P-51 would be devastating weapon of war in this game.

[JtD]

If the armour plate is thicker than penetration depth, doesn't the impact mark end up being much more shallow and superficial than it would be with a plate equal or thinner than penetration depth?

 

I would expect that if you take a bullet with 20mm penetration RHA, and shoot it at 20mm sheet and a 200 mm sheet, it'll make a hole in the 20mm sheet (in optimal conditions anyway) but it won't penetrate nearly that deep into the 200mm thick plate.

This depends also on the relative hardness of the material, if the armour is harder than the AP round the AP round might just break up and not even leave a mark on the armour. If, however, the AP round is harder, it might penetrate until stopped dead inside the armour. In your example, 20mm AP capability vs. 200mm of armour, the round will most likely break up without leaving much of a trace.

 

In the overall "possible" debate, I'm sure it's possible to take out a tank with a kitten armed with a daisy, just not very likely. The odds for a heavy MG are clearly better, but still low overall.

[Rama]

Don't know about tank's track, but:

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/index.html

AP shells normally don't include AP bullets.

 

Ok, for the 10mm slit on turret based (told as vulnerable to heavy-MG fires), so there should be a very tiny little odd that Aircraft fired 50. cal may have disabled the turret mechanism of one tank.... possible yes... did it happened? nobody knows and it still doubtfull.

[Bladderburst]

As tanks in a flight sim will never have a damage model as detailed as this, the closest approximation to reality would be to say that .50 would have no effect on heavy tanks. I would not say this if it was a tank sim where thickness of armor plates and internal systems would be modeled accurately.

[Flyingpencil]

That's what I've been saying all along man. It would be really difficult to destroy a tank, but you can disable it temporarily, and a stuck tank is a sitting duck. 

THAT is also an assumption.

 

I do agree there is a slight potential of critical damage if the 50 cal rounds hit the thin rear deck of main battle tanks (light and medium are much more likely).

 

But otherwise what can be damaged on a tank? 

I doubt the tracks and wheels wil be damaged to the point it cant move.

If by chance the view slit is hit, the driver can take directions from the commander or gunner.   At worst open the hatch for a moment to see whats ahead.

 

It is such a small chance why even alow it? 

 

I can imageing gamers kamakazing ET's trying to score a Tiger with a .000001%.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Flyingpencil

[MiloMorai]

In Korea, the 14.5mm AT rifle used by the North Korean and Chinese troops could not disable the M26 or M46, despite dozens of hits.

[bivalov]

...Lot of work went into copying the Mauser MG 151/15 which failed...

sorry for offtopic, in some sense...

 

really? it's interesting, if is true, never heard about...

[Kurfurst]

Yup, the "Gun, Machine, Caliber .60 T17.". Short story, the gun was a dud with lots of malfunctions, a couple of hundred being produced but not used in service. The Mauser gun was also used post war by the French and others, while it was even produced in South Africa as helicopter armament. Its no wonder, its a simple, compact a lightweight, yet potent gun.

 

In contrast with common wisdom, the US did consider alternatives to the M2 Browning, and had gazillion of gun projects running (see Chill's book), but none seem to have yielded something good enough.

 

More here on the "Amauser" http://ww2.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.exe?IDCFile=/spring/DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=11411,DATABASE=objects,

 

Cheers,

 

KF

 

 

sorry for offtopic, in some sense...

really? it's interesting, if is true, never heard about...

Edited March 14, 2014 by VO101Kurfurst

[RR1357]

These tanks some talk about where probably fuel tanks on trailers wich where towed behind the tiger, panther etc.

There is no way that 50cal ammunition can knockout a tiger or panther.

Edited May 24, 2014 by ImpalerNL

[RR1357]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTbMKVuijE8

 

watch 33:14

[StarLightSong]

Watched the Thunderbolt video. . .

Don't know about six but,

well, eight fifties,  eight, 8, Eight .50 cals,

 

                              eight .50 cal machine guns is "a lot of gun",

                                      that's the proverbial

                                                                   "Hail of Bullets"

I mean what's the number of total rounds,

the mass of projectile coming your way? 

 

Even in a 1 second burst,

                                         that's gotta hurt.

                                                  

I really can't hit anything that isn't filling the windscreen but maybe with eight .50 cals. . .

[BSS_Vidar]

P-51 would be sweet if done correctly. The old IL2 pony was toothless. To do it right, talk to the folks over at DCS. Now THAT'S what a Pony is suppose to be like. I fly it regularly. Put armored piercing incendiary rounds in the belts with proper .50 muzzle velocities... you'll have something special.

 

V

[Crump]

 

watch 33:14

 

 

I am sure that they thought that.  BDA has always been very problematic in any war.

[Cpt_Branko]

The 0.50s were not as efficient as 20mm cannon. That doesn't mean they were not effective guns (which they were)

 

The problem is that two 20mm cannons were, assuming they worked reliably (US-built Hispano was anything but reliable) enough to shoot down fighters reliably. Six 0.50s are about equivalent in effect to two Hispano cannons (or at least - that was their conclusion at the time). However, six 0.50s weight a lot more then two 20mm Hispanos do, so you need a lot more weight on the fighter to get equivalent firepower. It's a lot less efficient, but roughly as effective.

 

Of course using two Hispano only was not realistically an option for the US, because they had huge reliability issues with them. The British had reliability issues also (although, less) and for that reason the machineguns were retained on Spitfires and such.

 

It's funny when people note how ingame 7.62mm "cripple" a fighter and conclude that they're effective. Effective in gameplay terms yes (you "win" your duel, the enemy has to run away due to damage), in reality that's not an "effective gun". If he can limp back home after being shot by a good burst, then you might've "won" the duel and put the E/A out of the fight, but your guns were not effective in doing what they are supposed to be doing. The plane will be repaired and the pilot will fight again tomorrow.

If in a game, your plane is crippled (you can't really fight well anymore in it) and you have to run away after receiving a burst, you would say the plane is fragile. In real life, it would be called sturdy, because, hell, you survived and managed to bring it home. Perception

 

If you read Golodnikov's interview (it's a nice read) he got shot multiple times in the P-40, every time the plane is effectively disabled (and has to run away or do an emergency landing in one case) by just a few cannon hits, but he will say it's tough, because he survived.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Cpt_Branko