Y SG armour dun use 50 cal?

last SG · 2007-03-14T21:06:01+00:00

Originally posted by tankee1981: Please allow me to shed some light. The reason why the SM1 coaxial and turret mounted MG are without butts is to enable the...

tek_koh SG

our CIS .50 is 20mm longer than the US M2

but 30kg with tripod compared to 58 of the M2

beavan SG

any apparant disadvantages to note?

tek_koh SG

well, since its like 20kg lighter than the M2 , weight shldnt be the problem why the .50 wasn’t used on our armour, could the 20mm be a cause?

CM06 SG

Explained already. 7.62mm lighter, easier to clean, AP and AA role. Anything 7.62 cannot handle. Canister round. If cannot, HEAT. If cannot, APFSDS.

You can carry 10 boxes of 7.62mm rounds for AP suppression. You cant do that with 0.5inch, you cant even carry half as much.

Overheating + barrel change. It's always easier to change the dismountable(with bipod) GPMG barrel. You can change that in 5 secs. It will also cool down faster. Spare barrel takes up less space (consider the length of the 0.5 inch barrel) put that in/out a tank from commander hatch, very tedious.

You need two person to mount the 0.5inch on the vehicle vs 1 person for 7.62.

You need only the ammo box for the 7.62mm. you need a belt holder for the 0.5inch. If vehicle is disabled, you can dismount and use the GPMG and carry 1-2 boxes for defense. Try that with the 0.5inch.

Just because it's bigger doesnt mean it's always better. Stats looks good on paper doesnt mean it's great in real life.

Enough reasons for you?

moca SG

Alamak, if bigger not better, den SAF just made big mistake to buy the Leo 2...

AMX-13 75mm gun also got APFSDS, HEAT etc etc wah...

So why buy Leo 2 with 120mm tua leng gong?

75mm can carry more ammo right or not...?

Leo 2 need 4 people but AMX-13 need 3 people only. Can save on ku li kang.

Small tank can go faster some more parking less ploblem. Mr. Green

tek_koh SG

Well, its all about the ballitics of the weapon, ie, muzzle velocity, faster.. better punch

anyway, why does IDF has .50s fitted as a remote weapon, just above the barrel

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I think the real reason is...

We are simply too lazy to mount it.

But come to think of it, a .50cal makes a good commander's weapon... cos it's useful for buzzing helos (a lot better then a 7.62), and can take on soft skins more effectively at longer range... the only reason I see why we haven't done so is because everybody can't be bothered.

A tank could certianly use a HMG in its arsenal... to engage things that the main gun would be wasted on, but just out of the 7.62mm to really harm. Depends on your army I guess... the Yanks mount .50cals on their hummers as well... and the insurgents fear that weapon.

CM06 SG

Well are you a combat armour personnel? I dont find it funny when i was talking serious stuff.

Anyway, you cannot compare tanks vs mg. apple and orange cannot work. The Leo2 as mentioned earlier still has a 7.62mm commander gun anyway.

Next, the Leo2 actually is an MBT vs LT(some call it a recce armoured vehicle/tank destroyer)

The Leo2 can actually go faster, fire on the move, install modern FCS and what not. It's a difference in era of technology + armour requirements.

Unless our 0.5 inch can shoot laser bullet, proximity denotation, heat seeking warheads, i dont see the need to change it from a 7.62mm. Even if they can do those things. Still doesnt change my earlier points in their difference.

And to TS your question: it's a 14.5mm auto weapon...probably skewed to auto engaged sniper targets. IDF has a policy of personnel perservation. Exposing a commander (through the hatch) to operate the mg is a no-no. Thus they have to to use an automated aiming device. By the way that Merk IV has a mortar in it. Why not ask how come not other tank in the world is built that way as well? The Merk is build specific to IDF's requirement.

Edit:

SGTyran, your post is valid. however i would rather the coaxial be used to mount the HMG. It's a sturdier structure and allows the gunner to tap the FCS for accuracy. I doubt SAF is interested in a change at the moment

Shotgun SG

You're gonna have to enlighten me on this one... which tank uses a .50 cal as coaxial??

CM06 SG

Sadly none Razz .

It's as funky a dream as wishing 0.5inch being used by commander on our SM1.

Anyway, i'm not tanky, if there's a change, it's my buddy's problem haha.

I just hope i can convert to BX platform when it's ICT time.

panzerjager SG

Think the Leclerc uses .50cal as coax. Think even the intended predecessor AMX-32 (finally became for export only but think never took off) used 20 mm cannon as coax

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

The AMX 30 mounts a 20mm cannon as a coax!

SGTyran, your post is valid. however i would rather the coaxial be used to mount the HMG. It's a sturdier structure and allows the gunner to tap the FCS for accuracy. I doubt SAF is interested in a change at the moment

Well one Abrams tanker answered this once, the reason why they mounted the HMG on the commander's position, and a 7.62 as their coax is because the coax was intended to used as a GPMG where the main gun is overkill... the .50 is intended to cover the arcs that are out of the main gun's elevation, as well as AA use.

Hence it makes more sense to mount a HMG on the roof, as it would mean covering your upper arcs with a more powerful weapon then putting all your heavy weapons to your main gun slot.

I don't think having or lacking a .50cal will make or break an AFV... that is just silly. But in terms of it being an idea... hey it isn't such a bad idea to put a .50 up there.

Another reason I can think of is ammo issues... we might just be too lazy to dish out too many ammo types for one AFV... lame reason I know, but the .50 on your tank can't really share ammo with the coax and loader's MG.

CM06 SG

The treader starter was asking why the .5 was not mounted on our SM1 not the afv…( i take it that afv dont include tanks). Yeah and i was explaining ammo and stuff of other factors as well. Let’s hope he gets it that a change now will be too tedious..not to many the amount of modifications and people they have to call up for ict.

M551Sheridian SG

eh… get leopard no nid 1 to 1 for the sm1 then no nid waste too much men in war due to casualties… btw we get them cos they were much cheaper(i tink)at the time n oso the sm1 is a upgraded nearly 50yrs old tank….if u say liddat maybe get SG army keep some of the sm1s? to use it like u explained so

Laplace SG

Logistics?

moca SG

No one is suggesting a change. We are only asking questions. No need to make 7.62 vs .50cal your personal crusade.

Can any SAF tankee give some insights as to why SAF doesn't mount the .50 cal on the SM1?

Is the commander's 7.62mm loaded with AP or ball ammo in SOP?

Can the 7.62mm replace the .50cal in the AP or AA role as CM06 suggests?

IMHO, the 7.62 is used because SAF see only a anti-personnel and anti-softskin vehicles role for the 7.62.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

.50 cal is probably overkill for smaller softskins like a rover... however I think if you are engaging things like trucks and the like, it takes a lot of 7.62mm rounds to truly disable it... a .50cal could easily deadline the target by putting a round through the engine block where a 7.62 would only have marginal effects.

As for AA, .50 cal isn't actually that effective (though a lot better then 7.62). When it comes versus attack jets nothing less then a 20mm is really useful, and you need a high rate of fire as well. Attack Helos are resistant to HMG fire and you need to put a lot into them before they go down, though light helos are another story.

For infantry however, I would prefer a .50 then 7.62... reason being the round can easily punch through barriers and a single good hit will put that guy down for good if not kill him outright. A .50 (and the HMG family) are the ultimate (pratical) anti-infantry weapon that you can mount on an AFV and still be operated. It isn't easy to gun the M2HB due to its weight, but our C.I.S .50 is a lot lighter and hence more flexible in the roof MG role.

As to why we don't use it on our tanks... I don't see any reason except nobody in the SAF is really willing to make that move. That's about it. Technically there's nothing stopping us from using the .50 as the commander's machine gun.

But I think it's moot for the SM1s, for they are on the way out. Prehaps the Leo2 might be a different story, but I think they're just going to keep with the 7.62.

moca SG

My sentiments, too.

I once posted a picture of a foreign AMX-13 mounted with a .50cal so space is not an issue. The site is: www.chars-francaise.net but it is down.

Anyway, the rarity of AMX-13 mounted with .50 cal does point to the fact the the GPMG is usually favoured by other nations.

Far from what CM06 described to be near obsolescence for the .50 cal, it is alive and well and heavily used by all nations on tanks.

Especially the Americans and Israelis. Pics of MY's PT-91 also showed a .50cal mounted high for the AA role.

Both the Argentines and British used them in Falklands for the infantry role.

The only point I doubt is that I think the CIS 50 with SLAP rounds could be quite effective against attack choppers if they manage to hit one.

Another point I want to add is that the IDF used them cos a lot of fighting is done in BUA. The .50 can blast through walls and other obstacles that would stop a 7.62.

If a .50 bullet hit a guy, I think the injury will be very dramatic.

In one incident during the Yom Kippur War, an IDF tank was completely out of tank ammo and was facing an Egyptian T-55 getting into firing position. Out of desperation, the IDF tank commander emptied his .50 cal on the T-55's turret.

Though it didn't penetrate, the heavy .50 cal shells slamming onto their turret unnerved the Egyptians so much that they pulled out. It was a game of "chicken" that paid off.

CM06 SG

Moca:

i'm never said that 50 cal's obsolete. . I'm using that thing. i'm a vcom for m113 btw. I have complete trust in our 50 cal for that matter. It aint a "crusade"/ I choose not to reply so that it's not a petty argument.

I'm saying that's it's less practical than you think it can be. If SAF decides to switch to 50 cal..i would say go ahead without a splot. They just need to call back all the NSmen to retrain in the 50cal.

That aside, 50 cal is obviously better in terms of performance vs 7.62. Not to mention the boost in penetration ability vs softskin + apcs+helis from SLAP. a 50 cal will however not solve the following things i mentioned for our tanky friends

1) barrel change difficulty.
2) lack of large calibre defense weapon after abandoning of SM1.
(the rest is a matter of opinion)

That's my stance. Do i have to repeat i'm not against an upgrade to the commander's mg? I'm saying that there will be things to consider.

You dont have to convince me that 50 cals better. I know it is.

Anyway, to sum it up. 7..62 VS 50 cal as a commander's weapon is in similar light as infantry carried 5.56mm vs 7.62mm weapon. Both has their advantages and disadvantages. I totally agree to the benefits 50 cal will bring as a comd mg..but it doesnt solve the problem from loss of a gpmg. Hence my opinion in the case.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

2) lack of large calibre defense weapon after abandoning of SM1.

What are you talking about? A HMG is the largest pratical weapon you can mount that can be served by one crew member, short of an AGL. But an AGL is a lot less flexible.

Beyond that there aren't many options.

« Previous Page Next Page »