Time to bring back the anti tank rifle?

[bojan]

"Mortar" as "used in upper register", not a mortar by designation. E5M wants something direct fire.

[JasonJ]

A little tweaking with modernization should easily make it into a primarily direct fire weapon such as removing the 45 degree bubble and installing proper direct fire sight (or whatever chipset/lens gizmo). Its got a check in all the requirements, the caliber, light weight thus was widely distributed, quick reload, and high ammo quantity bring along as it was serviced with a team of 3, each soldier carrying 9 to 18 rounds. 

[EchoFiveMike]

The DP-64 is somewhat along the lines of what I'm thinking.  Simplify, lighten, add some form of recoil mitigation and play with the specifications to get 700-800m range with a 5cm shell and there you have it.  

The "knee" mortar thing is pretty much filled with a 6cm commando mortar.  S/F....Ken M 

[JohnAbrams21]

Just have every soldier trained and carrying an M72 LAW/LAAW of whatever variant in their gear. It’s lightweight, portable and easy to use.🤷‍♂️I see no use for totting around heavy anti-material rifles these days.

[Colin]

On 7/5/2021 at 8:35 AM, EchoFiveMike said:

Kinetic energy weapons for infantry is fucking stupid, the shit gets heavy and long really fast and the effects on target suck.  338 Lap is where' it's at for shooting people at long range, which is inside 2km, really 1.5km, you really need to be using supporting arms more, but here's where we are in clownworld.

I'd be much more interested in a 45-60mm smoothbore HE thrower using modern fuzing and a shaped charge.  Given a 12-16 oz throw weight from a 20lb or so weapon using a recoiling chassis type design, I don't see why you could not have a 20-30cm penetration HEAT and a nice PFF HE shell for the antimaterial/AFV mission with a 600-800m range.  A computerized sight with built in LRF and you're golden.  S/F....Ken M  

So a modern version of this?

 

[EchoFiveMike]

Yeah basically.  S/F....Ken M

[Simon Tan]

You have to decide whteher you want crew served or not. An individual weapon has a lot more limitations. Using mother Earth to absord recoil opens all kinds of possibilities. Especially if you are signature conscious. 

I think the Army has some gratuitously overpriced titanium tripods that can be liberated.

Edited July 27, 2021 by Simon Tan

[EchoFiveMike]

An AMR(Barret) is a 2 man deal, so that seems to be a fair concept.  S/F....Ken M

[Rick]

Going back in time to the late 1930's, as an ex-sailor I've wondered why the U.S. .50 caliber round was not used as an anti tank rifle round? I think the British used a round similar to it?

[CaptLuke]

6 hours ago, Rick said:

Going back in time to the late 1930's, as an ex-sailor I've wondered why the U.S. .50 caliber round was not used as an anti tank rifle round? I think the British used a round similar to it?

Winchester took two runs at it:

1. One in 1918, with the Winchester-Pugsley anti-tank rifle (also known as the Model 1918 .50 caliber high-powered bolt-action swivel gun).  Interest lapsed at the end of the war and development was never completed.
2. Once again in WWII with the Winchester-Williams WWII .50 BMG Antitank Rifle.  Once again they were too late: testing was still underway in '43-'44 when, presumably, someone realized the bazooka had been invented and dropped the whole project.

[R011]

I suspect that pre war, the .50 BMG was expected to fill the ATR role?  No one else seems to have used MGs of that size as anything other than aircraft or AA weapons in that era.

[bojan]

Czech 15mm ZB-60 (aka BESA) was being marketed as dual-use AA/AT weapon, as were French 13mm Hotchkiss MGs.

[R011]

How were sales and how did end users plan to use them?

[bojan]

Yugoslavia bought ZB-60, primary as AA weapons, but 1/4 of the ammo bought was AP, which also  indicates intention of use vs armor (as 1/4 of ammo being AP is way too much for self-defense purposes).

Japanese license built Hotchkiss as Type 92 and used it successfully vs Soviet armor (mostly BA-3 and BA-6 armored cars) at Battle of Lake Khasan.

Edited July 29, 2021 by bojan

[Yama]

13 hours ago, Rick said:

Going back in time to the late 1930's, as an ex-sailor I've wondered why the U.S. .50 caliber round was not used as an anti tank rifle round? I think the British used a round similar to it?

50Cal was probably seen as too weak even at late '30s. Also the weapon itself (and subsesquently, the round) was not anywhere as ubiquitous back then. Anti-tank rifles seem to have gotten specificially designed rounds for them.

Finnish Army tested 13.2mm Lahti anti-tank machine gun in Winter War, and it was a complete flop. No penetrations were achieved against T-26 from any angle.

[sunday]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Japanese license built Hotchkiss as Type 92

Did you mean the Type 93?

[Simon Tan]

You could use a deriviative of the Fly-K/LGI spigot grenade lancher. It is 51mm and is damn quiet. In high register it goes out to around 700m. A recoiling mount would probably be another 6-7kg if built lightly.

[sunday]

10 minutes ago, Simon Tan said:

You could use a deriviative of the Fly-K/LGI spigot grenade lancher. It is 51mm and is damn quiet. In high register it goes out to around 700m. A recoiling mount would probably be another 6-7kg if built lightly.

Nifty. There is a modern successor of the knee mortar, after all!

[Simon Tan]

But it is ze French so it's obscure.

[Simon Tan]

Only real issue with spigot device is that you really don't want a recoiling mount. 

[bojan]

8 hours ago, sunday said:

Did you mean the Type 93?

Yeah, brain fart.

[R011]

20 hours ago, bojan said:

Yugoslavia bought ZB-60, primary as AA weapons, but 1/4 of the ammo bought was AP, which also  indicates intention of use vs armor (as 1/4 of ammo being AP is way too much for self-defense purposes).

Japanese license built Hotchkiss as Type 92 and used it successfully vs Soviet armor (mostly BA-3 and BA-6 armored cars) at Battle of Lake Khasan.

Thanks.

[Yama]

On 7/28/2021 at 12:57 PM, Rick said:

Going back in time to the late 1930's, as an ex-sailor I've wondered why the U.S. .50 caliber round was not used as an anti tank rifle round? I think the British used a round similar to it?

Duh, I found out it was tried but wasn't a great success.

[Ssnake]

6 hours ago, Yama said:

I found out it was tried but wasn't a great success.

Which can hardly surprise anyone, especially for a trial in the pre sabot era.

[Yama]

It was apparently more like anti-tank machinegun than rifle (meant to fire short bursts), which of course made it way too heavy to have any utility.