Hello, /k/! I wanted to ask you all about infantry-portable anti-tank

>>33204604
they could take out a tank tread, or at least red orchestra taught me that

maybe just disabling the vehicle was good enough

File: Tank with damaged tread.jpg (73KB, 496x686px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 496x686px

>>33204617
Huh- I had not thought about that. Taking out a tread won't stop the gun(s) from firing, but it'll definitely keep the tank in place.

>>33204638
Taking out the tread makes it a whole hell of a lot easier to knock out the tank, so the rifles definitely had their place

maybe a Lahti L-39. harder to transport, but better than the rest.

>>33204604
Anti-tank guns were probably also effective against half-tracks and other lightly armored vehicles.

Anti tank rifles became incapable of knocking out most tanks even before the war started, but they remained in use because they were cheap to produce, already widely available, and ammunition was prolific. Although they weren't able to defeat the armor of any tanks, it could disable the external components of a tank with a solid hit. Things like treads, commanders copula, gunner sights, fuel tanks on some tanks etc. Although they could not be relied upon for anti armor, it helped having a weapon that could pin a tank at a reasonable distance.

This was even more useful against blitzkrieg tactics early in the war, which relied on tons of tanks rushing through the lines. If you had the capacity to slow down or stop large numbers of vehicles rather quickly, you had a clear advantage against this tactic

File: Target Sherman.jpg (209KB, 729x531px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 729x531px

>>33204682
>>33204790

That's such an interesting notion- a gun used not to destroy, but to disable targets. There are definitely a fair amount of external modules to target- though I think mostly Soviet armor used external fuel tanks.

Naturally, the question becomes- once you pin the tank, what do you do? do you wait for your Big guns to come in and finish the job, go in yourself, or leave it there?

>>33204779
I wasn't thinking about half-tracks- I thought maybe lightly armored tank-destroyers / artillery platforms. It makes sense though. I know Half-track vehicles were incredibly common, especially on the German end.

Would you happen to know how much more common half-tracks were than tanks (numbers fielded, rather than numbers produced)? I know the US shipped a shitload of them to the allies.

>>33204857
Often you would call in artillery on disabled tanks, so that you didn't have to get close

>>33204790
Adding to this: there are plenty of mechanized targets softer than tanks. You could shoot out the engine block of a truck with one of those, i bet.

File: PTRD Rifle In Use.jpg (98KB, 600x407px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 600x407px

>>33207085

I suppose one issue then would be that the title 'anti-tank' rifle is something of a misnomer. I imagine, though that the title 'anti-light vehicle rifle that can sometimes be used to harass heavier armor' doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

The idea wasnt so much to destroy the tank, but damage a part of it. For instance U.S. soldiers equipped with the Boys AT rifle weren't trained to shoot at crew areas, but at moving parts like the turret traverse to keep it from turning.