T90 weak as hell?

[cluster 10]

anybody heard of dumdum bullets?

I don't know how they call it in English but I do know those bullets penetrate and kill every single person inside that tank. that does not mean the tank should explode...

[Angryerman 10]

Richie, you seem way to fast in writing off a practise which is entirely possible and takes place quite often, albeit not against tanks.

Reason for that is generally where armour is involved, armour or troops with anti-armour weapons will be dispatched that can do the job more effectively.

Are you armed forces? Do you know much about what goes on on the ground in armed conflicts? I am quick to question anyone who does not display much knowledge of what they think they are knowledgeable on when they are arguing their opinion against someone who clearly has extensive knowledge.

You would be surprised to hear the effectiveness of a 7.62 long round. They can put a stop to unarmoured vehicle engines. So what do you think a well placed (and its not that hard if trained to the standard most NATO forces snipers are) .50 round will do against an armoured vehicle? The same thing

[OstiasMoscas 10]

Richie, you seem way to fast in writing off a practise which is entirely possible and takes place quite often, albeit not against tanks.

Reason for that is generally where armour is involved, armour or troops with anti-armour weapons will be dispatched that can do the job more effectively.

Are you armed forces? Do you know much about what goes on on the ground in armed conflicts? I am quick to question anyone who does not display much knowledge of what they think they are knowledgeable on when they are arguing their opinion against someone who clearly has extensive knowledge.

You would be surprised to hear the effectiveness of a 7.62 long round. They can put a stop to unarmoured vehicle engines. So what do you think a well placed (and its not that hard if trained to the standard most NATO forces snipers are) .50 round will do against an armoured vehicle? The same thing

Taking out a tank like the T90, M1A1, Leo 2A4/5/6 is pretty damn impossible with .50 calibre round. Granted you can take out any of the crew if they pop out of a hatch.. You can pretty much blind the tank by shooting out it's sights/targeting capabilities, but the chances of doing that before the tank as spotted you are nigh impossible too. When that 120mm barrel swing around and is pointed right at you, and the coax starts firing you're not gonna stay in that position for too long. Unless you have a death wish.

You make it sound like any random sniper from any NATO country is able to easily take out a tank with a well placed .50, I can guarantee you that, that is not the case. Maybe if it's stationary, there could be a very slight chance that of you getting in a perfect firing position to take out that one magical weak point you guys keep talking about.

Modern tanks have no problem withstanding 12.7 mm (.50 cal) or 14.5 mm (Soviet equivalent) rounds. You can probably chew through the armour with enough of these rounds if they're shooting at the same exact spot, but that's gonna take you a while and you'll be dead well before those rounds are getting any effect at all on the armour.

Now if we look at lightly armoured vehicles, or IFV's, it'd be a different story.

[Guest]

Richie, you seem way to fast in writing off a practise which is entirely possible and takes place quite often, albeit not against tanks.

Reason for that is generally where armour is involved, armour or troops with anti-armour weapons will be dispatched that can do the job more effectively.

Are you armed forces? Do you know much about what goes on on the ground in armed conflicts? I am quick to question anyone who does not display much knowledge of what they think they are knowledgeable on when they are arguing their opinion against someone who clearly has extensive knowledge.

You would be surprised to hear the effectiveness of a 7.62 long round. They can put a stop to unarmoured vehicle engines. So what do you think a well placed (and its not that hard if trained to the standard most NATO forces snipers are) .50 round will do against an armoured vehicle? The same thing

Question me, and my inteligence as much as you like. At the end of the day the post above sums it up perfectly. Let me show you:

A-10 Gau 8 Round:

A-10 Gau-8 Video:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY4lPylx6D4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY4lPylx6D4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Now, look at the size of that gau-8 round. Look at the power of that gau-8 cannon. It takes a good straffe from that gun to render an armoured unit disabled, and your seriously trying to tell me that 1 round of a .50 cal can easily do the same trick?

If it was that easy, why the hell did we develop AT rounds? Here is a picture of the .50 cal round:

You go ahead and try and be a hero destroying a tank with your sniper rifle, i'll just wait for the AT crew or air support thank you very much!

[Radnik 18]

Well, shurley it would be nice to implement "locked by aircraft or heli misiles alarm". This feature would increase tank defence capabilities.

i have played demo only,maybe this is allready featured in full release...dunno.

[Angryerman 10]

Richie, Ostias,

No one is contesting the effects of the Gau rounds on a tank. Seems to me you guys are focusing on multiple rounds being needed, and that we're talking about chewing through armour and entirely taking a tank out.

We are not. We are talking about a single round aimed at an appropriate location to disable an aspect of the tank. Seriously, no disrespect like but pay attention. Anyone with any smarts knows you cannot 'take out' or "destroy" a tank with a single round from a rifle... Jesus... And who said anything about it being easy? We are saying its possible. Possible to hit more than just a single magical weak spot.

A significant distinction to 'chewing through armour'.

If a sniper can put two shots into an area the size of a penny from a thousand meters away, are you seriously telling me they could not put a single round into a stationary or even slowly moving tanks engine (assuming its facing the correct way)?

Hitting a track and causing the tracks to delink is disabling the vehicle.

Taking out sighting equipment to reduce the combat effectiveness of a vehicle is equally viable.

You may be a kilometer from the tank when this happens. Shy of the appropriate sensory equipment, and that equipment being pointing in the appropriate direction to see the sniper a significant distance away, I am going to have to assume you think that tank crews are psychic and will automatically know that somewhere far enough away, and hidden, a sniper is engaging them and can zero on him that easily.

Does not sound that plausible does it?

Edited July 31, 2009 by Angryerman

[Guest]

Its also possible to fall of a 18 story building and survive.

But then again, how often do you hear of it happening?

[bogdanm 0]

The tracks and engine should remain vulnerable to 50. cal bullets but the rest of the tank armor should be immune to this kind of rounds.

[Angryerman 10]

What a mature and objective response Richie... And again, your lack of knowledge of such matters shows out.

Even if this does not happen often, if it has ever happened you have to look at the considerations on the ground and the factors involved.

Without good reason, why would someone try to disable a tank in such circumstances when its going to have to be destroyed with appropriate weapons anyway?

Why would a sniper need to engage a tank even in the circumstances where troops were set against armour; which (one would hope) would be equipped with apprpriate anti-armour weapons or the capability to call those in?

The post you claimed in your ignorance is not possible in real life was posted to equate what we all agree a significant problem with the T90 in Arma2 with a possibility in reality, of using the .50 round to inflict damage onto a tank.

Surviving a fall from an 18 storey building, compared to the abilities of a well trained sniper shooting at a vulnerable spot on a tank is no comparison at all. One is a question of variables which amount to what we might perceive as pure luck, where the other, while possible, would be an action not needed in the majority of engagements between troops and armour.

Nonetheless, it IS possible; just not like it currently is in Arma2 and that was the point of the post you contested.

[Reyn 10]

Seen!

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIyh0WlTvWw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIyh0WlTvWw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Oh my! Are bohemia going to patch this in 1.03?

[OstiasMoscas 10]

Angryman, I think you should re-read my post if you think I was talking about multiple rounds chewing through the armour, that I pretty much addressed in my last few sentences.

No one is contesting the effects of the Gau rounds on a tank.

I've only been talking about .50 rounds, I haven't mentioned the GAU's 30mm rounds.

We are talking about a single round aimed at an appropriate location to disable an aspect of the tank.

Which I said is plausible in my post:

"Granted you can take out any of the crew if they pop out of a hatch.. You can pretty much blind the tank by shooting out it's sights/targeting capabilities, but the chances of doing that before the tank as spotted you are nigh impossible too."

And who said anything about it being easy? We are saying its possible. Possible to hit more than just a single magical weak spot.

Well, you pretty muc did:

So what do you think a well placed (and its not that hard if trained to the standard most NATO forces snipers are) .50 round will do against an armoured vehicle?

If a sniper can put two shots into an area the size of a penny from a thousand meters away, are you seriously telling me they could not put a single round into a stationary or even slowly moving tanks engine (assuming its facing the correct way)?

You keep talking about putting a round in the motor. You do know that the motor is shielded by armour too right? It's not easy, and if a sniper was managed to remain hidden from a stationary MBT, had optimal wind conditions and managed to hit somewhere near the engine compartment it still wouldn't penetrate the armour. And you can bet that the MBT is starting to scan it's sectors after the first hit.

Staying hidden from a tank is no easy feat, those bastards have some damn impressive IR capabilities. When we were on Cold Response (large scale NATO winter exercise in Norway) one of our patrols were spotted moving through the woods from 4km away by a Leo 2A4.

Hitting a track and causing the tracks to delink is disabling the vehicle.

Plausible, but the crew could fix that, and it's not that easy to know where to hit when most MBT's are wearing armoured skirts to cover the tracks.

Edited July 31, 2009 by OstiasMoscas

[Angryerman 10]

Good reply Ostias, for which you have my thanks.

The vents on engines? Engines require cooling, that cannot be that heavily armoured!

When I speak of well placed rounds I mean that for the sniper it is not difficult to put a round exactly where they want to of course; this is depending on the prevailing conditions.

Regards detecting troops, yes I am very much aware of some of the sophisticated kit mounted on some of the more up to date armoured vehicles but at the same time I would hope that any sniper called to put rounds in the general direction of any such vehicle would get something between them and the target following confirmation of the hit.

Either way, the capability of hitting and damaging (which of course can be fixed) the vehicle still exists irrespective of the consequences of attempting this!

Clearly to whatever extent with a bit of luck and the skills of the sniper with the appropriate weapon system it is possible to inflict considerable damage onto a tank or other AFV, which was the whole point really. Cheers for engaging me ;)

[OstiasMoscas 10]

Clearly to whatever extent with a bit of luck and the skills of the sniper with the appropriate weapon system it is possible to inflict considerable damage onto a tank or other AFV, which was the whole point really. Cheers for engaging me ;)

Agreed, thanks for a good discussion ;) :p

[walker 0]

Hi all

Once you have achieved a mobility kill a tank is just crew man oven waiting to happen.

This always has and always will be true.

As I pointed out a jackhammer can cut through a tank given time. That is is just physics. If a tank is mobilty killed and you can get to the situational defilade position crouched next to the tank hull where the guns cannot depress far enough to egage you. Such a situation could be achived by having cover and concelment next to the tank eg if it is in an urban environment and close to stuctures. Judicious use of smoke might also achive this.

Of course normaly the smoke dispensors on a tank can also fire anti personel rounds for that very purpose, of defeating a situational defilade attack.

You could then theoreticly entangle the commanders cupola gun. Then even with a jackhammer you could kill any tank. Any tank like the T90 with an exposed turret ring is particularly suceptable to this, that said explosions from the T90's reactive armor might put paid to such an atempt.

And when all is said and done thermite, a satchel charge, sticky bomb and molotov would all be just as effective, so why bother.

Kind Regards walker

[Guest]

angryerman, all you seem to do is your posts is state my lack of inteligence. I haven't offended your inteligence once have I? I have simply disagreed with what you are saying.

I am not trying to discuss the very low probability actors of combat, i am discussing what does happen 99% of the time. And yes, while a 50.cal sniper will happily disable a lightly armoured vehicle, it is not going to be the same story with a tank. Why are you so adiment to argue against that fact?

Would you really shoot a tank with a 50.cal round in a battle? Sure, if i was alone, pinned down, and had no hope of support i would definitely try everything. But the fact is, your chances of being in that perfect spot, with the perfect conditions, to have that tiny advantage which would allow you a shot at the tanks weakest point, is next to none. Thats why its a rare occurance to happen. I'm not saying it's never happened, or it will never happen again, but i'm saying its rare.

And in the case you were in those *perfect* conditions, its probably because they had no knowledge of your presence. And if that be the case, would you wan't to risk taking that shot?

Say for example you take out the tracks. Great, you've stopped his movement. But now he turns his cannon and blows you to hell. Maybe you limit his visibilty by damaging his targeting/viewing systems, also great, except he still has a nice big cannon to attack you with.

And in that case, where your such an amazing sniper, that you hit that tiny weak spot from say 1 mile away, what poosible reason would you have for trying to hit it in the first place?

This is my point. I agree with what your saying, it's possible of course! But it's more likely to happen in a hollywood movie than real life, and you must agree its better to base your actions on whats actually likely to happen?

50.cal snipers are anti personel and anti material weapons, but they were not designed to hit heavily armoured tanks such as the t-90. That's all i am trying to say.

[bertles 10]

Richie, you seem way to fast in writing off a practise which is entirely possible and takes place quite often, albeit not against tanks.

Reason for that is generally where armour is involved, armour or troops with anti-armour weapons will be dispatched that can do the job more effectively.

Are you armed forces? Do you know much about what goes on on the ground in armed conflicts? I am quick to question anyone who does not display much knowledge of what they think they are knowledgeable on when they are arguing their opinion against someone who clearly has extensive knowledge.

You would be surprised to hear the effectiveness of a 7.62 long round. They can put a stop to unarmoured vehicle engines. So what do you think a well placed (and its not that hard if trained to the standard most NATO forces snipers are) .50 round will do against an armoured vehicle? The same thing

i've registered just to tell you that you talk a big load of shit

[NoRailgunner 0]

Hey this topic is about issues with BIS tank models not about bitching.

Are there any more holes/leaks in vehicle or object models?

[TangoRomeo 10]

Reminds me of storys about P-47 Pilots aiming short with their .50 cals, for the ricochets to penetrate the lightly armored belly of Pz. VI`s, ... urban legends.

[Windexglow 10]

On the internet, we're all professional ballistic experts.

[Angryerman 10]

Richie, I am not slating your intelligence, read what I have written. I don't beleive you know what you are talking about because of the way you present your opinion and do not say what it is based upon whereas myself, walker and Ositas have all presented to one another examples, figures and justification for our thinking & opinions.

Since you have in your most recent post asked when this would even happen in combat I am now going to ask you: Have you even read in full, my posts on this matter? That is actually a point I have addressed many times so far as to point out that it is extremely unlikely to occur in combat but were it to occur in combat, it is possible

Bertles: thank you for that constructive opinion. Some of us make an effort to explain ourselves. Some of us make no effort which in of itself explains enough.

Tangoromeo: No one is saying this has happened. Only discussing possibilities.

Windexglow: this has nothing to do with being ballistics experts. This has to do with people who understand a little (perhaps because they have used them) the capabilities of weapon systems and those who use them's (snipers) abilities.

Something clear about this forum, is there are people on it with hands on experience and training in many different weapons systems in the armed forces, and there are many who think they know a lot about the same thing. There are a lot of things you learn in the armed forces that change an opinion based upon a lack of understanding of those subject matters.

This subject of a .50 harming a tank boils down to:

Accuracy of the sniper (high, depending on the situation)

Kinetic energy / penetrative capabilities of the weapon (high, higher with AP rounds)

Vulnerability of the specific target on the vehicle (not all parts of a vehicle are armoured)

If anyone on here wants to tell me each and every single part of a tank is utterly resistant to damage from a high power round, well I am going to tell you you are an idiot, like Bertles and have no idea what you are talking about.

Norailgunner: You are quite correct. Apologies.

[ffs 10]

If a sniper can put two shots into an area the size of a penny from a thousand meters away...

You may be a kilometer from the tank when this happens.

Some facts:

Accuracy International AS50 — 1.5 MOA at 1000m = 43.6332cm / for 2-shot groups = 63.9954cm

Barrett M107 — 3 MOA at 1000m = 87.2665cm / for 2-shot groups = 109.6649cm

McMillan TAC-50 — 0.5 MOA at 1000m = 14.5444cm / for 2-shot groups = 36.9428cm

---

I'll give you a cookie if you try that against a hostile modern MBT.

Edited July 31, 2009 by ffs

[Angryerman 10]

Quite valid FFS, not in dispute, this conversation is entirely hypothetical and such figures are for reference to capabilities of marksmanship.

As has been said repeatedly, we are looking at the potential of causing a significant damage / disruption to the function of a tank with the .50. Not the consequences, not the circumstances, not precise ranges. It can be done from 50m if the person shooting can put the round through a set of optics, the potential consequences of attempting this are not in question.

The question is this: can a tank be harmed in any significant way by a .50 round.

Answer: yes.

[akd42 10]

Hi all

Once you have achieved a mobility kill a tank is just crew man oven waiting to happen.

This always has and always will be true.

As I pointed out a jackhammer can cut through a tank given time. That is is just physics. If a tank is mobilty killed and you can get to the situational defilade position crouched next to the tank hull where the guns cannot depress far enough to egage you. Such a situation could be achived by having cover and concelment next to the tank eg if it is in an urban environment and close to stuctures. Judicious use of smoke might also achive this.

Of course normaly the smoke dispensors on a tank can also fire anti personel rounds for that very purpose, of defeating a situational defilade attack.

You could then theoreticly entangle the commanders cupola gun. Then even with a jackhammer you could kill any tank. Any tank like the T90 with an exposed turret ring is particularly suceptable to this, that said explosions from the T90's reactive armor might put paid to such an atempt.

And when all is said and done thermite, a satchel charge, sticky bomb and molotov would all be just as effective, so why bother.

Kind Regards walker

Hi,

How many times do I have to hit a piece of steel with a piece of lead before a hole appears in the steel. Your knowledge of "physics" should allow you to calculate this.

Then show us the calculations for how many blows from a common construction jackhammer to the exact same point on the frontal armor of an M1A2 are required before the tank's armor fails.

You have asserted this to be a "fact" based on "physics" so you should be able to produce the calculations. Also, how will the jackhammer survive to deliver this theoretical number of impacts?

This thread is full of idiocy. There is no point argueing over what a .50 cal can realistically do to a tank when we are talking each .50 cal bullet taking away "10 points" until the tank runs out of "points." There is zero relationship between that and a miracle shot that at most renders some component of the tank ineffective until it can be repaired.

And no, neither .50 cal MGs nor the GAU-8 defeat armor by "chewing through" the exact same point of impact. First of all, the likelihood of any round striking the same exact point of impact is very low unless we are talking about tests under lab conditions. Second, you assume that every shot that does not penetrate is a partial penetration. If a round hits and deflects, why should the next round that hits the same point not do so also?

Edited August 1, 2009 by akd42

[maturin 12]

The question is this: can a tank be harmed in any significant way by a .50 round.

Answer: yes.

Follow-up: So what? It is irrelevant to both real-life combat decisions and game design.

[Angryerman 10]

Great response. This is called discussion. Some go nowhere. Some matter, some don't.

Your post.

Follow up, so what?

We can use that all day.