Not just Japanese AFV. Lots of light/early war AFV should be vulnerable to 0.50 caliber AP rounds.

This is a good addition to my proposed damage model where you have an intermediate "damaged" stage for AFV.

Projectile size is a pretty good substitute for complex math about shell composition, angle of attack, fragmentation, fuse reliability and all the rest of it when determining whether a hit does no practical damage, serious damage or kills a vehicle.

Or an explosive or incendiary round.

Is this the same "Stuka Pilot" written by the guy that didn't even know that his aircraft used a dive siren?
If Rudel didn't understand something so basic about the operation of the aircraft that made him famous why would you consider anything else he wrote to be entirely factual?

What are you referring too?

You haven't read Rudel's book?
He states that the Stuka did not have a siren and that the noise was simply a result of air passing through the dive brakes.

Don't know which Stuka he was speaking of(only B models had sirens), couldn't find that passage either(Ballatine pdf Version).
Do you know the page number or can you narrow it down a bit?

It doesn't matter which model he was speaking of, his claim is that the dive scream was not deliberately generated by a siren, which we all know was indeed a siren.
I don't have the book handy but if you have it in PDF try searching it for references to the siren.
I thought the sirens were installed more by date than by model? Weren't D's also fitted with the siren early on alongside the B's? I know when the D's were converted to G's the sirens were removed as they weren't dive bombers.

Many veteran authors make many mistakes in their technical accounts. I've red at least a few books that mention 30mm cannons when they really mean 20mm cannons for example. That's just about their own equipment. Then you have them talking about what the enemy uses and that gets even less accurate... but that's easy enough to chalk up to the fog of war.

I think veteran accounts are important pieces of first hand historical research but they don't always make for the best place to gather technical details. It doesn't invalidate the research but it does mean that you have to look in many places for the best answer.

Yes, that is my point when it comes to offering it as evidence to support "brewing up tanks with 20mm cannon fire". I'm sure it's easy enough to achieve, but "Stuka Pilot" is not the reference to be looking at.
If the man that made the aircraft world famous, and reknown for its screaming dive, didn't understand how it worked, or deliberately denied the system while knowing otherwise, it certainly taints anything else he offers as factual data.
The book is a good read, but it is far from factual and is certainly tainted by his own political agenda.

I don't remember Rudel making such mistake about the sirens, but then again it's been a while since I read the book. I do remember that he misremembered some Soviet plane designations though. It's still a great book, I had some great laughs reading it (not because of the content or errors, but emotion and style)!

Stuka Pilot pdf

Sorry, still cant find any reference to sirens.

Actually he only made the G famous, that was the one he was involved in the development.
That's probably the only plane you should trust him when it comes to specs.