.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)

[Fishu]

 just whine, ignore

[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]

[Maverick]

   

Originally posted by Fishu:
As I recall Pyro saying, .50 caliber in planes were shorter barreled than the one used on the ground.
I doubt that APCs has armour of +40mm like tanks     (definetly not those ones used by Iraq)

Claiming the "shorter barrels" on plane 50's results in less performance is like tilting at windmills. The shorter barrel might MIGHT account for a hundred FPS velocity loss. That would more than be made up for the increase in velocity of the round due to the fact the gun and ammo are already traveling a couple hundred miles an hour just in the plane already. Using a little math shows that the velocity in FPS (feet per second) of just 100 MPH is 147 FPS. (Formula is, MPH x 1.47 = fps. I had to learn things like that as a traffic cop in accident investigation in my "civilian career".)The velocity of the round plus the velocity of the plane would cancel out ANY loss of velocity from the shorter barrel AC gun compared to a stationary M2 Browning MG with a 40+" barrel.

The minor velocity difference in the shorter barrels of 36" vs 40" or 42" is not real significant. The ammo was loaded to get the most out of the shorter barrel as it could. Most of the powder was consumed and the gasses peaked well inside of the shorter barrel.

Of course the APC's Iraq had, which were almost all Soviet equipment, didn't have the frontal armor of tanks. They were not designed to BE a tank. They were designed to move troops in a combat environment and give some protection from small arms and artilery fragments. That doesn't change the fact that those vehicles WERE killed by 50 cal's. It also doesn't change the fact that Soviet T72's were killed by the 25mm Bushmaster cannon using AP ammo. There was more than one kill documented by a Bradley on a T72 in desert storm. This happened when they met at close quarters and there was not enough range, in the vehicle commanders opinion, for the TOW missle to arm itself before hitting the tank. To hit a tank with a dud tow tends to piss off the tank and make very bad things happen to your Bradley. The Bradley crew would feel much more confident using the gun on an APC or truck but it did get the job done.


------------------
   
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-30-2000).]

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by Maverick:
Long post, sorry but it just growed!!  

Heya,

Just a few comments from a very recently retired Tanker in U.S. Army (LTC).

50 Cals DID kill tanks in WW2.

50 cals DID kill modern armor in Desert Storm. Not main battle tanks but the ammo was definitely capable of penetrating even frontal amror of APC's (armored personell carriers) as well as lighter armored or fortified structures.

50 cals WILL cause considerable damage to such heavy vehicles such as an M60 tank. Our main battle tank prior to the M1 series. A 50 cal will DESTROY the main gun on a tank if hit repeatedly. The main gun is obviously a hard steel but so is the penetrator in a 50 cal AP round.

Artillery in WW2 was a main killer of tanks and not by direct hits either. Many tanks of the time had external oil and fuel storage on the vehicle. If you penetrate them and set them afire the crew typically unasses the vehicle to avoid the fire and susequent ammo cook off.

Here is some info.
Most a/c tank kills in WW2 were not catasrophic kills but a mobility kill. One a tank is immobile it becomes a fixed object removing one of it's primary assets notably the shock and speed. A fixed emplacement can be killed MUCH easier than a mobile one hence the crews interest in getting away from a stuck tank. The tracks and wheels of armored vehicles even today are capable of being damaged / destroyed by a 50 cal.

Spatula, 50 Cals are not just lead. They are a mix of ammo. 50 cal ball is a lead core in a very thick copper jacket. AP ammo is a hardened steel core (penetrator) inside a copper jacket. The reason for the jacket is to seperate the steel from the barrel so that barrels don't wear out in a few rounds. The other types of ammo in a typical combat mix were, ball, armor piercing, incendiery, tracer, ap-incendiery. This ammo is designed with a pointed tip not just to maintain velocity but as an aid to penetration. Rounded projectiles are much more prone to ricochet than are pointed bullets. Pointed bullets dig the tip in and penetrate. That is why the main anti tank ammunition in a tank is a very sharply pointed depleted uranium non explosive solid shot penetrator. What the round doesnt destroy by direct penetration is destroys by spraying white hot molten metal in the vehicle. This molten metal was formerly the armor of the vehicle. Sometimes this material is referred to as spall.

Armor design in vehicles is predicated on the environment they are expected to face. They are also based on real world considerations. You can make armor that cannot be penetrated by weapons up to 120mm ap rounds but you will not be moving it on the battlefield. It will be so heavy it won't move period. Armor is set up to be thickest on the front slopes. A curve of the slope gives protection equivalent to much thicker armor due to the oblique angle through the armor a shot would have to take to fully penetrate. Rounded armor is typically a casting of homogeneous armor grade steel such as the M60 turret and hull. WW2 armor was usually a stack of stel plates welded, bolted or riveted together. This often had sharp angles. Welded is stronger than bolted but look at WW2 armor. There was a lot still bolted on to the base armor plate. It was an easy way to add additional armor protection to the vehicle but the weight aften slowed it down. Patton was known to critcise the placement of sand bags on Sherman tanks. He did this as it was a way to slow the tank down due to the weight. High speed was the main advantage American armor had over German armor at the time. If you slow the tank down it becomes easer to hit. There were no gyrostabilized guns with laser rangefinder at that time. The heaviest armor of the WW2 era was the German Ferdinand. It was a 72+ ton monster and could take hits from the Russian 85 mm guns on their main battle tank, at least until it became immobilized. The infantry then swarmed it firing into vision slits and using molotove coctails to fry it.

In order to make a tank move it takes power and a compromise of weight and protection.M48's and M60's got the designation as that is the approximent weight, in tons, of that class of vehicle. They were refered to as 60 class vehicles. The top and rear of a tank are it's most vulnerable spots for HULL penetration.

Armor thickmess of a M60 was only about an inch on top of the turret. This is a more modern vehicle with better steel than WW2 armor. The rear grills that the engine exhaust and heat is vented through is a grill. This is NOT a solid peice of steel but looks more like overlapping angle iron bars. They cover the engine AND fuel tanks on a 48 and 60 series tank. 50 Cals can get through this stuff if allowed a bit of time to put repeated hits on it. There are also grills, albeit smaller ones, on the top side edges of the engine compartment that allow air into the engine compartment. The engine is air cooled and requires a lot of air. These grills are very close to the fuel tanks which are also in the engine compartment. These grills are a compromise in weight, protection and design to alolow the tank to function. Yes it is a vulnerable point as ANY burning liquid going into this area will be likely to start a fire. Yes diesel burns less easily than gasoline. Diesel forms vapor at 65 degrees F and it is much hotter than that in that compartment. Where you have fuel vapors you have a potential for fire. Sparks and flamable materials like incendiery material from incediery amunition can light off the fuel in a deisel tank.

All of this stuff I am talking about is still current for today's armor vehicle. It was more of a concern in WW2 as materials and design had not matured as much as today. In short, tanks were killed in WW2 by 50's but not as easily as by 20mm's or 30mm's. If you hurt the vehicle and took it out of a battle due to damage so that the crew abandoned it, it was a "kill". It didn't have to be destroyed to be a battle loss. If you left it on the field and the enemy captured it you kinda lost it just as much as if it blew to fragments.

The fact that you can't kill a tank in AH by 50 cals is not an overmodeling of the tank as much as it is an under modeling of 50 cals. The 50 cal is a serious weapon and capable of destroying equipment much heavier than you would think.

Mav
 

Keep in mind angles and ammuntion types determines the round's effect.

I had always assumed that we are using ball type .50's rounds, and HE 20mm and 30mm rounds for plane load out.

While in the .50 this seems true, it does not on the cannons.

Yes the .50 AP was a great high velocity round and did it's job very well, as did the Hispano. But, a full load of this ammuntion type in either gun would make them less potent towards planes. (As long as they hit something hard like engine/armor/spars etc they would work quite well though)

I can't comment any on how the bullets in AH should penetrate armor because now I realize I don't know what they are, and each round's type gives it different characteristics so all I can do is speculate.  

- Jig

[Maverick]

Heya,

Ammo selection could be dicey at times due to supply and logistices concerns. Any time you put a half inch hole in any critical part of a plane it would have an effect. An AP round in the engine would have a better chance of doing it in than plain ball.

From what I recall reading about ammo selection, WW2 ordinance loadout was a mix. It had ball, ap, ap incendiary and plain tracer rounds. Every 5th round was a tracer. To help the pilots know when they were about out of ammo the ammo would be all tracer at the ends of the belts. The increase in tracer would tell the pilot he was almost out of shells. the nice thing about the 50's was that it had higher muzzle velocity and shot "flatter" in trajectory than did 20mm. This is an aid in longer range shooting particularly in air to air.

