive importance. Since mass is included in the formula of kinetic energy in the first power, and speed in the second, the final velocity of the ammunition is of particular importance.

Actually, it is the speed of the bullet and the angle of its meeting with the armor barrier that are the most important factors that determine the armor-piercing effect. An increase in speed is preferable to an increase in the mass of the projectile also from the point of view of accuracy:

• the flatness of the trajectory increases, and hence the range of a direct shot at a “tank” type target, when shooting is carried out at one sight setting;
• the time of flight of the bullet to the target also decreases, along with it the amount of drift by the side wind and the movement of the target during the time from the start of the shot to the expected meeting of the striking element with the target.

On the other hand, the mass is directly related to the transverse load, so the armor-piercing core must still have a high density.

Armor action

It is no less important than armor-piercing. Having pierced the armor, a bullet, a solid projectile or an armor-piercing core inflicts damage due to fragmentation and incendiary action. Their highly heated fragments, together with armor fragments, penetrate inside the vehicle at high speed, hit the crew, mechanisms, ammunition, tanks, supply pipelines, lubrication systems, and are capable of igniting fuel and lubricants.

To improve efficiency, cartridges with armor-piercing incendiary and armor-piercing tracer bullets were used, which had armor-piercing and armor-piercing effects. The high initial velocity of the bullet was achieved by using a powerful cartridge and a large relative barrel length (from 90 to 150 mm).

The history of the creation of domestic anti-tank rifles

In the USSR back in 1933, the “dynamo-reactive” 37-mm Kurchevsky anti-tank rifle was adopted for service, but it lasted in service for about two years. Before the war, PTR did not arouse keen interest among Soviet military leaders, although there was experience in their development and production. Soviet designers S. Korovin, S. Vladimirov, M. Blum, L. Kurchevsky created samples in the 30s that surpassed foreign counterparts. However, their designs and characteristics were imperfect due to the lack of a clear vision of what exactly they should be.

With the adoption of specific requirements for this type of weapon, the situation has changed. It was then that the caliber of the anti-tank rifle was increased to 14.5 mm, the bullet weight was 64 g, and the muzzle velocity was 1000 m/s. In 1938, the basic armor-piercing cartridge B-32 was developed, later improved. At the beginning of 1941, ammunition appeared with an armor-piercing incendiary bullet equipped with a steel core, and in August, a cartridge with a metal core.

PTR Rukavishnikov

On October 7, 1939, the USSR Defense Committee approved the adoption of an anti-tank 14.5-mm gun of the design comrade. Rukavishnikov. Kovrov Plant No. 2 was given the task of manufacturing Rukavishnikov's PTR (also known as PTR-39) in the amount of 50 pieces. in 1939 and 15,000 in 1940. Mass production of 14.5 mm cartridges was entrusted to plant No. 3 in Ulyanovsk and No. 46 in Kuntsevo.

However, work on organizing the mass production of Rukavishnikov's PTR was delayed by a number of circumstances. At the end of 1939, the Kovrov Plant carried out an urgent task to organize the large-scale production of the PPD submachine gun due to the Soviet-Finnish war, which required an urgent increase in the number of individual automatic weapons in the troops. Therefore, before the "big" war, these guns were clearly not enough.

Specifications

Rukavishnikov's anti-tank gun had an automatic gas engine with the removal of powder gases through a transverse hole directly in the barrel wall. The stroke of the gas piston is long. The gas chamber was located at the bottom of the barrel. The channel was locked by a shutter collar. On the receiver, on the left, there was a receiver under the clip (pack) for 5 cartridges. The PTR had a muzzle brake, a buttstock with a sponge rubber shock absorber and a folding shoulder pad, a pistol grip, a folding bipod, and carrying handles.

USM allowed to fire only single shots, included a flag non-automatic fuse, the lever of which was located on the right side of the trigger. The percussion mechanism was of a percussion type, the mainspring was located inside a massive drummer. The combat rate of fire reached 15 rds / min. The sighting device included an open sector sight and a front sight on a bracket. The sight was notched at a distance of up to 1000 m. With a barrel length of 1180 mm, Rukavishnikov's PTR had a length of 1775 mm and weighed 24 kg (with cartridges).

At the beginning of the war, seeing the lack of anti-tank weapons, the army leadership hastily began to take adequate measures. In July 1941, the most prominent Soviet weapons designers V. Degtyarev and his talented student S. Simonov were involved in the rapid development of anti-tank rifles. At the end of the month, V. Degtyarev proposed 2 variants of a 14.5-mm gun that had already passed field tests. The system was called PTRD - Degtyarev anti-tank rifle. Although the gun received universal approval at the training ground, in trench conditions, with insufficient care, it often jammed.

Greater success was achieved when creating a magazine self-loading rifle of the S. Simonov system. Only the trigger and burst loading mechanics were changed. Based on the positive test results, on August 29, 1941, the USSR State Defense Committee decided to adopt the Simonov magazine self-loading anti-tank rifle (PTRS) and the single-shot Degtyarev caliber 14.5 mm.

Despite a number of "growing pains" - design flaws that were corrected throughout the war and after it - guns became a weighty argument against tanks in the hands of Soviet soldiers. As a result, PTRD and PTRS are still being used effectively in regional conflicts.

High efficiency

The need for this weapon was so high that sometimes the guns fell directly from the factory floor to the front line. The first batch was sent to the 16th Army, to General Rokossovsky, who was defending Moscow northwest of the Soviet capital, in the Volokolamsk direction. The application experience was successful: on the morning of November 16, 1941, near the settlements of Shiryaevo and Petelino, the soldiers of the 1075th Infantry Regiment of the 8th Guards Division, holding the front, shot a group of German tanks from 150-200 m, 2 of which burned down completely.

The role that Degtyarev's (and Simonov's) anti-tank rifle played in the defense of the Soviet capital is evidenced by the fact that V. Degtyarev himself and many factory workers who organized the production of deadly weapons for armored vehicles were awarded the medal "For the Defense of Moscow".

As a result of the combat use of gun systems, designers have made significant improvements to their mechanics. The production of guns increased every day. If in 1941 17,688 units of the V. Degtyarev system and only 77 units of the S. Simonov system were manufactured, then in 1942 the number of guns increased, respectively, to 184,800 and 63,308 pieces.

PTRD device

The single-shot PTRD (Degtyarev anti-tank rifle) consisted of the following units:

• trunk;
• cylindrical receiver;
• butterfly valve of sliding type;
• butt;
• trigger box;
• aiming device;
• bipod.

Specifications PTRD

Degtyarev's anti-tank rifle was developed in a record (for many unthinkable) 22 days. Although the designer took into account the achievements of the creators of previous models of the 30s, he managed to embody the basic requirements of the military in metal: simplicity, lightness, reliability and low cost of manufacture.

The barrel is 8-rifled, with a rifling stroke of 420 mm. The active muzzle brake of the box system is able to absorb most of the recoil energy (up to 2/3). The rotary (“piston type”) bolt of cylindrical shape is equipped with two lugs in the front part and a straight handle in the rear part. An impact mechanism, a reflector and an ejector were mounted in it.

The percussion mechanism activates the drummer with the striker, also the mainspring. The drummer could be cocked manually by the protruding tail or put on the fuse - for this, the tail had to be pulled back and turned to the right by 30 °. In the receiver, the bolt was held by a stop located on the left side of the receiver.

The shutter was unlocked and the spent cartridge case was extracted automatically, the shutter remained open, and in order to prepare for the next shot, it remained to manually insert a new cartridge into the upper window on the receiver, send and lock the shutter. This made it possible to increase the combat rate of fire with the coordinated work of the calculation of two people. The buttstock is equipped with a soft cushion-shock absorber. Folding stamped bipod was attached to the trunk. The Degtyarev anti-tank rifle with ammunition and additional equipment weighed up to 26 kg (17 kg net weight without cartridges). Aimed shooting - 800 m.

PTRS device

The gun was equipped with an automatic gas engine with gas exhaust through a transverse hole in the barrel wall, an open-type gas chamber, reinforced from the bottom of the barrel. The stroke of the gas piston is short. The overall design and bore are generally similar to the PTRD, which is logically explained by unified ammunition.

Simonov's anti-tank rifle had a barrel locking with a skew down the bolt core. The shutter stem, supplemented by a handle, locked and unlocked the channel. The "reloading mechanism" referred to the details of the weapon's automation, namely, a gas three-mode regulator, a rod, a piston, a tube and a pusher with a spring. After the shot, the pusher, under the pressure of powder gases, moved back, transmitted an impulse to the bolt stem, and itself returned forward. Under the action of the bolt stem moving backwards, the frame unlocked the barrel bore, after which the entire bolt moved back. The cartridge case was removed by the ejector and reflected upwards with a special protrusion. The shutter, when the cartridges were used up, rose to a stop, mounted in the receiver.

USM is mounted on the trigger guard. The non-automatic flag safety lock blocked the trigger when the flag was turned back. A permanent magazine (lever-type feeder) is attached to the bottom of the receiver, the magazine cover latch is located on the trigger guard. The magazine is equipped with a pack (clip) for 5 rounds, placed in a checkerboard pattern.

The Simonov anti-tank rifle of 1941 is 4 kg heavier than the Degtyarev model, due to the multi-shot automatics (21 kg without cartridges). Aimed shooting - 1500 m.

The barrel length of both anti-tank rifles is the same - 1350 mm, as well as armor penetration (average indicators): at a lethal distance of 300 m, the B-32 bullet overcame armor of 21 mm, the BS-41 bullet - 35 mm.

German PTR

German anti-tank guns developed a slightly different scenario. Back in the mid-20s, the German command abandoned large-caliber anti-tank rifles in favor of the "rifle" caliber 7.92 mm. The bet was made not on the size of the bullet, but on the power of the ammunition. The effectiveness of the specialized cartridge P318 was sufficient to deal with the armored vehicles of potential opponents. However, like the USSR, Germany entered World War II with a small number of anti-tank rifles. Subsequently, their production was increased many times, and the developments of Polish, Czech, Soviet, British, French gunsmiths were used.

A typical example of 1939-1942. there was a 1938 Panzerbuchse model of the year - an anti-tank rifle, a photo of which can often be seen in archival military photographs. Pz.B 38 (abbreviated name), and then Pz.B 39, Pz.B 41 were developed in the city of gunsmiths Sule by designer B. Bauer.

The bore of the Pz.B 38 was locked with a vertical wedge bolt. To soften the recoil, the barrel-bolt clutch was moved back in the box. The recoil was used to unlock the shutter, similar to how it is done in semi-automatic artillery pieces. The use of such a scheme made it possible to limit the length of the barrel stroke to 90 mm and reduce the overall length of the weapon. The large flatness of the trajectory of bullets at a distance of up to 400 m made it possible to install a permanent sighting device.

The design of the weapon showed a desire common to the end of the 1930s to switch to mass production technologies - the box, in particular, was assembled from two stamped halves, equipped with stiffeners and connected by spot welding. The system was further refined by Bauer several times.

Conclusion

The first anti-tank guns appeared along with the tanks themselves - in the First World War. Before the start of the Second World War, both Germany and the USSR did not realize their obvious importance, giving priority to other types of weapons. However, the very first months of the collision of infantry units with the tank armada of the Wehrmacht showed how erroneous the underestimation of mobile, cheap, effective anti-tank rifles was.

In the 21st century, the “good old” anti-tank gun is still in demand, the modern purpose of which is fundamentally different from that for samples of the Great Patriotic War. Considering that tanks can withstand several RPG hits, the classic anti-tank rifle is unlikely to hit an armored vehicle. In fact, anti-tank rifles have evolved into a class of "heavy" universal sniper rifles, in the image of which the outlines of anti-tank guns are guessed. They are designed to hit "drones", manpower at a considerable distance, radars, missile launchers, protected firing points, communications and control equipment, unarmored and lightly armored mobile equipment, and even hovering helicopters.

At first, they were carried out mainly under 12.7-mm ammunition from heavy machine guns. For example, the American M82A1 Barret, M87 and M93 MacMillan, the British AW50, the French Hecate II, the Russian ASVK and OSV-96. But in the 2000s, special “sniper” cartridges appeared within the 12.7x99 (.50 Browning) and 12.7x108 families of large-caliber cartridges. Such cartridges were included, for example, in the same Russian 12.7-mm OSV-96 and ASVK (6S8) sniper systems, and the American M107. Rifles for more powerful cartridges are also presented: the Hungarian Gepard (14.5 mm), the South African NTW (20 mm), the American M-109 (25 mm) and others. The start, taken at the beginning of the 20th century, continues!

By the beginning of the Second World War, the infantry was armed with high-explosive hand grenades and anti-tank rifles, that is, tools that originated in the last years of the First World War. "Anti-tank rifle" (PTR) is not a completely accurate term - it would be more correct to call this weapon an "anti-tank rifle." However, it has historically developed (apparently, as a translation of the German word "panzerbuhse") and has firmly entered our lexicon. The armor-piercing action 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 time of the meeting with an obstacle, the angle of the meeting, the 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 armor action was the main reason for the low efficiency of the first anti-tank rifle - a single-shot 13.37-mm Mauser developed in 1918. The bullet fired from this PTR was capable of penetrating 20 mm armor at a distance of 500 meters. In the interwar period, PTRs were 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 rifle as a temporary replacement for the TuF machine gun of the appropriate caliber.

In the 1920s and 1930s, a light small-caliber gun or a heavy machine gun seemed to most experts the most successful and versatile solution for two tasks - air defense at low altitudes and anti-tank defense at short and medium ranges. It would seem that the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 also confirmed this view (although during those battles, both sides, in addition to the 20-mm automatic guns, used the preserved 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 and size indicators and efficiency, cannot be used at the forefront 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 were armed with light armored vehicles, along with anti-aircraft guns, they were attracted to anti-aircraft defense, 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 under the cartridge of an anti-tank rifle, by the time of its appearance could not play the role of "anti-tank". After the war, it was used as a means of combating manpower at considerable ranges, air targets and light armored vehicles.

The anti-tank guns used during the Second World War 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 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-piercing action. 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 specially, and in 20-mm anti-tank guns they used converted cartridges for aircraft guns. 20mm PTRs became a separate branch of the "anti-tank machine guns" of the 20-30s of the last century;

To reduce recoil, muzzle brakes, spring shock absorbers, soft butt pads were installed;

To increase maneuverability, the dimensions of the mass and PTR were reduced, carrying handles were introduced, and heavy guns were quick-release;

In order to quickly transfer fire, the bipods were attached closer to the middle, for the uniformity of aiming and convenience, many samples were equipped with a “cheek”, a butt shoulder pad, a pistol grip served for control in most samples, it was provided to hold the left hand for a special handle or butt when firing;

The maximum reliability of mechanisms was achieved;

Great importance was attached to the ease of development and manufacture.

The problem of rate of fire was resolved in combination with the requirement for simplicity of design and maneuverability. Single-shot anti-tank rifles had a rate of fire of 6-8 rounds per minute, magazine - 10-12, and self-loading - 20-30.

12.7-mm single-shot "PTR Sholokhov" chambered for DShK, made 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 Kovrov plant No. 2 named after. Kirkizha made two prototypes of the 20-mm "company anti-tank gun" INZ-10 of the M.N. Blum and S.V. Vladimirov - on a wheeled carriage and bipod. In August 1938, eight anti-tank weapon systems for the company level were tested in Shchyurovo at the Small Arms Research Range:
— 20-mm anti-tank gun 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 of the Tsyrulnikov and Mikhno systems);
- 37 mm DR recoilless gun.

Light self-loading gun INZ-10 showed unsatisfactory armor penetration and accuracy. The mass of weapons in combat position was also large (41.9 - 83.3 kg). The rest of the systems were either found to be unsatisfactory or needed major improvements. At the beginning of 1937, NIPSVO tested an experimental Tula self-loading 20-mm anti-tank gun (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 design of the muzzle brake. In 1938, B.G. offered his light 37-mm anti-tank gun. Shpitalny, head of OKB-15, but she was rejected even before the start of the tests. The attempt to convert the Shpitalny and Vladimirov’s (ShVAK) automatic 20-mm cannon into a “universal” anti-aircraft anti-tank weapon also failed. In the end, the requirements for anti-tank guns themselves were recognized as inappropriate. On November 9, 1938, new requirements were formulated by the Artillery Directorate. A powerful 14.5-mm cartridge has been finalized, having an armor-piercing incendiary B-32 bullet 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 left 198 grams, bullets - 51 grams, cartridge length was 155.5 millimeters, sleeves - 114.2 millimeters. A bullet at a range of 0.5 km at a meeting angle of 20 degrees was capable of penetrating 20 mm cemented armor.

14.5 mm PTR Degtyarev arr. 1941

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-millimeter anti-tank rifle developed by Shpitalny failed again). 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, head of the GAU, raised the issue of the ineffectiveness of existing anti-tank weapons against the "newest Germany", about which intelligence appeared. In July 1940, the production of the PTR-39 was put into production by the Kovrov plant named after. Kirkizh was suspended. Erroneous views that armor protection and firepower of tanks would increase significantly in the near future had a number of consequences: anti-tank rifles were excluded from the weapons system (order dated August 26, 1940), production of 45-mm anti-tank guns was stopped, and an assignment was issued for urgent design of 107- millimeter tank and anti-tank guns. As a result, 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 high percentage of delays. Fine-tuning 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 set up the assembly of a single-shot anti-tank rifle chambered 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 rifle. However, a muzzle brake was added to the design, a shock absorber on the back of the butt, and light folding bipods were installed. Despite this, the design did not provide the required parameters, especially since the armor penetration of the 12.7 mm cartridge was insufficient to fight tanks. Especially for these anti-tank rifles, a cartridge was produced in small batches, having an armor-piercing bullet BS-41.

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 that the development be entrusted to "one more, and for reliability - to two designers" (according to the memoirs of D.F. Ustinov). The task was issued in July by S.G. Simonov and V.A. Degtyarev. A month later, designs ready for testing were presented - only 22 days passed from the moment the assignment was received to test shots.

V.A. Degtyarev and employees of KB-2 of the plant. Kirkizha (INZ-2 or Plant No. 2 of the People's Commissariat for Armaments) on July 4 began the development of 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, the Degtyarev anti-tank rifle project was considered at a meeting in the Red Army Small Arms Directorate. On July 30, Degtyarev 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, a variant of a 14.5-mm cartridge with a BS-41 bullet having a powder ceramic-metal core was put into service (bullet weight was 63.6 g). 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 primer 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 HAF gas-forming composition in the rear part was developed (the German “armor-piercing chemical” cartridge for Pz.B 39 served as a model). However, this cartridge was not accepted. The acceleration of work on anti-tank guns was necessary, since the problems of anti-tank guns in rifle units worsened - in August, due to a lack of anti-tank artillery, 45-mm guns were removed from the divisional and battalion level to form 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, the self-loading sample of Simonov and the single-shot Degtyarev were adopted under the designations PTRS and PTRD. Due to the haste of the issue, the guns were accepted before the end of the tests - the tests of anti-tank guns for survivability were carried out on September 12-13, the final tests of the modified anti-tank guns on September 24. New anti-tank guns were supposed to fight light and medium tanks, as well as armored vehicles at ranges up to 500 meters.

14.5 mm PTR Simonov arr. 1941

The production of PTRD was started at the plant number 2 named after. Kirkizha - in early October, the first batch of 50 guns was put into assembly. In the Department of the Chief Designer on October 10, they created a special. documentation group. As a matter of urgency, a conveyor was 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 gun consisted of a barrel with a cylindrical receiver, a longitudinally pivoting sliding bolt, a butt with a trigger box, trigger and impact mechanisms, a bipod and sights. In the bore there were 8 rifling with a stroke length of 420 mm. The active box-shaped muzzle brake was capable of absorbing up to 60% of the recoil energy. The cylindrical bolt had a straight handle in the back and two lugs - in the front, it installed a percussion mechanism, a reflector and an ejector. The percussion mechanism included a mainspring and a drummer with a striker; the drummer's tail looked like a hook and went out. The bevel of its core, when the shutter was unlocked, took the drummer back.

The receiver and trigger boxes were connected rigidly connected 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) moved back after the shot, the bolt handle “ran” onto the copy profile fixed on the butt, and when turned, unlocked the bolt. The shutter after stopping the barrel by inertia moved back, getting up on the shutter delay (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 movable system to the forward position. Inserting a new cartridge into the upper window of the receiver, sending it, as well as locking the shutter, was done manually. The trigger mechanism included a trigger, a trigger lever and a sear with springs. Sights were carried to the left on the brackets. They included a front sight and a flip rear sight at a distance of up to and over 600 meters (in the anti-tank guns of the first releases, the rear sight moved in a vertical groove).

On the butt there was a soft pillow, 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 clamp with a lamb. 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 calculation numbers.

A minimum of parts, the use of a butt tube instead of a frame greatly simplified the production of an anti-tank gun, 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 already in early November it was sent to Rokossovsky's 16th Army. On November 16, they were first used in combat. 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 an experimental Simonov self-loading rifle of the 1938 model, which worked according to the scheme with the removal of powder gas. The gun consisted of a barrel with a muzzle brake and a vapor chamber, a receiver with a butt, a trigger guard, a bolt, a reloading mechanism, a firing mechanism, sights, a bipod and a magazine. The bore was the same as that of the PTRD. The open-type gas chamber was fastened with pins at a distance of 1/3 of the barrel length from the muzzle. The receiver and the barrel were connected by a wedge.

The barrel bore was locked by tilting the bolt core down. Locking and unlocking was controlled by the stem of the shutter, which has a handle. The reloading mechanism included a gas regulator with three positions, a rod, a piston, a tube and a pusher with a spring. A pusher acted on the bolt stem. The shutter return spring was located in the stem channel. The drummer with a spring was placed in the channel of the shutter core. The shutter, having received an impulse of movement from the pusher after the shot, moved back. At the same time, the pusher returned forward. At the same time, the cartridge case was removed by the bolt ejector and reflected upward by the protrusion of the receiver. After the cartridges ran out, the shutter got up to stop in the receiver.

A trigger mechanism was mounted on the trigger guard. The trigger mechanism had a helical 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 store and the lever feeder were hinged to the receiver, its latch was located on the trigger guard. The cartridges were placed in a checkerboard pattern. The store was equipped with a pack (clip) with five rounds of ammunition with the lid folded down. The affiliation of the rifle included 6 clips. The front sight had a fence, and the sector sight notches from 100 to 1500 meters in increments of 50. The anti-tank rifle had a wooden butt with a shoulder pad and soft cushion, a pistol grip. The narrow neck of the butt was used to hold the gun with the left hand. Folding bipods were attached to the barrel with the help of a clip (swivel). There was a handle for carrying. In combat, an anti-tank rifle was carried by one or both crew numbers. The disassembled gun on the campaign - the receiver with the butt and the barrel - was transferred in two canvas covers.

The manufacture of the Simonov self-loading anti-tank rifle was simpler than the Rukavishnikov rifle (the number of parts was a third less, the machine-hours were 60% less, and the time was 30%), but much more difficult than the Degtyarev 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 urgently accepted, all the shortcomings of the new systems, such as the tight extraction of the cartridge case from the Degtyarev PTR or the twin shots from the Simonov PTR, were corrected during production or “brought up” in military workshops. With all the manufacturability of anti-tank rifles, the deployment of their mass production in wartime required a certain amount of 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 - for example, the cost of Simonov's anti-tank rifle from the first half of 1942 to the second half of 1943 fell almost twice.

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 each, and later 54 rifles) were introduced into rifle regiments. Since the autumn of 1942, platoons (18 guns) 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 battalion of submachine gunners) of the tank brigade. Only in March 1944, when the role of anti-tank rifles decreased, the companies were disbanded, and the “armor-piercers” were retrained as tankers (since they were re-equipped with T-34-85, whose crew consisted of not four, but five people). The companies were introduced into the anti-tank battalions, and the battalions - into the anti-tank fighter brigades. Thus, attempts were made to ensure close interaction of PTR units with 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 troops of the front, dated 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, exceptional in terms of efficiency and strength ... 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, 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 its use. It is also necessary to take into account the shortcomings of the first batches of anti-tank rifles.

Degtyarev's anti-tank rifles received their first combat use in the 16th army of Rokossovsky. The most famous battle was a collision 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 hit, 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 arrows and support with light regimental artillery.

To understand the role of anti-tank rifle units, it is necessary to recall tactics. In combat, 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 regiment's anti-tank area in the defense as a reserve. A platoon of anti-tank rifles could operate in full strength or split into half-platoons and squads of 2-4 guns each. The anti-tank rifle squad, acting independently or as part of a platoon, in battle had to “choose a firing position, equip it and disguise it; quickly prepare for firing, as well as 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. Positions were chosen in such a way as to ensure circular fire at ranges up to 500 meters, and occupied a flank position to the direction of movement of enemy tanks. Interaction 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 circular firing without a platform or with it, a small trench for firing in a wide sector - in this case, firing was carried out with a removed or bent bipod. Fire on 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, but in infantry positions armor-piercers quite often had to "hit in the forehead." Calculations of anti-tank rifles were dismembered in depth and along the front at distances and intervals from 25 to 40 meters at an angle back or forward, during flanking fire - in one line. The front of the anti-tank rifle squad is 50-80 meters, the platoon - 250-700 meters.

During the defense, "armor-piercing snipers" were placed in echelon, preparing the main position and up to three spare ones. A gunner-observer on duty remained at the position of the squad before the start of the offensive of the enemy armored vehicles. 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 overcame a barrier, scarp or embankment - along the bottom; in case of removal of the tank - 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-piercers and "tank destroyers" used anti-tank grenades and Molotov cocktails.

The commander of a platoon of anti-tank rifles could single out a squad participating in the defense to destroy enemy aircraft. This was a common task. 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 to destroy air targets. Often, anti-tank guns were placed on improvised anti-aircraft guns. A tripod machine created for this purpose at the plant No. Kirkizh was not accepted into production, and this is perhaps fair.

In 1944, a staggered arrangement of anti-tank rifles was practiced in depth and along the front at a distance of 50 to 100 meters from each other. At the same time, mutual shooting of the approaches was ensured, and dagger fire was widely used. In winter, anti-tank guns were mounted on drags or sleds. In closed areas with impenetrable spaces for anti-tank rifle positions, groups of fighters with incendiary bottles and grenades were located in front of them. In the mountains, the crews of anti-tank guns were, as a rule, located at road turns, entrances to valleys and gorges, while defending heights - on tank-accessible and most gentle slopes.

In the offensive, a platoon of anti-tank rifles moved in rolls 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 took up positions in front between the rifle platoons. During an offensive with an open flank, armor-piercers, as a rule, should be kept on this flank. A squad of anti-tank rifles usually advanced on the flanks or in the gaps of a rifle company, a platoon of anti-tank rifles - a battalion or company. Between 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 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 the enemy’s defense, platoons and squads of anti-tank rifles supported the advance of rifle subunits with fire, protecting it “from sudden raids by armored vehicles and enemy tanks from ambushes”, destroying counterattacking or dug-in tanks, as well as firing points. The calculations were recommended to hit armored vehicles and tanks with flank and cross fire.

During battles in the forest or 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 the regiment or battalion, the reserve of anti-tank rifles remained obligatory. During the offensive, anti-tank rifle units covered the rear and flanks of rifle regiments, battalions or companies, firing through wastelands or squares, as well as along the streets. When taking up defense in the city, positions were placed at street intersections, squares, basements and buildings in order to keep alleys and streets, gaps and arches under fire. During the defense of the forest, the positions of anti-tank rifles 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 forward and reconnaissance detachments, especially in rough terrain that made it difficult to carry heavier weapons. In the forward detachments, the armor-piercing detachments perfectly complemented the tank brigades - for example, on July 13, 1943, the advance detachment of the 55th Guards Tank Regiment successfully repulsed the counterattack of 14 German tanks with fire from anti-tank rifles and tanks in the Rzhavets area, knocking out 7 of them. Former Lieutenant General of the Wehrmacht E. Schneider, an armaments specialist, wrote: “The Russians had a 14.5 mm anti-tank rifle in 1941, 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 tankers, Soviet anti-tank rifles were mentioned as weapons “worthy of respect”, however, due 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 a combination of operational and combat qualities.

Having played a significant role in anti-tank defense in 1941-1942, anti-tank rifles by the summer of 43 years - with an increase in the armor protection of assault guns and tanks over 40 millimeters - had lost their positions. True, there were cases of successful combat between infantry anti-tank formations and enemy heavy tanks in defensive positions prepared in advance. For example, a duel between the armor-piercer Ganzha (151st Infantry Regiment) and 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, having let the tank pass over him, fired into the stern, immediately changing position. During the turn of the tank in order to move to the trench, Ganzha fired 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 1943 - 118,563 units, 1944 - 142,861 units, that is, in two years it increased by 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 on May 9, 1945 was 257,500 units). The largest number of anti-tank rifles was submitted to the ranks of the army in 1942 - 249,000 pieces, but already in the first half of 1945, only 800 units. The same picture was observed with 12.7-mm, 14.5-mm cartridges: in 1942 their production was 6 times higher than the pre-war level, but by 1944 it had noticeably decreased. Despite this, the 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 front line weapon, which explains the significant losses - during the war, 214 thousand anti-tank rifles of all models, that is, 45.4%, were lost. 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 speak of the intensity of the use of anti-tank rifles in the middle of the war. During the defense on the Kursk Bulge, 387,000 cartridges for anti-tank rifles were used up on the Central Front (48,370 per day), and on the Voronezh - 754,000 (68,250 per day). During the Battle of Kursk, more than 3.5 million cartridges for anti-tank rifles were used up. In addition to tanks, anti-tank guns fired at firing points and embrasures of the bunker and bunker at a distance of up to 800 meters, and at aircraft - up to 500 meters.

In the third period of the war, Degtyarev and Simonov's anti-tank rifles 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, up to the storming of Berlin. Often, guns were used by snipers to hit targets at a considerable distance or enemy shooters who were behind armored 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 little tanks against the Soviet troops.

Anti-tank rifles were in service not only with infantry, but also with cavalry units. Here, packs for cavalry saddles and pack saddles of the 1937 model were used to transport the Degtyarev 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 shooting from a horse at ground and air targets. At the same time, the shooter stood behind the horse, which was held by the groom. To drop anti-tank rifles to partisans and landing forces, an elongated UPD-MM airborne bag with a shock absorber and a parachute chamber was used. Cartridges were quite often dropped from strafing flight without a parachute in burlap-wrapped caps. Soviet anti-tank guns were transferred to foreign formations that were formed in the USSR: for example, 6786 guns were transferred to the Polish Army, 1283 units to Czechoslovak units. During the Korean War of 50-53, Soviet 14.5 mm anti-tank rifles were used by North Korean soldiers and Chinese volunteers 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 went on continuously. Rukavishnikov's single-shot 12.7 mm anti-tank rifle tested in February 1942 can be considered an example of an attempt to create a lighter anti-tank gun. Its mass was 10.8 kg. The shutter system made it possible to shoot at a speed of up to 12-15 rounds per minute. It was possible to replace the barrel with a 14.5 mm. Lightness and simplicity prompted the specialists of the landfill to recommend the new Rukavishnikov gun for mass production. But the growth of armor protection for 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 - the “enlargement” of anti-tank rifles and the “lightening” of anti-tank guns. In both cases, ingenious solutions were found and rather interesting designs were created. The experienced single-shot anti-tank guns of Blum and the PEC guns (Rashkov, Ermolaev, Slukhodky) aroused great interest in GBTU and GAU. Blum's anti-tank gun was designed for a 14.5 mm cartridge (14.5x147) in which the muzzle velocity of the bullet was increased to 1500 meters per second. The cartridge was created on the basis of the cartridge case of a 23-mm shot of an aircraft cannon (at the same time, a 23-mm shot was developed on the basis of a standard 14.5-mm cartridge to lighten the air gun). The gun had a rotary longitudinally sliding bolt, having two lugs and a spring-loaded reflector, which ensured reliable removal of the sleeve at any speed of the bolt. 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. 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 explosive). The RES barrel was locked by a horizontally moving wedge gate, which was opened manually and closed with a return spring. There was a safety lever on the trigger mechanism. The 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, at the GBTU training ground, the captured Pz.VI "Tiger" was shelled, which showed that Blum's anti-tank rifle was capable of penetrating 82-mm tank armor at a distance of up to 100 meters. On August 10, 1943, both anti-tank rifles fired on the Shot courses: this time they recorded 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 RES (at a distance of 300 meters, a projectile RES penetrated 60 mm armor). From the conclusion of the commission: "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 gun was more compact, so the question of adopting it was raised. However, this did not happen. Small-scale production of 20 mm RESs was carried out in Kovrov - in 1942, factory No. 2 produced 28 units, and in 1943 - 43 units. This is where the production ended. In addition, at plant No. 2, the Degtyarev anti-tank rifle was converted into a “two-caliber” one with an increased initial speed chambered for a 23-mm VYa cannon (mastering the production of a cannon at the plant began in February 1942). In another version of the Degtyarev anti-tank gun 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. From above, approximately in the middle of the barrel of an anti-tank gun, a box with a chamber was attached, which was connected by a transverse hole to the bore. A blank 14.5 mm cartridge was inserted into this box, locked with a conventional bolt. When fired, the powder gases ignited the charge of a blank cartridge, which, in turn, increased the speed of the bullet, maintaining 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 of armor penetration of anti-tank rifles did not keep pace with the increase in armor protection. In a journal dated October 27, 1943, the art committee of the GAU 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 the "two-caliber" Degtyarev anti-tank rifles and the heavy "RES" hardly met these requirements. Work on anti-tank guns was actually curtailed.

Attempts to "lighten" artillery systems to the parameters of infantry weapons were in line with the Infantry Combat Regulations of 1942, which included anti-tank guns in the number of infantry 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. Dzerzhinsky. Weight in combat position - 154 kg. The calculation of the gun - 3 people. Armor penetration at a distance of 100 meters - 100 millimeters (sub-caliber projectile). In 1944, the airborne 37-mm cannon ChK-M1 Charnko and Komaritsky was adopted. The original recoil suppression 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 280 millimeters. With a rate of fire of 15 to 25 rounds per minute, the cannon pierced 86 mm armor at a distance of 500 meters and 97 mm armor at 300 meters with a sub-caliber projectile. However, only 472 guns were made - they, like the "reinforced" anti-tank guns, simply did not find a need.

The source of information:
Magazine "Equipment and weapons" Semyon Fedoseev "Infantry against tanks"

The film "The Ballad of a Soldier" begins with a scene full of tragedy. The Soviet soldier-signalman is pursued by a young unfired fighter with nowhere to hide, he runs, and the steel colossus is about to overtake him and crush him. The soldier sees Degtyarev abandoned by someone. And he uses an unexpectedly turned up chance for salvation. He shoots at an enemy car and knocks it out. Another tank is advancing on it, but the signalman is not lost and burns it too.

“This could not be! - other "experts in military history" will say today. “You can’t pierce tank armor with a gun!” - "Can!" - those who are more familiar with this subject will answer. The inaccuracy in the film narrative may have been admitted, but it does not concern the combat capabilities of this class of weapons, but the chronology.

A bit about tactics

Anti-tank guns were created in the thirties of the XX century in many countries. They seemed to be a completely logical and reasonable solution to the issue of confronting the armored vehicles of that time. Artillery was supposed to become the main means of combating it, and anti-tank rifles - auxiliary, but more mobile. The tactics of conducting the offensive involved delivering strikes with tank wedges involving dozens, even hundreds of vehicles, but the success of the attack was determined by whether it was possible to create the necessary concentration of troops unnoticed by the enemy. Overcoming well-fortified defense lines equipped with armor-piercing artillery, with a strip of minefields and engineering structures (gouges, hedgehogs, etc.) was an adventurous business and was fraught with the loss of a large amount of equipment. But if the enemy suddenly hits a poorly protected sector of the front, then there will be no time for jokes. We'll have to urgently "patch holes" in the defense, transfer guns and infantry, which still needs to dig in. It is difficult to quickly deliver the required number of guns with ammunition to a dangerous area. This is where the anti-tank rifle comes in handy. PTRD - weapons are relatively compact and inexpensive (much cheaper than guns). You can produce a lot of them, and then equip all units with them. Just in case. The soldiers armed with them, perhaps, will not burn out all the enemy tanks, but they will be able to delay the offensive. Time will be won, the command will have time to bring up the main forces. So thought many military leaders in the late thirties.

Why did our fighters lack PTR

There are several reasons why the development and production of anti-tank rifles in the USSR in the pre-war years was practically curtailed, but the main one was the exclusively offensive Red Army. Some analysts point to the supposedly poor awareness of the Soviet leadership, which overestimated the degree of armor protection of German tanks, and therefore made the wrong conclusion about the low effectiveness of anti-tank rifles as a weapon class. There are even references to the head of Glavartupra G. I. Kulik, who expressed such an opinion. Subsequently, it turned out that even the 14.5-mm Rukavishnikov PTR-39 anti-tank rifle, adopted in 1939 by the Red Army and abolished a year later, could well penetrate the armor of all types of equipment that the Wehrmacht possessed in 1941.

What did the Germans come with

Hitler's army crossed the border of the USSR with tanks in the amount of over three thousand. It is difficult to appreciate this armada at its true worth, if you do not use the method of comparison. The Red Army had much fewer modern tanks (T-34 and KV), only a few hundred. So, maybe the Germans had equipment of about the same quality as ours, with a quantitative superiority? This is not true.

Tank T-I was not just light, it can be called a wedge. Without a gun, with a crew of two, it weighed a little more than a car. Degtyarev's anti-tank rifle, put into service in the fall of 1941, pierced it right through. The German T-II was slightly better, with bulletproof armor and a short barreled 37mm cannon. There was also a T-III, which would have withstood the impact of the PTR cartridge, but only if it hit the frontal part, but in other other areas ...

The Panzerwaffe also had Czech, Polish, Belgian, French and other captured vehicles (they are included in the total), worn out, outdated and poorly supplied with spare parts. I don’t even want to think about what Degtyarev’s anti-tank rifle could do with any of them.

"Tigers" and "Panthers" appeared with the Germans later, in 1943.

Resumption of production

We should pay tribute to the Stalinist leadership, they were able to correct mistakes. The decision to resume work on the PTR was made the day after the start of the war. This fact refutes the version of the Stavka's poor awareness of the armored potential of the Wehrmacht, it is simply impossible to obtain such information in a day. As a matter of urgency (less than a month it took to manufacture prototype units), a competition was held for two samples, almost ready to be launched into mass production. Simonov's anti-tank rifle showed good results, but in the technological aspect it was inferior to the second tested PTR. It was more complicated in the device, and also heavier, which also influenced the decision of the commission. On the last day of August, Degtyarev's anti-tank rifle was officially adopted by the Red Army and put into production at an arms factory in the city of Kovrov, and two months later - in Izhevsk. In three years, more than 270 thousand pieces were made.

First results

At the end of October 1941, the situation at the front was catastrophic. The avant-garde units of the Wehrmacht approached Moscow, two strategic echelons of the Red Army were practically defeated in giant "cauldrons", vast expanses of the European part of the USSR were under the heel of the invaders. In these circumstances, the Soviet soldiers did not lose heart. Lacking artillery in sufficient quantities, the troops showed massive heroism and fought the tanks using grenades and Molotov cocktails. Directly from the assembly line, new weapons came to the front. On November 16, soldiers of the 1075th Infantry Regiment of the 316th Division destroyed three enemy tanks using ATGMs. Photos of the heroes and the fascist equipment they burned were published by Soviet newspapers. A continuation soon followed, four more tanks smoking near Lugovaya, which had previously conquered Warsaw and Paris.

Foreign PTR

Newsreels of the war years have repeatedly captured our soldiers with anti-tank rifles. The episodes of battles with their use in feature films were also reflected (for example, in S. Bondarchuk's masterpiece "They Fought for the Motherland"). French, American, English or German soldiers with ATGM documentaries recorded much less for history. Does this mean that the anti-tank guns of World War II were mostly Soviet? To some extent, yes. In such quantities, these weapons were produced only in the USSR. But work on it was carried out in Britain (Beuys system), and in Germany (PzB-38, PzB-41), and in Poland (UR), and in Finland (L-35), and in the Czech Republic (MSS-41) . And even in neutral Switzerland (S18-1000). Another thing is that the engineers of all these, no doubt, technologically "advanced" countries have not been able to surpass Russian weapons in their simplicity, the elegance of technical solutions, and also in quality. And not every soldier is capable of shooting in cold blood at an advancing tank from a trench. Ours can.

How to break through armor?

The PTRD has approximately the same performance characteristics as the Simonov anti-tank rifle, but it is lighter than it (17.3 versus 20.9 kg), shorter (2000 and 2108 mm, respectively) and structurally simpler, and therefore, it takes less time to cleaning and easier to train shooters. These circumstances explain the preference given by the State Commission, despite the fact that the PTRS could fire at a higher rate of fire due to the built-in five-round magazine. The main quality of this weapon was still the ability to penetrate armor protection from various distances. To do this, it was necessary to send a special heavy bullet with a steel core (and, as an option, with an additional incendiary charge activated after passing through an obstacle) at a sufficiently high speed.

Armor-piercing

The distance at which Degtyarev's anti-tank rifle becomes dangerous for enemy armored vehicles is half a kilometer. From it it is quite possible to hit other targets, such as pillboxes, bunkers, as well as aircraft. The caliber of the cartridge is 14.5 mm (brand B-32 conventional armor-piercing incendiary or BS-41 with a ceramic superhard tip). The length of the ammunition corresponds to the airgun projectile, 114 mm. The distance to hit a target with armor 30 cm thick is 40 mm, and from a hundred meters this bullet pierces 6 cm.

Accuracy

The accuracy of hits determines the success of firing at the most vulnerable spots of enemy equipment. Protection was constantly improved, therefore, instructions were issued and promptly updated for the fighters, recommending how to most effectively use an anti-tank gun. The modern idea of ​​​​the fight against armored vehicles in the same way takes into account the possibility of hitting the weakest points. When firing on tests from a hundred-meter distance, 75% of the cartridges hit the 22-cm neighborhood of the target center.

Design

No matter how simple technical solutions are, they should not be primitive. WWII weapons were often produced in difficult conditions due to forced evacuation and the deployment of workshops in unprepared areas (it happened that for some time they had to work in the open). This fate was avoided by the Kovrov and Izhevsk plants, which until 1944 produced ATGMs. Anti-tank gun Degtyarev, despite the simplicity of the device, has absorbed all the achievements of Russian gunsmiths.

The barrel is rifled, eight-way. The sight is the most common, with a front sight and a two-position bar (up to 400 m and 1 km). The PTRD is loaded like an ordinary rifle, but the strong recoil led to the presence of a barrel brake and a spring shock absorber. For convenience, a handle is provided (one of the carrying fighters can hold it) and a bipod. Everything else: the sear, the percussion mechanism, the receiver, the buttstock and other attributes of the gun, are thought out with the ergonomics that Russian weapons have always been famous for.

Service

In the field, most often an incomplete disassembly was carried out, involving the removal and disassembly of the shutter, as the most polluted assembly. If this was not enough, then it was necessary to remove the bipod, butt, then disassemble the trigger mechanism and separate it. At low temperatures, frost-resistant grease is used, in other cases, ordinary gun oil No. 21. The kit includes a ramrod (collapsible), an oiler, a screwdriver, two cartridge two moisture-resistant tarpaulin covers (one on each side of the gun) and a service record, in which cases of training and combat use, as well as misfires and failures, are noted.

Korea

In 1943, the German industry began to produce medium and heavy tanks with powerful anti-cannon armor. Soviet troops continued to use the PTRD against light, less protected vehicles, as well as to suppress gun emplacements. At the end of the war, the need for anti-tank rifles disappeared. Powerful artillery and other effective weapons were used to deal with the remaining German tanks in 1945. WWII is over. It seemed that the time of the PTRD was irretrievably gone. But five years later, the Korean War began, and the "old gun" began to shoot again, however, at the former allies - the Americans. It was in service with the army of the DPRK and the PLA, who fought on the peninsula until 1953. American tanks of the post-war generation most often withstood hits, but anything happened. PTRD was also used as a means of air defense.

