.50 cal rifle

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (UrbanMonkey @ Mar. 22 2002,058)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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..<span id='postcolor'>

You be tallking out of your ass my firend. I think you live in a virtual world for far too many hours of your life. I'm thinking, besides OFP, lots of Ghost Recon, Delta Force and Rainbow Six.

I don't know if a high powered .50 calibre bullet would penetrate MBT armour or not. I have no military experience. But I do know that one bullet from a M82A2 will pass through 6 buildings. No that is pretty damned impressive. That could certainly pass through the light aluminum armour of a M113 or a BMP say, maybe even an M60 or T-54/55/62.

Yes a 30mm bullet from a jet would penetrate MBT armour. That's why they call the A-10 the 'tank-killer' because it's GAU-8/AV Avenger cannon will throw bullets weighing a pound roughly the size of milk bottles at its target. But you are incorrect to say that most modern jets use guns of this calibre. Other than the A-10 the only other planes that use 30mm cannons that I can think of are Mirage F1s, variations of the A-4 Skyhawk, Jaguar and variations of the Su-24. Not even the Su-25 uses 30mm as standard (despite what OFP would lead you to believe). Some planes might carry a 30mm Gepod gun pod on some missions. The game even leads you to believe that the AH-1 and Mi-24 use 30mm...but they don't. In the game the AH-1 has a M197 three-barrelled cannon which is in reality 20mm. The in game Mi-24 has a four-barrel chain gun which in reality is 12.7mm (yes .50) not 30mm. Although having said this both of these helicopters can be fitted with upgrade 30mm cannons such as the M230.

Not in a million year would one LAW successfully disable a MBT...not unless the firer was very lucky. I am not even sure if they even use HEAT or HESH technology (maybe someone could enlighten me).

Jubs

[Cpl Ryan 1]

just adding to your list there...the Tornado GR4 has a 30mm cannon and the F3 variant has a 27mm cannon as does/will the Typhoon, other aircraft using the 30mm are the SU27/30/34/37 series

all this can be verified by looking in a copy of Janes Defence Monthly...probebly one of the most accurate and uptodate sources around

[AntiPasta 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 23 2002,13:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></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....<span id='postcolor'>

Even better, I heard they've got "Do not eat" written on it...

[Sadico 1]

Do not compare a normal 30mm cannon like the chaingun in the Ah-64 with the avenger cannon in the a-10. Not all 30mm's are the same, that's like saying that 7.62x39 (AK-47) is as powerful as 7.62x51 (M60) or 7.62x54 (SVD). Who is the lamer who said that a .50 can penetrate a MBT? If it's difficult for a t-80's 125mm cannon to penetrate a m1 abrams, how can you believe that a .50 would penetrate it? Are you crazy? If .50 can destroy a tank, why do tanks carry big cannons? why do choppers carry anti tank missiles? Furthermore, if a rifle can destroy a tank, why do tanks exist? Use your brain.

[Aaron Kane 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (eh remraf @ Mar. 17 2002,06:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe if they think that all MBTs are made of rolled homogenous armour. But there not. You guys are sadly mistaken on this subject. Hell, SLAP round would have a hard time making a noise on modern MBTs. The only way one would penetrate is by hitting a thin skin on the tank. Heres proof. Listen and learn! This Marine will set you straight.

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/50cal56k.rm<span id='postcolor'>

BEST MOVIE EVER! That did set me straight, and I demand that Marine be given an Oscar!

[UrbanMonkey 0]

Actually, sir, exactly 6 buildings made out of what?  Cinder Block?  Pffff.  Of course it could.  Any high caliber round could do such through rock or concrete, but not a mixture of all sorts of good stuff that composes todays battle tank's armor.  A LAW is meant to take out a tank, and it will succeed in doing such.  Someone said earlier if someone invented a 400,000 rocket that could take out a 4 million dollar tank, they would send the tanks to the junk yard.  Thats just like saying when someone invented a rocket that would heat seak and take out a 30,000,000+ airplane, they would take their airplanes to junk yard, which they dont.  It may take more than one LAW to take out and disable a T72 or T80 to the point where it cant move or use its turret effectively, but it can be done.  One LAW could maybe take out a track of a tank so it cant move, but the person firing the rocket couldnt reload and relocate much like sniping so the tank gunner and commander are none the wiser.  I admit saying the LAW could take out a modern tank in one hit, since I had no clue about the 305mm protective ring around the turret.  I'm no military expert on tanks, but I do know for a 3 pound rocket, the LAW can pack a punch.