After having seen some of the damage just plain ball ammo in 50 cal does to harder targets such as old tank and M113 hulks I have no doubts as to its efficacy on aircraft. Certainly the Soviets learned about it when their Hinds were being taken out by 50 cal's in Afganistan. (I recall this being a welcome surprise to others in my unit.) The Afganis were using some American MG's as well as captured Soviet 12.7mm (same stuff actually as far as effects on target.)

The stingers got the Soviets attention as well    

------------------
 
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-30-2000).]

[Fishu]

just whine, ignore

[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]

[Maverick]

 

Originally posted by Fishu:
I never said if it really affects or not, but the fact is that its not as strong..
Sure.. and I am sure theres a case when someone with 7mm gun did get credited of tank kill with his gun.
I believe that 25mm on bradley is *bit* more stronger than 20mm used in WW2...
and remember, its nothing impossible to have couple documentented kills with alot of tries, but still the fact is that do you teach your bradley drivers to attack with their 25mm on T-72s like it would be 120mm gun.

Fishu,

Try to understand this. The velocity of the projectile coupled with its weight determines how "strong" it is. A shell fired from a 20' barrel at 2000 fps in a plane moving at 250 MPH has a muzzle velocity of 2367+ FPS. An identical shell (and there is NO difference between ammo for the aircraft 50 Cal BMG vs the M2 50 cal BMG, they use the same stock) fired in a M2 infantry mount 50 Cal with a 40" barrel and muzzle velocity of 2300 fps has the same energy on impact. (figures used for illustrative purposes) The claim that a "shorter" barrel in a fast moving plane has less energy than a stationary gun is bogus. Unless you have a MAJOR discrepancy in velocity there will be the same energy transfered to the target. PERIOD. The difference in velocity between the 36" barrel and the 40" barrel is negligable. The tank (M48 and M60) cupolo mounted 50 cal has a 36" barrel on it. It by no means is at any disadvantage over the infantry M2 BMG. I have used both and found them to have the same downrange results.

As for a kill with a 7mm weapon, that is in your imagination and wasn't even mentioned in my post. Try to stay on track here ok.

The difference of 20mm of WW2 vs 25mm of Desert Storm is no where as significant as the difference between WW2 armor and the more capable T72 armor.

Bradley GUNNERS and COMMANDERS fire the weapons. Drivers just DRIVE. The men are trained to use the best weapon available. The best weapon to kill a tank is a tank. Absent the tank, they will use the TOW mounted on the Bradley. If the range is too short that the TOW will not arm then they will use the bushmaster 25mm, the coax 30 cal and the LAW (shoulder fired infantry anti tank weapon)if they have to. Please note that the Bradley can fire only 2 TOW missles before reloading. Sometimes the enemy is SO rude as to bring more than two tanks to a battle. The Bradley crews were quite surprised, and gratified, to see that the bushmaster worked as well as it did. They did not have much choice as at the time it was on a meeting engagement that happened at close range. The TOW wouldn't have armed so they used what they had and it worked. What you think of it is immaterial. When faced with a combat situation, you use what you have on hand. If it meets doctrine, fine. If it doesn't meet doctrine but works, fine. You're alive and the other guy is dead and that is the way you want it. If it doesn't work then you're dead and don't give a damn about what anyone thinks.

Now if you don't have anything of substance to bring to this, please refrain from spouting nonsense.

Hell, I'd challenge you to a duel in AH but you don't play do you. You just criticize others. Come to think of it, a duel wouldn't make any differance as this is just a game. I did armor for real.

------------------
 
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-30-2000).]

[Fishu]

just whine, ignore

[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]

[eskimo]

Fishu;

Like I said:

"So far this tour (6):

2573 Panzers have killed each other.

Panzers have a K/D over all aircraft of 2:1 !"

The tanks are doing just fine against aircraft and about 60% of tank kills are by other tanks.

eskimo

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by eskimo:
Fishu;

Like I said:

"So far this tour (6):

2573 Panzers have killed each other.

Panzers have a K/D over all aircraft of 2:1 !"

The tanks are doing just fine against aircraft and about 60% of tank kills are by other tanks.

eskimo

..and mostly those kills are pilot errors  

[Maverick]

Fishu,

Nothing that I or anyone can say will change your mind. That's your problem not mine.

I did armor for real. Did you? I am well aware of the capabilities of the weaponry from experiance. I used 50 cals for real. Same for 105's. I also had experiance with artillery and mortars. I am aware of what they can do as well. I am versed in the application of weapons systems by and in support of armored operations. I taught the subject for a while at Ft. Knox.

