jgdpzr Posted July 11, 2000 Share Posted July 11, 2000 Yes the MG in the Hetzer was of the remote control variety. ------------------ "Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you. Take it easy, Dude." -- The Stranger The Dude abides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Moriarty Posted July 11, 2000 Share Posted July 11, 2000 if it's stupid and works, it isn't stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 If I remember correctly, both the Hetzer and late Stug G had remote controlled MGs mounted. Can anyone else confirm this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 The Hetzer's MG is indeed remote-controlled. The U.S. .50 cal was designed to destroy light armor. It can penetrate 12.7mm at 1000m, and 19mm at 550m, according to "Hell On Wheels" referencing the War Department's "Defense Against Mechanized Units". Obviously, at point-blank range, the penetration would be even greater (somewhere in the 22-25mm range, IIRC, sorry I don't have my data in front of me at the moment). That's enough to defeat the Hetzer's 20mm side armor. And there's more... The Hetzer has low quality armor.Very low quality. The kind that doesn't have the strength you'd expect. We rate it at 85% which is probably generous. So the effective side armor basis of the Hetzer is 17mm, which the .50 cal can penetrate quite easily at short ranges. And imagine what it's like. It's not a single shell penetrating. It's five, ten, maybe twenty or more. All richocheting around inside the tiny crew compartment, fragments flying everywhere. And more shots coming very quickly (no need to reload some big cannon, just squeeze the trigger!). The side of that Hetzer would look like Schweizer Käse. The .50 cal is a big bad mama jama. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianc Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 <The Hetzer has low quality armor.Very low quality. The kind that doesn't have the strength you'd expect. We rate it at 85% which is probably generous.> I've seen some mention of this in previous threads. It's funny, but in all my readings, I haven't seen reference to late-war German vehicles being made of poor quality armour. In fact, in 1943-44, Otto Carius (CO of SPzAbt 502) reported that the crews were generally very pleased with the quality of the armour on their tigers, reporting that most shells would just glance off like butter, instead of cracking or breaking the armour. Not doubting you, just interested in further reading if you can divulge some of your sources on this. Thanks, ianc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 Tank design is a balancing act between speed, armour, size, and firepower - the Hetzer sacrificed armour (and perhaps firepower with it's 75mm) for speed and very small size (a camouflaged Hetzer would be harder to spot than a King Tiger). Cheers Mace <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ianc: <The Hetzer has low quality armor.Very low quality. The kind that doesn't have the strength you'd expect. We rate it at 85% which is probably generous.> I've seen some mention of this in previous threads. It's funny, but in all my readings, I haven't seen reference to late-war German vehicles being made of poor quality armour. In fact, in 1943-44, Otto Carius (CO of SPzAbt 502) reported that the crews were generally very pleased with the quality of the armour on their tigers, reporting that most shells would just glance off like butter, instead of cracking or breaking the armour. Not doubting you, just interested in further reading if you can divulge some of your sources on this. Thanks, ianc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 I posted a link on another thread about MGs and I'll post it again here. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000232.html This thread discusses armor penetration of MGs and has a link to two pretty penetration charts of MGs vs halftracks. Hey, BTS, how about putting the penetration charts on the add-on CD? Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So the effective side armor basis of the Hetzer is 17mm, which the .50 cal can penetrate quite easily at short ranges. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you factoring in the armor slope with MG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 ianc, The Tiger was the exception. You'll see that it has full-quality armor in CM. The Hetzer was a cheapie - quickly built for low cost, and its armor quality was suspect at best. Also, late in the war, shortages of certain metals (like Chromium, IIRC) forced the Germans to use substandard alloys in most of their armor. Jarmo, Yes the armor slope is accounted for in CM. The .50 MG can still penetrate the Hetzer side at close range (certainly the lower side hull - not sure about the upper side hull, I'd have to run some tests which I can't do at the moment). Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Morgue Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 The .50cal and the 12.7mm(.51cal) machine guns are anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons , the Geneva Convention bans them against using on personal, because of the force of these weapons. just my 2 cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt.Morgue: The .50cal and the 12.7mm(.51cal) machine guns are anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons , the Geneva Convention bans them against using on personal, because of the force of these weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wonder if any americans were charged of this war crime. I assume it was used against personnel a few times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The .50cal and the 12.7mm(.51cal) machine guns are anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons , the Geneva Convention bans them against using on personal, because of the force of these weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, but this is not true. The "Geneva Convention" has NOTHING to do with how war is conducted at all with the sole exceptions of prohibiting gas and biological weapons (the later only after WW2). The convention (actually conventions as there were several) I believe guys are thinking of is generally referred to as the second Hague convention. This was replaced by the fourth Hague convention in 1907: The Yale law site specifically refers to it as: "Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907". The ONLY clause that could possibly be applied to the use of a .50cal. weapon against ground troops is Chapter I, Article 23, Section 6 . I quote: "Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:-- To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;" This is vague to say the least. The case has been made that using a 50cal. against a human would violate this rule, but I doubt it. If you are firing at an infantry squad 800m away I don't think there could be any possible case considering that the range is such that no other weapon of lesser size would even have the capability to kill infantry at this range. Thus the .50cal would not be 'superfluous' because it would be the ONLY weapon at hand capable of attacking the enemy. If you read the full text of this convention (and many others of the period) you will notice the following clause is always included near the very beginning: "The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them. It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power." Japan did not sign any of these conventions, thus after 12/07/1941 these need no longer apply. I just thought (after about the tenth post on this subject I have seen in the last couple of months) it should be cleared up. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 07-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: This is vague to say the least. The case has been made that using a 50cal. against a human would violate this rule, but I doubt it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The source of much of the confusion can be attributed to drill Sgts telling recruits the famous "Shoot their belt buckle" story. Recruits are, after all, told that the DI's word is LAW! The fact that there is incendiary ammunition AVAILABLE for .50 cals (used mainly in aircraft, IIRC) makes some people think that they fall in the prohibited category. I believe the intent was to not alloy hollow point (aka "dum-dum") bullets, saw-toothed knoves, etc. in armies' inventories. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 IntelWeenie: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe the intent was to not alloy hollow point (aka "dum-dum") bullets, saw-toothed knoves, etc. in armies' inventories.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahhh.... That would be Hague Declaration III Laws of War : Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899 This one is VERY short and is very specific in regards to ONLY "....the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body..." (Hey, I'm on a roll ) ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 07-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Morgue Posted July 13, 2000 Share Posted July 13, 2000 i only made that statement from my military experince , being a U.S. cavalryman , we had 10-.50 cals in each platoon and were told this often , it may well be unture. In reality we used our 50s often on troops , in the open and in dug in postions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 13, 2000 Share Posted July 13, 2000 I think they just did'nt want you to waste that expensive .50cal ammo! Get in their and use that bayonet! BTW, how much time was devoted to hand-to-hand/bayonet drills after basic and advanced training were completed? ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts