Author Topic: .50 cal's  (Read 5197 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
.50 cal's
« Reply #60 on: May 24, 2005, 11:56:42 AM »
Kweassa, consider the .32 revolver vs the .44 revolver. Fire at a barn wall (made of wood planks) with a .32 and you put a hol in the wood. Fire at the barn wall with a .44 and you snap the entire plank of wood in half and send it flying (leaving a larger gap in the wall where that used to be). Imagine a mostly wood box car being hit by 6x50cal MGs with 100s of rounds a minute. It'll be KINDLING baby!

I think what many people have is the misconception that a bullet will just make a hole. Sure the rifle caliber rounds will. But when a 50cal hits a piece of aluminum that's on a wing, it's not just making a hole and passing through. It's probably snapping rivets around that panel, warping it, having half of it curl up, or even ripping it right off (due to a combination of warp, snapped rivets, wind sheer, what have you), resulting in some structural integrity (the surface of the wing was load bearing, to an extend), and definitely a loss in lift and an increase in drag. Again, imagine with 6x 50cal, 100s of rounds a minute.

P.S. Don't forget: Most planes didn't HAVE empty spaces anywhere. Except the tail, in most cases. Most wings were filled with vital systems. Consider the 109, one of the common targets for the 6x50cal planes. The wings were filled with radiator equipment, sometimes ammunition, controls, and so forth. Yes there is some empty spaces, but all in all you're more likely to HIT something than to MISS something.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2005, 11:59:39 AM by Krusty »

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: misinformed?
« Reply #61 on: May 24, 2005, 12:32:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Brenjen
It is you who are misinformed sir. I am relating what actually happened to me in the game.

Seeing as you posted nothing but wrong information I see no reason to think you anything other than misinformed.

For some bizzare reason you seem to think the .50s in AH are barely decernable from .303s and that they should nearly match 20mm guns.  Having used all three many, many times in AH I can absolutely assure you that .50s are vastly better then .303s, probably about 4 to 5 times better.  The Hispano 20mm is, as I understand it, based on the US Navy's evaluation that one Hispano 20mm cannon was equal in firepower to three Browning .50s.


The hit sprites in AH are large and often make it look like you hit with far more rounds than you did.  I suspect that is what happened to you.  It is not uncommon at all.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
.50 cal's
« Reply #62 on: May 24, 2005, 12:40:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SlapShot
The difference is that I saw and heard this guy who was filmed during an actual interview ... I have never seen any P-47 pilot interviewed and filmed stating that they bounced .50s and penetrated Tiger tanks from underneath ... if you have, then please direct me to where I can see and hear an actual p-47 combat pilot say that.


I saw a show on the history channel where several surviving P-47 pilots said they did that. Dont recall the name of the show atm though.
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Furious

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
.50 cal's
« Reply #63 on: May 24, 2005, 01:58:57 PM »
Bullets that will bounce off of asphalt/dirt then penetrate steel.  I have always loved the silliness of this arguement.

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
.50 cal's
« Reply #64 on: May 24, 2005, 02:25:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Furious
Bullets that will bounce off of asphalt/dirt then penetrate steel.  I have always loved the silliness of this arguement.


When bullets richochet they lose some, but not all of their kinetic energy. How much energy is lost depends on the angle that the bullets strike the ground the first time. Very little (if any) armor plate was used on the underneath side of tanks in WWII.

Did P-47 pilots really do that? /shrug Who knows? Niether of us do :)
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
.50 cal's
« Reply #65 on: May 24, 2005, 03:50:02 PM »
Elfie,

WWII tanks all had armor on the belly.  More than enough to stop some tumbling, deformed, reduced energy bullet striking at a shallow angle.

And yes, we know that they didn't from the examinations of destroyed tanks.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2005, 03:52:55 PM by Karnak »
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
.50 cal's
« Reply #66 on: May 24, 2005, 04:25:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Elfie,

WWII tanks all had armor on the belly.  More than enough to stop some tumbling, deformed, reduced energy bullet striking at a shallow angle.

And yes, we know that they didn't from the examinations of destroyed tanks.


ALL destroyed tanks were examined?

Belly armor on tanks was very thin and designed to protect the crew from anti-tanks mines.

None of us on this BBS were there. I would tend to take the word of an eye withness over speculation.
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
.50 cal's
« Reply #67 on: May 24, 2005, 04:46:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
So if someone films a vet then you should believe his every word literally, but if its not filmed it cannot be believed?

 Strange piece of logic you have there, Slap. Almost as strange as "ripping a box car in half with .50s"

 What's most strange is, you take the guy's every word literally, without having to require him to show any kind of photo/footage evidence to back up such a claim.. and yet you ask me for an interview and film for one of the most popularly circulated WW2 myths of all time concerning the .50s.

 In that case I would also, really like to see a guncam footage or recording, that shows 6x .50s ripping objects in half - literally. Not just tattering them with enormous amount of shots, but word for word, "in half", with surgical precision like Mando commented.
 
 I'm pretty sure 6x .50s would probably be able to tatter an unarmoured target into a piece of rag with certain lengths of fire, but I find it extremely unlikely 6x .50s mounted on the wings, extremely sensitive to convergence issues, can just swoop on top of a boxcar and "rip it in half" in a strafing run. The dispersion pattern alone does not allow that kind of damage to occur.


I find it extremely unlikely 6x .50s mounted on the wings, extremely sensitive to convergence issues, can just swoop on top of a boxcar and "rip it in half" in a strafing run

I would to if I had the amount of hours you have had flying an F-4U Corsair attacking ground targets.

I know you speak from vast experience and who is this guy from the Blacksheep anyways ... some poser looking for attention I guess.

God you can be so thick at times.

When I see with my own eyes and hear with my own words a RL combat pilot attest to something, I am going to give him every benefit of the doubt.

As for the written word ... unless the book/article/excerpt was actually written by the combat vet, I would tend to take it with a large grain of salt.

Too many stories told second-hand have been embelished upon. The P-47 tale ... I have only heard it from sources on this board ... I have never been directed to where that was actually written or verbally attested to ... with that ... the jury is still out as far as I am concerned.
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
.50 cal's
« Reply #68 on: May 24, 2005, 04:57:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Elfie
None of us on this BBS were there. I would tend to take the word of an eye withness over speculation.

An eyewitness going 300mph a couple of hundred yards from the tank whose bottom he could not see and was armored with 15-25mm of armor.  Ok.  Fine.

You may persist in your illusionment.


Fer cryin' out loud, simple logic should tell you the claim is impossible bunk.

These guys were brave, young kids in the grip of tremendous powers.  They were not supermen and we should honor them as the citizen soldiers they were, not deify them as some infalable ubermensch.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
.50 cal's
« Reply #69 on: May 24, 2005, 07:01:04 PM »
deify them as some infalable ubermensch

I see nowhere in this thread anyone asking that these gentlemen be deified ... only not to summarily dismiss them as exagerating and embelishing their personal experiences.

What is being said is that their personal observations and many hours of experience in WII fighter planes in actual combat hold a lot more weight and truth than those who have absolutely 0 hours in any WWII fighter plane and spent 0 hours fighting in WWII.

Simple logic tells me that the gentleman that I saw and heard speaks the truth and unless you are also a WWII fighter pilot that acutally flew combat missions or are a verified expert in the field or can actually point to verified data that disproves what he/they say ... then anything that a wannbe expert brings forth is and should be considered bunk.

Think about it ... this guy probably tore up more things than we can imagine ... static airplanes, vehicles, buildings, boats, etc. Of all the things that he has destroyed, he just so happens to mention a boxcar ... why in the hell would he say boxcar unless he actually saw or experienced destroying/slicing a boxcar. I believed that he was so impressed at this type of destruction that it remained with him to this very day.

Krusty brings up a very important point ... I wouldn't doubt that the majority of all boxcars were mde out of wood in those days and 6 .50 cals at 800 yards ... pre-convergence - at convergence - post convergence ... would reduce it to toothpicks.

You wannbe experts always manage to ruin threads such as this and if anyone brings anything to the table that just might refute what you believe is the gospel truth, you feel threatened and feel the need to debunk and trash it.

An eyewitness going 300mph a couple of hundred yards from the tank whose bottom he could not see and was armored with 15-25mm of armor. Ok. Fine.

Please ... tell us your eyewitness accounts of what happened in WWII when you flew fighter missions or any accounts of your experiences in WWII ... oh ... thats right ... you weren't alive then ... but u can summarily dismiss those that were.

Have a blast.
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
.50 cal's
« Reply #70 on: May 24, 2005, 09:15:57 PM »
Seeker:

 Thanks for digging the link up.




Brenjen:

Quote
It is you who are misinformed sir. I am relating what actually happened to me in the game. The aircraft I have engaged all seem immune to the .50 cal. rounds. Maybe it was rubber bullets on multiple occassions, or maybe it was a modelling problem, I do not know.


 The point is you're basing all of this upon pure speculation without any kind of evidence to back it up.

 What's more interesting is the general attitude upon which some people agree with you. These are the same group of people who will comment with strong disbelief towards such claims if for instance, someone comes to post in the A/V or Game forums with the typical "Hey! My plane X was outturned by a plane Y.. he did impossible things... the game is modelled wrong!". In every case evidence is requested. Anecdotal claims are simply discredited.

 Usually the conclusion is reached that the poster was not properly informed about what a plane could do, or what the situation was. Except... whenever a .50 issue comes up, it's all hooplah - no evidence required. Typical case of biased reasoning if I ever saw one.

Quote
I do know however I shot down a 51 the other day in the D-hog, from the same range, around 400yds & those .50's tore it to bits at nearly the same angle as the last encounter that did nothing.


 This all the more proves the situation was different in the two cases. It's your word only, without any evidence to back it up. And I dare say it's faulty observation.

Quote
I have a .50 - I fire it - & I know what it will do. As far as bouncing .50's off a road & into a tanks belly to kill it, I think I would have to see it to believe it. I do know a .50 cal strafing run up the 6 of anything but the heaviest armour of WWII would damage it,I have seen the gun camera footage of the hits & subsequent smoked engine as the pilot strafed the bailed crew.


 So have I. All Koreans are military conscripts and receive army training. But that doesn't make me an expert in firearms and their capabilities. Also, how would a .50cal strafing run against an armoured tank ever damage anything when the suggested penetration is physically impossible? Magic?

 There are parts and parcels located upon tanks that are indeed susceptible to damage under .50 fire, but in regards to "damage" as stopping the total functionality of a battle tank, it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so with .50s, and that's a given scientical fact.  

Quote
I say the round is under-modeled in this game when a panzers pintle gun does more damage at 400yds than a .50 cal pintle on an M-3 & thats just one instance of the problem I have encountered. It has happened numerous times, & since you are not attached to me, haven't had any problems, & I have no film, I think this thread should just die already.


 No film, no evidence. Empty claim, and a questionable one too. Numerous reasons can be given to what you've experienced. Besides, some of the better pilots have absolutely no problems in strafing M3s dead.

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
.50 cal's
« Reply #71 on: May 24, 2005, 09:16:53 PM »
Krusty:

Quote
Kweassa, consider the .32 revolver vs the .44 revolver. Fire at a barn wall (made of wood planks) with a .32 and you put a hol in the wood. Fire at the barn wall with a .44 and you snap the entire plank of wood in half and send it flying (leaving a larger gap in the wall where that used to be). Imagine a mostly wood box car being hit by 6x50cal MGs with 100s of rounds a minute. It'll be KINDLING baby!


 It'd be in rags and pieces. Not "cut in half".

 A boxed car is a relatively small target with brittle surface. Strafing methods in WW2 were typically "walking the shots in", which the bullet landing patterns will start out wide, get narrower as the target nears the exact convergence range the guns are set, and than widen again as the range becomes closer than the convergence setting.

 Nobody particularly questioned the vet's statement. Mando, logically pointed out it was an exaggeration, and you'd need surgical precision hits on a stable platform to really 'cut it in half' - except, someone starts to claim that statements should be accepted literally. (and preferably without any evidence)

ps) The higher the power of penetration is, the less damage it will do to ambient surfaces. The reason why your example of small arms snaps wooden planks is actually because it is weak. If you shoot at a wooden surface with rounds that is not hollow point, or doesn't shatter upon impact, or is not disfigured, it leaves a clear hole.

Quote
I think what many people have is the misconception that a bullet will just make a hole. Sure the rifle caliber rounds will. But when a 50cal hits a piece of aluminum that's on a wing, it's not just making a hole and passing through. It's probably snapping rivets around that panel, warping it, having half of it curl up, or even ripping it right off (due to a combination of warp, snapped rivets, wind sheer, what have you), resulting in some structural integrity (the surface of the wing was load bearing, to an extend), and definitely a loss in lift and an increase in drag. Again, imagine with 6x 50cal, 100s of rounds a minute.


 That's not what the battle damage pics show. A group of .50s landing at a concentrated spot does wreck havoc on a surface. The more precise this concentration is, the closer it becomes to almost mimicing the effects of cannon fire.

 However, firing on a small plane that is maneuvering through the air, with the gun platform itself mounted on a wing that is susceptible to flex and vibrations, with multiple convergence issues, and difficulty of general targetting? That's a totally different story.

Quote
P.S. Don't forget: Most planes didn't HAVE empty spaces anywhere. Except the tail, in most cases. Most wings were filled with vital systems. Consider the 109, one of the common targets for the 6x50cal planes. The wings were filled with radiator equipment, sometimes ammunition, controls, and so forth. Yes there is some empty spaces, but all in all you're more likely to HIT something than to MISS something.


 No objections here. I totally agree.

But that's exactly why I mentioned in the earlier post that it's a DM issue, not a .50 issue. .50 fire should have higher probability of damaging internal systems, and less probability of snapping surfaces off.. except AH DM rarely has any internal DM we know of(rods.. cables.. spars..), and all damage is more or less received and dealt directly on the surface - which consequences result in strutural failure as the main reason of planes being shot down - as opposed to what .50 guncam footage shows.

 And I'm not opposing this kind of change. I want it too.

 It's not the .50 modelling is wrong. It's the DM that is insufficient.




Elfie:

Quote
I saw a show on the history channel where several surviving P-47 pilots said they did that. Dont recall the name of the show atm though.


 Thanks for that Elfie. Now since clearly someone saw this recorded interview, I guess some of you guys must conclude that the particular vet story should also be taken literally!




SlapShot:

Quote
I see nowhere in this thread anyone asking that these gentlemen be deified ... only not to summarily dismiss them as exagerating and embelishing their personal experiences.

 What is being said is that their personal observations and many hours of experience in WII fighter planes in actual combat hold a lot more weight and truth than those who have absolutely 0 hours in any WWII fighter plane and spent 0 hours fighting in WWII.


 Except you will accept their experiences without any logical concern on the situational matter. You will take it literally and not question it, and accept it as a fact, because they said so.

 That may not be 'deifying', but it is giving up logical/scientifical approach towards proving a claim.

 Your remarks are typical of empiricism which assumes everything anyone has to say must come with experience, and those who have experience will always tell the truth(or, what they perceived to be true will always be really "true").

 Except people like Tony Williams or Emmanuel Gustin also has absolutely ZERO hours in WW2 aerial combat and yet they provide as much - in some cases even more - insight and scientifical proof in what the aerial gunnery was like in those days, than your typical "vet".

 Lucky for us, God gave us something we call logical analogy. By examining pieces of facts and evidence we can piece up an accurate picture of what happened. Experience helps, but it's not the only thing that can prove anything.

 Besides, if we should follow your logic, you shouldn't be objecting to us since you're not the person who flew those fighters and made those claims. You also have no knowledge whatsoever in what shooting stuff is like, and thus, you also base your statements on facts and pieces which YOU perceive to be logical. You're also using your own process of logical analysis without concern to firsthand experience, just like every one of us.

 In short, according to your empiricism, you shouldn't even be posting here. Because obviously you know nothing about what it is like and thus, have no substance which you can put against us to discredit our claims.

Quote
Please ... tell us your eyewitness accounts of what happened in WWII when you flew fighter missions or any accounts of your experiences in WWII ... oh ... thats right ... you weren't alive then ... but u can summarily dismiss those that were.


 That's not a denial.

 Do we need to experience to know that cramming pig stickers up our arses is gonna smart? Do we need to experience to know that a physical object travelling at X miles of speed at Y angles of impact will or will not penetrate Z thickness of metal? If it be so why did humanity even bother with science?

 Or maybe science does not apply in this case, and it's some divine intervention that allows .50 rounds to bounce off road surfaces and penetrate inches of hardened metal, because German made tanks were evil incarnate?

Offline Oleg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
.50 cal's
« Reply #72 on: May 24, 2005, 11:52:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Elfie
Belly armor on tanks was very thin and designed to protect the crew from anti-tanks mines.


You want to say what 0.5cal bullet after ricochet from road and hitting armor at about 5-10 degrees has more power then anti-tank mine? Amazing.

Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
But when a 50cal hits a piece of aluminum that's on a wing, it's not just making a hole and passing through.


It do exactly that. A single hole ~13mm in diameter. Hell, 20mm AP round do almost same.
Look this film (~8Mb): http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/wing-test.wmv
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
Maya Angelou

Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
.50 cal's
« Reply #73 on: May 25, 2005, 12:04:45 AM »
Mando, logically pointed out it was an exaggeration, and you'd need surgical precision hits on a stable platform to really 'cut it in half'

Yeah ... you and Mando have how many hours in a F4-U or any armed WWII fighter plane ? Let me guess ... 0 hours ... thats what I thought.

Except you will accept their experiences without any logical concern on the situational matter. You will take it literally and not question it, and accept it as a fact, because they said so.

Logically ... he knows more than you and has far more experience on this topic than you could ever garner. Logically ... I choose him and not you.

That may not be 'deifying', but it is giving up logical/scientifical approach towards proving a claim.

Please ... did someone start the smoke machine ?

Your remarks are typical of empiricism which assumes everything anyone has to say must come with experience, and those who have experience will always tell the truth(or, what they perceived to be true will always be really "true").

When it comes to choosing between him or you ... you lose hands down. His word is far more concrete than you could ever dream of ... he DID fly combat missions ... you DID NOT ... he DID fly an F4-U Corsair ... you HAVE NOT. If the two of you were testifying to a jury as experts ... you would lose hands down.

Except people like Tony Williams or Emmanuel Gustin also has absolutely ZERO hours in WW2 aerial combat and yet they provide as much - in some cases even more - insight and scientifical proof in what the aerial gunnery was like in those days, than your typical "vet".

Tony nor Emmanuel have not weighed in yet on this thread/topic. Until they do, and empirically disprove what this vet says ... you still loose hands down to the vet.

Lucky for us, God gave us something we call logical analogy. By examining pieces of facts and evidence we can piece up an accurate picture of what happened. Experience helps, but it's not the only thing that can prove anything.

Nice try ... prove the vet wrong.

Besides, if we should follow your logic, you shouldn't be objecting to us since you're not the person who flew those fighters and made those claims. You also have no knowledge whatsoever in what shooting stuff is like, and thus, you also base your statements on facts and pieces which YOU perceive to be logical. You're also using your own process of logical analysis without concern to firsthand experience, just like every one of us.

Logically ... I am objecting to you because you know absolutely squat ... again, you could only wish to have the practical and real experiences that this vet speaks of. At least you would have a leg to stand on ... as far as I am concerned ... but we all know that you have 0 hours in a 6 gunned .50 cal WII fighter. I think my logic is pretty sound. You lose.

And how would you know that I have no knowledge whatsoever in what shooting stuff is like ? You know nothing about me, yet you can make that assumption ... so very much like the assumptions and logic that you have been applying to this discussion ... total conjecture on your part ... not a very scientific approach for one that holds it so high.

In short, according to your empiricism, you shouldn't even be posting here. Because obviously you know nothing about what it is like and thus, have no substance which you can put against us to discredit our claims.

You really crack me up ... I never claimed to know what it was like ... that is why I passed on what I heard from someone who did claim to know what it is like ... and has the history to prove it. Something that you drastically lack yet try to get others to believe that you "know what it was like". You have absolutly NOTHING to back your claims ... you never do.

Do we need to experience to know that cramming pig stickers up our arses is gonna smart? Do we need to experience to know that a physical object travelling at X miles of speed at Y angles of impact will or will not penetrate Z thickness of metal? If it be so why did humanity even bother with science?

Or maybe science does not apply in this case, and it's some divine intervention that allows .50 rounds to bounce off road surfaces and penetrate inches of hardened metal, because German made tanks were evil incarnate?


Here comes the smoke and mirrors ... The 'ol Kweassa 23 skidoo.

Let me refresh you ... I am the one that is saying that a 6 gunned .50 cal Corsair can cut a boxcar in half at 800 yards.

I did say in a previous post that as far as I am concerned ... the jury is still out on the "bouncing" .50 cals as far as I am concerned. I have only read the "urban legend" on this BBS, but I have yet to see anyone, which includes you, produce scientific evidence that it is unequivocably impossible.

So get your Radio Shack scientific calculator out and give us the ... physical object travelling at X miles of speed at Y angles of impact will or will not penetrate Z thickness of metal that proves it completely impossible. Make sure it's indepth and totally complete ... hope you have access to a Cray.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2005, 12:07:28 AM by SlapShot »
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."

Offline Oleg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
.50 cal's
« Reply #74 on: May 25, 2005, 12:22:53 AM »
BTW, I've read the interview with russian WW2 veteran (Golodnikov N.G.) where he told what his wing leader cut Ju87 in two parts literally with 12  0.303 guns. But. He did it from about 50m and spent almost all ammo.
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
Maya Angelou