PDA

View Full Version : Document Proof: .50cal stops heavy tanks



Maj.Kaos
05-01-2007, 09:29 PM
The authority that I cite is Air Publication X03-733691 Pilot's Manual (Restricted). Page 165 gives technical details of the Browning M2 .50 inch, including strengths and weaknesses.

From the middle of the page:
"With luck can stop a German heavy tank, can bounce the API round off road behind tank, striking its vulnerable engine compartment from beneath."

So, there ya go.

Some of you might have this manual. It came with the original MS CFS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Also states on Page 168 that the exact same thing for the Wgr 21 air 2 air rocket. Question is, why would it be lucky for a German (who else would be using the Wgr 21?) pilot to stop a German tank?

Treetop64
05-01-2007, 09:44 PM
You're not actually being serious, are you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

flox
05-01-2007, 09:59 PM
This should go well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Davinci..
05-01-2007, 11:08 PM
you've got to be kidding me....

faustnik
05-01-2007, 11:18 PM
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

LEBillfish
05-01-2007, 11:52 PM
Kewl! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

fordfan25
05-02-2007, 12:29 AM
is it true very small stones float?

djetz
05-02-2007, 01:03 AM
"With luck" I could win the lottery, too.

But I'm not counting on it.

Stackhouse25th
05-02-2007, 01:09 AM
API is nerfed in the game, cannot duplicate. we need stronger API.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-02-2007, 01:46 AM
M$ CFS - manual said so?

Well, then it must be true. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

woofiedog
05-02-2007, 02:12 AM
Myth Buster's... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Bulletproof Water!</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"They've got more guns here...than a Tarantino movie!" - Rob Lee</span>

Jamie starts the test with a muzzleloader, then the AR-15, the M-1 Garand, all the way up through the calibers toward the big kahuna...the Browning .50 cal sniper rifle.

Bulletproof Water... : http://www.mythbustersfanclub.com/mb2/content/view/41/27/

Tipo_Man
05-02-2007, 02:28 AM
If I remember correctly, russian infantry manuals prescribed shooting at attacking bombers with submachine guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Lodovik
05-02-2007, 02:45 AM
IMO, the problem is that no sim has properly modeled the variable quality of and thus the variable structural integrity of, say, steel armor plate, aluminum sheeting, concrete bunker walls, glass, brick, rotting woodwork, piles of wet newspapers and chocolate mousse.
All these (and many other materials besides) should be researched and replicated in exact detail by developers to finally produce actually realistic simulations.
I'm sure that sometime during WW2, there was a Tiger lost to a single fifty cal round that hit a stamp sized part of front armor plate, faulty and brittle due to ineffective quality control by exhausted workers at the Krupp steelworks.

Oh, and the current German ammunition is way overmodeled. After years spend analyzing IL-2, I've yet to see a single misfire caused by sabotaged ammo produced by Fabryka Oskara Schindelera. This is a most glaring omission that needs to be corrected before SoW:BoB comes out.

FPSOLKOR
05-02-2007, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
If I remember correctly, russian infantry manuals prescribed shooting at attacking bombers with submachine guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Depending on the height they were going - infantry could well shoot down planes with rifles and MPs...

Capt.LoneRanger
05-02-2007, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
If I remember correctly, russian infantry manuals prescribed shooting at attacking bombers with submachine guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Depending on the height they were going - infantry could well shoot down planes with rifles and MPs... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Richthofen was killed by an infantry-soldier, shooting his plane from below. Considering the common altitudes on the eastern front, well, why not.

TheVoodooPriest
05-02-2007, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:
From the middle of the page:
"With luck can stop a German heavy tank, can bounce the API round off road behind tank, striking its vulnerable engine compartment from beneath."

You see what they suggest? Bounce it off the ROAD. It has nothing to do with the .50 but rather with the high quality of the german tarmac, which not only makes cars go fast on it (remember that german autobahns are made from that stuff, too) but also accelerates bullets to a speed sufficient to penetrate a tank from beneath. Thats the reason why no one ever suggests to bounce bullets off english lawn into english tanks - it only works with german tarmac.

Tipo_Man
05-02-2007, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
If I remember correctly, russian infantry manuals prescribed shooting at attacking bombers with submachine guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Depending on the height they were going - infantry could well shoot down planes with rifles and MPs... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, but the range of a submachine gun is about 300 meters. Given the fact that germans bombed from medium altitudes (He-111 and Ju-88),
or dive bombed from about 800m(Stukas) this was a simple waist of ammo.
Generally causing some damage to a tank with a .50 cal MG seems more probable than shooting down a plane with a pistolsize bullet.

stalkervision
05-02-2007, 05:23 AM
True..German tanks even the heavy tiger in some areas have one inch or less of armor plate. I believe 50 caliber armor piercing ammo would go through this amount of steel pretty easily. I have read stories of american fliers using this tactic with quite a lot of success.

WOLFMondo
05-02-2007, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
True..German tanks even the heavy tiger in some areas have one inch or less of armor plate. I believe 50 caliber armor piercing ammo would go through this amount of steel pretty easily. I have read stories of american fliers using this tactic with quite a lot of success.

Bait has been laid.

Time to get popcorn and get a comfy seat.

John_Wayne_
05-02-2007, 05:56 AM
Betcha read stuff about teenage wizards too, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

BOA_Allmenroder
05-02-2007, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
If I remember correctly, russian infantry manuals prescribed shooting at attacking bombers with submachine guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Depending on the height they were going - infantry could well shoot down planes with rifles and MPs... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Richthofen was killed by an infantry-soldier, shooting his plane from below. Considering the common altitudes on the eastern front, well, why not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SGT. Popkin was an experienced anti aircraft gunner, not some run of the mill shooter. Hundreds of folks took shots at Richtofen that day, only one, the aforementioned experienced gunner, caused a fatal hit to either man or machine.

T_O_A_D
05-02-2007, 06:49 AM
Yeh I've heard bugs fart under water before too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 07:46 AM
Place your bets..

I say 20 pages by Friday

WWSpinDry
05-02-2007, 07:48 AM
This is just proof positive: the .50 won Teh War!

Capt.LoneRanger
05-02-2007, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
If I remember correctly, russian infantry manuals prescribed shooting at attacking bombers with submachine guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Depending on the height they were going - infantry could well shoot down planes with rifles and MPs... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Richthofen was killed by an infantry-soldier, shooting his plane from below. Considering the common altitudes on the eastern front, well, why not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SGT. Popkin was an experienced anti aircraft gunner, not some run of the mill shooter. Hundreds of folks took shots at Richtofen that day, only one, the aforementioned experienced gunner, caused a fatal hit to either man or machine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cedric Popkin fired the Vickers .303 watercooled MG, that was normally used against infantry. He was a trained AA-Gunner, but there were several other gunners and riflemen shooting at him and historically, it is only the most likely scenario, cause little is know about the position of the other riflemen. Only the AA-guns and Browns plane were taken into closer consideration for the kill.

In the end, the more bullets, the likelier a hit, no matter how experienced the soldiers.

ImpStarDuece
05-02-2007, 07:58 AM
Don't make me bust out the charts.

I will too you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've got a detailed Tiger armour diagram and a copy of the performance of US M2 AP ammo against face hardened armour from the USAAF ballistic section technical divison just waiting for a go...

Akronnick
05-02-2007, 09:20 AM
Well in Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanks killed a Tiger Tank with a Colt M1911 .45ACP, the immortal Colt .45, Ddesigned by legendary American gun designer John Browning...

So why should't a Browning .50 cal BFG be able to kill a tank, everyone KNOWS John Browning won the war.

WOLFMondo
05-02-2007, 09:34 AM
Bust thost charts out ISD. Can this thread beat 50 pages?

WWSpinDry
05-02-2007, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I've got a detailed Tiger armour diagram and a copy of the performance of US M2 AP ammo against face hardened armour from the USAAF ballistic section technical divison just waiting for a go...
Oh, stop it, you big tease!

Feathered_IV
05-02-2007, 09:44 AM
This is the most piss funny thing I have read on this forum in years. The fifty cal can take out a Tiger tank, because the CFS1 manual says so > http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

luftluuver
05-02-2007, 09:44 AM
Use your brains. If the .50 was so good at killing tanks then there was no need to have heavy calibre AT guns for killing tanks.

The belly of a Tiger was 25mm thick. That would mean the .50 would have to pass through at least 3" of armour to do any damage.

A Panther had a belly 16-30mm thick.

It just might be able to kill a P IV since its belly was only 10mm thick.

LStarosta
05-02-2007, 09:48 AM
.50 ftw.

jarink
05-02-2007, 09:49 AM
Yeeeha!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

faustnik
05-02-2007, 09:55 AM
Well, there is a grain of truth burried in this myth. Certainly one of the greatest enemies of the Tiger was suspension damage. Mines were responsible for stopping many of Germany's "animals" at Kursk. 45mm & 76mm guns couldn't penetrate the Tiger's armor at range, but, they could damage the wheels or tracks. A heavy breakthrough tank like the Tiger is only as strong as its suspension. So, aiming low is a good thing.

tools4foolsA
05-02-2007, 11:01 AM
Given the fact that germans bombed from medium altitudes

P.W. Stahl describes a lot of low level bombing and strafing with Ju 88 on Eastern Front. And soldiers lying on their back shooting at them. Seldom insignificant hits on plane, but he mentioned that with luck a plane theoretically could be brought down.


As for the Tiger thingy: gets boring, has been done to death.
*****

joeap
05-02-2007, 11:14 AM
Like hemorrhoids this topic keeps coming back to be a pain in the ###. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Maj.Kaos
05-02-2007, 11:15 AM
Truthfully, I think it's all Bill$hit. I was an M2 and M60 gunner, and on the target range we could penetrate side armor of an M113 APC at 500-750 meters with the M2, and make nice little golf ball marks with the M60. But that was straight on 90 degrees shooting. If we moved off to one side to shoot the armor at an angle, just got nice sparks. M113 had less than 2" rolled aluminum armor.

Bouncing rounds of a road, even an uberbahn, would not only dispell some of the energy (unless it was free, of course), but also distort the carefully crafted API warhead, rendering it less than uber enough to penetrate softer belly armor, especially at any angle less than, oh, eighty degrees, let's say. Use the charts and graphs for toilet paper, let's see some video of actual results.

I have yet, in all my extensive reading of panzer war stories (2 so far), to see an interview in which the panzer veteran exclaimed, "Oh, ja, zie .50 kaliber was schwere uber, unt made us schitzen in our pantzen, wann vee das heeran in unser tanken. Das is true, it surely von die var fur den allies!"

Maj.Kaos
05-02-2007, 11:22 AM
I naively (read also jokingly) thought that the MS reference would put the whole matter to rest once and for all, and then we could use our prodigous intellect and free energy to discuss more important matters, such as which plane really won teh war, is there really a Santa Claus, is the La-7 overmodelled, what if Spartacus had an IL2, etc.

Akronnick
05-02-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:

I have yet, in all my extensive reading of panzer war stories (2 so far), to see an interview in which the panzer veteran exclaimed, "Oh, ja, zie .50 kaliber was schwere uber, unt made us schitzen in our pantzen, wann vee das heeran in unser tanken. Das is true, it surely von die var fur den allies!"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

BOA_Allmenroder
05-02-2007, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:


In the end, the more bullets, the likelier a hit, no matter how experienced the soldiers.

Not so at all. Consider,

Case 1:

1000 soldiers fire 1 shot directly at a moving plane;

Case 2 1000 soldiers fire 1 shot ahead of the flight path of a moving plane.

The odds of hitting are distinctly different. In case 1 the odds are close to O% and increasing the number of firers ten fold won't change that.

It's not the volume of fire, it's the accuracy.

WWSpinDry
05-02-2007, 11:46 AM
On the other hand, have one soldier fire a single shot at a moving aircraft, wherever he thinks it has the best chance of hitting. Now, have 1000 soldiers do the same thing. Methinks the odds just went up drastically that at least one of them will get it right.

Treetop64
05-02-2007, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Akronnick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:

I have yet, in all my extensive reading of panzer war stories (2 so far), to see an interview in which the panzer veteran exclaimed, "Oh, ja, zie .50 kaliber was schwere uber, unt made us schitzen in our pantzen, wann vee das heeran in unser tanken. Das is true, it surely von die var fur den allies!"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/9250/roflmaotl5.png

stalkervision
05-02-2007, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Use your brains. If the .50 was so good at killing tanks then there was no need to have heavy calibre AT guns for killing tanks.

The belly of a Tiger was 25mm thick. That would mean the .50 would have to pass through at least 3" of armour to do any damage.

> Ah No...- " inch in ≡ 1/36 yd = 25.4 mm " <



A Panther had a belly 16-30mm thick.

It just might be able to kill a P IV since its belly was only 10mm thick.

>> one inch of armor on the Tiger belly pan. Do the math... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif >>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor Piercing Incendiary-Tracer, M20


Used by M2 and M85 machine guns, and the M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle. The cartridge combines the functions of the armor piercing and the incendiary bullet, and is used against flammable targets and light-armored or unarmored targets, concrete shelters, and similar bullet-resisting targets. This tracer is dim at near ranges, but increases to bright as it moves further from the gun.

Armor Penetration.
500 meters: 0.83 in (21 mm)
1,200 meters: 0.43 in (11 mm)

Incendiary composition: 27 grains (1.74 g) IM 161
Trace range: 328 - 1,914 yards (300 - 1,750 m)
Tracer: R256

The cartridge is identified by a red bullet tip with an aluminum colored ring to the rear of the red tip.

Type Classification: OBS - MSR 04776009


Penetration capabilities of a single .50 caliber M2 AP round fired from a 45-inch barrel. Range Armor Plate (homogeneous) Armor Plate (face-hardened) Sand Clay
219 yd (200 m) 1.0 in (25.4 mm) 0.9 in (22.9 mm) 14 in (355.6 mm) 28 in (711.2 mm)
656 yd (600 m) 0.7 in (17.8 mm) 0.5 in (12.7 mm) 12 in (304.8 mm) 27 in (685.8 mm)
1,640 yd (1,500 m) 0.3 in (7.6 mm) 0.2 in (5.1 mm) 6 in (152.4 mm) 21 in (533.4 mm)

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 12:25 PM
Lets go lets go..

Come on.. I got money riding on this!

You guys are not trying hard enough!

Maj.Kaos
05-02-2007, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Use your brains. If the .50 was so good at killing tanks then there was no need to have heavy calibre AT guns for killing tanks.

The belly of a Tiger was 25mm thick. That would mean the .50 would have to pass through at least 3" of armour to do any damage.

> Ah No...- " inch in ≡ 1/36 yd = 25.4 mm " <



A Panther had a belly 16-30mm thick.

It just might be able to kill a P IV since its belly was only 10mm thick.

>> one inch of armor on the Tiger belly pan. Do the math... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif >>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor Piercing Incendiary-Tracer, M20


Used by M2 and M85 machine guns, and the M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle. The cartridge combines the functions of the armor piercing and the incendiary bullet, and is used against flammable targets and light-armored or unarmored targets, concrete shelters, and similar bullet-resisting targets. This tracer is dim at near ranges, but increases to bright as it moves further from the gun.

Armor Penetration.
500 meters: 0.83 in (21 mm)
1,200 meters: 0.43 in (11 mm)

Incendiary composition: 27 grains (1.74 g) IM 161
Trace range: 328 - 1,914 yards (300 - 1,750 m)
Tracer: R256

The cartridge is identified by a red bullet tip with an aluminum colored ring to the rear of the red tip.

Type Classification: OBS - MSR 04776009


Penetration capabilities of a single .50 caliber M2 AP round fired from a 45-inch barrel. Range Armor Plate (homogeneous) Armor Plate (face-hardened) Sand Clay
219 yd (200 m) 1.0 in (25.4 mm) 0.9 in (22.9 mm) 14 in (355.6 mm) 28 in (711.2 mm)
656 yd (600 m) 0.7 in (17.8 mm) 0.5 in (12.7 mm) 12 in (304.8 mm) 27 in (685.8 mm)
1,640 yd (1,500 m) 0.3 in (7.6 mm) 0.2 in (5.1 mm) 6 in (152.4 mm) 21 in (533.4 mm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's all wonderful scientific stuff, but not realistic IMHO. It's like the EPA mileage test under ideal conditions in a laboratory with the cars set on rollers and some pro driver carefully accelerating and decelerating to obtain skewed data. Your mileage may vary.

Are we on page 4 yet?

crazyivan1970
05-02-2007, 12:44 PM
http://images.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/DGV/DGV164/118033.jpg

Well done! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWSpinDry
05-02-2007, 12:45 PM
And that's firing at a belly plate on a tank that's obligingly rolled over like a cat wanting a scratch? Where are the range figures for penetration of a round after it's bounced off another surface? C'mon, there've gotta be charts and tables out there for that!
http://www.spinland.biz/smileys/popcorn.gif

John_Wayne_
05-02-2007, 12:47 PM
O.K. Tagert, just for you.

Would airborne AP shells be designed for use against against airborne aluminum armor plate? Would this be lighter than steel panzer armor? Would it? I gotsta know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Would the Uberbahn (kudos to the original poster) be laid in such a typically efficient manner that the individual granules would act as a microscopic vauban style deflector that would ricochet bullets harmlessly away at a high angle. Would it? Eh?

Has anyone looked for film footage on Google or Youtube yet? Have they? Have they?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Maj.Kaos
05-02-2007, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by WWSpinDry:
On the other hand, have one soldier fire a single shot at a moving aircraft, wherever he thinks it has the best chance of hitting. Now, have 1000 soldiers do the same thing. Methinks the odds just went up drastically that at least one of them will get it right.

Since ya hijacked my ridiculous thread, I'll respond with an anecdote. Our infantry manual (circa 1960's probably, since we received alot of discarded Army stuff deemed obsolete (and still made it work better than the Army could! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif )) taught that enemy a/c attacking us could be countered by establishing a sustained cross-fire of small infantry weapons in the sky in front of the attacking a/c, through which the a/c would have to fly, of course, and not to aim at the a/c itself. So, imagine a Soviet mud mover flying through a hail of M16 and M60 fire concentrated at one point in the sky (X marks the spot). In the least, the din of bullet pings on the plane would cause the pilot's bowels to reverse gears and render his vision brown and obscured, causing him to leave a large skid mark on the ground if not in his pants.

This tactic was suggested, assuming, of course, that we had run out of Stingers!

An Afghan taxi driver told me he saw a Mi-24 brought down with a hail of RPG's used in the same manner as above.

Are we on page 4 yet?

Bo_Nidle
05-02-2007, 01:07 PM
This subject has been brought up on here before. Of course there's no way a .50 cal round would penetrate the frontal armour but allied pilots DID used to take them out using .50s.

Check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9cqhuARrM

LStarosta
05-02-2007, 01:20 PM
This thread is too close for missiles. I'm switching to guns.

stalkervision
05-02-2007, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
This subject has been brought up on here before. Of course there's no way a .50 cal round would penetrate the frontal armour but allied pilots DID used to take them out using .50s.

Check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9cqhuARrM

Told you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

maybe I should submit this one to "Mythbusters" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No one argues with "Ma Duce" even to this day.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Aaron_GT
05-02-2007, 02:31 PM
I think Adam and Jamie would love firing that big 50 cal they borrow at big sheets of steel and tarmac! They need to need enough distance from the muzzle to let the round harden though. They normally then go on to the required equipment to make the mythic effect happen, so then they'd need to find an anti tank gun to fire at the steel plate to get through it.

Aaron_GT
05-02-2007, 02:36 PM
Check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9cqhuARrM

I've seen that before but I don't see any tanks being taken out. I see two tanks being fired on, but the last one (with an explosion) looks at best like an sdkfz 251 (12 mm armour, open topped).

luftluuver
05-02-2007, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
>> one inch of armor on the Tiger belly pan. Do the math... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif >>
I see you failed basic geometry. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The bullet strikes the belly at an angle NOT perpendicular. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
>> one inch of armor on the Tiger belly pan. Do the math... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif >>
I see you failed basic geometry. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The bullet strikes the belly at an angle NOT perpendicular. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy Luft!

He is new! Dec 2006!

Not making excuses for him..

In that there is none!

Just pointing out he is still wet behind the ears!

Thus you may have to spoon feed him a bit more than others! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AnaK774
05-02-2007, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
This is the most piss funny thing I have read on this forum in years.
The fifty cal can take out a Tiger tank,
because the CFS1 manual says so > http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Last time I had as fun when some1 claimed sawing destroyers
to half with .50 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But of course pilots were taught some special lullabies so
german "cats" would roll over and get ready for cuddling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

John_Wayne_
05-02-2007, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
>> one inch of armor on the Tiger belly pan. Do the math... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif >>
I see you failed basic geometry. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The bullet strikes the belly at an angle NOT perpendicular. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy Luft!

He is new! Dec 2006!

Not making excuses for him..

In that there is none!

Just pointing out he is still wet behind the ears!

Thus you may have to spoon feed him a bit more than others! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sense more sinister forces at work here. That nick is an anagram of 'talks revision'.

Think about it...

staticline1
05-02-2007, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9cqhuARrM

I've seen that before but I don't see any tanks being taken out. I see two tanks being fired on, but the last one (with an explosion) looks at best like an sdkfz 251 (12 mm armour, open topped). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Tagert hope this helps, though I bet it only goes 12-13. The first thing wrong with that video is the porked flight model of the P-47, then we should all take note that the .50 can in fact penetrate the armour of the tiger tank thus proving in fact tigers are dead meat when hit by multiple .50's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

stalkervision
05-02-2007, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
>> one inch of armor on the Tiger belly pan. Do the math... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif >>
I see you failed basic geometry. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The bullet strikes the belly at an angle NOT perpendicular. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just didn't think you would pick up on that.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

leitmotiv
05-02-2007, 03:24 PM
Those of us who are tank buffs are aware that the Germans fitted some of the Panthers and Tiger IIs with ridiculous elevated armor screens on metal posts over their air inlets on the upper hull on the rear deck in an effort to protect the radiators from cannon and machine gun fire penetrations through the grills. Thus, strafing did pose a problem to these monsters or there would not have been an attempt to try to solve the problem. As for the bouncing armor-piercing-incendiary .50 shell---I'd like to carefully read the document. During the Vietnam War, one of the hazards F-105 and A-6 crews faced in their low-altitude missions, as was well-known to U.S. planners, was the chance of being brought down by massed infantry weapon fire. The N. Viets trained in area fire, as did the WWII Soviet infantry. Put enough bullets into a zone and a possibility exists you can bring down even a speeding F-105 (but don't bet the farm on it).

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by staticline1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9cqhuARrM

I've seen that before but I don't see any tanks being taken out. I see two tanks being fired on, but the last one (with an explosion) looks at best like an sdkfz 251 (12 mm armour, open topped). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Tagert hope this helps, though I bet it only goes 12-13. The first thing wrong with that video is the porked flight model of the P-47, then we should all take note that the .50 can in fact penetrate the armour of the tiger tank thus proving in fact tigers are dead meat when hit by multiple .50's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What you smokin son?

staticline1
05-02-2007, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by staticline1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9cqhuARrM

I've seen that before but I don't see any tanks being taken out. I see two tanks being fired on, but the last one (with an explosion) looks at best like an sdkfz 251 (12 mm armour, open topped). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Tagert hope this helps, though I bet it only goes 12-13. The first thing wrong with that video is the porked flight model of the P-47, then we should all take note that the .50 can in fact penetrate the armour of the tiger tank thus proving in fact tigers are dead meat when hit by multiple .50's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What you smokin son? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol. Nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif Why you interested? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

jarink
05-02-2007, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
During the Vietnam War, one of the hazards F-105 and A-6 crews faced in their low-altitude missions, as was well-known to U.S. planners, was the chance of being brought down by massed infantry weapon fire. The N. Viets trained in area fire, as did the WWII Soviet infantry. Put enough bullets into a zone and a possibility exists you can bring done even a speeding F-105 (but don't bet the farm on it).

Yea! I remeber that from Flight of the Intruder!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

http://www.upcomingdiscs.com/covers/intruderdvd.jpg

LStarosta
05-02-2007, 04:49 PM
50 FTW

http://gorillaconvict.com/blog/upload/50%20cent.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by staticline1:
Lol. Nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif Why you interested? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif YES!

Now lets go! 26 more pages to go in 24 hours!

http://myspacecomedy.com/images/funny/you-can-do-it.jpg

Buster_Dee
05-02-2007, 06:30 PM
Well, they are alot of fun to shoot! I fired a Barret 50 sniper. The mag springs were weak, so an "A" gunner had to load a round at a time. What they didn't tell us was that, when the gunner fired the piece, the muzzle brake sent a fist of air into the "A" gunners forehead. I felt like I was being knocked silly in that position. Given that, I'm now qualified to make up anything that will get me out of doing that again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

StellarRat
05-02-2007, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Use your brains. If the .50 was so good at killing tanks then there was no need to have heavy calibre AT guns for killing tanks.

The belly of a Tiger was 25mm thick. That would mean the .50 would have to pass through at least 3" of armour to do any damage.

A Panther had a belly 16-30mm thick.

It just might be able to kill a P IV since its belly was only 10mm thick. I think you'd better go back to school...25mm is about 1" not 3".

Choctaw111
05-02-2007, 06:41 PM
I step away for ONE day and look what happens. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Bullets do bounce off many things, to include water, and pilots did use this trick to try and disable tanks. The question is did it really work? They will say they did it, and they did (bounce their gunfire up underneath the tanks), but did they really disable the tanks that they were shooting at, or, in other words, did they defeat the armor from underneath. I would at least like to be able to try in Olegs next installment when it advances that far.

totalspoon
05-02-2007, 07:26 PM
A P47 pilot sees a tiger tank below (To an allied soldier/pilot, every german tank was a tiger, every german artillery that shot at him was a 88) and having hear that that .50 cal rounds can be bounced up from under to destroy it, he dives down and gives it a good squirt. He see rounds land all around it, pulls out and races over it at 300mph and notes it is stopped as he flys away.

As far as he's concerned it worked and he tells his squadron mates so.

In reality he probably

1... Did nothing, the crew just shat themselves and stopped (most likely option if it was a tiger).
2... Shot off a track. .50 would certainly have the energy to snap a track pin, untracking the tank and making it stop.
3... Got a lucky hit down through the engine grill, in the radiator or smashed a vision block.
4... Set fire to stored POL stores on the engine top deck.
5... Blew it to pieces. .50 would go through the armour of German armoured cars and recon tanks. Most pilots would not have been able to tell a tiger from a Panzer II Luch's if they were standing beside them, let alone diving at 300mph on a shaded/camoflaged target.

The pilot doesn't know what really happened. He truly and honestly believes he's bounced rounds up and killed the 'tiger'...

Totalspoon

Maj.Kaos
05-02-2007, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Those of us who are tank buffs are aware that the Germans fitted some of the Panthers and Tiger IIs with ridiculous elevated armor screens on metal posts over their air inlets on the upper hull on the rear deck in an effort to protect the radiators from cannon and machine gun fire penetrations through the grills. Thus, strafing did pose a problem to these monsters or there would not have been an attempt to try to solve the problem.

Very good point, and much more realistic situation than bouncing rounds off the uberbahn. After spraying down an AFV with six to eight guns and zooming away at high speed, how could a pilot percieve what results were? Chances are that just one of those several hundred bullets managed to squeeze itself into an air intake or exhaust stack and damage the engine, maybe cause a small fire, ignite a bottle of cognac in the luggage rack, etc.

The P-47 video reveals to me that the pilots could not easily identify what model of panzer they were attacking, therefore, probably called it a Tiger.

Page 5 yet?

leitmotiv
05-02-2007, 11:00 PM
Hits through the grills would only hit the radiators, which were vulnerable just like airplane rads. Hits through exhaust outlets? Never heard of such. First of all, the kitties had big chunks of armor around the exhaust outlets so bon chance even with a Sov 45mm. Kitty killing was probably best accomplished by a couple lucky rad hits from a lot of P-47 passes by a squadron on a kitty column which was flak deficient and caught in the open.

M_Gunz
05-02-2007, 11:51 PM
If the tank has AAMG and it is being used, the gunner is in an open hatch.
BTW, just how thick are the roof hatches that did have to be lifted to open?

Sure, the hatches are always closed and armor thickness means every bit with no holes.
Tell me another one Mommy, I'm not tired yet!

But .50's as anti-tank guns? With great luck! Mainly I think the reason to use is to get
them to button up to reduce their effectiveness and slow them down.

leitmotiv
05-03-2007, 01:02 AM
German vehicle columns depended on the lethal flak detachments originally provided by the Luftwaffe. They were devastating from the beginning, and were the bane of Allied bombers in France 1940. Read the accounts of Tac Air fighters like those of Johnnie Johnson (WING LEADER) and Pierre Clostermann (THE BIG SHOW)---they wrote the German Army motorized flak detachments guarding mobile columns in 1945 were courting suicide to attack. Thus, German tanks, in theory, were not having to waste their time popping at Tempests with lousy MG42s from the commanders' cupolas---the tankers job was to head for cover while the flak blazed away at the jabos. Oleg probably does a pretty good job with German Army flak by making it so murderous.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2007, 02:38 AM
If you had a hard enough surface to bounce rounds off the angles before and after the bounce will be very similar. The chances of a bounce will be reduced as the dive angle increases. Getting the angles right in a shallower attack would be very challenging. Given all the wheels in the way you'd also need to attack from front or rear.

In the first two attacks on the video clip the attacks are on the sides of tanks - no chance of bouncing bullets under them as the wheels would get in the way. This would be even more the case with all those overlapping wheels on a Panther or Tiger.

What I could see is an attack on the side is possibly damaging the overlapping wheels. These could be compromised by too much soil or mud on occasion, so a hole punched in leaving a ragged flange of metal (assuming they are not more than 25mm thick) might do the trick. Even then it would be a lucky shot.

What might be possible, as alluded to above, is that given the difficulty in judging scales when flying around at 300mph one of the later Pzkpfw IIs might be mistaken for a Tiger. They have similar overall chassis plans and both have the overlapping wheels. If you had nothing close enough to give you a sense of scale at 300mph it might be possible to confuse them.

In the video, though, the first two vehicles are hit but there are no explosions or any evidence that they are out of action. The last vehicle attacked seems to have a rectangular dark area on its upper surface which suggests an open topped vehicle. Given the size of this area it looks like it might be an Sdkfz 251 or similar and it was probably having its open area filled with 50 cal rounds, and its armour was only proof against rifle calibre rounds anyway.

M_Gunz
05-03-2007, 06:08 AM
I look at M2 ballistics and penetration of ordinary armor and see that with zero degree angle
hits a 45" barrel M2 could get through just over one inch at 200 YARDS. That's with a flat
direct hit.
OTOH belly armor was more at the front of a tank than at the rear due to exposed belly when
crossing a ridge (the nose sticks out/up before the tank transitions onto the new angle) and
we read a single number of the average thickness in most all cases. Even frontal armor and
angles are not all the same as charts give. For every Janes-like single number there is
really pages of information that make differences.

luftluuver
05-03-2007, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
I think you'd better go back to school...25mm is about 1" not 3". Jeez, another one who failed basic geometry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

The rounds are being bounced off the road into the belly of the Tiger. So 'oh bright one of infinite wisdom', how did the bullet make that turn to impact the belly perpendicular?

A bullet striking the ground at 30*, will bounce off at 30*. Thus the bullet will strike the belly at 30*. If you are capable of doing simple math, I'll let you calculate the thickness of steel the bullet will have to go through to enter the tank.

BSS_Goat
05-03-2007, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by totalspoon:
A P47 pilot sees a tiger tank below (To an allied soldier/pilot, every german tank was a tiger, every german artillery that shot at him was a 88) and having hear that that .50 cal rounds can be bounced up from under to destroy it, he dives down and gives it a good squirt. He see rounds land all around it, pulls out and races over it at 300mph and notes it is stopped as he flys away.

As far as he's concerned it worked and he tells his squadron mates so.

In reality he probably

1... Did nothing, the crew just shat themselves and stopped (most likely option if it was a tiger).
2... Shot off a track. .50 would certainly have the energy to snap a track pin, untracking the tank and making it stop.
3... Got a lucky hit down through the engine grill, in the radiator or smashed a vision block.
4... Set fire to stored POL stores on the engine top deck.
5... Blew it to pieces. .50 would go through the armour of German armoured cars and recon tanks. Most pilots would not have been able to tell a tiger from a Panzer II Luch's if they were standing beside them, let alone diving at 300mph on a shaded/camoflaged target.

The pilot doesn't know what really happened. He truly and honestly believes he's bounced rounds up and killed the 'tiger'...

Totalspoon


How dare you try to use logic and common sense to settle this debate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

ImpStarDuece
05-03-2007, 06:52 AM
Gah, I can't believe I'm doing this, but...

Let ask a really BASIC question: Is a road or concrete surface harder than face hardened rolled homoegneous armour?

In other words: If a road is hard enough to deflect a .50 cal AP bullet, wouldn't the steel underside of the tank be more likely to do the same?

Lets consider some other factors:

1. The angle of strike is not going to be perpendicular:

At 15 degrees from vertical, the realtive armour thickness is 26 mm.
At 30 degrees from vertical, the realtive armour thickness is 29 mm.
At 45 degrees from vertical, the realtive armour thickness is 34 mm
At 60 degrees from vertical, the realtive armour thickness is 50 mm

2. The AP round is going to deform when striking the hard road surface, reducing piercing capability.

3. The AP round is going to lose velocity when striking the raod surface and having its trajectory changed.

KIMURA
05-03-2007, 07:22 AM
To back up ImparStar

That's a tungsten round that penetrated the skin of an elephant and was pulled out later on. Imagine the effect to a round that bounce off from a concrete road surface - it's more bent than this one, instable around all axis and lost around the half of its pontital energy. The table of Impar shows a round in perfect condition


http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/solidsvmono_p8p55v5no6_ah.jpg

WWSpinDry
05-03-2007, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:
Since ya hijacked my ridiculous thread...
http://www.spinland.biz/images/hijacked.jpg

jarink
05-03-2007, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
But .50's as anti-tank guns? With great luck!

Oddly enough, the M2 was originally designed for just that purpose. WWI-era tanks had very thin armor!


From wikipedia:
Using a round originally designed by Winchester, the .50 BMG round was designed as a response to the German 13mm anti-tank rifle of World War I and employed in a redesigned and scaled-up M1917 Browning .30 cal. machine gun. It was quickly adapted to the anti-aircraft role. It was also selected for the ground role and adopted by the U.S. as the Model 1921. The latter served during the 1920s as an anti-aircraft and anti-armor gun. In 1932, the design was updated and adopted as the M2, though fulfilling the same role.

Hanglands
05-03-2007, 10:43 AM
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m203/ChickenHawk_2006/th_tankbusters.jpg (http://s105.photobucket.com/albums/m203/ChickenHawk_2006/?action=view&current=tankbusters.flv)

rnzoli
05-03-2007, 10:58 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Should have used a German accent for the tank guys though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheBandit_76
05-03-2007, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
This thread is too close for missiles. I'm switching to guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

claypidgon
05-03-2007, 11:32 AM
The .50 cal modeled in this sim wont stop a Piper Cub...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Breeze147
05-03-2007, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by claypidgon:
The .50 cal modeled in this sim wont stop a Piper Cub...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Piper Cub is uber...

M_Gunz
05-03-2007, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by claypidgon:
The .50 cal modeled in this sim wont stop a Piper Cub...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That's better bait than a worm, I guess.

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2007, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by claypidgon:
The .50 cal modeled in this sim wont stop a Piper Cub...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That's better bait than a worm, I guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>One might even call him the Master Baiter! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
05-03-2007, 12:34 PM
It's in the hands of these guys now.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Mythbusters_title_screen.jpg

If they don't think it is too silly a topic that is.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


Hay it's got 50 caliber machines guns with ap ammo P-47 airplanes and german tiger tanks. What
more could one want? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
05-03-2007, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
1. The angle of strike is not going to be perpendicular:

At 15 degrees from vertical, the realtive armour thickness is 26 mm.
At 30 degrees from vertical, the realtive armour thickness is 29 mm.
At 45 degrees from vertical, the realtive armour thickness is 34 mm
At 60 degrees from vertical, the realtive armour thickness is 50 mm


Oh look at the chart I linked to (photobucket) and you will see it's got data for penetration
at 20, 30, 40, 45, 50, 60 and 70 deg off flat on those labeled curves. You first find range
and then go up to the curve for the barrel length and then go right or left until you
intersect the curve for the angle off impact and then straight down to get penetration
thickness.
At 2000 yards I see penetration at just under .25 in direct hit down to .05 in at 70 deg.
How do engine blocks compare to rolled homogenous armor plate? .05 armor is thicker and
harder than AC skin or light structural aluminum like ribs and hats which ran .02 to .03.
typically. 1 mm is just under .04 in. So a glancing hit at 2000 yards with M2 should
only be able to make a hole or two but flat on hit ... a hammer that can punch through
more than .2 in rolled armor. Not shabby.


2. The AP round is going to deform when striking the hard road surface, reducing piercing capability.

The armor piercing core deform from hitting just what road surface? AP is not lead shot.


3. The AP round is going to lose velocity when striking the raod surface and having its trajectory changed.

In the extreme! And it won't come up pointing directly where it's going either.

If rounds can get through a hole to something inside then sure. If the tank is carrying extra
fuel on the rear deck while traveling then I'd guess that API could ruin the crews whole day.

M_Gunz
05-03-2007, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Hay it's got 50 caliber machines guns with ap ammo P-47 airplanes and german tiger tanks. What
more could one want? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Babes.

Tator_Totts
05-03-2007, 12:45 PM
http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/Smileys/beatdeadhorse.gif http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/Smileys/50cal.gif http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/Smileys/bong1.gif

DmdSeeker
05-03-2007, 01:23 PM
I'd swear I can see bullets (or at least tracer rounds) colliding with each other at the convergence pointijn that youtube clip

Klemm.co
05-03-2007, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Hanglands:
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m203/ChickenHawk_2006/th_tankbusters.jpg (http://s105.photobucket.com/albums/m203/ChickenHawk_2006/?action=view&current=tankbusters.flv)
Priceless. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ImpStarDuece
05-03-2007, 03:40 PM
You made me do it:

Wartime .50 cal penetration vs face hardened armour

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2614/503114997559650facehardml4.jpg

Under ideal conditions, penetration is 1.14 inches.

Bouncing off a road and hitting the bottom of a tank is harldy idea conditions though...

Maj.Kaos
05-03-2007, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
You made me do it:

Wartime .50 cal penetration vs face hardened armour

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2614/503114997559650facehardml4.jpg

Under ideal conditions, penetration is 1.14 inches.

Bouncing off a road and hitting the bottom of a tank is harldy idea conditions though...

OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE??????!!!!!!

Page 6 yet?

Klemm.co
05-03-2007, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:
OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE??????!!!!!!

Page 6 yet?
I think that you have found the magic formula for this UBI Forum: Start a serious thread and it will soon turn rediculous, start a not-so-serious thread and it will come up with hard evidence of the real thing on page 5 or 6.

Ballistic4N6
05-03-2007, 07:29 PM
A little practical ricochet ballistics:

If a projectile is fired into an UNYIELDING surface such as steel or cobblestone, the incident angle is NOT equal to ricochet angle (exit). The richochet angle is allways less, and by a great margin. The projectile, no matter what its composition or design, is greatly deformed on impact, the exit velocity is greatly reduced, and the original projectile performance, such as defeating armour, is alsogreatly reduced.

In certain conditions and angles, a projectile ricocheting off a YIELDING surface, like sand, may exit at a equal or greater angle than incident. This is due to a "bow effect" of the bullet front as it channels and is deflected by the soil or sand.

In the video, the bullets are likely affecting the treads and undercarriages.

In fact, by my estimations of the angles of the incoming rounds, the projectiles (if fired toward and hitting low) have a real chance of being deformed and traveling under the tank after hitting the road surface!

This estimate is based on real-life studies, research, and shooting scene reconstructions in both civilian and military scenarios.

OK, I've thrown the hook!

StellarRat
05-03-2007, 08:50 PM
A bouncing .50 round after hitting something solid penetrating a tank even on the bottom??? Come on...it ain't going to happen. I'd bet a .50 that ricocheted off concrete would be hard pressed to penetrate any type of steel more than 1/4 inch thick. The energy loss from the ricochet, the deformation of the round, the chance that it would be tumbling or hitting at a non-nose first angle would totally ruin any chance of penetration.

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2007, 10:31 PM
Just 14 more pages to go and I win!

ultraHun
05-03-2007, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:
The authority that I cite is Air Publication X03-733691 Pilot's Manual (Restricted). Page 165 gives technical details of the Browning M2 .50 inch, including strengths and weaknesses.

From the middle of the page:
"With luck can stop a German heavy tank, can bounce the API round off road behind tank, striking its vulnerable engine compartment from beneath."

So, there ya go.

Some of you might have this manual. It came with the original MS CFS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Also states on Page 168 that the exact same thing for the Wgr 21 air 2 air rocket. Question is, why would it be lucky for a German (who else would be using the Wgr 21?) pilot to stop a German tank?

Would you mind to scan the document and publish it on the net? I cannot find any electronic copies via google etc..

Thanks in advance!

M_Gunz
05-04-2007, 01:57 AM
I posted a link to a more complete .05 ballistics and penetration table in the P-47 thread.
It goes down to 70 deg off direct strike curve.

Breeze147
05-04-2007, 06:28 AM
On Feb. 22, 1945, in a barn somewhere in far western France, which was converted into a makeshift Officer's Club, sat 1st Lt. Joe Pipp, 361st Fighter Group. Lt. Pipp, well into his second bottle of stolen Bordeaux, started chuckling to himself.

Capt. Larry Forkstein, his squad mate, asked him what was so funny.

Pipp, a lopsided grin on his face, said "Know what would be funny? We start a rumor that we can take out a Tiger by bouncing .50 cal rounds off the road and underneath them. It'll scare the snot out of the Jerries!".

"Brilliant", replied visiting RAF Lt. John Guiness from across the room. "If it works, I'll send you a case of me home brewed beer after the war".

Everyone in the barn laughed heartily and raised their Bordeaux in salute to Joe Pipp.

"I hope this goes better than my brother Wally's baseball career", laughed Pipp.

Everyone except Guiness, who didn't get it, laughed again.

And thus, another legend was born.

WWSpinDry
05-04-2007, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Just 14 more pages to go and I win!
We're trying! We need more charts and tables, dammit! They fill up the space faster.

BPO6_PANP
05-04-2007, 07:19 AM
Toad said

Yeh I've heard bugs fart under water before too.
Toad
That would be considered a wet fart and require a Exoskeleton change http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
only 14 more to go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

luftluuver
05-04-2007, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by BPO6_PANP:
Toad said

Yeh I've heard bugs fart under water before too.
Toad
That would be considered a wet fart and require a Exoskeleton change http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
only 14 more to go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif A wet fart would mean you have a 'load' in your knickers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
05-04-2007, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by ultraHun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:
The authority that I cite is Air Publication X03-733691 Pilot's Manual (Restricted). Page 165 gives technical details of the Browning M2 .50 inch, including strengths and weaknesses.

From the middle of the page:
"With luck can stop a German heavy tank, can bounce the API round off road behind tank, striking its vulnerable engine compartment from beneath."

So, there ya go.

Some of you might have this manual. It came with the original MS CFS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Also states on Page 168 that the exact same thing for the Wgr 21 air 2 air rocket. Question is, why would it be lucky for a German (who else would be using the Wgr 21?) pilot to stop a German tank?

Would you mind to scan the document and publish it on the net? I cannot find any electronic copies via google etc..

Thanks in advance! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to see this "document" too.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Maj.Kaos
05-04-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ultraHun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:
The authority that I cite is Air Publication X03-733691 Pilot's Manual (Restricted). Page 165 gives technical details of the Browning M2 .50 inch, including strengths and weaknesses.

From the middle of the page:
"With luck can stop a German heavy tank, can bounce the API round off road behind tank, striking its vulnerable engine compartment from beneath."

So, there ya go.

Some of you might have this manual. It came with the original MS CFS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Also states on Page 168 that the exact same thing for the Wgr 21 air 2 air rocket. Question is, why would it be lucky for a German (who else would be using the Wgr 21?) pilot to stop a German tank?

Would you mind to scan the document and publish it on the net? I cannot find any electronic copies via google etc..

Thanks in advance! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to see this "document" too.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, it's restricted. You had to buy the game to get a copy.

I could scan the entire manual and post it here, thus securing Tagert's win. But I think I'd have to mark out the sensitive stuff, else I get my XP license pulled and denied further updates.

M_Gunz
05-04-2007, 02:36 PM
From back in my days doing research papers for school I do remember that Copyright law does
allow up to 5% of the material to be used as long as it's quoted/credited where it was from.

You think that page is more than 5% of the manual? And MS is going to trace who you are from
UBI records for showing the page with credit? Unless UBI forbids posting that page which so
far they have left pages from many sites showing so I don't think so!

Maj.Kaos
05-04-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
From back in my days doing research papers for school I do remember that Copyright law does
allow up to 5% of the material to be used as long as it's quoted/credited where it was from.

You think that page is more than 5% of the manual? And MS is going to trace who you are from
UBI records for showing the page with credit? Unless UBI forbids posting that page which so
far they have left pages from many sites showing so I don't think so!

<span class="ev_code_GREY">I'm not messing with Microsoft.</span>

<span class="ev_code_WHITE">Page 7?</span>

stalkervision
05-04-2007, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
From back in my days doing research papers for school I do remember that Copyright law does
allow up to 5% of the material to be used as long as it's quoted/credited where it was from.

You think that page is more than 5% of the manual? And MS is going to trace who you are from
UBI records for showing the page with credit? Unless UBI forbids posting that page which so
far they have left pages from many sites showing so I don't think so!

<span class="ev_code_GREY">I'm not messing with Microsoft.</span>

<span class="ev_code_WHITE">Page 7?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

well microsoft apparently used a government document so it can't be copyrighted except by the government and you and I and your parents and friends are the ones that paid for it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
05-04-2007, 10:10 PM
An over how old govt document? So secret it gets put in game manuals.