are there any heavy machine-guns that can penetrate armored tanks or vehicles?
535076
The M2 Fifty Caliber machine gun can penetrate lightly armored vehicles (APC's) at up to 2000 meters. penetration of heavily armored vehicles (tanks)has occurred when the armor is at an perpendicular angle and the target is within a short range. The 20 MM Gatling gun mounted on the Bradley Fighting vehicle can penetrate a heavily armored vehicle if the conditions are right (Similar to M2 penetration).
1058033
you are thinking of .177 caliber.  that's a bb or pellet gun.
201980
The current shortfalls are lack of long range coherence and huge power consumption.  Work to weaponize this technology has been going on for at least ten years that I know of, and it still is of very limited use.  The bomb clearing application is a fairly clever one, and actually makes use of the poor long range coherence of the beam.  The charged plasma can be projected a short distance, at which point it will try to find the lowest resistance path to ground.  Metal objects, especially ones with sharp edges, will attract this charged plasma strongly, and so hidden metal objects within close range will draw the strike to themselves.  So, for this it seems to work quite well.  It's still a large, cumbersome, and power intensive piece of equipment, however, without much record of successful use in the field.  The goal, ultimately, is to turn this sort of thing into a full scale beam weapon, but I think that's quite a ways off and possibly self-defeating.  Lasers typically convert <10%, and often <5% of the power they consume into laser light, so they're very inefficient.  The idea with LIPC is that a fairly high power laser, one powerful enough to ionize the air but not so powerful that it's particularly dangerous to armored vehicles, can be used to open an ionized channel in the air which will conduct electricity, and can then be followed by a significant current of high voltage electrons.  It's something like artificial directed lighnting.  Instead of generating a high enough voltage difference that the air spontaneously ionizes in a random branching pattern, the laser provides guidance and the plasma, which can be generated more efficiently but is difficult to control, provides the power.  It's potentially more efficient than a laser powerful enough to do serious damage, but it's still a whole lot of power and isn't likely to yield an easily portable weapon any time soon.  The current bomb finder has very limited range, and has to move very slowly in order to scan the area, and is almost as large as a tank.  So, is it practical?   If moving ten miles an hour with a vehicle that sucks down fuel at a tremendous rate is worth the tradeoff of possible hidden bombs, it makes sense, but this only makes sense for limited areas where bomb threats are especially high, and for moving especially high value troops or materials past the point.  Can it be made smaller and more efficient?  Probably, but not by much.  The technology is inherently a high power consumption device.  Lasers are not likely to get much more efficient.  Two-component mixed chemical excimers can be used to at least remove the power generation need for the laser, but then you're limited to the number of shots you can provide, whereas an electrically powered laser can be used with fairly high duty cycle and is much more suitable for the sweeping function of detecting bombs.  But, all the same, the technology does work, and can be made to work in fairly rough environments.  Lasers can be delicate machinery, true, but they've got a good history of use on the battlefield for signal use and can be made sufficiently durable.  Likewise with the electron guns used to produce the plasma.  It's a somewhat complicated device, yes, but not that much different as far as the fudamental technology than that used in plasma cutters which are widely used in industrial metal shops with good uptime.  \n\nThe real question is whether or not the system meets a real military need given the limitations of slow speed and huge power consumption.  Of course, the military has been known to spend huge amounts of money on devices and systems that are complete crap, just because they sounded cool, but if the company is to ever really be successful, they'll have to have something that has a real world usefulness.  It's not clear to me that this device, as clever as it is, really provides that.   This is going to be the real question, and the
587619
Air Assault:  Helicopter insertion as primary means of transport.\n\nAirborne:  Insertion via parachute drops from fixed wing aircraft.\n\nBoth are light infantry units.  Both will bring in vehicles (usually wheeled) via sling load (under the helicopters) or via air-drops (low level with drag chutes or higher level with conventional parachutes).  There was even an air-droppable light tank (the M551 Sheridan) which the 82nd ABN used to employ.\n\nThat is the short answer.  I've always been a heavy armor/CAV guy so units I was with don't do this as an M1 tank falling out of a moving plane is usually a bad sign.
55000
abrams 120mm.. they are made from depleted uranium which acts as a superheating element.. makes a nice tank buster.. they are not very safe however.. because they are radioactive. the people who clean those things up get very sick..
