Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT.
Because the authors wanted it to happen that way. Simply because for all the points you mention they should have slaughtered the Russians.
.50 BMG passes right through what little armor a BTR has.
Now, back to what I said earlier...... I can't make sense of that post. I read it three times. Could you edit that and clarify it? One subject per paragraph, one sentence with the argument and main point, then supporting evidence in other sentences. Please.
Seriously, it is like an episode of drunk history. I thought I was bad about automatic writing and spilling it out as it has come to mind.
|
With the .50 is that first hand experience or just hearsay? I ask because several things that I had been told were fact, when we got the chance to test for our self found out to be untrue. I was told that within one magazine of 5.56 you would chew through the armor of a M113, the 7.62X51 would go in and bounce around, and the .50 would make Swiss cheese out of it. When we go the chance to shoot one (OK it was an old ITV), after hundreds of rounds of 5.56 you were hard pressed to find any place that looked like it had taken any real damage. The 7.62 just left tiny little marks, and the .50 BMG left pock marks. This was with green/black tip. Right before us was some Brits and there Warriors with TP ammo did not even penetrate, it did leave nice sized dents were each round hit, had it been war stock ammo I have no doubt that it would have penetrated.
Olefin I also thought that it made sense, if you are looking at this objectively. If you are looking at it with rose colored lenses it may not.