The anti tank rifles were primarily used as weapons of surprise because of how precise, and how close, you had to be to actually cause any damage to a tank.
Rave, there are many ways to kill a tank, though this applies to WWII when this gun was used. With anti-tank rifles, the best way would probably be a mobility kill. Sure you could hit the crew or the ammo or fuel, but depending on the type of fuel it won’t explode and it’s just less reliable. Destroying the engine or the wheels or something like that is a lot easier to pull off. With cannons, you can use rounds designed to penetrate armor and then explode inside, you can use rounds designed specifically for penetrating armor and nothing else/penetrating and then spreading shrapnel everywhere, or you can use shells that explode on impact, these can simply shatter the armor (though the armor would have to be pretty weak, brittle, or poorly welded) or cause an effect called Spalling. Spalling is when an explosion causes little shavings of the armor to break of and fly around inside the tank, killing the crew. The Brits in particular are big fans of this. They pioneered a new type of tank shell called High-explosive squash-head. It’s basically just a long tube of plastic explosives designed so that when it hits the enemy tank, it acts like play-doh and spreads out along the impact area before exploding, causing a shock wave that causes spalling to kill the crew, while leaving the hull of the tank relatively intact. It’s actually pretty cool.
Back in the early 1960s you could buy these as surplus for almost nothing. I think the NFA tax (these were classified as a destructive device/cannon) was actually more than the price of the gun. You have to remember that early WWI tanks didn`t really have much armor. Often as little as an inch of armor plate. But that was enough to stop or deflect any small arms and most machinegun fire. It would not stop artillery rounds, but they were mobile and getting a direct hit on them was pretty much just luck. But these small (relatively small) anti-tank guns could be pretty effective.
Anti tank rifle crews would hide in buildings/ foliage and wait to ambush an unsuspecting Tank, most of the time they would first aim for the sprocket to disable it. And when an armor piercing round penetrates it explodes and breaks apart inside the vehicle and the shrapnel is what usually kills the crew, ignites the fuel or ignites the ammunition rack.
Antitank rifles are a bit of a misnomer. The early tanks of world war 1 and the interwar period definitely could be taken out by anti take rifles. But as we got into the second world war they dropped off in effectiveness as tank armor became thicker, more sloped and became faster. They are still effective against other armored vehicles like supply trucks and humvees. They are also crew served weapons that required multiple people to carry, set up, load and opperate. If i recall correctly... the solothurn is effectively the luxury car version of an antitank rifle. Some of them are effectively giant bolt action rifles that have zero recoil mitigation built in and zero convenience features like the ejecting mag or auto loading first round. So... yeah this one might not be kicking, but others definitely be kicking like a mule.
fun fact: Coca Cola sued the Pepsi Cola company over the use of the word "cola" in Pepsi's name and LOST. Pepsi has every right to be called Pepsi Cola.
What's smaller than an inch? A twip, which is 0.0006944444 of an inch, next is a thou, which is 0.001 of an inch, and lastly is barleycorn, which is 0.33464566929134 of an inch.
We don't use the metric system for guns: .357 .38 .44 .45 .50 calibers are all based on the imperial inch. And a grain is a third of a carat is a ninth of a dram is a sixteenth of an ounce. Okay, sure, some of those might be archaic at this point, but we still use thousands-of-an-inch in tool and die.
@@thesarcasticcatfish5215 My case in point. They are so useless you need to add decimal points to even your mm. You know what *7.62* is? *.30* caliber. and *5.56* ... it's 28 MICRONS smaller than *.22*
Anti-tank rifles were mostly effective during WWI when the tanks were brand new and had less thick armor, they kinda fell off to a degree during WWII but still saw good use by some factions, their shells also were typically solid, shrapnel could come from the round shredding through the armor and breaking apart though. They're extremely awesome guns, but their practicableness is practically gone in the world of modern tanks, and anti-tank missiles. Anti-material rifles like the Barretta 50cal still have a place though against light armor and at longer ranges iirc.
I live in the East of the US, I simply use “soda” or “cola” interchangeably depending on what I’m feeling on my vocab or just to describe a soft drink similar to Pepsi or Coca-Cola. But commonly when I describe “Coca-Cola” I just say “coke”. LMAO But I just use “soda” for drinks that AREN’T like Pepsi or Coke.
5:58 It's soda pop. Some people call it soda, some call it pop, they're both right, but there's always someone who's insistent about the terminology. And then there's people who call it cola. They're objectively wrong. And then there's people who call it Coke. They're literally insane.
17:30 the only gun that had such effect was the wz.35 Polish anti-tank rifle that if the bullet didn't penetrate the tabk armor, the energy and heat the bullet would send a shockwave that would rip the inside plating of the tanl sending hot pieces of the inside tank armor killing or heavily injuring the tank crew.
Anti tank rifles were not that scary to tanks after the first 6 months of the war. They are Very heavy, often 5-10x a standard rifle, and have a short effective range usually not more than 200 yards.. Vs the machine guns on the tank which can easily take out infantry at 500-2,000 yards, and then the main gun besides... A good rule of thumb for WW2 guns is that they can typically only penetrate armor up to about the diameter of the projectile.. So a 20mm round is only going to be effective against 10-20mm of armor.. The mid war Sherman by comparison has armor that was 40-75mm thick, and the Tiger had 60-100mm!
@@apollohateshisdayjob9606 Yeah, unless you hit the tracks of said Tiger tank, then some mechanic is upset that they have to fix said tracks, or wheel.
@red14carbluebattleship76 more like that mechanic is pissed that they lost yet another Tiger in the field while he is hundreds to thousands of miles away. The Germans during WW2 didn't really care about any real in-field mechanical work, just like they didn't care about logistics in general. Just one of many reasons why they lost.
America kind of goes both ways with imperial and metric for gun calibers. Usually, we use imperial for purely american and metric for international guns. For instance, the .50 BMG is in imperial, since .5 inches wide. In metric, that's 12.7 mm. At 20 mm or higher, we tend to stop using imperial and go straight to metric.
I'm now wondering where he goes from here. At this point he's acquired and fired so many of the largest rifles and shotguns in the world, there can't be THAT many left that he HASN'T gotten to use. Right??
It won't really destroy a tank, at least not most modern tanks, tho it may penetrate areas in which the armour is not so thick so it could potentially do some minor damage.
If memory serves the main use was to disable the tracks or damage the engine so it couldn’t move, at which point it they’d use flamethrowers, dynamite, satchel charges, AT grenades, etc to finish it off.
You defeat these by using infantry. Irl the tanks would mostly need to stop to fire opening them up to vulnerabilities. If the direction of fire can be identified you either get your tank angled or in cover in the years these were deployed effectively. They had different effective potential results depending on range, you could penetrate some main and most side plates on a lot of light or medium armor with these at around 100 meters but tracks and drive wheels along with exposed fuel and rear plates on some tanks could be destroyed or effected at up to 2000 meters.
A particularly well supported team against light armor it's effective against might need artillery mortar air or heavier tank support to deal with one of these.
1:20 he was likely using counterfeit ammo for the Serbu. Essentially, he was trying to use a tungsten carbide bullet, and spent $120 per round for a ground down tungsten carbide drill bit and too much powder. He then ran it through a stolen pipebomb designe with no fail safe because Mike Serbu is a fraud, using a parts kit from "the cookbook" which is basically a cropped off anti-aircraft cannon and some cheaply welded parts.
![NO MORE BODY ARMOR! | Kentucky Ballistics React [4 BORE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8HV2Z8ao_6I/mqdefault.jpg)
The anti tank rifles were primarily used as weapons of surprise because of how precise, and how close, you had to be to actually cause any damage to a tank.
And used to damage tracks or get a lucky shot on the barrel and rear of the tank and the engine.
The Finns used them as anti-personnel sniper rifles during The Winter War. The Lahti was considered underpowered against tanks.
You haven't gone far enough back in time for cola references. Cola was pretty much universally used back in the 50's
You'd need to be talking to people in a retirement home essentially to see the word cola used normally in conversation.
Rave, there are many ways to kill a tank, though this applies to WWII when this gun was used. With anti-tank rifles, the best way would probably be a mobility kill. Sure you could hit the crew or the ammo or fuel, but depending on the type of fuel it won’t explode and it’s just less reliable. Destroying the engine or the wheels or something like that is a lot easier to pull off.
With cannons, you can use rounds designed to penetrate armor and then explode inside, you can use rounds designed specifically for penetrating armor and nothing else/penetrating and then spreading shrapnel everywhere, or you can use shells that explode on impact, these can simply shatter the armor (though the armor would have to be pretty weak, brittle, or poorly welded) or cause an effect called Spalling. Spalling is when an explosion causes little shavings of the armor to break of and fly around inside the tank, killing the crew. The Brits in particular are big fans of this. They pioneered a new type of tank shell called High-explosive squash-head. It’s basically just a long tube of plastic explosives designed so that when it hits the enemy tank, it acts like play-doh and spreads out along the impact area before exploding, causing a shock wave that causes spalling to kill the crew, while leaving the hull of the tank relatively intact. It’s actually pretty cool.
Back in the early 1960s you could buy these as surplus for almost nothing. I think the NFA tax (these were classified as a destructive device/cannon) was actually more than the price of the gun.
You have to remember that early WWI tanks didn`t really have much armor. Often as little as an inch of armor plate. But that was enough to stop or deflect any small arms and most machinegun fire. It would not stop artillery rounds, but they were mobile and getting a direct hit on them was pretty much just luck.
But these small (relatively small) anti-tank guns could be pretty effective.
Anti tank rifle crews would hide in buildings/ foliage and wait to ambush an unsuspecting Tank, most of the time they would first aim for the sprocket to disable it. And when an armor piercing round penetrates it explodes and breaks apart inside the vehicle and the shrapnel is what usually kills the crew, ignites the fuel or ignites the ammunition rack.
5:22 Bro has Pajama Sam on desktop. Ngl, I respect it.
its a classic game, and I streamed it a year ago and had a blast. 10/10
same, grew up playing that game back when you got video games in cereal boxes !! ahhhh the good old days
Antitank rifles are a bit of a misnomer. The early tanks of world war 1 and the interwar period definitely could be taken out by anti take rifles. But as we got into the second world war they dropped off in effectiveness as tank armor became thicker, more sloped and became faster. They are still effective against other armored vehicles like supply trucks and humvees.
They are also crew served weapons that required multiple people to carry, set up, load and opperate. If i recall correctly... the solothurn is effectively the luxury car version of an antitank rifle. Some of them are effectively giant bolt action rifles that have zero recoil mitigation built in and zero convenience features like the ejecting mag or auto loading first round. So... yeah this one might not be kicking, but others definitely be kicking like a mule.
At least it's not a gyrojet so you can get new rounds made for it, probably.
fun fact: Coca Cola sued the Pepsi Cola company over the use of the word "cola" in Pepsi's name and LOST. Pepsi has every right to be called Pepsi Cola.
What's smaller than an inch? A twip, which is 0.0006944444 of an inch, next is a thou, which is 0.001 of an inch, and lastly is barleycorn, which is 0.33464566929134 of an inch.
We don't use the metric system for guns: .357 .38 .44 .45 .50 calibers are all based on the imperial inch. And a grain is a third of a carat is a ninth of a dram is a sixteenth of an ounce. Okay, sure, some of those might be archaic at this point, but we still use thousands-of-an-inch in tool and die.
I was just about to comment something similar.
@@LanceLeaderSawyer Apparently so did chat just one minute later. 😅
@@5ilver42 5.56mm, 9mm, 7.62mm… etc
@@thesarcasticcatfish5215 My case in point. They are so useless you need to add decimal points to even your mm. You know what *7.62* is? *.30* caliber. and *5.56* ... it's 28 MICRONS smaller than *.22*
@@5ilver42 that might actually be the dumbest counter argument I’ve heard in weeks
Anti-tank rifles were mostly effective during WWI when the tanks were brand new and had less thick armor, they kinda fell off to a degree during WWII but still saw good use by some factions, their shells also were typically solid, shrapnel could come from the round shredding through the armor and breaking apart though. They're extremely awesome guns, but their practicableness is practically gone in the world of modern tanks, and anti-tank missiles. Anti-material rifles like the Barretta 50cal still have a place though against light armor and at longer ranges iirc.
I live in the East of the US, I simply use “soda” or “cola” interchangeably depending on what I’m feeling on my vocab or just to describe a soft drink similar to Pepsi or Coca-Cola. But commonly when I describe “Coca-Cola” I just say “coke”. LMAO
But I just use “soda” for drinks that AREN’T like Pepsi or Coke.
yep here's the list of ammo types for the gun.
Armor Piercing (AP)
Armor Piercing, Capped (APC)
Armor Piercing, Ballistic Cap (APBC)
Armor Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Cap (APCBC)
Explosive Filler (-HE)
Armor Piercing, Composite, Rigid (APCR)
Armor Piercing, Composite, Non-Rigid (APCNR)
Armor Piercing, Discarding Sabot (APDS)
We use metric for our ammo because it doesn’t belong to us, we just haven’t delivered it yet
The American gun community uses Imperial to classify domestic guns and Metric to classify foreign guns.
5:58 It's soda pop. Some people call it soda, some call it pop, they're both right, but there's always someone who's insistent about the terminology.
And then there's people who call it cola. They're objectively wrong.
And then there's people who call it Coke. They're literally insane.
17:30 the only gun that had such effect was the wz.35 Polish anti-tank rifle that if the bullet didn't penetrate the tabk armor, the energy and heat the bullet would send a shockwave that would rip the inside plating of the tanl sending hot pieces of the inside tank armor killing or heavily injuring the tank crew.
Anti tank rifles were not that scary to tanks after the first 6 months of the war. They are Very heavy, often 5-10x a standard rifle, and have a short effective range usually not more than 200 yards.. Vs the machine guns on the tank which can easily take out infantry at 500-2,000 yards, and then the main gun besides...
A good rule of thumb for WW2 guns is that they can typically only penetrate armor up to about the diameter of the projectile.. So a 20mm round is only going to be effective against 10-20mm of armor..
The mid war Sherman by comparison has armor that was 40-75mm thick, and the Tiger had 60-100mm!
@@apollohateshisdayjob9606 Yeah, unless you hit the tracks of said Tiger tank, then some mechanic is upset that they have to fix said tracks, or wheel.
@red14carbluebattleship76 more like that mechanic is pissed that they lost yet another Tiger in the field while he is hundreds to thousands of miles away. The Germans during WW2 didn't really care about any real in-field mechanical work, just like they didn't care about logistics in general. Just one of many reasons why they lost.
America kind of goes both ways with imperial and metric for gun calibers. Usually, we use imperial for purely american and metric for international guns. For instance, the .50 BMG is in imperial, since .5 inches wide. In metric, that's 12.7 mm. At 20 mm or higher, we tend to stop using imperial and go straight to metric.
I'm now wondering where he goes from here. At this point he's acquired and fired so many of the largest rifles and shotguns in the world, there can't be THAT many left that he HASN'T gotten to use. Right??
I think I remember mentioning in the comments of Scott's video that this "rifle" could be considered a railgun.
I bet the rounds Ceras was using were probly also explosive tipped if they make those.
It won't really destroy a tank, at least not most modern tanks, tho it may penetrate areas in which the armour is not so thick so it could potentially do some minor damage.
If memory serves the main use was to disable the tracks or damage the engine so it couldn’t move, at which point it they’d use flamethrowers, dynamite, satchel charges, AT grenades, etc to finish it off.
You defeat these by using infantry. Irl the tanks would mostly need to stop to fire opening them up to vulnerabilities. If the direction of fire can be identified you either get your tank angled or in cover in the years these were deployed effectively. They had different effective potential results depending on range, you could penetrate some main and most side plates on a lot of light or medium armor with these at around 100 meters but tracks and drive wheels along with exposed fuel and rear plates on some tanks could be destroyed or effected at up to 2000 meters.
A particularly well supported team against light armor it's effective against might need artillery mortar air or heavier tank support to deal with one of these.
It is Pop.
The real word is "soda pop".
So if you're going to shorten it, use the monosyllabic three letter word.
Are you really gonna argue with a man who has an Anti-Tank rifle?
False. It is soda. Pop can be used in many contexts, soda is only used in one.
It sucks when they hit you in the head
Ok I have to think antram95 is being a troll. Mainly accusing Scott of being a vtuber for not wanting to lay on the grass
This rifle was used by the Germans in ww2
My ex took 3.
Pepsi > Coke no cap.
Somebody ban this man.
Dr Pepper > Coke > RC > Faygo > Pepsi
A&W.
1:20 he was likely using counterfeit ammo for the Serbu.
Essentially, he was trying to use a tungsten carbide bullet, and spent $120 per round for a ground down tungsten carbide drill bit and too much powder.
He then ran it through a stolen pipebomb designe with no fail safe because Mike Serbu is a fraud, using a parts kit from "the cookbook" which is basically a cropped off anti-aircraft cannon and some cheaply welded parts.
1:45 811 is underground digging assistance, basically they have access to the area underground wire and pipe map.