944287
yes\n\nit's the  KPV heavy machine gun ( 14. 5 mm ) it entered the service in 1949 as a infantry weapon later it became more in use as a light anti armour or anti aircraft machine gun and bullet has 2 times the energy of a classic .50 ( 12.7 mm ) round
220216
Actually, most crew served weapons (at least US) do not use DU rounds.  Only our Tanks, Bradley BFV/CFVs, and some anti-tank aircraft cannons use them.  The 50CAL uses API/APTI and SLAP-T while IF the M240 and M249 use AP, they will use a tungston core.\n\nAs for Germany, yes, they employ DU like many other countries (US, UK, China, Russia/CIS, France, and many others).  DU rounds have no equal in penetration capabilities.  The only reason people want these banned is because they give the US and its allies a decisive advantage in tank v tank fights.  Here's a hint, when a tank is destroyed, its just gone through a high end chemical reaction.  That burning hulk is full of toxic substances even if no DU was used.  So, it you see a dead tank, STAY AWAY FROM IT.\n\nDU is self sealing.  It is not toxic unless you ingest it.  The people who clean these up wear respirators to protect from every toxin, not just the DU.  As Russian/Chinese tanks are sometimes lead lined, and the fact several thousand chemicals have surpassed 3000Dec C and recombined, you can see the ammount of toxic chemicals in the area.\n\nOr you can just be like every other anti-DU useful idiot and demand the US/NATO stop using it while the Chinese and Russian armies keep right on producing millions of rounds composed of it.
955521
Sure they do.  They have tanks that even have 5-speed transmissions.  4 for Reverse and 1 for forward in case they are attacked from behind!
483918
The Churchill was a versatile tank which came in many different specialist versions including the Petard, which had a massive mortar mounted in the turret for destroying bunkers, bridgelayers, flails and flamethrowers.\n\nIn their standard tank mode however they were not designed with tank on tank engagement in mind as they were undergunned and underarmed when compared to anything bigger than a Panzer Mk4.\n\nThey were much more an infantry support and assault tank.\n\nA Sherman "Firefly" however which carried the upgraded British 76mm gun could hold its own against a Panther.\n\nTank on tank battles on the western front however were rare and hardly ever planned.
40195
For the most part, Anti Aircraft GUNS went the way of the dinosaurs during the Vietnam War.\nModern jets are just TOO FAST for a gun to work on a plane. HOWEVER the Marine Corps and Army have several excellent Anti Air guns that can be used against enemy HELICOPTERS. For information on them go to the army or marine corps pages or check out www.defenselink.mil\n\nAs for MISSILES the current Mod version of the US PATRIOT (big missle) and STINGER (hand held) \nare good A/A systems. the Patriot can even kill enemy missles.
587087
by definition a machine gun isn't handheld, but is mounted on a tripod or a vehicle.  A submachine gun uses pistol caliber in a fully automatic weapon.  a machine pistol is a fully auto pistol.  The M-16, AK-47, are assault rifles
980068
The Swedish S tank - its so quirky, looks like it means business, but whoever thought of designing a tank with a gun that doesn't move?
1074897
absolutely, the military is working on one right now for there new electric battleship (in 2011). However, a railgun doesn't use heat to accelerate a projectile and the heat is just a sideeffect. a rail gun uses two electricaly charged superconductive rails, hence the name, to creat a super strong magnetic field around the armerture to fire the slug. The slug is made from DU(depleted uranium) or tungragen so it woudn't turn into a beam. Real railguns have the distructive energy as a small nuke without the radiation and complex dilivery system. a cheap 40 kilogram (about 75 pounds) can vaporize a target 600 miles away in a few minutes. the barral volocity is many times that of a regular gun and can be as high as Mach 9
38980
I'm not sure there is any that exist, as far as what a person could carry.\nThe USAS-12 and MK3A1 Jackhammer are the best known autos. MK3A1 fires 240 rpm, which also the drum magazine can be removed and affixed to a detonator to be used as an anti personnel mine.\nThen there's the AA12 which has a rpm of 300.\nI'm no expert but I honestly don't think you'll find a 12 gauge that can fire that fast without ripping your shoulder off/extreme barrel rise. And since shotguns fire shot/fletchettes/whatever and useless at long range, I don't see any viable reason why they would make a shotgun that a person couldn't ideally use.
431430
It's called a Panzerschreck (Tank terror). It was a man-portable anti-tank shoulder fired rocket used by the Germans from 1944 to the end of the war. It was basically an improved version of the American M9 bazooka.\n\nThis should explain a little better.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerschreck
72528
TOW rocket launcher (Tube launched Optically sighted Weapon)\n\nStinger Missile\n.50 Caliber machine gun\nM16A2 rifle\nM1911 semi-automatic pistol\netc etc
668641
They make a pellet rifle that takes two of the small CO2 tanks that is very quite and has power of 22 cal rifle.  But if you are rich then a silenced rifle would be sure thing.   They are not illegal like un educated people think.   but they are expensive.  Must buy through a class 3 gun dealer and must wait for FBI background check plus pay $200 tax on the gun.   Best bet is the crossman rifle that takes the CO2 tanks but you must remember that they are power full and deadly. be sure there is nothing behind your target that you wouldn't want to hit with possible misses.