We all hear these stories from the media saying that the .50 can kill tanks.  I've read in a couple of posts from here and other forums that it just isn't so --- the .50 can't take out a tank.  An armored car maybe but not a tank.  And furthermore I've actually read a retraction from some news organization (don't remember who) that the .50 cannot take out a tank.

So when I read the header of the recent MSNBC news story on the .50 Cal Militia:

http://msnbc.com/news/568339.asp#BODY

================
"“MSNBC Investigates” goes deep into the heart of the militia movement with its chilling documentary, “The .50-Caliber Militia.” See how an Arizona gun dealer modified a weapon that can’t be traced, pierces armor and is capable of destroying tanks and helicopters at a range of nearly one and a half miles. Read the documentary’s script, below."
================

and I read about the part that a .50 can destroy a tank,  I started looking all over the page for an email address to tell them that they were idiots.

But I read further:

==================
      Bob Stewart: “We had a shooting club. To join you had to get a one-inch group at 300 yards with any kind of weapon. And, so we went out and bought a Barrett. And it didn’t shoot that accurate.”
      The .50-caliber was originally designed during WWI as an anti-tank weapon. It was later adapted for use as a sniper rifle. The Barrett .50-caliber, used by the U.S. military in Operation Desert Storm, is one of the most popular models available for civilian use. But Bob thought he could improve on the design. So in 1990, he began building his own version of the rifle, while still a high school teacher in Provo, Utah.
=================

Now Bob Stewart is the Maadi Griffin guy...  HE is suppose to know stuff and HE is supposedly saying this --- that the .50 was an anti-tank round.  

So my question is... was the .50 really an anti-tank round in WWI?  

I mean if it was, then hell, whenever someone says that a .50 can and had taken out tanks, then they are technically correct!  Sure the tanks were of WWI vintage, but there still tanks.      

The British had a bolt action .50 rifle, that they would use to shoot into the drivers compartment with an AP round, hoping to hit the driver of the tank.  The other part they would try to hit was the engine compartment.  

One round of AP through an engine wall or a round through the driver would incapacitate the tank temporarily.  

Hey that's a little racist statement there.
Couldn't you just say Chinese people.

Ever notice how some Chinese peoples names sound like you just took your service for 8 silverware and threw it at the wall?

I dont think so! maybe some commi crap or somthing from WW-2 but nothing modern. In waco, when the feds heard the waco-branch dudes had a .50bmg they sent the bradleys home and broght the Abrams tank. Did they seem worried? they just cruzed around without any fear. Now If any of us tried to take out a tank, lets say ours, the tank crew would spot us from about three miles away with their infared while moving at about 35mph and good bye.

Originally the .50BMG *WAS* [notice past tense] an Anti-Tank round but this was using early World War One tanks! Soon into World War One, this round was no longer effective on tanks, it is long obsolete as an Anti-Tank round AND by the Geneva Convention it is unlawful to was it as an Anti-Personnel round. It is to be used for equipment and if a human being happens to be using/operating/driving/whatever the equipment then its useage is acceptable still.

It WAS VERY misleading and IRRESPONSIBLE of MSNBC to air a story without researching the facts. But the media [except FOX] have never done us any favors!

Funny! Benny Hill said the same thing! [:D]

You won't take out the tank itself with a .50 cal, but you sure as hell can wreck their optics, the TC's machine gun (loader's, too, if it's an M1), and any exposed body parts - the driver is the one to shoot if you have the opportunity. Merely forcing the TC to drop down inside and button up will greatly restrict the crew's vision and make it easier to sneak up and disable the tank somehow (blowing a track, etc.)

misterhemi
That is a military urban legend.  There are numerous things that people think you cannot use against troop, shotguns, WP, 50 cals, etc.  But in reality you can use 50 cals against troops, there is absolutely no prohibition against it.

Wow - I've already had to correct that once on this board and thought I would again - to think a Jarhead beat me to it [:D].

Actually, I do have something to add. I had proposed a theory for the origin of this urban legend the last time. However, last week I bumped into our division's Operational Law lawyer guy (the guy in charge of advising unit commanders what is legal and what is not) and asked him if this was ever discussed in his circles. Story he tells is that there was a long period of time during Vietnam that the U.S. had a shortgae of .50 cal ammo. The order came down to not use the .50 on personnel - only on equipment. The reason was ammo conservation (soldiers were wasting .50 cal on targets easily killed with smaller guns), but the legend got started that it was somehow "unlawful." Smartasses even strted joking about how uniforms and load carrying equipment were "equipment."

This sounds plausible to me - anybody have prove or memory of this legend pre-dating Vietnam? That would kinda put his story in question.

Yeah, the MSNBC story was so tainted they didn't mention that most of the US Military .50 cal rounds are really for the M2HB and the much sought after round for the Barretts and any other light .50 cals is the rauffoss round.

I have an M2HB and using mil surplus and imported rounds the thing stucks hitting the paper in any consistent groups.

Also, check out birdmans commentary on biggerhammer ( http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/wwwboard/index.cgi?read=34108 )

it depends on the tank hell a molitav (sorry i can spell) cocktail can take out a tank. and thats just gas in a bottle with a flaming rag

here's what i just emailed to MSNBC!!!!

I've missed out on the TV version but I had read the online version. i am here to tell you it was done in poor taste. well there are a lot of honest shooter's out there the uses 50 cal weapons for sport. you do not read or here about 50's being used in crimes. 50 cal weapon is about a 30lb weapon that uses a WWI anti tank cartridge but remember back then how the armour was only 4" thick most of today's armour can withstand this type of hit. well my idea with this misinformation is that your intentions is the BAN OF ALL GUNS period. I personally thought we settled this over 200 years ago with the british but i guess that there are forces in this world today has the intention of totally disarming everyone. well do you honestly think we will give up our guns well lets just wait and see. has for my views this is poor journalism twisting word and phrases to make all gun people look like killer's and murder's. i do agree that a convicted felon should not have guns.

Remember the post of the Russian Tank or BTR getting blown up.  The press probably thought it was a sniper with a .50 cal.   Boom.  [img]www.outsourceyourproject.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Oh yes - I'm sure the media writers have the same degree of expertise toward tank vulnerability, anti-tank weaponry and the capability of the .50 BMG cartridge as they do everything else.  After all, if you hear it on TV or read it in a newspaper, it must be true, right?

Most people think that tank armor is the same overall - it isn't.  It is thickest on the forward and flank portions of turret and hull, lightest on the top of the turret and bottom of the hull.  Can a .50BMG round penetrate some of this thinner armor?  Most likely it can.  It will not cause the tank to explode or disintegrate or whatever else the media seems to believe all small arms ammunition is capable of.  If it penetrates, it will leave a .5" hole and probably mess up anything that it strikes after doing so.

In the real world, those of us who were in armor/cav/mech infantry units realize that any towelhead with the stones to do it can effect a mobility "kill" on a tank with a large log.  Once a tank is immobilized the tank crew is fundamentally like anything else in a can - just heat and serve.

VegaXK8, thanks for trying to set ChaZ straight, there is no room for that kind of thing on a public forum and I would ask the moderators to intervene.  If ChaZ wants to be an ignorant racist, thats his business.  But calling an Asian a "chink" is the same as calling a black man a "nigger".  The only chink and nigger on this board is ChaZ.

True.  Though the round is INTENDED for use against Materiel and vehicles, it is simply a matter of economy.  7>62 and 5.56 are just cheaper to use against personnel.  However, if the .50 is all you have, and Charlie(Or Abdul, or Juan, or Ivan, whoever) is in the wire, go ahead, make his day. And the Boys AT rifle was a .55 cal.