Jump to content

Time to bring back the anti tank rifle?


Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

m1916-37mm-tripod-2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Simon Tan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...