Use of the .50 calibre MG on the Sherman against infantry

[Michael Dorosh]

Having an "interesting" discussion at the GIC forum about the use of the .50 in the anti-infantry role. Thought I'd open it up to some guys who actually know a thing or two.

What my research indicates - based primarily on the reminiscences of a Canadian recce crewman (postwar), as well as one or two WW II Sherman historians, and some personal observations, as well as a US Army report circa 1951 (Korea vintage) is that

a) the .50 calibre MG on the Sherman was primarily intended as an anti-aircraft weapon

to engage infantry with it, the tank commander would have to exit the cupola, due to the size of the gun and the location of the mount

c) the .50 round is sub-optimal for engaging infantry at close quarters due to its flat trajectory (and I would presume low rate of fire of the gun itself)

All of which leads me to conclude that at battle ranges of say 0 - 300 yards or so, the .50 would rarely have been employed in an anti-infantry role.

Are there any AARs, histories, reminiscences etc. out there that would indicate otherwise? Basically all I get at the GIC forum is "well, I would have done it, so it must have happened" and "gee, the .50 is awesome, why wouldn't they have used it?"

Commonwealth tankers deleted the .50 altogether more often than not - it actually posed a hazard to the tank commander's head when travelling through brush and low handing trees - CW tankers of course loved to wear their black berets rather than helmets...

Anyone care to discuss the employment of the .50?

I dimly recall a game of CMBO where my AA .50 on a Sherman actually took out a Marder II...

[BloodyBucket]

Well, there is Audie Murphy and that whole medal thing.

I bet, based on a few pictures and a little knowledge of the Ma Deuce, that it was used when appropriate, and not by doctrine. By that I mean that the commander would not get out when it did not make sense, but IIRC the gun can be employed without leaving the turret, at least with a limited traverse.

When would it make sense to use it? When dealing with targets that don't shoot back accurately. Fleeing infantry, area fire at light buildings, trucks, infantry out of normal small arms range. The low rate of fire is cancelled out by the tremendous effect on soft targets.

Would be a great question to ask a Armored division reunion!

[Michael Dorosh]

Audie Murphy won his MOH on an M10 tank destroyer. That was knocked out.

I would take a close look at the cupola of a Sherman again - and examine how little room there is behind the .50

A tank commander's big enemy was enemy snipers - if there are enemy infantry around, I can't see them going hatches open, especially with enemy troops in close proximity to the tank. But as I said, the other conversation was all conjecture too - if anyone has anything solid - an armoured corps reunion would be great, actually - that would be appreciated.

[BloodyBucket]

The .50 that Murphy used was on an M-10. I bet he wasn't picky at the time.

Light internet searching and a quick glance at some books reveals only some stuff like:

"... tank could fire its cannon into the far corners, using white phosphorus shells, guaranteed to burn out the Germans at the machine-gun pits, and hose down the hedgerow itself with its .50-caliber machine gun. Infantry could follow the tank into the field and mop up what remained when the tanker got done firing."

From Ambrose (may he rest in peace), so should be taken with a grain of salt. Another Ambrose passage quotes a Sergeant flagging down a tank and convincing it to use the .50 and main gun against a steeple that housed an observer.

Doubler in "Closing With the Enemy" mentions "heavy machinegun" fire from tanks vs. hedgerows, but that can be taken two ways.

Nothing pops up saying "The .50 was useless, we got rid of it or never used it", and nothing pops up along the lines of "Every time we went into action we used all our .50 cal ammo". A fascinating question, I'll ask my old man in the morning. Being an infantryman, he will undoubtably claim that the tankers never did anything to expose themselves to any danger, if it could be avoided.

Looking at some pictures of M4A3 cupolas, it looks as if the commander could use the .50 without getting outside the vehicle, but the play would be to the aft of the tank.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Michael,

Here is something from an interview with a Russian armor officer who spent most of his time in Shermans:

- The Sherman had an antiaircraft machine gun Browning M2 .50 caliber. Did you use it often?

- I don't know why, but one shipment of tanks arrived with machine guns, and another without them. We used this machine gun against both aircraft and ground targets. We used it less frequently against air targets because the Germans were not fools. They bombed either from altitude or from a steep dive. The machine gun was good to 400-600 meters in the vertical. The Germans would drop their bombs from say, 800 meters or higher. He dropped his bomb and departed quickly. Try to

shoot the bastard down! So yes, we used it, but it was not very effective. We even used our main gun against aircraft. We placed the tank on the upslope of a hill and fired. But our general impression of the machine gun was good. These machine guns were of great use to us in the war with Japan, against kamikazes. We fired them so much that they got red hot and began to cook off. To this day I have a piece of shrapnel in my head from an antiaircraft machine gun.

This is from the following web site: Emcha

I agree with your points about the 50 cal being intended as an AA defense weapon and that it would not be used at close quarters. At close quarters (out to 300 yards as you say) most tank commanders would probably be buttoned up.

I also read something once in a personal account on the Internet (and I can't find it again) about the Geneva Convention limiting the caliber of antipersonnel MGs, making the 50 cal not "legal" for use against infantry. I'm sure no one cared. But I think that supports the idea that its primary intended use was AA (since the M1919A5 was in the bow and CA of the Sherman).

[Negrin]

I know that the .50 was utilized extensively to supress enemy Infantry from long range.Problem here is that the Germans had some very capable snipers who could spoil the tank commanders day.I have also seen photos of US infantry riding on the rear deck of the tank and using the .50 while the tank crew were buttoned up.Yes, the .50 was intended for the AA role primarily when mounted on armor.It was a very capable beast when used against dug in troops or those hiding in building ruins as well as thin skinned light vehicles,halftracks,trucks,etc.

To say that the .50 was not used for any other role other than AA would be irresponsible.For close quarters battle in built up areas this would be suicide for a tank commander to attempt to utilize the .50.It is actually a stupid idea to employ the tanks themselves into this type of environment!PANZERFAUST,PANZERSCHRECK.etc!

On another note,if the .50 was intended primarily for the AA role,how do the pundits explain the tripod mounted version of the Heavy MG that Allied infantry so enjoyed?It is virtually impossible to get the required elevation on the tripod mounted .50 to engage aircraft unless deeply entrenched with the rear legs of the tripod extending over the trench line!

[BloodyBucket]

I think the basic question is: the .50, when mounted on the Sherman, was intended as an AA gun, was it used in combat against infantry targets?

No one is denying the gun could be effective against infantry, the question is would the commander expose himself by using it, and did the commander have to leave the cupola to employ it?

BTW, that idea of the .50 being outlawed for use against infantry is still around, at least as of my boot camp days of twenty years ago(Yeesh!). We were told to aim at the equiptment of the enemy, i.e. belt buckles and helmets. A sorry attempt at humor, I have no idea if the laws of war prohibit using the gun as an antipersonel weapon.

[jimmyjames]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

BTW, that idea of the .50 being outlawed for use against infantry is still around, at least as of my boot camp days of twenty years ago(Yeesh!). We were told to aim at the equiptment of the enemy, i.e. belt buckles and helmets. A sorry attempt at humor, I have no idea if the laws of war prohibit using the gun as an antipersonel weapon.

As of two years ago this stands, the line now seems to have become 'aim for their canteens'. The general concept being, war is hell, i guess.

[BloodyBucket]

I got a chance to ask my dad if he recalled seeing the .50 on the Sherman being used, and he said no. His experience with tanks being limited to working with them assaulting pillboxes, and watching some tank battles from a distance, this makes sense. He did say the ground mounted .50s were a sought after asset in the defense, and some German prisoners expressed an intense dislike for the weapon.

By the way, Mr. Dorosh, you spelled caliber wrong.

[Len]

By the way, Mr. Dorosh, you spelled caliber wrong

Calibre is English, Caliber is American.

Since he's Canadian, I would think that he's free to choose.

BTW, you used the adjective "wrong" incorrectly - the adverb form is "wrongly".......... .

(This could run for ever....... .

Len

[Negrin]

If the .50 calibre is banned as far as the anti personell role,then I guess the Yanks may as well send all their Barret.50`s home from the Middle East!Many Al Queida operators would certainly breath a sigh of relief.

[Terence]

Not that my non-grog status gives my opinions any weight, but I do recall reading that German soldiers hated the .50 cal machine gun. Im sure this was because it was used in an anti-infantry capacity. Not that this has any bearing on the thread, which regards the particular use of the AA .50 cal on the Sherman tank....

