Vickers to a Matilda????? -1 reply

Please wait...

Neighbor Kid

Pro Sherman Tanker

50 XP

31st July 2004

0 Uploads

1,334 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

I was omn crete and i was driving a vickers and i came up against a stolen matilda and i was firing .5 caliber ammo at the turret (which is to be heavl armor) i destroyed it???? im like WTF i kill a heavly armored tank with .5 cal and a p-51 can or the p-47. (note im not saying german plane becasue mosyt of there main ammo is .3 cal or 7.63 Or is it7.92mm ammunition. some one plz answer this!




Braun

www.the8tharmy.com

50 XP

12th June 2004

0 Uploads

2,913 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

maybe it was a bug




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

No, the German MG131 fired 13mm ammo, about .50 caliber.




Von Mudra

Lo, I am Mudra, za emo soldat!

50 XP

25th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,064 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

late ME109s had 15mm connons in place of MGs. yeah, the Vickers 50 cal is armorpeircing, I have done that before to light tanks. Maybe the Matilda had no health left?




Neighbor Kid

Pro Sherman Tanker

50 XP

31st July 2004

0 Uploads

1,334 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

negative i think it had half health.




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

heh, never knew there was a 0.5 cal Vickers before, thought they were just .303, well that explains better why it shreads panzer II's an such. This Vickers .50 is probably coded the same as the Browning .50, wich performs better than even 20mm guns in FH.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

Early 109's (E model) carried 2 x 20mm MG F/F in the wings and 2 x MG17 7.92mm. Many had the nose gun removed due to overheating and vibration problems.

Later models (Gustav) used 2 x 13mm MG131 in the cowls which as USMA 2010 said is close to the .50cal(12.7mm) The MG131 had a higher muzzle velocity but did not do as much damage as a US .50cal.

MG151/15 is considered a cannon because it is based on the Mauser MG151 20mm cannon and was redesigned to fire 15mm ammo.




Ace114

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

12th November 2004

0 Uploads

25 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

I guess that explains why the .50cal Browning also damages the M10 & M36 in the sides. Even so I thought if a 12.7mm round could damage them in the side so could a 40mm Bofors round.




Daisuke Jigen

Lone Gunman

50 XP

12th June 2004

0 Uploads

285 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

Not necessarily, if the Bofors was firing fused or HE rounds...

But back on topic here, the possibility of a Vickers MG destroying a Matilda is just ridiculous unless the Matilda crew left the hatch open for some reason... :lol:




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

Anlushac11Early 109's (E model) carried 2 x 20mm MG F/F in the wings and 2 x MG17 7.92mm. Many had the nose gun removed due to overheating and vibration problems.

Later models (Gustav) used 2 x 13mm MG131 in the cowls which as USMA 2010 said is close to the .50cal(12.7mm) The MG131 had a higher muzzle velocity but did not do as much damage as a US .50cal.

MG151/15 is considered a cannon because it is based on the Mauser MG151 20mm cannon and was redesigned to fire 15mm ammo.

All my sources say it was the other way around.. the MG151/20 was designed from the MG151 (15mm)..

Also, how does this have ANYTHING to do with Vickers Mk.6 tanks killing a Matilda II?

Vickers Mk.6 had a Vickers .505 main MG (same gun as in the Matilda I) and a Vickers .303 gun (same as many other Brit MGs). The .505 can pierce the top of the turret on a Matilda II, as well as the top/back above the engine. It dosen't do much damage but it can be destroyed like this.