How did anti-tank rifles destroy tanks in WW1 and 2?

Question

Did the bullet pierce the metal and kill the engine

Answer 1

No, they were made to kill the people inside. They were not meant to destroy tanks, like the Panzerfaust or Bazooka.

Answer 2

In WW1 AT rifles had barely been developed. The German's had one but only a small number were issued just before the end of the war.



By WW2 AT rifles were obsolete, although they continued in use with the Soviet's right up to the end of the war.



Thus they were never hugely successful.



With 1920's and 30's model tanks the idea was the projectile would penetrate the armor plate and bounce around inside the tank, hopefully injuring or killing some of the crew or possibly even igniting ammunition. Since by 1941 most tank armor was immune to this sort of weapon the idea was to disable vision and sighting devices to reduce the tanks operational effectiveness.

Answer 3

Some exploded on impact, some would pierce the armour of light-medium tanks and explode within the armour of the tank to possibly take it out and some would be a solid metal bullet that would pierce the tanks armour and bounce around inside the tank killing those inside

Answer 4

Most anti-tank rifles were very large caliber weapons, like 20mm ( take your thumb and forefinger and make a circle; that's about 20mms. Think of a bullet that big in diameter ). They could penetrate softer skin vehicles, like trucks, half-tracks, and light tanks, but could not penetrate the thicker armor of heavy tanks like the German Tiger or the Russian T-34.



High explosives were needed to defeat larger tanks. The panzershrek, the bazooka, and the panzerfaust used a shape charge to penetrate the thick armor (instead of an explosion that goes around a target, it is focused into a specific area).

Answer 5

They used an armor piercing steel core round that penetrated the tanks armor.



-even if it didn't hit the engine, fuel tank or some other component the INCREASED pressure from the penetrating bullet would wreck whatever crew was inside. Not to mention the shrapnel bouncing around.



http://www.saunalahti.fi/~ejuhola/7.62/lahti20mm.html



i've had one of these in my hot little hands. They are big and were selling for about $3,500 depending on condition.



Looks like the price went up a little- http://www.gunsamerica.com/976785743/Guns-For-Sale/Gun-Auctions/Rifles/Big-50-Caliber-Rifles/L_39_Lahti_20mm_Anti_Tank.htm



picture for size-http://www.thegunzone.com/people/lahti.html

Answer 6

They relied on kinetic energy.... That is to say, they pierced the Armor and bounced around inside. Bouncing pieces of red hot steal has a negative effect on things like hydraulic hoses, kidneys, ammunition, lungs, fuel lines... things like that. They were usually around 20mm shells and had limited armor piercing ability, but were "some-what" effective until tanks started 'up-armoring.'



And yes... they also pierced the Armor and did bad things to the engine as well.



The M-2 (Ma-Duce) .50 Cal Machine Gun was originally designed as an anti tank weapon.

Answer 7

Lou is right, no fish can bypass in a 2 or 3 gallon. properly if it the place to be a betta in a three gallon distinctive tale. yet, as i became into asserting, goldfish isn't the stunning and tiny fish as you spot in the puppy keep while they're completely grown. they might enhance to a minimum of 10-14 inches in length and desire a seventy 5 gallon aquarium.

Answer 8

No, they were explosives if i remember correctly.