user1000 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 Were these half-tracks supposed to have an MG-34 AA on the back for defense? The game shows the AA mount on the rear of all HTs but no gun. If this has been discussed before and I missed it disregard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy56 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 Sure, but it's not modeled in-game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1000 Posted July 26, 2019 Author Share Posted July 26, 2019 It is referred to in one of the books as a crane mount. I'm wondering if the half track carried an AA tripod on the outside that could be used externally like the US had for the .50cal. It may have been dismounted and used by the troops as well on a shorter tripod for ground fire or just carried into combat as an lmg. I couldn't find any mention in the books. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronCat60 Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Initially the halftracks were issued with two MG 34's attached to the forward and rear crane mounts. The front machine gun mount was changed to a more sturdy mount with a armor shield on the B model. I have not found any documentation as to whether or not a second machine gun was issued with the C model. If a second machine gun was not issued the most probable reason was the shortage of arms due to manufacturing being damaged by allied bombing. If I remember correctly I read some account that stated they would mount one of the lmg's from the squad in that mount if the air threat was that real. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronCat60 Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Recently a after thought occurred to me about this question. I think that the average soldier was not really keen on the idea of manning that rear machine gun position as a means of auxiliary firepower in ground combat. It entails having your back to the enemy with the upper quarter of your body exposed and and no sort of armored protection for it. The risks far outweigh the benefits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy56 Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, IronCat60 said: Recently a after thought occurred to me about this question. I think that the average soldier was not really keen on the idea of manning that rear machine gun position as a means of auxiliary firepower in ground combat. It entails having your back to the enemy with the upper quarter of your body exposed and and no sort of armored protection for it. The risks far outweigh the benefits. It's situational. If the enemy are hot on your heels, you better get shootin' with that rear MG. Edited September 5, 2019 by Frenchy56 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.