sup /k/, would an anti-tank rifle with modern projectiles be

Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 8

Anonymous
2016-12-27 01:23:10 Post No. 32452526
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: d0b1d0b5d0b7-d0b8d0bcd0b5d0bdd0b8-13.jpg (41KB, 700x228px) Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:23:10 Post No. 32452526 [Report]

sup /k/, would an anti-tank rifle with modern projectiles be able to penetrate significantly more armour than a WW2 era one? With modern technology, would it be feasible to create an AT rifle that could deal with the frontal armour of some of the more common tanks of WW2?

And I mean proper AT rifles, not recoilless rifles or so.

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:25:27 Post No.32452533
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:25:27 Post No.32452533 [Report]

>>32452526
.50 BMG AP could probably do it.

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:28:39 Post No.32452541
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:28:39 Post No.32452541 [Report]

>>32452533
What, like Raufoss Mk 211?
I don't see how it would be able to get through more than a WW2 era AT rifle round.

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:29:12 Post No.32452544
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:29:12 Post No.32452544 [Report]

>>32452526

Modern munitions are extremely superior to WW2 ones.
I am pretty sure that with a 20mm AP round you would be able to penetrate frobtally most if not all of the pre 1942 tanks at 200m.

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:45:26 Post No.32452598
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:45:26 Post No.32452598 [Report]

File: 15.2x169 next to .308.jpg (5KB, 399x107px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 399x107px

I don't think so. Even monster rounds like the 15.2x169, which fired APFSDS tungsten darts at a screaming 4700fps only gets:
>At 800 meters range this fiechette has penetrated 40mm of rolled steel armor
compared to 500mm penetration for the RPG-7's PG-7VL warhead

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:48:47 Post No.32452609
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:48:47 Post No.32452609 [Report]

>>32452526
Yes. .50BMG SLAP.

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:49:35 Post No.32452611
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:49:35 Post No.32452611 [Report]

>>32452598
at 800m that'll have lost quite a lot of energy. AT rifles were intended to be used much closer up than that.

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:51:22 Post No.32452621
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:51:22 Post No.32452621 [Report]

>>32452609
Where "some of the more common" is defined as Brit cruiser tanks, Russian BT, early Pz3/4, and not much more.

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:52:42 Post No.32452628
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:52:42 Post No.32452628 [Report]

File: IMG_7165.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>32452533
.50bmg 709grain AP rounds don't quite make it through 2inch thick mild steel.

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:54:43 Post No.32452633
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-12-27 01:54:43 Post No.32452633 [Report]

>>32452598
RPG-7 was a poor comparison, I should have picked something WWII. The Panzerfaust got 200 mm penetration, the Bazooka had a bunch of different versions but the M9 got 102mm and the M20 got 280mm.

and for comparison the M4 Sherman had armor from between 38mm to 76mm depending on the area (25mm on top but you couldn't shoot that part at any useful angle), not counting the angle of the armor. So perhaps you could punch WWII tanks if you knew where to hit.

btw I'm just pulling these numbers of wiki so I'm wrong someone correct me.