• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Anti-tank rifle vs infantry

leguizamo2040

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 2, 2009
170
27
0
Im a 100% sure that it will dismbember legs and arms, but what if I shoot a soldier in the torso area, Im assuming that kind of caliber will just go through flesh without leaving a bloody mess, or am I wrong?
 

lyosha

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 13, 2008
299
235
0
Kent, United Kingdom
Interesting concept, the sheer force of the round would mean it probably would not tumble upon entering the flesh like normal rounds, so the exit round won't be as horrific as smaller rounds create. The PTRD 14.5 round had Armour Piercing Incendiary variants, if you were shot by this then your clothes would catch fire as well as having a hole in you.
 

BoeLynx

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 1, 2011
56
22
0
Using a PTRS on infantry would have been considered a waste of ammunition.
Putting that aside, unless you were extremely close I doubt you would be able to see the effect of your shot on your enemy anyways.
 

Agenda_Suicide

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
513
69
0
Arizona
Pretty sure a .50 Barrett sniper rifle can cut someone in half. I remember seeing a picture of an insurgent torn in two years back. I wouldn't doubt a PTRS/PTRD could cause the same or worse damage. The PTRD in roost could remove limbs. As a Russian anti tank soldier I only really go after vehicles but if infantry get to close I'll pop em with a PTRD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D3terioNation

Iced Earth

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2011
13
32
0
Chicago
Im a 100% sure that it will dismbember legs and arms, but what if I shoot a soldier in the torso area, Im assuming that kind of caliber will just go through flesh without leaving a bloody mess, or am I wrong?
I'm fairly certain a round that's damn near twice as wide as a K98's (diameter), significantly longer, and a higher grain count (=velocity) would annihilate a human being, no matter where they were shot. It may not make you "explode", but it would sure make a mess out of your insides.

K98k's muzzle velocity = ~2,500 fps
PTRS's muzzle velocity = ~3,600 fps.


The PTRS has a muzzle velocity 44% greater than the K98k.

Granted anti-tank rifles-as far as I know-weren't very accurate, and definitely would have never been used vs. infantry.
 

Iced Earth

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2011
13
32
0
Chicago
You are saying you know definitively that No anti tank rifle was ever used against infantry ever during WW2?

That might be the boldest statement I have ever heard on these forums.


lol
"AFAIK". Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Poor choice of words. The better question is WHY. I'd rather have a bolt action or a MG vs. infantry. If you want to talk about range -- well, good luck trying to hit a man-sized target at 1,000 meters with iron sights. With this gun.
 

Grobut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 1, 2006
3,623
1,310
0
Denmark
Poor choice of words. The better question is WHY.
Because you might have to (rifleman is shooting at you, he's too far away for your pistol, but the PTRS would get him no problem), or to take out hard points (enemy MG behind cover too thick for the rifles to penetrate, but the PTRS could penetrate it).

It's not an anti-infantry weapon, and you'll want to conserve ammo so you have something to lob at enemy tanks, but that doesen't mean you'll never find it usefull against infantry, there are situations where it's the smart thing to do ;)
 

Chekhov

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 27, 2010
68
48
0
There was a Soviet sniper in Stalingrad Sasha Gryazev who used the PTRD as his main weapon against infantry,It worked for that job alright.
I suppose if you shot someone dead on in the torso with one that person would be disembowled,That wouldn't be a pretty wound.... Heck I have no idea though
 

DiedTrying

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 17, 2011
1,433
843
0
USA Prime Credit
the PTRD, as mentioned by chekhov, was used by the occasional russian sniper in WW2. They were found to be less than precise for normal sniper duties, but at shorter ranges were effective. They were primarily used by snipers against fortified positions.

I read somewhere that Vasily Zaytsev was actually the first sniper to try the PTRD in a sniper role. I doubt this however
 

ductape3

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 13, 2011
280
60
0
As far as effectiveness of a PTRS against people, any hit by one would be lethal (except maybe in the hand, but then you would be an amputee). Due to the caliber, the concussive shockwave caused by the bullet will pulp a persons insides for an inch or two around the path of the bullet:eek:, pretty nasty stuff.

For me, I wouldn't go hunting for infantry with it (in game at least), but if I see any infantry, I will use it as a rifle and I'm sure it will serve the purpose very well.
 

