Y SG armour dun use 50 cal?
-
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
-
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. -
Well are you a combat armour personnel? I dont find it funny when i was talking serious stuff.Originally posted by moca: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.
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 -
You're gonna have to enlighten me on this one... which tank uses a .50 cal as coaxial??Originally posted by CM06: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 -
Sadly none
.
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. -
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 coaxOriginally posted by Shotgun:You're gonna have to enlighten me on this one... which tank uses a .50 cal as coaxial?? -
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. -
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.
-
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
-
Logistics?
-
No one is suggesting a change. We are only asking questions. No need to make 7.62 vs .50cal your personal crusade.Originally posted by CM06:Well are you a combat armour personnel? I dont find it funny when i was talking serious stuff.
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.
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. -
.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. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
What i mean is you cant dismount our 50 cal and just use it, unless you throw in the large tripod mount somewhere into the tank, you cant just take out the 50 cal and run away with it. This is unlike the 7.62mm where the bipod is attached.
This will happen IF the SM1 Tank is disabled(badly), the crew survived and had to abandon ship. It's just a worry on my part. Carbine with 2 mags(x3) just aint enough imo if they have to cover themselves and escape. -
Cool. It's an exchange of opinions, not an argument.Originally posted by CM06:What i mean is you cant dismount our 50 cal and just use it, unless you throw in the large tripod mount somewhere into the tank, you cant just take out the 50 cal and run away with it. This is unlike the 7.62mm where the bipod is attached.
This will happen IF the SM1 Tank is disabled(badly), the crew survived and had to abandon ship. It's just a worry on my part. Carbine with 2 mags(x3) just aint enough imo if they have to cover themselves and escape.
Like I said, I'm sure that SAF has very good reasons for not putting the .50cal. I don't know what it is, but I didn't think many of your points were valid.
Rather than go head to head with someone who is so convinced of his views, i just tried to add some humour with SInglish. But you asked to be taken seriously.
OK, so...
Take for example your scenario of the SM1 crew trying to dismantle the 7.62 after their tank is disabled, I assume, in a battle.
So after their tank is hit during a battle, assuming none of the 3 LUCKY crewmen got injured... do they:
• dismantle the GPMG under fire while the shooting is still going on? It is very common for tanks to get hit several times during battle. And most enemy are waiting to shoot crewmen of disabled tanks as they emerge. So is dismantling a GPMG and lugging it around under fire what precious tank crews should be doing? Or should they be doing their best to survive and escape instead of carrying a 12+kg GPMG?
• dismantle the GPMG after the shooting has stopped? In which case, they would be holding on a heavy piece of equipment for what purpose? While I don't debate that it would be useful if you can dismantle the gun and use but this is surely not SAF's reason for mounting a 7.62 over a .50cal. -
Okay Since you want to talk about this scenario:
SM1 Disabling : This can be a mobility + engine kill. RPGs that glance the track, hit the engine block blah blah blah. Yes the crew survive.
Next, do you know what holds the gpmg in place? two safety pins. Press pull out, press pull out, the gpmg will still be in place. While the commander provide covering fire with that , the gunner + driver gets out. Grabbing 1-2 box of gpmg ammo. Then they provide cover (carbine) then the comd gets out. Lifting the MG with one hand out of the mount hops off then gets down, pulls out bipod(prone) continue to suppress enemy while his buddies fall back. That's how it works....I rather have them have this chance of run then three men with only 60 rounds on them. It's the same drill the (current) mortar team goes through when their mortar/vehicle is disabled. They grab their mg and run.
You are saying this scenario as if the crew would just jump out and run. This will get them shot in their rear end.
Tell me what would you do with a 50 cal comd mg in a disabled tank (maybe small fire, smoke, chance of explosion unknown currently) -
With all this discussion about why SM1 not using 50 cal HMG........have you guys consider space constraint in the tank?
Using 7.62, each SM1 combat load is 10-12 boxes (for both CMG and coax)
If using 0.5 HMG, you have to make re-distribute the ammo load.
Moreover, the area of 1 box of 0.5 cal is equivalent to 2 boxes of 7.62. Meaning less ammo.
Replacing the 7.62 ammo is already a chore due to the space constraint in the tank comd cupula. To take a 0.5 ammo out would mean a very very skinny tank comd with a very strong upper body strength.
My 2 cents worth of info from a ex-armour guy....... (MR liao ) -
I know hence i must convince moca while the 7.62mm exist on the SM1. He sees pictures of 0.5 cal on the other AMX-13 and believes it's a great idea.
I'm in armour so we both understand the space/size constrains. I want to exchange points with moca to convince him eventually. -
Look here, CM06.Originally posted by CM06:I know hence i must convince moca while the 7.62mm exist on the SM1. He sees pictures of 0.5 cal on the other AMX-13 and believes it's a great idea.
I'm in armour so we both understand the space/size constrains. I want to exchange points with moca to convince him eventually.
