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?
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.
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
they tried it was terrible optics they tried on them would get rattled to death
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
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
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
>probably wouldn't be bad as a sniper rifle
>10 moa rifle without scope
>sniper rifle
No.
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
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
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
Pretty sure the side armour of the Panther was vulnerable to anti tank rifle fire at close range if the schurzen wasn't on
>Her maj's QF 2-lber, shit
Oi, you got a loicense for those bad takes?
pretty poor antitank gun, good luck taking out a tiger or something at 2000m away with one of those
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
Why don't they just use a recoilless rifle instead? I'd wager it's better in every way.
>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
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
Want the idea to try to jam the turret, brake tracks etc etc?
some of the volunteers in ukraine are killing bmp's, btr's, bmd's in ukraine with 50 bmg rifles right now
>his anti-"tank" rifle is only .50in
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.
>he thinks anti tank rifles in ww2 were 12.7 mm
They varied wildly from 20mm to 8mm Eargesplitten Loudenboomer
Anti tank rifles scared the Germans so badly they put side skirts on the Panzer IV's.
>anti tank rifles scared Germans so badly they used a cheap, simple, reliable and quick solution to make them worthless
Wow
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