Anti Tank Rifles

[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are a World War 1 idea; but by the time they were developed and fielded, they were already obsolete, and most were withdrawn quickly.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...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Targan

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...

Of course, the round had passed through the bottom of the helicopter he was a passenger in so it wasn't at full velocity by the time it hit him having passed through the hull and then the floor...

Another, more graphic, account of a soldier being hit by a 12.7mm round is the British soldier who was hit in the upper arm. He was fighting in the Falklands at the time and the round tore away the muscle essentially ending his use of that limb.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Of course, the round had passed through the bottom of the helicopter he was a passenger in so it wasn't at full velocity by the time it hit him having passed through the hull and then the floor...

Absolutely true and I thought about that at the time I made my post. The thing is though, 12.7mm/.50 cal rounds at full velocity or at reduced velocity are likely to do pretty much the same damage to the human body because unless they have spent nearly all their energy they will pass right through a meat target and out the other side without tumbling (thus imparting only a small fraction of their energy into the target). The round that hit Beckwith had, as you say, come through the bottom of a Huey and lets face it, a couple of layers of thin aluminium wouldn't slow a 12.7mm round very much at all.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As you say, the .50 BMG is still going to have a lot of power behind it but I like to have as much information as I can get about a subject before drawing conclusions from it. In Beckwith's case, the round had travelled some distance from the ground and then hit the helicopter so it may have lost enough energy to not kill him outright.
Don't misunderstand me, he was a tough bastard - the medics said it wasn't worth doing triage on him because he was obviously dying, they obviously underestimated the man's will to live - but the loss of energy suffered by that round, no matter how small, is a significant factor in his survival.

[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.)