I repeat again for your benefit.
I am not advocating changing the GPMG.
Understand so far.
Easy enough for you?
I am just saying your reasons are pure specualtion.
SAF put a GPMG on SM1 for many reasons, but not those that you mentioned.
Understand? -
Look here Moca,
you say i'm speculating. I'm telling you i'm not.
There's a thousand and one reason why SAF choose to use GPMG. Commonalities and stuff aside. I never said 50 cal was inferior to the gpmg.
I'm saying why, they use gpmg and i'm saying that from what i see,i train and my buddies tell me when we go back to bunk.
And that aside, do go on with our scenario thingy and convince me that the 50 will do the job of the gpmg in that scenario. I'm talking about preserving lives of my buddies here. If the 50 cal can protect them just as well, i will definitely support any change to the comd mg and rest my case.
We both know the 50 cal out performs the gpmg in penetration performance. Nothing to complain about that.
And since you think i'm speculating my reasons, do tell me what you know as well. I dont want to argue with you. I want you to understand this part of us.
I'm nitpicking for the SM1. I wont if you say we change it for our broncos, and *other(nonsecret)vehicles that currently have only gpmg as a weapon but i wont divulge here so that enemies will not be as well prepared.*
You can PM me if you need more details on those. -
You want to be civil that's cool with me. I'm all for a good discussion that doesn't degenerate into a bashing. So on your end please stop patronising by referring to me in the third person and your attempts to win over other people to your side of the argument is, frankly, quite childish. You not confident to take me on by yourself? C'mon, you're apparently the armour expert, not me.Originally posted by CM06: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?
I just reposted your points to remind you where the bone of contention began.
While I reiterate that I am not arguing for a .50 to go onto our SM1, I don't think some of the above reasons are questionable as the reason for choosing the 7.62.
• 7.62 can do AP and AA as well as the .50cal
• 7.62 easier to clean
• 7.62 cool easier
• 2 person to mount the .50cal
• need belt holder for .50 cal - are you certain about this?
• dismount the weapon - this is nice to have, no question -
-No. 50 cal is better naturally + increase penetration + SLAP. GPMG does AP role well enough. AA (including aircraft) role(7.62mm) not as good but it is the procedure for all armour vehicles atm.Originally posted by moca:CM06 earlier points.
• 7.62 can do AP and AA as well as the .50cal
• 7.62 easier to clean
• 7.62 cool easier
• 2 person to mount the .50cal
• need belt holder for .50 cal - are you certain about this?
• dismount the weapon - this is nice to have, no question
-yes
-yes
-yes
-well i need a belt for my 40/50. I'm not 100% sure if we really need it. Recalling that the feed area is actually smoothened, i doubt that it's a REAL requirement. It will just aid feeding.
-yes.(Point of Contention more than anything else to me actually)
other stuff to add
- ammo constrain. More for Gpmg vs 50 cal. GPMG same ammo with coaxial
- barrel change is easier and quicker for GPMG
- ROF for GPMG is higher
Whether these above reasons are the deciding factors or not, i would like to put it that these are some reasons why it fits its role.
Sorry if i offended you,moca . Guess i got too worked up earlier. Let's carry this on. -
Being able to recover a mounted weapon from a disabled unit is a good feature to have, but I hardly think it's a big deciding factor as to what to mount on your AFV. Guns we can always make more of and there's always the thermite grenade. If you are caught in a situtation where your AFV crew need a GPMG to defend yourself and friendlies are not around to support you then you are very likely screwed anyway.
In the end as to why the SAF does no use the .50cal... I think it's just a matter of user flexibility. Both systems have their own pros and cons and it's really up to the user to realize them and work accordingly. There's little sense for us to delve into regrettable Glocklogic to try to prove either positions by nitpicking or reality-bending gymnastics.
Personally of course I would prefer to have a .50cal (all things considered) as part of my arsenal if I was in an AFV... esp. a roomy one like the Leo2.
That said, a .50 cal is always nice to have as part of your arsenal when you need serious punch. However for infantry in the open a 7.62mm makes better anti-personnel economics as the ROF is higher, you can carry more rounds, and for anti-infantry work the 7.62mm works well enough.
But when it comes to FIBUA and you have this dude hiding inside a room firing at you from a window, .50cal is certianly what you want to send downrange to him. 7.62mm just lacks the punch to make a serious impression on targets that are under proper cover... probably the reason why the Yanks make a WW2 gun still a part of their arsenal, and in fact well intend its use to carry on with its replacement being yet another HMG (a high tech one at that).
I suppose when it comes down to us, we try to put the HMG as an asset weapon by mounting it on selected APCs and IFVs... using it as and when applied rather then going in with it standard issue to most of the units. This is the way we fight, and of course we could easily change our tatics to make more use of the .50... but then again it boils down on what style you really intend to use your tools in.