20mm Lahti Anti-Tank rifle

[Chantry]

1/4" steel plates, it looks like the round started to tumble when it hit the 5th plate

 

 

[Duffield, SASS #23454]

Another chance missed! Ye Old Hunter used to sell these at very low prices, and ammo was $2.50 per round. 

Of course that was a lot more money in 1964 than it is now. But they and the PIAT were legal to own in those days, when the government trusted its citizens.

 

Duffield

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Never fired the Lahti, but a friend's dad was PMST at the USU ROTC unit and he had a Boys .55" anti tank rifle that was a riot to shoot.

 

Ma Deuce still rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cat Brules]

So, it penetrated 1-1/2 inches of 1/4-inch steel plate, spaced about(?) 2-1/2 Inches apart?

 

I guess that’s okay, but many WWII tanks had significantly thicker armor.plate.

The penetration test wasn’t as impressive as I thought it would be, but certainly impressive enough!

 

However, if aiming and the point of impact of the rifle was repeatedly accurate, this rifle could kill troops inside, and quickly do a lot of damage to, and disable a tank in short order, from an easily-well-hidden nest position.  Such damage might be a tank’s main cannon, the tracks, machine-gun ports, the turret, turret-mounted machine guns, the thin armor on the rear of the tank’s body, maybe the fuel tank and engine, etc.

 

Very cool weapon, in my view.  BUT......the reviewer left us with A LOT of unanswered question.  On a scale of 1 to 10, I’m giving the video a 7-1/4.  That’s a may fall into the category of mediocre, but it’s a passing grade of “ C “ in my book.
 

 Having said that, though.....up to an unknown point, the grade is for the video, NOT the rifle’s performance.  Having more information in the review might increase the (subjective) grade

 

Anyway, if I was trying to defend against or hold off, one(1) or more armored vehicles such as tanks, it would be nice to have one of these 20mm rifles around with a few rounds for each target vehicle.  So, it’s a crew-served weapon.....I could guess how many in the crew,, but I won’t.
 

Cat Brules

[Chantry]

6 hours ago, Cat Brules said:

So, it penetrated 1-1/2 inches of 1/4-inch steel plate, spaced about(?) 2-1/2 Inches apart?

 

I guess that’s okay, but many WWII tanks had significantly thicker armor.plate.

The penetration test wasn’t as impressive as I thought it would be, but certainly impressive enough!

 

However, if aiming and the point of impact of the rifle was repeatedly accurate, this rifle could kill troops inside, and quickly do a lot of damage to, and disable a tank in short order, from an easily-well-hidden nest position.  Such damage might be a tank’s main cannon, the tracks, machine-gun ports, the turret, turret-mounted machine guns, the thin armor on the rear of the tank’s body, maybe the fuel tank and engine, etc.

 

Very cool weapon, in my view.  BUT......the reviewer left us with A LOT of unanswered question.  On a scale of 1 to 10, I’m giving the video a 7-1/4.  That’s a may fall into the category of mediocre, but it’s a passing grade of “ C “ in my book.
 

 Having said that, though.....up to an unknown point, the grade is for the video, NOT the rifle’s performance.  Having more information in the review might increase the (subjective) grade

 

Anyway, if I was trying to defend against or hold off, one(1) or more armored vehicles such as tanks, it would be nice to have one of these 20mm rifles around with a few rounds for each target vehicle.  So, it’s a crew-served weapon.....I could guess how many in the crew,, but I won’t.
 

Cat Brules

 

Anti-tank rifles became obsolete as newer tank designs were introduced during WWII and by June of 1941, the Lahti was no longer effective against tanks, but continued in use as a anti-material & heavy sniper rifle.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti_L-39

 

It's probable that other anti tank rifles used by other countries were considered obsolete either before or by June 1941.