50 Cal verse Tank

[DarkHawk]

Can some one explain why 50 cal MG can kill a tank.
I can see 20 or 30 mm cannon but 50 cal. The 50 could kill the pinta gun, but the turent or main gun. IF AP round can not always kill a tank on the first strike. Then why 50 MG, they should bounce of that armor plate like water form a ducks back.
I can see possible engine damage if the strike is
in the correct direction. I just feel that MG rounds against a tank are over rated.
Just an opinion, now lets hear yours.


DarkHawk  

[Durr]

I once asked my dad about the capabilities of the .50 MG, as he is a former US Army tanker.  He told me that the .50 is capable of engaging and killing anything up to a Main Battle Tank.  Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other such armoured fighting vehicles can be easily killed by the .50.  

However, WW2 tanks were nowhere near as well armoured as a modern tank such as the M-1 Abrams.  Most WW2 tanks had armour more comparable to a Bradley.  This means that a .50 could quite easily kill a tank if it were fired at the right place.  The armour on all tanks is quite thick at the front of the tank and throughout most of the sides of the turret.  The armour is a little less on the sides, even less to the rear, and very thin on top and bottom.  This means that an aircraft attacking from above could fire through the top of most WW2 tanks.  In fact, it was apparently quite common for P-47s attacking German tanks, which were the best armoured on average of all WW2 tanks, to score kills with their .50s alone.  The .50 is quite capable of penetrating a significant amount of armour, and the volume of .50 slugs emanating from eight .50s coming through from the top, would likely chew up a tank pretty good.  So while the .50 isnt quite an ideal tank busting weapon, even on the thinner armoured vehicles of WW2, it is capable of making a kill if you attack from the right angle and lay on the fire.  

It seems to me that it is probably about right in the game from what I have seen.  I have trouble killing Panzers with .50 calibre MGs, but if I attack straight down, and fire long bursts, sometimes I get them.  Usually they are just disabled though, which also makes sense.  .50s would do extreme amounts of damage to the external mounted guns, the engine, and the tracks.

[minus]

so all ww2 tank constructers was stupid , and that why modern antitank aircraft guns are 30 mm canons:rolleyes:

no plane mounted 50 caliber used inaf long barel  ,and if top of pnzr was les thick  but real life 0.000001  % pnzr get kiled this way

[wulfie]

Originally posted by Durr
I once asked my dad about the capabilities of the .50 MG, as he is a former US Army tanker.  He told me that the .50 is capable of engaging and killing anything up to a Main Battle Tank.  Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other such armoured fighting vehicles can be easily killed by the .50.  

However, WW2 tanks were nowhere near as well armoured as a modern tank such as the M-1 Abrams.  Most WW2 tanks had armour more comparable to a Bradley.  This means that a .50 could quite easily kill a tank if it were fired at the right place.  The armour on all tanks is quite thick at the front of the tank and throughout most of the sides of the turret.  The armour is a little less on the sides, even less to the rear, and very thin on top and bottom.  This means that an aircraft attacking from above could fire through the top of most WW2 tanks.  In fact, it was apparently quite common for P-47s attacking German tanks, which were the best armoured on average of all WW2 tanks, to score kills with their .50s alone.  The .50 is quite capable of penetrating a significant amount of armour, and the volume of .50 slugs emanating from eight .50s coming through from the top, would likely chew up a tank pretty good.  So while the .50 isnt quite an ideal tank busting weapon, even on the thinner armoured vehicles of WW2, it is capable of making a kill if you attack from the right angle and lay on the fire.  

It seems to me that it is probably about right in the game from what I have seen.  I have trouble killing Panzers with .50 calibre MGs, but if I attack straight down, and fire long bursts, sometimes I get them.  Usually they are just disabled though, which also makes sense.  .50s would do extreme amounts of damage to the external mounted guns, the engine, and the tracks.

This is not a flame.

This 'topic'/(legend)/(fairy tale) has been brought up too many times to now warrant a response. Not your fault you didn't see the other posts however.

But...

Dig up some data on the best possible penetration of armor plate by the .50 MG carried by the P-47.

Dig up some data on the armor plate of any post '40 MBT that fought in WW2, *including* BHN and quality ratings.

In short - what you posted is wrong. Even aircraft carrying 2cm cannon couldn't really affect MBTs in WW2. MBT kills by aircraft were *massively* overclaimed.

Numerous books talk of 'hundreds' of German AFVs being 'destroyed' by 'rocket and cannon firing Typhoons' at the 'Falaise gap' during the battle for Normandy in 1944.

USAAF and RAF records, from a very detailed study that was undertaken only 1 month later found that ~6 (SIX) German MBTs were 'destroyed' by air attack at the 'Falaise gap'.

Destroyed = vehicle destroyed...set on fire, and/or exploded, or damaged to the point that repair is not an option.

LW pilots, being interviewed by USAF intel types in the 1950s when the USAF was planning for the possibility of fighting the Soviet Union, explained that even 3.7cm and 5.0cm cannon, along with bombs, were not very useful vs. the T-34. You had to hit too small an area while flying at too high a speed unless you got down to a slow enough speed that you were practically commiting suicide.

From 1944 onward German ground attack pilots...flying Fw 190Fs, etc., armed with 2cm cannon with AP ammunition, bombs, cluster bombs, rockets, etc. - were trained to attack the fuel supply vehicles of Soviet armored spearheads - because trying to kill individual Soviet MBTs was basically a waste of time and/or effort. Kill the fuel and all the MBTs aren't a threat in 100 or so miles, and then they are out of gas and ready to be easily killed by counterattacking German units.

The big problem with perception vs. reality = guys like Rudel write a book. It's too easy for some to assume that because Rudel could do it, that even 5, or 10 other pilots in the entire LW could do it.

MBTs were often 'mission killed' by air attack - meaning they had their tracks or wheels damaged, or their gunsight messed up, etc. And then they were useless for the next couple of hours at least, which was fine for the guys fighting said MBTs who called in the air support.

But it was very, very rare for any post '40 MBT to be 'exploded' or 'knocked out with significant crew casualties' as a result of an attack made by an enemy aircraft.

Read some armored unit AARs from WW2. I gurantee that the 'Tigers' that were 'killed' by the P-47s was a case of this...

1. P-47s strafe a column of German vehicles. They probably see some Pz IVs that they ID as Tigers (no shame here - 95% of all German MBTs were 'Tigers' in the opinion of most US and UK combat troops - be it pilots, riflemen, AT gunners, etc.).

2. Pz IV crews see they don't have AAA coverage. First pass is MG hits. No damage. Next pass could be bombs. Get the hell out of the tank and hide a safe distance away.

3. P-47 pilots see AFV crewmen abandoning AFVs. 'Looks like an AFV kill'.

4. P-47s leave. Pz IV crewmen check Pz IVs for damage and resume march.

Think this is crazy? Read some AARs from actual armored units (I have), or interview some actual armored unit veterans (I have) - very, VERY common to bail out of the tank when there is lots of smoke in the crew compartment (like from an exhaust that's been screwed up by cannon fire, or a near miss from a bomb or artillery shell). Smoke dies down, or gasoline burns off (any idea how hard it is to get gasoline to actually 'explode', as opposed to just burning?) and the crew gets back in the AFV.

I'm not saying you don't know anything, and I'm not saying you aren't a smart guy. But I have studied armor and penetration data a great deal. A P-47 could not destroy a Pz VIE with .50 MG fire.

Re: your Dad - the most likely explanation...the .50 MG he dealt with (assuming post WW2) had much better penetration than the .50 MGs of a WW2 era P-47.

.50 MG ammunition data:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/50.htm

Cool chart of how .50 MG ammunition became more lethal:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/cal50evol.gif

Note the penetration data for these rounds is going to be vs. 'average' quality steel plate at 90 degrees impact angle.
The armor of a WW2 MBT is going to be much 'harder'...by 'harder' I am referring to BHN or Brinell Hardness Rating (do some minor studying on this maybe).

Here's a link which lists a Pz VIEs armor in great detail:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm

I hope this helps.

Mike/wulfie

[Wotan]

good post wulfie steve74 (i think) posted something very similiar and  included quotes from about  the falaise gap. The so-called "Day of the Typhoon" amounted to 6 destroyed mbts.  Support vehicles were shredded though.


ps we all know jug pilots could bounce 50 cals off dirt / cobble stone roads so thy would penetrate the "unamored" underside of a mbt.  After all the germans were stupid and  never thought about having to deal with anti-tank mines

You think 50 cals killing tanks are bad a wwiiol fella says he knocks out tanks with mgff

[brady]

The one thing that is common knowledge to those of use who have been playing AH for a while is that the GV's in AH are not modeled all that well.Personaly I feal that this may be a game play conshion. How would people react if they had to up a special plane or a special load out for their plane to kill a GV, any GV for that matter. Some P 51 adact would not be to happy to find thaT he neaded a Il-2 to kill a tank with because his P 51 could not cut the mustard. IMO GV's should nead special load out's or special planes to deal with them effectively every plane should not be a GV killer. Every weapon after firing log enough should not kill or disable a GV. GV's should receave the same attention as Aircraft modeling in AH does. I am a big history buff and when I get killed by 50 cal fire from some TBM I get realy disgruntled because I know it is BS.

[AKDejaVu]

Did some testing with a 300 WinMag and a .50 Cal against 1/2" steel.  These were only 1ftx1ft steel plates and it was at a 90 degree angle... so they are pretty irrelivant when it comes to tank striking... BUT...

The .50 penetrated every strike.  This is with ball ammo.  We didn't try it with HE (maybe next time).

The 300 WinMag did not fully penetrate.  It did leave bullet size holes about 1/3 of an inch deep in the plating.  Extended exposure to 300 WinMag would have eventually penetrated.

