M2 50. Cal gunners

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

That would be the M901 ITV.

That rings the bell. It would be interesting to use this in play.

Michael

[akd]

There were no telescoping AT systems in CMSF.  There were two recce vehicles that didn't have have their telescoping mast-mounted sensors.

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 2:32 PM, MikeyD said:

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.

If the .50 was a useless weapon, Sherman crews wouldn't have been fitting them as replacement coax machineguns at the close of the war in Europe. According to Steven Zaloga, crews would remount the .50 as a coax weapon so they could still use it without having to get out of the tank, or open the hatches.

There are also numerous examples of crews remounting the AA .50's from the rear of the turret to the front, such as mounting it in front of the loaders hatch. Yes, the weapon was intended for use as anti-aircraft protection during the march, but like all wars throughout history, if you put weapons into the hands of your soldiers, they'll figure out how to use them.

Edited January 18, 2017 by SLIM

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, SLIM said:

Yes, the weapon was intended for use as anti-aircraft protection during the march, but like all wars throughout history, if you put weapons into the hands of your soldiers, they'll figure out how to use them.

They could useful in many situations. They could chew wooden buildings to bits and even do some damage to stone or masonry ones. Likewise, they could raise hell with light armored vehicles such as halftracks and softskinned vehicles were easy meat, even at long range.

Michael

[Pak40]

On 1/15/2017 at 1:10 PM, Erwin said:

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.

Yea, the M18 and M36 have much faster traverse. As Michael mentioned the M10 turret is hand cranked. I read somewhere that it took about 2 minutes to rotate 360.

 

On 1/17/2017 at 6:39 AM, user1000 said:

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

I disagree, it's a big deal. Turning the tank definitely helps lower the time to target but it's not as good as you would think. Whenever the tank turns and then stops, the entire carriage of the vehicle will rise then dip, shaking the barrel of course. This adds time to aim on target and you always seem one step behind your enemy tank that has a faster turret traverse than you. I'm speaking from experience playing War Thunder's Ground Forces. Yes, it's a game but it does a good job illustrating these issues. If you play this game (it's free btw) and eventually get to the M10 in the U.S. ground forces tree, you will definitely feel the pain of the sloooow turret traverse of the TD.

Also, with regards to turning the M10 towards a target, the TD commander will give the order to turn towards a target that often the driver will not be able to see. So, multiple turning corrections will likely need to be made. War Thunder obviously doesn't have this issue since the player is both the driver and the gunner. So I imagine this is a bigger deal in real life than in the game.