Talk:Anti-tank rifle

Speling
This article is rife with typos. I don't have time to fix it now, but I thought I'd call attention to it.

--Funny, typing 'speling' and wanting to correct typos, ey? : ) Have fun, then!Mfhulskemper (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Flamethrowers
I heard that Germans used flamethrowers against tanks with some effect. 209.221.73.5 17:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well to some effect, but not that much. AllStarZ 04:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

forbear?
Someone appears to be typing from verbal impressions. Brainhell 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Forbear is a valid spelling according to dictionary.com, though forebear would be the more common one. TomTheHand 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No... forebear is used to refer to your ancestry... to forbear is to abstain... these are two different words with distinct meanings, although often confused in usage. look it up, wont you? -anonymous  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.99.4 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversed bullets?
What is the principal behind 'reversed bullets'. Bastie 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Random guess: the flat end of the round hits and spalls the armor, punching a hole by percussive effect. However, I'm not sure either. Any experts on the subject, please help. 75.16.63.238 01:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by this theory of the "reversed round". I've come across a couple of second hand references to it but nothing explaining how it works or even if it works. Logic would suggest that a round travelling 'blunt end first' would be very inaccurate. If you were relying on the spalling effect, wouldn't you have to increase the charge rather a lot? Possibly a WW1 urban, ot trench, myth? Mick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickmct (talk • contribs) 11:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on this subject, but I do know a bit about warships and their armor-piercing shells. It is my understanding that when a pointy shell hit armor, it would have a tendency to glance off, while a blunt shell would dig in and penetrate.  Naval armor-piercing shells would often have a "windscreen" (a hollow pointed cap) to make them aerodynamic, but the penetrator beneath the screen would be fairly blunt.
 * I imagine the same principle is at work with these "reversed rounds." Yes, they would be much less accurate, but they would be easy to produce and less likely to glance off armor. TomTheHand (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get the "squash head" bit and, as I understand it, this effect was, and still is, utilised in larger calibre anti armour rounds which would typically have a balistic cap over the blunt end of the projectile to improve accuracy. What I can't make out is whether or not it would be practical to take a bullet from an ordinary rifle, remove the round, reverse it in the cartridge case and then, presumably without increasing the charge, expect it to be effective. I just can't see it happening, particularly if you're talking about something being fabricated in the trenches. Mick McT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickmct (talk • contribs) 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, naval (and eventually AT rounds) shells first used a softer cap over the hardened pointed tip of the shell proper beginning in the 1890's on the largest calibers. This soft cap, initially of ductile iron, "set" the shell on the armor with a pressure weld effect and allowed the hardened AP tip to dig in for improved penetration and reduced glancing. This simple technique was worth up to 25%, so long as the shell impacted within ~30 degrees of perpendicular, though depending considerably on the "sharpness" of the shell nose (All shells have a nose angle and a smooth radius that the head of the shell conforms to, which is arrived at by a combination of tests by the manufacturer to ensure stability in flight as well as proper penetration performance. Some were more successful than others, obviously). By WW 1, all advanced navys' also had a much longer ballistic cap over this to improve shell carry and velocity out to longer ranges. The typical shell designations up to mid-WW 2 and generally accepted even today are: SP solid piercing (non-explosive); AP armor piercing (without a cap); APC armor piercing, capped; APCBC armor piercing, capped, ballistic capped; SAP semi-armor piercing (medium explosive charge); HE high explosive (thin walled shell). More advanced technology can extend this technical nomenclature considerably. Some modern shells combine the "set" cap and the ballistic cap as one piece, and a change of designation to APBC. It is interesting to note that land armor vs. anti-armor lagged naval tech for some time.I recommend you examine the fine technical work by John Campbell, especially his "Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting". Lyons Press. ISBN 1-55821-759-2. Also, "Men Against Tanks: History of Anti-tank Warfare" 1975, John Weeks for a good overview of the technology against tanks since day one. Wiki also does a nice job here, though they center on land warfare somewhat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_piercing Jopower (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Anti-tank rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041118090705/http://members.rogers.com:80/georgeparada/articles/pzb.htm to http://members.rogers.com/georgeparada/articles/pzb.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041113090406/http://www.rememuseum.org.uk:80/arms/heavy/armhhat.htm to http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/heavy/armhhat.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Solothurn M.SS.41
Solothurn never did PzB M.SS.41 it's some kind of mistake. These gun were made in Zbrojovka Brno in Czechoslovakia during ocupation. source: http://www.vhu.cz/exhibit/protitankova-puska-zb-vz-41-pz-b-m-ss-41/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strivo (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Source for bone breakage caused by the T-Gewher
Can anyone find a legitimate source for the statements that the T-Gewehr could break or dislocate bones? I haven’t been able to find one and I seriously doubt that these claims are true. Thelastohioan (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)