Please note I did not say that anything will work all the time. Even a 120mm from an Abrams doesn't work ALL the time.

I already told you in detail your argument about the longer barrel fixed gun shooting "harder" than the plane mount was tripe. It still is tripe. deal with it.

I didn't bring in anything about a 7mm  being used to kill tanks. That was your invention into the thread I told you that too. You want to fantasize about it, then do so. Don't bore me with it.

50 cals can do severe damage to WW2 armor and did do so. Did it work all the time, nope, but I never claimed it would either. If it made the tank combat incapable it was a "kill".

It's very convenient for you to claim AH doesn't measure up enough for you to invest $30.00. That means you never have to worry about being defeated or proven wrong. That's comforting to an armchair general or quaterback. Since you don't play why do you have anything to say about it?  Secondarily why should anyone care about what you have to say about a sim you don't participate in?

Anything further you have to say to me in this thread is a waste of time. I already have a real good idea of what type of expert you are. Your words are meaningless "noise".

Get a life.

------------------
 
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-31-2000).]

[Fishu]

just whine, ignore

[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by Maverick:
Heya,

Ammo selection could be dicey at times due to supply and logistices concerns. Any time you put a half inch hole in any critical part of a plane it would have an effect. An AP round in the engine would have a better chance of doing it in than plain ball.

From what I recall reading about ammo selection, WW2 ordinance loadout was a mix. It had ball, ap, ap incendiary and plain tracer rounds. Every 5th round was a tracer. To help the pilots know when they were about out of ammo the ammo would be all tracer at the ends of the belts. The increase in tracer would tell the pilot he was almost out of shells. the nice thing about the 50's was that it had higher muzzle velocity and shot "flatter" in trajectory than did 20mm. This is an aid in longer range shooting particularly in air to air.

After having seen some of the damage just plain ball ammo in 50 cal does to harder targets such as old tank and M113 hulks I have no doubts as to its efficacy on aircraft. Certainly the Soviets learned about it when their Hinds were being taken out by 50 cal's in Afganistan. (I recall this being a welcome surprise to others in my unit.) The Afganis were using some American MG's as well as captured Soviet 12.7mm (same stuff actually as far as effects on target.)

The stingers got the Soviets attention as well    

Surely you know what will happen when a string of AP M2 rounds hits then metal like a plane's skin...it punchs right through, sure it leaves a hole but it does not do nearly as much damage as a ball type round upon impact...granted enough of any shell can severly damage a plane.

I think maybe you got mixed up  

My point was that, I am not aware of AH modeling any other round type then .50 ball. I could easily be wrong.

I may of perhaps found why killing tanks was so hard...

P-51 has 1880 rounds of .50, divide by 5 and you get the amount of rounds that aren't tracers. Thats 376 rounds. Divide it by  3 to get count of the ball, ap, and ind rounds,
125 rounds per type (Actually 125.3  )
No wonder pilots didn't like tracer rounds.
And that's not taking into account the last 2 or 3 feet of the belt is all tracer.

Anyway...the .50 model seems right to me if it's all ball ammo (I'm not sure but I think tracer is calculated in ballistics as a normal ball)

It seems to me though, that cannons act as normal HE rounds when in contact with planes, thus the tremendous damage. But the Hispanos, upon coming in contact with tanks, penetrate like AP rounds.


If someone would verify this as correct for .50 AP I'd like to do some calculations  

projectile velocity  732 m/s
projectile mass  0.093 kg
caliber  12.7 mm

If someone would post the Hispano's AP stats I'd appreciate it too  

- Jig

[eskimo]

I used to think that Finland and it's people were cool.

eskimo

[Grinch]

I would just like to say as a pretty mediocre pilot I really enjoy the tanks and the interaction between the tanks and the aircraft.  I have had alot of fun driving a tank/m16 and am looking forward to further development of this aspect of the game.  I just had two 5 sortie kills in a panzer tonight at a13 and it was really a blast.  Shout out to my arch-nemesis RATSY!

[Fishu]

I agree with jigster that .50 calibers are fine now (and I have said that already?)
Every gun is better than ever in air to air role.
Though, I haven't tried out 30mm for long time because I prefer single 20mm over 30mm. (accuracy & amount of bullets)

Eskimo, sorry to say, but you've posted that on wrong thread.