[Guest]

LAW is as the name says a Light Anti-armour Weapon. When they say "light" they are not referring to the weight of the missile but the armour it is intended to kill. You can't even be sure to kill a bmp or m113 with one law hit.

As for taking out the tracks on a tank.. well in theory yes. You have to be however a very good shooter, lucky and suicidal/stupid. A tank ladies and gentlemen is one piece of scary machinery. You don't want to piss it off. LAWs are loud and visible. After fiering any kind of rocket you are most likely to be nominated for the most popular target on the battlefiled.

As for the track - the tank will just (after killing you) call a support-truck and they will change the damaged track. This is nothing special, tanks in the field change tracks more then once a week (depending on how far they have traveled).

[-Dogi- 0]

thou most tanks also carries around track piece thingies and basic equipment for repairing it too dont they?

[Grave 0]

Dunno about the western tanks, but the T-34's and T-60/72/etc all carry trackpeices on the top of the sides.

[FLYBOY4258 0]

you all can out your ass all you wat i know what a .50 can do, and the one thing about this post i like is that it has the most reply to it when i checked it was on page 14, i think it's a new record

[Aaron Kane 0]

Naah... the "How to make a bowl of cereal" thread had a Hell-of-alot more than this

[Placebo 29]

Spam threads don't count, no matter how much certain people try to believe that a post about how to make a bowl of cereal is valid it's not

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you all can out your ass all you wat i know what a .50 can do, and the one thing about this post i like is that it has the most reply to it when i checked it was on page 14, i think it's a new record <span id='postcolor'>

Go fuck yourself, liar.

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Mar. 24 2002,02:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Go fuck yourself, liar.<span id='postcolor'>

None of that thank you.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Geneva Convention

Here, read the damn thing.

<span id='postcolor'>

Just as I thought, there is no mention of weapons in the convention.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A tank ladies and gentlemen is one piece of scary machinery. You don't want to piss it off. LAWs are loud and visible. After fiering any kind of rocket you are most likely to be nominated for the most popular target on the battlefiled.<span id='postcolor'>

I know, I once saw a platoon (4 tanks) of Canadian Leopard 1's in action using live rounds. If that doesn't put the fear of God into someone, I don't know what will.

LAW's and Carl Gustavs (as denoir said) are visible and audible from hundreds of meters away. On top of that, niether of them will do serious damage to a modern tank. You might take out a T-55 with a single side shot using a CG or a few LAWs but I wouldn't have the balls to try it on anything more modern. The U.S. doesn't even use the LAW anymore, it's obsolete. It is good against fortifications though.

Tyler

[Deadman 0]

if a .50 cal can peice a tank why the hell do tanks have 120ml guns when a .50 cal will do the job.Think a .50 cal is cheaper so why do tanks have big guns which cost more

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

Because assuming a .50 calibre bullet could penetrate MBT armour it still won't do much damage unless it hits a crew member, hits a vital comonant dead on or causes a fuel leek. On such a large target that a tank is I would imagine that this would be hard to do, all it might hope to do is make a hole.

The advantage with rocket and shell ammunition is the way the warheads are designed to explode.

The basic Depleted Uranium shells break the skin by brute force. They are heavy, thrown by a hell of a gun and have a powerful explosion. If it doesn't kill the occupants outright it'll shake them up a bit, maybe even concus them.

High Explosive Squash Head rounds (HESH) work by spreading out to form a cake on the target on impact before detonating. The shock generated is enough to knock a scab off the interior of the armour plate; the scab ricochets around the inside of the tank at high speed killing crew and damaging internal parts of the tank. The external explosion is sufficient enough to be used as an HE shell against unarmoured targets.

