mise Weapons PETER CHAMBERLAINContent f ‘This book deals only with those weapons that were designed primarily for use against AFVs, and that actually saw service. While this includes a wide and varied range of ‘weapons it must be emphasized that it excludes almost as many others. For instance the German 8.8 cm Flak gun earned itself a reputation as a tank-killer but it was primarily designed as an anti-aircraft gun and was only used against ground targets {as an expedient—originally at least, Thus it is not mentioned in these pages, but ‘mention is made of the 8.8 em Pak guns that were developed as a result of the Flak weapon's success. Also excluded are the host of dual-purpose guns such as the Russian 76.2 mm guns and the numerous 20 mm anti-aircraft/anti-tank guns. These ‘will all be covered in the Fact File devoted to their primary purpose. The host of experimental weapons are not mentioned simply because even a listing would fill the pages of this book many times over. Introduction When the first tanks Iumbered across French mud in 1916 they were almost in- vulnerable to all opposing fire. It was not very long before it was discovered that they were vulnerable to direct artillery fire and the reversed rifle bullet, and a contest started that continues to this day. Tank armour became thicker, but the first specialist anti-tank weapons appeared in the shape of the German 13 mm T-Gewehr and the ‘optimistic French 37 mm anti-tank gun. That was in 1916; ever since then the race between armour and the anti-tank weapon has continued. In 1918 when the smoke began to blow away it appeared that the tank had got the better of the opposition and as a result armour thicknesses in 1939 were little ‘more than they had been in 1918, But in the intervening years much had changed. ‘The first really effective anti-tank guns had been designed and were in service with ‘many armies, Most of these guns were smal, light and mobile and had a calibre between 20-40 mm. They all fired a solid shot that was intended to penetrate armour by sheer force, and in 1939 most of them were able to perform to their specification ‘quite adequately. This state of affairs did not last long. Tank armour grew by leaps and bounds and by the end of 1940 nearly all anti-tank guns could no longer pierce the thick hides of the new tanks entering service. Attempts were made to prolong. their life by boosting muzzle velocity or providing harder shot; but new guns were the answer and they were not long in coming. ‘As early as 1937 in some cases work had started on heavier calibres, and by 1941 ‘some were in service. These new guns had calibres from about 45 to $7 mm and fired shot weighing about 6 Ib, but by this time the first HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) shells were appearing, along with such advances as the first APDS (armour-piercing discarding sabot) rounds. This second generation was short-lived. because from 1943 onwards tank armour was heavily strengthened. Typical of this ‘was the frontal armour of the Tiger tank which was 100 mm thick compared with 145 mm for the early Panzer 111. The anti-tank gun then progressed to another generation, this time with a calibre of at least 76 mm, and some as large as 100 mm, ‘These new guns were massive, complex affairs, difficult to conceal and handle and very expensive. As a result it was only the larger combatant nations that could afford them, but by 1943 they were rapidly becoming obsolete themselves. By 1945, although the big anti-tank gun was still a very potent weapon and remained in service for many years, its day had passed and a new generation of weapons had taken over. ‘The new generation had actually been born well before World War 2 and depended for its effect not on pure kinetic or explosive energy, but on the burning abilities of explosives when used in the hollow charge. The destructive effect on tank armour of this hollow charge has become known as the ‘Monroe effect’ after its discoverer, an American. An explosive charge is detonated a short it target in such a way that it burns or melts its way through the armour, The charge is shaped rather like the inside of a tea-cup and is detonated at an optimum distance from the target; the result is that the explosive forces are directed forward instead of outward and the concentrated energy melts the armour. In 1940 this principle ‘was applied to a wide range of weapons.In the German Army nearly every field piece was equipped to fire hollow-charge shells, and the principle was also applied to grenades, rifle grenades, demolition charges, mines and bombs. Many other armies also made use of it, but despite its effectiveness further research during the early war years showed that the principle ‘was not used to its maximum possible effect if it was allied to a fast-moving artillery shell. The charge had to be detonated at exactly the right distance from the armour for best results and the artillery shell was thus not the best delivery system, As a result, new and rather odd delivery methods were evolved. They included the PIAT, Bazooka and Panzerfaust—all methods of delivering a hollow charge to its target at relatively slow speeds. These light and portable weapons gave the individual foot soldier the ability to kill the heaviest AFV. Previously, the only protection afforded to the infantry, apart from anti-tank gun cover, was that most unloved of weapons, the anti-tank rifle. Heavy, awkward, possessing a fearsome ‘kick’, these rifles were at best effective only at very close ranges or against very light armour; by 1941 most had been withdrawn from use—only the Russians retained them, Most anti-tank grenades were of little value; the arrival of hollow-charge launchers was thus of eat importance to the front line of all armies. Of equal importance in the battle against the tank is the method employed of using anti-tank weapons. Space precludes an in-depth appraisal of the various Philosophies involved but a short outline follows. The nation that used the widest range of methods, namely Germany, was also the greatest exponent of armour in 1939; they used the anti-tank weapon as a means of attacking armour. This contrasts with the British philosophy as they used anti-tank weapons as a means of defence ‘especially during the early war years. The Russians tended to follow the German ‘example after early costly errors. In the USA, the idea was to use special tank- killing weapons almost as a secondary objective in gaining space for their formations ‘to manoeuvre, but they too moved round to the German concept. ‘The anti-tank weapons mentioned in this book are many and varied. Some of the methods used border on the bizarre—the Russian dog mines and the Japanese Suicide methods are obvious examples; it is to be hoped that we never see their like again. There are no anti-tank weapons in use today that did not at least originate during World War 2. Even the latest missiles have their roots in that conflict, Although it is not mentioned in the text, the wire-guided missile, can trace its igins back to the German X-7 Rotkippchen missile which was undergoing trials as the war ended. This book can be treated not only as a history but also as a primer for understanding anti-tank warfare as itis today. Photo Credits Imperial War Museum USS. Official Tan Hogg Bundesarchiv K.R. Pawlas,