So.. I imagine the tanks had hardened steel (at least harder than what we were working with) and angle of deflection became an issue thus making these tests virtually inapplicable.  What I cannot imagine is that the armor was unaffected by the impacts.

AKDejaVu

[ccvi]

armor penetration doesn't depend on the calibre of the bullet, but on it's length and it's density of mass compared to that of the armor plate.

therefore armor piercing rounds are long, and today often made of uranium.

he rounds (20mm, 30mm, 37mm...) shouldn't hurt armor much, their density of mass is to low, and they're short (after the HE part went boom).

in real life pilots weren't as good shots as some in the game. if some experts here open fire at a GV 500 rounds hit within 2 or 3 seconds. i don't think anyone in RL could do that. it either requires the nose to be pushed down - dangerous, or trimmed down (combat trim does it here) - even worse.

[Creto]

Have to agree with Durr,  I see alot about the .50s impact on MBTs.  The panzer F, G, H and J was produced in hugh number right up to the end of the war.  But compared to such monsters as the Maus, King Tiger, Panthers and Tiger I it was pretty wimpy in the armor department.  

Armor in these tanks were designed and placed to protect it from other tanks.  I'm sure air attacks were considered but topside armor was still pretty thin.  Though in real life you may not have gotten the big explosion you see in AH the .50 still ought to have good chance of penetrating topside armor and disable a vehical such as the IV H.

[Wotan]

no it wouldnt. There were battle studies and inspections of destroyed damaged and abandoned vehicles.

One of the most famous a2g (vrs armored vehicles) was the typhoons raid against german tanks trying to relieve the falaise gap. Wulfie mentions this in his post. The effect the typhoons had was undeniable it distrupted greatly german movement but after the fact 6 tanks were found to be clearly put out of action. Typhoons sortied with mostly rockets but the had hispanos.

Follow wulfies links it demonstates that 50 cals will penetrate 19 mm at 300 meters and at 90 degrees.

Also not every round will penetrate. There have been post on this board that explain penetration data. The were posts that go into detail about the "day of the typhoon".

ccvi touches on it.

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by ccvi
armor penetration doesn't depend on the calibre of the bullet, but on it's length and it's density of mass compared to that of the armor plate.

therefore armor piercing rounds are long, and today often made of uranium.

Actually... its more than just density of mass.  Its mass... density... shape... material... velocity... several other things.  Teflon coating helps not because it increases any of those features, but because it decreases initial loss due to friction.

And bullets aren't made of urnanium.  They have depleted uranium tips.  The 30mm used by the A-10 is capable of penetrating 12" steel with depleted uranium tipped bullets.  I have a tendancy to think that's not a requirement for killing tanks... but its sure nice to have.  I have a tendancy to think that gun and those shells were developed to demolish any hardened target.

AKDejaVu

[wulfie]

One good 'rule of thumb' when it comes to armor and penetration:

Against high BHN armor plate, which is what you are going to find on MBTs, in aircraft (as purpose placed armor that is), etc.:

If the diameter of the AP projectile is less than the effective (as in accounting for slope - hit 3" of armor plate at 45 degrees impact angle and the 'effective' thickness of that armor is ~6") thickness of the plate, there is a very high chance of a 'clean deflection' or 'shot shatter' on the part of the AP projectile.

'Shot shatter' can be avoided with super dense penetrator cores, which is why you saw tungsten cored AP penetrators for use specifically vs. armor (an AH applicable example is the tungsten cored MG 151/15 AP rounds issued on the Eastern Front specifially for ground attack missions) in WW2, and why you have DU cored AP penetrators of one type or another today. Solid steel penetrators will shatter very easily when hitting thick face hardened plate - especially very high velocity ones (like 2cm and .50 AP).

Mike/wulfie

[mauser]

Thanks wulfie, good post

Here's a link to a short discussion in Aircraft & Vehicles about armor penetration.  Has some interesting links there also:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59047&highlight=penetration

mauser

[Karnak]

Here is another thing:

The RAF Fighter Command ordered the Mosquito FB.Mk XVIII 'Tsetse' as an anti-tank weapon.  The Tsetse, for those few who don't know, was armed with a powerful 57mm automatic cannon.

RAF Fighter Command cuncluded that the Tsetse's weapon was inadequate against MBTs before it even went into action against them.  Due to this finding they gave all their Tsetse Mosquitoes to Coastal Command for use against shipping and U-Boats where it was quite effective.

If a high velocity 57mm cannon is ineffective, where do you think that leaves .50 cal fire or 20mm fire?

Pretty useless against MBTs is where.

[AKDejaVu]

There are many reasons for something to be ineffective Karnak.  One of the main reasons is that the ROF on a gun like that is abysmal... and aiming from a moving airborn platform at something as small as a tank is tough.

But then.. there are stories of the 75mm bouncing right off of the forward armor of some late ware tanks too.  I just don't think that applies to the Panzer IV... and I know it doesn't apply to the Sherman.

AKDejaVu