Anti-tank rifle vs infantry
- Thread starter leguizamo2040
- Start date
*facepalm*
Someone lock this thread please.
Good debate,
I think we can all agree that AT rifles should one-shot everything...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
so back to anti-tank rifles on people, or back to the techniques of penetrating Panzers? Im still awestruck no one got either post
Im still awestruck no one got either post
Upvote
0
I think the term should be that the PTRD was becoming obsolescent by 1943.
It's main reason to be was becoming increasingly better armored, but it could still be effective on other targets, like APCs, and other lightly armored vehicles not to mention light field works.
It could then be argued that the PTRD effectively became obsolete (out side some specialist roles) by 1950 when the soviets introduced the RPG-2.
Also keep in mind the shatter gap and shell quality can also play a role here.
It's main reason to be was becoming increasingly better armored, but it could still be effective on other targets, like APCs, and other lightly armored vehicles not to mention light field works.
It could then be argued that the PTRD effectively became obsolete (out side some specialist roles) by 1950 when the soviets introduced the RPG-2.
Also keep in mind the shatter gap and shell quality can also play a role here.
Upvote
0
Tungsten rounds handle sloped armour pretty poorly and most armoured cars and light by later stages had sufficiently thick and sloped armour. Including Puma. You still would need to hit on the side or rear to have any chance of penetration.
Certainly. It is a real way to immobilise a tank, done by those same real soldiers you say "know beter."
so back to anti-tank rifles on people, or back to the techniques of penetrating Panzers?
Not at this rate it seems
Upvote
0
Tungsten rounds handle sloped armour pretty poorly and most armoured cars and light by later stages had sufficiently thick and sloped armour. Including Puma. You still would need to hit on the side or rear to have any chance of penetration.
Certainly. It is a real way to immobilise a tank, done by those same real soldiers you say "know beter."
Not at this rate it seems
Dont be ridiculous, debate finished you are going off point again, and anyway. I never said it could penetrate a puma in 1 shot on front slope , I said it could penetrate easily, be it from the side or behind. Its 40mm penetration with the tungesten on the side was more than enough and also the puma was the heaviest APC/light vehicle it would face and even then it wouldnt have much problem waiting for it to drive by and shoot the side. Also the majority of light vehicles were much lighter than a puma.
And to use a wooden log on your own? well good luck with that.
Again trying to pick any small point to argue about is ridiculous.
Also when RPG was made first , yes it became completly and totally OBSOLETE, you are correct previous poster.
Upvote
0
This is what they always do, it's far better for them to continue arguing miniscule points than to admit that other people are capable of rational thought
They? The rivet counting crew, who, according to themselves, are the leading authority on everything to do with firearms, ww2 and ro.
I just ignore them
Upvote
0
I consider it more polite to quote the part you're intending to reply rather than being vague about, even though it does occasionally have unfortunate implications regarding picking stuff apart without context even when it isn't intended to be like that.
However I say we stop this derailment right here and right now. PMs are there for a good reason.
Upvote
0
I dont think that anyone has claimed something like that. But I might be wrong. I have not read every single post.
On the other side from what I got so far is that some argue about the actual "damage" done by the bullet if it penetrates a soft target like a human being since usually bullets of high penetration power (like the 7.97mm or similar) will make actually pretty nasty exit wounds but which might be the same for the 14,5mm because it more an "armor piercing" bullet then anything else. But I doubt without actually using an PT and shooting a boar or some jelly block we will get much wiser. To have a discussion about it is alright. But ballistics aside (I assume a 14.5mm will have better ballistics compared to a 7.97mm but that's just speculation) arguing about it has no real relevance for a game or even the target actually. As that would be like arguing about if a 75mm AP shell will cut trough a chest with a "clean" wound compared a 88mm HEAT shell or something at least that's how it feels to me
*Now a question for me is more how much force will such a 14.5mm bullet have left when it has penetrated some armor on huge distance ? When you really max out the limits.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The PTRD with the steel cored B-32 projectile could penetrate 35 mm @ 100 meters. The less common tungsten cored BS-41 projectile could penetrate 40 mm @ 100 meters.Also just to clarify, I'm speaking only of the in-game physics. IIRC in real life the PTRD's maximum penetration was 40mm with a perfect angle.
Upvote
0
Yes. Why on Earth would you want to use a big gun to shoot at someone with. Is it possible that a big gun could penetrate more earth, stone, concrete?
Come on. Jamie loves big boom... so does everyone else.
The video proved you wrong anyway. :IS2:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In ROOST, I used the PTRD against infantry all the time. IRC, you got 20 shots when you spawned, so the way I figured, it only takes one or two well-placed shots to disable a PzIII, and that leaves you with plenty of rounds to take down infantry who might reveal your position to a tank by shooting at you. As a lover of the anti-tank class, the most important weapon in my arsenal was the element of suprise.
Upvote
0
what does the "J" stand for; joules? I thought that was a measure of energy, whereas Newtons was a measure of force.
Unless you multiplied the force (N) by meters and got the corresponding work (J) done.
Upvote
0
For the love of :IS2:.
Why argue about the PTRD / PTRS post-Stalingrad? this game is all about urban combat (and suburbs) and thats where the PTRD shines - for the period when this game takes place the AT rifle is still in good use.
Yes papers say this and math says that but noone is shooting over 150 meters in a city thats completely destroyed and thats all that the gun needs to be used against armour. I dont think people even mentioned that they used AT rifles from rooftops and different floors of a building to hit the top armor over the turret or the engine at the back and thats where the money is. You honestly think they sat in a trench and just stupidly fired at the front armour of a German tank over and over and over again while it just stood there and took it?
Back on topic, I definately know how fun it is to shoot infantry with the AT gun but in reality the AT crews usually carried a rifle or an SMG along with pistols for personal protection so why waste AT rounds??
Either contribute something useful to the discussion or keep on with the pathetic trolling....
AND OBSOLETE MEANS THAT ITS USELESS - NOT THAT ITS BEEN REPLACED.. THATS CALLED REPLACED
Why argue about the PTRD / PTRS post-Stalingrad? this game is all about urban combat (and suburbs) and thats where the PTRD shines - for the period when this game takes place the AT rifle is still in good use.
Yes papers say this and math says that but noone is shooting over 150 meters in a city thats completely destroyed and thats all that the gun needs to be used against armour. I dont think people even mentioned that they used AT rifles from rooftops and different floors of a building to hit the top armor over the turret or the engine at the back and thats where the money is. You honestly think they sat in a trench and just stupidly fired at the front armour of a German tank over and over and over again while it just stood there and took it?
Back on topic, I definately know how fun it is to shoot infantry with the AT gun but in reality the AT crews usually carried a rifle or an SMG along with pistols for personal protection so why waste AT rounds??
Either contribute something useful to the discussion or keep on with the pathetic trolling....
AND OBSOLETE MEANS THAT ITS USELESS - NOT THAT ITS BEEN REPLACED.. THATS CALLED REPLACED
Upvote
0
Why do you think it has been repeated several times to stop the derailment regarding that post-Stalingrad situation? Seems like it hasn't been effective enough.
1. HoS won't be taking place entirely in Stalingrad unless TWI suddenly changed their minds about that. Not every map will be ruined urban slugfest with tall buildings to snipe all the way.
2. Firing AT rifles form high elevation usually requires some preparations because aiming downwards in sufficient angle with 6
Upvote
0
grain count DOES NOT mean highter velocity! grain = weight of the bullet, the higehr the weight, the lower the velosity....unless its grains of powder!
the ptrs is the same size rond as the 50 cal..it would make a big hole......mabey rip in half...does the 50 shoot solid steal however???
50-FMJ (lead core) = in half
14.7 or whatever - solid steal, or AT rounds = small hole, most lilyly dead, but would stop him!
Upvote
0