Talk:Anti-tank rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military technology and engineering task force
	Weaponry task force

1 Speling
2 Flamethrowers
3 forbear?
4 Reversed bullets?

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)