Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Ouch on September 27, 2003, 08:01:58 PM
-
If the tank captain is UP in the turret, firing on enemy aircraft, is that openeing modeled? Could that be how some tanks keep "dieing" from 50 calliber rounds?
HT or someone in the know, what say you?
Ouch out
-
50 cal rounds would go through the top of panzers but not tigers.
-
Another common practice amoung america fighter pilots who lacked cannons, was to bounce the bullets off the ground, and into the soft underbelly. Worked best on hard roads of course, but was a very common tactic.
-
Dont believe everything you read ALF. Im sure airmen reported this, but it cant be true. The .50 cal in particular, but ammunition as a whole regardless, hug the ground when they ricochet. It is possible that airmen saw tank crews abandon the vehicle when they attacked and counted it as destroyed, or they somehow lit the things off with incendiary rounds hitting fuel vapors (tanks leaked and thats a fact), but no way could a .50 bounce off a road and still carry enough energy to penetrate armor plate.
I have never had that misfortune Ouch. I have shot down as many as ten planes from the pintle in one sortie, taken hits from .50s and 20mms, but if they could kill you then why havent we heard of a wounded driver or commander?
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97126
-
Originally posted by MetaTron
but ammunition as a whole regardless, hug the ground when they ricochet.
Fact is that ammunition can travel as much as 12 inches once it ricochets at a 45 degree angle. I don't know what kind of critical parts of a tank that would be that low. So I would have to guess that in a real life situation any ricochets would not damage the tank. Any tank commanders out there to clarify this?
“Never argue with an idiot!
They'll bring you down to their level
and beat you with experience.”
-
Originally posted by ALF
Another common practice amoung america fighter pilots who lacked cannons, was to bounce the bullets off the ground, and into the soft underbelly. Worked best on hard roads of course, but was a very common tactic.
I always did love this topic. It's too much fun. Why would anyone believe that a bullet would richochet off the road and then penetrate hardened steel? If the bullet can't penetrate the asphalt, how is it ever gonna get throught the armour?
-
Originally posted by Furious
If the bullet can't penetrate the asphalt, how is it ever gonna get throught the armour?
Bullets are a funny thing. A short but true story. A New Jersey State Trooper was following a pick up truck believed to have been used in a felony. The truck pulled into a dirt driveway that lead up to an abandon house with a circular driveway by the house. The driver of the truck stopped abruptly and shifted into reverse and then rammed the Trooper car. This trapped the Trooper inside of the car as the driver exited his truck. The driver was armed with a shot gun and approached the Trooper. The trooper was able to get his sidearm out and fire several rounds before the driver of the truck fatality shot the Trooper. Upon investigating there were bullet holes in the hood of the Troopers car. It was concluded that the holes were made from the troopers gun when he shot through the windshield. The bullets hit the windshield and were deflected into the hood instead of hitting it's intended target.
So never under estimate what a bullet will do when it hits an object at any given angle.
“Never argue with an idiot!
They'll bring you down to their level
and beat you with experience.”
-
Originally posted by Ouch
If the tank captain is UP in the turret, firing on enemy aircraft, is that openeing modeled?
The easy answer is... "It's a FLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM!"<<< or was.
-
Originally posted by Furious
I always did love this topic. It's too much fun. Why would anyone believe that a bullet would richochet off the road and then penetrate hardened steel? If the bullet can't penetrate the asphalt, how is it ever gonna get throught the armour?
It's all in the math Furious. Even modern 2000lbs bombs will easily "skip" at angle far less steep than you'd imagine. Not only that, even at steep angles (given the right hardness of what it's hitting), they will penetrate then arc back out of the ground if they don't detonate first. When I was a kid... we used to target practice with .22's all the time. I've seen a few bounce off pond water. It's all in the math.... hardness of projectile, hardness of target, speed/velocity etc etc. Wierder things have happened.
-
Tank bottoms, are everybit as armoured as sides or tops.
If a bullet can't penetrate it with a direct hit, it certainly will not penetrate it by ricocheting against a hard substance first.
If the angle of the bullet striking the ground is shallow enough to bounce a bullet on asphalt, then the angle of that same bullet hitting the tank bottom after a ricochet, is exactly same as the first bounce angle which caused the ricochet. If a bullet will ricochet against asphalt, then it will ricochet off an armoured tank belly.
