Anti-tank weapons; generic vs historical

[Tisifoni12]

Until now I hadn't considered the inclusion in the Soviet infantry tech tree of what looks like a Soviet equivalent to a Bazooka or panzerfaust type weapon, but a little research shows the main Soiet infantry AT weapon was the PTRD 41 AT Rifle firing a 14.5mm round*. With an effective range of 800m a very different weapon to the Bazooka, Panzerfaust, Panzershrek or PIAT.

The Soviets began developing an RPG in 1944 but wasn't in production until 1948.

Change the picture, change the effect, change the tech tree ?

*Similar to the British Boyes AT Rifle 1937 - 1940

 

[King Of Heroes]

It's fair enough to assume that AT-Rifles are the dedicated AT weapons of Infantry Kits prior to rocket launchers.

 

[JohnnyDepressio]

I do not think an at rifle is equivalent to a bazooka or a Panzerschreck. The historical thing is that the soviets did not research this technology in time.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

little research shows the main Soiet infantry AT weapon was the PTRD 41 AT Rifle firing a 14.5mm round

To be fair, there were two nearly identical (purpose-wise) rifles: PTRD and PTRS; both produced in large enough quantities (PTRD was simpler, so got a noticeable lead there).

With an effective range of 800m

IIRC, for AT role it was more like 100-200m (provided we're not counting Pz2s and such), from the side, without armour skirts (those made round relatively harmless).

 

[Tisifoni12]

Panzershrek: effective range 150m calibre 88mm rocket
Panzerfaust: effective range 60m 6.25kg shaped charge
Bazooka: effective range 150m calibre 2.36 inch rocket
PIAT: effective range 105m 83mm calibre shaped charge
Japanese Type 4 AT Rocket Launcher: calibre 70mm rocket

PTRD 41 AT Rifle: effective range 800m 14.5mm bullet
Boyes AT Rifle: effective range 500mm 14mm bullet

There's a big difference in range and a big difference in effectiveness; the Boyes' effective range vs 23.2mm armour was only 90m compared to 500m vs 18.8mm armour

Panzer IV armour; hull front 80mm, side 30mm, rear 20mm, roof and floor 10mm
turret front 50mm, side and rear 30mm, roof 10mm

 

[sekelsenmat]

I think this is a mischaracterisation, everybody had AT rifles when the war started, it is not soviet-specific, see the German one for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerbüchse_39

By 41 they were already almost useless, I guess the soviets kept using them because the germans had tons of light armoured half-tracks like Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251

The real AT weapon of the soviets were AT guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-tank_guns_of_the_Soviet_Union

Sadly in the game AT guns aren't very useful, you get almost the same effect with AA which is much more useful. If something should be changed it should be to make AT guns a necessity, but I don't know exactly how.

 

[Tisifoni12]

I think this is a mischaracterisation, everybody had AT rifles when the war started, it is not soviet-specific, see the German one for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerbüchse_39

By 41 they were already almost useless, I guess the soviets kept using them because the germans had tons of light armoured half-tracks like Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251

The real AT weapon of the soviets were AT guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-tank_guns_of_the_Soviet_Union

Sadly in the game AT guns aren't very useful, you get almost the same effect with AA which is much more useful. If something should be changed it should be to make AT guns a necessity, but I don't know exactly how.

Options/questions:

• Leave that 'level' of AT weapon off the Soviet tech tree (could still allow Bazooka by lend lease)
• somehow tag (colour code) ahistorical options within tech trees while leaving them as options ?
• Would halving the size of the support company from 24 to 12 (1/3 rather than 2/3 of battalion) encourage more use of AT guns; either encourage use of at least a company, or use of a battalion rather than a company ?

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Leave that 'level' of AT weapon off the Soviet tech tree (could still allow Bazooka by lend lease)

Nation-specific research trees aren't a thing (yet).

Would halving the size of the support company from 24 to 12 (1/3 rather than 2/3 of battalion) encourage more use of AT guns; either encourage use of at least a company, or use of a battalion rather than a company ?

Doubt it: making something cost less won't make IC spent on it less of a waste. Giving AT some soft attack would, probably, be an easiest solution. Without AI making proper armoured divisions (and not pushing with infantry), there's little reason to have hard attack (majority does play this vs AI after all).

 

[ArtemBan]

AT rifles were intended to fight light vehicles and weren't supposed to be analogs of AT grenade launchers.
The closest thing to AT grenade launchers in the soviet army during the war were cumulative hand grenades like RPG-43 or RPG-6. They were cheap and relatively easy to use compared to the same things of other armies, which is probably one of the reasons why soviet officials didn't bother getting AT launchers until they met Panzerfaust.

 

[Jays298]

In the game now (NSB) sometimes I see 1936 infantry pierce 1930s tanks. So it's not as if nerfing AA is going to make people want to use AT guns.

The biggest reason not to use AT is the lack of tanks, the weakness of tanks (lack of armor), and above all, the basic cheapness of the "panzerfaust" techs that aren't gated behind any other technology and don't use any additional resources.

It's a freebie kinda like motorized hardness bonus from researching mechanized is a freebie.

So why build if you can just rush research the panzerfaust / bazooka.

pre-NSB, if I was playing the allies or wanted to mess with the USSR, I'd build a few motorized with AT divisions just to mess with them.

Now that would be a waste of resources due to lack of quality tanks in the field.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Options/questions:

• Would halving the size of the support company from 24 to 12 (1/3 rather than 2/3 of battalion) encourage more use of AT guns; either encourage use of at least a company, or use of a battalion rather than a company ?

