Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Anti-tank rifles in WWII

Discussion in 'The Guns Galore Section' started by Blaster, May 5, 2007.

  1. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    What good were these for? I'm sure no rifle could penetrate tank armor.
     
  2. Canadian_Super_Patriot

    Canadian_Super_Patriot recruit

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    They could early on. A 13.7mm+ bullet with a wicked velocity could , after repeated hits, penetrate 20mm or less, maybe more.

    This may sound like a stupid question, but were any of these hullets explosive ? I never hear much of bullets under 20mm that are.
     
  3. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    As CSP said they could penetrate the armour of some of the early tanks. I don't believe they were ever intended to use explosives, they were mostly solid penetrators although the Germans did apparently have a 7.92mm bullet containing a capsule of gas which it was hoped would cause the tank crew to bail, it was supposedly completely ineffective though (Probably as much due to the tiny size of the capsule coupled with the fact that it was likely to be smashed when fired).
     
  4. Zable Fahr

    Zable Fahr New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    This red charnel pit of primal horror, howling bla
    via TanksinWW2
    tank armor eventually became too thick to penetrate, even with multiple hits, but the rifles could still do good damage to halftracks and lighter vehicles, and the russians used them against pretty much anything.

    i think i read somewhere that they even managed to down a plane with it :p
     
  5. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    US Marine Raiders shot-up Japanese seaplanes with AT-rifles on their Makin Island raid. I think they got one of them "on the roll" as it was attempting to take-off. They were equipped with Boys rifles.

    Tim
     
  6. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    soviets

    the soviets used them a lot throughout the war. while they could not penetrate frontal armor they could damage sights, scopes, radio boxes, and side or rear armor. they were always used as part of a defensive system that included everything that could possibly ding a tank. not the first choice but useful enough.
     
  7. shermanologist on watch

    shermanologist on watch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    PARIS-FRANCE
    via TanksinWW2
    The PTRS and PTRD Soviet AT rifles were the reason behind the installation of 'Schuerzen' on Panzers in late 1943. They were also useful against shaped charge warheads, but this was not their first purpose.
    BTW the Panther was nearly abandoned for the planned Panther II in 1943 but it was saved by the small plates added on the sides to protect the vertical lower hull sides (over the wheels) from the AT bullets.
     
  8. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Actualy AT rifles was pretty much good weapon.Any tank can be disabled by luckey shoot,and lighter wenchiles can be completly destroyed,as some1 sayed b4.
    Otther fact is pcihological moment.If geen crew of tank feel that boulets hit the body of tank they can panic,and if it penetrate it eaven more. I readed long time a go about one test maded by Russians. They put dummys in tank i fired with AT rifles. After 21 penetration,only 1 braced one dummy in arm,so there was not much chance to kill crew member on penetration.
     
  9. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    but the point is, shall we put you in a metal box and fire AT rounds at you?

    you should be fairly safe

    FNG
     
  10. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    They varied a lot in power. Penetration similarly varied between about 20mm and 40mm (in both cases, the maximum possible at short range). The pics below show you the ATR cartridges from the article "An Introduction to Anti-Tank Rifle Cartridges" on my website. I have included the standard 7.92x57 rifle/MG round and the .50 Browning (12.7x99) to give some size comparisons.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Tony Williams
    Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
     
  11. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    FNG, I was just asking a question. No need to get literall.
     
  12. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    the comment was aimed at sinissa about the "not much chance of a crew kill on penetration"

    Anything that penetrates an armoured vehicle will unsettle the crew reducing their effectivness and possably forcing a bail out.

    As rounds zing through your metal box, the commander telling the gunner that tests shows there is little chance of a crew kill is not much consolation.

    Also what a lot of people fail to realise that that bemoths that trundled around germany in 45 bear little resemablance to the majority of the lightly armoured tanks of 39 and 40.

    Remember that the mighty PIV which was to form the backbone of the heavy german tanks only had 30 mm of armour in it's original guise and may have had just 15mm on the first production models. The PIII was just as lightly armoured.

    FNG
     
  13. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    actualy i pointed about morale efect.
     
  14. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    The Russian PTRD was loved by the Russian partisans because they could easily take out German trucks. A couple of hits into the engine compartment and the truck would be immobile at least to the claims laid by the Partisans which I don't believe are too absurd although much of what partisans claim is exadurated.
     
  15. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Russians actualy loved the PTRD rifles,they rejected bazooka in fawor of PTRD.It was capable to destroy any light armored/unarmored wenchile from decent range+ to disable some much heawyer tanks by the accurate hits.
     
  16. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    The PTRD and PTRS were really the only AT rifles of any worth after 1941... Boys rifle was just plain 'orrible from the beginning. Disgusted with performance of the Panzerbushce 39, German soldiers threw them away en masse after the Battle of Moscow in '41, though reportedly utilized captured PTRD's right up till the end of the war...

    In all fairness however, this may have been due to the terminal lack of ammunition facing the Germans in the late war, and the fact that the PTRD was 'newer technology', having been introduced in 1941... Close range it could penetrate 40mm of steel, and was effective against light AFV's from 1.5km away...

    Bazooka and shaped charge weapons had better penetration but lacked the range and accuracy of AT rifles, as well as firing heavier ammunition... A soldier can carry more 14.5mm rounds than he can 3kg charges. Even if AT rifles weren't that effective, I'd rather have one than not, they gave infantry a decent capability against AFV's, and were particularily good at puncturing sandbags and walls. Germans even kept captured Boys rifles purely as sandbag-busters, cause that's all they were good for (and taking out grounded Japanese aircraft of course :wink: )
     

Share This Page