The PTRS Vs. PTRD, 1944

protivotankovye_ruzhya

The Simonov PTRS 14.5mm anti-tank rifle was a very innovative rifle, that seemingly offered the Soviet AT gunner of the early part of World War II a frightening amount of firepower. Its semiautomatic action, and en-bloc clip loading gave the infantry five rounds of high velocity heavy AT rifle ammunition on tap, that could be fired as fast as the trigger could be pulled and the target reacquired. By comparison, the contemporary single-shot Degtyarev PTRD seems downright crude. However, as this evaluation translated by EnsignExpendable of the Soviet Gun Archives blog shows, things are not always how they seem:

“Evaluation of Degryaryev and Simonov anti-tank rifles based on the reviews of privates, Sergeants, and officers of anti-tank rifle units

  1. Simonov’s rifle starts jamming after only a small amount of fouling in the chamber, after 10-15 shots. Degtyaryev’s rifle is flawless in its action. I knocked out a tank near Skopishki at 300 meters (with a BO-32 bullet). – Sergeant Pazharduk, 665th Reg., 216 Div.
  2. The Degtyaryev anti-tank rifle has an insufficient rate of fire for fighting tanks, reloading takes too long. The rate of fire of Simonov’s rifle is good, but heavy for attacking. Their weakness is that they are not used with the whole unit, but split up among companies and platoons, which removes the ability to fire in groups on tanks and other targets. BO-32 bullets have weak incendiary properties, BO-41 bullets are good. – Sergeant Pikalov, 346th. Div.
  3. The PTRD is an excellent weapon, works flawlessly. The PTRS jams often when there is any dirt in it or when the lubricant freezes. – Artillery Quartermaster, 1166th Reg., 346th Div. Jr. Military Technician Prikhodko
  4. The PTRD is flawless in battle, never has any jams that create difficulties on the battlefield. However, its weakness is that it has no magazine. The PTRS has a high rate of fire, and is convenient to carry, as it can be taken apart and put back together quickly. Its drawback is that it has many jams that cannot be fixed on the battlefield, the assembled rifle is heavy, the round casings burst often, and the chamber is fouled, which results in jams. 4 medium tanks were knocked out with anti-tank rifles from 300 meters (BO-41 bullet), and three armoured cars from 200 meters. – Artillery Quartermaster, 1168th Reg. 346th Div.
  5. The PTRS has sufficient rate of fire, and sufficient penetration for a light or medium tank. Its drawbacks include jamming in dusty conditions and case expansion, which makes reloading difficult.
    The PTRD is light and mobile, reliable in cold and dust. The penetration is sufficient. Drawbacks include a lot rate of fire. During fighting in Lithuania and Latvia 3 tanks were knocked out at a range of 250-300 meters with incendiary bullets. – Commander, 1st Company, 1168th Reg. 346th Div. Captain Gotozhkov
  6. The PTRD is superior to the PTRS, its penetration is good. With three aimed shots, an enemy machinegun was destroyed at 250 meters. Company commander, 346th Div. Sr. Lieutenant Deritz
  7. The anti-tank rifle is a good weapon for destroying enemy strongholds, armoured cars, and other weapons. – Sr. Sergeant Fedoseev
  8. The penetration of the anti-tank rifle at 100 meters is 45 mm. The rate of fire of the PTRS is 10-15 RPM, of the PTRD is 8-10 RPM. The rate of fire is good. The anti-tank rifle is very effective at destroying enemy machinegun nests. The anti-tank rifle likes cleanliness, good care, and constant lubrication. – Jr. Sergeant Kvichko
  9. Anti-tank rifle units prefer to be armed with PTRD rifles, as they are lighter and more reliable. Currently, AT rifles are rarely used against tanks, as our units are saturated with AT artillery. They are normally used to destroy cars, prime movers, and light armoured cars. – Artillery Quartermaster, 417th Div. Malinin
Conclusions
  1. In the second phase of the Patriotic War, when the Red Army went on the offensive on all fronts, our forces became saturated with AT artillery, improvement of armour on medium tanks and increased numbers of heavy tanks, the importance of anti-tank rifles as anti-tank weapons decreased drastically.
    The anti-tank rifle lost its power as an infantry anti-tank weapon. Artillery effectively fights tanks now. The anti-tank rifle, due to its high precision, is now used against open enemy concentrations, armoured cars, and APCs. This is natural, given the state of equipment of infantry at this time.
  2. Almost all anti-tank rifle units speak well of the PTRD: light to carry and flawless in battle. Some wish to increase its rate of fire, others mention that the rate of fire is the only good quality of the PTRS. There are no positive reviews of its reliability, only negative. After 10-15 shots, it starts jamming, and these jams are hard to fix, consume a lot of time, which is unacceptable in modern fast-paced battle.
    The PTRS is unusable in battle, and its subsequent production is pointless.
  3. Retain the PTRD in production, increase its rate of fire.
51st Army HQ Chief, Major-General Dashevskiy
Chief of the Artillery HQ, Colonel Shvedkov
September 28th, 1944″

