Jump to content


Rifles vs Tanks


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Feb 06 2014 - 21:45

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10606 battles
  • 9,751
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

One of the great concerns that infantry had in the early war period was that, on average, the typical infantryman was at something of a disadvantage when dealing with tanks. He had a rifle, maybe a light machinegun. Hand grenades were decidedly unreliable against tanks, especially if the crew were smart enough to close the hatches. What could an infantryman do?

 

This became a concern for the Chief of Infantry in October 1939. COL Fredendall, executive to the Chief, wrote a letter on the 16th to the Office of the Chief of Ordnance asking for a favour.

  1. In the draft now under preparation of Infantry Field Manual, Volume II, “Tanks”, consideration is being given to including the following as a means which might be used by the enemy to disable our tanks: Thrusting rifle barrel between the sprocket and the track with the object of breaking the track.
  2. It is requested that the Ordnance Department conduct suitable tests to determine whether it would be reasonable to assume that this method would be successful. An early reply would be appreciated.

 

LTC Barnes thought about this for a short while, and on 02November wrote to the Commander of Aberdeen Proving Grounds to instruct him to conduct such tests, and to expect delivery of the test weapons from Springfield Armory.

Combat Car, T5E4

 

These tests were duly conducted on the 14th November 1939.

 

The report opens… “So far as it is known attempts to break or throw the tracks of light tanks or combat cars by thrusting rifle barrels between the track and the sprocket or the track and the idler have never been made at the Proving Ground.”

 

Probably a good reason for that. However… For Science!

 

Description of Material: 5x US Rifles Cal .30 Model 1903. 1x barrel from Browning Automatic Rifle. 2x .30 cal Machine Gun barrels. 1x rock. 1x Combat Car T5E4.

Rifle, cal. .30, M1903

The report then stated:

 

“It was found to be practically impossible to place the rifles at the desired spots in the tracks and suspension with the vehicle running at anywhere near the expected speeds cross-country in attack. Four attempts to throw a rifle between the spokes of the idler were absolute failures. The fact that the vehicles are front drive makes it very difficult to throw a rifle into the suspension in such a manner as to be carried between drive sprockets and tanks.

 

The test as finally carried out consisted of operating the vehicle at very slow speed, probably 1mph, in low gear, and placing the rifles and barrels with the tank in motion.

  1. “Stock, receiver, bolt broken, barrel bent. No effect on vehicle. Barrel rode around drive sprocket and dropped out.
  2. Stock broken, barrel bent, no effect on vehicle. Barrel rode around sprocket and under front bogie and dropped out.
  3. Broke stock, bent barrel. No effect on vehicle. Rifle rode around idler, bent when rear of engine compartment was contacted, and dropped out.

After the first three, however, the ‘infantry’ started having more success.

  1. Forearm broken, barrel bent. No effect on vehicle other than locking idler for turning for short distance, after which rifle fell out.
  2. Forearm broken, barrel bent. No effect on vehicle other than locking bogie wheel from turning for a short distance, after which rifle fell out.
  3. Two machinegun and BAR barrels, one broken, two bent barrels. No effect on vehicle other than locking of idler from turning for a short distance.
  4.  

Having run out of issued weapons, the undeterred ‘infantrymen’ decided to adapt and improvise. A large stone, over 5” in diameter, was procured from local sources. This stone was placed in front of the idler and rode around to lodge between the idler and the rear return roller, where it did no damage. No adverse effect to the vehicle was noted, but the rock was partially damaged in its trip around the idler, with a bit breaking off, the flat spot resulting visible in the photograph below.

Stone, 5-inch, undesignated

It was thus concluded:

  1. That the standard rubber block track cannot be broken or thrown by the use of rifles or caliber .30 machine gun barrels as levers.
  2. That the standard rubber block track will stretch sufficiently to allow objects of five-inch diameter to pass between the idler and track without breaking the track.
  3. That the present standard combat car and tank suspension and tracks are very efficient manglers for rifles and machinegun barrels.
  4. That any operation involving the thrusting of objects into the suspension and tracks with a view to disabling the tank is likely to be very difficult if the tank is operating at any appreciable speed.

Hopefully the Infantry Branch were satisfied with the effort taken to answer their query.

 

 

There is a footnote to this. Thanks to Steve Zaloga for pointing out to me that an Technical Bulletin of 1942 instructed tank units to weld small plates over the holes in the wheels of light tanks M3, after the Japanese practice in the Philippines of trying to disable them by jamming metal rods through them.

 



LittleJoeRambler #2 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 13:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 23522 battles
  • 3,645
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

I thought the article was going to be about AT rifles at first. Turns out this was better, especially this:

 

"That the present standard combat car and tank suspension and tracks are very efficient manglers for rifles and machinegun barrels."



rivit #3 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 14:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14073 battles
  • 1,483
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012
You want to stop a tank cold? Lay some land line across its path.

Lag_Killed_You_Not_Me #4 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 14:32

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9580 battles
  • 387
  • [ABRAM] ABRAM
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

I guess this puts a new meaning into "throwing everything you've got at the enemy".

 

:teethhappy:



Lert #5 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 14:50

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 44278 battles
  • 25,711
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
Shame about those rifles, though. Wouldn't mind to have one. ... Pre-mangling, ofcourse.

Ilskur #6 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 15:29

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 15653 battles
  • 57
  • Member since:
    04-02-2011

"Stone, 5-inch, undesignated."

I think we should call it Johnny.



Xlucine #7 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 16:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
What did they do with johnny after the tests?

SMScannonfodder #8 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 16:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 24613 battles
  • 2,718
  • [B_I_A] B_I_A
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011

View PostLert, on Feb 08 2014 - 07:50, said:

Shame about those rifles, though. Wouldn't mind to have one. ... Pre-mangling, ofcourse.

As would I, but then again, one of the ones used in the test would look great on the coffee table, talk about a conversation piece!



Icyndragon #9 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 16:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7193 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012

View PostPedro744, on Feb 08 2014 - 14:29, said:

"Stone, 5-inch, undesignated."

I think we should call it Johnny.

 

T1 tactical combat stone.



CapturedJoe #10 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 16:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,917
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013
If you can get a shot at an opened driver's hatch, don't throw your rifle in it!

TheRealNFK #11 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 16:35

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21316 battles
  • 117
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013
Wow, the officer mindset is really absurd sometimes. The soldiers doing the testing must have had a good laugh when they got these orders.

Edited by TheRealNFK, Feb 08 2014 - 16:37.


thegreatjoce #12 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 16:38

    Private

  • Players
  • 11545 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    04-22-2012

nice article on WW2. the only weapon inf. had back then was PIAT and homemade stickybomb to stop tanks

 



Dominatus #13 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 16:46

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View Postthegreatjoce, on Feb 08 2014 - 10:38, said:

nice article on WW2. the only weapon inf. had back then was PIAT and homemade stickybomb to stop tanks

This is from before PIATs even came out. It's the time of the Boys .55 and the notion that .50s could take out tanks (which at the time, probably could).



Sukyake #14 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 16:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 30379 battles
  • 1,375
  • [FURHQ] FURHQ
  • Member since:
    01-01-2012

Waw... That was more interesting than I was expecting! lol ;3

 

At rifles and armor are usually the main subjects of those articles around internet, but disabling a tank with any object to lock the track... that's amusing and logical at first look.

 

What about a small explosive with "glue" in the tracks? Wouldn't that damage it?



Vollketten #15 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 17:07

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31050 battles
  • 8,651
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 06 2014 - 14:45, said:

 

*snip

 

Stone, 5-inch, undesignated

 

 

 

 

 

Stone M1E1 :smile: 

 

and

you just made gun collectors cry.

 

nice stuff

 


Edited by Vollketten, Feb 08 2014 - 17:08.


Punisher_One #16 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 17:15

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2483 battles
  • 106
  • Member since:
    11-14-2013
I think if you ended up that close to a tank, which don't travel alone, the last thing I'm thinking of doing is chucking my rifle into the track/sprocket. Maybe tossing your lieutenant into the tread might slow them down and help sway the battle in your favor (lol).  

dhread #17 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 17:35

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16451 battles
  • 212
  • [T_K_M] T_K_M
  • Member since:
    03-23-2013

This is hilarious...until one realizes that they actually did these experiments. lmbo

 

Thank you chieftain for an entertaining article. Fell sorry for the guys that got their arms broken...

 

 

I WANT MY T-50-2 BACK! :angry:



Meplat #18 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 18:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 6723 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

At the time these tests were being conducted, there were likely far more '03's than soldiers.  While it seems an act of sacrilege to treat them this way, they were a semi-consumable item.

I should post images of the experimental M1917/M1919 mount that used a '03 as the extension to gain elevation for AA use, or the M1903A2, basically a heavily butchered '03 intended to be shoved into an artillery piece for simulation/reduced range use.

Hatcher's Notebook also has a number of experiments conducted by the Ordinance Department, which basically asked "how does one blow up a Springfield?" then went on to find out.



TheBattleMaster8 #19 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 18:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13187 battles
  • 333
  • [R3TRO] R3TRO
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012

View PostTheRealNFK, on Feb 08 2014 - 16:35, said:

Wow, the officer mindset is really absurd sometimes. The soldiers doing the testing must have had a good laugh when they got these orders.

haha, I bet!

 

 

Another great read Chieftain..keep um commin!



Pooch #20 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 18:19

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 87260 battles
  • 705
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010

As and old tanker myself I have  been stop for a short time  when some infantryman ram a  6 foot long  4 inch wide  log  through  my track  which didn't stop us until it reach the  back of the tank where it lodge itself  between the  track and the  back of the tank hull, but only for a short time,  had a mess of grease plugs to replace.

Edited by Pooch, Feb 08 2014 - 18:20.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users