Anti-armor

>>34905859
>affordable
>effective

choose

>>34905859
A molotov in the right place is about as close as you'll get, otherwise a shovel to dig a tank trap.
You ain't penning that shit. You just ain't.

>>34905859
newer rpgs are your best bet, if you mean as a civilian your best bet is to start digging tank traps.

>>34905859
Safe harbor firearms has a .50 under $2,000

where's the dudes with the 20mm guns when you need them?

>>34905998
In physio.

File: Abbatis.gif (180KB, 610x792px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 610x792px

>>34905859
>>34905925
Shoot vision blocks and sensors with your .50, throw molotovs all over. Kill the infantry with machine guns. Die a lot.

>>34906067
Hello 20th century, meet 21st century.

>>34906168
drones with paint bombs, shoot anyone who pokes out

>>34906168
Well then I guess we have to look at not only affordable and effective but obtainable. Much has been done with plastics and EFPs. Those are cheap, but hard to get unless you have access to a good lab. Or a state supporter.

Perhaps the original question is flawed from a 21st century perspective. A shovel is man portable. Wire is man portable. Explosives...on and on until you end up with an ied and a good emplacement.

OP, you can't win the war by yourself. Abatis, EFP, molotovs, wolverines, they all require teamwork. And someone's likely to die doing it.

>>34905859
Most modern tanks where damaged by ieds.

>>34906482
but he said man portable

>>34906372
I'd expect them to work in a group.

File: TOW_3.jpg (609KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 1000x664px

>>34905859
>best, man portable (multiple people)
TOW family
>best, man portable (single person)
RPG-29
>Affordable but effective
AT-4 and/or RPG-7 with tandem HEAT

>>34906987
the tandem heat RPG-7 warhead is almost useless, it's unbelievably slow and has a pathetic range.

>>34906786
They would/do/have.

>Man portable: missile/rocket, explosive, cartridge?
>Anti-armor: Mobility kill, crew kill, on fire, popped turret?
>Affordable: By whom?
>Effective: See above. Also consider terrain and type of supporting forces.

You're going to have to be more specific here, OP.

>>34905859
>3 or 4 large caltrops connected by high tension wire
>mobility kill
>take out optics with zoned rifle fire

>>34907008
It does have serious issues but it does fit the "cheap" requirement and is one of the only cheap, single man weapons that can threaten modern armor. The AT-4 is a more likely to hit but lacks the penetration of the RPG (if you believe the manufactures), which is why I included both.

A proper ATGM or even RPG-29 are certainly better options. However, they don;t really fill the "cheap" part of the requirement.

>>34906987
What, no Javalin?

>>34907050
What would you suggest for crew kills?

Let's say affordable for your average third world militia.

>>34907201
Bury a whole bunch of explosives so you absolutely destroy the tank. It's hard to kill the crew in modern armor. Alternatively, set it on fire (a big fire) so they have to evacuate, then shoot them as they try to escape.

You can get a single shot bolt action 20mm cannon for about $20K. Not exactly cheap, and certainly not effective against heavy armor. But if you're thinking about old APCs in some kind of civil unrest scenario, then maybe.

>>34905859
Take pot shots at unarmored modules or ERA with an anti material rifle. Damage shit and make their vehicles more susceptible to other attacks, or make them pay to replace damaged modules.

>>34906503
You think hajjis have ied laying vehicles?

You really don't need much explosive to break a tank from under. Also consider stuff like shaped charges like those grenades the Krauts had.

Also panzer fausts are super simple just tubes with a blank launched shaped charge. Course, the question is. Will anything not russian be penetrated by that

>>34907763
A simple first-gen (WWII) shaped charge will pen ~2x its cone diameter in RHA.
T-55 upper glacis: 200mm RHA (100mm at 60*)
T-72M upper glacis: ~490mm eRHA.
M1A1 HA lower glacis: ~800mm eRHA.

Even beating a T-55 with WWII era tech requires a fuckhuge warhead.

You need factory ammo, a huge explosive charge or absurd luck and a shot at the rear to crack a tank.

thermite

File: Hyi vittu.jpg (220KB, 564x328px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 564x328px

>>34906987
>TOW family
Lol, no. Something like Javelin or Spike ER.

>RPG-29
No, no. NLAW is the way to go.

>AT-4 and/or RPG-7 with tandem HEAT
Agree. Later models of M72 LAW(A7 or smth) are pretty good too.

Though the affordable, yet effecient anti-armor is in the pic related.

File: 1496076103328.jpg (159KB, 920x560px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 920x560px

>>34905859

>>34905859
NLAW

At least you got a range finder and the system can calculate lean. Still fairly cheap.

>>34907763
>You think hajjis have ied laying vehicles?
yes, or at least toyota vans to carry that shit to where people are working
>You really don't need much explosive to break a tank from under.
Which is why it involves daisy chaining together a bunch of 155 mm artillery shells. Those fuckers are 90 lbs each.

Even then, you're getting mobility kills, very seldom crew kills, unless you've got a whole pissload of them.

So let's take out the affordability part.
If able to spare no expense, what should they get.
Still man portable.

>>34907649
You can get a single shot in 20x102mm Vulcan from anzio ironworks for around $10k. Cartridges with inert projectiles are $8.

File: 1471290323682.jpg (77KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 480x640px

>>34909890
waht, no love for APILAS? Also the most recent M72 version seems to be M72 EC LAW Mk. I

>>34906987
>RPG-29
>not RPG-28

Lol using export models.

>>34910400

>APILAS

APILAS is fucking shit. Only effective to 300m against a moving target and completely unguided. There's a reason we've wanted rid of it for decades.