Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boys anti-tank rifle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Boys anti-tank rifle

    A 1942 Canadian military training film on the Boys anti-tank rifle made by Disney.


  • #2
    I wonder if that was ever used in a role like the Barret is today, or was it not considered for anything like that? Once it could no longer cope with the tanks of the day it seemed to have been ditched.
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

    Comment


    • #3
      'Boys'...55 inch.

      Was considered at better anti personel weapon as it could remove the cover around a guy hiding out, recoil was very harsh without damping systems so wasn't user friendly.
      Last edited by hptmurphy; 7 December 2013, 18:44.
      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

      Comment


      • #4
        I enquired about it's antipersonnel use on another forum and it was said that a Canadian unit and an American unit had independently fixed telescopic sights to them and used them for sniping and what is now called anti-material work.
        regards
        GttC

        Comment


        • #5
          I could be wrong, but I think there's something in the Geneva Convention which forbids rifles of that caliber being used against personnel.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by FCA Trooper View Post
            I could be wrong, but I think there's something in the Geneva Convention which forbids rifles of that caliber being used against personnel.
            0.55" specifically or rounds above a certain calibre ? Remember the clip of the Canadian sniper taking out the Taliban with (I think) a Barratt 0.5" ?
            "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

            Comment


            • #7
              AFAIK shotguns are verboten.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by danno View Post
                AFAIK shotguns are verboten.
                But it's ok to land a 155 on their head?


                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by danno View Post
                  AFAIK shotguns are verboten.
                  Used in Afghanistan by the Brits

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Geneva convention shite is against weapons that cause undue suffering, 12.7 doesn't cause much suffering as it'll kill you. If 12.7 & shotguns are verboten then there's a lot of countries breaking the convention.
                    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by danno View Post
                      AFAIK shotguns are verboten.
                      I always carried one in my veh when crossing Kandahar City, loaded alternatively with slugs and buckshot.
                      "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

                      Never give up!!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Did a check,it seems shotguns are ok wrt the Hague convention but not munitions such as dumdum rounds.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Interesting article on the subject

                          http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-rum...rgets-1.134278

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The provision dealt with the deliberate firing of shells at persons, ie, artillery is indirect whereas firing a round of shell size could inflict undue suffering, ie, blowing a grievious chunk off somebody. It was basically a waste of time as people began firing 12.7 and bigger at each other from WW 1 on.
                            regards
                            GttC

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X