 

While dithering over which obsolete anti-tank rifle is better may seem trivial by 1944, the Soviets had discovered that the rifles were extremely useful for attacking softer targets, such as trucks, light armored vehicles, airplanes on the ground, and sensitive static targets like fuel depots. Further, although generally speaking the armor thickness of German tanks increased greatly from 1941 to 1944, many of their tanks remained vulnerable to AT rifles at close ranges, including, if the shooter were lucky and hit the right spot, some marks of the Panther tank. The finicky PTRS, however, was not a total failure: The highly successful Simonov SKS intermediate-caliber carbine was directly based on the PTRS’s design.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Gjert Klakeg Mulen

    The PTRD is also looks more pleasing to the eye, I just like how it looks.

  • marathag

    PzB 39 4.92mm 28 pounds

    Boys .55 cal 35 lbs

    PTRD 14.5mm 38 pounds

    PTRS 14.5mm 46 pounds

    M2 .50cal Experimental AT Rifle 77 pounds

    Lahti 20mm 109 pounds

    Type 97 20mm 150! pounds with gunner’s shield and carry handles, 115 pounds without

    • CTFish

      So the Barret 50 fills the same role and is lighter? I had never considered that it replaced the big heavy stuff from then. Thanks for sharing. Someone lend me $8300 and $3/Rd.

      • marathag

        Same ‘Anti-Material’ role, anyway.

        Like in WWII, ineffective against MBTs, unless you count zapping the TC when the hatch is open.

        But anything lighter, well, still effective against BMPs and the like.

        The real big change is decent optics vs iron sights for long range work.

        • Jay

          Please stop this B.S.
          The “anti Tank rifles” used in ww2 WERE DESIGNED and USED AS ANTI TANK WEAPONS. The 14.5mm AT round used in this rifles was capable of penetrating 45mm of armor at close range. Many tanks had areas where the armor was thiner than that. Heck even the early versions of the Panther were penetrated from the side by this rifles. Obviously, as the war progressed, this things were used more effectively against the large number of lightly armored vehicles, that were designed to protect against rifle caliber weapons.
          Talking about 70 years newer rifles and 70 years newer rounds, in this context is retarded,
          There are many portable weapons today that are even able to take on the biggest tanks on the battlefield. that doesn’t mean they are relevant to this discussion.

          • marathag

            Sure they were AT.

            But after 1942, they weren’t very good at that job anymore. So the role changed.

            The Marines Raiders used their Boys AT Rifles as anti-material Rifles in the Pacific, before that was a thing.

          • Jay

            You can spam the Barrett all you want, but this rifles were replaced very early, even during ww2, by shoulder fired Rockets and missiles, not by rifles.
            This rifles were intended as man portable tank killers and were replaced highly effective by RPGs.
            The Barrett was never intended to take on tanks.
            Apples, Oranges

          • marathag

            what spam? I mentioned it once.

            And it was the rifle that brought large caliber rifles back to the Armies of the world.

          • Tank Archives

            AT rifles stopped being useful against vehicles with Schurzen. Since those had a tendency of falling off, plus Germany kept lighter vehicles around until the end of the war, the rifles remained useful. What made them obsolete was a saturation of Soviet infantry with 45 mm AT guns, which were in deficit in 1941, when the AT rifles were first fielded.

          • Kivaari

            They started the war with anti-tank guns, and ended it with anti-material rifles. The Barrett M82 I used would not function well in light dusty areas. We called it a crew served weapon. The gunner pulled the bolt to the rear and the assistant threw a round into the chamber. It never functioned well.

        • Sianmink

          Just because it can’t ‘kill’ a tank doesn’t make it ineffective.
          AT rifles even at the end of the war could still get:
          Mobility kill by damaging the engine or running gear
          Destroy weapons and equipment mounted on the tank like machineguns
          Destroy vision blocks and jam cupolas, reducing the crew’s situational awareness
          Attack the crew through known weak points
          Even heavy tanks would ignore AT Rifle fire at their own peril.

          • marathag

            Yes, it could do those things. but since the Korean War, were rarely seen do to recoiless riles and RPGs doing that job much better. Why damage the tank, when you can kill it? Took almost 40 years for the Anti-Material Rifle to get popular again

      • Paul J

        No, for a lot of reasons :

        -Not the the same purpose at the beginning
        -Not the same time frame ; AT rifles weren’t in services for decades when the AM rifles were introduced
        -the AT rifles weren’t used as large caliber sniper rifles but large caliber rifles

    • Kelly Jackson

      .50 BMG is no where near the power of 20mm

      • Alex Agius

        Well with raufoss rounds it is far more effective than with .50 ball in an anti material role, 20mm is heavy and the rifles chambered in it are heavy, it isn’t really of any use in anti material rifles.

        • iksnilol

          It’s a portable cannon. 25-35 kg isn’t too much weight for the power it offers.

          The Truvelo 20×110 is about 25 kg with tripod. So it is somewhat portable.

      • PK

        About 1/3 the kinetic energy. Add in the 20mm availability of things such as SAPHE…

      • marathag

        Just listing what is out there.

        20mm isn’t quite as man portable.

        Is a 20mm Lahti 3x as effective as the Boys to be near 3x as heavy?

    • iksnilol

      50 bmg has half the energy that the 14.5mm has. So of course guns chambered for it will be lighter than equivalent guns in 14.5mm.

      • marathag

        The 14.5mm BS was a tungsten cored API that penetrated 30mm @ 100m, or 25mm @ 500m

        MV was 1000m/s

        The .50 closest to that was M903 SLAP, saboted tungsten core

        34mm @ 500m, and 23mm @ 1,200m.

        MV 1214m/s

        regular API is 25mm @ 100 meters, 18mm @ 500 m

        • iksnilol

          That’s due to the projectile. You compare apples to zebras. A fair comparison is ball vs ball or SLAP vs SLAP. A SLAP projectile from a 14.5mm is going to hurt more than a SLAP from a 50.

          Physics is a harsh mistress.

          No matter the projectile, a heavier bullet pushed at higher velocities is going to require more weight to stop it from going “KABOOM”.

          • marathag

            the difference between sabots and full diameter APCR isn’t that great for the sizes we are discussing

          • iksnilol

            I’d say it is pretty great. Since the .50 BMG slap is comparable to regular old AP 14.5mm. The Chinese have been making 14.5mm SLAP for a while now.

          • marathag

            50 SLAP is +9mm at 500m vs 14.5 BS Tungsten core.

            I wouldn’t call that ‘pretty great’

            BTW, Chinese DGJ02 ‘SLAP’ is 1250m/s vs 1214m/s for 50 SLAP, and 20mm @1000m vs 23mm @1200m for 50 SLAP

            For whatever reason, the 14.5mm just doesn’t perform as well as all that extra ME would suggest.

          • iksnilol

            Well, your numbers fail to account for the angle. Angle is pretty important. Also, I don’t know where your numbers are from.

          • marathag

            Google for yourself. I’d love to get numbers that lists more data.

          • G.K.

            Hey, good point, except for the small little fact you left out that DJG02 was tested at that range against 60 degree angled plates genius, which if you knew anything about armor mechanics at all, you’d know how massive of a difference this makes.

            And that BS-41 is 40mm+ at 100m, and 32mm+ at 500mm, not 30mm and 25mm, which in the days of WW2 era armor, yes, this was infact a massive difference and there were many things the 14.5x114mm could penetrate that .50 BMG AP/API couldn’t even dream of damaging.

            Perhaps you should go back to speaking about things you actually know what you’re talking about in the slightest on, It’s really annoying when people who aren’t qualified to speak on a subject do as if they’re an expert.

          • marathag

            Well, if you would have read all the comments, the 14.5mm BS is 30mm, when the target plate is at 60 degrees, genius. 40mm is what you get at 90 degrees.

          • G.K.

            “The 14.5mm BS was a tungsten cored API that penetrated 30mm @ 100m, or 25mm @ 500m” -Your exact first quote.

            Isn’t it lovely when you try to tack things on later in arguments you never said to try and avoid sounding like a ponce when people point out you’re wrong? Stop trying to backpedal and stick to your original claim. Also, lovely how you include 14.5x114mm against sloped armor penetration (and yet couldn’t figure that out with the DGJ02, Hmmm…) but all the .50 BMG figures against no sloping, not at all misleading I must say, well, it would be, if you were actually fooling anyone in that you were what you were talking about at all to begin with, which clearly isn’t the case.

            Also, responding with “tl;dr”, I can see I’m dealing with a mental giant here, apologies I offended you by typing more words then allowed on twitter.

          • marathag

            tl:dr

          • marathag

            oh, and what makes you a gatekeeper to decide who posts here? Want to compare DD-214s or something

          • G.K.

            Well, I guess I know the difference sloping makes in armor, know the correct penetration values of said rounds actually being discussed, don’t think “full caliber APCR” and APDS (which replaced APCR, wow shocking) “Isn’t that great”, Didn’t make the brilliant line of “full caliber APCR” as if that makes sense and how it’s the same as APDS, didn’t make a claim that there were MBTs in WW2, and lastly, never tried to compare a modern anti material rifle to a rifle type used for heavy (by the standards of the time) anti armor use from WW1-WW2 and sometimes infantry support.

            You know, just for starters on all the things you completely dropped the ball on that reveals you know exactly nothing about the subject at hand.

          • marathag

            tl;dr

        • micmac80

          YOu are comparing a WW2 API to a high end modern saboted Bullet , belive me same type of bullet in 14.5×114 would greatly outpreform the 50 BMG ,

          • marathag

            I listed the WWII standard US API. not that much worse.

            And most of the Red Army didn’t have those tungsten rounds, but the more common steelcore API

          • Jon

            Wrong, Soviet WWII API penetration is double to US WWII API.

        • guest

          40mm at 100m not 30mm

          • marathag

            Depends if the plate is at 60 degrees or 90

            The original antitank round was the BS (API) round with a tungsten carbide core and incendiary composition in the bullet
            tip. It weighted 65,5g and was 51,0mm long, with an overall weight of
            the round at 200g, and an overall length of 155mm. The core weighted 38,7g, and the incendiary composition 1,8g. The brass case was filled with 28,0g of smokeless powder. With a muzzle velocity of 1000m/s, the bullet could penetrate 30mm of steel plate at 100m, or 25mm at 500m. The strength of the steel plate was 120kg/mm², angle of incidence 60°.

            http://www.russianammo.Org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_145mm.html

          • Jon

            Ok, now tell us what did WWII US API .50 penetrate in the same condition.

          • Tank Archives

            Wait, are you comparing Soviet WWII figures at 60 degrees to US modern figures at 90 degrees? Well that’s a laugh and a half.

          • marathag

            is it 90 degrees? or 60? most all US performance figures used angled plate. If you have a info on what angle those US test were done at, I’d be glad to see it.

          • Tank Archives

            Wait, you yourself don’t know? Why are you posting figures if you don’t know under what conditions they were recorded? You might as well just post random numbers for all the good it does.

    • gunsandrockets

      In the context of anti-material, anti-light armor, what about this comparison?

      The 1945 issued M18a1 57mm RCL gun, 50 lbs.

      • marathag

        For AT use, Panzerfaust is lighter, and more effective.

        But didn’t have range, or accuracy.

        The RR is more crew served, as he won’t be carrying too many rounds himself, along with the tube

        • gunsandrockets

          And a PTRS isn’t a crew served weapon?

          • marathag

            I don’t know what the Soviets considered it as, but wouldn’t be surprised to have a helper.

            But this is what a Anti-tank Rifle Company TO&E from a Rifle Regiment

            6 officers
            67 men
            20 rifles
            26 SMGs
            27 14.5mm AT rifles

            But a PTRD gunner can carry more rounds for his weapon than an M18 designated loader, would would carry either 3 or 6 rounds, thats 21 or 42 pounds right there.

            A 14.5mm ammo pouch held 20 rounds, about 9 pounds a bag.

    • SP mclaughlin

      NTW-20 at 68 pounds (31 kg) nowadays….

    • May

      Nobody ever seems to remember it but the Wz.35 was 7.92mm (different than the German ones) and weighed in at 22lbs. Was available in almost nonexistent amounts thanks to Poland’s rather rapid downfall in the war but it was actually better at its job than most of the other anti-tank rifles.

    • J Dog

      NTW-20 at 34 kg is more appropriate comparison.

  • iksnilol

    I’d go for a lightweight bolt action in 14.5mm. Hard to take advantage of the semi auto action if you got 30k of joules pushing you. + it adds so much weight, better to focus on making it as portable and lightweight as possible.

