.50 cal rifle

[FLYBOY4258 0]

You know what we need in Flashpoint? we need a .50 cal anti-tank rifle. you know why it's because i sick and tired of trying to kill tanks with out any anti-ank missiles. and when i do have them they miss due to bleed. so if we had a .50 with a scope that bleed was voided by adjustable scope i'd be happy. plus, you know what .50 would do to a solider. (due to the geniva convention we are no long able to shoot at the body of an enemy solider becasue what a .50 can do to a human so we have to shoot at the gear) so... takers on making it? i'll supply data. i'm a .50cal user myself.

[barret 0]

.50 CAL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME!!!!!! GO TO: Barret Rifles to see the best .50 cal in the world!!

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

It would be wicked if you could blow up mines with them, shoot at engine blocks or take out the driver or commander of an APC or FAV.

I've seen M82A2s in VBS, maybe in the data disc.

[engen 0]

A .50 wouldn't do shit on a tank. Think about this, in IRL a 40mm shell would have trouble penetrating the front armour of a modern MBT, then how the hell can a 12.7mm do it?

And no.... There is nothing that says that you cant use the .50 against people, why is there then a .50 in the Abrams/on tripods then eh? For pot-shooting?

[madmike 0]

Of course it wouldnt do anything to armour(maybe realy thin like a tin can), if it could then there would be no need for expensive AT weapons for infantry such as MILAN and LAW.

Tanks would also have no massive guns

[FLYBOY4258 0]

Ok i'm a Army Ranger, I operate a Barrett .50 cal M82A12, dubbed the "hefty fifty", not the little one the BIG one. we got to play with this rifle me and my small group, a .50 cal round WILL i repeat WILL go throught the skin of russian tanks and it would rattle the shit out of the Abram. And yes there something saying we cant shoot at the bodies of enemy soliders, outlined from the Geniva Convetion (the war crimes convention) states the if we use a .50 cal round against an enemy solider we are subject to war crime reguardless if we win or lose. if they dont have a backpack your not suppose to shoot them, i know the commander in the Abrams have a .50 it's use to destroy light armored targets,i should know i'm a .50cal user, was lectured about it. If you want can get you a copy of that part o the geniva conventin if you want it email me and i'll get it, it may take a while but i'll get it

[Sadico 1]

Hell, yes. A .50 would be great! But we would need to hack the view distance on all missions, because 900 meters is not even near the max range of a .50 rifle.

[HKPSG-1 0]

My friends knows some one who owns a .50cal rifle but not the Barret and he easyly shots it though 10 ft. thick reinforced concrete also .50 cal are not used by infatry becaus of the weight plus the time it takes to set up and fire where a LAW can be fire quite quick

I know some one will say that i have problem with my statment but it is a greneralized point i am stating

[Lord Talis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a .50 cal round WILL i repeat WILL go throught the skin of russian tanks and it would rattle the shit out of the Abram.<span id='postcolor'>

If a .50 cal bullet can penetrate the armour of a tank why the h e l l most MBT as 120mm guns?

I've no doubt that it can go through the armour of most APC but not MBTs.

[Frizbee 0]

Why is it a war crime to shoot someone with a .50 calibre sniper rifle?

Its not exactly as though they're going to know they have been hit.. or as though they are going to lie there screaming "I've been shot" after a .50 round has gone through their head or chest...

Its a quick kill... maybe not clean.. but certainly painless for whoever it hits.. they'd be dead before their brain registered the impact.

[Wobble 1]

A 50 caa couldent shoot through the panzers of WW2 and it CANNOT I repeat it CANNOT SHOOT THROUGH A MBT IN ANY WAY.. anyone who says a 50 cal could penetrate a post WW2 tank it totally talking out of their ass.. it cant penetrate the front, the back, the side.. NOWHERE.. despite what any fictional 'army ranger' tells you.

for those who keep saying it will.. i find it funny that the 30mm round from the Avenger gatling gun in the A-10 cannot penetrate modern tank armor.. yet your majical bullshit 50cal can... despite the fact that the 30mm are DU and the 50 cal is.. well just a normal frigging bullet..

and a 50 cal is no good for hitting the crew when they are buttoned up either.. even if you shoot a view slit.. because all MBTs either use a mirror system or a TV system due to the large amounts of tank crew casualties in WW2 due to bullits coming through view slits...

the 50 cal is good for hitting SOFT targets.. trucks.. LIGHT APC.. and ammo.. thats about it..

it is usless against tanks and has been for over 40 years.

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">for those who keep saying it will.. i find it funny that the 30mm round from the Avenger gatling gun in the A-10 cannot penetrate modern tank armor.. yet your majical bullshit 50cal can... despite the fact that the 30mm are DU and the 50 cal is.. well just a normal frigging bullet..<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, the 30mm GE GAU-8/A high-velocity high-energy gun as fitted to a Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt is more than capable of destroying a modern main battle tank.

I've seen footage, and if you think about it, so long as the 1.5 pounds HE shell (or even DU shell) is thrown at the target fast enough it's going to do a shit load of damage. Now imaging that coming out of a gun that is capable of firing over 10 rounds a second, that tank is going to be seriously screwed...

Here is what it does to a tank...

As for a 12.7mm bullet, I'm unsure...

Jubs  

[FLYBOY4258 0]

yes a .50 will go through the skin of a WW2 Panzer, there were special units with .50s to take out panzers they used 4 round .50s they were basicly big bolt-action rifles, i have ballistics from my .50, at 1.5 miles a round went throught 10 feet of heat treat meat gauged at Rc 800-802, for you ladies that dont know what that means a .50 round when through 8 feet of Rock hard 800-802. to give you an idea of how hard that is it's sendig a .50 round though 1 mile of Granite after it hs slown down for a half mile. the latest and greatest for the russians tank wise is the T-92 it an auto-loading tank crew of 3(gunner, commander, driver) its armor it a special alloy rated at 650-652, For you mentally challenged, a .50 round will go through the tank. and usally a 120mm round will go through the enemy target, the game has it protrayed wrong. Oh and for the war crimes stuff i wont go there, yes i know if ou shoot some one with a .50 they wont know but it's still a war crime that all nations are subjected to oh and our rounds are of DU ad a 30mm round from an A-10 would tear through an Abram like paper oh an for a "fictional Ranger" 1st Lietenant Boris Kovach US army Rangers Airbone div.

[FLYBOY4258 0]

yes a .50 will go through the skin of a WW2 Panzer, there were special units with .50s to take out panzers they used 4 round .50s they were basicly big bolt-action rifles, i have ballistics from my .50, at 1.5 miles a round went throught 10 feet of heat treat meat gauged at Rc 800-802, for you ladies that dont know what that means a .50 round when through 8 feet of Rock hard 800-802. to give you an idea of how hard that is it's sendig a .50 round though 1 mile of Granite after it hs slown down for a half mile. the latest and greatest for the russians tank wise is the T-92 it an auto-loading tank A crew of 3(gunner, commander, driver) its armor it a special alloy rated at 650-652, For you mentally challenged, a .50 round will go through the tank. and usally a 120mm round will go through the enemy target, the game has it protrayed wrong. Oh and for the war crimes stuff i wont go there, yes i know if you shoot some one with a .50 they wont know but it's still a war crime that all nations are subjected to oh and our rounds are of DU and a 30mm round from an A-10 would tear through an Abram like paper as for a "fictional Ranger" 1st Lietenant Boris Kovach US Army Rangers Airbone div.

[Wobble 1]

.50 cal wont/cant and will not penetrate anything resembeling a modern battle tank... not even a T-55.

anyone with a lick of commin sense even with no knoweldge of weapons and armor would know that.

[RedRogue 0]

Mr Boris Kovach,

May I ask you a few simple questions.

1. What is your Division, Regiment, and Company?

2. Where are you stationed?

3. What color of berret do you wear?

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is it a war crime to shoot someone with a .50 calibre sniper rifle?<span id='postcolor'>

I believe the reason you are not supposed to used a .50 on personnel is that it is classed as an armor-piercing round. The Geneva convention specifically forbids this (dont ask me why, that's just how it is).

I think it is because armour piercing rounds tend to pass straight through the body without as much tissue damage as a standard or hollowpoint round, and therefore is less likely to kill (ergo, prolonging suffering).

I'm not saying I agree with their reasoning, but I believe this is the reason behind banning the use of .50 rounds on personnel. Personally I think there would be less suffering involved in having your head taken off by a .50 than being peppered with .223 FMJ rounds.

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Jan. 29 2002,06:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mr Boris Kovach,

May I ask you a few simple questions.

1. What is your Division, Regiment, and Company?

2. Where are you stationed?

3. What color of berret do you wear?<span id='postcolor'>

Doesn't the Geneva Convention stipulate he only has to give you his name, rank and serial number?

[RedRogue 0]

Mearly time for Mr. Kovach to prove himself. Of course if he has done any research into those questions he will realize he is already caught in his own falsehood, and will most likely not reply. Although I may be surprised.

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

The original purpose of these weapons was to destory jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, and other vehicles. The tremendous force provided tactical advantages for armed forces by enabling a single person to disable multiple vehicles in a matter of seconds. The massive strength of these weapons also allowed them to be used against many objects other than vehicles, such as bunkers, fuel stations, and communication centers.

I have some quotes here I've found regarding the M82A1. The first is from the US Marines regarding the M82A1 during the Gulf War. Here is a short summary about the weapon and its capabilities:

'...the Barret M82A1 was used in the Gulf War; a hundred rifles were rushed to the Marine Corps in time to see action in the desert. In one engagement, Sergeant Kenneth Terry of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, hit and knocked out an Iraqi BMP armoured personnel carrier with two armour-piercing rounds at a range of 1100 mtres. At the loss of the Iraqi vehicle the two other BMPs in the patrol surrendered to the American forces...'

Another military expert here talks about one of it's other roles during times of conflict:

'...It's the .50's tremendous ability to penetrate bunkers and buildings that makes it so deadly, as reflected by penetration data...This means you can pulverize enemy postions and induce casualties without necessarily seeing an enemy soldier. When firing at positions, don't be thrifty; riddle them with enough bullet holes to ensure damage...'

Here are some vague figures regarding its penetratin capabilities:

'...these weapons can penetrate several inches of steel, concrete, or other reinforced substances, making them particularly effective against light armour...'

One test repot reads:

'...the bullets were test fired against simulated wooden houses and they went straight through six house-not six walls, six houses!...'

I couldn't find any reports of a bullet from a M82A1 penetrating the armour of a MBT...but I wouldn't find it that wild an idea...the force behind these bullets is astronomical!

Jubs

[erfworm 0]

OK I asked my dad just a few minutes ago if a .50 cal bullet can penetrate a M1A2's armor and he said its not possible. My dad worked on the M1A2 in Allison he helped design the transmission. I then asked if the A10's bullets (dont know the correct name) could penetrate its armor he said "Not the front but it maybe possible on the top part of the turret". I dont want to sound like an ass, but just wanted to end dispute of the .50 cal bullet vs M1A2 MBT. Now I dont know but the .50 cal round may be possible to penetrate other MBT's armor.

[FLYBOY4258 0]

sorry for the delay in the reply but never the less her it is

i'm in the 82 Airborne division

i'm stationed at Ft. Custer MI

and i cant tell you the color of my barret for 2 reasons

1. it's changes with the environment meaning it's i go to a jungle MOA i'll be given one that is go a green covering ect ect the last reason i cant tell you is because i'm color blind if you want to know maore E-mail me ok?

[Supah 0]

Common logic would suggest that a .50 cant penetrate a MBT's armor. For instance lets look at a ww2 bazooka. It failed miserably in korea against the current russian build armour. So why would a .50 do it? if that was the case why didnt they just equip units with .50's. As a civilian i can see the bonusses of a .50 over a bazooka type weapon. Higher Sustained ROV is the first thing that comes to mind. Having heard stories from ppl on this forum about the m113's armour and how PK bullits appear to penetrate that under extremely favorable situations i supppose it could penetrate that. HOWEVER i have seen ppl shooting a .50 cal at tanks on discovery channel, but if my memory serves me well ( "the band" qoute ) the bullits they used was a experimental AP round which could be steared due to a movable front section and was called something like "mini-SABOT". Seeing how that was a prototype large scale fielding of those rounds seems unlikely to me. Finally why in pete's sake are MBT fit with big guns when a mere .50 (or multiple one's) would suffice. Modern day funding for armies being as they are and the price of a .50 and a modernday cannon in mind the idea of a .50 taking out modern MBT's seems ridiculous. if it could ever MBT would have it ..... and they dont. If you want to say it penetrates MBT's armour then explain me why MBT's have large guns and not .50's ?

Supah

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

I have no idea whether a .50 calibre round could enter a modern MBT when fired from an anti-material rifle such as the M82A1 or M82A2. I know that .50 calibre rounds fired from a .50 caliber machine gun, such as a Browning M2, however, would never penetrate a modern MBT's amour. I think some people on this thread are missing the point entirely and when people talk of .50 calibre they are either referring to the M2 or M82A1/2 causing much confusion. Although the three guns fire the same caliber rounds they are not the same in terms of composition or momentum obtained from the gun. The M82A1/2 rounds can be of standard 12.7mm, AP or HE round types suitable for taking on armour and have astronomical power behind them (read my quotes above regarding the one bullet passing through 6 houses) provided by a solely anti-material weapon. The M2 Browning machine gun on the other hand was designed in 1933, is remarkably less accurate and is an anti-personal weapon, and at desperation used against light armour.

Right now I got that one cleared up I'll get on with why I posted in the first place.

Supah, now I know not if a M82A1 could put a bullet into a MBT, but assuming it could I can clearly see why AT soldiers still carry AT rocket launchers and recoiless rifles in preference over anti-material rifles and why tanks still use those passe 120mm guns! A tank is a large target, a .50 calibre round is a very small object on comparision. To take out a MBT with a .50 calibre round (assuming it could penetrate the armour) you'd have to hit a track (preferably both), cause suitable damage the engine block or hit a crew member. Now imagine the precision accuracy of the shots required to do that with a .50 calibre round from a rifle, the time required to adjust for distance, wind strength, speed and direction, not to mention if the target vehicle was moving! This would be even more complicated if a tank was to fire a .50 calibre round, because the firer himself could be moving. The advantage with a warhead is that there is larger room for error and splash damage (all be it minimal), you know when you've hit your target, they cause greater phycological distress to the tank crew than a rogue bullet and they are largely effective, particularly HEAT, HESH at taking out all the crew at once.

I hope that makes sense.

Jub-Jub

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FLYBOY4258 @ Jan. 30 2002,23:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sorry for the delay in the reply but never the less her it is

i'm in the 82 Airborne division

i'm stationed at Ft. Custer MI

and i cant tell you the color of my barret for 2 reasons

1. it's changes with the environment meaning it's i go to a jungle MOA i'll be given one that is go a green covering ect ect the last reason i cant tell you is because i'm color blind if you want to know maore E-mail me ok?<span id='postcolor'>

Well that is quite intresting considering:

1. The 82nd Airborne is stationed at Fort Brag, North Carolina.

2. The Rangers have no divisions, there are 3 Battalions under

the 75th Airborne Ranger Regiment:

1st Battalion (1/75) stationed at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia

2nd Battalion (2/75) stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington

3rd Battalion (3/75) stationed at Fort Benning, GA

3. There are currently 0 airborne personnel stationed at Fort

Custer, Michigan. Infact the only Battalions that are listed

on permanent station or attached are Army Reserve and

elements of the Michigan National Guard. It is a training

facility and national memorial/cemetary.

So unless my current reports are completely off your facts do not line up. Would you Mr. 'Ranger' Kovach care to extrapolate.