Angryerman

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.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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.

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?

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

You need to pay better attention. What he says is intirely possible with ONE well placed round into a weak area of a tank. I don't see anyone talking about putting hundreds of rounds over a period of time into a tank. He is talking about a CONCEALED sniper up to almost a MILE away, waiting for the right moment to put a SINGLE or just a couple of AP rounds into what is already a vulnerable area. So your brilliant assumption of the tank just taking out the sniper is completely off the mark. Not to mention you don't demonstate much knowledge of real world weapons and their effects. The .50 sniper rifle is an anti-material weapon.

TK's are going to be inevitable so long as people are running in front of you when engaging. Then they blame you when the first you noticed them was when they filled your zoomed in field of view.

Hey peeps, sorry for the question which has probably been asked somewhere in these seventeen pages, but whats the score with using this in online MP? Being just a sound mod is it going to stop me joining servers which are not running / demanding it?