    If I want a (somewhat) portable cannon I’ll go for a Truvelo in 20x110mm.

    • mosinman

      a lightweight rifle in 14.5mm will punish you

      • iksnilol

        A man portable rifle in 14.5mm will punish you no matter what. Might as well make it practical, besides, you aren’t going to be shooting that many rounds of 14.5mm.

        Only thing you can do is add a good brake and a good stock. Maybe use that fancy STA system? You know the bulky 50 bmg rifle that suppressed weighs about the same as an unsupressed Barret?

        • mosinman

          yeah you don’t want it even lighter though, especially if the heavy version is already rough enough

          • iksnilol

            But if I don’t make it lighter I can’t carry it.

            So better wear shoulder protection cause it is gonna get rough. Though the STA system or whatever it is called seems like a good alternative due to reducing felt recoil a ton.

  • Lance

    Bet getting ammo for that set you back a penny and many!! LOL

  • Tassiebush

    I wonder how much an assistant gunner would speed up the rate of fire on the PTRD? Having a second person dropping in the new rounds would have to be a lot faster. Probably not always practical however.

    • AT rifles were always crew-served weapons, as far as I know. Certainly in photos and in movies (good, realistic ones like “They fought fot their Motherland” and many others) PTRD was deployed by twos, with a gunner and a loader. They carried the rifle on their shoulders together, and the assistant fed rounds into the chamber. In movies, the gunner yells “Round!”, AG feeds it, gunner closes the bolt, fires, again yells “Round!” and so on.

      • Tassiebush

        Thanks for the information. It’s a very interesting topic.

    • zardoz711

      or just a box magazine (fixed or removable) to load from underneath or the side.

      Conversely, I’d wonder if the PTRS would be more reliable with a fluted chamber like a HK91/G3 or even waxed ammo like the Pederesn.

  • Marcus Toroian

    Since we are on the subject, I am desperately trying to find a live round of 14.5×115 for my cartridge collection. Does anyone know where I can find one?

  • toms

    These weapons saw a lot of use in the recent Russian/Ukrainian fiasco. Basically used against BMP’s and fixed positions they still have good effect and are essentially cost free with very cheap ammo. People have started to fix scopes to the weapons and use them for very long range harassment of enemy lines. The 14.5mm is a necked down 23mm soviet basically and has a very long effective range like 2,500 yards.

  • marathag

    Case capacity or not, I posted the performance figures of both downthread. for standard API, the 14.5mm penetrates 5-8mm more depending on the range.

    Worth it for the extra muzzle flash and recoil?

    • mosinman

      when dealing with tanks id say so

    • Those are almost certainly measured via two different standards. Unfortunately, quoting armor penetration numbers from two different countries is meaningless via about three ways. First, the armor quality between nations is NOT the same, even if all are listed as “RHA”. Second, the testing methododology makes a huge difference. For example your numbers above:

      “The 14.5mm BS was a tungsten cored API that penetrated 30mm @ 100m, or 25mm @ 500m

      MV was 1000m/s

      regular [.50 cal] API is 25mm @ 100 meters, 18mm @ 500 m””

      Note that the numbers for 14.5mm are round. These may be statements of “14.5mm BS will penetrate these plates at this range”, versus a statement of “we tested .50 API against a very thick plate and it penetrated this deep”. These are VERY different testing methods that will give you very different results even with the same round. Consider, for example, that I could fire a 14.5mm round at a 1mm plate, and of course it will penetrate it. If I then state it somewhere as “14.5mm will penetrate 1mm of armor at X distance”, that’s true but that is clearly not the maximum thickness it will penetrate. Now I don’t know where you got those numbers from, but that is just an example of how methodologies may differ, there are many more ways that are even more difficult to determine.

      Third, penetration and perforation are two different things, and to make matters worse, sometimes penetration is used to mean perforation. Further, not all shots are the same, even in controlled conditions, so many armies have standards as to how often a shot must penetrate or perforate a plate. So, for example, let’s say 14.5mm perforates a 30mm plate 80% of the time at 100m, but .50 penetrates a 25mm plate 50% of the time at 100m. Just saying “14.5mm penetrates (general term) a 30mm plate at 100, and .50 penetrates (general term) a 25mm plate at 100m makes them sound similar in capability, when in fact this is very much not the case; the 14.5mm in this example has much better penetration characteristics.