Post-war history

The presence of a large number of high-quality weapons with unique qualities prompted us to look for some useful application for it. Tens of thousands of units were stored in grease. What can an anti-tank gun be used for? Modern protective tank armor can even withstand a hit, not to mention a bullet (even if it is with a core and a special tip). In the 60s, they decided that with the PTRD it was possible to hunt seals and whales. The idea is good, but this thing is painfully heavy. Also, from such a gun, you can conduct sniper fire at a distance of up to a kilometer, a high initial speed allows you to shoot very accurately if you have an armored infantry fighting vehicle or an armored personnel carrier, the ATGM pierces easily, which means that even today the weapon has not completely lost its relevance. So it lies in warehouses, waiting in the wings ...

hand weapons

Recoilless guns

There is no clear boundary between rocket-propelled grenade launchers and recoilless rifles. English term recoilless rifle(recoilless gun) designates both the L6 WOMBAT weighing 295 kg on a wheeled carriage, and the M67 weighing 17 kg for firing from the shoulder or bipod. In Russia (USSR), a grenade launcher was considered an SPG-9 weighing 64.5 kg on a wheeled carriage and an RPG-7 weighing 6.3 kg for firing from the shoulder. In Italy, the Folgore system weighing 18.9 kg is considered a grenade launcher, and the same system on a tripod and with a ballistic computer (weight 25.6 kg) is considered a recoilless gun. The appearance of HEAT shells made smooth-bore recoilless guns promising as light anti-tank guns. Such guns were used by the United States at the end of World War II, and in the post-war years, recoilless anti-tank guns were adopted by a number of countries, including the USSR, and were actively used (and continue to be used) in a number of armed conflicts. The most widely used recoilless rifles are in the armies of developing countries. In the armies of developed countries, BO as an anti-tank weapon has been mainly replaced by anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). Some exceptions are the Scandinavian countries, for example, Sweden, where BO continues to develop, and, by improving ammunition using the latest technological advances, they have achieved armor penetration of 800 mm (with a caliber of 90 mm, that is, almost 9klb)

ATGM

The main advantage of tank ATGMs is greater, compared to any type of tank armament, accuracy in hitting targets, as well as a large range of aimed fire. This allows the tank to fire at an enemy tank while remaining out of range of its weapons, with a hit probability greater than that of modern tank guns at that distance. Significant disadvantages of the KUV include 1) lower than that of a tank gun projectile, the average speed of the rocket and 2) the extremely high cost of a shot.

Artillery mounts

An anti-tank gun (ATG) is a specialized artillery weapon for combating enemy armored vehicles by direct fire. In the vast majority of cases, it is a long-barreled gun with a high muzzle velocity and a low elevation angle. Other salient features of the anti-tank gun include unitary loading and a wedge-shaped semi-automatic breech, which contribute to maximum rate of fire. When designing anti-tank guns, special attention is paid to minimizing its weight and dimensions in order to facilitate transportation and camouflage on the ground. A self-propelled artillery mount can be structurally very similar to a tank, but is designed to solve other tasks: destroy enemy tanks from ambushes or fire support for troops from a closed firing position, and therefore has a different balance of armor and weapons. A tank destroyer is a fully and well-armored self-propelled artillery mount (ACS) specialized for combating enemy armored vehicles. It is in its armor that the tank destroyer differs from the anti-tank self-propelled guns, which have light and partial armor protection.

tactical missiles

Tactical missiles, depending on the type, can be equipped with all kinds of anti-tank submunitions, mines.

Aircrafts

Attack aircraft A-10 Thunderbolt (USA)

Attack is the defeat of land and sea targets with the help of small arms (guns and machine guns), as well as missiles. Attack aircraft - a combat aircraft (airplane or helicopter) designed for attack. Non-specialized types of aircraft, such as conventional fighters, as well as light and dive bombers, can be used for ground attack. However, in the 1930s, a specialized class of aircraft was allocated for ground attack operations. The reason for this is that, unlike the attack aircraft, the dive bomber only hits point targets; a heavy bomber operates from a great height over areas and large stationary targets - it is not suitable for hitting a target directly on the battlefield, since there is a high risk of missing and hitting your own; a fighter (like a dive bomber) does not have strong armor, while at low altitudes the aircraft is subjected to targeted fire from all types of weapons, as well as to the effects of stray fragments, stones and other dangerous objects flying over the battlefield. The role of attack decreased after the appearance of cluster bombs (with which it is more effective to hit elongated targets than from small arms), as well as during the development of air-to-surface missiles (accuracy and range increased, guided missiles appeared). The speed of combat aircraft has increased, and it has become problematic for them to hit targets at low altitude. On the other hand, attack helicopters appeared, almost completely displacing the aircraft from low altitudes.

Unmanned aircraft

Most often, UAVs are understood as remotely controlled aircraft used for aerial reconnaissance and strikes. The most famous example of a UAV is the American MQ-1 Predator. In February 2001, test launches of AGM-114 Hellfire anti-tank missiles (ATGM) from the Predator UAV were performed for the first time at Nellis Air Force Base. The Predator can be armed with two ATGMs (one under each wing). Aiming at the target is carried out using a standard laser designator

anti-tank mines

Anti-tank mines are anti-bottom, anti-track mines, anti-aircraft mines. They are designed to disable tanks and other equipment, but do not work when a person or animal steps on it.

Anti-tank gouges

They belong to non-explosive anti-tank barriers. They are usually part of a defensive line and combined with minefields and barbed wire.

see also

Links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Anti-tank weapons" is in other dictionaries:

Simonov anti-tank rifle PTRS 41 Tankgewehr M1918 Lahti L 39 ... Wikipedia

In this part, we will talk about the most massive and successful manufacturer of PTR for the entire Second World War.

USSR

The development of PTR in the USSR has been carried out since 1936. several large KBs at once. As with potential opponents, development was carried out in parallel in several directions, namely:

Development of light anti-tank rifles for powerful rifle-caliber cartridges (7.62x122 and 7.62x155).

And the development of light PTR in more powerful calibers 12.7mm and 14.5mm

In the second half of the 30s, the Soviet command greatly overestimated the armor of the tanks of a potential enemy and immediately decided to design portable large-caliber anti-tank guns of 20-25mm caliber. At the same time, they severely limited the developers in the mass of weapons - up to 35 kg. As a result, out of 15 samples considered before 1938. none were adopted. In November 1938 the requirements of the Main Artillery Directorate themselves were changed, now a cartridge was ready for the new weapon, which had been developed since 1934.

The powerful B-32 cartridge of 14.5x114 mm caliber had excellent characteristics for that time. An armor-piercing incendiary bullet with a hardened core and a pyrotechnic composition left the barrel at a speed of 1100 m / s and pierced 20 mm of armor, at an angle of 70 degrees, at a distance of 300 m.

In addition to the B-32, the BS-41 bullet appeared a little later with even more impressive results. The cermet core allowed the BS-41 bullet to penetrate 30mm armor at a distance of 350m, and from a distance of 100m the bullet pierced 40mm armor. Also, for the purposes of the experiment, a capsule with an irritating substance, chloroacetophenone, was placed in the bottom of the BS-41 bullet. But the idea didn't really take off either.

The first gun to be adopted for the new cartridge was the development of N.V. Rukavishnikov. His PTR-39 made it possible to produce about 15 rounds per minute and successfully passed the tests. However, the PTR-39 did not go into mass production. Head of GAU - Marshal G.I. Kulik, based on erroneous information about new German tanks with reinforced armor, concluded that anti-tank rifles and even 45mm cannons were unsuitable for fighting new German tanks.

This decision (1940) actually left the Soviet infantryman without completely effective anti-tank weapons for June 1941. Let me remind you that on June 22, 1941. The main tank of the Wehrmacht was the PzKpfw III of various modifications - the frontal armor of the most modern of them was a maximum of 50mm, including overhead armor plates. The maximum armor of the turret and sides of the newest modification for 1941 was 30mm. That is, most tanks with a high degree of probability were hit by a 14.5mm PTR cartridge in almost any projection at distances of 300m or more.

This is not to mention the defeat of tracks, optical instruments, tanks and other vulnerabilities of the tank. At the same time, a huge number of German armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers were quite tough for the Soviet PTR, especially the "forty-five".

The PTR-39 designed by Rukavishnikov was not without flaws - it was rather complicated and expensive to manufacture and sensitive to operate. But still, given that with the start of the war, our army was left without any anti-tank rifle and considering that the Sholokhov ersatz gun (cal. 12.7mm DShK) was used - copies of the same one, only with a muzzle brake and a shock absorber, this mistake cost the Red Army a lot Army.

In 1941 at the GKO meeting, I.V. Stalin instructed to urgently develop a new anti-tank rifle for the Red Army. For reliability, the leader recommended entrusting the work to "one more, and preferably two" designers. Both brilliantly coped with the task in their own way - S.G. Simonov and V.A. Degtyarev, moreover, only 22 days passed from the moment the assignment was received to the test firing.

PTRD

July 4, 1941 Degtyarev began the development of his PTR and already on July 14 he transferred the project to production, 2 magazine versions of Degtyarev's PTR were considered on July 28 at the Red Army Small Arms Directorate. In order to speed up and simplify production, one of the options was proposed to be made single-shot. Already in August of the 41st, the cartridge I mentioned with a BS-41 bullet from the Moscow Hard Alloy Plant arrived in time. And in October 1941. in the ranks of the Red Army, a new combat specialty appeared - an armor-piercer.

PTRD - A single-shot rifle with a longitudinally sliding rotary bolt. The rifled barrel was equipped with an active box-shaped muzzle brake. The shutter had two lugs, a simple percussion mechanism, a reflector and an ejector. The butt had a spring for damping recoil, which also performed the role of a return. The shutter in the coupling with the barrel after the shot rolled back, the shutter handle turned on the copy profile fixed on the butt, and when turned, unlocked the shutter. The shutter, after stopping the barrel, moved back by inertia, and got up on the shutter delay, the sleeve was pushed out by the reflector into the lower window.

Sending a new cartridge into the chamber and locking the shutter was done manually. Sights were taken out to the left and worked in two modes up to 400m and more than 400m. The calculation of the gun consisted of two people. The total mass of the PTR and ammunition was about 26 kg (the Degtyarev gun itself weighed 17 kg). For maneuverability, a carrying handle was placed on the gun. The gun was carried either by both, or by one fighter from the calculation. Only during 1942. The Soviet defense industry gave the front nearly 185,000 ATGMs.

PTRS

Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov took a slightly different path. Based on his own developments (for example, ABC-36), he created an anti-tank gun with gas automatics. This made it possible to achieve an excellent practical rate of fire of 16 or more rounds per minute. At the same time, this increased the total weight of the weapon to 22kg.

Simonov's design looks, of course, much more complex against the background of Degtyarev's design, however, it was simpler than Rukavishnikov's design. As a result, both samples were adopted.

So PTRS - Anti-tank self-loading rifle arr. 1941 Simonov systems A weapon designed to fight enemy light and medium tanks at a distance of up to 500m. In practice, it was also used to destroy firing points, mortar and machine-gun crews, pillboxes, bunkers, low-flying aircraft and enemy manpower behind shelters at distances up to 800m.

Semi-automatic weapons used for the operation of automation the removal of part of the powder gases from the bore. The weapon is equipped with a three-position gas regulator. Food was supplied from an integral magazine with clips of 5 rounds. USM allowed only single fire. Locking - skewed shutter in a vertical plane, recoil compensation by means of a muzzle brake, softening nozzle on the butt. In this model, a special shock absorber was not needed, since the muzzle brake paired with the semi-automatic system itself was enough to reduce recoil, although the recoil of the PTRD is less noticeable.

In 1941 due to the rather complex and laborious production process, only 77 PTRS were received by the troops, but already in 1942 production was established and 63,000 PTRS went to the front. The production of PTRD and PTRS continued until 1945. During the war years, about 400,000 anti-tank rifles were produced in the USSR.

The combat use of PTR also took place in various parts of the world after the end of WWII. Soviet PTRs successfully penetrated the armor of American tanks in Korea, as well as the armor of the M113 armored personnel carrier in Vietnam.

Separate samples of Soviet anti-tank rifles were confiscated from Palestinian militants in Lebanon. The author saw with his own eyes a Soviet anti-tank rifle in a weaponry at the training base of the Givati ​​infantry brigade in the Negev desert in Israel. The Israelis called this weapon the "Russian Barret".

The cartridge 14.5x114 is still alive and is in service in many countries of the world.

During the Second World War, there were armor-piercing aces who had more than a dozen destroyed enemy tanks and even Luftwaffe aircraft on their account. The weapon played a very significant role in the victory of the USSR over Nazi Germany. Despite. that by 1943 it had become extremely difficult to knock out a tank from an anti-tank rifle, the weapon remained in service until 1945. until it was replaced by rocket-propelled anti-tank grenade launchers.

Work was also underway to create a new PTR for a more powerful cartridge, for example, 14.5x147mm with high penetration. To hit the already medium tanks of the Wehrmacht of later series. But such weapons did not enter service, since by 1943 the infantry of the Red Army was fully equipped with anti-tank artillery. The production of PTRs declined, by the end of the war, only 40,000 PTRs remained in service with the Red Army.

In terms of the combination of the main qualities - maneuverability, ease of production and operation, firepower and low cost, Soviet anti-tank missiles significantly surpassed the enemy's rifle anti-tank weapons. It is worth noting that the early PTR series were not without problems in operation. With the onset of the spring of 1942, both the design flaws and the urgently established production, as well as the lack of proper knowledge regarding operation in the troops themselves, appeared.

But through the efforts of the designers and workers, the shortcomings were corrected as soon as possible, and the troops began to receive detailed, but quite intelligible and simple instructions for the operation of the PTR. Designers Degtyarev and Simonov personally inspected the front-line units and observed the operation, collecting feedback from armor-piercing fighters. Already by the summer of 1942, the guns were finally finalized and became very reliable weapons that work in any climatic conditions.

In conclusion of this part, I will quote the chief of staff of the 1st Baltic Front, Colonel General V.V. Kurasova:

“During the Great Patriotic War,” he wrote on October 30, 1944, “anti-tank guns were used in all types of combat to cover tank-dangerous areas, both by whole units and groups of 3-4 guns. In offensive combat, anti-tank missiles were used in the probable directions of enemy counterattacks, being directly in the combat formations of the advancing infantry. In defense, anti-tank missiles were used in the most tank-dangerous directions as part of a platoon-company, echeloning in depth. The firing positions were chosen taking into account the conduct of flank fire, and in addition to the main ones, there were 2-3 spare positions, taking into account the conduct of group fire with all-round fire.

The experience of using anti-tank rifles during World War II shows that they had the greatest effect in the period up to July 1943, when the enemy used light and medium tanks, and the combat formations of our troops were relatively poorly saturated with anti-tank artillery. Starting from the second half of 1943, when the enemy began to use heavy tanks and self-propelled guns with powerful armor protection, the effectiveness of anti-tank rifles decreased significantly. Since that time, the main role in the fight against tanks has been entirely played by artillery. Anti-tank rifles, which have good accuracy of fire, are now used mainly against enemy firing points, armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

At the end of the Second World PTR, they smoothly turned into large-caliber sniper rifles. Although in some local conflicts, both anti-tank rifles of the Second World War and modern home-made ones, handicraft samples are used to combat lightly armored and other equipment, as well as enemy manpower.

This article does not mention all the samples that are classified as PTR. Conventionally, PTR can be divided into three categories - light (rifle caliber), medium (heavy machine gun caliber) and heavy (bordering on air guns and anti-tank artillery). I practically did not touch on the latter, since, in my understanding, they already bear little resemblance to a "gun".

Separately, it is necessary to consider the class of "recoilless", the development of which began in the USSR at the very beginning of the 30s ...

But that's a completely different story.

1,0 1 -1 7