.50 cal rifle

[-Dogi- 0]

i dont see how unless you were at a higher point, they dont know about you and theyre hatches were open, but else...

[Deadman 0]

you would have to ambush them with their hatches open and shoot all three men

[Buzzz90 0]

Hi,

Go see my my Topic named: "New weapon model for Desert blast mod" (March, 25th)

You'll see a real big shot sniper rifle

FN 0.50Cal Hecate II.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how can people think a 50cal can imobilise a tank<span id='postcolor'>

1. Stupidity

2. They are misinformed Ranger wanabees

Read a few earlier posts by Flyboy.

[Guest]

Here is, um, ehh... a souvenir I brought from Kosovo. It is a used 100 mm shell (from a T55 I assume). Note the size of this sucker. For comparison the monitor behind it is 19". The shell is about 1.6 m long:

ps. And yes, I can't recommend brining tank shells on a civilian aircraft. They tend to bitch about it.

[theavonlady 2]

Who cares about the stupid tank shell! How do you keep your desk so tidy?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 25 2002,11:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who cares about the stupid tank shell! How do you keep your desk so tidy?<span id='postcolor'>

Easy - it's not my desk

Actually I am currently visiting my parents over the easter holidays -  it's my mothers desk. My desk in my apartment looks *much* worse. I came here yesterday, so I havn't had the time to mess it up yet. But I can guarantee you then when I leave it will be everything but tidy

The point of the tank shell is so you can compare it to the pictures of the smaller calibre ammo that Tyler posted. You quickly see how the notion of a 12.7 mm penetrating the armour of an MBT is silly, when this 100 mm bad boy has trouble doing it.

I have considered taking that shell back to my place, but never found any use for it and it takes up a lot of space (my apartnent is small ). Little did I know that I could brag with it in the OFP forums

[Guest]

You could get a few more and make a cool table. Or maybe use it as a vase? Somewhere to put your brolly? A late night toilet when some one is in the bathroom?

btw what type of shell was it?

[Guest]

It is a 100 mm tank shell. That is the only thing i know about it. It must have come from a Serbian T-55, since it is the only type of tank that was present in Kosovo that uses that calibre. There are some markings on it, but they are very difficult to read, so there is no way of really telling what was in it. I have no idea of its origin since I found it on the ground in the field near what we thought had been an SA-2 site, near an abandoned military installation. It was probably left from some excersise.

As for getting a few more and making a table.. hehe, you have no idea how hard it was to bring that one from Kosovo to Sweden. The airlines are not very happy when a passenger wants to bring a 20 kg tank shell as hand luggage

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Armourdave @ Mar. 25 2002,13:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You could get a few more and make a cool table. Or maybe use it as a vase? Somewhere to put your brolly? A late night toilet when some one is in the bathroom?

btw what type of shell was it?<span id='postcolor'>

...or you could fill it with ice and use it to cool your beers...

Jubs

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Mar. 25 2002,03:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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<span id='postcolor'>

ah yes all well and good, but what about a .50 calibre from the barrel of a M82A2. I mean those bullets have one f*ck load of energy behind them.

You know I am sitting on the fence here on this one...I am just some guy from civy street who doesn't know any better...I am waiting for someone to conclusively convince me either way and I am yet to be swayed.

I mean calibre is not be all and end all. For example the 7.62mm bullets fired from a M134 (GE minigun) will have a greater energy behind them than say an M60 or a FN FAL. And I can still perfect imagine a DU .50 calibre bullet from an AM rifle (such a an M82A2) peircing some heavy armour...I can't see it doing much damage...certainly not destroying it...but punchering I can see...just my thoughts for the dayo n this ageing thread....

Jubs

[Guest]

Well, as far as I understand the M82A2 uses .50 Browning ammo. That is 12.7 x 99 mm if I am not mistaken. That is basically 10 cm for the casing, primer, powder and projectile. The energy from the powder decides ultimately the energy of a bullet. A tank shell casing is more then 10x of the size of a .50 Browning bullet casing, so it packs a whole lot of more power. The projectile is however also much heavier so it travels at a lower speed. The energy/m^2 of impact area is still a whole lot higher in the >100mm case then in the Browning round.

I stand by my statement that there is *no way* you can penetrate the armour of a MBT with .50 Browning ammo. Forget about it - it's not going to happen. Several people have wisely pointed out that if one could penetrate a MBT with a .50 rifle, an automatic version of it would be created and the main guns of tanks would not be used.

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

That's what I am talking about. Somebody to explain the reasons why rationally in a calm fashion. Instead of just going...'No it isn't possible!' or 'Yes it is possible' for 17 pages...if you said that 17 pages ag othis thread would have ended so much soooner. (oh and a M82A2 does indeed use 12.7mmx99m as does a 'light fifty'

Oh and back to the original post...a .50 calibre rifle would be cool...please gimme one soon!  

Jubs

[drewb99 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Jub-Jub Bird @ Mar. 25 2002,20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I mean calibre is not be all and end all. For example the 7.62mm bullets fired from a M134 (GE minigun) will have a greater energy behind them than say an M60 or a FN FAL.<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. The 7.62 rounds from a M134 are the exact same rounds fired from an M60 or FAL, it's the sheer number of rounds fired that causes it to be really damaging.

[eh remraf 0]

Ok everyone, this should end it. If you have any questions, thoughts, topics, cosmic imbalances look at this site. Watch the USMC Sniper School Instructor video. Watch the rest. Read. http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

Thats six times. Now it should be in your head.

