Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:7/19/2013
Last Login:10/23/2016
Comment Ranking:#2817
Highest Content Rank:#160
Highest Comment Rank:#434
Content Thumbs: 17658 total,  19085 ,  1427
Comment Thumbs: 19174 total,  19661 ,  487
Content Level Progress: 6.8% (68/1000)
Level 216 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 19.7% (197/1000)
Level 315 Comments: Wizard → Level 316 Comments: Wizard
Content Views:906561
Times Content Favorited:1177 times
Total Comments Made:1434
FJ Points:31093
Favorite Tags: 4Chan (3) | Dog (3) | funny (2) | greentext (2) | lol (2) | royal (2) | soldier (2) | terrorists (2) | Wolf (2)

latest user's comments

#3 - **** yes.  [+] (1 reply) 01/18/2016 on Ultimate Beer Delivery System +28
User avatar
#5 - glitchmatrix (01/18/2016) [-]
a mans selfie stick
#4 - I have quiet a few of these.  [+] (2 replies) 01/15/2016 on huge war comp +3
User avatar
#14 - epicgerbo (01/16/2016) [-]
raining freedom
#10 - anon (01/16/2016) [-]
#2 - Ukraine is a pretty crazy place at the moment.  [+] (45 replies) 01/03/2016 on Zero fuck squad +172
User avatar
#10 - heartlessrobot (01/04/2016) [-]
Pretty sure an anti-tank rifle isn't particularly effective anymore. Unless you're targeting people behind cover.
#89 - anon (01/04/2016) [-]
They're great way of saying "fck that wall and everyone behind it". So yeah...pretty effective.
#83 - anon (01/04/2016) [-]
"unless you're targeting people behind cover"

So...unless it's like...95% of war?

Heavy anti-material rounds have plenty of usage in war to this day.

User avatar
#42 - chokebee (01/04/2016) [-]
That makes it still effective.
#30 - killingpeter (01/04/2016) [-]
Anzio 20mm says you lie.

You know, a battle tanke without optics or with destroyed turret hydraulics or a hole in the engine is not combat ready anymore. Besides: there are more vehicles on a battlefield than a tank.

And yes....against cover, it should be usefuel too.
#46 - heartbleed (01/04/2016) [-]
That one looks like an old possibly WWII era ATT rifle so, I doubt it'd do much against let's say a T-72. The thinnest armor on the T-72 is around 80mm (this is without angling included) and I doubt your rifle has more than let's say 50mm of penetration. You say you could mess up the turret hydrolics or the optics and I say you better be a damn good shot and good luck. There's a reason why AT rifles were fazed out to use explosive weapons like RPG's or STINGER missiles. I'm using the T-72 as the example as the man above is Ukranian and the T-72 is a Russian MBT so it makes sense.
#99 - killingpeter (01/05/2016) [-]
>Anzio 20mm
>looks like WW2 weapon (what?!)
> RPG has several hudnred meters range
>rifle has several kilometres range

You just had to mark the word, right-click and google search. 3 seconds to understand that this weapon has nothing to do with WW2 in any kind of way.

#100 - heartbleed (01/05/2016) [-]
What the man in the .gif above is using is NOT a an anzio 20mm, it looks like a PTRS-41, which I'd think would be obvious as the Anzio is magazine fed and the weapon above is being breech loaded. At several kilometers range you're rinky dink rifle is going to lose alot of it's velocity and with that penetration, which it ALREADY doesn't have very much of!
#101 - killingpeter (01/05/2016) [-]
See the difference.gif

I dont know how anyone with at least some of Call of Duty level gun education can say that my former picture depicts a Russian Tankgun.

Aber ich wahrscheinlich bist du einfach nur hohl. (Little google mission for you ;) )
#102 - heartbleed (01/05/2016) [-]
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not talking about your precious 'Anzio 20mm'. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE GUN IN THIS GIF YOU FUCKING MORON!
#103 - killingpeter (01/05/2016) [-]
I commented on general use of anti tank rifles. That a WW2 gun is obsolet 70 years later is kinda obvious. So I dont know why you felt you needed to go in detail between a PTRS-41 vs. T72. It makes absolutley no sense.
User avatar
#104 - heartbleed (01/05/2016) [-]
Because that's what they'd actually be using, and I doubt even your Anzio 20mm could do anything useful against a modern tank. They changed the name from Anti Tank Rifle to Anti Materiel Rifle for a reason, they're useless against modern tanks.
#105 - killingpeter (01/05/2016) [-]
As I pointed out they are not useless. What I said is actually pretty much standard sniper training. They even target tank optics and vital mechanics with even smaller rifles.

And please read my comment again, I also said that there are more vehicles on a battlefield then tanks which you can use the rifle against. So please read first and then comment. Otherwise you look like an idiot.
User avatar
#106 - heartbleed (01/05/2016) [-]
If you're gonna be taking out tank optics you're gonna pretty much have to be within RPG range anyways, snipers can be proficient at hitting human sized targets at around 1000~ yards or 900~ meters, now we shrink that down to about the size of tank optics (I'd wager around a hockey puck or a dinner plate at best this is also assuming it's not moving.) and I'm gonna at least halve that effective range so around 500~ yards or 450~ meters and you take the RPG-29 which using a FCU and tripod can fire and remain effective up to around ~900 meters. Even using a RPG-7 you can destroy a tank at ranges of 200~ meters Assuming they don't have reactive plate armor. which isn't that much shorter than your 20mm sniper round.
User avatar
#63 - jdrinfantry (01/04/2016) [-]
I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but if you're targeting a T-72 with an FIM-92 stinger , you're going to be surprised.
It's a surface to air missile
User avatar
#98 - heartbleed (01/04/2016) [-]
Shit my bad. I meant the Javelin.
User avatar
#48 - heartbleed (01/04/2016) [-]
Now in your defence he could always be shooting at an armored car or truck and in which case I suppose there's some purpose to having one but still...
User avatar
#36 - tenaciouslee (01/04/2016) [-]
Couldn't an Anti-Tank Rifle totally fuck up a vehicle, though?
User avatar
#43 - dawdawdwa (01/04/2016) [-]
turret hydrolics down=totally fucked up
optics down=totally fucked up
1 engine down=totally fucked up (some tanks have twin engines)

other neat things to fuck up may include but are not limited to:
destroy the guns heat shielding (makes the gun warp in unpredictable ways, making it inaccurate)
damage the loading mechanism
damage the ammo rack *this one is especially spectacular to fuck up*
damage the tracks
damage the fuel tanks
damage the fire suppression system
damage the bogies or tortion bars of the suspension

basically there are many fascinating ways to totally fuck up a tank... and most of them dont even include explosions or injuring the crew, simply disabling the vehicle though obviously that`s an option too if you have a big enough gun
User avatar
#64 - jdrinfantry (01/04/2016) [-]
You need to have some pretty serious balls, because most tanks rely on up to 3 different weapon platforms, normally 2 of those are very heavy weapons, like 50. cal machine gun and a 120mm cannon.
And there's like 2 to 3 hatches, and plenty of mirrors usable for spotting.

Even if you managed to damage steel tracks, and the suspension, you're in for a world of hurt, because you just catched a beast that can still breathe fire.
User avatar
#91 - dawdawdwa (01/04/2016) [-]
while that is true, these rifles have ranges of well over 2km (2000 yards), some over 5.

I`d imagine it`s pretty easy to stay hidden at that kind of range while firing a single round

plus you`re not anchored to the ground, you can simply fuck off after you`ve disabled the enemy, or flank him and fire at the weaker side armor....
User avatar
#93 - jdrinfantry (01/04/2016) [-]
so you can target optics and hydraulics 2000 yards away? i dont think so.
A tank is far from an indestructible machine, I know this, i served in a danish leopard2 tank squadron.

Sand is the number 1 track killer though, not att rifles. I've heard of 1 mobility kill in Afghanistan on a challenger tank, and the crew still managed to get it in reverse after 10 RPG hits, and drive to safety.

If I encountered an enemy MBT as part of an infantry company without heavy weapons, I would wait for it to pass instead of engaging and possibly lose.
#84 - anon (01/04/2016) [-]
Mobility kills on tanks by infantry is a perfectly legitimate tactic that we are taught even to this day in the U.S. military.
#33 - anon (01/04/2016) [-]
And it's totally legal to just go and buy one in the US (it needs a form 4 and the $200 tax stamp, but next to the cost of the rifle, that's nothing).
User avatar
#29 - jonball (01/04/2016) [-]
If i remember correctly, the PTRS-41 is a extremely inaccurate weapon that required the solider to stand just few meters away too actually just hit the tank.
User avatar
#25 - dingdongpancakes (01/04/2016) [-]
Most of the vehicles used are trucks, BTRs, and BMPs which are all lightly armoured
User avatar
#21 - roninneko (01/04/2016) [-]
They're fucking great truck-stoppers, and they'll fuck up an artillery barrel pretty badly if you land a hit.
User avatar
#18 - muffincannibal (01/04/2016) [-]
I think they'd refurbish some old tanks.
User avatar
#49 - heartbleed (01/04/2016) [-]
But the Ukranians were fighting the Russians, the Russians have fairly decent tanks, it's not like they're fighting ISIS or something.
#87 - anon (01/04/2016) [-]
And shooting tanks is not the only usage or anti-material rounds flying downrange. Have someone shoot anti-material rounds at you for a while and you'll see that not only are they still effective in war, they are some of the MOST effective things infantry can be using in war.
User avatar
#50 - muffincannibal (01/04/2016) [-]
Do the Russian's want the Ukrainian's cranes?
User avatar
#51 - heartbleed (01/04/2016) [-]
Totes yo! If you're legit curious as to why Russia invaded Ukraine look at this: www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/03/10-reasons-why-russia-invaded-ukraine/
#13 - ashendashin (01/04/2016) [-]
Probably just using whatever weapons they've got lying around. Both weapons shown are pretty old
User avatar
#34 - luciafoxx (01/04/2016) [-]
I've actually shot both, I certainly do not recommend if you are a little guy, the PTRS is a 14.5x114 and the PKM is a 7.62x54. But if you are then I recommend putting most of your weight on your front foot for the PTRS and more or less the same for the PKM but fire that in short bursts
User avatar
#54 - lijok (01/04/2016) [-]
Literally noone asked you for this info. The conversation was on a completely different topic.
You might as well have went "I'm a vegan guise". Would have induced the same amount of cringe with less effort
User avatar
#81 - luciafoxx (01/04/2016) [-]
if that's you in your profile pic, then I say you should've picked a different hairstyle. Cause it's inducing the same amount of cringe.
#92 - lijok (01/04/2016) [-]
User avatar
#94 - luciafoxx (01/04/2016) [-]
Ooohhh no more than the average funny junk user
User avatar
#95 - lijok (01/04/2016) [-]
If you don't know kosuke, you're no average funnyjunk user
User avatar
#96 - luciafoxx (01/04/2016) [-]
huh, thanks I needed the motivation today!
User avatar
#57 - gohex (01/04/2016) [-]
shut up

I enjoyed the info luciafoxx. thank you.
User avatar
#82 - luciafoxx (01/04/2016) [-]
you're welcome
User avatar
#58 - lijok (01/04/2016) [-]
Shhhhh, don't encourage narcisism, we're not a safe space here
User avatar
#69 - stalkerexplain (01/04/2016) [-]
Unlike you ever did, luciafoxx actually said something interesting.
User avatar
#68 - eddio (01/04/2016) [-]
I was interested in that myself, maybe you should fuck off.
#2 - YES! 12/13/2015 on UFC and Chill +31