Hypno Toad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 18, 2008
486
274
0
28
Standing behind you
Interesting concept, the sheer force of the round would mean it probably would not tumble upon entering the flesh like normal rounds, so the exit round won't be as horrific as smaller rounds create. The PTRD 14.5 round had Armour Piercing Incendiary variants, if you were shot by this then your clothes would catch fire as well as having a hole in you.
*shakes finger*

No no. People need to stop spreading that misconception around. More speed =/= Cleaner pass-through. Lets do a comparison here

Your basic 9mm FMJ hits with about 520 J of force at a muzzle velocity of about 400 meters per second. On impact a 9mm FMJ will generally pass through fleshy targets due to it's low speed and low force of impact. It "cuts through" as there is not enough impact force to deform the jacketed projectile, so it simply perforates the target and passes through the other side; the exit wound will be fairly minimal.

The higher energy and higher muzzle velocity a projectile, the more force will be transferred on the impact surface. The faster a round is moving and how much energy is in the round, the higher the chance of it deforming, tumbling, or shattering on impact with high density materials (like flesh or water) a low energy, low speed round is less likely to deform or tumble than a high speed high energy round.

a 14.5x144 mm FMJ round impacts with 61x the amount of force a 9mm round hits with; at 32,000 J at a speed of 1000 meters per second. Given it's speed and force, it's likely that the round would not really "pass through" at all, more the flesh would move away from it after the initial impact. The round doesn't pass through, it blasts through. Whether it tumbles or shatters does not really matter, if it hits a limb, it will take that limb off, if it hits a center-mass, it will likely leave a softball-sized exit wound.

I think RO did it about right with the PTRD. Though one thing that REALLY irked me was the impact effect for the ground. it was puny. If a 14.5mm round hits dirt in front of you it's going to kick up a man-sized whaft of dust, dirt and grass. In RO you couldnt tell the difference between a 9mm round flying by you and a PTRS round slamming into the wall next to you.

Granted anti-tank rifles-as far as I know-weren't very accurate, and definitely would have never been used vs. infantry.
:rolleyes:

Anti tank rifles will be accurate up to two to three miles if they have the aperture to let the user see that far. The 14.5mm round is a round meant for engaging aircraft, it is capable of traveling very long distances; and the PTRS/PTRD has a very long, rifled barrel which would pretty much ensure great accuracy, Unless they make the rounds out of crude wrough-iron then the thing is pretty much guaranteed to be very, very accurate.

Wouldn't have been used much against infantry because its slow to fire and the user can only carry so much ammo, but it's the same reason you wouldn't use a 8cm AP shell to take on an infantryman (though that is feasible..) it's just overkill., You don't need a round with 32,000 J of force to kill a human target when you can do it with a round with 2000 J of force. That said, turning an anti tank rifle on an infantryman is going to leave one hell of a mess to clean up, and that fact is indisputable.
 
Last edited:

Mormegil

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
4,178
574
0
Nargothrond
Well, since the PTRD / PTRS will have limited effect on frontally on the Panzer IV, I'm sure it'll be used against MG nests and other fortified positions due to the greater penetration over regular rifle rounds.

This seems plausible. We know by the end of the war, these anti-tank rifles weren't getting used in any kind of "anti-tank" warfare, but for anti-material duty.

A lot of cover against regular rifle rounds become nothing but concealment for these mini-cannons.
 

SheepDip

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,626
495
0
37
The Elitist Prick Club
Surely the focus of an AT soldier is armour...I'd rather not see someone wander off with an AT weapon to pick at infantry due to some peverse pleasure they take in firing anti-material weaponry at people...when they should be doing a job on enemy tanks or (if they are more effective) dug in positions (MG nests etc).

Regardless of how effective it is against people, at the ranges being depicted in HOES rifles or MG would be equally as effective - so what's the point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major Liability

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,295
2,346
0
32
Prussotroll's Bridge
Surely the focus of an AT soldier is armour...I'd rather not see someone wander off with an AT weapon to pick at infantry due to some peverse pleasure they take in firing anti-material weaponry at people...when they should be doing a job on enemy tanks or (if they are more effective) dug in positions (MG nests etc).
Well, thing is that after 1943 the Soviets pretty much ceased using the PTRS in it's intended role... since it was rather useless.