"Could a U.S. 50 cal. destroy a Puma?" Topic

So, it's a bit of a technical question. In a Bolt Action game, a Sherman fired it's main gun at a Puma's side armor and missed. Then the 50 cal. machine gun opened up and pierced the armor and destroyed the vehicle. In other rules sets I have played that would be extremely unlikely or impossible. Tires destroyed and vehicle immobilized, definitely would be possible. However, I protested at the game that the result was completely unrealistic, the other players and judges ignored my protest and moved on. Was I correct and it was very unlikely/impossible, or was it usual for a 50 cal. to pierce that armor thickness and destroy a Puma? Thoughts and guesses ladies and gentlemen:

I doubt it, plus, given the distances civilian cars run on blown out tires in CA freeway chases, they could still keep running for a bit, albeit not very well.

Presumably, the tires have stuff in them to keep them from going flat, and are much thicker than ordinary tires too.

Unless they get a lucky hit on a gas tank, I assume the best you could do would be to reduce mobility considerably.

They were originally designed for anti-armor work – similar to an anti-tank rifle.

Side armor of a Puma is 8mm. The penetration of a .50 cal firing armor-piercing at 500 yards is given as 19mm, at 1,200 yards it's 10mm (source: link). So the answer seems to be yes, it could happen. The .50 was orginally designed as an AT weapon, so taking out an armored car doesn't seem like a stretch to me.

The Puma: Armor 9-30 mm (.35-1.18 in)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SdKfz_234

All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875 inches (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m) and 0.75 inches (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m)
link

So, even discounting the psychological factors, the M2 Browning .50 Cal could still penetrate some of the armor of the Puma.

I agree with Mserin. Even in the 1970s-80s, a .50 cal would take out enemy APCs. i was the 1st Cav safety officer and was called to a live fire excercise. A APC had gotten out of line and was brewed up by .50 cals from other APCs and tanks. All of the crew and infantry inside were wounded or killed. The bullets went in one side and out the other.

The .50 Cal is given mystical powers by all and sundry. It's just a big machine gun, folks! I know members of the Canadian Forces who swear it would kill a Sherman 'cause they'd seen it on the ranges at Camp Borden. Well, a few years later I saw the target vehicles on the ranges at Camp Borden, … they were M1917 Six-ton tanks, or the U.S. built version of the Renault FT! Purchased by Canada in 1940 as training vehicles. After sitting out in the weather for seventy years I'd say an air rifle would penetrate them!

While most tankers would not want to be shot up by anything ( smashes lights, rips up stowed gear, breaks antennae) I don't think a .50 cal would " kill " a Puma. External damage only, maybe flat tires.

I suspect the Puma's armor would be sloped as well, doubling or trebling its effective protection, depending upon the angle of impact.

10mm side and rear armor (as listed in the wiki link), at 25 degrees of slope almost doubles its effectiveness (need a 30 degree slope to do that, if I recall correctly).

In addition, those flat, metal, side wheel covers probably act like spaced armor as well, slowing, and/or deflecting bullets that don't impact at precisely 90 degrees to the vertical on them.

Enging, fuel, and ammo will be on the inside, protected by the armor.

This seems easy, what is the thickness of side armor of a Puma (my book which would tell me is ou in my other building and its cold and dark and I'm toasty right here). But my guess is it would go through like butter. Next question does it matter where the round hit to totally put it out of action? Fuel or Ammo storage most likely, Engine compartment next, crew one or two but not totally out.

Yeah, I've heard of guys taking out BRDMs in Desert Storm with .50 HMGs. I don't remember where I heard that, but I've heard it. I believe that the BRDM has armor much like a Puma.

Wikipedia says this:

Ammunition
There are several different types of ammunition used in the M2HB and AN aircraft guns. From World War II through the Vietnam War, the big Browning was used with standard ball, armor-piercing (AP), armor-piercing incendiary (API), and armor-piercing incendiary tracer (APIT) rounds. All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875 inches (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m) and 0.75 inches (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m).[25] The API and APIT rounds left a flash, report, and smoke on contact, useful in detecting strikes on enemy targets; they were primarily intended to incapacitate thin-skinned and lightly armored vehicles and aircraft, while igniting their fuel tanks.[26]

That sounds right to me. I was a tanker back in the 90's and we were told that the M2HB could defeat the armor of most light AFVs head on and it could defeat the side or rear armor of many IFVs as well. You just have to get in close. I can imagine that the .50 is absolute murder on a light vehicle. It spends most of its energy piercing the armor then it bounces around inside the crew compartment, not pretty. Worse still, Ma-Deuce shoots 400+ per minutes. Squirt a light AFV for a second or two…. ouch.

I saw a 50 cal bullet pass through a piece of 1" ship steel at 500 yards, sideways.

I'd say that within 500 yds a 50 cal would make a mess of it.

Whereas most nations went for a large calibre rifle for AT use, the US army choose a large machine-gun that had similar fire power to contemporary AT rifles, but with a much higher rate of fire.

so the commander got out of his turret to fire the 50 cal leaving the gunner and loader inside to fire the 75mm?

While a single round might only have a very small chance of damaging the Puma when you start pouring on the fire from a 50 cal those small probabilities add up quickly.

Umm, sounds like I was wrong. Yes, Cardinal Hawkwood, the commander would have to pop the top and fire the 50 cal., but we Germans were too dense to call that and take advantage by shooting him up. Oh well, next time.

he would have to more than pop the top, he would have to clamber out and the usual practice was to stand on the engine deck and blaze away.. pictures suggest a lot of aiming wasn't going on..he may be able to fire the weapon from with the vehuchle if he was shooting at a steep angle.It was essentially there as an AA gun. To clamber out and expose oneself, whilst any number of people were shooting at one rather goes against the idea of riding around in a tank.
this might be from Band of Brothers

and this one is for real

caption reads
"Sherman tank in France. The tank commander has dismounted to use the .50 on enemy infantry across a river. (US Army photo)"
and while the 50 could swing round on the cupola ring it would seem that one would need to get out to take a shot with any chance of hitting anything but a stuka diving from directly above

.50 caliber machine guns are pretty destructive--there are some interesting youtube videos of a Japanese destroyer being shot up by .50 caliber fire. You can see assorted pieces of the ship getting shot off.

I'm pretty sure that a Puma would suffer heavy damage from .50 caliber fire. On the other hand, the usage described seems pretty "gamey" and unrealistic.

They were designed for anti armour in WWI

yes you would have to actually hit it, which might be the problem

Cardinal, thanks for sharing those great photos! Very cool!

this might be from Band of Brothers

It is.

YouTube link

7:07 mark.

and while nothing to do with HMGs I like this picture

I am wondering if the top photo is a .30 cal? The second photo is definately a .50

I don't have my book handy, but I think the rule is that a tank can fire either the main gun or the turret coax, but not both in the same turn. I also think the .50 cal is only for AA, but could be wrong about this. In any case you can only choose to fire ONE of those weapons on the turret plus the hull coax. So you got hosed rules wise because the hull weapon is a .30 cal which wouldn't do jack. However we did learn that a .50 cal could damage a puma.

LAPD don't use .50's in freeway chases too often :)

Everyone seems to be missing the point that Pumas are recon vehicles, aren't meant to fight tanks, and don't belong in Sherman country in the first place…..

Not to hijack this thread…(I agree the .50 cal would do damage to the Puma) but the picture posted by the Cardinal is a perfect example of why 1:56 is the wrong scale for 28mm figures. If you take a 28mm figure, Artizan or Crusader for example, not on a base, and put it next to the 1:56th scale Sherman, like the picture, you'll find the head of the figure is above the highest point of the side armor. Do the same with a 1:48th scale Sherman and it will be more like the picture.

Now we can't know just how tall each of the members of the squad in the picture is…seems to me that the 2nd and 6th figures from the right are short men. The 1st and 3rd men appear to be the tallest.

db

link

I am wondering if the top photo is a .30 cal? The second photo is definately a .50

Top one is a 50 as well.

The .50 Cal is always the first thing I notice on M10s,M24s,M36s and M8 ACs.And of course the good ole halftrack.

link

link

link

link
link

Robert

Impact angle would have a significant effect on that penetration.

I would also imagine that the TC would not be firing at cyclic rates. Although I suppose that if you consider the MG out of action thereafter, he could.

Theoretical penetrations tend to get overemphasized in gaming.

British CVR(T) reconnaissance vehicles, with similar levels of protection, were knocked out in the Gulf War by both US M2 and Iraqi DShK .50 Cal fire.

So yes, it could.

See this link, the bottom give penetration figures.

link

Tgunner: "Yeah, I've heard of guys taking out BRDMs in Desert Storm with .50 HMGs."

Desert Storm Vet with Task Force Ripper, 1st Combat Engineers, 1st MarDiv, I can second this.

.50cal BMG is a frighteningly powerful round.

While I'm not sure that the tank commander would have jumped up and left his gunner/loader to engage the Puma in the first place, please remember that a single box/belt of .50cal is 110 rounds. dumping a quarter of the belt (a 3-5 second burst) into the Puma's side armor would likely brew it up.

I agree, that pic I posted could be a doctoral thesis all in its own right..however..or whatever.. I would like a section of 20mm blokes modeled on these fellas

Bolt Action Rules.

All weapons on a vehicle can fire every turn. Only exception is a coax MG mounted coaxially with a main gun (turret or hull for stug types).

The 50 cal option on a sherman is a "Pintle AA" mount which is allowed to be fired at ground targets or AA and can be fired in same turn as the main gun.

Whilst this is a bit of an abstraction, that's the way the rules play, they have a lot of abstractions to make them fun and fast.

Remember all armoured cars are rated as 7+ armour in bolt action some of these are heavier than others. So whilst some heavy armoured cars are a little under valued armour wise, a few light armoured cars are probably over rated.

It is just a case of how much abstraction and simplification are you prepared to tolerate in your game. I prefer the lighter beer and pretzels bolt action type rules, but the more sophisticated and complex rules have a place as well. You pays your money and makes your choice.

Andy

Well there are plenty of pics showing modified Shermans in late 44/early 45 with various MG positions mounted in front of the turret hatches to allow ground fire while still inside the turret.

Given a report I have of an M16 HT chewing up a couple of armoured cars with its quad .50s, Id imagine a Puma would beat a hasty retreat when blatted with a 50. I suspect most things would think twice…

At close range (< 100m) you could probably knock out a Puma or any other lightly armoured vehicle from the side with a .30 cal, let alone a .50.

I have read somewhere that you can even take out 'modern' BMPs with a 50 Cal.

Hallo,
My grandfather was commander of a Puma for a short time in in 44. He told me many times of the fate of this PSW. As they got the command to attack the diver stepped on the gas pedal and not releasing the clutch fully so burning the gearbox withhin some seconds…. End of the proud PUMA.

But doctrinwise would a 50. Not considered armourpircing which means that incase it would be used against a german vehicle the crew would stay in the tank and take it out asap. This means even if it is amourpiecing and could penetrate the puma in some places…. You better hurry up because you will get a 7,5 cm in return within 1-2 seconds after spotting.

Greetings and have fun

I would think RudyNelson's example above pretty much settles it. 50 cal can take out light armor.

I agree about the 50 Cal chewing up light armour. The weapon is that good its still in service in a modified form with the US army.

Remember a PUMA is a reccy machine and shouldn't really be getting invovled in heavy fighting . That wasn't its role.

Martin, with AP the .30 cal should.

Possibly even with just a steel cored or heavily jacketed FMJ.

Fired some surplus light ball LPS 7.62x54r at a piece of approx 3/8in hardened plate (blade cutting edge/liner plate). Plate was rusty and the impacts left minor dimples with surrounding halos. Three of the four impacts lined up horizontally and there appeared to be a surface crack along that line. Hadn't examined the plate closely enough before firing to be able to say that the crack was new. If it was 8mm is a bit thinner than 3/8in and repeated impacts in a small area could cause failure even without a hardened penetrator.

Kicker of course is where the penetration occurs and how many rounds get through. Not vital area one .30 cal bullet just bounces around a little inside (depending on remaining velocity).

A comment on the above about aiming. I have fired a 50 cal numerous times. Most often we would look over the barrel and walk the rounds on target using the tracers and impact of the round to zero in on the target. You can tell where it is hitting easily out to 500 meter or more.

VR
James Mattes

Gamers usually suffer from absolute thinking. They see a tank/AFV and go – bulletproof. Well – sure for small arms. But MGs could and did harm light AFVs quite easily. They still do.

The .50 cal is a very heavy calibre machine gun. The bullet has several times the weight of a .30 cal round, a longer barrel etc. It could easily have messed up a Puma at moderate range….It wouldn't be automatic but it should certainly have a reasonable chance.

But – I think use of the AA gun versus ground targets was rare. Maybe used from a very safe distance but in fluid combat situations I can't see a TC getting out and standing on the deck to fire at a Puma. He'd busy himself directing the gunner/loader to fire the main armament again and not miss this time…

But the Puma has a 5cm gun, which can really mess up a sherman too, and several instances can be found of TC's using the .50 cal., as well as armored infantry. Don't ask for references, as I really don't want to dig through my 20 or so books on combat in the ETO to find them.

My suggestion is to just modify your interpretation of the game's "vehicle destroyed" result. Don't assume the game says the vehicle explodes in a fireball. Maybe the shots just took out the tires and prompted the crew to bail out, thus rendering the vehicle combat ineffective for the remainder of the game.

That's essentially what happened to one of the CVR(T)s shot up in Iraq by a US vehicle. IIRC, the .50 knocked bloody great chunks out of the armour and killed the driver (and I think at least one other crew member), as well as doing fatal damage to the engine. No brew-up, but the vehicle was still knocked out.

Skarper 08 Nov 2012 7:45 a.m. PST
…But – I think use of the AA gun versus ground targets was rare.

Not so my father was in Germany in 44/45 in an anti artillery unit and he said he engaged more ground troops and vehicles (everything from a truck to a tank) more than anti aircraft. His outfit was involved in the Battle of the Bulge as a direct fire support.

link

VR
James Mattes