WW2 era AT rifles

>>31859962

Good luck finding ammunition for any of them.

>>31859962
PTRDs and PTRSs are pretty popular in Syria and Ukraine. They take out trucks and stuff nicely.

File: PTRS-41_sniper.jpg (609KB, 1776x1000px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 1776x1000px

Sure they're still effective against thin armor, but why fire on shot at a time when you can fire a burst, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade that can do more then punch a small hole in that light armor?

>>31859969
Good point.

>>31859978
So if you have the ammo, they still pack a punch, it seems

>>31859994
>you can fire a burst, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade that can do more

I know, but it seems interesting to think about it
Thumbs up for the pic by the way

Anyway, the PTRSs are still working today, the others are gone, it seems

File: images.jpg (8KB, 277x182px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 277x182px

>>31859969

>he thinks that 14.5x114 is hard to find

File: Ukraine_PTRD.jpg (431KB, 2048x1536px)

431KB, 2048x1536px

>>31860027
>the others are gone, it seems
Because the Russians never throw anything away.

File: 1034927985.jpg (109KB, 1000x541px)

109KB, 1000x541px

>>31860117
How true

File: 1476794048955.jpg (31KB, 440x660px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 440x660px

>>31860117
>mfw no AT rifle to mount on Ural.

>>31860068
Take this shit LGBT where you belong.

>>31860687
oh, my mistake. I forgot this was the furry and tranny board.

File: 352e98f59ea47c38a306040be604a12d.jpg (41KB, 608x294px)

41KB, 608x294px

Solothurn S-18/1000

>>31860839
Noice
20mm semi auto
perfect home defense

IIRC anti-material rifles become obsolete relatively quickly during WWII, because the old WWI tanks and vehicles were quickly phased out in favor of newer hardware with thicker armor. So realistically anything with ~12mm or thicker armor plating would be impenetrable, but most armor vehicles have anywhere from 2-8mm thick armor. So, all in all most WWII-era anti-material rifles would probably be pretty competent even today. Albeit, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find any replacement parts should anything go wrong.

>>31859962
Overkill for lighter stuff like BTRs, BRDMs, BMDs, un-armored or ghetto-armored humvees and the like.

Insufficient for things like BMP's, 1115-series and newer up-armored humvees, and all APC's/LAV's of Western design manufactured since 1958 as those are proofed against 14.5mm HMG fire from weakest side and 20mm-30mm autocannon fire from the front.

>>31859962
They'd still be effective, just not in the role of destroying tanks (unless you get a lucky shot down the barrel).

They'd be effective in disabling tanks just as the it modern counterparts do.

With optics mount (or a good shot), you could use it to POSSIBLY destroy the tank, but it kinda takes a "perfect storm" situation. Others you have a higher chance of killing part of the crew with well aimed shots to hatches and turret ring. But it's much easier to disable. Easiest by shooting the tracks/road wheels, then by view ports or turret ring.

>>31861228
LAV-25? And can M1151s resist 14.5mm?

>>31859969
20mm isn't too hard to find dude, and you can buy all the shit to reload it.

>>31861285
Yes the 1151's can resist 14.5mm from all angles. They can also resist tandem-warhead HEAT rounds from RPG29 from all angles and APFSDS rounds from 25x140mm autocannons from the sides but not the windshield, and ofc the engine is relatively unarmored.

I don't know about the LAV, but would assume with slat armor and the non-reactive applique it would be similar.

>>31859994
>or fire a rocket-propelled grenade that can do more then punch a small hole in that light armor?

Only thing I could think of is stopping a vehicle that's carrying something you don't want damaged, or HVT acquisition. Otherwise, I agree.

File: M1151.jpg (134KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1024x768px

>>31861442
>this thing taking all that

>>31861481
Welcome to first world armor and loadsa lessons learned the hard way.

>>31861512
No way is that taking anything above .50
Proofs?

>>31861442

RPG-29 tandem warhead can punch through 750 mm of rolled homogenous steel. A 1151 doesnt have 750 mm of armor. A fucking Abrams would have trouble shaking that off, it would cut through a 1151 like butter. I don't know who told you any variant of the HMMWV could take a tandem HEAT round, but they were literally retarded, like brain damage in the womb retarded.

>>31859994
Didn't the Germans have a 5rd at rifle? Or has RO2 lied to me

File: Polish_cavalryman_with_Wz-35_anti-tank_rifle_1938.jpg (1MB, 1836x1815px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1836x1815px

>>31861639
Germans had a couple repeating AT rifles; the Pzb.41SS and the S-18/1000. Also captured Polish Wz.35.

>>31861639
The AT rifle for both factions in RO2 is the PTRS 41, which hold 5 rounds.

>>31861470
>Only thing I could think of is stopping a vehicle that's carrying something you don't want damaged, or HVT acquisition

OP here. You are right, but consider the following:
Some random situation takes place, where you know you will face 3-4 APCs, like some BTR-70/80s.
You have two options: either order one or two anti-tanks vehicles, like jeep mounted TOWs or something even more specialized to counter those BTRS.
The other option: Order 6-8 people armed with Anti-tank rifles.

Now two things can happen: They either fail or take out the BTRs.
If they win the encounter and disable the BTRs, in option A, you've shot at least 4 AT rockets or something similar, obviously it will cost a lot. While with option B, you've spent like 6-7 cartridge/rifle, so max. 70. I think it is more cost-effective.
Also, they could have lost the battle, and your AT team got knocked out.
In option A, you would lost at least 1 Anti-tank specialized vehicle, that costs a lot to replace, and lost it's crew of at least 3.
In option B, you would have lost 6-8 soldiers (although some of them can survive it) along with some relatively cheap rifles.

All in all, i think AT rifles would be more cost-effective, at least for those targets that ATGMs would be an overkill.

>>31861787
I'll pick shooting an atgm a couple miles over getting within 500m to an apc.
Plus I don't have to carry a heavy as fuck rifle.

>>31859994
it's like a big sks

>you will never be a partisan attacking Russian VDV who are landing on a field near you with your Lahti L-39