I was playing a bit of *Call of Duty * (WWII computer game) and it got me thinking - would an average brick wall be sufficient cover from an MG-42? How long would it take to fall apart under a barage of fire?
Thanks in advance for answers.
Not very long. Clay and concrete bricks are farily brittle when subjected to impact. AP would no doubt work best but 8mm ball ammo is pretty stout and I’m sure would do the job in short order. I’m not saying it’s trivial to shoot through a brick wall but the surface will shatter and fall away exposing more surface to erode. You’d be much better off with sand bags. I’ve been told that two feet of sandbags is sufficient protection against .50 BMG. The viscosity helps the sand absorb the bullet’s energy and the only damage is to the bag which lets a little dribble out.
I read somewhere that your typical armor-piercing round of the .30 or .50 caliber variety would go completely through a wood-frame brick-veneer house. The army used to specify 40" of oak as the requirement to stop a .30-06 bullet – the .30-06 being the official round of the infrantry man from 1906 up to the Korean War in the early 1950s.
the average machine gun will tear down a two-layer brick wall in a few seconds
In the Danish army (and navy where I served) we have a slightly updated version of the MG42 (called LMG M/62), I’ve actually seen it shoot through a brick wall, mounted on a supporting holder so that the bullets hit inside a small area it didn’t take long before a hole started to appear and it quickly got larger. It’s been a few years and I didn’t time it, but I sure wouldn’t want to be covering behind the wall in question.
If I remember correctly the rate of fire for our version of the MG42 is about 1200 7.62mm rounds per minutes.
The thing is not that the machine gun is so destructive, it just that bricks offer darn little protection. Even modern, well-made bricks tend to spall under impact.
That is to say that splinters form on the inside of the surface, the side opposite the impact. Flying shards of brick are not much fun.
an intelligence officer who rose to the rank of colonel and had a top secret level clearance. However, I have a friend who is being recruited for a job at Los Alamos
and was told that the offer is contingent on him being able to qualify for a so called Q level clearance (he already has an “L” level clerance) which they said will take about six months to process. He casually remarked to me that a Q clearance is higher than a Top Secret level clearance. What’s the truth on this matter? Would my friend be entitled to see state secrets that my father would not have been qualified to see (obviously on a need to know basis). Are there other little known security clearences that are even higher?
I’ve give $20.00 dollars for an edit key. Actually, I do have a question for this thread: If you had say FIVE fifty caliber machine guns located in fortified positions with good lines of fire going up against an M1A1 Abrams what odds would you give the machine gunners of taking out the tank before the tank took out all the guns? Lets say they don’t have any anti-tank missles or even RPG (since a well placed RPG can take out a trak). Would ANY amount of 50 caliber rounds overcome the tanks armor?
A .50 BMG has zero chance of penetrating the front-arc armor of a M1-series MBT. Even the more exotic SLAP rounds and whatnot. (Though I am sure the actual chance is 0.00000000001% or something, to account for the possible, if unlikely, catastrophic flaws in that particular tanks armor)
Though if you put enough bullets in the air, some are eventually bound to hit the various vision blocks and optics, blinding the tank.
Is the tank fully loaded, or do they have to run the gunners down?
Let’s say the tank is fully loaded but the machine gun emplacements are fortified in a circle around the tank. Thus, they can fire on the rear as well as the most highly armored tand front (at least those emplacements located behind the tank can).
Now, if we give each machine gun emplacement an RPG launcher how much does that change the equation? Obviously certain munitions could be really helpful, however let’s limit our machine gunners to the kinds of equipment that your average Taliban/ or Iraqi insurgent might have access to.
The machingunners die.
Range is a major factor here. A tank does not stand still - they fly about like a wild mongoose in heat, blasting the crap out of everything that shoots back. Its not hard to hit they with, say a machine gun, but they aren’t easy to whack with an RPG. If one does hit, the crew will probably be fine unless that shot was particularly well-aimed (read: lucky).
As long as we’re going to be posting on the topic of other threads you’re participating in, I have a question.
How many Target or Walmart loss prevention employees could FIVE fifty caliber machines located in fortified positions with good lines of fire take out before the loss prevention employees took out all the guns?
Would it take 20 employees? 200? 2000?
If seven maids with seven machine guns
Shot for half a year.
Do you the Walrus said,
They could get it clear?
I doubt it said the Carpenter,
and shed a bitter tear.
Is it possible you meant 4"?
I’d rather have the 40", then ever trust 4 inches of oak.
Well, unarmed as they are, you’d be looking at more Wal Mart employees than you there are.
Nopw, against a modern infantry, this is a good situation to use a sniper, fire a longer-range weapon (possibly good place to use an RPG). Taking a fortified machine gun nest is very dangerous, but they don’t move and they can’t be that heavily armored. The marines did so countless times in WWII, under very bad conditions.