77 replies to this topic

[Ash]

That's true, but what's the point? What good is having a gun anyway? At the speed the fighters are flying at, getting the enemy fighter in your gunsight long enough to shoot them down is like trying to catch a bluebottle out of the air...

[chemical ali]

Have you not played BF2?

Guns are good you can mow down boats, people and light vehicles.

[MSpencer]

Actually, 12.7mm machine guns are commonly used against low flying attack aircraft and attack and transport helicopters within range of the mount on the vehicle. There are many stories of planes being shot down during World War II, and even later in 1991 when several A-10s were lost to ground fire with no AAA in the area.

The Berkut may look good on paper, but bear in mind that its avionics are inferior and always will be. The R-73 is an inferior missile system in short and medium range encounters, and I would always take US missile systems over anything Russian made. Regardless of the statistics, the Berkut is years behind the F-22 in avionics and controls, and while the F-22 is nearly completely computerized, the Berkut probably still relies on the old style of manual controls. The F-22 is a superior aircraft and always will be, regardless of any upgrades the S-37 may get over the coming years. The Raptor is tried and true, and the Berkut is not, and will probably never see the light of day in any air force around the world.

[Allied General]

Actually, 12.7mm machine guns are commonly used against low flying attack aircraft and attack and transport helicopters within range of the mount on the vehicle. There are many stories of planes being shot down during World War II, and even later in 1991 when several A-10s were lost to ground fire with no AAA in the area.

The Berkut may look good on paper, but bear in mind that its avionics are inferior and always will be. The R-73 is an inferior missile system in short and medium range encounters, and I would always take US missile systems over anything Russian made. Regardless of the statistics, the Berkut is years behind the F-22 in avionics and controls, and while the F-22 is nearly completely computerized, the Berkut probably still relies on the old style of manual controls. The F-22 is a superior aircraft and always will be, regardless of any upgrades the S-37 may get over the coming years. The Raptor is tried and true, and the Berkut is not, and will probably never see the light of day in any air force around the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hence why MG's are mounted on tanks

and yes MG/cannon fire is useful for the ground assaults, against say trucks or soft humans

[MSpencer]

Even light armor. I know a light infantryman in the CAF and he said that they commonly train to deploy 12.7mm machine guns as anti-armor weapons. It would shred right through a BRDM or BMP/BMD, and maybe if you're lucky, a T-55 if you hit it enough with AP rounds.

[Allied General]

mmm indeed, I'm more into self-propelled AA guns, like the Dragon System developed by then West Germany/France which uses SAPHEI (Semi-armour piercing high explosive incendiary) ammuntion against ground targets which penetrate apc armour before exploding

[M.E.C.H.]

Even light armor. I know a light infantryman in the CAF and he said that they commonly train to deploy 12.7mm machine guns as anti-armor weapons. It would shred right through a BRDM or BMP/BMD, and maybe if you're lucky, a T-55 if you hit it enough with AP rounds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont think that MG are that powerfull.. Mg's are good only on apc and armored vehicles and not on more armored targets like tanks... The only MG that can rip through the tanks armor is A10 Gun as i said before cause it fires depleted uranium shells that rip through enemy armor like BUTTER !!!

[MSpencer]

Or any medium caliber weapon...
The .50 with AP shells would be able to punch through armor. It's been tried and tested in the field, and again, mainly it's used against APCs and light armor (Like the PT76, which is more like an APC in terms of protection), but with AP shells, if you're lucky you could probably cause damage to older tanks.

[M.E.C.H.]

Or any medium caliber weapon...
The .50 with AP shells would be able to punch through armor. It's been tried and tested in the field, and again, mainly it's used against APCs and light armor (Like the PT76, which is more like an APC in terms of protection), but with AP shells, if you're lucky you could probably cause damage to older tanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing can rip through nowadays armor, except from H.E.A.T. Shells (high explosive anti tank shells) Depleted uranium shells, and HP Shells (Hyper velocity shells, those ones are cutting edge shells, that using their high speed to penetrate the armor and not their explosive warhead...) Only those can penetrate the latest tanks armor... Not even the standard armor piercing ones... Also the most devastating against tanks (except from the king, the uranum shells) are the armor piercing rockets (tow, mamba, milan etc)

[Blodo]

The Berkut may look good on paper, but bear in mind that its avionics are inferior and always will be. The R-73 is an inferior missile system in short and medium range encounters, and I would always take US missile systems over anything Russian made. Regardless of the statistics, the Berkut is years behind the F-22 in avionics and controls, and while the F-22 is nearly completely computerized, the Berkut probably still relies on the old style of manual controls. The F-22 is a superior aircraft and always will be, regardless of any upgrades the S-37 may get over the coming years. The Raptor is tried and true, and the Berkut is not, and will probably never see the light of day in any air force around the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its a matter of taste. The berkut is the cheaper, tougher, more rugged aircraft. Everything in it is cheap but it works. Also the russians tend to trade off computerisation for armor, speed etc.
In my book thats the better option but as i said its a matter of taste.

[Allied General]

HEAT is shit against most tanks, hello reactive plates or Chobham armour and HP? got any proof?

I know there is APDS which uses tungsten cos AFAIK depelted uranium has issues and USA has the $ me think to afford it

[Ash]

Or you can blow a track off.

[M.E.C.H.]

HEAT is shit against most tanks, hello reactive plates or Chobham armour and HP?  got any proof?
I know there is APDS which uses tungsten cos AFAIK depelted uranium has issues  and USA has the $ me think to afford it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chobhan ? What is this ? HEAT shells, are made for tanks and if i can, i will post some pics of it... Now as the uranium shells, i think that USA not only can afford it but uses it alot more than Ap ones, You know what, you live in ? America ? I live in Greece, near Yugoslavia ! USA did war there, using Uranium shells ONLY !!! You there in America may not seen that but here in Greece.... The radiation came here.... at Greece !!! There was many poisoned foods from radiaton..... Also dont forget that when you first fire with not that good shells (not that powerful) then you first fire at the tracks of a tank, make it impossible to move..... the it is in your hands !!!

[ComradeJ]

Tank tracks are a much harder target than the actual tank itself. Not only are they smaller, but closer to the ground.

[M.E.C.H.]

Tank tracks are a much harder target than the actual tank itself. Not only are they smaller, but closer to the ground.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes of course its harder, but when they get hit, then the tank gets IMMOBILIZED !!! And unable to move, Hitting the tracks is easier from distance... Hit the tracks from distance, and then start the fire on the main tank when the tank cannot move !!!

[Darth Avondale]

This is an easy question its the F-22. The F-22 was built with first shot first kill. F-22 is designed to take on 10 fighters at once.

[Allied General]

This is an easy question its the F-22. The F-22 was built with first shot first kill. F-22 is designed to take on 10 fighters at once.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes and the all the enemy planes will line up for F22 in the end its more about pilot skill.

Also Chobham, its the armour plating which M1A2 Abrams and British Chieftans use.

Reactive plates make sure work of HEAT shells, just make sure your infantry aren't nearby

Uranium is old school, it was when radiation was safe

Also u will only ever shoot the tracks if u r desperate and stupidly close like Iraqi insurgents.

Edited by Allied General, 27 August 2005 - 05:43 PM.

[Blodo]

Arent all terrorists desperate?

[Allied General]

Arent all terrorists desperate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

true but in real war you ain't gonna be shooting tracks unless your guerilla.

[MSpencer]

True, most trained tankers would aim for the junction between the body and turret, where a round is likely to penetrate and kill the majority of the crew, disable the tank, and detonate the ammunition. Defensive measures on modern tanks prevent this, but as seen in 1991, most tanks in service around the world do not. Even the newest T-90s are not designed as safely as most western tanks.

There are two general types of shells.
HEAT
AP
HEAT is a general category. Mostly they are explosive and have shifted from an antitank to an anti-infantry role over the years with the development of armor. This category includes HE-Frag ammunition which is prefragmented to create intense amounts of shrapnel designed to disable light vehicles and infantry. These are mainly used by Russian tanks, and are seen much less in western armaments.
AP shells include APFSDS (Armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot) and APDS shells (Figure out the acronym), which by NATO naming conventions are expanded to APDS-T, APFSDS-T, APFSDS-DU, etc. DU means depleted uranium, and T means tungsten. There are other substances that are used much less which are also covered by this. The design of these shells simply revolve around armor penetration. Mostly they come in a prepackaged form, and when fired expel their casing and shoot a big rod through a target. APFSDS shells are seen more commonly in high caliber weapons and APDS shells are more likely to be used in low caliber weapons such as the 25mm Bushmaster cannon. These are much more effective against tanks than HEAT shells.
ATGMs are normally shaped charges, and are designed to penetrate armor much like AP shells.