[Guest]

No one answered my question about armour thickness of current MBT's. Is that because the data is not available to the public or just no one here has it to hand?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No one answered my question about armour thickness of current MBT's. Is that because the data is not available to the public or just no one here has it to hand?<span id='postcolor'>

I believe that data of that type is kept clasified on modern MBTs. I checked FAS.org and that info is not available, you can find just about anything on the M1A1, max fording depth, power to weight ratio, etc, etc, but there is no data on armour thickness or composition. That stuff is classified.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Somebody to explain the reasons why rationally in a calm fashion. Instead of just going...'No it isn't possible!' or 'Yes it is possible' for 17 pages...<span id='postcolor'>

We tried explaining it in a rational fashion, that didn't work on 'ol flyboy. It's hard to have patience with people who continue to believe something silly after you've tried explaining things to them in a reasonable manner. Also, things like the limits of .50 BMG power are obvious to me and other military/gun nut type people on this forum, so its hard not to lose ones cool after a short time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For example the 7.62mm bullets fired from a M134 (GE minigun) will have a greater energy behind them than say an M60 or a FN FAL.<span id='postcolor'>

Ive' lost my cool again Where in God's name did you find this 'information' from? That's totaly wrong. A bullet is a bullet no matter what it's fired from. Two of the same 7.62 NATO bullets will have the same velocity+energy wether they are fired from a bolt action rifle or a mini-gun, given the barrels of both weapons are the same length.

Denoir, that is one helluva big shell casing. How did you manage to put it in your carry-on bag? Or did you just carry it on as is? I would have loved to see the look on the passengers faces. Or was it a military flight?

A point-fifty's penetration power:

34mm of Steel !

[sarcasm] 34mm of steel....WOW, better cancel my M1A2 orders and just get a .50BMG !!! [/sarcasm]

Tyler

[Guest]

Ok, found some data. I don't know how reliable it is, but it looks ok to me. Keep in mind that this is an estimate and can be wrong. Otherwise armour strength seems to be classified for some reason (strange since you can almost get any other information about tanks).

http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html

Since I know very little about tanks my guess is as good as yours on the correctness of the data.

Btw. Look at the video that eh remraf has provided several times in this thread. It should answer all the questions about the M82A2 you wanted to ask but was afraid to ask

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Mar. 25 2002,22:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, that is one helluva big shell casing. How did you manage to put it in your carry-on bag?   Or did you just carry it on as is? I would have loved to see the look on the passengers faces. Or was it a military flight?<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't carry it in my duffle bag, but in my arms

And, no it was a commercial flight and I demanded to take it as hand luggage.You can guess how thrilled the flight attendants were, not. I kept it in my lap the entire flight

The flight crew were one problem. The real problem would have been to take it through customs, but a friend of mine at the Belgian embassy in Zagreb managed to get me papers that said that I was transporting it for EU's ministry of agriculture

[Major Fubar 0]

Has anyone heard the story about the African fighter jet that got taken down by a golf ball?

I don't know whether this is an urban myth or not, but apparently a low-flying jet flew over a golf course just as a ball was hit high into the air. The ball got sucked into one of the jet intakes, blew then engine, and downed the jet.

The reason I bring this up in this thread is that I think the likelihood of a .50 immobilising a tank is about the same as a golf-ball downing a jet, a one-in-a-million fluke.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Anti-Tank? A .50 cal wouldn't do anything to a BMP (unless you shoot the back hatch with incindiary ammo), much less an MBT. Hell, a t-80 isn't even a realistic match for a M1A1/2. Hence M1's killed in Desert Storm = 0. Nor is the Barret technically considered a sniper rifle. It is used for hard target interdiction. Barret boasts that the rifle can shoot 1 moa with match ammo, but at 1000 meters 1 moa is 10 inches. A good sniper rifle will shoot .5-.25 moa at that distance like a .300 Win Mag, or a really good marksman with a .308. Barrets are good for disabling vehicles with very light or no armor, and reinforced troop emplacements.

[Deadman 0]

never heard that story before can anyone tell me if its true

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Barrets are good for disabling vehicles with very light or no armor, and reinforced troop emplacements.<span id='postcolor'>

And for disposing of UXO, isn't that what the Israelis use most of them for?

Tyler

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Mar. 25 2002,22:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For example the 7.62mm bullets fired from a M134 (GE minigun) will have a greater energy behind them than say an M60 or a FN FAL.<span id='postcolor'>

Ive' lost my cool again Where in God's name did you find this 'information' from? That's totaly wrong. A bullet is a bullet no matter what it's fired from. Two of the same 7.62 NATO bullets   will have the same velocity+energy wether they are fired from a bolt action rifle or a mini-gun, given the barrels of both weapons are the same length.<span id='postcolor'>

ok...sorry about that...bad examples all three use 7.62 x 51mm NATO. But it isn't totally wrong, because, as you yourself said, the barrel lengths are differnet. So would there not be a difference in the velocity of the round? The M134 barrel length is 559mm, M60 is 560mm and FN FAL is 533mm.

And whilst we are on the subject I have a better example. An AK47 (uses 7.62 x 39mm Soviet M1943) wouldn't have as much energy potential as a FN FAL (uses 7.62 x 51mm NATO).

Am I right in this post?

Jubs

[USSoldier11B 0]

Good point Assualt, the U.S. military also uses the Barret for UXO.