[BloodyBucket]

Being an American, I am free to mangle the language. It does get on the nerves of my wife, she is a teacher. Or should I say, teachre.

[Louie the Toad]

For what it's worth, in the episode of Band of Brothers where Easy Co gets into a firefight with enemy infantry that escalates into a combined arms fight with armor and infantry on both sides, the Shermans come into the fray with tank crew members (commander?) standing on the rear decks, behind the turret while shooting the 50 cal at enemy infantry.

Seemed a bit overdone since the battle was at only a few hundred yards at most and who would expose themselves to the small arms fire that was flying around. The tank crew member did seem very exposed, even having been partially protected by the turret. It seemed especially daring since the infantry were all hugging the ground or hunkering down in the shallow trenches at the time.

Does anyone remember this?

Stand and deliver..... Toad

[EricM]

If I remember right there was a discussion at another DG about that scene in BOB. Someone had talked with Sherman crews and found that it was common for the commander to exit the turret to use the 50. I don't know if BOB accurately portrayed that battle.

As for the use of the Ma Duce I saw an interview with a tanker and he said that most crews in the older model of Sherman got rid of the 50's cause they were concern about the gun jamming the hatch if they had to exit quickly.

My 2 cents.

Eric

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by EricM:

If I remember right there was a discussion at another DG about that scene in BOB. Someone had talked with Sherman crews and found that it was common for the commander to exit the turret to use the 50.

Eric

My hypothesis is, given the layout of the cupola and size of the gun, position of the mount, etc., this was pretty much a prerequisite - ie you had to stand outside the turret to use the .50 against ground targets.

[Redwolf]

As I remember the BoB discussion, people on our own general forum said there were different .50cal mounts on the Shermans. Try to look up the original BoB thread there.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by redwolf:

As I remember the BoB discussion, people on our own general forum said there were different .50cal mounts on the Shermans. Try to look up the original BoB thread there.

The later mounts were pedestal mounts, located not on the cupola - but behind the commander, towards the rear of the turret - making use against ground targets impossible from the commander's position.

[Negrin]

Well,sice nobody has mentioned this yet I might as well.The .50 on the M4 Sherman was mounted on a rotating gun ring.If you look very closely at some photos you will clearly see that in some the HMG is at the front of the turret and yes,the commander can certainly fire it from within his cupola to engage ground targets!In other photos,the gun is in the "travel" position and locked with the gun at the back of the cupola.It could be and was certainly fired from this position by either tank crew or accompanying infantry.With the gun rotated to the back of the turret would also enable the gunner to easily engage aircraft due to semi unrestricted movement on the back deck as opposed from firing into the air from within the cramped confines of the cupola!

Yes,on later model Shermans with the improved cupolas with sight blocks,the HMG was posoitioned on a pintle mount on the turret roof.

I think with this revelation,we can now put to rest the issue if the .50 was used to engage infantry.It certainly was.

[ December 06, 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Negrin ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Negrin:

I think with this revelation,we can now put to rest the issue if the .50 was used to engage infantry.It certainly was.

You've presented no proof of that.

[Negrin]

What are you looking for in the way of proof?Would you like me to reference the books that I have in my library?If so this would only be possible if some members have the same books.Which could very well be.

Thee are pics of tank commanders "engaging snipers" as well as "engaging ground targets".

If I go to the trouble of looking up this info again(I have tons of books on WW2)and you dispute the facts as being no proof then what?

[ December 06, 2002, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Negrin ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I can see the rotating cupola above; I don't see how a normal sized man could stand inside the cupola and fire the .50

If it could only be fired from outside the cupola, as shown above, are we really to believe that the .50 was used regularly when engaging infantry at ranges of 0 - 300 yards?

Here's a quote from a Canadian recce crewman (post war, probably 1970s era) from another board.

Some early Sherman's(see MD's picture)had the gun mount receiver attached to the Commanders cuploa itself. This was designed to allow a Commander to engage AC while down in his hatch (under some cover)and to allow him to track fast moving targets (see photo in Hunnicut's book).

Later Shermans, had a pad welded to the hull between the Commander and loaders hatch for the post mount. The post mount was set slightly back because of the increase in size of the rear turret bustle of the T-23 turret. The turret change is important as the gunner must stand behind the gun to operate it and this requires standing on the hull (where, depends on which way the turret is pointing)therefore the gun had to be mounted rearward of the hatch centerlines. The normal Cdn M4A2E8, has this turret and post mount. Older tanks were retrofitted for this mount, see Yugo M4's in Kelly's Hero's.

The "five-oh HMG" is not normally employed in the anti-infantry role. It is excellent for engaging softskin and lightly armoured vehicles and for specific targets (bunkers, buildings). The very thing that makes the cartridge effective for sniping (flat trajectory, low dispersion rate, good stability) makes it crap as a dedicated anti-infantry weapon. Remember the Bell X-1 that broke the sound barrier was a scaled up .50. It was the most stable design that the US had data on at supersonic speeds, so they scaled it up!

From an Armoured Corps perspective (Lynx .50) we trained to use the weapon as our main armament in the Recce role against lightly armoured vehicles, emplacements and soft skins, the operators GPMG (.30 Browning) was for Infantry in the open.

Another quote from an expert on Commonwealth Shermans

As said before the .50 was intended for AA use, in which role it could be fired from the hatch. For use in a ground role, the operator had to expose himself. I have seen several photos of this happening (like the one you posted), but as far as I can tell these photos were not taken in the thick of the fight, i.e. when the risk of exposure was low.

In general, the Commonwealth armies did not like the .50 Browning on the Sherman turret, and officially replaced them with the .30 Browning at some point in time. Below follow some wartime notes on this subject:

2) AA-MGs are seldom used as such, but are useful for ground targets. Incendiary bullets useful for setting targets on fire, such as haystacks etc. but difficult to obtain. No all ammunition wanted, only AP Tracer and Incendiary. The mounting of the AA-MG was criticised because of its obstruction when in the travelling position. A separate bracket was favoured, such as is used in the Sherman IB and IIA. The fact that such as position is not readily accessible for action was not thought to be a handicap as the gun was seldom required in a hurry.

(3) A number of troops (3 tanks) carried a cal. .50 Browning on one tank, a .303" Bren on another and a 2" Bomb thrower mounted on the cupola ring of the third tank. The object this was not clear and it is assumed that the bomb thrower was fitted to the earlier Sherman M4A4 which were fitted with 4" Smoke Projectors only.

Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/G104/message/3215

- Hanno Spolestra, The Sherman Register

[ December 06, 2002, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Negrin]

Good point.That is exactly what I thought years ago until I finally saw a pic in one of my books that prove otherwise.I will reference this for you asap

But with your picture,which is one of those that I made reference to, this alone proves that something other than a plane is being engaged.Unless however the aircraft is on the runway!HAHAHAHAHA

[ December 06, 2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Negrin ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Negrin:

What are you looking for in the way of proof?Would you like me to reference the books that I have in my library?If so this would only be possible if some members have the same books.Which could very well be.

Thee are pics of tank commanders "engaging snipers" as well as "engaging ground targets".

If I go to the trouble of looking up this info again(I have tons of books on WW2)and you dispute the facts as being no proof then what?

Some sort of document that says something like:

....several enemy counterattacks were beaten off by the 537th Tank Battalion, who used their .50 calibre machine guns to good effect. "The commanders were exposed to great hazard, as they had to exit their cupolas to use the weapons," remembered T/Sgt George Rice, "and several were hit. But the general feeling was that the .50 was the only adequate weapon for the purpose. The 10th Armoured Division used them as a matter of course, both in defending and when assaulting enemy positions." Fictional Quote

One or two propaganda shots of men behind the gun probably isn't the level of proof I am going for. I don't doubt the .50 was sometimes manned by infantry, or even by tank commanders, the question is - and I stated this originally - how often was this done against enemy infantry at close battle ranges (say up to 300 yards).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Negrin:

Good point.That is exactly what I thought years ago until I finally saw a pic in one of my books that prove otherwise.I will reference this for you asap

But with your picture,which is one of those that I made reference to, this alone proves that something other than a plane is being engaged.Unless however the aircraft is on the runway!HAHAHAHAHA

Not the point at all. I don't doubt the .50 was used on infantry, the question is - was this done often enough that it should be portrayed in a game such as CM or GI Combat, where infantry are engaged by tanks at close ranges.