-
just face it... german armor sucked.
-
What amazes me is that someone would be sitting in the hatch, shooting at aircraft that are strafing him with a machine gun.
The pintle gunner should be very vunerable to getting injured or killed. At the moment its stupid that you cant damage or destroy the 'remote control' pintle gun.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Tank bottoms, are everybit as armoured as sides or tops.
No... they're not.
Panzer IV Type H data:
Armor Thickness (mm)
Hull Front, Upper: 80@10°
Hull Front, Lower: 80@14°
Hull Sides, Upper: 30@0°
Hull Sides, Lower: 30@0°
Hull Rear : 20@8° & 11°
Hull Top : 12@85°-90°
Hull Bottom : 10@90°
Turret Front : 50@10 Mantlet: 50@0°-30°
Turret Sides : 30@25°
Turret Rear : 30@15°
Turret Top : 15@84°-90°
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/pzkpfw_iv.html
A modern (ok so they really aren't all that modern) M2 Machine gun can penetrate 19mm at 500m, and 10mm at 1200mm.
I'd say it's very likely the tactic mentioned was entirely possible.. besides, I read the article once somewhere or another.
:)
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Even modern 2000lbs bombs will easily "skip" at angle far less steep than you'd imagine. Not only that, even at steep angles (given the right hardness of what it's hitting), they will penetrate then arc back out of the ground if they don't detonate first.
Thats true. I have witnessed it myself at Avon Park, Fla. I was TDY there and my job as part of a 6 man crew was to pick up the Nuke shapes after the F-16's dropped them. While I was there I witnesses some other AC dropping some GP practice bombs. We winessed one enter the ground and then promptly exit about 100 ft away. It was freaky. You guys would have liked to wander around that range and checked out all the beat up targets. Most was old armor from previous era's, some old AC too, but they were so beat up from getting pounded all the time, they didnt look like themselves.
-
Originally posted by Glint
Bullets are a funny thing. A short but true story. A New Jersey State Trooper was following a pick up truck believed to have been used in a felony. The truck pulled into a dirt driveway that lead up to an abandon house with a circular driveway by the house. The driver of the truck stopped abruptly and shifted into reverse and then rammed the Trooper car. This trapped the Trooper inside of the car as the driver exited his truck. The driver was armed with a shot gun and approached the Trooper. The trooper was able to get his sidearm out and fire several rounds before the driver of the truck fatality shot the Trooper. Upon investigating there were bullet holes in the hood of the Troopers car. It was concluded that the holes were made from the troopers gun when he shot through the windshield. The bullets hit the windshield and were deflected into the hood instead of hitting it's intended target.
So never under estimate what a bullet will do when it hits an object at any given angle.
All the reasion we use the new IQ rnds in our guns. We still use 9mm so we need the extra advantage of a "smart" alloy bullet.
Now on topic.... I killed a Tiger about a month back from a shot from my P51B with four .50s. Now if it was a glitch or not I do not know but it happend, and I was accused of cheating. Soo who knows how it works.
“Never argue with an idiot!
They'll bring you down to their level
and beat you with experience.”
All the reasion we use the new IQ rnds in our guns. We still use 9mm so we need the extra advantage of a "smart" alloy bullet.
Now on topic.... I killed a Tiger about a month back from a shot from my P51B with four .50s. Now if it was a glitch or not I do not know but it happend, and I was accused of cheating. Soo who knows how it works.
-
Tumor,
With a low enough angle of incidence, a bullet will ricochet off of nearly any material. Since the under side of a tank and the road are parallel, the normal angle of incidence will be the same for both the road and the armour. If it's gonna ricochet off the road, it's gonna ricochet off the harder armour.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Tank bottoms, are everybit as armoured as sides or tops.
If a bullet can't penetrate it with a direct hit, it certainly will not penetrate it by ricocheting against a hard substance first.
If the angle of the bullet striking the ground is shallow enough to bounce a bullet on asphalt, then the angle of that same bullet hitting the tank bottom after a ricochet, is exactly same as the first bounce angle which caused the ricochet. If a bullet will ricochet against asphalt, then it will ricochet off an armoured tank belly.
At the risk of sounding rude, I must point out the folly in that first statement, tank underbellies are notoriously weaker than the sides, and the tops. There is armor, but its nothing close to the thickness of the heavily armored frons or sides.
Secondly, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of factual reports by combat pilots.
One important thing that seems to be a HUGE misconception here is that a bullet striking the ground at 15º will ricochet off the ground at 15º.....this is 100% incorrect (albiet a very common assumption). One of the nasty things about ricochets is that they a VERY unpredictable. Bearing in mind that the projectile isnt hitting a surface that it cannot pennetrate at all....it is indeed going to pennetrate some, and the fluid dynamix (at that speed what we think of as solid is much less so) are very complex and some of the bullets will undoubtedly shoot up at a much greater than 15º angle. The energy conserved in such a journey will also be variable.
We arnt talking about blowing up the tank in a blaze of glory here either. All that was needed to disable a tank was for one gear, chain or other viltal component to fail.
-
Originally posted by moot
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97126
what i was thinking...
-
Originally posted by ALF
Secondly, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of factual reports by combat pilots.
After strafing tanks they flew between the tracks below the tank to analyse the damage. Their reports can't be wrong.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by ALF
Secondly, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of factual reports by combat pilots.
Who strafe a tank and see the crew bail out as they pass overhead at 300 mph, then go home and claim a kill, while the tank crew inspects their vehicle, patches the hole in the exhaust pipe, gets back in, and drives on. A fighter pilot is not going to hang around doing cloverleafs overhead to make sure that the tank he 'killed' stays dead; he's going to get back up out of the ground fire and look for another target. So unless a pilot claimed a tank kill by bouncing rounds off the road into the tank's underbelly, and then a tank was found in that location that was destroyed by underbelly penetration, I would discount any claims of 'ricochet' kills.
I would expect that, had there actually been any such kills, that they would have been identified when the wrecks were examined after the area had been overrun -- and would have been listed in battle damage records. But no one seems to have produced more than anecdotal pilot claims.
-
if the bullets wont penetrate armour at that thickness from that range why the hell would it be able to after blowing its speed bouncing of the road...then you have to deal with the angles...i simply dont know enough about how tanks were built to make any guesses about it...
-
though the topic has shifted slightly from the original, I will keep it going.. :) Found this, which seems to pretty strongly support the "nope" side in the .50 cal vs Pzr underbelly argument.
http://www.p47advocates.com/messages/1235.html (http://www.p47advocates.com/messages/1235.html)
Also, one thing to consider... one of the key components in penetrating armor is high velocity, which relatively speaking, the .50 cal has. The problem with the ricochet theory is that any object making an immediate, significant change in direction, especially due to coming in contact with the proverbial "immovable object", would lose a great deal of its original velocity. The sharper the angle of ricochet, the more serious the loss of velocity. I have been a shooter all my life, both recreationally and competitively. I HAVE seen a bullet, yes, the entire bullet, ricochet straight back 180 degrees and land at my feet. Problem was, after hitting whatever it hit that changed its direction so severely, it had lost so much velocity that I could see it coming... and this was a .357 magnum round, with an initially high velocity. The thing just plunked in to the sand at my feet and I picked it up. The hypothesis would be that tank armor, even belly armor, would be thick enough to repel a richocheted, (direction changed/velocity diminished) .50 cal round with little difficulty. Just my inflation adjusted 2 pennies worth. :D
-
Originally posted by MetaTron
It is possible that airmen saw tank crews abandon the vehicle when they attacked and counted it as destroyed...
Dumb argument. If tank crews were immune to strafing aircraft then why would they abandon the tank? Would you leave the safety of tonnes of steel and expose yourself to being strafed if there was nothing to fear? No way, crews would only abandon a tank if they were in fear of their life, especially if there was enemy aircraft attacking at the time. To suggest otherwise is just silly.
-
http://www.fanta.dk/showmovie.asp?mid=96DF4FD3-90D9-47FA-A011-F33D2A0C48E4
:D
-
"tank crew" in this case is not just the few people sitting inside...
-
Originally posted by Blue Mako
Dumb argument. If tank crews were immune to strafing aircraft then why would they abandon the tank? Would you leave the safety of tonnes of steel and expose yourself to being strafed if there was nothing to fear? No way, crews would only abandon a tank if they were in fear of their life, especially if there was enemy aircraft attacking at the time. To suggest otherwise is just silly.
The thought of the aircraft's next pass being that of droping bombs ever come to your mind?
Secondly, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of factual reports by combat pilots.
Yeah, i guess they had a better view flying at 300mph and getting the hell out of there than RAF inspectors examining the tanks with a magnifing glass :rolleyes:
Its well known that pilots exagerated their 'kills', and the amount of 'kills', particulary those of the Unitied States AirForce, you know the guys surposedly bouncing these magic .50cal bullets into a tanks belly?
Speaking of the RAF inspections, they discovered that very little, something like less than 5%, amount of tanks were destroyed by mg fire, most were taken out by rockets and bombs, and alot more were scuttled by the tank crews. If my memory is serving me correctly that is.
-
Originally posted by Blue Mako
Dumb argument. If tank crews were immune to strafing aircraft then why would they abandon the tank? Would you leave the safety of tonnes of steel and expose yourself to being strafed if there was nothing to fear? No way, crews would only abandon a tank if they were in fear of their life, especially if there was enemy aircraft attacking at the time. To suggest otherwise is just silly.
I suppose you could be right. When my tank is hit I just start screaming for supplies and wait for the magic crate to arrive. Why should it be any different for men with their lives at risk? What was I thinking? :rolleyes:
-
Engage brain and read again. The argument I was commenting on was that pilots probably saw tank crews abandoning their tanks after a strafing attack, even though the tanks were undamaged, thus claiming a kill of a tank by strafing. Why would tank crews abandon an undamaged tank? Did tank crews run away from their vehicles every time an mg was fired at them? Think about it.
-
I saw something on this on the Hystory channel.it was a P 47 show.They said that in a few instances it had actually been done.A .50 COULD penetrate bottom hull armor.Notoriously known for being thinner.IE Mines...attack the bottom.Sticky bombs were aimed for the bottom or treads.Cant prove any of it and its hard to say but I wouldnt disscount it right out.
-
They said that in a few instances it had actually been done
Dea, the instances they are talking about are the same thing as the claimed urban legends.. The sort where pilots would gather around at the bar and talk about; "Hey you know what? I heard from Bobby Earl that his friend saw a guy bounce a .50 off the ground at get one of those Kraut tanks" etc etc.
Would a .50 penetrate bottom armour? If the P-47 was shooting at it 90 degrees, probably. Would a ricocheting bullet which just impacted the ground and striking at the bottom metal at a slanted angle do it? Impossible. Even if the bullet would strike the ground and ricochet in a really bizzare angle of 90 degrees straight up, I'd be skeptical that would penetrate.
There's a reason why nations spent money to develop tank killers.
-
Well... apparently the argument can't be settled until we get some folks to try it out in real life.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Blue Mako
Engage brain and read again. The argument I was commenting on was that pilots probably saw tank crews abandoning their tanks after a strafing attack, even though the tanks were undamaged, thus claiming a kill of a tank by strafing. Why would tank crews abandon an undamaged tank? Did tank crews run away from their vehicles every time an mg was fired at them? Think about it.
Engage eyes and reread MY post from the top.
Hell, I'll even repost it here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Blue Mako
Dumb argument. If tank crews were immune to strafing aircraft then why would they abandon the tank? Would you leave the safety of tonnes of steel and expose yourself to being strafed if there was nothing to fear? No way, crews would only abandon a tank if they were in fear of their life, especially if there was enemy aircraft attacking at the time. To suggest otherwise is just silly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thought of the aircraft's next pass being that of droping bombs ever come to your mind?
-
Originally posted by DrDea
I saw something on this on the Hystory channel.it was a P 47 show.They said that in a few instances it had actually been done.A .50 COULD penetrate bottom hull armor.Notoriously known for being thinner.IE Mines...attack the bottom.Sticky bombs were aimed for the bottom or treads.Cant prove any of it and its hard to say but I wouldnt disscount it right out.
The history channel? You think the history channel is a great source? The fact is that tank crews feared air attacks. Not because machine guns were scarey but because bombs could toss them around like kindling wood and rockets could set them ablaze. Fire scares everyone.
