Jump to content


Machine guns on tanks and the skilless cowards that use them


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

moon111 #21 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 16:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24119 battles
  • 1,367
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

T1 Heavy armor goes from 101.6 to 46mm thick.
T14 armor goes from 101.6 to 50.8mm thick.
37 mm Automatic SH-37 will do 62mm of pen with premium rounds.

 

You've only played two heavies, both with rather weaker hulls.  That 101.6 mm is the front of the turret.  That's all you want to give the enemy to shoot at. 

American heavies have gun depression.  Hull down, hull down, hull down!!!   If you do get a pesky light tank attacking you, try and back yourself against 

an object.  If they can't circle you, they're in trouble as your gun will be able to catch up to them.  They don't want to be trading shots with you!  

And if have nothing to back up against, at least turn your gun and chassis at the same time.  I've had Cromwell's trying to 'circle of death' my TOG,

which has a fast turret and coupled with BIA and clutch-breaking, will surprise those thinking they'll out-run the gun.



newman8r42 #22 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 17:21

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23537 battles
  • 345
  • [BOND] BOND
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View PostCutthroatlemur, on Mar 17 2017 - 14:35, said:

I wish we had machine guns to kill the crews of arty and open TDs.  Would liven things up.

 

or even just distract or detrack. Would be an interesting change. I loved it in WT

Hunk_Ra #23 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 17:22

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4137 battles
  • 125
  • [CRTBL] CRTBL
  • Member since:
    11-22-2016

Sigh. History lesson: during WW II, Russian snipers and marksmen would use 2-3 armor-piercing 7.62x54mmR RIFLE rounds, the first one or two to shatter the driver's view port glass and the last to shoot through the now open driver's viewport to put a round through the driver's head. Made it easy to take the tracks off the driverless tank with high explosive and then destroy it in many infantry-ingenious ways. And this was with the Mosin-Nagant M1981/30 (7.62x54mmR cartridge) 5-round, bolt action infantry rifle.

 

There are documented instances of US tankers using the M2 .50cal heavy machine gun (mostly from various M4 Shermans) to disable or destroy German PzKpfw II, III, and IV tanks, usually from the rear. Available on microfiche at the US Army Tank Museum at Fort Knox, KY and at Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois.



da_Rock002 #24 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 17:23

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2472 battles
  • 661
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostDilluver, on Mar 17 2017 - 09:32, said:

meh enuff said.

 

WG, how does a machine gun pen heavy tanks? Or any tank for that matter.

 

 

 

Skilless cowards ?????


 

:P

 

Still can't hit up close while on the move, can you....     They not only can, but have to get up close to do it.    Doesn't sound like they're skilless nor cowards.



newman8r42 #25 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 17:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23537 battles
  • 345
  • [BOND] BOND
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View PostD1rkjr, on Mar 17 2017 - 15:07, said:

The one that bothers me is the pz1c uses 8x57 IS and has more pen than the combat car with a 50BMG. That's just plain wrong.

 

not if theres a better shell (the germans are known for this) and better gun design providing higher velocity (germans are also known for this). The KV-3s 122mm shouldnt be better than the Pattons 105mm simply because its bigger. More modern gun design and shell design are immensely more important than caliber.

WangOnTheLoose #26 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 17:49

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 18642 battles
  • 730
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    09-06-2014

View PostD1rkjr, on Mar 17 2017 - 10:11, said:

 

hmm... Would that really be enough to have more pen than 50?

 

No not even close

D1rkjr #27 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 18:47

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19686 battles
  • 129
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

View Postnewman8r42, on Mar 17 2017 - 16:25, said:

 

not if theres a better shell (the germans are known for this) and better gun design providing higher velocity (germans are also known for this). The KV-3s 122mm shouldnt be better than the Pattons 105mm simply because its bigger. More modern gun design and shell design are immensely more important than caliber.

 

its not the diameter that's concerning me. It's the tiny tiny powder load compared to the much larger one on the 50. 

Sturm_Teufel #28 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 18:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 37947 battles
  • 3,410
  • [EMPER] EMPER
  • Member since:
    07-22-2011

View PostD1rkjr, on Mar 17 2017 - 07:21, said:

As I recall there was a proposed m48 patton variant with a GAU-8 Avenger mounted as the main armament. We should petition WG to add that just to make OP mad :P

 

Oh God!:ohmy: Do want! Do want NOW!!!

D1rkjr #29 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 19:40

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19686 battles
  • 129
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

View PostSturm_Teufel, on Mar 17 2017 - 17:57, said:

 

Oh God!:ohmy: Do want! Do want NOW!!!

 

 

70mm of pen and over 9000dpm. You won't pen much but when you do... 



newman8r42 #30 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 20:10

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23537 battles
  • 345
  • [BOND] BOND
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View PostD1rkjr, on Mar 17 2017 - 17:47, said:

 

its not the diameter that's concerning me. It's the tiny tiny powder load compared to the much larger one on the 50. 

 

the powder load is going to be dependant on the mass of a shell being fired. An APCR shell often has the same or less powder than a standard AP shell but acheives a better penetration result simply because the shell design is better at focusing the point of impact making better use of the kinetic energy of the shot. 

D1rkjr #31 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 20:19

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19686 battles
  • 129
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

View Postnewman8r42, on Mar 17 2017 - 19:10, said:

 

the powder load is going to be dependant on the mass of a shell being fired. An APCR shell often has the same or less powder than a standard AP shell but acheives a better penetration result simply because the shell design is better at focusing the point of impact making better use of the kinetic energy of the shot. 

 

you are missing the point. The 7.92 projectile is similar to 30-06 Springfield. In fact 30-06 is a ripoff of 7.92x57. 50 bmg is like a 30-06 scaled up 100% the energy, inertia, and penetration are not even on the same plane. Unless the powder load behind that 7.92 is absolutely insane then it will not penetrate better than the 50 with a tungsten core. It shouldn't even be close unless that 8mm is well over 4500fps 

da_Rock002 #32 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 20:47

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2472 battles
  • 661
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

and don't forget the option of different powder

 

 

Powder capacity isn't the only parameter that determines the pressure generated to push the projectile.    There are different cannon powders available.



D1rkjr #33 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 22:00

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19686 battles
  • 129
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

View Postda_Rock002, on Mar 17 2017 - 19:47, said:

and don't forget the option of different powder

 

 

Powder capacity isn't the only parameter that determines the pressure generated to push the projectile.    There are different cannon powders available.

 

yeah but we are talking about rifle cartridges here. The US and Germany were both using near equivalent powder at the time. Even if that 7.92 is DOUBLE the length of the 8mm Mauser projectile which I highly doubt still only a 400gr bullet with less energy behind it than the 50. We are talking the equivalent of a big game cartridge compared to a mounted MG. 

Ken_McGuire #34 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 01:22

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21949 battles
  • 1,045
  • [WWIII] WWIII
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

View PostD1rkjr, on Mar 17 2017 - 10:11, said:

 

hmm... Would that really be enough to have more pen than 50?

 

Many numbers are tweaked for balance purposes - for the good of the game. And for the game, that will always be enough of an argument.

 

But in the real world, a common estimate for how far a projectile will cut through another object is that that it will pen about as much as it takes to displace its own mass. So a longer projectile will pen more than a shorter one. Of course, this is only a first estimate - there are other factors as well - but is a useful one, and the basic principle behind Sabot rounds and Bunker-buster bombs (though solid objects) as well as streamlining (though fluids).



Captain_Rownd #35 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 02:19

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 1341 battles
  • 386
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

I wanted to start my own whine thread called "OP Heavy Tanks and the Skillless Cowards That Use Them", but I though I'd just piggyback on this one...  HTH

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users