The rocket-launcher vs anti-tank rifle

[WinTurkey]

So on reflection of all the WWII games that I've played I realise that I have barely seen any anti-tank rifles until playing Red Orchestra. Make no mistake, I've played a lot of WWII games, it just seems that the predominant weapon in all of them was a rocket launcher of some sort such as the infamous Panzerschrek. Is there a particular reason the weapon has been so under-used in other games? Were the Soviets the only ones to use something like that in large numbers?

 

[Nicholas]

They kept coming out with more effective armors that made AT rifles ineffective.

 

[LemoN]

Well, the only man-portable anti-tank weapons with a range greater than 10-15m back in the late 1930's and in 1940-42 were anti-tank rifles. AT-rifles were still rather effective in 1939 for instance, with the average armour of a tank being between 15 and 30mm. By 1940 they were already starting to get useless, by 1942 they pretty much were useless against most tanks.

Nations started to develop different AT weapons as soon as it got obvious that armour would soon outclass any AT-rifles, this first manifested in various AT-grenades like the RPG-40 which were based on pure explosive force or later, hollow-charge AT-grenades. But all of these only really gave the infantry desperate self defence capability and the infantry soon was calling for man-portable anti-tank weapons with a sufficient effective range to enable them to be used offensively.

After that, the age of recoilless AT weapons such as the Bazooka or the Panzerfaust dawned. They were more effective against armour, had sufficient accuracy for ranges between 30-100m and were WAY cheaper to produce. The Soviets never developed or produced anything like them though.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why you don't see AT-rifles in games:

First of all, most WW2 games take place between 1943 and 1945, completely neglecting the "age of the AT-rifle". By then, most armies completely removed their AT-rifles from frontline service. The Soviets kept on using them since they still served some purpose on the battlefield (like shooting up optics and vision-slit glass) and they were desperately short on weapons until early 1944. The Germans converted their AT-rifles to grenade launchers, although that only was a stop gap measure to increase the AT-capability by using hollow charge rounds with penetration capability of up to ~80mm.

Since most WW2 games don't care about history or anachronism, they'll happily hand out Panzerschrecks to Germans in Stalingrad. Also, "Rocketlaunchers" (not the correct term for the Panzerfaust btw) are simply "cooler".


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PS: This is just a brief post about the history and thoughts at the time, I wrote it quickly from memory and I'm pretty sure I left out a lot of important stuff and it's riddled with errors. So if you find something that's wrong, feel free to correct me.

 

[Unterscharfuhrer]

AT Rifles are something that would have been very effective in WW1 but they came to late!

 

[LemoN]

AT Rifles are something that would have been very effective in WW1 but they came to late!

Ever heard of the Mauser Tankgewehr?

 

[Unterscharfuhrer]

Ever heart of the Mauser Tankgewehr?

The elephant gun

 

[The Masta]

Ever heart of the Mauser Tankgewehr?

Introduced in 1918, hence too late.

Well said, LemoN. (meaning your other post).

 

[<animal>INSTINCT]

I personally blame the fall of AT-rifles on the frailty of the very species that devised them. If only humans had researched into genetically engineered super soldiers that could wield 1.00 caliber AT-rifles, they wouldn't have had to scamper off like beaten dogs to the safety of the honor-less wretch that is rocket-based weapons.

 

[LemoN]

I personally blame the fall of AT-rifles on the frailty of the very species that devised them. If only humans had researched into genetically engineered super soldiers that could wield 1.00 caliber AT-rifles, they wouldn't have had to scamper off like beaten dogs to the safety of the honor-less wretch that is rocket-based weapons.

What's 1.00 caliber?

 

[<animal>INSTINCT]

What's 1.00 caliber?

100-caliber, 2 x .50-cal = 1.00 cal

OR (metric for those who prefer convenience when measuring)

12.7mm x 2 = 25.4mm
Fear my superior math skills!!!

 

[The Masta]

OR (metric for everybody outside of the US)

fixed that for you.

 

[LemoN]

There is no system other than the metric one.

Anything else are lies.

 

[Merin Redplate]

There is no system other than the metric one.

Anything else are lies.

Imperial.

 

[LemoN]

Imperial.

Lies!

 

[Wiglaf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.8_cm_sPzB_41

Yuo can get them in cmbb, are of use due to small firing signature.

 

[gautrek]

Imperial.

Don't you mean English mate.In fact my ex welsh brother in law loved me using that term instead of imperial

 

[Britney Federline]

There's always a place for a PTRD in my heart. Nothing feels quite so manly in RO as taking out a big tank with a big rifle.

 

[JCoquillon]

The modern equivalent are things like the Barrett .50 cal. They are tactical support rifles or anti-material rifles now, rather than sniper rifles or anti tank rifles. They can punch through some cover, take on lighter armoured vehicles, aim for weak points such as optics. This is basically how guns like the PTRD had to be used - against lighter armour, weak points and at very close ranges.

Anti-tank rifles came about due to necessity. Infantry wanted something to fend off tanks, rather than being reliant on the artillery to help them. So upscaling elephant rifles was the obvious option with the technology of the time.

Rocket technology, shaped and hollow charges came along much later. First with the bazooka, then the panzershrek and panzerfaust and PIAT, etc. But once some of the initial problems were ironed out it became clear it was the only real way forward.

In WWII anti-tank rifles weren't scoped as it was about getting up close and using sheer kinetic energy and an AP tip to penetrate the armour. Rockets rely on the warhead for penetration largely. It doesn't matter how fast they hit as the explosive effect is what is meant to penetrate, not the kinetic energy.

Anti tank grenades and the like were also quite common. And of questionable effectiveness largely. Some worked, but most required great risk to use. To have to get within throwing or more often placing distance of a tank is quite tricky - especially if they have any screening infantry about...

 

[fiftyone]

Cookies for Lemon & JC.

 

[Nicholas]

I was actually playing RO today and hit a Panther 14 times with a PTRD in the side, and it did nothing!

The modern equivalent are things like the Barrett .50 cal. They are tactical support rifles or anti-material rifles now, rather than sniper rifles or anti tank rifles. They can punch through some cover, take on lighter armoured vehicles, aim for weak points such as optics. This is basically how guns like the PTRD had to be used - against lighter armour, weak points and at very close ranges.

Anti-tank rifles came about due to necessity. Infantry wanted something to fend off tanks, rather than being reliant on the artillery to help them. So upscaling elephant rifles was the obvious option with the technology of the time.

Rocket technology, shaped and hollow charges came along much later. First with the bazooka, then the panzershrek and panzerfaust and PIAT, etc. But once some of the initial problems were ironed out it became clear it was the only real way forward.

In WWII anti-tank rifles weren't scoped as it was about getting up close and using sheer kinetic energy and an AP tip to penetrate the armour. Rockets rely on the warhead for penetration largely. It doesn't matter how fast they hit as the explosive effect is what is meant to penetrate, not the kinetic energy.

Anti tank grenades and the like were also quite common. And of questionable effectiveness largely. Some worked, but most required great risk to use. To have to get within throwing or more often placing distance of a tank is quite tricky - especially if they have any screening infantry about...

This, Barretts are overrated, they have their own unique roles, but people think they are end all sniper rifles, in real life bolt actions do most of the killing.