What size would a round have to be to make an effective

>>33212178
140mm.

>>33212178
2mm gauss rifle round. pure kinetic energy at mach 5 speeds.

>>33212244
Tank guns already have that kind of velocity.

>>33212219
would it be possible?

A 120mm cannon firing APFSDS rounds. Oh wait. That's a tank cannon.

File: WNJAP_55-40_11ns_postwar_pic[1].jpg (206KB, 800x522px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 800x522px

>>33212345
This is a 14cm (140mm) ship cannon.

A stream of roughly ten thousand atoms in single file moving at incomprehensible speed.

>>33212345
Yes, but 120mm guns that already have this velocity aren't even guaranteed to penetrate modern armour.

>>33212425
what about a high speed 40mm?

>>33212431
Definitely possible, although it would have to be recoilless if you want a kinetic penetrator.

>>33212178
>What size would a round have to be to make an effective modern anti tank rifle?

probably 30-40mm to have a chance of penetrating the ass or top engine of an MBT at 100m. Even then the amount of force required to propel the fucking shell fast enough to get a penetration would liquefy the shooters shoulder and arm.

and even then the weight of the fucking thing would probably be more than a standard ATGM so why the fuck would anyone use it?

>>33212457
would it be possible to make a recoilless rifle to fire from the shoulder? or is it only over the shoulder?

>>33212486
Not only possible but done before.

>>33212486
Maybe. I've actually been thinking about this for a while.

>>33212475
well if i'd have to guess probably use it for cheaper accurate ranged anti tank weapon in comparison to conventional artillery like the RPG

>>33212505
What's it called?

File: 1468868303264.jpg (179KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1200x800px

>>33212505
in what case? this is what got me even thinking about it. (i swear i got this only for the gun)

File: Burney EM-4 ammo.png (300KB, 735x619px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 735x619px

>>33212519
>>33212524
The EM-4 rifle

>>33212475
In Ukraine they used AA autocannons against T-72s. No crew nor tank was killed but lots of equipment and periscopes were destroyed which apparently was a pain in the ass to repair.

>>33212178
Nothing man portable... Start at 120 mm and go up unless you have some super tech.

>>33212583
WWII vintage weapon.

so it's impossible to convert a Gustav 84mm rifle to a shoulderstock firing weapon with the recoilless system?

>>33212737
It's like that for a reason.

>>33212760
back blast? It's not like im trying to defend anti tank rifles i just ask because Ascetics

seems like you're trying to make a screwdriver do a hammer's job
rockets/artillery are your tool

>>33212799
then what's the point of Anti-material rifles?

File: 14861274_4.jpg (89KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x600px

>>33212737
>>33212760
>>33212771
While we're on the topic of rifles and shoulders, why is there a huge lack of shoulder fired weapons that are chamber for a round smaller than 66mm in both reality and fiction?

I have no idea. the idea of a gun that can knock a helicopter out of the sky or destroy an armored vehicle in a well placed shot seems attractive to me

Current anti-materiel rifles should be capable of getting a "mission kill" by targeting optics and sensors.

You don't need to destroy a tank to render it combat ineffective.

>>33212921
This.

well you could possible not have to make the projectile it's self bigger. but give it charge on steroids. Like some rifle meant to take 20mm with a double charge. or something like that.

I had a concept idea of using a Pak 40 on a bipod and with a recoil compressed stock for stationary fire

>>33212178
HVAP ammo from a Solothurn / lahti 20mm penetrates 46mm MAX
above that you get into mounted stuff

I guess you could include the 2.8cm pzb41 squeezebore
penetrated a IS-2 on the lower front plate ~60mm at 30degrees and could be mac carried

>>33212345
Yes, but you'd have to put the gun on a vehichle to move it around.

Put armor on it so it won't be instantly destroyed by tanks

Make sure it doesn't become bogged down from weight, put treads on it.


Oh wait we already have those they're called tanks.

>>33212345
It would be extremely painful

>>33212808
To destroy materiel, which is not necessarily tanks.

>>33212825
For what role/purpose? 40mm grenades fill the anti-personnel role, and occasionally anti-door. For cover sturdier than a door you really want something LAW sized or bigger.
China has some 35mm grenade launchers like the QLZ-87, I have no idea how well they work or the exact purpose though

>>33213039

>Like some rifle meant to take 20mm with a double charge

you're going to reach diminishing returns on small caliber with large charges.

>>33212380
I think he meant in the context of a rifle. Well, not by that point.

>>33212404
Particle accelerator cannon - LHC goes to war

Like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nOkO8Sh2xs

>>33213205
I can't think of any absolute reason why an over-shoulder rifle would be better than a normal shoulder rifle. All I can think of is that it puts more weight on your spine and will be easier to walking-fire it or keep it aimed for extended periods of time.
The length would only be short if it's bullpup, and bullpup would greatly benefit from over-shoulder.
My only conclusion is the main weapon for the automatic gunner in a squad in an outdoors situation, having to spew shells for suppression.
And aesthetics.

>>33212404
>>33213268

That would just make a.. 3 atom diameter hole through the tank though.

File: 1488740812320.jpg (92KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x576px

>>33212314

>Tank guns
>Hypersonic velocities

Try again sonny.

Why would you even want an AT Rifle when ATGWs work better and are readily available?
Hell ATGWs make AM Rifles obsolete as is

>>33213995
and make everyone inside turn to goo.

