Anti Tank Rifles

[kcdusk]

ATR's.

50 call, 12.7mm or other calibers. Are any anti-tank rifles really used in an anti-tank role?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

ATR's.

50 call, 12.7mm or other calibers. Are any anti-tank rifles really used in an anti-tank role?

They were once upon a time (like say WWII). Its been a long time since those calibres have been capable of taking out MBTs.

In my campaign the PCs obtained a Gepard anti tank rifle which was a (fictional) limited production "A2" 15mm BMG version of the original 14.5mm weapon. Only a couple of PCs and NPCs in their group had the strength and build to handle the weapon effectively but they used it to good effect on a number of occasions to take out APCs and punch through walls.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

ATR's.

50 call, 12.7mm or other calibers. Are any anti-tank rifles really used in an anti-tank role?

In the inter war years and in WWII the antitank rifle had a place - but todays tanks are much to hardened to be taken out this way .

The old tanks had thinner armour plate etc .

I sometimes see someone writing that you could snipe the periscopes etc on a MBT . But imho that is a stretch.The tank will move,and of course look for you with a thermal imagimg system to deploy its maingun ..I think you wouldnt get many rounds loose before he runs you over or slams you with a 120mm round..

But there are APCs ,other vehicles and equipment that can be got- so up here we still use it ( Barret Light .50 and MacMillian M87 I think ) both .12,7X109 mm I think )

We call them AMR -Anti material rifles. ( MØR in our language ) .

[Legbreaker]

Antitank rifles were obsolete even before they were issued. The reference to them being used against periscopes etc comes from the early stages of WWII (as early as the invasion of Poland in 1939) when it was found the projectiles simply bounced off armour that was virtually little more than tin foil.
The only hope was if the gunner managed to slot a shot through a vision slit, damage a track or burr the turrent so that it caught on the hull.

All in all they were heavy, with a huge recoil (the British .55 Boys had a well earned reputation for causing spinal injury), ineffective and extremely unpopular with the soldiers.

They did though eventually develop (in idea rather than design) into the antimaterial rifles HQ mentions, a role in which these high calibre and long ranged weapons excel (although I'd still prefer to hit the target with something possessing a warhead).

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Antitank rifles were obsolete even before they were issued. The reference to them being used against periscopes etc comes from the early stages of WWII (as early as the invasion of Poland in 1939) when it was found the projectiles simply bounced off armour that was virtually little more than tin foil.
The only hope was if the gunner managed to slot a shot through a vision slit, damage a track or burr the turrent so that it caught on the hull.

The first one was issued to the German Imperial Army in 1918 and they remained fairly efficient up to the mid-1930's. You are right about what you say on Poland but that was due to the poor quality of the German AT-rifle (light and using reinforced 7.92mm ammo). The poles also used a few but their model was directly derived from the German 1918 model.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

All in all they were heavy, with a huge recoil (the British .55 Boys had a well earned reputation for causing spinal injury), ineffective and extremely unpopular with the soldiers.

Right again but when the .55 Boys started to be issued in numbers, the German tanks front armor had reached 50mm of strong alloy (nothing in common with the panzer I and II of poland). Panzer 38(t) already had a 38mm frontal armor.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

They did though eventually develop (in idea rather than design) into the antimaterial rifles HQ mentions, a role in which these high calibre and long ranged weapons excel (although I'd still prefer to hit the target with something possessing a warhead).

Actually that came fast. The soviets had been issued large number of AT rifles that were fairly light, used 14.5mm ammo and were very simple designs (single bullet chamber). Of course, by 1941 they couldn't do much against tanks (even panzer II armor had grow to 35mm) but they were used by sniper units with great success, almost early version of the Garretts and Hecates (yes the Soviets invented the high penetration sniper rifle). However, this was dropped after WW2 for some obscure reasons and reintroduced by the US (someone must have gone through the well made intelligence reports of WW2).

The japanese 20mm rifle is interesting, however, as it was almost a portable Anti tank gun.

The situation changed again in 1943 when Germany started to develop high velocity AT tank gun that could penetrate thick armor while being small and manuverable (28mm and 50mm AT guns). The problem came from the tungsten used in the ammo as it was expensive and in short supply. In addition, the greatest weapon of WW2 had been invented: the Bazooka.

[Trooper]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

ATR's.

50 call, 12.7mm or other calibers. Are any anti-tank rifles really used in an anti-tank role?

Lahti L-39 aka Elephant Gun aka flyswatter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti_L-39

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

ATR's.

50 call, 12.7mm or other calibers. Are any anti-tank rifles really used in an anti-tank role?

Antitank rifles are a World War 1 idea; but by the time they were developed and fielded, they were already obsolete, and most were withdrawn quickly. Exceptions included the M-2 series, which were developed into heavy machineguns; the KPV, ditto; and several Russian and Finnish antitank rifles, which were primarily used as antimateriel and heavy sniper rifles. They never really filled their intended role as antitank weapons.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Antitank rifles are a World War 1 idea; but by the time they were developed and fielded, they were already obsolete, and most were withdrawn quickly. Exceptions included the M-2 series, which were developed into heavy machineguns; the KPV, ditto; and several Russian and Finnish antitank rifles, which were primarily used as antimateriel and heavy sniper rifles. They never really filled their intended role as antitank weapons.

At Kursk the USSR fielded enormous amounts of AT rifle teams, which made the environment very deadly. They spent their time banging away at vision blocks and episcopes, and after over run they simply turned around and banged away at engine ventilators.

The nasty part about them was that they were near invisible to the tankers. The panzergrenadiers hated them as they'd get you through a stone wall or embankment, and they could stop a half track dead. German tank commanders usually conned their vehicles in an open hatch, which was a dangerous proposition with all the 14.5mm flying around.

It's a strange twist of fate that the 14.5mm round went from an AT rifle into a heavy machine gun round and then found its way back into what is essentially an AT rifle in Hungary. But, if you look at it, the Browning 12.7mm round was derived from a WW1 German AT rifle round, so its actually traditional! As to adoption, the M-82 Barrett heavy sniper rifle was avoided for a long time as it's actually illegal to use them on individuals, but when the US decided to circumvent the rule everyone else hastily got their own. Now they're well nigh universal. I can't see why they'd be considered inhuman personally, at least it's usually quick with something around 12.7mm.

[Matt W]

The Barrett might be 'cool' - but the Boys ATR had Disney

part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rODm7...eature=related

part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9lIO...eature=related

part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsifc...eature=related

[Targan]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

It's a strange twist of fate that the 14.5mm round went from an AT rifle into a heavy machine gun round and then found its way back into what is essentially an AT rifle in Hungary.

Indeed, the Gepard I mentioned in my earlier post. Scary.

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

As to adoption, the M-82 Barrett heavy sniper rifle was avoided for a long time as it's actually illegal to use them on individuals, but when the US decided to circumvent the rule everyone else hastily got their own. Now they're well nigh universal. I can't see why they'd be considered inhuman personally, at least it's usually quick with something around 12.7mm.

I agree. Stupid rule. Dead is dead.

[Kellhound]

I don't think it was really ever illegal, but maybe the it was idea that being a development of an "antiarmor" weapon it should be illegal to use against personnel.
Do I make sense?

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

As to adoption, the M-82 Barrett heavy sniper rifle was avoided for a long time as it's actually illegal to use them on individuals, but when the US decided to circumvent the rule everyone else hastily got their own.

As far as I know, that is a popular military myth or urban legend. That there is no actual law of war pertaining to .50caliber weapons such as those used on people, it isn't in any international convention, etc. Certain laws do address bullet and weapon types (chemical / flame ) but nothing like caliber.

For interest sake, do you have any official verification?

[Kellhound]

Simultaneous post.
That's what I wanted to say, but better explained.

Thanks, Fusilier.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

As far as I know, that is a popular military myth or urban legend. That there is no actual law of war pertaining to .50caliber weapons such as those used on people, it isn't in any international convention, etc. Certain laws do address bullet and weapon types (chemical / flame ) but nothing like caliber.

For interest sake, do you have any official verification?

It came under Section II, Article 23 of the Hague Convention, (HAGUE, II) (29 July 1899)To whit;

'- To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury; '

It was and is considered that the .50 round caused excessive injury, and in the wording of the convention 'to ensure the death of the combatant'. The idea is you should be able to survive, no matter how torn up.

It's worth noting that this convention, while still binding, is abrogated in many areas by many nations. Chemical gas, flame weapons, collective punishment, superfluous destruction of property, all are banned by Article 23.

[copeab]

In a cyberfantasy game, two PCs picked up .455 and .405 Magnum rifles to use against a cyborg and kept them around "just in case" but the were civilian big game rifles.

In my weird WWII campaign, there was one PC who was *almost* strong enough to shoulder-fire a Boys without increased recoil penalties. I actually found this more impressive than him being a werecentipede ...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

It was and is considered that the .50 round caused excessive injury, and in the wording of the convention 'to ensure the death of the combatant'. The idea is you should be able to survive, no matter how torn up.

Colonel Charlie Beckwith, the founder of Team Delta, survived being shot through the torso by a 12.7mm round so there goes that idea.

Of course he wasn't your average human...

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury

I'm familiar with this. But haven't seen anything that lists specific weaponry or anything less vague and open to interpretation.

Do you have anything more? Something that identifies these particular weapons?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

As far as I know, that is a popular military myth or urban legend. That there is no actual law of war pertaining to .50caliber weapons such as those used on people, it isn't in any international convention, etc. Certain laws do address bullet and weapon types (chemical / flame ) but nothing like caliber.

For interest sake, do you have any official verification?

That is in fact a widely-believed urban myth, even in the military (at least the US military). But many of the laws of war in the Geneva and Hague conventions about weapons use are very poorly-written -- it almost seems as if the writers wanted them to be misunderstood. There are some that read like anything more deadly than a paintball would be considered to cause superfluous injuries.

(Hmmmmm...maybe it would be better that way...fight wars with paintballs rather than killing people.)