Jump to content


.50 Cal


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
56 replies to this topic

Yankeegunner #41 Posted 12 November 2010 - 06:41 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 94
  • Member since:
    07-28-2010
The .50 on the M2 light tank was fun to use, got the kill shot on an M2 Medium tank with it, so its *not* entirely useless...  :lol:

theta0123 #42 Posted 12 November 2010 - 07:18 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 9439 battles
  • 4,456
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View Posttuccy, on 05 November 2010 - 08:58 AM, said:

This could open the door for PzKpfw I ausf. C in the German tree, it was armed with a self-loading 7.92mm antitank rifle :)
Not really, it just had 2 7.92mm machine guns

loganov #43 Posted 12 November 2010 - 07:28 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 133
  • Member since:
    09-09-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 12 November 2010 - 07:18 PM, said:

View Posttuccy, on 05 November 2010 - 08:58 AM, said:

This could open the door for PzKpfw I ausf. C in the German tree, it was armed with a self-loading 7.92mm antitank rifle :)
Not really, it just had 2 7.92mm machine guns

Tuccy's right.  The Ausf C had the EW 141, which fired the same 7.92 as the PzB.

http://forum.axishis...t=59317#p533226

Cheers,

Logan

ragnarawk #44 Posted 13 November 2010 - 02:48 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    10-26-2010

View PostTher0, on 06 November 2010 - 12:32 PM, said:

View PostMarauderk, on 06 November 2010 - 12:26 PM, said:

:)   The .50 BMG is a much larger shell than the 50 AE that the Desert Eagle shoots.

Yay i know, i was kidding. :D but .50 against tanks is (and it was..) pretty useless. Btw it sounds more a anti veichle (halftrack, jeeps, recon veichle) than anti tank.
well in the 1920s-30s US tank designs .50 cal guns were considered anti-tank weapons. But this is also the period when it was expected that infantry could keep tanks at bay with rifles of slightly higher caliber than standard issue.

Tuccy #45 Posted 14 November 2010 - 04:22 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14499 battles
  • 6,441
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View Postragnarawk, on 13 November 2010 - 02:48 AM, said:

well in the 1920s-30s US tank designs .50 cal guns were considered anti-tank weapons. But this is also the period when it was expected that infantry could keep tanks at bay with rifles of slightly higher caliber than standard issue.
That's also why Czechoslovakia did not bother much with the design of antiarmor rifles, it was expected that against light armor of first German tanks, AP-firing machineguns would be of about the same value... What would be lacking in penetration would be balanced by number of hits. And for heavier armor there were antitank and field guns.

Tuccy #46 Posted 14 November 2010 - 04:25 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14499 battles
  • 6,441
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View Postloganov, on 12 November 2010 - 07:28 PM, said:

The Ausf C had the EW 141, which fired the same 7.92 as the PzB.

http://forum.axishis...t=59317#p533226

Cheers,

Logan

And as discussed by Tony Williams, Germany was also attempting to produce a machineguan, named MG141, for the same cartridge, but failed due to high barrel wear during automatic fire.

http://208.84.116.22...showtopic=32821

Alakarr #47 Posted 15 November 2010 - 10:19 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 28
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010

View PostKodan, on 12 November 2010 - 07:27 AM, said:

From a book I have been reading at work. The .50cal was designed in 1918 and was at first just a larger Maxim machine gun. They didnt have a bullet at the time of that size/caliber so they used captured german shells to base the design on(was top secret at the time since we didnt want anyone to know we thought German ammo was better). Up until the 70's I think something like 80% of the parts from any year gun was compatible with any other gun. During WW II the gun cost around $700 to make by the end of the war it was down to about $250 and they run about $14000 now. Since the gun can be fed ammo from either side during WWII they used even serial numbers for right I think it was and odds for left side feeds(for airplanes mostly).

That book you're reading is very wrong on a lot of the details.

The design request to Browning was initiated in 1918 by General John Pershing. He wanted something that would be effective against aircraft, armored cars and the tanks of the day. The design was completed and adopted by the US in 1921, hence the designation M1921 .50 cal MG. The M1921 had a water jacket and only fed from the left side. Between 1930 and 1938, improvements were made to the receiver to allow feed from left or right, mounting of water jacketed barrels for AA use, a lighter air cooled barrel for aircraft use, and a heavy barrel for ground use. Model numbers changed from M1921 to M1921A1 to M2AA, M2 Aircraft, and M2HB.

The design of it has nothing to do with the Maxim gun; the Maxim has a completely different operating mechanism from the M2. Browning based his design on his M1917 .30 cal machine gun (which was an improved version of his 1901 design that was never adopted). If you look at a part's breakdown of each Browning gun, you will see the parts are almost identical, except for size. Looking at a parts breakdown of the Maxim shows the designs are completely different.