Mako I skipped a lot of steps in logic thinking there wouldnt be a problem keeping up. Guess that was my mistake.
-
Originally posted by MetaTron
Fire scares everyone.
ha! I'm not afraid of fire! But then I'm Tumor.
:D
-
Originally posted by ALF
Another common practice amoung america fighter pilots who lacked cannons, was to bounce the bullets off the ground, and into the soft underbelly. Worked best on hard roads of course, but was a very common tactic.
Oh god here we go again. This thread will go for a bit till finally, once again, it will be agreed that this did not happen :)
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Oh god here we go again. This thread will go for a bit till finally, once again, it will be agreed that this did not happen :)
I say we place Zanth in a tank and strafe him till we see what happens
Glint
:confused:
-
there was a thread a while back that went back and forth for a while until, off the top of my head, the consensus came to 50cals not being supposed to penetrate the Pz's armor, 90deg or not.
I don't know if that is correct or not, but that's what the conclusion seemed to be, what most players have said when asked since, and the fault Ouch seems to imply in the OP.
-
Is that what you call a "Moot" point?:rolleyes: :eek: :lol
-
BenDover, dive bombing has precisely zero relevance to this discussion. Although, as you brought it up, let's look at the logic of it, shall we? Would a real life pilot make a pass to strafe a hardened object like a tank if he is carrying bombs?
-
Originally posted by MetaTron
I suppose you could be right. When my tank is hit I just start screaming for supplies and wait for the magic crate to arrive. Why should it be any different for men with their lives at risk? What was I thinking?
Mako I skipped a lot of steps in logic thinking there wouldnt be a problem keeping up. Guess that was my mistake.
Okay, let me try to give you a clue as to what I was discussing in the first place.
Original argument by MetaTron: Pilots claimed kills after strafing tanks but they were mistaken because they just saw the tank crews running away after being strafed.
My Rebuttal: If a tank was not in anyway harmed by an aircraft strafing it, why would the crews run away, exposing themselves to strafing without any protection from their tank?
Conclusion: Original argument is flawed because the tank crews would not expose themselves to unnecessary danger, thus either no claims would have been made because a crew wouldn't run away from a perfectly good tank or the tanks were damaged by the strafing and any claims would have been genuine.
An exercise in debating really as it will never be anything but academic. Whether it actually happened or not can only be answered by people who were there, and answered most exactly by those in the tanks that were attacked. These discussions, while amusing, in absolutely no way shape or form can ever produce anything other than an opinion. It is fun though to see the armchair experts come out of the woodwork. ;)
-
It's easy to end this conversation. Provide one documented case in which a tank was determined to have been disabled by mg fire to its underside.
-
Originally posted by Blue Mako
BenDover, dive bombing has precisely zero relevance to this discussion. Although, as you brought it up, let's look at the logic of it, shall we? Would a real life pilot make a pass to strafe a hardened object like a tank if he is carrying bombs?
What about if the pass was to id the tank, then when he saw it was german, he opened fire on it?
Remeber they didn't have big arse neon signs above the targets in those days, they also didn't have killshooter either, lives were at risk if they just bombed the targets willy-nilly, and you'd want those lives to be the enemies.
-
Blue: I believe you are being stubborn and mule-headed on purpose. Even someone that never thinks about war can understand why a tank crew would run away when a plane starts to strafe their vehicle. Machine guns are used to range a vehicle or to mark its position for the heavy guys. Its not a question of debate. Its a question of fact and denial.
Now I can understand a crew staying in the tank if they have never been attacked, or if they dont see the planes coming. Anyone that has ever seen a Typhoon or a Thunderbolt attack a tank column, will quickly bail out and run. Unlike Aces High a one-thousand pound bomb will toss a panzer or tiger tank into the air and kill the crew on impact without even piercing the armor. The same armor that keeps them safe is unyielding to their soft fleshy bodies. Then there's rockets. Rockets pierce armor and turn fleshy humans into splattered goo. Machine guns fire armor piercing and incendiary rounds that cause fires on leaky tanks. Tank have nothing that can fight aircraft. Any pintle gun would be quickly abandoned even for the relative safety of the vehicles interior, or the vehicle abandoned.
