Anti-tank rifles in WWI

[WWI history buff]

Any good narratives/after-action reports describing the use of anti-tank rifles in WWI out there?

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

There is a Great Picture of one in the 1930s Daily Express Great War Book

[bob lembke]

I have been reading a bunch of French unit histories, and they supposedly were capturing a lot of these at the end of the war (an overgrown Mauser G 98, in, I think, 12.7 mm), but I cannot recall mention of their effectiveness anywhere. I would think that they would really shoot up early tanks, which seemed to barely protect against the ordinary small arms rounds. I have heard that they were very unpleasant to fire, but one would think that that was better than being overrun by tanks.

Bob Lembke

[alain dubois]

Hi

Some pictures of mauser Tankgewehr here

Alain

[centurion]

The German anti tank T rifle of 13.1mm (developed from a pre war express rifle or elephant gun) was effective at short range against all Allied tanks. At 120 yards a direct impact would penetrate 12mm (0.472 inch) armour plate. However it was much less effective if hitting at an angle so at 60 yards a round hitting at an angle of 45 degrees could not penetrate 7 mm (0.272 inch) of armour plate. The British Mk V had armour varying from 0.2 to 0.472 inch around the cab, front plate sponsons and sides. Most of the armour on the Schnieder was 0.2 inch (although the nose plate was 0.9 inch). The St Chamond I believe was armoured with the same sort of varied armour thicknesses as the British tanks. Ordinary K rounds could penetrate 0.2 inch if hitting directly.

The T rifle was a b****r to lug around being five and a half feet long and weighing 37 lbs. As a result it had a two (sometimes three) man crew. No 1 carried the gun and 20 rounds and no 2 carried 112 rounds. Only 20 rounds could be fired before the barrel overheated and had to be allowed to cool. Strangely enough no official carriage or cart was developed to assist in its transport although photos of captured equipment shows that these were sometime extemporised. The gun could be fired from these making it much more like some of the light anti tank guns of the interwar years.

It was an even bigger b****r to fire and inexperienced or under trained men often suffered broken bones in the shoulder. Even when used properly a gunner could only fire a limited number of shots before his shoulder became too bruised to continue. For this reason both crewmen where trained to fire the weapon.

German documents laying down the way in which anti tank defences should be organised says "The anti Tank rifles will generally be placed in the main line of resistance or a short distance behind this line. Their short range (maximum 500 metres will be taken into consideration" The documents place a much greater reliance on artillery and heavy machine guns (firing K rounds) for destroying tanks.

One source produced in the interwar years, records that hundreds of these guns were captured by Allied tank crews.

[WWI history buff]

I have been reading a bunch of French unit histories, and they supposedly were capturing a lot of these at the end of the war (an overgrown Mauser G 98, in, I think, 12.7 mm), but I cannot recall mention of their effectiveness anywhere. I would think that they would really shoot up early tanks, which seemed to barely protect against the ordinary small arms rounds. I have heard that they were very unpleasant to fire, but one would think that that was better than being overrun by tanks.

Bob Lembke

So, there's evidence to indicate use against the French, thanks.

[bob lembke]

So, there's evidence to indicate use against the French, thanks.

In about the last 10-11 months I have read 266 French unit histories. (Fortunately most of them are very short. I do keep track, on a spread-sheet, part of an effort to not read the same ones over and over.) Most of them are ultra-patriotic and usually do not mention negative developments. While I would guess that 60-80 histories mentioned capturing these rifles in the last months of the war, I cannot recall one having mentioning French tanks being shot up by these, and I would have remembered, had I read something of the sort, as I enter anti-tank events in my time-lines. (My father, a Sturm=Pionier, was trained to fight tanks by first riding on a range in captured tanks and firing the MGs at targets, to convince the men thaat a moving tank was a lousy gun platform. Typically the men got say three hits per 1000 rounds.) But then they were trained to destroy tanks with Gebaltne Ladungen, seven "potato mashers" on one fuze handle, not with AT rifles. But the French histories, when covering the last months of the war, often mention the units being supported by French tanks. (So far I have mostly read the histories of infantry units of various sorts; no histories of tank units.)

Bob Lembke

[centurion]

Schneider tanks were used in 9 engagements, St Chamond in 11. Renault in 40. After the initial debacles the Schneider and St Chamond tended to be used defensively or for stopping German counter attacks. Because of its limited trench crossing capability (due to its relatively small size) the Renault was used in a different tactical mode to the British heavy tanks and much more like the Whippets. They were therefore much less likely to attack heavily fortified positions from the front. This is where, according the German anti tank doctrine, the T rifles were likely to be concentrated in sections of 3 to 6 rifles, each rifle often in a 1.5 metre circumference pit. Therefore given the French tank tactics and the German anti tank approach the T rifle and the French tanks were unlikely to meet. The Renaults seem to have suffered mainly from machine guns and grenades.

Most German anti tank training and tactics appear to have been aimed at the British heavies making direct assaults. Doubtless had the war continued past 1918 they would have got round to devising means of countering the Renaults and British mediums.

[TonyE]

The German anti tank T rifle of 13.1mm (developed from a pre war express rifle or elephant gun) was effective at short range....

I would be very interested to know what evidence there is to support this hypothesis. The cartridge was already under development for the Tank und Flieger machine gun (TuF) before being used in the Mauser rifle.

The background was that in October 1917 the Rifle Testing Committee (G.P.K.) had received orders from the War Ministry to develop a large calibre machine gun for use against tanks and aircraft to be ready for Spring 1918. They responded saying this was not possible but a rifle should be developed quickly, especially given the serious problem with tanks.

When the order for the rifle deveopment was given to Mauser on 27 November 1917 the calibre was still undecided, whether it should be 13mm or 15mm, rimmed or rimless. In December 1917 the development of the cartridge was given to Polte and the G.P.K. decided it should be 13mm and rimmed, and on 10 January 1918 the first firing trials took place. Development was completed by March 1918 and the first production ammunition is dated April 1918.

Given the time scales, no other cartridge was considered for the anti tank rifle.

I suspect the story about the elephant gun round is a confusion with what happened in Britain. In 1918 the fledgling RAF demanded a heavy machine gun for use against the large German bombers being encountered. Eley Brothers were given the task of ammunition development and took the .600" Nitro Express round as their starting point. They necked it to .5" and then in the course of development made it rimless and added a belt to make the experimental .600/.500A case. This was to be fired in a new heavy Vickers machine gun. The end of the war slowed things down but the cartridge eventually emerged a few years late without the belt as the .5" Vickers.

Coincidentally, the British also tried this cartridge in an anti-tank rifle developed by Mr.Godsall of Webley and Scott, shown here.

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

I would be very interested to know what evidence there is to support this hypothesis. The cartridge was already under development for the Tank und Flieger machine gun (TuF) before being used in the Mauser rifle.

Possibly because the gun was known in the German army as Elefantenbusche. It would seem that to save time Mauser scaled up an existing pre war design. Development of the gun and the cartridge must have started at about the same time otherwise it would not have been possible to demonstrate the first T rifle prototype by 19th Jan 1918. The calibre must have been known before the end of 1917. The development of the MG 18 TuF was much more protracted but again to save time an existing design was scaled up to 13mm

[TonyE]

I'm sorry, but just because the German troops called it the Elefantenbusche does not justify making the statement that the round was developed from a pre-war express cartridge. That is not evidence. It probably simply reflects the German troops' view of the recoil. As I said before, it appears somebody has got their facts mixed up as it was the British round that was developed from the .600" nitro express.

The base diameter of the .600NE immediately above the rim is 0.70" and it was the largest express cartidge at the time. The 13mm TuF round has a base diameter of 0.82", far larger than any contemporary sporting round. Also, the Germans had no history of large calibre express rifles.

I do not see why development of the gun and ammunition had to start at the same time. The basic cartridge was already being worked on for theTuF MG, but the military had not decided whether it should be necked to 13mm or 15mm. When Mauser were commissioned to build the rifle in late 1917 the decision was taken that the calibre should be 13mm and rimmed, and Polte were given the job of taking the basic cartridge design and producing a production version.

Mauser certainly did scale up an existing design, but it was not of any pre-war express rifle. They simply took their basic G98 design and scaled it up to suit the 13mm round. There are small differences, but in principal the 13mm rifle is just a great big Mauser 98. Below is the drawing from British records, dated December 1918.

Here is the 13mm round with a .303 for comparison.

Regards

TonyE

[Robert Dunlop]

Heinz Guderian described the German anti-tank rifle as 'largely ineffective' in his book 'Achtung - Panzer'. Unfortunately he does not provide any anecdotal evidence for this statement.

The following is a quote from 'Band of Brigands'. It relates to an action that took place on 23 August 1918. This was 15 days after the opening of the Battle of Amiens, when the British Third Army took the lead in the next round of the last 100 days:

'[2/Lt] Bell's tank had not proceeded very far before a bullet struck the right-hand sponson severely wounding the gunner. He immediately jumped out and nothing more was ever seen of him afterwards. Several more bullets struck the tank and two more gunners were hit. The anti-tank rifle was spotted by the man who had taken the 6-pdr gunner's place. He immediately layed the gun and fired, blowing the rifleman and all his gear to smitherens. [Another rifle opens up with AP rounds which] penetrated the cast-iron cylinder of the water jacket pouring out boiling hot steam.

Another pierced the front cab and wounded the hotchkiss gunners. There were now only three effective men in the crew; the engine would be too hot to run, so Bell started to return. Armour-piercing bullets still struck and penetrated the tank but so far the driver had escaped. After about 150 yards the engine seized up...'

Robert

[centurion]

By 1930 France, Italy, The USA and the USSR had all developed and put in service AT rifles, Poland and Britain were still developing them. This would suggest that there was a certain belief in their effectiveness against the armour of the day.