Why the Iraqis had a problem with US tanks at night

[MH]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Unless the barrel falls off:

LOL 0.5 barrel change too complicated?

[MH]

Physically, the weapon and callibre has the range, and even more, no doubt. But aiming with needed precision and avoiding dispersion - that is where the tricks are done

Well yeah...and sometimes you get also lucky besides being skillful.
Some modern toys actually makes it easier also regular ammo is not so bad and cheaper...it generally hits the target.

[Stealhead]

Hatchcock would have had optics of poorer quality than on an Abrams though he maybe used a x10 or x12 scope if they even had any in Vietnam which I doubt they did I bet that he used maybe an x6 or x8 scope.

According to Wikipedia "A second 7.62 mm M240 machine gun in a coaxial mount to the right of the main gun. The coaxial MG is aimed and fired with the same computer fire control system used for the main gun" so with the coaxial it is very possible.And I argue that an Abrams crew has their bag of tricks they might be able to do things that we do not know about so it could be possible with the .50 mount around in 2003.the current mounts either TUSK or CROWS would allow such long range shots with the .50 cal feasible without doubt.Perhaps not single shots I already said that I not certain about the single shot part but with bursts yes and even a tripod or bipod can be used in the indirect fire role at these ranges.

You also fail to take into consideration that the crew can use the gunners sight to observe the acurracy of the .50 cal fire and adjust even without ballistic computer aid.Snipers do this very often the spotter has a high magnification scope and they observe the lay of shots.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Well yeah...and sometimes you get also lucky besides being skillful.
Some modern toys actually makes it easier also regular ammo is not so bad and cheaper...it generally hits the target.

But the story was about a targetted kill with one shot at a hilarious distance wihgtout adequate ammo and adewquate scope.

Machineguns are not so much for targeted indsividual kill of individual targets, but they are more meant as area-supression-weapons. A guy at the eSim forums pointed out that this is indeed one of the major differences you see between how MG are (unrealistically) used in computergames, and how they are used in real life.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Hatchcock would have had optics of poorer quality than on an Abrams though he maybe used a x10 or x12 scope if they even had any in Vietnam which I doubt they did I bet that he used maybe an x6 or x8 scope.

According to Wikipedia "A second 7.62 mm M240 machine gun in a coaxial mount to the right of the main gun. The coaxial MG is aimed and fired with the same computer fire control system used for the main gun" so with the coaxial it is very possible. And I argue that an Abrams crew has their bag of tricks they might be able to do things that we do not know about so it could be possible with the .50 mount around in 2003.the current mounts either TUSK or CROWS would allow such long range shots with the .50 cal feasible without doubt.Perhaps not single shots I already said that I not certain about the single shot part but with bursts yes and even a tripod or bipod can be used in the indirect fire role at these ranges.

You also fail to take into consideration that the crew can use the gunners sight to observe the acurracy of the .50 cal fire and adjust even without ballistic computer aid.Snipers do this very often the spotter has a high magnification scope and they observe the lay of shots.

I referred to the story the way you told it.

Yes, the coax is linked to the gunner's primary sight, which has the strongest zoom of all sights on the tank, but still, the target is small in this case, a man at 2000 meters is not that big at all, even in a zoom x10. The cal.50 onboard a tank probably is not the same cal.50 that was used and altered by that USMC master sniper. And then the ammo, the dispersion. You cannot really correct by impacts observed by an observer if the dispersion is too spread anyway. That makes only sense when the weapon for single shots is extremely precise, which I doubt for a tank-mounted .50 with non-specialised ammunition, or when planning to send an area bombardement anyway.

Whether the link between ballistic computer and the TC's cal.50 means only a transfer of numbers (range) for computing environmental factors and final elevation, or whether the gunner really sees on his display on behalf of the TC and aims the weapon on the commanders behalf, I just do not know. Even if he does aim the .50 as if it were the coax, there still remains the problem of dispersion - a cal.50 is no SABOT. Initially you mentioned "one shot". And that is simply extremely unlikely. The probabiulity for a first round hit is very low at 2000m, I assume.

Note that that master sniper made most of his shots with the .50 still at around 1000 yards only. And he was a sniper, no tank commander.

Anyway, there have several people reported back in the eSim forum to my question on this story - and nobody believes the story as being told - sorry. Considering that there are many real tankers in that forum, many Abrams riders as well, I take that feedback the way it was given. So, the story as being told rates as "most extremely unlikely".

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Machineguns are not so much for targeted indsividual kill of individual targets, but they are more meant as area-supression-weapons. A guy at the eSim forums pointed out that this is indeed one of the major differences you see between how MG are (unrealistically) used in computergames, and how they are used in real life.

Its not about one shot one kill.
As i said burst at 1500 meters could do from well maintained not worn out 0.5.
Again MG are what they are and some are better than others at delivering scooped burst at relatively small area... also for suppression purposes.
Suppression is not just about making lots of noise and spraying....


........

[Stealhead]

It depends on how a given MG is set up up if it is in a sustained fire role on a tripod then it is placed there to kill with reliable accuracy any enemy that has the misfortune to step into its field of fire that is why you see MGs set up around a defensive parameter an excellent example would be the many MG42s and MG34 along the Normandy beach head those positions where devastatingly accurate they in some cases fired right down the open ramp of landing craft and killed or seriously injured nearly every solider inside the craft.They mowed down men trying to get up onto the beach accurate burst after accurate burst.

German MGs also laid waste to god knows how many Russians while set up in sustained fire role in this role if the line of fire is well laid and the gun properly zeroed and the gunner has proper marksmanship he will have very high probability of killing you with one burst and the next and the next guy after him.
WWI and a Maxim machine gun or a Vickers.

If you are on the offensive and advancing on a enemy then your MG is is performing the area suppression role kill some pin the others down the other troops close the gap and kill the ones pinned down.

An AFV could be in either role depending on the situation at hand.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Silent But Deadly.

It can see you, you can't see it, you can't hear it, and then it reaches out and caresses your nostrils.

The Stealth Flatus, clinging to everything it touches since the dawn of mankind.

Fixed.

[Skybird]

More feedback was given, and by actual and former Abrams tankers. The two main points:

The claimed connection/link between the ballistic computer and the TC's .50 is bollocks (as I silently assumed, but I did not know it for sure and so dfid not comment). The gunner can give verbal feedback on range (from lasing the TC'S targhet with hgis own sights, and calling out the number) to help the TC adjusting the elevation of the MG, but that's it. - The gunner using the coax by his own sights, that is somethign totally different now. But the coax has even more dispersion, I believe I remember to have read that somewehre, and to the layman that I am that makes sence: it is a smaller callibre.

The TC's .50 is an area supression weapon, they say. First salvo hits have been reported - but not beyond 600 m, and only at targets the size of a truck. Beyond that, repeated salvos are almost guaranteed to be needed, correcting after each salvo.

The mounting on a Abrams, it was also said, does not compare to the stabilised, solid attitude the gun is provided with when using a dedicated tripod for sniping. There is too much vibration, even clearance. - And as was already said: ammunition with less dispersion, and scopes.

If there still are doubts about these doubts about that original story, I have nothing more to say on that and I would recommend you head over to their forum and engage the guys there. Some of them did and still do all that tanking stuff in real life.

[MH]

good then....

The TC's .50 is an area supression weapon, they say. First salvo hits have been reported - but not beyond 600 m, and only at targets the size of a truck. Beyond that, repeated salvos are almost guaranteed to be needed, correcting after each salvo

It can be done easily with iron sights....