Doubt it: making something cost less won't make IC spent on it less of a waste. Giving AT some soft attack would, probably, be an easiest solution. Without AI making proper armoured divisions (and not pushing with infantry), there's little reason to have hard attack (majority does play this vs AI after all).

Personally, I'd just set levels to where "armor" causes its combat debuffs to three levels (which would require a UI change):

1.) No AT guns (aka, no AT or AT-equipped* tanks)​

2.) Average piercing defeated by average armor​

3.) Highest piercing defeated by highest armor​

​

Then have the values work at something like a 20%, 40%, and 60% debuff depending on what level of effectiveness it's at. That would also make the AT company have a use, which wouldn't work for full piercing effectiveness but would at least mitigate one or two levels of tank shock.

Spoiler: What defines 'AT-equipped' for tanks, at least in my mind:

Light Guns: high velocity gun, improved light gun (not very good, but at least intended for AT use)​

Medium Guns: medium cannon, high velocity gun​

Heavy Guns: all guns (152mm howitzers are perfectly-fine as an anti-tank platform, and has the same piercing as the medium cannon regardless)​

Possibly the secondary turret as well? (those were almost always intended as an AT-gun to counterpart a fixed howitzer or cannon)​

Then add a UI icon identifying both which guns count as AT, and whether the finished tank is considered anti-tank capable or not.

 

[Corpse Fool]

The more I think about the armour and piercing stats and mechanics, the more I think they just shouldn't exist like they do (if at all) in this game.

 

[Cavalry]

I think this is a mischaracterisation, everybody had AT rifles when the war started, it is not soviet-specific, see the German one for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerbüchse_39

The real AT weapon of the soviets were AT guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-tank_guns_of_the_Soviet_Union

That list missing the best, zis 3 76mm.

 

[Crecer13]

AT rifles were intended to fight light vehicles and weren't supposed to be analogs of AT grenade launchers.
The closest thing to AT grenade launchers in the soviet army during the war were cumulative hand grenades like RPG-43 or RPG-6. They were cheap and relatively easy to use compared to the same things of other armies, which is probably one of the reasons why soviet officials didn't bother getting AT launchers until they met Panzerfaust.

Wrong. The USSR was actively interested in new types of weapons back in the 30s. The USSR was generally quite innovative in this matter. The problem is that the economy could not implement these ideas.
In 1931, the USSR tested a 65-mm "jet gun", created in the Gas-Dynamic Laboratory by its chief, B.S. Petropavlovsky (yes, this is the famous laboratory in which the "Katyusha" was created). Its design contained a number of promising elements: the use of light alloys, a shoulder launch from a long tubular guide, an electric igniter for a solid-propellant rocket engine, a shield to protect the shooter from powder gases.

But there were still many problems to be solved in order to achieve reliability from rockets and, most importantly, accuracy sufficient to defeat a single small target. However, after the death of Petropavlovsky in 1933, this development was not continued.

In the 1930s, Kurchevskys recoilless guns were also created, the problem is that they did not use the cumulative effect in ammunition, but used kinetic energy.

There is also a problem in the chemical industry, for HEAT ammunition RDX is needed, only after the war was it mass-produced.
But the experiments continued, screw-type AT grenades were created: VPGS-41, new AT rifle grenades were created in 1942, 1943, VKG-40 in 1944 (this is a big story)

The best were the RPG-43 and RPG-6 anti-tank grenades. Experiments continued, but starting in 1944 Germany became the main supplier of grenade launchers for the USSR. But this did not really matter much, since the troops had a huge amount of artillery. Interesting fact: during the Battle of Berlin, one of the 4,000-man infantry brigades had 3,000 Panzerfaust.

 

[JohnnyDepressio]

Options/questions:

• Leave that 'level' of AT weapon off the Soviet tech tree (could still allow Bazooka by lend lease)
• somehow tag (colour code) ahistorical options within tech trees while leaving them as options ?
• Would halving the size of the support company from 24 to 12 (1/3 rather than 2/3 of battalion) encourage more use of AT guns; either encourage use of at least a company, or use of a battalion rather than a company ?

Or leave it as it is. HOI does not have nation specific tech trees. HOI has generic tech trees with national "skins". That means that in a historical game some nation might not research one technology in time while it might research another one ahead of time.

 

[Tisifoni12]

@JohnnyDepressio
I'm sure the Soviets could have back engineered a panzershrek or panzerfaust. I'll have to check, but I think if you scroll over / click on the weapon as depicted, which looks like a rocket launcher the name that comes up is PTRD (AT Rifle) rather than RPG (rocket launcher)

 

[JohnnyDepressio]

@JohnnyDepressio
I'm sure the Soviets could have back engineered a panzershrek or panzerfaust. I'll have to check, but I think if you scroll over / click on the weapon as depicted, which looks like a rocket launcher the name that comes up is PTRD (AT Rifle) rather than RPG (rocket launcher)

So the name should be changed to "at rocket launcher" or something like that.

 

[Tisifoni12]

The RPG 2 was the first such weapon issued to the Soviet Army (1954); effective range 100 - 150m, 82mm calibre
The earlier RPG 1 was under development from 1944 to 2948, but never went into production; similar to a Panzerfaust

The game has a rocket launcher labelled as PTRD (in 1942) and a year later a rocket launcher labelled as RPG-43
As the game has 'generic weapons' I'd settle for them being labelled RPG 1 and RPG 2 . . .