      So what guesses can we make about the capabilities of 14.5mm BS? Well, it clearly it is more capable than .50 BMG, with more sectional density, almost 400 ft/s more muzzle velocity, and a tungsten core, vs. the steel cored M8 API. Further, even the steel-cored B-32 API was still effective at about 100 meters against the vulnerable 40mm thick unsloped side hull armor of Panther tanks, and we know this because the Germans introduced side skirts on those tanks to solve this very problem.

      • marathag

        The only way to properly test is to shoot them at the exact same homogeneous (RHA) plate of a known BN hardness, and use the the same angle, 60 or 90, and use the same qualification for what makes a penetration. German, US, and Soviet definitions were all different- like 75% of test shots penetrating the entire plate for a given thickness gets rated as able to penetrate.

        For whatever reason, all the resources for the Soviet/Russian/Chinese that lists the capabilities of the 14.5mm in both hardened steel and tungsten cores just aren’t as good as the math suggests, or what the values for the .50 are reported to do.

        And I don’t have a 1000m range with 1″ 1.25″ and 1.5″ armorplate to shoot at, let alone where I could get access to the 14.5mm rifle and that special ammo.

        So I have to go off the reported values off of tanknet, which don’t always give the conditions of the tests.

        Maybe the US tests is using 90 degree 295 BN hardness targets, while Soviets were using 60 degree 495 BN hardness targets.
        I don’t know. I just am reporting the values that are out there on the ‘net.

        And those values do show the 14.5 underperforming.

        I also have reports of USAAF P-47 Thunderbolts knocking out Panthers and Tigers, where the math says it shouldn’t be, yet you have guncamera footage on it.

        • The data “shows” 14.5 under-performing, and the data is a mishmash of tests from different countries, let alone organizations. Gee, I wonder why 14.5 appears to under-perform!

          Yes, P-47s could handily knock out a Panther with its .50 cal guns, because its roof armor was only 17mm thick. The Tiger I’s roof armor was only 25mm thick.

          • marathag

            But they were attacking at low angle, not 90 degree death dives.

            Like I said, I’d love more data that gives more details. But what is there, is what I listed.

          • Right, but 17mm is not much for .50 API.

          • marathag

            coming in on an attack run, you are 30 degrees, that makes that effectively 34mm, and there is a good chance for a ricochet, as well

          • Without seeing footage, I can’t really say what the hits looked like. Having said that, you seem to be ignoring that the top surfaces of tanks are riddled with weak spots. Example:

            http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e280/TreborResarf/503352.jpg~original

            Suffice it to say that if .50 API were routinely capable of penetrating 30mm+ of solid armor at attack run ranges, you’d see a lot more light armored vehicles with 40-50mm of all-around armor.

          • CTFish

            Multi hits make the difference? Thinking airborne Gatling gun vs man portable AT in the original reference.

        • Jon

          marathag, you are saying you know 14.5mm and .50BMG have different penetration values in different tests, each one with different conditions and standards, and based in those tests you have affirmated 14.5mm is not much better than .50BMG…
          Quite silly, no?

          • marathag

            You can post WWII era test results for M8 50cal ammo if you wish, giving rang, type and angle of plate if you desire. Go ahead, I’d love to see that data. My copy of the 1944 US Standards Catalog is packed away at the moment. I think it’s in Volume III for small arms ammo performance

  • Dan

    All this discussion on their effectiveness and what works better blah blah blah. The amount of joy my face would display every time I opened up my gun safe and seen either of these two rifles inside would be immeasurable.

  • guest

    With a little googling one can find a number of videos of PTRS/PTRD in use by Lugansk and Donetsk rebels against ukrainian APCs and the like. My favote is an ukrainian POV camera (helmet strapped?) of a BTR-80 getting ambushed where one of these rifles scored a direct hit on the soldier inside the BTR, with that tell-tale black puff of smoke.

  • Tank Archives

    Interestingly enough, the PTRS received higher praise than the PTRD in the earlier years of the war.

    • Rock or Something

      Interesting. I’m wondering if it was just due to the fact as the War progressed, and the fighting got harder, some of the luster of the PTRS began to fade.

      • Tank Archives

        Both rifles were introduced in the fall, as the summer hit next year, the faults with the PTRS became a lot more obvious.

  • marathag

    If that was the case, then the side skirts on the Panther wouldn’t have been that effective at preventing AT Rifle damage

    • Jon

      Spaced armor performs different to homogeneus one.

      • marathag

        when spaced, 40+5 doesn’t always mean equal to 45mm, either to KE penetrators. Even when laminated, two thicknesses aren’t the same as a single slab of the same overall thickness