50 cal. vs M113
4 posters
Page 1 of 1
OTB- Forum Moderator
- Posts : 2375
Join date : 2020-05-02
Re: 50 cal. vs M113
Yeah, it can happen in my rules, though I don't thnk it ever has. Mostly because the combination of M113s v. heavy machine guns has been pretty rare in my games.
Re: 50 cal. vs M113
I know what you mean - normally the VC have RPGs and don't need to use HMGs.
Diligent late-night recon up Saigon back alleys...
OTB- Forum Moderator
- Posts : 2375
Join date : 2020-05-02
Re: 50 cal. vs M113
Wayne,
I too am a member of that FB group and further into that thread there is a great explanation as to why the front cannot be penetrated by 50 cal, just FYI. It is from a good friend of mine who is Ex Aussie Armour and Artillery:
Garry Wait:
Robert Gimenez So the frontal armour of an M113 is 44mm of 5083 aluminium. Pretending it’s at 0 degrees slope - it obviously isn’t but assuming worst case - and going by manufacturers worst case that it’s equivalent to 65% steel. So that’s as a gross underestimate about 28.6mm of steel equivalent if we ignore it’s slope.
Now a 0.50” AP-I round as commonly used penetrates about 22mm at 200 yards. So statistically the M113 is much better frontally and perhaps this original post is more accurate than lots of hoary old war stories or “my mate told me” ….
After all, we love to disparage our kit right ? As a driver we always assumed our equipment was poorly armoured. But I suspect that most crew are wrong and the above is right - frontally you can ignore a 0.50”. Side armour is a different story of course
I too am a member of that FB group and further into that thread there is a great explanation as to why the front cannot be penetrated by 50 cal, just FYI. It is from a good friend of mine who is Ex Aussie Armour and Artillery:
Garry Wait:
Robert Gimenez So the frontal armour of an M113 is 44mm of 5083 aluminium. Pretending it’s at 0 degrees slope - it obviously isn’t but assuming worst case - and going by manufacturers worst case that it’s equivalent to 65% steel. So that’s as a gross underestimate about 28.6mm of steel equivalent if we ignore it’s slope.
Now a 0.50” AP-I round as commonly used penetrates about 22mm at 200 yards. So statistically the M113 is much better frontally and perhaps this original post is more accurate than lots of hoary old war stories or “my mate told me” ….
After all, we love to disparage our kit right ? As a driver we always assumed our equipment was poorly armoured. But I suspect that most crew are wrong and the above is right - frontally you can ignore a 0.50”. Side armour is a different story of course
TEC
TailEndCharles- Legacy Member
- Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts : 424
Join date : 2020-05-02
Re: 50 cal. vs M113
Thanks for that additional info - I didn't read the whole of the discussion there.
Diligent late-night recon up Saigon back alleys...
OTB- Forum Moderator
- Posts : 2375
Join date : 2020-05-02
Re: 50 cal. vs M113
Indeed I had players lose 2x ACAVs to flank shots from .51cal AA guns while assaulting a regimental HQ back in FNG 1st Ed. Didn't really destroy them as much as brutalized the crews bad enough they had to bai out and drag their wounded buddies off behind better cover. (same battle had one take a friendly mortar round right on the TC, dude had made the classic mistake of giving his position as the target point!)
Oh give me a hoooome where the NVA roam, and the air support is stacked up all daaaaaay
Darby- Legacy Member
- Posts : 774
Join date : 2020-05-02
Re: 50 cal. vs M113
Interesting - on occasion I have managed to successfully rake M113 ACAVs with MG fire to take out the commanders and gunners. And I have had it done to me too.
Diligent late-night recon up Saigon back alleys...
OTB- Forum Moderator
- Posts : 2375
Join date : 2020-05-02
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|