Your idea that crewmen would merely sit inside and chuckle at the useless .50 caliber fire is ridiculous.
-
German tanks had quite good fire extinguishers. And since they were pretty fuel hungry extra fuel was often carried onboard. This fuel wasnt protected anyway and could easily be set on fire even with mg fire. So after fighter put their tank on fire, crew bailed out and run to forest and waited for fire extinguishers to stifle fire. Once this happened they came back, made repairs if necessery (and able to) and continued their way.
From fighter it seem like a kill, when tank starts burning and crew bails out...
-
Originally posted by Blue Mako
BenDover, dive bombing has precisely zero relevance to this discussion. Although, as you brought it up, let's look at the logic of it, shall we? Would a real life pilot make a pass to strafe a hardened object like a tank if he is carrying bombs?
what if he doesnt have a bomb but the next guy does???
you have a greater chance of getting your mg fire through the hatch that the pintle gunner is standing in than you do to bounce a .50 round off the ground creating a HUGE loss in E then hitting 10mm thick german armour creating a peirce in the armour that proves to be magically deadly...
-
ok, I heard enough. Here's the skinny on german tanks being straffed.
1. heavy tanks could not be taken out with .50 cals period. The fighter pilots would try and bounce rounds underneath the tank because personnel would sometimes seek cover under a heavy tank during an air attack.
2. the crews of tanks would bail out because almost all planes that attacked them carried rockets. Pilots perferred to save .50 cals for softer targets or the occasional axis fighter. The rockets would destroy the motor or detrack the tank. The crews wouldn't stay inside because gettin bounced around inside a tank aint too good concidering they aint padded like our cars.
3. as for fumes or leaking fuel, yes german tanks leaked all the time. but the crews didnt care because they didnt run on gas like the allied death traps did. they ran on diesel, which needs more than a spark to ignite.
4. the biggest reason you can straff and kill AH panzers is because they are not perk vehicles. You must be able to defend a base if the ordinence is down you could just spawn panzers and roll over any field.
ps. one more note look and see when they invented armor piercing .50 cal ammo and see if they used it in airplanes. you answer will be .50 ball ammo is all they used with the 4 to 1 ratio on tracers.
-
Originally posted by MAJ KONIG
.
ps. one more note look and see when they invented armor piercing .50 cal ammo and see if they used it in airplanes. you answer will be .50 ball ammo is all they used with the 4 to 1 ratio on tracers.
No they used API bullets as well (almost all a/c mounted MGs had some form of AP or API bullet in a standard load).
However the chances of a .50 call bullet piecing 10mm+ of armour plate at a high angle of incidence after bouncing off a road are pretty damn slim. Whatever the notional penetration of the round you must take into account that
a) It has lost significant energy after hitting the road surface
b) the round has most likely been deformed to some extent by the impact
c) the round will have been made very unstable (it will likely be tumbling or at least is unlikely to be flying exactly nose on).
The RAF and the LW found that AP rounds could be made significantly unstable by passage through a few mm of aircraft skin and this in turn drastically reduced thier armour penetration.
The RAF did a study of tanks knocked out in France in 1944 and found that very few of them had been disabled by a/c (vastly less then claims by RAF and USAAF pilots: something like 5% IIRC), and most of them had been taken out by direct rocket or bomb hits.
I think it most likely that reported kills were more likely to be light or unarmoured vehicles or just complete mistakes.
-
Originally posted by Furious
It's easy to end this conversation. Provide one documented case in which a tank was determined to have been disabled by mg fire to its underside.
Don't end the conversion, it's much too much fun to see everyone get all excited about it. Everytime someone hears something on History channel or reads a single opinion in a book they become experts. It's fun to keep em posting. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
-
Don't end the conversion, it's much too much fun to see everyone get all excited about it. Everytime someone hears something on History channel or reads a single opinion in a book they become experts. It's fun to keep em posting. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
of course that little knowledge is usually the extent of it...
once again we have come to the agreement that there is no way a .50 could peirce a tanks armour...let alone after ritchocheting off a road
-
I once ricocheted a round from my panzer off another panzer and killed an osti.
I had to gauge the angle very, very closely to make sure my round skipped off the enemy panzer's turret and hit the osti dead six.
It was tough.
-
got a film?