| Tango01 | 02 Jul 2021 9:18 p.m. PST |
"The British were the first to invent the tank during WWI, and so the Germans were forced into the position of being the first to undertake the difficult task of developing anti-tank weapons. The Kaiser's army approached the issue of protecting infantry from tanks in a pretty straightforward way: if regular machine guns and rifles can't penetrate the new British wonder weapon, then make a larger rifle. The Treaty of Versailles radically restricted the Germans' ability to develop new weapons. In any case, there was little desire to develop the heavy machine gun any further. Maxim's descendant ended up being too complex and expensive, and at a mass of 130 kg it was easier to just make a cannon. However, the Tankgewehr was quite successful. It was used in the Reichswehr and then even in the Wehrmacht for training and various experiments. Other participants in WWI didn't ignore the German experience. The USA began development of an anti-tank and anti-air machine gun on the initiative of the commander of the expeditionary force in Europe, General John Pershing. The Americans didn't try to reinvent the wheel and enlarged the .30-06 rifle cartridge. A comparison of their design with the German one obtained after capitulation led them to believe that their round was more successful. This was a correct evaluation, as the 12.7x99 mm or .50 BMG round remains the standard large caliber NATO round and one of the most popular rounds in the world. While it was not often used as an anti-tank weapon, the .50 cal remains potent against lightly armoured targets, especially when using AP bullets…"
Main page link
Armand
|
 Legion 4   | 03 Jul 2021 7:43 a.m. PST |
The "Tank" took some/many by surprise … but as always … they come up with a "Counter-Measure(s)"… even if it is eventually … |
| pmwalt | 03 Jul 2021 3:07 p.m. PST |
I bet they wish they had a muzzle break for that rifle! |
| Tango01 | 03 Jul 2021 3:27 p.m. PST |
|
| Legion 4 | 03 Jul 2021 3:32 p.m. PST |
Looks like that AT-rifle needs some wheels … 😎 |
| chironex | 04 Jul 2021 4:39 a.m. PST |
|
| Wolfhag | 04 Jul 2021 5:08 a.m. PST |
Where's the bayonet attachment? Wolfhag |
| Tango01 | 04 Jul 2021 4:39 p.m. PST |
|
| Legion 4 | 04 Jul 2021 6:18 p.m. PST |
|
| monk2002uk | 04 Jul 2021 10:42 p.m. PST |
The German T-Gewehr anti-tank rifle had a bipod mount. As noted above, it had a terrific kick but the bigger problem was the muzzle flash. This quickly gave away the location of the AT team which, combined with the fact that a single round was not sufficient to stop or even slow a tank, meant that the team often came under fire. There is at least one account of a British tank crew taking several hits from a T-Gewehr, with one of the rounds impacting on the engine cooling system eventually. Some crew were also injured but the tank fought on, eventually withdrawing because the engine was overheating. Robert |
| 4th Cuirassier | 05 Jul 2021 2:10 a.m. PST |
I think the battlefield impact of the 0.50" machine-gun has been under-appreciated. We hear a lot about the deadly MG42 and its 1,200rpm, but the Germans were equally impressed by the M2 and its huge rounds, nearly four times heavier than the MG42's round. They did not like it up 'em, to borrow a phrase. The M2 actually fired a greater weight of metal downrange than the MG42 as a result, and if they hit anything armoured, its rounds were more likely to go through. |
| Legion 4 | 06 Jul 2021 8:01 a.m. PST |
Yes, the US M2 .50 cal would easily take out lighter AFVs and even damaging some parts of heavier AFVs, etc. In the '80s, We used to practice on the range at plywood outlines of BMP flanks & rear. With our M2s, yes they would/could KO that AFV and others. And certainly effect those inside. My M113 Mech Co. had 14 or 15 M2s.  |
| Vimy Ridge | 06 Jul 2021 10:58 a.m. PST |
Not sure of the relevance of the M2 in this particular case, they didn't hit the streets until 33, though development started in 1918. The stopping power of course is and was excellent. I too have fired M2s both on land and at sea. We used them to take out fast movers (small boats) and I was fortunate enough to do my MG course firing range in Yakima and because I topped it I got to fire 250 rounds of armoured piercing incendiary into the hull of an old M114. Made me realize I didn't want to be mech infantry lol :) |
| Mark 1 | 06 Jul 2021 12:04 p.m. PST |
Not sure of the relevance of the M2 in this particular case, they didn't hit the streets until 33… True, but relevant none-the-less. The German T-Gewehr may have been a 1918 thing, but most of the AT Rifles that followed were in fact 1930s designs. The US Army never adopted an AT Rifle (the British Boys ATR was used in some very limited cases). But few may realize that one of the reasons the US Army didn't adopt an ATR was that the US Army had the .50cal M2 on the TOE for infantry formations, and it was intended to use the .50cal M2 as the infantry's first line of AT defense. This is also why it was used in US Army Light Tanks and Cavalry Cars from the 1930s. It was seen, and deployed, as a primary AT weapon. -Mark
(aka: Mk 1) |
| Legion 4 | 06 Jul 2021 3:55 p.m. PST |
Made me realize I didn't want to be mech infantry lol :) The M113 was not much better. As I said on another thread here. Yes, we even sandbagged our M113s, M35 and M54 Cargo Trucks, etc., on DMZ in the ROK in the mid '80s. Based on lessons learned from Vietnam, etc. Even if it only increases your chances of getting out alive by only 1 %(?), etc., … Also dismount when ever tactically feasible … Ride on top if we thought there would be no incoming fires. As inside even with sandbags if you hit a mine, IED, etc. you may become a KIA or WIA … True, but relevant none-the-less .50s are always "relevant" … 😁[admittedly biased] |
makes flight stands for 1/300 scale aircraft.