The .50 cal BMG round was not based on a German round. Browning based the round on the 30.06 rifle round and started developing it before the German round in question (the German 13.2 mm TuF Anti-Tank Rifle round) had been developed or even contemplated. The confusion started after WWI because the US evaluated and rejected the German round as a heavy MG round. It was found to be ballistically inferior to the .50 BMG round and being a semi-rimmed cartridge, was not well suited for automatic weapons.  

I'm not sure where the serial number thing came from. All M2 .50 cal MG's can feed either right or left handed. M1917 and M1919 .30 MG's couldn't, so maybe the author confused the .30 cal with the .50 cal. It only takes a couple of minutes and the cleaning kit to switch the feed on the M2. The the only differences between the aircraft and HB version are no spade grips and a lighter profile barrel in a perforated jacket for the aircraft model. All the M2's use the same receiver, and they are interchangeable (although some parts may need to be removed or added i.e. side plates). There were some changes to the receiver in the 70's and 80's, primarily strengthening of the receiver by the addition of some reinforcements. Internal parts stayed the same.

ionviol2 #48 Posted 16 November 2010 - 12:54 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    10-07-2010

View PostMidnitewolf, on 11 November 2010 - 05:02 AM, said:


Also just for giggles.  Watch this youtube video to see what a .50 cal sniper round does to a person.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TOZoYIoyjuM

Wrong. That's just rabbits and chucks getting shot with a .22-250AI. It's sound blast isn't even remotely close to that of a Barret. Besides, go check some basic physics laws. To throw a human body around like that, some force applies to you as well, hence you'll end up flying around exactly like that after firing the rifle. And that's why you mount guns that generate huge kinetic force on tanks and boats and not on friggin cows. :)

http://rmvh.com/

Regendur #49 Posted 16 November 2010 - 08:32 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010

View Postionviol2, on 16 November 2010 - 12:54 AM, said:

Besides, go check some basic physics laws. To throw a human body around like that, some force applies to you as well, hence you'll end up flying around exactly like that after firing the rifle.
I think you need to check your basic physics laws again...  :lol:

That would be if you threw the bullet yourself. The gun fires it though, so it takes the reactionary force and distributes it through the stock and brace. Granted, it will be quite a bit more kick than normal rifles, but you won't go flying.

Shoeshine #50 Posted 16 November 2010 - 05:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 13193 battles
  • 692
  • Member since:
    10-05-2010

View PostRegendur, on 16 November 2010 - 08:32 AM, said:

View Postionviol2, on 16 November 2010 - 12:54 AM, said:

Besides, go check some basic physics laws. To throw a human body around like that, some force applies to you as well, hence you'll end up flying around exactly like that after firing the rifle.
I think you need to check your basic physics laws again...  :lol:

That would be if you threw the bullet yourself. The gun fires it though, so it takes the reactionary force and distributes it through the stock and brace. Granted, it will be quite a bit more kick than normal rifles, but you won't go flying.

Hence the .50 Barrett sniper rifle
would be really crap as a sniper rifle if you had to mount it to a vehicle to fire it lol
can you imagine the stealthy sniper team smashing through the brush in a humvee to get to their target?...handy for a quick escape i suppose but not to subtle  ;)

Hirumaru #51 Posted 17 November 2010 - 01:59 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 61
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010
Hydrostatic shock is why bodies fly apart when struck by large caliber weaponry. The blood and water within living tissue transfers kinetic energy very well. This is the very same reason why you can hemorrhage in your brain from a handgun round to the chest.

Within that YouTube video, however, are nothing more than goats or rabbits. Small game being hit by big bullets. Gorey, yes, sadistic, probably, but not human. It would probably take a 20mm round, explosive or otherwise, to cause such a dramatic and exaggerated effect on a human torso.

Locrano #52 Posted 19 November 2010 - 07:20 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010
I'm for the developers changing a few things with the .50 Cal MG.

1. Change of sound from the same autocannon sound used for other tanks. The .50 Cal is widely available and the sound from it can be heard in numerous movies (I've never fired or been near the weapon before so I won't say they're accurate but most of them sound the same), Black Hawk Down, Band of Brothers (Episode Carentan when the 2nd Armoured arrived), even the recent movie RED starring Bruce Willis and Karl Urban etc. That iconic sound alone will probably bring a smile to many fellow gamers.

2. Change from 5 or 6 round bursts to 50 round bursts (Again I'm not too sure but I think those boxes with the 50Cal contain 50 rounds). Let the players determine how long a burst they want.

If most people want this maybe we could get a vote thread up.

ionviol2 #53 Posted 23 November 2010 - 09:05 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    10-07-2010

View PostShoshine, on 16 November 2010 - 05:26 PM, said:

View PostRegendur, on 16 November 2010 - 08:32 AM, said:

View Postionviol2, on 16 November 2010 - 12:54 AM, said:

Besides, go check some basic physics laws. To throw a human body around like that, some force applies to you as well, hence you'll end up flying around exactly like that after firing the rifle.
I think you need to check your basic physics laws again...  :lol:

That would be if you threw the bullet yourself. The gun fires it though, so it takes the reactionary force and distributes it through the stock and brace. Granted, it will be quite a bit more kick than normal rifles, but you won't go flying.

Hence the .50 Barrett sniper rifle
would be really crap as a sniper rifle if you had to mount it to a vehicle to fire it lol
can you imagine the stealthy sniper team smashing through the brush in a humvee to get to their target?...handy for a quick escape i suppose but not to subtle  ;)

A bullet is a streamlined, hard object which focuses a large amount of kinetic energy onto a small area, but has relatively little momentum due to its small size in comparison to a human, meaning it has little ability to drive an object back. A boxer's fist, for instance, has far more momentum and a much broader contact area. The much higher pressure will cause the bullet to impart massive stress to a tiny area, causing it to penetrate rather than shove backwards; conversely, you are unlikely to see a boxer put his fist through his opponent's torso because of the very low pressure caused by the large contact area. High-powered rifles just make the bullet still more likely to go through the target rather than be stopped and have to shove it back.

Additionally, in a hand-held firearm the shooter or weapon must deal with a backward force equal to the force of the projectile being fired; in a non-recoiless operation like a movie small arm, this would mean the gun would hit the shooter with enough force to also throw him fifteen feet into the air on firing, with the addition of all the energy the bullet lost due to friction on the way to the target. The Law Of Inverse Recoil tends to be in full effect regarding this.

A theoretical situation where this trope might occur would be if the target were wearing a very strong suit of armour and were hit by a very large, heavy projectile (or self-propelled rocket) made of equally strong material; with neither body able to give way, the target would be forced back by the impact. It is possible for a disproportionate response to an impact to result from involuntary muscle spasms, in the same way that an electric shock can knock you over. However, while that explanation could reasonably cover the "victim's limbs flew out and he crashed over on his back," it kind of falls apart when you try to stretch it into "the victim hurtled fifteen feet backward".

The core of this is the law of conservation of momentum. Mass times velocity must equal mass times velocity. As noted above, some losses occur due to air friction, but the other key is elasticity. In elastic collisions (where neither object is penetrated or deformed) every bit of momentum is transferred at the moment of collision (think pool balls). In inelastic collisions (where one of the objects gets deformed) some of the energy gets used up deforming the object (it's why cars have crumple zones, better that the energy is used to twist steel instead of you).

Do the math.

So, please avoid arguing about stuff of which you are uncertain of. There is no shame in that. The shame is when you insist that Hollywood-like stunts or stuff you've seen on TV shows are for real and everyone else has to take it for fact, as well. Seriously, stop it, you might actually learn something in the process.

Cheers.

Hirumaru #54 Posted 24 November 2010 - 08:44 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 61
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010
Can't find that clip from Mythbusters where they fired all sorts of heavy ammunition at Buster to very little effect whatsoever . . .

jcqc96 #55 Posted 03 January 2011 - 07:20 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    08-05-2010

View PostMidnitewolf, on 11 November 2010 - 05:02 AM, said:

The .50 cal used by the Desert Eagle is not the same round as used my a .50 cal machine gun.  Heck by that logic a .45 apc round used by the colt 1911 pistol or the Dirty Harry .44 mag is similar to a .50 cal machine gun which isn't evne close to the case.

Just to give an idea of scale.  The actuall bullet of the .50 cal BMG (Big Machine Gun?) is about 3 times the weight and twice as long as the .50 cal used in the Desert Eagle.  Also the overall length of the cartridge is 5.45 inch long which is over twice the length of the .50 cal Desert Eagle round. This means much, much more propellent and much higher velocity.  Maximum range on the .50 cal Desert Eagle is about 75m tops.  Maximum range on the .50 cal BMG is around 2500m.  The .50 cal AP round can penetrate over 22mm of armor plate at 200m with some modern variants of the cartridge able to penetrate more than 34mm of armor.  Overall it is a pretty darn potent round especially considering that a normal M2 Browning MG has a rate of fire of around 550 rounds per minute if I recall correctly.

Link: http://www.inetres.c...mg/50_ammo.html

Also just for giggles.  Watch this youtube video to see what a .50 cal sniper round does to a person.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TOZoYIoyjuM

I thought BMG stands for Browning Machine Gun

jcqc96 #56 Posted 03 January 2011 - 07:23 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    08-05-2010
oops...double post due to lag again.

sharpeh #57 Posted 03 January 2011 - 07:36 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 499
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010

View Postjcqc96, on 03 January 2011 - 07:23 AM, said:

I thought BMG stands for Browning Machine Gun

It is, he was simply taking a wild guess.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users