Anti-tank solution

WW2 was interesting conflict. Tanks were one of the most dangerous weapon there. However people invented some smart and untypical solution for that "problem". Here I'm asking you to post tricks you know....

To start fair - I'm starting.
During battle of Warsaw 1939 german tanks during attack have to drove through railway. Same time boy scout connected railway with ..... high voltage. First tank crew that tried to cross the railway really gone to hell.....

During battle of Mokra 1939 about 30 German tanks prepared to attack on polish position. They were on railway or next to railway. Suddenly they heard something. It was polish armoured train chargin them and firing from all cannons. Tank crew turned into panic and ran into all directions.

During battle of Monte Cassino Anzac commando unit found Tiger hidden into building (some floors). Germans mask this tank very good. However Anzacs were even smaller. To avoid breaking Tiger armour they simply ....... planted dynamite and destroyed building.


And in the end something that is called a way of destroying tanks, however its a myth.
POLISH CAVARLY NEVER CHARGED TANKS. Sometimes cavarly found tanks but it was always by mistake.

The Soviets tried to strap anti-tank mines to dogs, and then send them at the Krauts, but that backfired...

The Japanese did kamizkaze tank attacks. They would dig a hole, jump in, pull in an artillery shell, and camouflage the trap. As the Allied tanks passed over, they would take a stone or hammer and strike the firing cap on the bomb, destroying themselves and the tank passing overhead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

During battle of Warsaw 1939 german tanks during attack have to drove through railway. Same time boy scout connected railway with ..... high voltage. First tank crew that tried to cross the railway really gone to hell.....

---

That's interesting; I wonder how it worked? I was always taught that the inside of a car (or any other large metal object) is a very safe place to be in a thunderstorm, since the electric current will pass through the outer surface of the car body and not through the passengers. Did it perhaps cause a spark in the tank which ignited the fuel or ammunition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

That's interesting; I wonder how it worked? I was always taught that the inside of a car (or any other large metal object) is a very safe place to be in a thunderstorm, since the electric current will pass through the outer surface of the car body and not through the passengers. Did it perhaps cause a spark in the tank which ignited the fuel or ammunition?

---

I would guess that the crew inside the tank were in contact with metal that was connected to the tank chassis in some way so the current would have passed through them?

Don't the tires of a car have something to do with people being safe in them, and aren't you toast if you touch any part of the car chassis?

EDIT: Oh and I think you could argue that RPG's and rocket launchers were innovative "untypical" anti-tank solutions at the time as they started essentially as huge anti-tank grenades with small rockets attached to give the "thrower" (as they were originally thrown or placed) a little more range. The PIAT is also interesting. An AT grenade launcher powered by a spring.

The modern automobile has rubber tires that conduct the electricity from the metal chassis to the ground. 1939 Panzer tanks were more metal than really rubber.

Rubber tires work to reduce the damage done by lightning because the increase the overall resistance of the vehicle, and thus decreases the amount of current (which is what kills you in a lightning strike) flowing through the vehicle. The same principle applies to wearing rubber shoes if hit by lightning.

However, even without rubber tires the guys inside the tank should be safe from electrocution because the body of the tank effectively acts as a Faraday cage: When electricity flows through a large conductor, it will naturally flow only through the outer surface of the object. You can even be touching the inner surface and still be unharmed. In fact I believe people who work on high voltage power lines wear protective gear which works off this principle: Basically a suit of silver chain mail, which will conduct current over the surface and leave the wearer unharmed.

Regarding novel anti-tank weapons, surely the classic poor man's homemade anti-tank weapon, the Molotov cocktail has to be worth a mention? And the Soviet anti tank dogs sound great; can't understand why this unit has never made an appearance in any of the Red Alert games.

The Molotov Cocktail, in the original, only burnt off a little paint before it was rigged with more explosive stuff.

I believe it was Rommel in North Africa who figured out that his anti-aircraft machine guns made quite suitable anti-tank weapons against the British.

An 88mm cannon is hardly a machine gun.

20mm was enough for most of the British tanks. :laugh4:

The Faust was pretty innovative. Cheap, quick to produce, and effective. Fire and forget it. A normal infantryman could carry several along with his regular weapon, whereas a Panzershreck (German bazooka) required at least two devoted operators.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...ger/badass.jpg https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...erschreck1.jpg

I would also argue that the entire Jagdpanther program was a pretty innovative AT solution. The tank hunters were highly effective, cheaper and faster to produce, and far more heavily armoured.

I recently found this original series about the Panther on youtube. Its got some great battlefield footage and deals with AT issues.

Panther Tank

Hmm guys I meant something else. I didn't mean weapon to destroy tanks (panzerfausts, shrecks and rest) but untypical methods.

Well, they were untypical to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaikhaan

I believe it was Rommel in North Africa who figured out that his anti-aircraft machine guns made quite suitable anti-tank weapons against the British.

---

Not exactly a machine gun.

How about the Normandy beach defenses? I can't find any good pictures of them, but in addition to the metal "hedgehogs," the Germans set up giant poles designed to tear the bellies out of landing craft coming in at high tide.

Not anti-tank, per se, but certainly related and novel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

I can't find any good pictures of them, but in addition to the metal "hedgehogs," the Germans set up giant poles designed to tear the bellies out of landing craft coming in at high tide.

---

Rommelspargel?

https://img201.imageshack.us/img201/...paragusuw6.jpg

https://img57.imageshack.us/img57/43...0476b16gl3.jpg

Reverend might be refering to the caltrop-esque girders.

What about the Panzerturm?

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...erstellung.jpg

Seems to be good option :)
I have heard about another untypical method used by Poles during ww2.
Howitzers - most of tanks had thin armour on their top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Seems to be good option :)
I have heard about another untypical method used by Poles during ww2.
Howitzers - most of tanks had thin armour on their top.

---

Artillery being used for it's purpose is not a Polish invention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Reverend might be refering to the caltrop-esque girders.

---

Those would be the hedgehogs he is referring to, not the poles that were often topped with mines and designed to tear, or blow open the bottoms of landing-craft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Those would be the hedgehogs he is referring to, not the poles that were often topped with mines and designed to tear, or blow open the bottoms of landing-craft.

---

Yeah, I was referring to the poles pictured above.

Quote:

---

Artillery being used for it's purpose is not a Polish invention.

---

Yes , Howitzers (and heavy mortars) against tanks goes right back to the first world war , so it could hardly be called untypical .

Now this is a slightly untypical anti-tank solution...
http://www.tankmuseum.org/libraryphotoarchive_0704.html
.......but as it was just chance it doesn't really count:2thumbsup:

I did not talk Poles invented it, only that Poles used it.
Anyway I have heard about similar situation into Italy.
Gun - about 220 milimetres - from Battleship hit next to Tiger Tank.
Explosion made big (30 metres) hole, however according to Allied soldiers tank itself
has not suffered serious damage. Good German job.
It was standing at the bottom of hole.
However whole crew cooked itself - there were too hot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes , Howitzers (and heavy mortars) against tanks goes right back to the first world war , so it couldNow this is a slightly untypical anti-tank solution...
http://www.tankmuseum.org/libraryphotoarchive_0704.html
.......but as it was just chance it doesn't really count:2thumbsup:

---

Crater from combat use of a V1 in a photo from a 1942 report? Is that a typo for the date or are they taking the mickey?

Nukes.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Crater from combat use of a V1 in a photo from a 1942 report? Is that a typo for the date or are they taking the mickey?

---

It says the photos were found in a report , not that they were part of a 1942 report . The earliest possible date would be after march 1944

I'm almost a complete ignorant on WWII tanks, but why could it only be after march '44? The site does say "two photographs turned up recently in a War Office report dating from 1942".

Please enlighten me :book:

/KotR

V-weapons only were used from 1944 onwards as far as I know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knight of the Rose

I'm almost a complete ignorant on WWII tanks, but why could it only be after march '44? The site does say "two photographs turned up recently in a War Office report dating from 1942".

Please enlighten me :book:

/KotR

---

Allied troops weren't in France until '44...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Allied troops weren't in France until '44...

---

This could have occurred in Britain. V-1s were only used in '44 and '45. It doesn't seem like this would be a very difficult mystery to solve as only around 200 Challengers were made... IIRC. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Not exactly a machine gun.

---

I dont believe rommel had to much access to 88's in africa. But he did have some 20-30 mm AA mg's that worked effectively against lightly armored british tanks but were utterly useless against a firefly unless you got it from behind and had two or 3 trained on it.

Some common misconceptions have emerged in this thread..

Rommel did have 88's in Africa, where they proved highly effective. Allied tanks were able to be destroyed at ranges far beyond those of their own weapons. The cannon's superiority in the anti-tank role was well known long before that theatre emerged, though; going back to the Spanish Civil War. Rommel's use of 88's at Arras was a pivotol engagement in the Battle for France, decimating the last Allied attempts to regain momentum.

There were no firefly's in the desert. However, Africa was one theatre where the normal Sherman was actually quite on par with its opposition. Considering the British and Italian offerings, the Sherman was second only to the heavier Panzer IV and the rare Tiger, being relatively equal and even better in some respects to the the Panzer III. It was discovered that the British tanks were so lacking that even smaller anti-aircraft weapons, primarily the 20mm could be used to effect against them.

Sorry I though fireflys were there at the end...

Hmm I trully thought 88's were a mid war invention.

Quote:

---

I'm almost a complete ignorant on WWII tanks, but why could it only be after march '44?

---

As Panzer noted not many Challengers were made , and if you follow that then production started in March '44 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

This could have occurred in Britain. V-1s were only used in '44 and '45. It doesn't seem like this would be a very difficult mystery to solve as only around 200 Challengers were made... IIRC. :book:

---

They did say the photos were most likely taken near the Channel Ports though, on Continental Europe. Though since nothing was written on the photos there is some chance it could have been in the UK.


On another note Fireflies weren't particularly better armored than normal Shermans were they? My impression has always been that they were essentially Shermans with extremely high velocity guns which were actually effective against the heavier German tanks.

Also was the Pz. IV really any more effective than the Sherman? For some reason I have the impression that the Sherman and the Pz. IV had essentially the same gun, very close to the same thickness of armor, and that the Sherman had sloped armor making it perhaps a pinch better armored. Then again I haven't compared the stats in quite a while...

They weren't better armored but I was led to believe that firefly's were a british take off of our shermans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

On another note Fireflies weren't particularly better armored than normal Shermans were they? My impression has always been that they were essentially Shermans with extremely high velocity guns which were actually effective against the heavier German tanks.

---

Yes, the only notable modifications that distinguished the Firefly from a normal Sherman were in the turret. It was basically just a standard Sherman chassis with a British 17 pounder stuffed in, instead of the standard 75mm and 76mm guns. I think the hull gun was taken out to make room for more ammo as well.

Quote:

---

Also was the Pz. IV really any more effective than the Sherman? For some reason I have the impression that the Sherman and the Pz. IV had essentially the same gun, very close to the same thickness of armor, and that the Sherman had sloped armor making it perhaps a pinch better armored. Then again I haven't compared the stats in quite a while...

---

It all depends on the versions being compared. Both models recieved upgrades in armor, engines, and weaponry throughout their developement cycles. Overall, armor was roughly equal, the Sherman had slightly better mobility, but the Pz.IV had a slightly less protrusive silhouette. The most important factor – the gun – changed several times during the production of both vehicles. IIRC, the PZ.IV started with a short barreled 50mm version more suited to assault purposes than anti-tank (which was originally what was planned), then went to the long barreled L43 and finally the L48. The Sherman began with a 75mm gun, again more suited for assault. A 76mm AT gun was later added, and the spread between the two versions during Normandy was roughly 50/50.

In North Africa, the Americans operated only 75mm Shermans, while the Germans benefited from the Pz.IVF2 and even some early PZ.IVG’s, both of which fielded the L43 – unmatched by anything in the Allied arsenal. The IV’s width and low centre of gravity made it more versatile in the sand, as well.

However, during Normandy, I would give the 76mm Sherman a tiny advantage over the Pz.IV, even the H and J variants with the potent L48, mainly due to turret traverse times. All and all, they were essentially equal in competence at that time.

Although the Firefly gets a lot of praise for being able to take on the bigger cats, it was really a one trick pony and was quite vulnerable if not operating with normal Shermans. It was almost completely devoid of HE capability, which was a far more utilized necessity during combat. The gun was difficult to load and, when fired from such a small platform, created an inordinate amount of smoke and dust – so much so that the tank had to relocate quite often for fear of being an easy target.

I think we should listen to tank crews opinions.
Germans did not call PzkpfwIV "Rolsons".
And we can't compare tanks only by its cannons. Later German tanks had 75 or 88 mm guns , Allied 75 , 76 mm or 17 punder gun. Seems similar but German 75 mm was not Allies 75. Cannon was longer and ammo was better - it means that German 75 was far more devastating than Allied.

Anyway
I remember that using air-aircraft against tanks during ww2 was not only German tactic.
Russians used it during last German offensive on Budapest into 1945 = and it worked even
against strongest cats.

Quote:

---

Seems similar but German 75 mm was not Allies 75. Cannon was longer and ammo was better - it means that German 75 was far more devastating than Allied.

---

Bollox .:yes:
Germany had many models of 75mm only two are similar in penetration performance to the 17 pdr(though with lower velocity) and neither can get anywhere near the performance of the 17pdr when it used the d/s rounds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Bollox .:yes:
Germany had many models of 75mm only two are similar in penetration performance to the 17 pdr(though with lower velocity) and neither can get anywhere near the performance of the 17pdr when it used the d/s rounds

---

Reading the reports, it would seem that the 17lb AT weapon out-performed all but the German 75mmL70 in penatrating armor. The L70 was very slightly (<4%) better at ranges of 1km or less, though it performed substantially better (10+%) at ranges beyond that. This assumes AP ammo for both.

With APDS ammo -- a novel concept indeed at the time -- the 76.2 British weapon easily outperformed the Panther's main gun in pentration. Despite the limited destructive power of the smaller sabot rounds, penetration was vital in securing kills. The biggest drawbacks to the APDS rounds were their rarity (<6% of all 17lb AT ammo made) and the comparative instability of the sabot rounds which lead to a notable decrease in accuracy.


RE: Shermans and burnability. The use of very high octane Avgas by the Sherman's engines did make them much more fire-prone than an equivalent deisel design. OTOH, despite this tendency to burn, unless the ammo cooked off and blew the tank apart, it was still possible for recovery teams to repair these "lighters" and put them back into action -- not that this would be much of a consolation to the previous crew.

Seamus the limited destructive power is irrelevant , the material from the hole that is made and that which makes up the round will rattle around in the confines of the armoured space and keep doing so till it hits enough soft things to slow it down . A tank without a crew is just a pile of metal .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

RE: Shermans and burnability. The use of very high octane Avgas by the Sherman's engines did make them much more fire-prone than an equivalent deisel design. OTOH, despite this tendency to burn, unless the ammo cooked off and blew the tank apart, it was still possible for recovery teams to repair these "lighters" and put them back into action -- not that this would be much of a consolation to the previous crew.

---

Later versions in Normandy also had wet storage for the ammunition. This helped quite a bit compared to what was seen in the desert, but they still seemed to burn more readily than others.

Hovewer to the end of the war Pzkpfw V had better position fighting against Sherman than vice versa.
As I mentioned we can't compare tanks only by its cannons. Panther (version D and G) was just better tank.

Hows this for some AT, though it isn't real.

In Company of Heroes, I captured a german 88 and turned it around on one of their tigers but it got a round off first, so I thought... damn tiger... fine then I'll play tough. I had what was left of the squad throw a sticky grenade on it then used 5 howitzers on its position. It was a clean sweep after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Hovewer to the end of the war Pzkpfw V had better position fighting against Sherman than vice versa.
As I mentioned we can't compare tanks only by its cannons. Panther (version D and G) was just better tank.

---

@Tribes:
Agreed. Penetration was vital to knocking out a tank and the APDS did that well. The relative instability of the round was its only real limitation. Even with that, crew demands for more of them made it obvious what they thought of it.

Krook:
The pzkpfw-Va through d had horrid mobility problems at first and suffered from lots of breakdowns. The Vg -- with that problem ironed out -- was among the best tanks in the world at the time and could have fought on any battlefield into the early 1960s without being too much of an anachronism.

However, the tank's gun is its primary fighting tool -- no it is not the ONLY thing that should be assessed, but it probably deserves the most attention of any single component of such an AFV.

Molotov cocktail is such a simple and perfect solution. Any tank including an M1 Abrams is disabled by a fireball at its air intake. The engine quits due to lack of oxygen.

The electric thing doesn't make sense. The current would flow through the outermost metal parts and leave the crew completely unaffected. Passengers in a car are safe from lightning because the current flows through the body of the car. Tires are insulators, but this is irrelevant because lightning can spark across the 1ft of air between the bottom of the car and the ground.

Sergeant in the swedish army (infantry) reporting!

There are a number of ways to destroy a tank, but it takes devotion...

1. In city warfare, or defense of a set perimeter, building "bumps" is agreat defensive tool..

The tank, when going over the bump, will expose its vulnerable underside... So even a RPG could take it out.

Of course, mines would be easier and wouldnt risk any soldiers... But you wanetd innovative ideas.

2. Further, tanks has VERY bad view, even with modern optical technology. Sneaking up to one and tossing a grenade down the pipe of the gun will disable the tank... Only applicable in city warfare or dense woods.

3. In training with Austrian forces I learn another neat trick... Avalanches!

A colon of tanks on the road? Snow up on the mountan? Just a small explosion, if the settings is right, will wreak down some hundred tons of snow and ice on the tanks, washing the whole road away.





All in all, tanks are BAD at close quarters, and in wooded/mountain terrain.... A farmer with a bomb could basicly tear a tank apart, without training (balls of steel are required though).


However, out on the field they are the king, if they have air support, of course (both jets and helicopters are great tankbusters).

1942 training video for the Boys anti tank rifle, produced by Disney


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rODm7HF5lFU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9lI...eature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsif...eature=related

Nipolitscheiben:

https://img291.imageshack.us/img291/...cheibensz3.jpg

It contained 87g of explosives and could be pushed through the vision slits of Russian tanks or the larger version could thrown like a frisbee. Although it never was more than a experimental weapon.

I'm liking the discussion on the tanks very interesting. The thing that is bothering me with it though. Is how we have left out the M-10 Wolverine and the later Pershing which showed great Panther stopping power in the famous Cologne engagement.

An interesting note about the British firefly, is that its long barrled 17 pdr. gun made it stand out easily among a group of Shermans. As the firefly's were deployed with about 1 or 2 per tank plt. the germans learned quickly that this was their main at capability and would quickly knock them out.

As for the 75mm used in the German armed forces. I found that it was also VERY effective on the assault guns such as the StuG series. I can't quite remember which gun was used on the Hertzer but that tank was also a solid tank killer and proved its worth on the Eastern Front.

That brings me to the eastern front. The Russians employed some solid tanks that generally made German tankers sweat. Early on it was the T-34 with its sloped armor. But due to technological incompetence, any massed armored attacks during the early stages of Barbarossa negated this advantage. They also had the KV-1's and 2's who also played havoc on the early German armored formations but again they struggeled due to technological incompitence. We then move up to the
T-34/85 which proved to be an excellent tank, yet I have read many accounts were they were knocked out faster than they could get at the German armor. Despite this they had the ability to knock out a good majority of Germany's tanks put on the field. You then can go on to look at the
SU-122 and the other assault guns which were fielded, but I haven't read many accounts of them in battle and as such I do not know a whole lot about them ~:(. Then the bigger guns come into play. The JS-1's. Wholy Mollee(or however you spell it), these were massive. I read about on the of the first encounters with these behemoths and it went ill for the Ruskies. But, their size and gun gave them some advantage over their German counterparts and were able to keep a somewhat even keel with the Tiger and Panther...though I'm not sure how they faired against the King Tiger :inquisitive:

Most of this is off the top of my head so if I made any mistakes please forgive :2thumbsup:

And for the main topic of the thread. I've read many accounts by Marine and Army tank crews from the Pacific that when they were using Stuarts. The Japanese (especially on Guadalcanal), would swarm from the brush and mob the tanks. Due to this tactic, the crews would advance in column so when one would get mobbed, the tank behind would use all of its machine guns and canister to clean off the Japanese soldiers!! And when you look at early Stuart models, it had about 3-4 machine guns, which would mean a whole lotta holes in the enemy soldiers :no:

Very good description of WWII tanks Decker. In that period there were several hybrid types, not technically tanks. The Stug was an assault gun, it had no turret. It could be used like a tank, but it was better suited for assaulting fortifications and cities, than for true mobile warfare. The M-10 Wolverine was classed a tank killer, it had an open turret (i.e. no roof), it was best suited for overwatch and support.

The best tank game ever, Steel Panthers, is available free at

http://www.spwaw.com


The core engine has been open source for over 10 years. Enthusiasts have modeled the characteristics of all the different tanks, etc as accurately as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

Very good description of WWII tanks Decker. In that period there were several hybrid types, not technically tanks. The Stug was an assault gun, it had no turret. It could be used like a tank, but it was better suited for assaulting fortifications and cities, than for true mobile warfare. The M-10 Wolverine was classed a tank killer, it had an open turret (i.e. no roof), it was best suited for overwatch and support.

---

Oh thanks Mangudai :2thumbsup:

I guess you could say hybrids, though for instance the StuG and other assault guns found themselves often acting as mobile AT guns in a lot of cases as their stopping power and range made them ideal for sniping Russian tanks.

That is true about the M-10, but when the Shermans would run into an enemy tank, usually M-10's(when they were finally put into full production) were called into action after the Shermans were withdrawn. In these cases, the M-10's might have come into contact not only with enemy armor, but also with enemy infantry. so they might have had to take on some regular tank roles in these incidents.

Edit: nevermind

The Stugs were very suitable to be posted in an AT role in a keyhole line of sight zone. Stugs were widely used in this role because they were available in large numbers. The Germans produced better tank destroyers, but in smaller numbers. The Marders and Jagerpanzers had similar cannon, (long 75mm) but better aiming systems. Later the Germans made some really powerful tank destroyers like the Elephant, Nashorn, and Jagdtiger with the 88, but they didn't have the numbers to check the red tide.

The Stugs were produced in large numbers. Essentially it is a PzKpf-IV with the barrel protruding from the front hull instead of a turret. The Germans had industrial problems (probably related to allied bombing) they were producing PzKpf-IV chassis much faster than the turrets.

The Stug B and Stug E had short barrel 75mm cannon not suitable for armor piercing at long range. The Stug F and Stug G had long barrel 75mm, which were deadly at long range. There were also several models of outrageously large caliber Stugs like the Stug 33B with a 15cm gun, intended solely for putting high explosive into fortifications. The Stugs began to appear in 1940 and became very common in '42 and '43 (probably related to the industrial problems producing turrets). They remained in production throughout the war because the PzKpf-IV chassis was very reliable. The Germans had lots of problems with breakdowns in its heavier AFVs.

You are exactly right about the M-10 Wolverines supporting Shermans, that was their primary role. I also like the Hellcat, which is almost like the Wolverine but with minimal hull armor so its much faster. Both of these vehicles were vulnerable to artillery bombardment, and infantry inside of grenade range. Usually they were backup support, when a Panther or something was discovered the tank destroyers were called up. A wise commander did not expose them until absolutely necessary. Let the Shermans do the dangerous duty.

I'm a big fan of certain light tanks especially ones with a 20mm autocannon. The PzKpf-II was so armed as well as the T-30 and T-60 Russian tanks. These guys could not pierce the hulls of heavy tanks, but they could tear up everything else in a hurry.

After Kursk the Red army reported that rate of fire and rate of traverse were the extremely important features in a target rich environment. The KV-2 with it's monstrous turret and cannon performed poorly at Kursk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

1942 training video for the Boys anti tank rifle, produced by Disney


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rODm7HF5lFU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9lI...eature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsif...eature=related

---

Ok, the 50cal. gun is kind of a specialty of mine....

It came to use WAY after armour upgrades, meaning it was more or less inefficient against tanks (except against japaneese tanks, as they had low quality, if memory serves me right).

I am a AG90-marksman in the swedish army, so I should know what I talk about...

http://members.tripod.com/arcticrang.../ag90/ag90.htm

I must however say that this kind of weapon has NEVER been effectively used against tanks (again, maybe in limited cases against sucky japaneese tanks, ww2).

We use it to:

1. Disable APC:s (shooting the driver, then sniping the panicing troops jumping out).

2. Stoping convoys (this baby goes straight though a truck).

3. General sniping... It has a added psycological effect, a normal rifle puts a hole in the officers head, this darling makes the officers head splatter all over his troops;)

:sweden:

They Boys AT rifle was an absolute piece of crap, but it was the only thing the allies had at the beginning of the war. Actually its a .55 cal, and I think the powder charge is much greater than any .50 in use today. Watch the recoil in the video! Once the bazooka and PIAT were invented the Boys was discarded.

The first video is a really funny Disney cartoon.


From Wikipedia

Quote:

---

The weapon was effective to about 300 yards (280 m) as an anti-tank and anti-vehicle weapon. There were two main service loads used during the Second World War, the W Mark 1 (60 g AP at 747 m/s) and the W Mark 2 ammunition (47.6 g AP projectile at 884 m/s). Later in the conflict, but too late for service use, a much more effective high velocity round was developed, this fired a tungsten cored Armour-Piercing, Composite Rigid (APCR) design at 945 m/s. The W Mark 2 projectile was able to penetrate up to 3/4 inch (20 mm) of armour at 100 yards (~91 m). The armour plate inclined at 70° from the horizontal ie 20 degrees from the direct line angle of fire - the effective thickness being ~21.5 mm. Its effective range against unarmoured targets (e.g. infantry), was much further.

---

So AT solutions should be put into several categories:
Engineering:
Anti-tank trenches: a deep and long trench that a tank cannot cross over.
Anti-tank barriers: large vertical berms, or concrete barriers, metal barriers.
Anti-tank pits: a giant hole blown into the ground by explosives, commonly used on important roadways such as intersections in order to restrict a tank's mobility.
Felled trees on roadways (not as a wall but in an pattern of contiuous Vs) ie: >>>>>>>>>x
Mines: AT mines to achieve a kill or mobility kill and AP mines to protect the AT mines from engineers as well as to restrict the ability of infantry to provide support to the tank

Weaponry
Indirect fire: Though mortars and artillery are unlikely to kill a tank the fire will usually cause a tank to 'button up' thereby reducing the crews' ability to see the enemy and friends. This also reduces the ability of infantry to support armor as they will try to find cover. Smoke can also be used to either force the tanks to go in blindly (no IR vision in WWII) or give cover for tank hunters to approach the tanks.
Direct fire: Though early war guns were of low caliber (37mm 40mm) they were sufficient for knocking out the prevalent light tanks of the early war. Against more armored targets such as the Matildas, PzIII series and up, T-34s and KV-1s they proved ineffective unless they managed to knock out tracks. The later application of proper AT guns such as the use of 88mm AA guns by the Germans and 75mm or 76mm guns by all sides were able to kill at ranges greater or at least equal to the ranges at which a tank could engage the gun.
AT rifles: Though largely ineffective at knocking out tanks, they could kill the crews within light tanks or the lightly armored or unarmored vehicles supporting them.
AT Rockets: This would be Panzerfausts, Panzerschrecks, PIATs, Bazookas and so on. Though absent in the early war their development and improvement throughout the war gave the infantryman a weapon that could kill or disable tanks. Though their range and penetration was limited it allowed low level commanders to defend against armor. Also weapons such as the Panzerschrecks and Bazooka allowed infantry to set up tank hunter teams that would either seek out tanks to kill in the form of anti armor ambushes or to react to enemy tank attacks.
Small explosives These would be the various attempts made at creating effective AT grenades, grenade bundles and stuff that would be used if and when the infantry were so bloody close to a tank.
AT VehiclesThese would be the various tank killing bad boys that you guys have already discussed as well as other tanks.

