How often were antitank rifles used by the allies?

buffdog said:
A lot of 20 mm Solothurn guns were captured in Africa by the British, and then mounted on Jeeps and Trucks used by the Long Range Desert Groups.
Click to expand...

long range desert groups also used boys rifles in their jeeps id love to outfit a Willys MB or ford GPW as a LRDG jeep but Vickers k's are little hard to find
 
Centrefire anti-tank rifles were obsolete long before 1939. Russians didn't use 'em at Stalingrad either. Maybe for sniping though. An anti-tank rifle was W.W. I technology that might knock of a track, but would bounce off any other part of any post Panzer Mk II tank.
A PIAT didn't throw a grenade. It threw a shaped charge projectile. Neither a PIAT or 2.3" Rocket launcher could penetrate frontal armour.
The Germans put mild steel plates over weak spots to defeat shaped charge AT projectiles.
Boys AT rifles in the South Pacific worked because the Japanese tanks were extremely poor. Am M3 Stuart/Honey tank could destroy a Japanese tank with no fuss. Got flattened by anything Germanic.
 
There seems to be some misconception about the PIAT. It was not merely the large spring that launched the bomb, but there was a ballistite cartridge at the base of the piat bomb. As for re-setting the spring causing personal injury, or even being that difficult, anyone over 160 pounds in weight should be able to do it.
 
stencollector said:
There seems to be some misconception about the PIAT. It was not merely the large spring that launched the bomb, but there was a ballistite cartridge at the base of the piat bomb. As for re-setting the spring causing personal injury, or even being that difficult, anyone over 160 pounds in weight should be able to do it.
Click to expand...

with effort, and correct technique. The piat was a spigot mortar. The spring was a firing pin spring. However, the idea, i believe, was that the spring would toss the bomb far enough if the propelling charge failed to detonate, that the operator wouldn't be caught in the blase
 
sunray said:
Centrefire anti-tank rifles were obsolete long before 1939. Russians didn't use 'em at Stalingrad either. Maybe for sniping though. An anti-tank rifle was W.W. I technology that might knock of a track, but would bounce off any other part of any post Panzer Mk II tank.
A PIAT didn't throw a grenade. It threw a shaped charge projectile. Neither a PIAT or 2.3" Rocket launcher could penetrate frontal armour.
The Germans put mild steel plates over weak spots to defeat shaped charge AT projectiles.
Boys AT rifles in the South Pacific worked because the Japanese tanks were extremely poor. Am M3 Stuart/Honey tank could destroy a Japanese tank with no fuss. Got flattened by anything Germanic.
Click to expand...

in 1940, 2/3s of the germans total armour consisted of pz 1s and 2s, which the boyes would penetrate at almost any spot out to 4 or 5 hundred yards, the early pz 3s and 4s were also quite vulnerable in the sides and rear at closer ranges, combine this with a small firing signature, ease of mobility, and low profile, it was a very useful weapon before dunkirk

so no, it was not obsolete by 1939
 
stencollector said:
I found that the army was always pretty good about teaching the correct technique to just about everything.
Click to expand...

When training soldiers, I found that there were always a few who were pretty good at not learning no matter how they were taught, but the majority validated what you said.
 
sunray said:
The Germans put mild steel plates over weak spots to defeat shaped charge AT projectiles.
Click to expand...
images

The plates on the Panther only cover vertical 40mm armor, the only surface that could be penetrated by an antitank rifle. The side turret and upper side hull can be easily penetrated by Bazooka and PIAT, but don't get reinforcement.

PZIII/STUGIII needed full turret and hull side plates because it had only 30mm on the turret sides:
TDW1myY.jpg

Tigers didn't need no stinkin side plates, 80mm all round.
King Tigers did have some kind of mudguard, I'll admit.

Side plates covered only armor less than or equal to 40mm vertical armor, because that was the penetration limit of massed antitank rifle fire.
 
Soviets used anti tank rifle effectivly in the early war against tanks... when the german armour got to big...they used them to take out half tracks with resounding success. A single round through the front of any german suport vehicle cripled it.. and a shot through the side left quite a mess to hose out.
 
sunray said:
Russians didn't use 'em at Stalingrad either.
Click to expand...

Yes they did.

About 2 weeks ago I finished reading a book about the battle of Stalingrad. Perhaps read up on Pavlov's house. I have also read many other accounts of them being used for taking out some of the lighter armoured vehicle, IE, Sd.Kfz. 251 and armoured cars and the like.

Before that book I read another that contained a part about No4 Commando and their raid on the Hess battery. Part of their kit for the raid was several anti tank rifles. They used them as part of the base of fire to cover the flanking part of the assault.
 
This is allegedly Stalingrad:
79a42498bb46343dbc5d12a044c183e2.jpg

A 7.62 NATO round won't penetrate a wall 2 bricks thick, but I suspect the PTRS would.

Edit: This is probably Stalingrad:

4c38148a0446391c68dd3721b02c297a.jpg
 
Last edited:
SteelCap said:
I ended up watching the winter war after this...the Finns didn't have anti-tank but did use a 'secret weapon' against the tanks...molotov cocktail that brought down countless russian tanks.
Click to expand...

What about the Lahti 20mm AT rifle?
 
Last edited:
Were they used during the Continuation War?

The photo with the Soviet PTRS team... They are really exposed. Hope it is a posed shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom