.50 cal rifle

[advocatexxx 0]

FLYBOY, I believe someone already blew your cover off earlier in this topic, readback.  So don't try and tell us your veteran stories about how you were taking down T-72s with your Rifle, hmmkay ?

Yes a high kinetic energy .50 caliber could penetrate the skirt between the turret and hull, but on most MBTs today that area is so small, that anyone trying to hit it on a moving tank from 1 kilometer away is either bored or feels no shame in wasting countless rounds.

Most modern MBTs, like Leopard2A6, M1A2 and T-90 series have far superior armor than anything before.  A blend of honeycomb layer of ceramic composite, steel, aluminum and rubber.  It is that mixture of soft and thick armor that gives today's MBTs the edge they need.  And I can assure you, no .50 caliber rifle in the world today can "wipe out" a tank by trying to snipe it.

If you're really lucky, you might succeed in disabling it, though I wouldn't go through all the trouble.

Tanks are multi-million dollar machines with computer electronics and decades of research behind them.  If they could be taken down so easily with mere Sniper Rifles, than I doubt they'd serve any purpose on today's battlefield.

[eh remraf 0]

Exactly. For those of you who don't know the facts and did not catch my post with them watch this video! It will explain everything you will need to know about the Barret M82A1 SASR. It will explain all ammunition used with it. Watch this video. Watch it...

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/50cal56k.rm

[Relg 0]

um... point!

everyone is saying that the .50 cal round can pierce 40mm of hardened armour. okay then. all well and good. But people have to remember. MBTs carry ALOT more armor then 40 mm. probably in the range of a couple hundred or more. then you have to factor in the slant. if you slant the armour 45 degrees you greatly increase its thickness. as for piercing the skirt? yes you can do that, you might destroy the track. but now you've just stopped a very large, and most likely very pissed off thing. This thing (remember) can shoot a hell of a lot farther then you can

[FLYBOY4258 0]

you people can believe what you want but a .50 of DU will slice between a turret and the hull of a tank. and if you think the russian have a good tank, think again, there engine on top of the hull is just covered by a filter. one side in the engine air intake and the other is the exaust, with that being a mesh it helps cool the diesel engine and its just plain easy to hit. If you people could only see what i've seen

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What i said in my last message is true it will breech the hull of a T-72 but wont destroy. thats why us AM guys travel with the AT. AM will disable or get the tanks attention and then the AT will destroy .50 will go through the hull and i go in o combat with a Colt .45 and a side arm, just incase<span id='postcolor'>

I thought a Colt .45 is a sidearm?

I agree with scooby 100%. In a war you cant be expected to be thinking about what weapons you are using to kill humans. Also if shooting people with a high calibre sniper rifle is not allowed why is hitting them with 155MM artillery ok?

No one in their right mind would even think about 'plinking' a tank with a rifle. If I was the commander in that tank first thing I would do is button up then begin charging at you, I dont think you'd last too long against a raging T80 and it's 125mm friend

[FLYBOY4258 0]

sorry my spot talking to me and i got screwed up, i go in to combat with a Colt .45 as a side arm and a Berret M82A1 DU rounds 8 rounds a clip(the clip can hold 10 but we dont like to jam the gun)usally 12 clips

[XtremeX19 0]

i think im just gonna stay quiet and neutral during this conversation....

[UrbanMonkey 0]

A .50 caliber round CANNOT pierce a tanks armor, not even a crappy soviet-made tank. It couldnt even pierce an M113's armor(Maybe the turret area). A 30mm round that most fighter jets carry could maybe, but not a 12.7mm. If you want an efficient anti tank weapon complain to BI to make the LAW more powerful since it can rip a tank to shreds with one rocket in real life, but it takes sometimes three in the game. You can argue all you want, but thats not gonna make a .50 round go through thick armor. Just will never happen..

[advocatexxx 0]

Uhm, actually urban monkey, it would have to be one hell of a shot to destroy a T-80 or Abrams with one LAW rocket.

During the middle-eastern war, the Israelis lost tons of their M-60 Tanks to the Egyptian anti-armor weapons, mostly the RPGs.  It was then that US Army realized that the M-60 lacked the proper armor.  Thus they partnered up with Germany to develope a next generation tank, the MBT-70, which, due to many reasons never saw the light of day.

Ultimately, however, the M1 Abrams emerged, followed by the M1A1 version with improved armor, gun, and other features.

One of the primary goals was to develop a MBT that could withstand these shoulder-launched anti-armor rockets.  And the Abrams definitely does that.

It's certainly not invincible, but in majority of the cases it takes more than 1 rocket to disable a tank.

Quoting you "it can rip a tank to shreds with one rocket".  That statement is grossly exaggerated.  A well placed, and perhaps a lucky shot from a LAW may disable the Abrams/T-80, but the chances of it ripping a tank into shreds is indeed very small.

I say it again, if anti-tank weapons that cost $3,000 were so powerful they could destroy a $4.5 million dollar tank in one shot, then Armies of the world would send their tanks to a junkyard.

Use some common sense people, little knowledge of physics wouldn't hurt either.

PS:  By the way, I should add that currently in OFP, the M2 Machine Gun can and will destroy the T55 and M60.  I'm no genius, but I doubt M2's bullets have sufficient force to penetrate the armor of these tanks, even if they weren't the greatest in the world.

[Major Fubar 0]

Im pretty sure .50 rounds could pierce an M113 or BMP, but it would really have to be a "one-in-a-million" shot to pierce an MBT.

I'd say the worst it could usually do is take out a light, arial or smoke launcher.

I don't have strict facts to back me up, just things I've heard and read.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FLYBOY4258 @ Mar. 21 2002,17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you people can believe what you want but a .50 of DU will slice between a turret and the hull of a tank. and if you think the russian have a good tank, think again, there engine on top of the hull is just covered by a filter. one side in the engine air intake and the other is the exaust, with that being a mesh it helps cool the diesel engine and its just plain easy to hit. If you people could only see what i've seen<span id='postcolor'>

*caugh* bullshit*caugh*

The T-64 and T-72 (T-80 - I assume the same) has a 305 mm protective titanium ring around the turret. That is about 10x more then a .50 cal can penetrate. A protective ring is standard since WW2, since it is one of the weakest points of the tank. I assume that the american tanks have somehting similar too.

As for the .50 cal penetrating MBT dream.. well, really no need to comment that. The notion of it is so absurd. And if flyboy ever had anything to do with anything military, I'll eat my monitor.

As for LAWs against MBT - we had a discussion about this a while ago in another thread.

From my (US ARMY) Soldiers Manual of Common Tasks:

- see under note:

[advocatexxx 0]

Thank you for proving my point. FLYBOY you're so full of s*hit. Don't embarass yourself please, for your own sake.

[-Dogi- 0]

err advocate, i think that warning came a little bit too late...like 10 pages too late...

[eh remraf 0]

Ok flyboy, I want your MOS, date of service, drill instructor, and a phone number where I can contact him.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Hey Denoir could you post that picture of the law site?I saw one at this place and actually saw thru the law site.Thats the real law site not the lines going left and right with a center one.Thanks if you can.

[UrbanMonkey 0]

Nevermind...I realized its plain stupid arguing about something like this...I suggest we drop the thread.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unfortunately Scooby, the Geneva convention would disagree with you. As has been discussed in previous threads, .50 is classed as an AP round, and shooting infantry with AP rounds is a no-no. <span id='postcolor'>

Until I see the actual f*cking convention in print in front of my face, I will not beleive any of this BULLSHIT. I hear alot of people talking about what is 'illegal' in the Geneva convention but I never see any proof to back it up.

It is NOT illegal to use AP rounds against infantry, the U.S. used 5.56mm rounds with steel penetrators against the Somalis in '93. They also used the .50 cal against them too. In Canada we train to use .50 BMG's against dismounted infantry at long ranges, it's not illegal to do so, trust me.

Here's a little something from FAS:

The 5.56-mm ball M855 (A059) cartridge has a gilding, metal-jacketed, lead alloy core bullet with a steel penetrator.

This is a standard NATO bullet, it's not illegal.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It's also true that you cannot use heavy rounds .50+ caliber against infantry in wartime, and it has nothing to do the size of the bullit or anything like that. It is a warcrime to shoot to kill, it is only allowed to shoot to disable! I'm not kidding here! The reason the heavy rounds are therefore illigal is because if such a bullit just passes by you it'll rip your arm off, and if you are actually hit you'll pretty much explode! So every shot with a heavy round against infantry is a shot with intend to kill, and that is a warcrime. <span id='postcolor'>

HAHAHAHA......what a complete load of SHIT.

LOL, it's a war crime to shoot to kill a soldier.......that has to be the f*cking funniest thing I have ever heard in my life. You must have made this up.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> i go in to combat with a Colt .45 as a side arm and a Berret M82A1 DU rounds 8 rounds a clip(the clip can hold 10 but we dont like to jam the gun) <span id='postcolor'>

I think your only 'combat' experience was on the Novaworld server playing 'Delta Force'. We all know you are full of shit, don't make a further ass of yourself.

BTW, they are magazines, not clips. Any basic recruit would know that.

Sorry if I came off as an asshole, it's just that ignorance pisses me off

Tyler

[Minotaur 0]

The only illegal munitions I'm aware of which are so specified by the Genevea Convention are Hollow Point and frangible bullets.

You can shoot at and kill the enemy on the battlefield; just make sure you do it with authorized bullets.

How civilized

[WKK Gimbal 0]

Those are the rules of state-controlled violence

But like others, I can see absolutely no reason why it should be "illegal" to shoot someone with a bullet that kills them faster. It's not like ironbombs are illegal!

[WKK Gimbal 0]

"Given an operational M72A2 LAW and engagable targets"

LOL, those arms manuals really makes sure everyone can follow the instructions!

[advocatexxx 0]

That's not the point Gimbal. Someone earlier mentioned that a single LAW rocket will rip through any tank and shred it to pieces in real life. If you read that manual carefully you will see:

"Note: The M72A2 LAW will not penetrate the thickest armor on a tank. Do not attempt to engage T-80 or T-72RR tanks. They use ERA (see section 072-242-0422) and the M72A2 LAW will not damage the tank."

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ Mar. 23 2002,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey Denoir could you post that picture of the law site?I saw one at this place and actually saw thru the law site.Thats the real law site not the lines going left and right with a center one.Thanks if you can. <span id='postcolor'>

I assume you mean the front sight of the LAW:

As for the discussion of the geneva convention - hollow points are not allowed for a good reason. There is no reason really why AP rounds should be forbidden. I have a copy of the damned thing somewhere, but can't find it right now.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WKK Gimbal @ Mar. 23 2002,06:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Given an operational M72A2 LAW and engagable targets"

LOL, those arms manuals really makes sure everyone can follow the instructions! <span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, I laughed my ass off when I first saw a claymore mine. They have actually "FRONT TOWARD ENEMY" written on the mine....

[UrbanMonkey 0]

The Steel Penetrating rounds the Rangers and D-Boys used in Somolia were crap. The bullets went right through the peole they shot at.  They also used a 50 cal against humans...There are no rules against using a frickin .50 against humans in war.  The US may have made the M2 back in the early 1900's to take out planes, but now they are useless against aircraft.  So we use them to dispatch people  

[Sadico 1]

Geneva Convention

Here, read the damn thing.