50 Cal verse Tank

[brady]

Ya I have taken out Engines with a MG 34, Panzer engines mind you.

[Hortlund]

Focus gentlemen.

The current GV damage model is off, I think everyone agrees on that. It looks like there is some form of cumulative damage formula in there somewhere that screw things up. Right now you can turn a stone building into rubble using MG's only, that should tell you that something is wrong.

There are two alternatives here. Either HT shares the view that there is something wrong with the gv/object damage model, and that it needs to be changed. In that case the damage model is on the "to do"-list will be changed sooner or later.

OR

HT wants the damage model to look the way it does as a gameplay concession.

I have now emailed this question to the Q&A forum, so hopefully we will get an answer soon.

[brady]

In summery you could say this:

  While it apears that under Ideal conditions a penatration could be acheaved using a 50cal round.

 Howeaver that enevelope is so small and the angle of atack and range required to acheave this penetration are so steep and close that the chances of it actualy haping shuld be considered slight at best.

 Historicaly 50 cal MG's were not AT weapon's, and if history bears any testomony to the case at had it is that the use of a 50cal weapon in the AT role was not at all effective aganst tanks.

 Imobalization by 50 cal should be looked at in the same light.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Voss
Well, somethings screwey. I tried this in the TA and despite three Spit Mk. 1's attacking there was no damage done.

Err..isnt it in the TA where there is a small sign saying "Weapon lethality has been tuned down" when you enter?

[Voss]

Uh, haven't you learned that NO ONE reads those things?

[robsan]

Found two interesting sites while searching the web for more background info.

What US tankers thought of US equipment

Armament- Both 75-mm and 76-mm guns with available types of ammunition are incapable of neutralizing enemy tanks at ranges at which the latter are capable of neutralizing our tanks. When engaged at closer ranges with HVAP (high velocity armor piercing), 76-mm guns have disabled German tanks but penetration seems to be rare.

and

WWII pilot autobiography

Combat in the "Jug." My 40 combat-mission experiences in the P-47 Thunderbolt had proved to me that the "Jug" could take and deliver extensive damage. After escort missions, it was easy to "get lost," go to the deck and use the plane's eight .50-caliber machine guns and ammo to their best advantage. A touch of the trigger would cut an enemy plane in half, tear out an engine, or cut off a wing; it would leave a truck loaded with soldiers with nothing recognizable; it would knock the tracks off tanks; and it could cut through a tank's steel right over its engine and set it afire. A squirt of armor-piercing ammo drilled two- to three-foot holes at water lines to sink barges; it would destroy the front of a train engine and wipe out the rails; it would cut off a train's front wheels, topple radar towers and wipe out a parade ground of soldiers.

Conclusion: The Sherman would have been alot better if they had mounted eight .50 MG's instead of their 76-MM gun.... :-/

[Shiva]

Seems that would only apply if you're talking about a single round hortlund. If its penetrating enough to put a visible opening in the armor... and you have 6 .50's shooting at close to the same area... well... I think even you can understand that it will be a cumulative effect.

Some months ago, I watched a program on the Discovery Channel about the P-47; there was one gun camera film they showed of a P-47 on a ground-attack sweep mission strafing a truck somewhere in France.  When the pilot opened up on the truck -- at a range that was described as being about 400 yards -- the dust puffs on the ground from the bullet impacts covered an area four times the length of the truck in each direction when the pilot opened fire, shrinking to about three times the length of the truck when the pilot ceased firing and pulled up at about 200 yards range.

It seems to me that the problem with machine guns against tanks may not be that  80 rounds of .50 fire won't achieve enough damage against the deck and turret top armor to knock out the tank, but that the way that the shooting platform is modelled, each barrel is rigidly clamped into the airframe, which is rigidly clamped onto its line of flight, so that if the plane's guns are calibrated for 400 yards, at 400 yards all of the bullets in a one-second burst are going to hit the exact same spot on the target -- recoil torque and barrel flex being completely omitted from the ballistic calculations due to the increase in compute power required.

[Voss]

Yeah, last night on 'Steve Irwin's War Ghosts" they had a lot of footage of Corsair's and P-38's attacking Japanese shippig targets. The bullets were fired at pretty good range and grouped over a very large area, but determining precisely what was grouping and what were ricochetes is problematical.



