Soviet Automatic Grenade Launchers in WW2
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Judging by the ammunition given to said AGL prototype, the former. But perhaps this could lead to the development of a homegrown Soviet anti-tank grenade launcher later on in the war...
Hmm...
Thande
Donor
I think I once posted a WI about the latter. It could make a significant difference to the Eastern Front if the Soviets had a weapon like the PIAT, bazooka or Panzerfaust.
I guess it's not that difficult to design grenade that is effective against armor as well, once the weapon itself proves workable.
Though I wonder if there would be much need for it anyway. Since mid-war there was no great need for infantry to have weapons capable of defeating Gemran tanks since they had enough tanks, AT guns and arty.
Thande
Donor
Adam didn't say when this grenade launcher was/would have been introduced. If it was early on, I think it would certainly have made a difference in 1941 and perhaps 1942. Otherwise you're right.
Markus
Banned
Not much happenes. You could not make a 40mm HEAT-shell, HESH wasn´t around at the time, so it´s an anti-personnel weapon only. A belt fed univsersal purpose machine gun gives you more bang for the buck.
true, we don't have time of POD but if it is before the war then there is time to develop AT round. If it is 1941-42 I doubt it would clear the design stage as SU would be unwilling to pour resources into something that might work while there was pressing need for more of stuff that was in production and proved to work (as happened with T-34 upgrades). If it is 1943+ then my point stands.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
(Neat picture, I didn't know Russians used toy cannon 
)
Doesn't having something infantry can use themselves actually change the tactics even if you have adequate support? My understanding is that infantry which can go to ground until tanks pass and then rise up to threaten them from the rear is a deadly combination no matter how good the tanks or tank crews might be.
)Doesn't having something infantry can use themselves actually change the tactics even if you have adequate support? My understanding is that infantry which can go to ground until tanks pass and then rise up to threaten them from the rear is a deadly combination no matter how good the tanks or tank crews might be.
I'm sorry but that thing is not going to be a threat to tanks. There's a reason armies moved away from tank guns in the 37 to 45 calibre range in 41/42 and that reason will apply double to a grenade launcher.
A barrel that short and a calibre that small simply does not possess either the velocity or explosive force needed to penetrate tank armour.
Presuming this weapon worked it could make life very difficult for infantry, particularly in a Stalingrad type situation, but it's no more of an anti tank weapon than a .50 machine gun.
A barrel that short and a calibre that small simply does not possess either the velocity or explosive force needed to penetrate tank armour.
Presuming this weapon worked it could make life very difficult for infantry, particularly in a Stalingrad type situation, but it's no more of an anti tank weapon than a .50 machine gun.
not necessary. You could have rounds that have effect against light armor (early tanks, half tracks) but are not much effective against heavy armor. so you have to fire couple of them in roughly same spot to make an impact.
That's presuming that a tank will sit still long enough for you to target the same place twice, and while it may work against light armour that window of oppotunity is going to be short. As an anti-armour weapon this grenade launcher is in the same class as the anti-tank rifle. It did it's job at the start of the war but after a couple of years it's obsolete.
Eh? AT grenades? Dudes, the Mk47/H&K GMG/Vector Y3/similar of today aren't used in an anti-armour role. It stands to reason that the Taubin AGL would not have been used for AT duty either. The whole dynamics/ballistics of the weapon/projectile assembly make it impossible.
As to why wasn't it adopted, the answer is rather simple. The need for an ultralight, self-sufficient (within limits), rapidly deployable, easily transportable infantry platoon didn't arise until the 80s. Until then, conventional support (whether rocket, gun, mortar or whatever the flyboys dumped) was considered to be quick enough. Also, the need to minimise infrastructure damage is a relatively new development (a 40mm grenade is a bit less distructive compared to an 80mm mortar bomb).
The Taubin AGL was a bit too advanced for its times.
As to why wasn't it adopted, the answer is rather simple. The need for an ultralight, self-sufficient (within limits), rapidly deployable, easily transportable infantry platoon didn't arise until the 80s. Until then, conventional support (whether rocket, gun, mortar or whatever the flyboys dumped) was considered to be quick enough. Also, the need to minimise infrastructure damage is a relatively new development (a 40mm grenade is a bit less distructive compared to an 80mm mortar bomb).
The Taubin AGL was a bit too advanced for its times.
that would depend on rate of fire.
Of course modern tanks have a bit more protection then WW2 era ones
Yes, in the same way that modern anti-tank rounds are more powerful than WWII era, and explosives in general are more powerful. The point is that (according to others above) the launcher is simply too small, both in calibre and barrel length, to make an effective anti-tank weapon in any case.
Good point, he must know a fair bit about this sort of thing... should one of us PM him?
He usually turns up in these threads anyway. He hasn't been here since about the time this thread started though.