TankDawg Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 HI, Love CM and have a quick question. Why do Tanks fire their MGs at eachother? They should have little or no effect. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 suppression. It causes the other guy to button-up. Once buttoned, your tankers become blind fools, stumbling head on into anti-tank ambushes set by Wesriedau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samu01 Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 Hi, I think they do this when one of the tanks is not buttoned up, and so the tank MG'er tries to shoot anyone peeping over the top . Hope this helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 Probably because the coax MG and the main gun are ballistically matched so that when the MG fire hits, the round from the main gun will hit. Easier and faster than firing a main gun round and watch were it goes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 Think ammo to Kurtz. Check the target with the MG, which has a few thousand rounds? OR Check the target with the main gun, which has a comparatively minuscule amount. Save the big shells for the big things that yield big booms. Big, BIg, BIG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 Also, there IS a TINY chance that a lucky MG burst damages the tracks or gun optics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 I was taught this trick on the M1A1. Basically, when the laser range finder was down, we could use the .50 cal to find the range to the target...so when those T80's heard the bullets pinging off their armor, they could expect a sabot round to follow shortly thereafter Kurtz: the main gun rounds and the coax MG rounds are not ballistically matched. In fact, the ballistics of different types of main gun rounds are even quite different from each other. For example, flipping the ammo select switch on the M1 from "sabot" to "heat" results in the gun automatically elevating to compensate for the different trajectory the round must take You were on the right track though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smbutler Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 All of the above cited reasons are sound tactical explanations, but there is also an existential one as well. It is the machine gunner's expression of rage and fear directed at a visible manifestation of cosmic malevolence. To put it poetically, it is a primal--but ineffectual-- raging against the dying of the light..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 Kind of like firing your pistol at the approaching Tiger, ala SPR? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 Mannheim Tanker wrote: Kurtz: the main gun rounds and the coax MG rounds are not ballistically matched. In fact, the ballistics of different types of main gun rounds are even quite different from each other. That holds for long ranges. I'm not certain where the cut-off point is, but I'd say that up to some 500 meters the behavior is almost identical. Yesterday I stumbled upon an interesting reference about AT gun accuracy. During Winter War Finns used two models of 37mm Bofors AT gun. One model imported from Sweden and one model that was built with licence in Finland. Both guns were identical but their sights were not. Swedish-made guns had proper telescopic sights while Finnish-made guns had open sights (because of severe shortage of material). Initially, Finns thought that Finnish-made guns would be much more inaccurate. However, after a couple weeks of battles it was noticed that both guns were precisely as accurate up to ranges of 500-600 meters. In fact, the open sight was _more_ accurate than the telescopic one when firing at dusk. I think this is again one interesting data point on the debate whether German tanks should be more accurate than American tanks because they had better optics. Kind of like firing your pistol at the approaching Tiger, ala SPR? LOL! There is actually one documented case where a Soviet tank (T-26, IIRC) was turned back with pistol fire. It happened at Kollaa on February 1940. I don't remember the details right now. Also, a short while back I read about one German batallion commander who turned a Soviet T-34back with a thrown Cognac bottle... - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 .Also, a short while back I read about one German batallion commander who turned a Soviet T-34back with a thrown Cognac bottle... - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Actually, 109 Gustav, you've got it half right. According to James Michener's account in THE BRIDGE AT ANDAU, what the freedom fighters did was to set earthenware dinner plates out in the street, facedown. To the oncoming tank crew, these looked just like antitank mines, causing the driver to brake violently in order to avoid them. Unfortunately for the Russians, the Hungarians had thoughtfully lubed the patch of pavement in front of the "mines"with detergent, exactly where the tank had to hit its brakes. This caused the tank to lose traction, skid out of control and slam into/through a building. It was while the crew was stunned, disorganized, even hurt from this smash-up that the doughty freedom fighters would run out, climb quickly aboard the tank, place the Hungarian freedom fighter flag atop it, then dash away. The next Russian tank coming around the corner saw a captured tank. The result was almost as much fun as dropping Molotov cocktails into BTR-152s from the rooftops, and it didn't require any ammo expenditure--just guts! Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: The next Russian tank coming around the corner saw a captured tank. The result was almost as much fun as dropping Molotov cocktails into BTR-152s from the rooftops, and it didn't require any ammo expenditure--just guts!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Mannheim Tanker: The difference in ballistics in WW2 guns should be considerably smaller than for the M1 gun, right? But of course there is a difference. The MG could be matched for one of the ammotypes, but I´ve got a feeling the tanks always fire the MG before they fire the main gun, regardless of target type. Which makes me wonder: are the trajectories of different rounds modeled (AP having a flatter tracetory) or is it abstracted to a single trajectory for all ammo? Modeling differences that could be measured in fractions of a meter seems like a overkill, but you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts