Getting rid of AT rifles
- Thread starter Offensive name
- Start date
IMO, AT-Riflemen are underpowered. Most of the time I find myself being peppered with AT-rifle rounds as a tank, and not a single one ever seems to havea ny effect.
F
Field Marshal Rommel
Guest
AT rifles were obsolete weapons. If anything, in-game they are massively overpowered. See all the complaints on these forums of it penetrating through the Panzer IV's front or especially the T34's frontal turret which should, realistically, never happen.Nachoguy5 said:
.
Last edited:
10-25 top armour = BOOOM
30mm side armour/30 turret armour = BOOOM
Other vulnerable parts = BOOOM
Obsolete my bum...
The 1945 model still needed Sch
Obsolete, not useless.
On a reasonably straight-on hit to the panzer's side (Too far off perpendicular means no penetration) or rear armor, a perfectly-placed hit to the rear of the T34 with tungsten ammo and 0-degrees off perpendicular (Very unlikely in combat conditions), or a hit to the top or bottom on either tank that isn't at too steep of an angle, and it can penetrate the armor... And do all that a 14.5mm projectile can do to a tank (Fairly little unless it hits something vital). It is pretty well obsolete, in the sense that it was very situational and difficult to get useful effects out of it, and that was the opinion of the time, where ATRs were eventually relegated primarily to anti-material work, targeting the lighter vehicles that it could reliably penetrate, while avoiding the medium tanks that it had great trouble with or the heavy tanks it was essentially impotent against. It wasn't useless, but it was certainly obsolete, and badly in need of a capable replacement. The Germans went for the technological solution of developing capable infantry-carried anti-tank weapons such as the panzerfaust, while the Russians went for the more doctrinal solution of wide-spread tank and close-air support to deal with enemy armor for the infantry.
And Sch
F
Field Marshal Rommel
Guest
The armor of the T-34 is 45mm all around. The PTRS and PTRD have a max penetration of 40mm so I dont know why the T-34 is even penetratable at some places. Of course the T-34s of 1942 had extremely crappy armor quality especially on the turret but that doesnt seem to justify the its vulnerability enough. BTW all german tanks except the panther and tiger are penetratable on the side by soviet AT rifles. I'm really surprised know why the germans get a soviet AT rifle and not their own 7,92 mm PzB.39 but cosidering it had even poorer penetration this would ruin balance.
It's only 40mm on the back, which is technically thin enough to be penetrated by a PTRS/PTRD landing a perfectly flat shot, at close range, with tungsten ammo. Pretty unlikely. Top and bottom are thinner, of course.
The Panzer 4 and other medium tanks with 30mm armor can be penetrated, so long as the angle isn't very much off perpendicular. The 14.5mm round apparently had a reputation for shattering on impact, which made the drop-off in penetration due to the angle off of perpendicular even sharper. While the PTRS/PTRD is perfectly capable of penetrating 30mm armor at close range, battlefield conditions make it much less capable.
Of course, that's arguing real-life rather than the tweaks they had to do to performance to get combined-arms warfare (sort of) working at this scale. Strangely the tweaks have made the ATR perform significantly better against the T34 than it should, while their increase in performance against the Panzer is much smaller. Doesn't help that the Germans have all the tungsten ammo, and it gives such a massive boost in the game.
It's particularly amusing with all the arguments about how enemy loadouts are unrealistic. Here we've got an enemy weapon used with such frequency that it has its own inventory designation.
Last edited:
I still miss why people (almost) always underestimate Pz III's armor, that it's not only similar to Pz IV's armor, but even superior.
With a slope between 42 and 48 degrees it's almost impossible, so the weapon becomes nearly useless.
F
Field Marshal Rommel
Guest
In the case of hull rear armor the Panzer III J has 50 mm and the Panzer IV F2 has 20 mm.
The problem with that is that BS-41 is rare compared to the normal standard round.
Why not give the AT rifle something useful to shoot at, like the vision slits?
gives it purpose without it having to be overpowered. the tanks also have periscopes so they wouldn't become totally blind, but the reduced visibility would allow engineers to get close and finish them off.
gives it purpose without it having to be overpowered. the tanks also have periscopes so they wouldn't become totally blind, but the reduced visibility would allow engineers to get close and finish them off.
AT Rifles should stay ingame but be more realistic.
They should take great skill or great luck to actually succesfully take out a tank.
Also it's not impossible for a PTRS to disable tanks. Wasn't there a Russian sitting on the roof of Dom Pavlova with a PTRD or PTRS and he disabled tonnes of tanks.
They should take great skill or great luck to actually succesfully take out a tank.
Also it's not impossible for a PTRS to disable tanks. Wasn't there a Russian sitting on the roof of Dom Pavlova with a PTRD or PTRS and he disabled tonnes of tanks.
If you want realistic performance out of an anti-tank rifle, then we'll need realistic numbers of tanks (About 1 every three maps would be about right). If you unrealistically scale up the number of tanks, you must unrealistically scale up the ways of dealing with those tanks.