CM:AK and beyond: Tank AA MGs

[dalem]

A few months ago there was a nice thread on the BO forum specifically regarding the turret-mounted AA MGs on U.S. tanks. With the Yanks specifically, and more Shermans in general, coming again in CM:AK, I thought I'd try to start a discussion. So, my thesis?

1. I believe that the .50 caliber AA mounts on most models of U.S. Shermans are overly effective in the game. EDIT: against ground troops. END EDIT

2. If I am correct about #1 above, then it's possible that the general behavior of all AA MGs could possibly use some study.

Points that help convince me (any or all of which I could be mistaken about):

- Belief: in the game, AA MGs seem to fire "quite often" (nice vague non-quantifier) when the vehicle is unbuttoned.

- Belief: in the game, the AA MGs seem to be "fairly effective".

- Fact: most factory standard WWII U.S. Sherman .50cal mounts were post mounted in between the loader/commander hatches, or at the extreme rear of the turret.

- Fact: because of the mounting arrangement it would be almost impossible to fire the Sherman .50cal outside of very limited arcs while remaining, even partially, inside the turret.

- Belief: I believe that a firer actually standing on the deck (a la Kelly's Heroes and some few (2?) authentic pictures I've seen) could fire the Sherman .50cal well enough.

- Belief/Fact: similar MG arrangements on the U.S. M-10, where the post mount is at the rear of the turret, led to field modified mounts of the .50cal and some .30cals, at the front of the turret. Even with an open turret, the rear-mounting was judged insufficient.

- Belief: the pulpit mount on the M7 Priest and the ring mounts on the M3A1 HT and M18 and M36 TDs, were more effective than the post mount turret top of the M4 Sherman, and the rear post mount of the M10 TD.

Anyway.

The extensive (but not exhaustive) reading I've done on the U.S. Army in WWII leads me to believe that the Sherman's AA mount was intended for use almost exclusively in march columns - it's perfectly fine as an AA MG if someone is outside of the turret, as is quite acceptable on a long road march. Since the initial M4 design was finalized while the Germans still owned the skies, it got a .50cal mounted on the turret just like any vehicle bigger than a Red Ryder wagon got one mounted on it somewhere, even some trucks.

So even if my conclusions are accurate, are they relevant? Can the current or future CM engine keep track of things like "tank rider hero MG firers"? Very restricted firing arcs if fired by a TC commander? Can Madmatt & Steve & Charles and Moon deal with the irate squeaks of players (possibly even myself) if they decide "screw it - they just won't use 'em on ground targets"?

Anyone interested in this topic?

-dale

[ June 30, 2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[illo]

AA MGs would be also fairly ineffective against bombing/divebombing attack aircraft. Those did their drops well outside 50cal AAMGs effective range (i believe it to be around 600-800m). Bomb drops were often made from steep dive at around 1-2km altitude.

If attacking aircraft were strafing AAMGs would have effect, mainly psychological though. I doubt than many kills were made by shooting aircraft from ground with machinegun. One would need a lucky hit to vulnerable part like radiator or pilot. Massed machinegun fire from tens of weapons would surely be dangerous to low flying aircraft. 20-40mm autocannons would be much more effective since they would need just one or few hits to cripple attacking fighter. MG rounds generally just put neat hole in airframe and fly through where explosive cannon rounds would rip off and tear surfaces.

[ June 30, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: illo ]

[Soddball]

I remember in Kelly's Heroes that Kelly was on the back of Oddball's tank with the .50 cal.

Is that useful? I saw it in a film, so it must be true.

[Ex Bellator]

I'm interested, especially after exchanging a few posts with uber-grog Mr D himself on the subject which may have been in the thread you reffered to.

You are right, AFAIK a Sherman's AA .50cal could only be fired by standing on the rear deck, and there are several pics of it being done (Mr D has posted at least one before). You would think that clambering out of the turret and standing on the deck would be suicide, I believe it would be so in a battle of CM proportions (ie. usually close range and white hot).

I could imagine it being fired from a static position where enemy locations were known from previous recon. However, I have problems with it being used in your average CM situation. At minimum it would take some time for the commander to get out, I assume he would not be able to stay in contact with his crew, the tank probably should not be moving at any real speed, and any type of incoming fire should have an excellent chance of causing a casualty and 'shocked' result.

I don't know if any of that can or should be programmed, so would probably just recommend dropping the .50 cal from the unit data to make it more realistic. Meanwhile, I will watch this thread with interest for input from the more learned and wise.

[SgtMuhammed]

One thing to remember about the effectivness of AAMGs isn't so much their ability to hit but their ability to put things into the air. Studies have shown that if you fill the air with tracers and flak it greatly decreases the effectivness of the enemy aircraft even if you don't hit anything. Even today troops under direct air attack are trained to respond by firing as much volume as possible into the path of the enemy aircraft. No one really expects Snuffy with his M16 to shoot down an attack bird but you sure can make the pilot wish he were someplace else.

[dalem]

Edited my original post to explicitly state I mean to be discussing AA MG effectiveness against ground troops only.

-dale

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by Rex Bellator:

I could imagine it being fired from a static position where enemy locations were known from previous recon. However, I have problems with it being used in your average CM situation.

I don't know about its use in battle historically, but to simulate this maybe BTS could limit the flex .50cal to only firing at ground targets when given an Area fire command? Just a thought.

- Chris

[Andreas]

I could live with it being done away with completely. Matter of fact, later in the war, in Commonwealth service in at least one division in Normandy all the Sherman AA MGs found their way into the half-tracks, and there is a large amount of pictorial evidence of Commonwealth Shermans with no AA MG at all.

Earlier on, when air superiority was a bit more divided (probably talking Italy up to the battle of Rome) it is a bit of a different story, but I still doubt they would use them very much (at all?) against infantry, until someone shows me some evidence.

[Private Bluebottle]

Are we discussing only US tanks or any vehicle mounting an AA MG?

There are many accounts of German tank commanders using their AA MGs against ground troops. However, their AA MG was set up on the commander's cupola and intended to be utilised with the commander standing in the hatch, not exposing himself unnecessarily.

Personally, I think most tank commanders, equipped with the US style of AA MG wouldn't have exposed themselves unnecessarily. This would have meant that ranges would have been somewhat limited to those over say, about >500-1,000 metres. Below that, you're simply too close, too exposed and you've removed yourself from your most important job, commanding your tank.

[Michael Dorosh]

I'd model AA MG use on Shermans only with the commander highly exposed to ground fire - simulating him standing outside the turret.

Also, let tank riders use the AAMG - ala Audie Murphy on that M10 during his MoH action.

Most Canadian tankers removed the .50; it hit the tank commanders in the head when moving through vineyards, for example.

In the thread referenced by dalem and Rex, we discussed the poor ballistic properties of the .50 when used against ground targets; basically, if you are close enough to shoot at enemy troops with the .50, they are close enough to shoot at you, so button up!

Jeb Stuart used the .50 on his Sherman and even his Stuart, but it all depended on whether it was Glanzman drawing him, John Severin, or Russ Heath. The latter too didn't fudge so much on reality. On the other hand, Glanzman could fit two people in the commanders hatch - always envied Jeb when it was Mmle Marie.

[ June 30, 2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

There are many accounts of German tank commanders using their AA MGs against ground troops.

Care to share one?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

Are we discussing only US tanks or any vehicle mounting an AA MG?

I am most knowledgeable about U.S. tanks and their designs, so my opener above definitely focuses on their representation in the game. As I stated however, if my thesis has any sound legs to stand on, it would seem that a general review of all "restricted mount" AA MGs in the anti-personnel role would be in order, albeit possibly not feasible.

-dale

[Maj. Battaglia]

dalem, I'm with you and interested. Here, by the way, is the link to that old thread. It is interesting reading for those of you who did not read it the first time:

Use of AA MG on the Sherman

There was a picture in the thread that is now unloadable. Could the original poster please repost? It was a useful graphical aid.

[Erwin Rommel]

Another movie showing soldiers standing on the back of the Sherman Tanks firing the MG at German infantry was Band Of Brothers during the scenes of fighting off a counterattack outside Carentan as the Second Armored tanks show up.

[dalem]

Shameless bump.

Movie/TV presentations aside for the moment, I am curious about this, and I don't know what the "best" solution would be with a CM-type game, nor what is exactly possible/probable with the CM2:Electric Boogaloo engine.

-dale

[ July 11, 2003, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]