Agreed. It’s amazing how many photos are miscaptioned, so you’re right, it casts some doubt on the credibility of the authers. And again, I was just posting the info to share and for discussion purposes. [:)]
Informed discussions are always a good thing. It’s always interesting to see what tidbits of info comes up.
a single ptrs 41 14,5 mm round could not penetrate the armor of a heavy german tank, but you have to think wider, there were not a single AT gun, less in a great battle like kursk, there are lots of these weapons firing to a group of tanks. the shooters are not organizated, they wont fire to one tank per shooter. some tanks will receive more impacts than others. think that the shooters are firing more than one round. a good shot in the proper place could reach one of the tank’s crew. the schurzen added protection to those weak points of the tank.
Agreed! I might point out this is a very civilized discussion. I’ve seen some get totally out of control. I will never admit to knowing everything about armor and am amiable to admitting I’m wrong. I’m enjoying this thread.
there still are some antitank infantry guns. the us army’s m 107 barret cal.50.
it is used against light tanks, vehicles, and sometimes, against helicopters.
That’s cool. And greed that is could do damage against lightly armored vehicles. Helicopters? wouldn’t have thought of that, but I can see it being useful.
I’m sure it’s also used against personnel these days, much as the M-2 was used for this purpose (long range sniping) in Vietnam.
Ouch! That would seem as a bit of a waste, but if it takes out the target…The rifle is somewhat similar to a Britsh sniper-rifle I saw on the History Channel. Huge gun.
Well, considering that most of the folks we are fighting these days dont have helicopters, light tanks, APC’s, it is pretty much reduced to anti personnel work. And the ranges it is capable of certainly outdistance lighter caliber sniper weapons. I recall reading how the NVA used to use old Soviet anti tank rifles for the same purpose (long range sniping) in that war.
EDIT:My meaning of nowadays refers to combat actions in 2006. Yes, the Iraqis and Taliban HAD those things at the beginning of each campaign. The current guerillas/insurgents don’t.
look at irak, they used tanks and helicopters.
this weapon is used to very long range sniping, too. to give an example: an iraqi resistance soldier captured one of these weapons and used it to kill the guards of a base from a hill, 4 kilometers away.
the red army’s snipers used the ptrd 41 and ptrs 41 to defense purpouses in the WWII. obviously, equipped with a sniper scope.
Some good points, and in keeping with the theme of the thread, the startegic value of the AT rifle seems to have morphed yet again.
Yes, I am sure these weapons will have a niche to fill on the battlefield for many years to come
yes, cheaper weapons that the common soldiers know better than rocket launchers, and they are lighter, if 13,5 kg its light!!! thats the weight of teh barret.
I knew a guy in the FBI and he said that they had a sniper rifle that fired a .50 cal round. I was incredulous. Then I saw some History Channel thing about snipers or special forces and there it was, the .50cal sniper rifle!
It’s certainly not for the common soldier, but for the specialist. And the machinings on the “Light .50” are certainly not cheaper. Average Joes are trained on lightweight rocket launchers. It’s not your Daddy’s AT rifle. [}:)]
One of the reasons I refrained from quoting any books in my previous comments is precisely what the others have demonstrated…there’s a lot of stuff in print that’s either inaccurate on its own or a reprint of someone else’s error. [:)]
I lean to the AT rifle as the originating cause followed by later/modified benefit against hollow charge for Schurzen and why they persisted. The timeframes of when Schurzen were introduced as standard equipment, the common practices/environment of Soviet AT doctrine, etc.line up better than the “bazooka” theory IMHO. The statements of Soviet AT doctrine/propaganda would seem to back this up…the intrepid comrade soldier with his trusty AT rifle defeating the fascist singlehandedly has some appeal I would think.
On a side note of the comment about the spare tracks and spaced armor, that doesn’t refer to the effect of AP rounds from an AT rifle but from the more common;y encountered and deadlier sources…AT guns or other tanks, hence why the tracks are mounted where they are…hull front, turret front, glacis. [:D]
I’ve actually seen a Barrett fired…it’s a very impressive piece of military hardware to be sure and I’d hate to be on the receiving end of one of those rounds under any circumstances.
Great thread, let’s keep it going. [:)]
OKay… Schurzen v. Thoma Shields. Seeing how Shurzen were the initial equipment and hollow charge AT weapons not widespread, the AT rifle countermeasure makes sense. But the later Thoma shields, being made from mesh screen makes little sense against an AT rifle due to the gaps in mesh. It does make sense as a stand off/spaced armor against hollow charge projectiles. Any thoughts on this???
Makes sense, then do you think that maybe the 5mm Shurzen had any effect on the bigger stuff as well, possibly breaking it up a bit so it has less energy and mass when it hits the tank? I know at that time period the average Soviet AT gun was what, 45mm and 76.2 mm. Too bad we don’t have some old tanks with Shurzen laying around and some Soviet anti tank weapons to experiment with like an AT rifle, 45mm AT gun etc. to fire at them to see the different results.
Hmmm… that’s giving me some ideas on a new series for the Military Channel, something along the lines of Myth Busters! Where they actually recreate these scenarios to try and determine once and for all some of the questions and answers to the things we’re still debating today. [8D] Oooo… I also want to see which armor is more effective, the Tigers better steel verticle plates, or the lower quality, yet thicker steel of the King Tiger… oh, and the punching power of the Tigers 88mm compared to the Panter’s 75mm… doh… I digress… [;)] [(-D]
Or maybe a good question for the Gunny on “Mail Call”…