A good commander would consider all these element when planning against tanks. Think about the defense of Tobruk, the ability of the German tanks to pass over defensive lines was made mute by the ability of the defender to continue manning bypassed lines that would then attack the supporting infantry as well as engaging German armor from the rear(or so I remember reading about it as such).

Though these aren't really unique they are the more commonplace ideas employed.

Yes it is a .55...

However, I beg to differ, it is not more powerfull now, as today we have slightly more sophisticated technology.

The recoil is a pain in the... well, i would say ***, but in this case, shoulder...

However, we have better dampening now than we had then. Rougly, just from watching the video, I would say the dampening effect is 50% of that gun, with the same (to be honest, better) effect.

Again, this never was a anti-tank gun... it's a anti-APC-gun, and still is:)

But what do I know, I#m just the one instructing new AG90-snipers how to shoot;)

here is an anecdote (sp?).

Do you know how to recognize a AG90 sniper? We all have a small round scar about 1,5cm below our right eye...

This is from the recoil, the first time we shoot the gun...

It was one of those magical moments in my life...

All of us, who had qualified for AG90 training, stood in a row... We were told to to fire at our targets... After the first shot, the officer tells us to turn around and line up... We were ALL bleading from below our right eye...

he said: "Congratulations, now you have been officialy marked as marksmen!" :cheerleader:

I must say, with the dampening technology we have today, I REALLY have respect for the gues who fired this behemoth without dampening... They must be crippled!


:focus:

Introducing the Panzerwurfmine:

https://img292.imageshack.us/img292/...urfminezl4.jpg

And the Northover Projector:

https://img292.imageshack.us/img292/...ojectorbh8.jpg

That northover picture looks like it's shooting a glass bottle:dizzy2:


Che Guevara in the book Guerrilla Warfare describes a molotov cocktail launcher using a 16ga shotgun, with a broomstick and a piece of tire rubber attached to the glass molotov cocktail.

This is the closest image I could find.

http://therevolutionscript.blogspot....1_archive.html

That's an interesting page Mangudai! I'm going to have a good look at those 'insurgency' manuals on the right.

Mangudai, an...interesting article....I wouldn't depend on it when looking for information on government, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

That northover picture looks like it's shooting a glass bottle:dizzy2:

---

It is. :yes:

That home-made "mortar launcher" is crazy. Wouldn't want to fire that. (The guy who wrote that blog isn't the smartest it would seem, but I digress).

I was just searching for an image. I don't read commie websites very often. Though I did read Che Guevara's book Guerrilla Warfare. It's worth a read.


Actually I didn't read that website thouroghly until three people commented on it.

Quote:

---

One tactic that deserves discussion is the "stiffening of protests," a favorite of urban guerrilla groups. Basically members of insurgent groups go to protests of sympathetic social movements and act as agitators, encouraging the group to clash with the police. By inviting acts of repressive violence upon the group and responding in kind, the guerrilla creates even more discontent and distrust of the government among the populace. Now this can be problematic as the guerrillas are basically co-opting a peaceful demonstration and bring harm upon their unsuspecting comrades. However, in this day and age the police often don't need to be provoked into making mass arrests and/or firing tear gas and pepper spray into the crowd. I find it shocking that, for example in Mexico protesters wield machetes and Molotov cocktails and fight back against "riot" police while in the U.S. activists just stand there and take it while they are tasered and gassed.

---