/k/ let's talk about fighting armoured vehicles without

>>34349343
So you want to fight an outdated tank with non effective weapons? Gj fucktard.

>All that "corrodes night fighting ability"
I'm sure the notion that you have mildly inconvenienced the driver will be of great comfort to you after the coaxial or supporting infantry have turned you to Swiss cheese. Kind of makes me wonder if Josif Jugosloven is secretly pro-govt.

File: Capture.png (194KB, 749x349px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 749x349px

>>34349371
>I'm sure the notion that you have mildly inconvenienced the driver will be of great comfort to you after the coaxial or supporting infantry have turned you to Swiss cheese
and i'm sure you will not be turned to swiss cheese if you were firing at these spots with a long range rifle from a well concealed position.

>>34349381
Why dont you go take on a tank with only a rifle and see how it turns out

>>34349381
>tank with 2000 meter main gun capability
>coax good out to 2800 meters with competent gunner
>probably supported by infantry, light vehicles

Vs

>1 guy with a rifle

Dream on fud. The biggest reason military would rip apart any insurrection isnt due to the drones and tanks, its because any competent military using basic unit cohesion and squad tactics is already lightyears ahead of fudds with durr raffles who earnestly believe "ah jes goanna kerrode da tanks night culpability sos they caint gets me after sundown!"

The only good advice on here is "get above it or behind it with an RPG." Everything else is cosmetic.

>>34349343
Forgot to add, i was an anti tank gunner, so jedes answer to your questions
>dont worry about tires, runflats are a thing and I can tell you that even when we lost tires in afghan to RPGs we could usually drive well enough without them to get to cover or move to a firing position and engage also light vehicles dont wander about alone, theres always atleast 3 or 4
>all this bullshit except the RPG bits is cosmetic
>dont worry about penetrating armor with shit anyways. Thats the idiots way. Unless you got real ATGMs or atleas rockets dont fuckin try.
>just bury IEDs at chokepoints and shit. You dont even gotta be present to do considerable damage to an armored vehicle. Way smarter than throwing your life away trying to mildly inconvienience a driver or make night driving slightly more tedious.

Light a fire on the engine deck with a molotov or something. It'll drip through onto the engine and the fire starves it of oxygen.

Get a fuckoff huge bomb and wedge it under the turret or throw it into the road wheels.

You can't really destroy a tank without anti-tank weapons but you can turn it into a pillbox and then camp on the roof until the dudes inside starve.

>>34350521
All of these tactics assume that
A) the tank is solitary
B) unsupported by infantry

Highly unlikley outside of 3rd word bannana republics. Bury an IED with pressure plate initiators, about 80 to 100 pounds of anfo (about 2 5 gallon buckets full) will rip off tracks, break suspension, and crack drive wheels. Ambush the recovery personel who come to try and salvage the tank, or the crew if they try to disembark. Make it quick (like 15 minutes) in case they radio for air support or to prevent supporting units like infantry and light vehicles from getting into position.

Saves you the trouble of having to do all that saving privat ryan crap.

>>34349343
>>Is pic related accurate?

Are you actually asking us if a rifle can break glass?

What?

>>what calibre can penetrate the wheels of IFVs and APCs ?

None, and why would you want to? It's just a wheel. You make a hole in a wheel, it just keeps turning. It's a wheel.

The thing that's behind the wheels, by the way, is the side hull armor. That's the thing you have to worry about penetrating.

>>does a group of 3-4 people have any chance at disabling a single tank's fighting or moving capabilities with only rifles?

If you're asking if it's realistic for 4 dudes with AK's to stop a tank, then no, it's not. If you're asking if an AK can damage a tank in such a way that makes it less effective at fighting, then yes. But you can say that about literally every piece of equipment put on the battlefield. Tanks are not unique in this respect.

>>34350642
They worked for German anti-tank demo squads in the late war. Well, "worked" in the sense that they still lost the war.

Another one was anti-tank mines screwed to a plan of wood by the side of the road. A dude would sit on the other side and when the tank came by they'd pull the rope and the plank would swing out in front of the tank.

One guy would throw smoke which, ideally, would blind the tank (but the training manuals said not to rely on it) and the other guy would mess with it.

>>34349343
>inflared

>>34350348
>>tank with 2000 meter main gun capability
>>coax good out to 2800 meters with competent gunner
how much magnification do tank optics have? if it's not enough then i'd doubt that seeing a well concealed guy at 700 meters would be possible.

>>34350373
What's your take on homemade EFPs? Do those stand a chance against MBTs?

>>34351936
>how much magnification do tank optics have? if it's not enough then i'd doubt that seeing a well concealed guy at 700 meters would be possible.

A tank can you see you in the dark (and through cover) farther than it can shoot.

>>34351969
>he thinks tanks are this omniscient

>>34351969
you didn't answer my question
what magnification are tank optics?

>>34351936


they vary. Modern ones? Probably near 40x zoom with different wavelengths.

>>34352065
commonly 8-10x for gunners during the cold war; TC periscopes sometimes were higher mag. new FLIR systems are at least 20x

>>34349343
Sneak into the crews' camps before sunrise and kill them in their sleep

>>34351950
If we are assuming that its an EFFECTIVE homemade EFP, yes, there is currently not any armor solutions to EFPs.

Problem is there havent ever been any effective homemade EFPs constructed to date. The relation between the explosives used, the physics involved with how it interacts with the projectile medium, and the precision machining and explosives packing required is quite frankly mindblowing.

The Iraqi EFPs werent actually home made, they were produced in an iranian arms factory. The iraqi insurgency attempted to copy them but not very effectivley. The EFPs that actually functioned as intended were professionally engineered in a factory, the ones that didnt were basically directional frag IEDs.

The best bet is simple shaped charges. Those are easy to make. All you need is some military grade explosive, what yield rating equivalent to TNT it is. This tells you the diameter of the cylender you need for optimum penetration. Whatever diameter is needed you double the depth of the cylender, then form a cone that is as wide as the cylender and goes as deep as the cylender.

Line it with copper, detonate from the point of the cone. There ya go, rudimentary shaped charge that will penetrate roughly as deep as it is wide.

8 imches oughtta fistfuck the flat belly of a tank. Put 3 or 4 of em in + shaped or triangular formations in choke points, wire it so that the pressure plates are opposite the enemy direction of travel to the formation to ensure they detonate under the tank instead of in front of it.

Even in event of a non catastrophic kill your gonna wreck the suspension and tracks beyond repair.

But thats even more complex than you need, 5 gallon gasoline can full of essentially tannerite rigged to a blasting cap and pressure switch would give you a mobility kill. Tanks are flat, so they soak up blasts from even rudimentary IEDs like a sponge.

Everyones obsessed with catastrophic kills, you really cant do that without milspec stuff.

>>34352190
you never win against TANK
if tracks die, TANK is TURRET
if turrets die, TANK is BUNKER
if rest of armor dies, CREW is HEROES

>>34352190ran outta space, explosives and armor were kinda my life for 8 years and it gives me a hardon to be able to talk shop again.

So obviously the next question is "why cant I make a shaped charge outta some kind of home made explosive like ureanitrate or anfo?

Short answer is that most explosives with lower reactivity and burn rates than TNT dont got enough kick to give adequate monroe effect when shaped. We were finding lots of taliban attempts to create shaped charges with literally anything they could cook up.

They werent even powerful enough to break an axel on an MRAP unless they were really big, but at that point it still wasnt a shaped charge it was just a really big funnel shaped bomb.

To catastrophically kill an MBT you really really need military grade shaped charges. Forget all this saving privat ryan buisiness, modern warfare tanks will almost always be traveling in groups of 3 or 4 accompanied by atleast a company of infantry and atleast half a dozen light vehicles.

Best bet is taliban style shit, mines and IEDs, destroying infrastructure like bridges, and ambushing in choke points. (preferably with ATGMs supported by a few good machineguns).

Aircover is another hazard. Any ambushes need to be quick and dirty because if it turns into a real fray even fixed wing thats a few hundred miles away is only 30 minutes out.

Gotta hit em with an IED, (biggest one you can make) fire rockets and missiles while theyre still reeling, then hose down infantry with as much accurate automatic gunfire you can field. Then you run before air shows up.

Dont just run into some empt woods or something either, aircraft have staggeringly good optics with automated digitally stabilized tracking. Disperse into a populated area to safe houses and hidey holes.

Surviving a well planned and coordinated ambush just to take a hellfire to the asshole 45 minutes and 3 miles later in the middle of nowhere when you thought youd got away is a dumb way to die.