IMHO HPM .50 BMG gunpod is slightly too powerfull

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I killed two static PT-76 with HMP pods. In debrief PT-76 #1 took 36 .50 bmg hits. Second took 24. Both sustained critical damamge and were on fire smoking .  As great as BMG weapon is with incendiary and ball rounds, the munitionis not explosive, as far I know.  PT-76 is light recon tank, and is more heavily armored then BTR (which can be killed with .50 BMG), but it is not that lightly armored. Or .50 cal is wee bit too effective when fired from HMP pod. This is not a compaint just a personal observation.

https://fnamerica.com/products/weapon-systems/fn-m3p/

https://www.weaponsystems.net/system/1050-HH13 - HMP

[Jenrick]

Per wiki the PT-76 has a max armor thickness of 25mm.  M2 ball I believe is rated to penetrate 25mm of RHA at a a couple hundred meters.  Modern SPI/AP rounds should do a decent bit bitter, and something like SLAP rounds are a good deal better in the penetration department.  There is an "explosive" round, the MK211 Raufos (sp?) round that has a small charge.  I believe the M3 pods in game are supposed to be API, so they probably should be effective within a few hundred meters.

[Dragon1-1]

The Raufoss is really more of an incendiary, but either way, the PT-76 is pretty much made of laminated cardboard. It's around 10mm of RHA (literally, that's what the armor is made out of) on average, it protects against small arms fire and fragmentation, but not much else. Even Wikipedia notes it's not rated against .50cal. It wasn't good for much in the 50s, either, when the thing was designed. That's just what being a "light tank" entails. 

[DmitriKozlowsky]

It could be that internally to DCS, the DCS PT-76 is too volunerable. Agree it is a lightly armored light tank, but it is still a tank of sorts. Well maybe not, at least not in DCS.

[Mr_sukebe]

The 76 only has 25mm in a small number of areas and as already mentioned, its armour was only designed to stop upto 7.62mm rounds.  A .5” round is a whole different level of pain.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I swear US and Allies won't stop using .50 BMG in all its guizes for another 100 years. US Defense industry have been pitching .50 BMG replacement (still using .50 BMG ammunition) without commercial success. The proposed weapon is either too complex, too expensive, too heavy, or not light enought, or does not bring sufficient new capability. Most new applications have been in mounts , ammunition feed, ammunition type, sensors & targeting. But the core weapon is essentially John Brownning's 1919 design produced from 1921 onward. 

Any improvement in firepower and range brings weapon into autocannon territory and out of heavy machine gun class.

Hostile aliens could be landing on Earth in next 70 years, and they will blasted with .50 cal Ma Deuce, provided they don't have energy shields.

Similar issue with FN SAW and FN Mini .  THe pinnacle of 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm machine guns. They can't really be improved on, except in lighter metal alloys.

 

[DmitriKozlowsky]

The ammunition type., with respect to DCS, is only tangential , to effectiveness discussion, as we don't know, well at least I don't, as to what kind of .50 BMG round is simulated in DCS. I am assuming it is baseline ball and incendiary. If it has API mixed into sim, thats great.