Did the Soviets use anti tank rifles more frequently than most other nations, or does it just appear that way. I have read alot about the numbers of anti tank rifles distributed to Soviet troops and the frequency with which they were used. Yet it appears when reading about other nations, they did not use them as much.

cheers,

__________________
Cheers,
Daniel

Yes, the Soviets made greater use of anti-tank rifles than most other nations did during the war. The primary reason for this was simply they had no substitute for a infantry portable anti-tank weapon.
While they did develop several types of anti-tank grenade (like the RPG 1940 and 1943) these proved relatively ineffective in use. Also, unlike the other major combatants, the Soviets failed to come up with a successful alternative to the anti-tank rifle such as the US bazooka, German panzerfaust or, British PIAT. The Soviets also did not issue an anti-tank rifle grenade on any scale (they did have one; the VPGS 1940) as did the Germans and US in particular. Even Japan had these (copied from the German pattern).
Aside from these logistical considerations, the two most successful Soviet anti-tank rifles the Degtyarov PTRD and Simonov PTRS proved capable of perforating most German tanks throughout the war from the side or rear at up to several hundred yards. Combined with their small signature and relative size they remained effective weapons capable of great nusinace if not harm.
For most other major combatants, the alternatives they had were far better than whatever anti-tank rifle they started the war with. For them it made sense to ditch these weapons in favor of the more effective hollow charge projectors that were developed mid-war.

Yes, the 14.5x114 cartridge used in the PTRD and PTRS was far more powerful than most others (about double the .55 Boys, for instance). There's an article on my website about Anti-Tank Rifle Cartridges which gives the information, photos etc.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

I would assume that the weapon was useful in roles other than anti-tank as well. For example I have read that the infamous Vasili Zaitsev used an anti-tank rifle with a scope in order to destroy machine gun positions and fire through port holes in fortifications and such.

cheers,

__________________
Cheers,
Daniel

Soviet use was much more extensive than any of the other combatants. It was a cheap, simple, easy to operate weapon which fit their army well.

Here's a U.S. article from wartime intelligence:

"Russian Use of the Antitank Rifle"
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/atrifle/index.html

and

Russian Antitank Tactics
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/r...ank/index.html

The soviets used the anti-tank rifle, because it was cheap to make. Later they of course developed the RPG, but they were not produced much.

__________________
The objective of war is to not die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his! - General Patton
Older men declare war. It is the youth that must suffer. - General Patton

Yes indeed they did, and the Germans hated the PTRD/PTRS. That little machinegun shield you see atop a STuG for example...was vulnerable to these weapons, as were all models of "Half-Tracks".
Shots at the drivers compartment/viewport were more than commonplace, they were constant. Also shots at tank commanders, whether "buttoned up" of not, were also constant.
Periscope, view/pistol ports, gun shields (anti-tank guns too), and cupolas were favorite targets.
The automatic one of the two was not as popular as the bolt action. It used more ammo and you tended to make up for a lack of accuracy by shooting quicker.
Well placed shots at engine compartments, drive wheels, and tracks would turn heavy weapons into sitting "Ducks" for engineers/infantry.
A good sniping tool/weapon. Not usually a knock-out blow, but very annoying. To be picked to death is more demoralizing than to be blown away.
A definate morale "killer", even after it was supersceeded by better weapons.

__________________
There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says "Yes", you know he's a crook. Groucho Marx

Mustn't get too carried away with 'penetration'.
As 'Skunk Works'says there're many ways to stop a vehicle other than by making holes in it. Smashing up suspension components, spattering vision slits etc. could work as well many other means, And at far higher ranges than the rocket/hollow charge weapons of the time could achieve.(I believe the Red Army used them in quite concentrated groups???) Schurzen were originally deployed to protect vulnerable components against high calibre AT rifle rounds.
(btw. PTRS/RD was still in service with Albania until the 1980's!)
Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

We have to remember that a Soviet infantry regiment contained an AT-Rifle company with 27 ATRs and each of its 3 infantry battalions contained on paper an AT-Rifle platoon with 9 ATRs.

That's a paper total of 54 AT-Rifles per infantry regiment, more than you can shake a Panzerfaust at!

__________________

The photo below (from the article on ATR cartridges on my website) shows the 14.5x114 Russian in comparison with other ATR cartridges. The 13.9x99B is the .55 Boys, the 12.7x99 is the .50 BMG for comparison.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

I'm sure you meant this:



I pity the guys who had to fire these monsters!

__________________

If the Boys was known among it's users as 'Charlie the ba****d. Looking at those I wonder if the users of the PTRD/RS had a somewhat more 'four letter' nickname for it.

[ 30. April 2006, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Von Poop ]

__________________
It's only the Internet.

It should do wonders for character building, I guess.

__________________