Anti- tank rifles

[richafricanus]

A query about the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness of AT rifles).  They seem particularly ineffective as in effect they have a double penalty of only 1 dice plus they only hit on a 6. 

This means you only have a 1 in 36 chance of even suppressing an enemy unit let alone ever knocking something out.  Were they really so ineffective or am I missing something in the rules?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

They were pretty pants. Mostly used as sniper rifles

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Sort of Will. They were OK against 1/2 Tracks, Scout Cars and Carriers, but not much else. Yes the high velocity round will be leathal to infantry at up to 1500m, but there was an issue with accuracy, limited due to the ferocious recoil. Modern weapons are anti-material rifles intended to be used against light armour, not really sniper weapons. Russian solution in WWII was to put up to 15 in a platoon, all engaging the same target. Italian and Japanese 20mm ones were no better than the smaller ones. Viable weapon in 39/40 but not afterwards.

[petedavies]

I think that might be a little too dismissive of the impact of ATR's later in the war – at least the Soviet 14.5mm equipment. After all, the Germans took them seriously enough to add schurzen to many of their medium tanks, assault guns and jagdpanzers. I seem to remember reading that the Panther was in serious danger of being cancelled due to ATR vulnerability until schurzen were proposed and confirmed as effective (although I can't find the source right now). Otto Carius stated that even Tiger units had to respect ATRs due to their ability to degrade unit performance by destroying tank optics (and tank commanders!)

From what I've read, the effective employment of ATRs on the Eastern front depended on:

1) Mass employment, with multiple teams attacking a single target simultaneously
2) Flanking attacks, typically as the Germans attacked into well-prepared defensive positions (you can fire an ATR from a bunker...)
3) Incremental degradation of efficiency by destroying vulnerable equipment like optics, not to mention the impact on crew/commander morale from the accumulation of a steady series of non-lethal but damaging hits
4) Maybe a soviet tactical doctrine that was less sensitive to casualties, so prepared to trade ATR teams (and team members...) for a tank kill

So for these reasons I still think the level of effectiveness in the BKC rules is pretty accurate! The level of abstraction washes out explicit consideration of these factors, and historically it seems a reasonably equipped (e.g. schurzen), reasonably well trained, well led, and well-deployed tank unit had little to fear as a unit from ATRs (but I'm sure a lot of individuals had a very bad day).

Very likely the correct use of tank/infantry cooperation tactics was also crucial (as usual...) to identify, suppress or destroy ATR teams.

My 2 cents... interested to hear other opinions!

Cheers,
Pete

[petedavies]

A small addendum to my previous post (courtesy of Osprey New Vanguard 67 "Panther Medium Tank").

The Panther was under consideration for replacement by a "Panther II" development. But the addition of schurzen to the existing Panther reduced vulnerability to ATRs and so undermined a major driver for the replacement, and the program was effectively deprioritised (i.e. a single hull without turret completed by the end of the war, just in time to be captured by US forces).

Cheers,
Pete

[pierre the shy]

I think your appraisal is right on the money Pete.

I did some research on Soviet ATR's for a big Eastern Front game using Spearhead rules that I ran at our local convention back in 2021. ATR's are not included in the TOE's for Spearhead but they did feature heavily in the particular scenario that I was depicting, so I came up with some house rules for them.

One of the sources I found was a paper by Gary Kennedy posted on the bayonetstrength.com site about the evolution of the Russian Infantry Battalion from 1942 - 45. After July 1942 they retained a platoon of 9 x 14.5mm PTRD or PTRS ATR's. These were to be deployed as a complete unit and Mr Kennedy notes that they were to target weak points such as vision blocks, MG ports, exposed running gear etc to disable the target AFV (a "mission kill") rather than destroying it outright.

   

[Steve J]

Well worth checking this site out for many posts on ATRs and their use, effectiveness etc:

https://www.tankarchives.com/search/label/anti-tank%20rifle

[sultanbev]

Interestingly Boys ATR were still in use in British armies in 1944-1945, I've seen photos of Universal Carriers with Boys both in Italy and Holland, so some units certainly thought them worth keeping.

[Ithoriel]

To reinforce hotspots the Soviets could deploy independent antitank rifle battalions with up to 60 antitank rifles - Stalin's alleged, "quantity has a quality all it's own," quote in the flesh!

The 14.5mm round used by the Soviets seems to have been very effective, as antitank rifle rounds go.

The PTRD and PTRS rifles were hefty beasts so female teams consisted of three not two crew.

[richafricanus]

It seems clear that they weren't very effective in knocking out tanks. 

But from the above discussion they continued to be used right to the end of the war which still makes me wonder if a 1/36 chance of even suppressing an enemy tank is a fair reflection of their effectiveness? 

(I assume at the BC game scale a platoon with ATRs represents a few of them not just one gun within the platoon?)
 

[Last Hussar]

Interestingly Boys ATR were still in use in British armies in 1944-1945, I've seen photos of Universal Carriers with Boys both in Italy and Holland, so some units certainly thought them worth keeping.

At the end of the day it's a big rifle. May be rubbish against armour, but they found other things that made them go "what we need is a big rifle - hang on..."

[Big Insect]

Like a lot of things in BKC its good to consider all the additional factors that relate to a weapons stats.

Frontally, at over half range and in small numbers, I agree they were generally pretty useless, and the rules reflect that. A lucky shot might inflict damage and even KO a soft target or suppress an armoured one.

But at close range (under half range) you add +1
You get further advantages if you hit the target from the flank or rear.
All of which encourages the player to use their ATRs as they were used historically.
Ideally, at close range, on the flank or rear of their target, and in massed concentration.

The other issue with a lot of ATRs is that as a 'solid shot' weapon, you've actually got to hit something very specific with it to actually do any real damage. Hence, as quoted above ATR teams were trained to target the obvious vulnerable elements or features of an armoured target, but even then a tank with broken optics is still mobile and can still fire (all be it less effectively).

Cheers
Mark

[hammurabi70]

It seems clear that they weren't very effective in knocking out tanks. 

But from the above discussion they continued to be used right to the end of the war which still makes me wonder if a 1/36 chance of even suppressing an enemy tank is a fair reflection of their effectiveness? 

(I assume at the BC game scale a platoon with ATRs represents a few of them not just one gun within the platoon?)

I think they were potent against early war tanks but as soon as tank armour started being upgraded they lost ground.  The Germans fielded them at least until 1942.  I think most people stopped using them by mid-war but the Soviets continued to have one at platoon level throughout the war; it might not stop an MBT but it was still useful against anything with only light armour.  Apparently that included aircraft; using one in an AAA role is not the first thing that comes to mind!  As mentioned, hits that might cause optics to become unusable or a track to be shed might be as useful as knocking out a tank, and for which reason they became deployed on mass.  If having any firearm was an issue you are not going to ignore an A/T Rifle but it is understandable that they went to peripheral posts like carriers.  1 in 36 might be historical but does it fit the game play?

[Big Insect]

I think they were potent against early war tanks but as soon as tank armour started being upgraded they lost ground.  The Germans fielded them at least until 1942.  I think most people stopped using them by mid-war but the Soviets continued to have one at platoon level throughout the war; it might not stop an MBT but it was still useful against anything with only light armour.  Apparently that included aircraft; using one in an AAA role is not the first thing that comes to mind!  As mentioned, hits that might cause optics to become unusable or a track to be shed might be as useful as knocking out a tank, and for which reason they became deployed on mass.  If having any firearm was an issue you are not going to ignore an A/T Rifle but it is understandable that they went to peripheral posts like carriers.  1 in 36 might be historical but does it fit the game play?

1 hit in 36 only applies if you shoot 1 ATR at an armoured target frontally at over half range.

If you shoot at under half range you are on 1 in 18 and if you shoot from the flank or rear you reduce the targets save significantly (as well). Most Early War tanks have pretty poor armour generally (yes, there are exceptions), and also have a low number of lives. If your ATR even suppresses the tank, it gives its assaulting infantry a distinct advantage.

When you also consider that you can also shoot using an Initiative Action (at close range) so no Command roll is required plus you can fire multiple times using successful Command rolls (unlike a Bazooka or a Panzerfaust  for example) I think the game-play balance (for the points cost) is actually pretty good.

ATRs were not a super weapon (& we need to be careful not to think about them in the same terms as later IATWs) and for good quality armour even an attack by massed ATRs was probably more of a nuisance than a worry.
Hence why we see more use of ATGs as the war progresses and ultimately the development of IATWs.

[richafricanus]

Thanks Big Insect, that's a good way to look at it.  Get close and onto the flank.  Improves the odds.