High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) rounds use the 'Monroe Effect', involving detonation of the explosive at a critical distance from the target. The conical hollow charge focusses the explosion into a high speed jet which slices through the armour, like a hot knife through butter, into the interior causing catostrophic damage to crew and equipment. RPGs also use HEAT warheads and I am assuming LAWs do too...but I am not sure.

Now I hope it is more clear how effective explosive rounds are and why they are used against armour in prefference to .50 calibre...because so many people have brought it up. I hope it is also apparent that these are designed predominatly to kill the crew members and damage internals of a tank. So many people talk about 'destroying' a tank which is very misleading, and 'killing' a tank...it is not a living creature you know!

Jubs.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The basic Depleted Uranium shells break the skin by brute force. They are heavy, thrown by a hell of a gun and have a powerful explosion.<span id='postcolor'>

Correction.......SABOT rounds do not explode, there is no explosive material in them. SABOT rounds pierce a tank's armour using kinetic energy. All that a SABOT round is is a dart made of Depleted Uranium. At the moment of impact the amount of friction between the dart and the armour causes both the tip of the dart and the armour to heat up until both are molten. Since the dart of D.U. is more dense than the armour, it wins out, slicing through the armour like....like....like.......a hot knife through butter.

White hot pieces of molten armour and DU are thrown around inside the tank, killing the crew and possibly igniting ammo and fuel, causing the tank to explode.

Other than that you're correct Jub-Jub

Tyler

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

That is what I thought...but then someone said to me, 'there is definately an explosion'...so I edited my post and added the bit about a powerful explosion.

That is why I added no information about any type of warhead...because I knew of none exisiting in a DU shell.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

Jubs

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Mar. 24 2002,22:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">White hot pieces of molten armour and DU are thrown around inside the tank, killing the crew and possibly igniting ammo and fuel, causing the tank to explode.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah. It's not a pretty sight. I talked to a couple of Danish soldiers in Kosovo who had inspected a Serbian BMP that had been hit by some form of UCK anti-armour weapon. There was nothing left of the crew - they were all splattered inside the BMP. The whole interior of the APC was covered in a mess of blood and crushed organs. The BMP itself was in pretty good shape.

[Guest]

It's important to remember that RPG/LAW type AT weapons have come on along way since the RPG-7 and M72. Todays high-powered close range AT weapons such as the RPG-29 and Apilas have 800mm+ of armour penetration BEHIND ERA. Where as the RPG-7/M72 probally have less than 250MM's and are absolutely against ERA.

I dont know how many MM's of turret armour T80/M1A1 have but I cant imagine it's anything like 800mm's. Thats nearly 1M Of course they have special types of armour, not just rolled steel. M1A1/A2 has Chobham armour etc.

Could anyone provide data on armour thickness on major west/east tanks? (M1A1, Challenger2, Leo2, T80, T72 etc)

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah. It's not a pretty sight. I talked to a couple of Danish soldiers in Kosovo who had inspected a Serbian BMP that had been hit by some form of UCK anti-armour weapon. There was nothing left of the crew - they were all splattered inside the BMP. The whole interior of the APC was covered in a mess of blood and crushed organs. The BMP itself was in pretty good shape.<span id='postcolor'>

DAMN!, those poor bastards.

Come to think of it, that's one of the reasons I chose infantry over armoured But I suppose there are a million+1 nasty ways to die on the battle field, no matter which trade.

War sucks.......

Tyler

[Assault (CAN) 1]

For any IDIOT here who thinks a .50 (12.7mm) BMG bullet can penetrate MBT armour, I have something to show you.......

25mm won't even bother a T-90 that much, and you think a .50 is big?!?!? Think about how big a 120mm shell from an Abrams would compare to this!

Fools......

Tyler

[eh remraf 0]

I thought this topic was     . But yeah, Assault is right. Listen to him. You may learn something.

Heres what kills tanks

This is an 120mm APFSDS in mid flight right as the dart shoe is peeling off revealing the DU penetrator.

[Deadman 0]

how can people think a 50cal can imobilise a tank