Roswell 1847
member
There were military aircraft long before Tanks appeared on the Battlefield.The ammo round was conceptualized during WWI by John Browning in response to a requirement for an anti-aircraft weapon. The ammo round itself is based on a scaled-up .30-06 Springfield design, and the machine gun was based on a scaled-up M1919/M1917 design that Browning had initially developed around 1900 (but which was not adopted by the U.S. military until 1917, hence the model designation). The new heavy machine gun, the Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun, was used heavily in aircraft, especially during World War II, though its airborne use is limited to helicopters at present. It was and still is used on the ground as well, both vehicle mounted, in fixed fortifications, and on occasion carried by infantry. The incendiary rounds were especially effective against aircraft, as were AP rounds for destroying concrete bunkers, structures, and lighter AFVs.
The development of the .50 BMG ammunition round is sometimes confused with the German 13.2 mm TuF, which was developed by Germany for an anti-tank rifle to combat British tanks during WWI. However, the development of the U.S. .50 ammo round was started before this later German project was completed or even known to the Allied countries.
First Military Airplane dates to 1909, the First Tank was used in battle in 1915 with the first claim of a Tank design dated at 1912.
http://www.50bmgsupply.com/
Wiki quotes the same as above on its page on the .50 BMG. Wiki is often contradictory.
Several larger caliber Machineguns were developed by the British during WW2 because .303 bullets could not as yet hold a reliable incendiary charge for downing Observation balloons and airships.
I've never said it would but Cassandrasdad makes a good case for it being capable of taking out the engine of a Boeing on takeoff, which usually results in a crash.going to be able to nail a Boeing
Few Airliners can even maintain alitude with one engine out, and complete loss of power to one engine on takeoff is a major factor in aircrashes.
As C pointed out the intake of modern jet engines are huge.
We have had Jet Turbine manufacturers in or community, not sure if they are still in business. The turbine blades are manufactured seperatly and attached to the hubs. If one breaks off a cascade effect chews the engine to pieces in seconds.
As Combat reports from Nam and Afghanistan have shown hitting a Chopper with ground fire is not that difficult, as Mogadishu proved even a RPG can hit a vital spot if the Chopper is hovering at low altitude.
Some years back a video of a Jihadi firing an RPG from a rooftop at an American Chopper was shown on the News. He was within spitting distance because the Chopper had to get down on the deck to do its job in that city.
Many kills of Soviet Choppers were made possible because the surrounding mountains were often higher than the Chopper could fly with a full load. There are places like that here in Tennessee, in fact I own a piece of one.
I haven't flown as a pilot for more than thirty years but I remember enough about aircraft construction to state with confidence that no civilian aircraft is invulnerable to .50 BMG within its extremly long effective range.
Someone earlier said all aircraft had triple redundancy. The Planes I flew had two magnetos, you tested each during run up by turning the other off, when you did RPM dropped alarmingly, thats the extent of redundancy on most Civilian aircraft. Over confidence in the manufacturer's claims has killed a lot of pilots, that goes for military pilots as well.
I've also put more rounds of more different calibers through more vehicles than the vast majority of the members of this forum likely including a few of the veteran machinegunners.
I know what bullets can and cannot do to a wide variety of alloys, both cast and sheet metals, including high strength magnesium aircraft alloys and stainless steel structural members.
On an individual basis if a young gun owner told me that his .22LR was no more deadly than his BB gun because you could kill a songbird with either, I'd doubt that he had the maturity and intelligence to be trusted to own either. I'd have to figure he was an overgrown child that knew next to nothing about either.
Last edited: