Coaxil MGs purpose?

[flamingknives]

Posted by: Michael Emrys:

As an aside, it has been mentioned here and in another thread recently that the hull MG was used for self-defense only and I wonder what the source of this idea is. My notion is that on attack, the tank went in with all guns blazing. The hull MG might in fact have seen more use than the coax, since it could continue firing when the gunner was concentrating on using the main gun. Also, due to its lower location on the vehicle, it would have been somewhat better suited for grazing fire. Against that is the fact that the coax would have the advantage of better sights and be less likely to be blocked by irregularities in the ground. But I'm sure both were used whenever they had appropriate targets, both offensively and defensively (which is kind of an arbitrary distinction at this level anyway).

On some tanks, the Hull MG doesn't appear to have provision for sights, and being as the hull gunner is also the radio operator, and has to sort the radio out as well as load and fire his gun, he's going to be a busy chap on an offensive.

The gunner is shooting things anyway, and has the loader to sort his MG out.

The Hull MG, being on a flexible mount, will not be too effective at any significant range either.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

On some tanks, the Hull MG doesn't appear to have provision for sights, and being as the hull gunner is also the radio operator, and has to sort the radio out as well as load and fire his gun, he's going to be a busy chap on an offensive.

Well, just how much sorting out of the radio does the assistant driver (as he was also called) have to do in combat? It's not as if he were responsible for sending out morse code messages. It's the TC who's doing any talking with HQ, or if he is HQ with subordinate units. I think the RO might have been charged with swapping burnt-out tubes or similar jobs, but would that be done in combat or afterwards. Just what were the duties of the RO?

The Hull MG, being on a flexible mount, will not be too effective at any significant range either.

Depends on what you mean by significant. I would and have agreed that compared to the coax the hull gun is at a disadvantage because of poorer sights and being more likely to be blocked off by intervening terrain. All of which go some way toward explaining its absence on post-war tanks. But it only needs to be effective out to one or two hundred meters to be useful as a WW II offensive weapon.

Michael

[flamingknives]

Well, just how much sorting out of the radio does the assistant driver (as he was also called) have to do in combat? It's not as if he were responsible for sending out morse code messages. It's the TC who's doing any talking with HQ, or if he is HQ with subordinate units. I think the RO might have been charged with swapping burnt-out tubes or similar jobs, but would that be done in combat or afterwards. Just what were the duties of the RO?

Keeping the set tuned - the sets used by WWII AFVs (especially the early ones) were nothing like modern ones, and tended to 'slip' off frequency. Plus, with voice range being in the region of 2-3km in clear terrain (British tanks) at least some of the ROs would be responsible for morse.

As for effective range, they'd be similar to one man with a belt fed LMG/MMG, without a tripod or sights. (Some German tanks had provision for hull MG sights, but IIRC, the Sherman (at least in some models) doesn't - the RO aims by following tracer.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of relativity. The hull MG was effective out to 100-200m, in a restricted arc over the front of the tank, whereas the Co-ax had an effective range of almost five times that, decent sights, and an all round field of fire.

[Ant]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ant:

Well I'm sure, and co-axial is perfectly valid.

Unfortunately, I did not find any example to back up your definition (coaxial cables, coaxial cylinders, etc. all have the same axis)

However, I found the following:

adj: having a common axis [syn: coaxal]

And from The Collins English Dictionary

1) having or mounted on a common axis

2) (Geometry) (of a set of circles) having the same radical axis

3) (Electronics) formed from, using, or connected to a coaxial cable

Regards,

Thomm </font>

[Siege]

In answer to "Mr. Tittles" question, I believe that some of the early British tanks during WWII had water-cooled MG's. I may be mistaken, but the main MG on the Mark VI light tank, as well as the sponson guns on the A9 Cruiser all look to have water jackets on them. IIRC the main turret MG in the Matilda I was also water-cooled.

I believe that some of the very eary US tanks also had them equipped, but if they were used in combat or not I don't have information to support either way.

-Hans

[flamingknives]

MkIVB has both a .5"MG and a .303" MG The .303 Vickers is the same as the infantry MMG, and hence has a water jacket

Later marks have BESA MGs, which don't.

[Herr Oberst]

Well, if I were loading out for a shot at a tank, might as well use it to scrub infantry off the vehicle as well, along with getting their TC to zip up.