Bullet penetration through cars

[manberries 0]

!?!? When i went to drive up that hill

to the fob i drove past an entire truck of guys.

I ended up with a quite a few bullets tinging off the gunners shield and the back of the humvee. Some were even from a dshk

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

!?!? When i went to drive up that hill

to the fob i drove past an entire truck of guys.

I ended up with a quite a few bullets tinging off the gunners shield and the back of the humvee. Some were even from a dshk

i just speed past while my ai gunner stares at them while they star at him.

[TangoRomeo 10]

The first two videos are great for penetration of office structures and hard structures, but they really should of used ballistic gel dummies to represent the deadliness of the round after penetration. Also, I dont get what the point of putting vests without trauma plates on the manakins was.

Agree. Nevertheless, i think these are adequade demonstrations of cover vs concealment, showing some general trends of different calibres and their penetration capatibilities. I just dug out an old FM, written before we acquired the "Lego-Rifle". It gives required minimum thickness of cover against 7.62 mm FMJ rifle ammo at 100m.

[simulacra 0]

Excellent, all we need now are bullet hit textures, modders, get on it! ;)

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

In Rogue Spear a bullet-pass "yes/no" value was assigned to the textures, if I remember correctly. It was how you could shoot through windows and furniture.

7.62mm NATO should be able to go through cinder-block walls and .50 BMG should go through most small buildings, not just corners.

...sigh...

[Sneak69 0]

People forget that bullet resistant means just that. Bullet resistant glass can only take 2 - 3 rounds before they start going into the vehicle, and 2 shots in the same spot if your lucky. The factor that gives you a 90% chance of survival is the driver getting the #$@% out of there as soon as you take around. Bullets go right threw cars no problem in real life that have little to no protection. Also you can down Apaches with AK-47s http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/25/1048354604384.html

[walker 0]

Hi all

Can we stop having the armored uber glass myth perpertrated on this board. It gets boring saying it is caca.

As has been noted else where the canopy of the Hind is not bullet proof it is just perspex. There is an armored glass window at the front of Hind that will stop up to 7.62 as long as it is not an Amor peircing round. So a pistol shot up close to the sides of a Hind should be able to kill the pilot/gunner.

It should not be capable of piercing the front amrmored glass on first shot though. Armored glass degrades as more rounds hit it and several rounds will penetrate it.

I just re tested it takes several pistol rounds to penetrate then kill from the side dependent on distance. It takes more mags of pistol than I can carry to kill through front armoured glass. With an M16 at 10 feet, half a clip will penetrate the frontal armored glass for the gunner, for the pilot 2 or 3 clips are needed.

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 12, 2009 by walker

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

I thought it shattered after the first hit. A similar effect as a crumple zone in a car. After 3 hits it would be dust.

I could also be talking out of my ass.

Typically, when they rate ballistic protection, they are talking about a 3 shot group. I think. In other words, not much good to rate something as protecting you from a 9mm pistol if it can only absorb 1 shot and not 3 near each other before some kind of failure.

EDIT: not always 3. click here.

level III protection (like the US military uses) is 6 .308 rounds!!!! You'd be mortally wounded by the blunt force trauma!

the interceptor vest (with plates) is made to stop 3 ak47 rounds.

id imagine dragon skin could stop alot more, while being alot easier on the lucky sob that got hit (it doesnt use plates but scales...)

[KorJax 10]

Dragon Skin is a joke. There's a reason why it was never used in the Army. The skin tests were all done in-house, and in specific conditions. In these specific conditions the armor works great, however in nearly any other situation it actually ends up being worse. Add that to the fact that it's much more expensive means it's not practical at all.

When dragon skin was used in Army testing, it failed nearly every test.

[manberries 0]

People forget that bullet resistant means just that. Bullet resistant glass can only take 2 - 3 rounds before they start going into the vehicle, and 2 shots in the same spot if your lucky. The factor that gives you a 90% chance of survival is the driver getting the #$@% out of there as soon as you take around. Bullets go right threw cars no problem in real life that have little to no protection. Also you can down Apaches with AK-47s http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/25/1048354604384.html

This is the least credible source i have ever seen in my entire life. No apache has ever been confirmed down by an ak. With dual turbo jet engines, it can continue flying after one engine is destroyed. The apache has also taken hits in the tail rotor without damaging the mechanics.

As for the story about the Hind, well the problem with your argument is which hind version do you mean? The MI-24v MI-24 MI-35 all have increased armor protection throughout the aircraft. So, no a pistol should not penetrate any of the Hinds the Russians are flying. Even the original MI-24's glass would slow the round enough to make it less lethal. Not to mention diverting it far from its original path. A shot from 50 m with a pistol shouldn't even scratch the glass.

Oh and dragon skin is a joke. The discs come loose after minimal use leaving protection holes. Also, the carbonite plate in the current trauma plate style body armor dissipates shock force better than dragon skin. But, what the person above said about it shattering it somewhat true. It does shatter in the local area where it was shot, expelling particles of carbonite in the process. 2 shots to the near same area would penetrate (rifle rounds). And of course a good burst to it would penentrate as well. Combat survival kit type IV is the only hope. Not that we even know what that will be.

Edited July 13, 2009 by manberries

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

Dragon Skin is a joke. There's a reason why it was never used in the Army. The skin tests were all done in-house, and in specific conditions. In these specific conditions the armor works great, however in nearly any other situation it actually ends up being worse. Add that to the fact that it's much more expensive means it's not practical at all.

When dragon skin was used in Army testing, it failed nearly every test.

i saw it on future weapons

but wut ur basically saying is that its very good in 70* weather right out of the box but the environment destroys it easily?

Edited July 13, 2009 by THEBLITZ6794

[Sneak69 0]

This is the least credible source i have ever seen in my entire life. No apache has ever been confirmed down by an ak. With dual turbo jet engines, it can continue flying after one engine is destroyed. The apache has also taken hits in the tail rotor without damaging the mechanics.

Sydney morning herald the least credible source ever?

anyway do some searching on the net and you will find out that eleven have been shot down so far (AH-64) some by shoulder mounted missiles others by rilfe fire.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Sneak69

[manberries 0]

I have done plenty of research. Its not the newspaper that's non credible, its the source the newspaper used to get the story. Every apache that has ever been shot down has been recovered. Shoulder launched missiles have taken them down but rifle rounds have not. The smallest round to cause any significant damage on the apache is a 7.62x54 from a pk.