>>33214017
>120mm Rheinmetall L55
>1580 to 1750m/s depending on ammo type
>Mach 4.6 to mach 5.1

Electric propulsion projectile weapons btfo'd eternally

File: Denel NTW 14.5--14.5mm X 114 SNIPER RIFLE Barrel length 1220 mm overall length 2015 mm weight 29 kg.jpg (28KB, 593x434px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 593x434px

>>33212178
http://modernfirearms.net/sniper/large-caliber-sniper-rifles/at/steyr-iws-2000-e.html
rifles can only really deal with apc and humvee
for even the weakest tank really at lest 60mm HVSS is needed

>>33214017
But they actually do lol

>>33213131
It's a big caliber.

>>33212178
It's not about size, it's about how far it can penetrate. Just ask your mom about it.

File: article-2306218-193142EC000005DC-35_634x323.jpg (43KB, 634x323px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 634x323px

7mm steel ball
let me show you its features :)

>>33214017
>Hypersonic
You memeing fuck that's barely Mach 1

File: 37mm-stielgranat.jpg (27KB, 500x295px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x295px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stielgranate_41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust#Background:_Faustpatrone

>>33212621
I figure you could fuck up a tank's guns fairly easily, couldn't you? Even just good dent in a barrel would screw it over.
Do snipers ever try to do that stuff?

File: Arash 20x102mm AT rifle.jpg (40KB, 631x469px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 631x469px

>>33212825
that was for shooting helicopters down iirc

>>33214293
that's pretty impressive tbqh

File: AMR.jpg (149KB, 578x452px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 578x452px

where to draw the line between crew served and individual weapon is up to you
but rifles seem to finish at around 15 to 20 mm
after that its really cannon territory

>>33214344
For you.

>>33214344
4u

>>33212486
>>33212508
You guy know that recoiless rifles achieve their lack of recoil by expelling gas out the back of them, right? So if you fired it from the shoulder it would literally blown you apart.

>>33214421
>rifle round denting a tanks main gun so much that its unable to fire
Do you ever just think about the shit you post, or do you just let that mental diarrhea flow freely?

File: tiger ayee.jpg (55KB, 852x530px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 852x530px

>>33214421
>Do snipers ever try to do that stuff?
not really

File: tiger tank vs t26e3.jpg (379KB, 498x1495px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 498x1495px

note that only on older tanks does damage to the muzzle break render the gun unsuitable for use

File: M18.jpg (54KB, 700x346px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 700x346px

>>33215090
>So if you fired it from the shoulder it would literally blown you apart.
But that's not true Anon.

File: 1234513513.jpg (177KB, 748x629px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 748x629px

>>33212178
VS Abram Tank: 14.5mm caliber.
VS T-54 and higher tank: 30mm caliber.
All if using high performance APFSDS round.

>>33213128
This, kek

>>33215225
That is a recoilless rifle that expels gas out the back, just like he described

File: 1461681088135.jpg (11KB, 640x406px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 640x406px

>>33215257
the fuck are you smoking?
you do know early m1 have shot each other with Sabot and survived
hell ive been shot at the rear with .50 and it does nothing

>>33212178
more so velocity then size

File: 1480638166759.jpg (193KB, 800x452px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 800x452px

>>33214421
>trying to damage the tank's possibly the most durable part
things that aren't supposed to self destruct under normal use, such as fucking cannons, have to be engineered that way so they tend to be very durable. see also: trying to shoot at the rotor blades of a helicopter

>>33215796
>you do know early m1 have shot each other with Sabot and survived
>this is what burgers propaganda makes with burger brains
Every declassifed case of M1 ff was penetration
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassimages/army/19980729/980715_sep96_sagwi1_0014.html
>Inb4 front hits
Yeah none of them was declassifed, really makes you think.

>hell ive been shot at the rear with .50 and it does nothing
.50, Ball, Armor Piercing, M2 does 0.75 inch of RHA at 500 meters. It should not do much against 1.25 inch RHA Abram tank rear.

>>33212178
pure kinetics, not man portable
getting creative with the payload, 20mm is reasonable enough.

Well an Abrams sabot has trouble against other Abrams tanks, so maybe a 5.56mm upscaled to 150mm

File: IMG_3480.jpg (23KB, 250x200px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 250x200px

120mm with the right ammo can take care of anything

yeah /k/ told me a 10mm can pierce most modern MBTs

File: orvydas-stridsvagn2.jpg (171KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x600px

>>33217450
>File: 1480638166759.jpg (193 KB, 800x452)
>dat thicc glacis

boner pls stahp. boner what are you doing?

>>33215183
Missing a huge chunk from the bottom of the barrel, still streight and not bent.... DEUTSCHE WERTARBEIT!

>>33220041
>take hacksaw to it
>Short barreled tank!

>>33220078
Zis is a bolshevik way of doing things!
Zis Panzer must be sent back to ze factory with ze proper paperwork and have its gun replaced!

File: tovarisch get the PPSh.jpg (40KB, 590x401px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 590x401px

>>33220125
>bolshevik
But Hans, we are the bolsheviks!

>>33212921
I agree, but don't tanks have at least 3 or 4 cameras on them?

>>33220175
And a shit ton of periscopes.

File: nv3FYCm.jpg (725KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 2048x1536px

>>33220078

File: M80 Zolja.jpg (17KB, 600x258px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 600x258px

>>33220183
>>33220175
and all of it could be shreckt by a single HE-frag AT-4 or similar hitting the turret.

File: proofs1.png (8KB, 277x271px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 277x271px

>>33220234

>>33212519
Croatian RT-20.

File: index.jpg (5KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 251x201px

>>33213304
Reminds me of picrelated.

File: 1486516332359.jpg (596KB, 1435x1559px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 1435x1559px

>>33213304
>we artillery now

>>33212178

.22

It a all. About shot placement