Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DAVIDICUS said:Surprised me too.
I thought the .50 would have greater penetration due to its higher sectional density. (At least head on.)
the lancaster kicks ass said:but when it comes down to it there are targets that 8x.50cal can't take out that the 4x20mm can, that's when you wish you had the 20mm............
Soren said:As soon as any significant slant is applied to the target-armor, the .50 cal quickly looses its advantage !
RG_Lunatic said:Most ground targets had less than 6mm of armor.
Soren said:RG_Lunatic said:Most ground targets had less than 6mm of armor.
Yes a "Jeep" has that kind of armor, but not an AFV.
The .50's were useless against German AFV's.
RG_Lunatic said:Soren said:RG_Lunatic said:Most ground targets had less than 6mm of armor.
Yes a "Jeep" has that kind of armor, but not an AFV.
The .50's were useless against German AFV's.
Lots of German halftracks and armored cars had very thin plates, especially on top.
They were not "totally useless", but they were of limited use.
German 20mm were useless against a Sherman -- so what's your point?