Great show. Watching Irwin climb into the submerged Zero, the P-38 engroped by vines, the Japanese Sub-killer, and several other submerged vessels was very interesting.

I can't wait to have the time to snorkel and dive in the same area (Truk Lagoon and the like).

[wulfie]

Voss,

Don't snorkel at Truk lagoon, or anywhere near it.

Many, many seasnakes there.

When you are on SCUBA you can look up and see them. 4/4 here - every time I have been there I have seen them near the surface, in decent #s.

Mike/wulfie

[brady]

Irespective of what piolets say on the matter, studies done after the battle by inspectiors on the ground revealed that strafing atacks by Allied Jabo's( typhoons included) did not kill tanks.

  It is all listed above.

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by brady
Irespective of what piolets say on the matter, studies done after the battle by inspectiors on the ground revealed that strafing atacks by Allied Jabo's( typhoons included) did not kill tanks.

  It is all listed above.

Brulle, the author of "Angels Zero" and a 9th AF vet would disagree with you. He said disabling a Mk IV was possible. Is he a liar?

The evidence put forth here is not that conclusive. Its more like thats what You WANT to believe.

[Wotan]

ammo there folks here have quoted specific jug pilots say they bounced 50 cals off the ground.

you tell me, are they lying?

No one said that 50 cals should never knock out tanks. They just say the angle and range that they do it here in ah makes one wonder if theres not something wrong

50 cals have what what a muzzle velocity of 870m/s = 2854f/s


How much energy does a 50 cal loose 1500yrds?

better what is its striking velocity?

ht chart says at 2800f/s and 0 degree (what I call 90)  can penetrate what 28mm(1.1 inch).

but as the angle and striking velocity drop it fits with everything we are saying. When I strafe and kill panzrs I am never at hi angles or in close (d800) and I never fly 50 cal planes and I get kills pretty easy. Hell try a zeke they kills panzers easily from lo angles.

I would allow for some consideration in variances in fe except for the fact I have killed umm in ways that would seem impossible.

And this wouldn't explain lvt 50 cals or m3 or m16s killing at lo angles are long ranges.

[illo]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Funny I see em and do em all the time.

Where in the rules does it say you HAVE to dive at 300mph?


 

PazKpfw IVh side armor is 30mm +5mm skirt. Skirt will deform rounds before impact on main plate and prevent penetration. This was designed to counter high velocity AT rifles and did much help against HEAT weapons too.

[illo]

Originally posted by Stranger
Infantry used to put .50s on top of buildings and take out tanks with them because of the lighter armor on top. If they could do so an AC should be able to do the same. Can't remember where I read that but it was more than one source.

Ive read they did this to armored recon vehicles and recon halftracks. (Most of them having no top armor.)

I have never read about post 1943 german medium tank killed by 50cal...please post me some reference if you find. Reference must quote actual model of Panzer. You know US infantry called even unarmored panzerjägers "tanks" or even better "Tigers"

[illo]

Originally posted by Wotan
ammo there folks here have quoted specific jug pilots say they bounced 50 cals off the ground.

you tell me, are they lying?
Yes pilots are lying. Panzer bottom armor was very tough (20-30mm) to protect crew from explosions of AT-mines. Deformed 50cal wouldnt do a scratch on it.

No one said that 50 cals should never knock out tanks. They just say the angle and range that they do it here in ah makes one wonder if theres not something wrong

50 cals have what what a muzzle velocity of 870m/s = 2854f/s

How much energy does a 50 cal loose 1500yrds?

better what is its striking velocity?

ht chart says at 2800f/s and 0 degree (what I call 90)  can penetrate what 28mm(1.1 inch).

27mm at 50yards
20mm at 200yards
15mm at 400yards.
13mm at 500yards
7mm at 1000yards
IIRC

Also round must have leftover energy after penetration to do some damage..round that barely penetrates cant damage engine etc.

Yes even armored cars were relatively safe from 12.7mm (50cal) rounds frontally..they were designed to it. Usually around 12mm of armor with some slope (to make resistance about 20mm) was considered enough to stop Browning or DSHK 12.7mm rounds.