M2 50. Cal gunners

[markus544]

Has any thought been given to a guy manning the 50.cal.  Which we all know is mounted in a dumb place towards the rear of the turret on Sherman tanks..Remember Audie Murphy's standing on the rear of a burning tank destroyer blasting away at German infantry.  Or later in the war when they wised up like Creighton Abrams when he mounted a 30. cal forward of the commander station like we see today.

 

 

[Michael Emrys]

Yes, this has come up a number of times over the past couple of decades. This turns out to be a more complicated issue than it might appear though. For instance, who should this guy be? In the real war it was most often the TC I think, but I suppose it could be the loader and sometimes even a non-crewmember such as a soldier from the accompanying infantry. One reads of all sorts of things being done in the war.

Another thing is that the guy manning the MG is awfully exposed to return fire from any unsuppressed enemy within range. In real life, either the enemy was already on the ropes or it was such a desperate situation that some hero was willing to take the risk.

Michael

[MikeyD]

I've read several combat assessments that have stressed how the AA mount .50 cal on Sherman, M10, etc. was virtually useless. Its purpose was so a column of tanks could put up a fusillade of fire at attacking Stukas. No attacking Stukas, no utility. .50 cal isn't really an ideal anti-personnel weapon anyway. Its meant to be fired in bursts of only 5-7 rounds. Otherwise it rapidly heats up. I understand Ukraine had been having difficulty getting much utility out of their stockpile of heavy DShK mgs beyond suppression. They've taken to reengineering them as heavy sniper rifles with a proper shoulder stock and scope because firing them using double hand grip over open sites was pointless.

[user1000]

I think .50s are mounted on back of sherman is for  crew or regular infantry to use on march

 

wolverines road march with their turrets facing backwards so .50 can be in front

Edited January 14, 2017 by user1000

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, user1000 said:

wolverines road march with their turrets facing backwards so .50 can be in front

Many AFVs with cannon barrels that protrude far beyond the front hull march with their turrets reversed so that they don't risk banging their cannon against trees or other low hanging objects. You'll notice that many of them have a travel lock on the rear deck.

Michael

Edited January 14, 2017 by Michael Emrys

[Warts 'n' all]

10 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Many AFVs with cannon barrels that protrude far beyond the front hull march with their turrets reversed so that they don't risk banging their cannon against trees or other low hanging objects. You'll notice that many of them have a travel lock on the rear deck.

Michael

And indeed, there is a photo of Sherman VC Fireflys doing just that on the banks of the River Ourthe in the Ardennes on 4th January '45.

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

And indeed, there is a photo of Sherman VC Fireflys doing just that on the banks of the River Ourthe in the Ardennes on 4th January '45.

There are many such photos. I lost count of how many I had seen a long time ago.

Michael

[Warts 'n' all]

Oh, yes. I just like that one from Jan '45 in particular because of the snow covered trees, and the fact that it ties in with the time period that CMFB covers.

[user1000]

I see it a lot here

 

[Erwin]

Thought the TD's had a fast traverse.  This one seems slower than a Tiger.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

Thought the TD's had a fast traverse.

Nope. Hand cranked. Not sure why they did it that way. I guess it was part of the mind set that TDs were to be defensive weapons and therefore would not need fast traverse.

Michael

[Erwin]

Makes sense that turret could be slow if M10 was designed merely as a mobile AT gun.  Maybe am thinking of M18.  I recall in CM1 the TD's seemed to have quick traverse (and speed) to make up for lack of armor.  But that may have been a CM1 inaccuracy.

Why were TD's considered a failure if the concept was merely a highly mobile AT gun?   Yes. they were vulnerable from the top, but no more than a leg AT gun.

[Michael Emrys]

4 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Why were TD's considered a failure if the concept was merely a highly mobile AT gun?

Their real problem was that the circumstance they were created to deal with almost never happened by the time they were available. Namely, combatting massed German armor attacking and breaking through. I think there was one battle during Normandy where they got to do their stuff as designed. And then there was the Ardennes. And that was about it.

So then, you had thousands of these things sitting around with no mission for them, so most of the time they got used as poor man's tanks in infantry support. But they were more vulnerable than tanks in that role.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

They were not a failure. In fact they were quite successful at what they were designed to do. TDs are still used to this day although they are usually not referred to as tank destroyers anymore.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

TDs are still used to this day although they are usually not referred to as tank destroyers anymore.

I don't remember the model number and am too lazy to look it up, but back 20 years or so ago there was a vehicle on the M113 chassis that had an elevate-able launcher for TOW missiles. Would have worked firing over any moderate LOS block. Imagine driving it into a shallow ravine, raising the launcher and firing a couple of TOWs before moving out.

One could probably come up with a dozen or two more examples of post-WW II TDs, anything from jeep type vehicles mounting recoilless rifles to the same mounting your favorite brand of guided missile.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

These days the Army calls it a "mobile gun system". I liked "tank destroyer" better.

 

[JonS]

Calling that a TD is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? It comes from a completely different design philosophy that grew from a radically different doctrine.

It can kill tanks, sure, but by that logic this is an infantry support weapon:

[cool breeze]

Or a TD, right?

[Vanir Ausf B]

10 hours ago, JonS said:

Calling that a TD is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Not really. They are both anti-tank guns on a mobile platform with an emphasis on mobility and firepower over armor protection. While they were indeed intended for different purposes in actuality US WW2 TDs were rarely used doctrinally and were essentially infantry support weapons much of the time.

But if you'd prefer a more doctrinally similar platform you needn't look far. The M1134 Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle (aka TOW Stryker) is a dedicated anti-tank vehicle.

[JonS]

I'll grant you they ended up as similar designs (both the MGS and the 1134), but the design philosophy and especially the doctrine remain radically different.

I think it'd be more accurate to say the WWII TDs were a doctrinal wrong turn and dead end that sort-of wound up being a fore-runner to the MGS.

Edited January 16, 2017 by JonS

[StieliAlpha]

On 14.1.2017 at 8:32 PM, MikeyD said:

Its meant to be fired in bursts of only 5-7 rounds. Otherwise it rapidly heats up.

Heh? Any older fully automatic gun (except the WW 1 style, heavy water cooled machine guns), was supposed to be fired in short bursts only. You can't hold them on target for more than three bullets. May be different nowadays, but at least that was still true, when I got to try with the MG1, G3 or Uzi.

[Vanir Ausf B]

53 minutes ago, JonS said:

I think it'd be more accurate to say the WWII TDs were a doctrinal wrong turn and dead end that wound up being a fore-runner to the MGS.

US TDs were very successful in their intended role, but the near-destruction of the Panzerwaffe in the summer of '44 left them largely irrelevant at just the time they arrived in large numbers. The evolution of the main battle tank relegated the TD to its present niche. 

[user1000]

hand cranking isn't that big of a deal since the tank can just turn at the target anyways. Or driver turns turret at enemy via tracks

Edited January 17, 2017 by user1000

[Vergeltungswaffe]

On 1/15/2017 at 7:20 PM, Michael Emrys said:

I don't remember the model number and am too lazy to look it up, but back 20 years or so ago there was a vehicle on the M113 chassis that had an elevate-able launcher for TOW missiles. Would have worked firing over any moderate LOS block. Imagine driving it into a shallow ravine, raising the launcher and firing a couple of TOWs before moving out.

 

That would be the M901 ITV.  Always my favorite M113 variant.

[Erwin]

It was a shame that CMSF didn't sim the telescoping arm of some of these AT systems.  Made them useless deathtraps when it could have been fun to use em properly.