Anti-tank rifles in ww2. More effective than is typically thought?

Usually when I see discussion of anti-tank rifles the consensus is something like "well they were useful in the early stages of the war but later tanks got too well armored or something." Yet when you look at primary sources and accounts of veterans they constantly talk of infantry armed only with antitank guns repelling and taking out enemy tanks.

Now sure some of this would be flanking or firing from high buildings but it really seems the case that people are just looking at theoretical penetration values and comparing it to the front armor of tanks, not thinking about the thin roof and side armor, or that most tanks even towards the end of the war were lightly armored pz.IIs or t-26's. I believe the panzer IV had side skirts added late in the war to protect against anti tank rifles.

At the same time anti tank guns effectiveness seems to be exaggerated and the armor protection of tanks undervalued. Sure anti tank guns were the leading cause of death for tanks but there are many examples of even fairly lightly armored tanks taking dozens of shots from anti tank guns and being fine. Imo this is because people are looking at on paper stats of the largest, scarce, anti tank guns and ignoring that most were shitty 37mm or 2 pounders or whatever, 88mm tank guns were pretty rare. Lots of tank guns were also shooting at 1 or more kilometers and not exactly aiming for weakspots which reduced penetration.

Thoughts?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think your pic might be one of the reasons why they were carried and supplied for more often due to thier multi role abilities as anti material weapons. Being able to stop the engine on a half track or small tank from a decent distance while being able to carry far more ammo fir the same weight as anti tank rockets. In the pic the russians are using that ptrs in an urban warfare environment. Perfect weapon for the job.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      probably wouldn't be bad as a sniper rifle, could shoot through concrete or other cover in cities as well I imagine, never seen a primary source talking about that though

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they tried it was terrible optics they tried on them would get rattled to death

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/AGFqaRN.jpg

        Usually when I see discussion of anti-tank rifles the consensus is something like "well they were useful in the early stages of the war but later tanks got too well armored or something." Yet when you look at primary sources and accounts of veterans they constantly talk of infantry armed only with antitank guns repelling and taking out enemy tanks.

        Now sure some of this would be flanking or firing from high buildings but it really seems the case that people are just looking at theoretical penetration values and comparing it to the front armor of tanks, not thinking about the thin roof and side armor, or that most tanks even towards the end of the war were lightly armored pz.IIs or t-26's. I believe the panzer IV had side skirts added late in the war to protect against anti tank rifles.

        At the same time anti tank guns effectiveness seems to be exaggerated and the armor protection of tanks undervalued. Sure anti tank guns were the leading cause of death for tanks but there are many examples of even fairly lightly armored tanks taking dozens of shots from anti tank guns and being fine. Imo this is because people are looking at on paper stats of the largest, scarce, anti tank guns and ignoring that most were shitty 37mm or 2 pounders or whatever, 88mm tank guns were pretty rare. Lots of tank guns were also shooting at 1 or more kilometers and not exactly aiming for weakspots which reduced penetration.

        Thoughts?

        Anti material rifles like the Barrett m107a1 are still used to this day for taking out personal at distance behind cover or light armored vehicles and equipment

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          many at rifles back then used massively more powerful rounds than 50bmg
          ptrs/ptrd-41 used 14.5x114mm
          some even used 20mm shells like finnish solothurn at rifles

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They were sometimes used in similar ways though when tanks became too well armored. Main reason for the switch to anti material rifles now is due to the weight. Ptrs was like 46 lbs and the Solothurn was like 100 vs more modern anti material rifles like the m107 is only like 28 lbs

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >probably wouldn't be bad as a sniper rifle
        >10 moa rifle without scope
        >sniper rifle
        No.

        Pretty sure the side armour of the Panther was vulnerable to anti tank rifle fire at close range if the schurzen wasn't on

        No.
        BS41 ammo had 40 mm pen in ideal conditions and it was rare round, BS31 had 30mm. No chance against Panther
        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/PantheraScheme.jpg

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          sniper in urban enviroments often are firing from only a few hundred meters away using elevation, cover and concealed positions, the psychological effect and ability to penetrate basically any cover is significant

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that doesn't make it a "sniper rifle"
            agreed that the effect of 14.5mm AP, or even API, is significant, fire a couple rounds at entrenched enemies and that'll pin them down extremely effectively

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty sure the side armour of the Panther was vulnerable to anti tank rifle fire at close range if the schurzen wasn't on

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Her maj's QF 2-lber, shit
    Oi, you got a loicense for those bad takes?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      pretty poor antitank gun, good luck taking out a tiger or something at 2000m away with one of those

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    good for light vehicles and cover penetration, hence why PTRS and PTRD are still used by non-state forces today, and why anti-materiel rifles are common, many in .50 but also many larger ones

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why don't they just use a recoilless rifle instead? I'd wager it's better in every way.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Heavier and bulky ammo
        > Can't really do follow up shots easily
        >Slower to reload
        >Slower projectiles
        There's plenty of reasons to use an antimaterial rifle especially against personal behind cover

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    About your opinion on AT guns, I guess it goes down to how people who have no idea what they're talking about think of weapons, i.e.
    >big gun means more damage!
    >small rifle means less damage!
    Rather than actual study and research

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Want the idea to try to jam the turret, brake tracks etc etc?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    some of the volunteers in ukraine are killing bmp's, btr's, bmd's in ukraine with 50 bmg rifles right now

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >his anti-"tank" rifle is only .50in

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just because new vehicles were more armored and impenetrable to 12.7 mm it doesn't mean that they stopped using light tanks and armored cares that they already had, especially if it was the best thing they got.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >he thinks anti tank rifles in ww2 were 12.7 mm

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They varied wildly from 20mm to 8mm Eargesplitten Loudenboomer

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anti tank rifles scared the Germans so badly they put side skirts on the Panzer IV's.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >anti tank rifles scared Germans so badly they used a cheap, simple, reliable and quick solution to make them worthless
      Wow

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They remained useful against everything less armored than a tank. Even against tanks, a lucky shot or a shot to the rear or top could be effective

Your email address will not be published.