Colin Posted November 28, 2000 Share Posted November 28, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: Dr. Brian: A US .50 (12.7mm) Browning M2 HMG is NOT the same as a US .30 (roughly 7.62mm) Browning M1917 MMG. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Dr. Brian is saying that the .50cal should have no trouble with HTs but the M1917 HMG and the M1919 MMG should. ------------------ And if we abandon any platform, I can assure you it will not be the Macintosh. -Steve My website! A major source of Wild Bill scenarios! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: For 10 men to fire 20 rounds/second, each needs to fire 2 rounds. That's doable with a semi-auto like garand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, the M1 Garand holds 6 rounds in the clip. Therefore it would not be possible. Secondly.... a tripoded MG is consistantly more accurate at variying degrees of fire. Where as just try emptying the clip of a M1 Garand in 3 seconds and lets just see how many .30 cal rounds you put on target. Also.. I was not trying to compare a car to a half-track. I was pointing out the power and devistation a MG42 can deal out in short order. Also.. You should consider that you don't have to pentrate the thickest armor of a HT to knock it out. You can immobilize it many different ways and then the crew will bail out. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 "I'll pay even more attention to this and see what happens, but, again, I just keep seeing ht's at ranges greater than 300 m getting blown up." Doc, I too had seen some light armored vehicles getting knocked out at these ranges and originall suspected .30 mgs, but upon further examination of some of the replays it was a lucky shot of a grenade launcher by a US rifle squad. These rifle grenades are hard to sight during the action but it's possible to tell when squads use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 I must be on crack, but I just dont get HT's knocked out by MG fire (.50 excluded). I play every night and I often think my HT tactics are very aggressive/suicidal, i'll try varying tactics and see if I can get them knocked out. What tactics are you using? ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted November 30, 2000 Author Share Posted November 30, 2000 First off, sorry for the delay in posting to this topic, I was away. Since then, thanks again for all your great insight and comments! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: I must be on crack, but I just dont get HT's knocked out by MG fire (.50 excluded). I play every night and I often think my HT tactics are very aggressive/suicidal, i'll try varying tactics and see if I can get them knocked out. What tactics are you using? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nothing as crazy as actual tactics used in WWII (as relayed to me from actual WWII vets), CM would eat them up! I would pull out from behind a building, or hill, and try to get my halftrack to open up. So, it's a range issue. 300m has been the closest. I would like to hear your results. In fact, i think I'm actually going to do one of those "tests" and see what happens. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted November 30, 2000 Share Posted November 30, 2000 I don't have the game here, but IIRC regular halftracks have not even .5 inches of armor; even with slope (which a lot don't have) that's not much armor. If the MG42 would punch through a "big old 80s car" through to, say, the center of the engine, I'd say that's enough to kill a HT. Now, if the bullets went no farther than through the fender, then bounced off the next thing they hit, that's not enough to kill a HT. Also, Jeff said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Jarmo: For 10 men to fire 20 rounds/second, each needs to fire 2 rounds. That's doable with a semi-auto like garand. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IIRC, the M1 Garand holds 6 rounds in the clip. Therefore it would not be possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe he was talking about 10 men firing, in one second, 20 rounds total, not 10 men each firing 20 rounds. Entirely possible with a semi-auto rifle. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Little_Black_Devil Posted November 30, 2000 Share Posted November 30, 2000 I don't have any trouble at all believing that a MMG, or any MG which fires a 7.62/7.92mm round can chew up a HT. As a Canadian Soldier, I can relate to this through personal experience. When assisting in flood fighting my section and I were riding around in a LAV series type of APC. The particular one I was in had bullet holes in it from when it was on loan to the RCMP (Canada's National Police Force). The RCMP had been using it during "negotiations" with some aboriginals at a barricade accross a relatively major highway in the province of British Columbia. This was few months before the Manitoba flood of '97. Needless to say, some of the aboriginals took pot shots at a few of the APCs with bolt action .303 hunting rifles and had penetrated the armor. During my short tenure with that vehicle, I spotted four seperate penetrations.(It was raining a lot, so spotting them was easy). As a MMG Gunner myself, I can also relate to the kind of damage a MMG can do to an "armored" target during range shoots. Using a MMG against an armored target is not as silly as it sounds. It obviously forces the crew to button up and depending on the type of Vehicle and where you hit it, you have a fair chance of penetrating many different types of modern APCs. Moreover, you can also toast their optics, be it thermal sensors, periscopes etc. This generalization does not of course include many of the add-on armors available today which are predominantly applied to vehicles serving in hot spots. The "armor" plating on HTs was designed to give a "measure" of protection - not complete protection. What it did protect against was fragmentation from Artillery (within reason - i.e.range/calibre/shell type). Some shrapnel travels fast enough and has enough mass to penetrate that kind of thin armor, and of course it goes without saying that a direct hit will entail a really bad day for the crew and passengers). It also protects against small arms fire at range. A HT is not an open topped tank. Think of it more like a 2 1/2 ton truck with slightly better chances. Within CM, I've found that if you can conduct a mechanized attack and land your HTs on the objective without losing any of them your either a) on the wrong objective or doing something right. Using Kangaroos/Rams makes this significantly easier as they have noticeably more armor and can stop MG rounds. Anyhow, thats just my two bits ------------------ Hosti Acie Nominati Combat Mission Canadian Headquarters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted November 30, 2000 Share Posted November 30, 2000 In the Falling Plates competitions that I used to partake in, the target would be a steel plate about a half inch thick, maybe a bit thicker. With 7.62mm FN-FALs, using standard ball ammunition, it was not unusual to deform the steel, and sometimes penetrate it at 200 meters. And this is with the steel plate 'loose' so it could fall over, not fixed in place. NTM ------------------ The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>your either a) on the wrong objective <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hee hee! Imagine! "Wow! We got up here without a scratch! This war thing is going to be easy!" "Yeah, but we're SUPPOSED to be over THERE, where all those things are exploding." DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Walter: That's the one. An incredible weapon, but one that scares the crap out of me. I mean it has a range of 4 miles!! And in the article, they had at least one guy who was capable of shooting accurately at two miles. In the hands on a good marksman, it's sort of the ideal weapon for assasination as it will punch through bullet-proof glass without too much difficulty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was in Panama some years ago (my how time do fly!), riding along in a snug little Humvee in the midst of a not so snug little convoy traveling through the very snug streets of Colon, when a sniper opened up on the lead vehicle as it entered an intersection (obviously an amateur!). We slammed to a halt and bailed into a nearby shack, where I took up security just inside the door. After about 15 minutes, 2 of our guys came loping up the street, one of whom was carrying the most big-ass beautiful piece of iron I had ever seen; a Barret .50cal. They trotted up the opposite side of the street a little further, and then took up position behind a little wall of cinder-block, aiming toward my side of the street, but angled about 1000m ahead. I watched 'em for about another 20 minutes before they (he) squeezed off a single shot (loud!), stood up, gave a wave and trotted off to the head of the column to tell the CO we could head out again. (From what I found out later, the Panamanian shooter had been on top of a 5-storey building overlooking the intersection, and when he poked his head up for a look, he got a hole poked in it...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted December 3, 2000 Author Share Posted December 3, 2000 How this got to a .50 cal sniper rifle, i don't know. However, I'm still going to do my halftrack analysis. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted December 3, 2000 Share Posted December 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: So, it kind of makes you wonder then, why on earth did they make halftracks? You may as well go in a soft-skinned vehicle...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mobility. Halftracks can go where trucks can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae Posted December 3, 2000 Share Posted December 3, 2000 8 round clip in a garand... anyhow, my two cents: Knocking out a half track does not nessecarily require penentration. Anything penetrating the side would not knock it out, just kill the passengers. Any sustained fire on the engine block area from hi-powered weaposn would be sufficent to kill and M3. imagine what would happen if you hti the hood of your car 20 times a second with a sledgehammer for 4 or 5 seconds. Now multiply by at leats five, narrow the pressure point of the impact down to bullet size, and divide by HT armor/your cars hood thickness. Chances are you have an effect several times what would have happened to your car. Hell, the fuel lines would probably rupture and go boom if the engine itself wasn't conked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted December 5, 2000 Author Share Posted December 5, 2000 Okay, I ran the little test regarding MGs and their FP. A German LMG 42 vs an M3. No shots if the M3 is BU, any range, up to 30m A German HMG 42 vs an buttoned up M3. Shoots at 250m, and will kill it . A US .50 cal HMG. Rips the German SPW 250 up at 500m. A US HMG behaves like a German HMG 42. Now, what I want to know is, how come the German SPW 250/1 was able to fire its MG when it was buttoned up? Is this a bug? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts