Do "Anti-Tank" rifles have a place in modern combat?

Bump for interest.

If Syria is anything to go by, yes, but in an irregular capacity. For any conventional military, they aren't worth their weight. Especially since for the weight of a .50 rifle, you could carry like 6 LAWs.

>>34341220

ATGM's make the BMP threat dead, fast.

>>34341220
Yes, they have been used as snipers in syria quite effectively, it adds another uncertainly to the enemy he has to take care off or it takes him by suprise. But it also must be said, that they have been in use mostly because they were "lying around" and the real question is how much of them would have been requested, if it wasnt the case. Overall they have a usefulness, but resources may be spent better on other things.

File: 1412806681-anchorman-boner.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>34341220
Why are Lhatis so fucking aesthetic?

technically at rifles and even at guns have a place in modern warfare
problem is getting into range with personnel. they're defensive anti-tank weapons anymore. plus if you can defend with an at rifle you might as well defend with a high caliber machinegun or cannon so ww2 esque rifles are way outclassed for their mission

>>34341220
Yeah. They still use them in ukraine, iraq, and syria. Mostly to pop technicals and do long range 'sniping'.

File: type85.jpg (56KB, 650x286px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 650x286px

>>34341220
if you dont have access to HMG's and trucks.

>>34341220
Pretty sure that does exist.

Anti-material rifles like the M107 exist to take out soft-skinned vehicles, grounded helicopters and other non-armoured targets at range.

As you start jumping calibres you start adding weight for diminishing returns in destructive power. Rockets tend to be more efficient for the mass.
Though I believe the South Africans have a 20mm anti material rifle.

File: carl G.jpg (64KB, 640x379px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x379px

>>34341220
Sure they do, just not in the manner you think of.

>>34341220
depending on what variant of BMP you're shooting at, an M2 with SLAP may just be a better solution

File: 1786228.jpg (25KB, 811x262px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 811x262px

Squad with something like that can effectively do anything: destroy bmp's and machingun's points, destroy helicopters and grounded planes, blind tanks and destroy their trucks. One man army in nuttshel

Heavy bullets are less affected by wind. Big bullets make better long range antipersonnel weapons. Anti-material rifles have been coopted as sniper rifles.

>>34341220

>Seems like it would be cheaper than flinging $10,000

Isn't that essentially what modern warfare is? Throwing money at problems until they vanish? In a real modern war everything would just get nuked if it really got intense. Everything else is just peace keeping and stopping 3rd world countries from being assholes.

>>34341220

AT rifles were replaced over 70 years ago by shoulder-fired anti-tank rockets and crew-served AT weapons such as guns, recoilless rifles, and ATGM's.

File: IMG_0234.png (476KB, 575x556px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 575x556px

>>34341220
As tanks get more APS and the shift moves to light faster vehicles, one would think that they could be very effective in this regard, though that has yet to come into prominence

Not as dedicated weapons. You can do more damage with the M2 to light vehicles and if something with an autocannon comes in front of you, it really is best to let the Javelin take care of it.

>Seems like it would be cheaper than flinging $10,000 Javelins at ex-soviet shit boxes like BMPs or BTRs.
It would, but even if you found something man portable firing a rife cartridge that would defeat it, you would have to get in very close. And to do that you'd put yourself at massive risk.

>that may be outside the practical range of a typical Light AT rocket.
You need to close the range to make the bullet effective. If it's outside of missile range then it is way outside of the effective range of an AT rifle.

Recoilless rifles may make a comeback but man portable .50 - 20mm weapons are destined for anti personnel and anti material duties, not dedicated anti armour weapons.

>>34344666
Maybe more potent round that will incorporate into some hydraulic recoil mediating mechanism in a bullpup format.
If something like that is developed for two people team maybe it could work.

>>34341220
In specific scenarios, yes. Say, for example, a vehicle check point. You can disable most everything that might try and push through. Or you can use it to safely disable or detonate an explosive device in that vehicle. You could use it for penetrating barriers at long range. You can use it to, relatively covertly, destroy sensitive equipment. Of course there are other tools that can be used for all of these but it's situational.

>>34344746
VCP is better off with a heavy machinegun. You're sat around all day sweating it out, far more likely to come under prolonged attack and by the time you figure out that someone is out to get you they're right on top of you - not the time for a few shaky shots from an AT rifle.

Remote detonation is viable, but again you're far more likely to have discovered the vehicle to be carrying explosives when they go off.

>You could use it for penetrating barriers at long range
If it's man-portable then it's not going to penetrate much. It might get through a few things but again, you'd be better off with an M2 or similar.

>You can use it to, relatively covertly, destroy sensitive equipmen
This is far more suitable and I've seen AT rifles put to good use in the FYR for this. The HVO knocked out a very sophisticated radar with a Barrett.

>>34344722

Or maybe you could be less of an autistic fucktard. Not a single word of what you wrote makes any sense.

>>34344809
summer please go

>>34344746

Or you can just use an M2, like we've been doing since before AT rifles even existed.

>>34341531
And of course to pose proudly in a ghillie suit next to the ravaged body of a Chechen

>>34344722
>Maybe more potent round that will incorporate into some hydraulic recoil mediating mechanism in a bullpup format.

you have to be at least 18 (and not autistic) to post on this website

>>34344722

Ah yes, a "hydrualic recoil mediating mechanism". Why didn't we think of this soo-

Oh right, that's been something in use for close to a hundred years now. And strangely enough, it does not magically make a small piece of metal penetrate more armor than a shaped-charge explosion. Weird!

I guess the laws of physics are real things you have to actually respect, and not just fantasies you can ignore at your whim while you indulge your autistic anime daydreams. Reality is crazy like that.

File: 1409952135168.jpg (968KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 2560x1600px

I would say it mostly depends, they have they're place but again against light armor/IFVs/Softies and very few select hard targets.

It's better to have HMGs that are mobile but 'precision' heavy calibered rifles are still some what usefull.

>>34344844
Baby needs his diaper changed?

>>34341220

Not really. The Lahti you've pictured is an absurdly accurate HEAVY rifle, bit against modern armor?

Well, against anything remotely tank related made after 1941, it's a peashooter.
Now.. As a person who has had the chance to play with a Lahti...


"OH HOLY FUCK IF YOU HAVE A LATHE AND SOME TOOL STEEL"!.


Yes, if you have someone who ca fab a proper high sectional density projo and load for it, nothig short of a battleship (or a Maus) will stand you off.

But if the world ends, and you end up with a 20mm to 37mm gun, and need to poke holes in armor less than a foot think of homogenous steel, let me know.

I can probably help you.