John Kettler Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 (edited) In reading Zaloga's generally excellent Armored Thunderbolt, which really gets into all sorts of matters Sherman not covered well in the past, I have noticed, not only that Shermans with forward mounted .50 cal MGs are rarer than hen's teeth, but for there even to be a Ma Deuce installed on most of the tanks shown in all sorts of different ETO combat locations, dates and in an array of different units. This is true regardless of basic type (cast or welded), powerplant, main gun, etc. If you ignore the dust jacket photo of an Easy Eight with a Ma Deuce in front of the TC as being highly atypical of the images in the book, there's hardly a photo to be found in the book proper of that configuration or any .50 cal. HMG at all. Speaking from the perspective of someone who got hosed down wholesale with .50 cal. fire in "Barkmann's Corner" in a scenario in which, as best I could tell, all the tanks had forward mounted .50s (sure looked that way based on where the tracer lines were coming from), I find myself more than a bit perplexed by my CM experience vs. dozens and dozens of photos in Zaloga's book showing Shermans, in combat zones all over the place both spatially and temporally, in some cases, in active combat, with nary a Ma Deuce to be seen, still less one forward mounted. Offhand, if we may consider Zaloga's pics to be remotely representative of battlefield reality, it seems to me there's a lot of HMG firepower loose on the CM battlefields which wasn't present on the real ones. I well remember the bitter arguments over HMG placement, but am now wodering whether the arguement shouldn't have instead been over simple presence, never mind positioning! Shall be most interested to see what sorts of replies I get. Regards, John Kettler Edited February 9, 2018 by John Kettler 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 (edited) Most of the Sherman photos I have see have the HMG, albeit in the rearward mounting. I think it was kind of late in the war before it was widely realized that it could be useful against ground targets. Added: And wasn't needed against aircraft. Michael Edited February 9, 2018 by Michael Emrys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 9, 2018 Author Share Posted February 9, 2018 Michael Emrys, It may be a statistical fluke that the Ma Deuce is hardly to be seen in Zaloga's book, but I found its near total absence jarring. Also, I need to write better OP titles. Not many eyes on this one! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 (edited) How many times do I have to explain the same thing on one forum? There is no such thing as a forward mounting or a rearward mounting on the VAST MAJORITY of Shermans.....The circular surround of the split-hatch commander's cupola (also later used as a loader's hatch on some 76mm T-23 turrets) which supports the .50cal pintle mount rotates through 3600. There is also a stowage position for the gun at the rear of the turret, it was usually covered by a tarp when stowed, so its presence might not be apparent to someone who doesn't know what they are looking at. This Sherman has both a .50cal and a 3600 MG mount: Can you see them? Edited February 9, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Took a while to find a 75mm tank with a stowed gun.....But here you go, same deal, both a .50cal and a 3600 MG mount: Can you see them now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 (edited) This makes the stowage position pretty clear (but note that while these tanks clearly have the stowed gun they also have all round vision cupolas, which means they probably did not have a 3600 AA MG mount as I shall explain a little later in this post): As for the 3600 AA MG mount, this may help (76mm T-23), notice the position of the mg & orientation of the hatches (labelled 'REVOLVING HATCH DOOR') and compare with the winter camo example in the first picture, also note the stowage pintle at the rear of the turret labelled 'CAL .50 MOUNT': Some more examples showing the cupola rotated to various angles (on a few varieties of Sherman, but it works the same on all of them): The exception to this rule comes generally with the late war variants with a true all round vision cupola and oval loader's hatch.....This is the sole arrangement with a fixed pintle that I can think of off the top of my head (I should add that the same goes for both 75mm & 76mm turrets with this hatch configuration) : However 76mm T-23 turrets produced even later in the run replaced the oval loader's hatch with the older cupola and thus the 3600 mount returns: Hope this finally clears things up. Edited February 9, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 .50 cal is an AA self-defense weapon. The turret rear pintle mounts on M10, M36, *late* Sherman and even Greyhounds were judged all but useless in ground combat. That's why field depots started welding truck ring mounts onto Greyhound turrets in NW Europe. After reaching Germany the army went modification crazy on its vehicles. That's where you see ladders welded to Sherman rears, extra armor added, and placement of MG mounts moved. These all had to be officially sanctioned. A TC couldn't take a welding torch to his tank and relocate the MG mount. His commander would have skinned him alive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 No argument with that @MikeyD, indeed I suspect more than a few Shermans that already had 3600 AA Mounts may have received extra guns at more or less the same time, I've certainly seen several Shermans with both a .50cal and a .30cal, but I couldn't tell you what their specific turret configurations were without checking. Not sure what level these modifications would be authorised at, but I know a man who would be, so I'll ask him when I get a chance.....My guess would be battalion maybe with companies or even platoons adopting a particular modification strategy, but that is only a guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 (edited) As a motorcyclist with 3 bikes there is a certain proportion of owners that have a propensity for modding their bikes - some don't and adhere / revere factory standard - but on forums at least, modding (mechanically / cosmetically) is a fashion that grows from acorns and spreads like wildfire (even between different model cliques) admittedly without any overiding authority forbidding it (unless it's Switzerland). Then in turn factories pick up on these fashions and turn out bikes reflecting what''s happening on the street ( as well as on developments made on race tracks). While typing the above, it also brings to mind, gamers compulsively modding CM ;-) Imagine same thing happened in days past with boys and their splodey toys... Edited February 9, 2018 by Wicky 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 22 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: This makes the stowage position pretty clear (but note that while these tanks clearly have the stowed gun they also have all round vision cupolas, which means they probably did not have a 3600 AA MG mount as I shall explain a little later in this post): As for the 3600 AA MG mount, this may help (76mm T-23), notice the position of the mg & orientation of the hatches (labelled 'REVOLVING HATCH DOOR') and compare with the winter camo example in the first picture, also note the stowage pintle at the rear of the turret labelled 'CAL .50 MOUNT': Some more examples showing the cupola rotated to various angles (on a few varieties of Sherman, but it works the same on all of them): The exception to this rule comes generally with the late war variants with a true all round vision cupola and oval loader's hatch.....This is the sole arrangement with a fixed pintle that I can think of off the top of my head (I should add that the same goes for both 75mm & 76mm turrets with this hatch configuration) : However 76mm T-23 turrets produced even later in the run replaced the oval loader's hatch with the older cupola and thus the 3600 mount returns: Hope this finally clears things up. Nice pics. Thanks for posting these. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Will this have an impact on CM? Maybe change it so that "rear facing" versions are turned into normal ones? Or maybe take away the 50cals from most Shermans, as it seems they were rarely mounted in combat, but stowed on the back? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 The first step would be to look at the turrets of all Sherman varieties across all dates. In-game, that is. And, looking at them, see if there are discrepancies between what should be vs. what is. Defining "what should be" would be the next step. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 (edited) I don't see a need to change anything, the actual frequency of use of the .50cal in game just doesn't warrant the extra modelling IMHO, plus it's bloody awkward.....at the moment I'm building these mid-production(ish) M4A1s: You can probably make out that the pintle on the cupola is rotated to the front on all three turrets.....Squeezing both a crewman and a .50cal into that space is going to be a royal pain in the rear (so two will be buttoned, but I always leave the platoon CO opened up)! Edited February 11, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jack Ripper Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 22 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: Will this have an impact on CM? Maybe change it so that "rear facing" versions are turned into normal ones? Or maybe take away the 50cals from most Shermans, as it seems they were rarely mounted in combat, but stowed on the back? I think everything is fine the way it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadepm Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 This how you're supposed to use them... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin2k Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: I don't see a need to change anything, the actual frequency of use of the .50cal in game just doesn't warrant the extra modelling IMHO, plus it's bloody awkward.....at the moment I'm building these mid-production(ish) M4A1s: [image] You can probably make out that the pintle on the cupola is rotated to the front on all three turrets.....Squeezing both a crewman and a .50cal into that space is going to be a royal pain in the rear (so two will be buttoned, but I always leave the platoon CO opened up)! Interesting. Are these 1/72 Unimodel kits? I have a couple of Dragon 1/72 shermans in the works, very slow progress though: M4 + M4A1-76W + M4A3-76W + Firefly Ic. For decades there were hardly any decent shermans in this scale, but all is well now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 1 minute ago, Kevin2k said: Interesting. Are these 1/72 Unimodel kits? Yeah, those are the ones.....You can find my build thread here: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235031277-sgtsquareheads-shermanicus-genericus/ If modelling is your thing and you are not already a member, I'd recommend joining BM.....That way we can discuss stuff like this in detail without derailing threads here too badly. If you bought Dragon when they were new, you made a very good investment, some of the better kits fetch £40 plus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin2k Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 30 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: If modelling is your thing and you are not already a member, I'd recommend joining BM..... Thanks for the tip, I will consider that. So far I just lurk a bIt on Network 54 braille-scale forum and onthewaymodels.com. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 I post at ML Braille Scale DG under this ID too.....If you know OTW! you will already be familiar with Henk's site, so you are probably about as well equipped as you could be. I use BM for the atmosphere, it's a proper friendly Gentlemens' Club sort of a forum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 (edited) Someone else will need to tell us the exact model/s used in this Battle of Bloody Gulch (had forgotten how intense that was) scene from "Band of Brothers," but note well how the .50s are mounted and employed at 7:05, 7:39, and continuing. If the Ma Deuces can be simply rotated forward while staying in the turret and engaging that way, then why are there crewmen outside of the turrets and behind them? I haven't read the book, but so can't comment on what's said there about this. Also, from what I recall reading, the film had top period experts involved throughout. Seems to me that putting the Ma Deuce operators on the engine decks would be about as counterintuitive as it gets if all that had to be done was rotate the mount forward and fight while ensconced inside the turret but unbuttoned. Audie Murphy did the same thing in his MoH action at Holtzwihr, Belgium. He had no choice but to fight from there, for the M10 was dead and the .50 mount was to the turret rear. Regards, John Kettler Edited February 11, 2018 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadepm Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 On 2/10/2018 at 11:46 AM, Bulletpoint said: Will this have an impact on CM? Maybe change it so that "rear facing" versions are turned into normal ones? Or maybe take away the 50cals from most Shermans, as it seems they were rarely mounted in combat, but stowed on the back? If they were stowed for combat when did they bring them out? Parades? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 6 hours ago, wadepm said: This how you're supposed to use them... Only if you are fighting in Hollywood. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadepm Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 Or you're Audie Murphy... http://www.knox.army.mil/associated/samc/moh.aspx 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said: Only if you are fighting in Hollywood. 12 minutes ago, wadepm said: Or you're Audie Murphy... http://www.knox.army.mil/associated/samc/moh.aspx What if you're Audie Murphy...fighting in Hollywood??? (Because that's him in the screenshot, for those that didn't know. He played himself in the Hollywood movie about his actions.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 On 2/9/2018 at 12:51 AM, John Kettler said: Michael Emrys, It may be a statistical fluke that the Ma Deuce is hardly to be seen in Zaloga's book, but I found its near total absence jarring. Also, I need to write better OP titles. Not many eyes on this one! Regards, John Kettler Plenty of .50s mounted in the Zaloga's Armored Attack 1944 and Armored Victory 1945. Not a careful analysis, but I'd guess half or more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.