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

[Negrin]

Where did you get the idea that I am refering to ranges of 0-300 yrds?As I stated in an earlier post,to use the turret mounted HMG in close quarters battle and built up areas would be suicide".No matter where the commander was firing from whether it be from the rear deck or cupola itself which you dispute anyway.

Please be patient so that I can locate the photo and refernce it for you.I do hope that you have this same book.I believe it may have the Concord magazine titled Shermans in Combat or something like that.As I said,I have so many bloody books it is hard to remember where specific articles and photos are.I wish that I could scan it and post it but the scanner I have is a piece of sh@t and Santa may bring me a new one.

[ December 06, 2002, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Negrin ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Negrin:

[QB]Where did you get the idea that I am refering to ranges of 0-300 yrds?

No, no - that was how I framed the original question!

As I stated in an earlier post,to use the turret mounted HMG in close quarters battle and built up areas would be suicide"

I agree.

No matter where the commander was firing from whether it be from the rear deck or cupola itself which you dispute anyway.

I agree.

Please be patient so that I can locate the photo and refernce it for you.I do hope that you have this same book.I believe it may have the Concord magazine titled Shermans in Combat or something like that.As I said,I have so many bloody books it is hard to remember where specific articles and photos are.I wish that I could scan it and post it but the scanner I have is a piece of sh@t and Santa may bring me a new one.

I appreciate the effort, but I actually think we agree on everything but the ability to fire the .50 from the cupola. I would definitely like to see some quality pics of that if you can find them. Thanks for the discussion!

[Harry Yeide]

AARs from American separate tank battalions (the infantry support tanks) indicate that the .50-cal was rarely used against ground targets. Tank commanders did, in fact, routinely enter battle with their heads sticking out of their hatches because of their need to see the battlefield adequately. Many were shot in the head for their trouble, and one War Department lessons-learned brochure observed that the turret around the commander's hatch was typically scarred by near misses after a firefight. As a rule, therefore, it was plenty dangerous without exposing onseself enough to use the .50-cal.

The Sherman, moreover, had two well-protected .30-cals. A tank battalion might expend between 50,000 and 100,000 rounds of .30-cal ammo during a single day, and crews could stack thousands of extra rounds on the floor of the tanks. By contrast, the vehicle carried only 600 rounds of .50-cal ammo, so even when used, the weapon had only a limited supply of bullets.

I have read one POW interrogation report that indicated that the reason German soldiers feared the .50-cal so much was that "it doesn't wound, it kills." Cheers.

[reinald@berlin.com]

My (limited) actual experience on things military is that I've been drafted into an European army and served as a machine gunner (for the MG74 - which is an improved MG42). In later years I concluded training for what would be the Coy-Sgt. in the US-Army.

We still use the US .50cal on some tanks and one pod-supported variant per infantry platoon. The way we've been taught to employ it, it is to be used against lightly-armored targets such as APCs. Against infantry it better remains hidden and in ambush for suitable vehicular-targets.

Typically, they'd employ it on the fringe of a U-shaped ambush so it gets side-shots on armor. Little use against infantry, cause it is too inaccurate and has the be re-adjusted after every garb.

[Negrin]

Mr.Dorosh....

I am still looking for pics of the .50 being fired from the cupola of a Sherman.To be quite honest,the two books that I thought the pics were in turned up nada.I will continue the quest...not out of a "I told ya so" sort of way but a "isn`t that interesting" sort of way.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Negrin:

Mr.Dorosh....

I am still looking for pics of the .50 being fired from the cupola of a Sherman.To be quite honest,the two books that I thought the pics were in turned up nada.I will continue the quest...not out of a "I told ya so" sort of way but a "isn`t that interesting" sort of way.

I would be extremely interested, honestly, as the pics I've seen haven't been all that clear either. I certainly stand to be corrected, and would be delighted to be set straight....if ya can!

reinald and Harry - thanks also for your responses, quite interesting.

[ December 07, 2002, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[dalem]

A couple of the Osprey books I have on U.S. WWII tank destroyers mention (and show) instances where the crews, unhappy with the original postioning of the .50,

1) repositioned the .50 by crafting a new mount in a better position

2) left the .50 alone and crafted one or two additional mounts for air-cooled .30 Browning MGs on the turret - these were welded solidly to the turret

3) did both.

Now two assumptions on my part:

- I assume that "the crew" means "the crew had the unit repair shop do it".

- I assume that similar thing could have happened for the M4 series, but I've not seen any pictures, nor do I remember any such accounts from my reading.

- I assume that if the above did happen for M4s, it would have been far less common than on the M10, M18, or M36 series of TDs, because the TDs were all open-topped and lacked a bow and coaxial MG (except for the M36B which used a standard M4 chassis), whereas the M4s already had two nicely-protected .30 cal mounts, as someone already mentioned.

-dale

[ December 07, 2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Negrin]

Mr.Dorosh.....

I owe you an apology sir.The photo that I based my argument on is in fact that of a later model M4 with the re positioned .50.

I spent so many hours looking through all the books that could possibly lead me out of the woods on this debate but my search proved fruitless indeed.

If I see another Sherman M4 A1/A2,well.....

Let me state for the record:

I have come to the conclusion,through Mr.Dorosh`s suggestions and persuation as well as shear lack of evidence on my part, that in fact the .50 could not possibly be fired from the cupola by the commander or other on an early model M4 Sherman equipped with the ring mounted HMG!

Well done Dorosh......you fought the good fight and WON!

Let this be a lesson to me then......

[Harry Yeide]

TD crews used their AA .50-cal machine guns against ground targets frequently because they had little else (there are many reports in TD outfit AARs of crews having to beat off infantry attacks with Tommy guns, carbines, and grenades). Many battalions began independently remounting the .50-cal forward or adding a second MG by late in 1944. ETOUSA on 1 Feb 1945 ordered the installation of supplemental MG mounts on the turret fronts of all M10 and M36 TDs in Theater. That was never accomplished fully.

I am doing a brute-force review of the Signal Corps combat footage available at NARA. There is a fair amount of footage involving Shermans, and one routinely sees the .30-cals in use. I have yet to see the .50-cal fired, but if I do I'll capture a frame and post it here. Cheers.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Negrin:

Mr.Dorosh.....

I owe you an apology sir.The photo that I based my argument on is in fact that of a later model M4 with the re positioned .50.

I spent so many hours looking through all the books that could possibly lead me out of the woods on this debate but my search proved fruitless indeed.

If I see another Sherman M4 A1/A2,well.....

Let me state for the record:

I have come to the conclusion,through Mr.Dorosh`s suggestions and persuation as well as shear lack of evidence on my part, that in fact the .50 could not possibly be fired from the cupola by the commander or other on an early model M4 Sherman equipped with the ring mounted HMG!

Well done Dorosh......you fought the good fight and WON!

Let this be a lesson to me then......

We've all been there, remembering photos, posting about them, then finding them and...ACK

I still stand to be proven wrong, actually, so nothing's been won....but I appreciate the effort you made to bring a quality discussion to the table.

The hunt continues...

[Michael Emrys]

I expect it was used against infantry when the extra penetration of the .50 was useful—as firing on troops in houses, behind logs or sandbags, etc.—or it was a case of needing to bring every possible gun to bear. It would also have been handy against targets beyond the effective range of the .30s. I doubt they were used nearly as much as they get used in CMBO because of their relatively limited ammo.

As to where and how they were mounted on the turret, I've seen photos showing enough different arrangements to suspect that a certain amount of field modification went on in addition to whatever changes came out of the factory. These include a pedestal mount in front of the TC's hatch and forward and between the TC's and loader's hatch, in which position it might have been used by either man I suppose.

Michael

[Silvio Manuel]

To digress for a moment, I just read some fascinating material at Achtung Panzer regarding the Stuka "ace" Col. Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who killed (claimed? heh) 519 Soviet tanks, 150 arty pieces, 1000 other vehicles, 70 landing craft, 2 Lavochin La-3 fighters, the Soviet battleship "Marat," and also 2 Cruisers and a Destroyer- these were both with the older Stuka though many tank kills were with the D3 37mm variant.

He said that the Lend-Lease American tanks were easier to kill than the Soviet T-34s, but he hated their machine guns, because once he was shotdown by one.

It's quite an incredible story

[jtcm]

just a note from a lurker: I would like to state my appreciation of Michael Dorosh's posts here, because of their courtesy, but also their firm insistance on scholarly standards of specific nuance (not "was the .50 never used against infy" but "was the .50 ever used as anti-personel weapon at close ranges") and of proof: not "I would have done it" or "The Ma Deuce is cool [insert anecdote here about range or penetration]" or even "Here's a photograph"; not common sense, but clear cut evidence drawn from reference to sources. Very important in military history, i think (having witnessed incredibly witless discussions on e.g. the Arjun tank or the T-72 vs M1)-- and in history in general.

Sorry for pontificating.

[Negrin]

Dorosh...is your mom posting here again? HAHAHAHAH

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jtcm:

just a note from a lurker: I would like to state my appreciation of Michael Dorosh's posts here, because of their courtesy, but also their firm insistance on scholarly standards of specific nuance (not "was the .50 never used against infy" but "was the .50 ever used as anti-personel weapon at close ranges") and of proof: not "I would have done it" or "The Ma Deuce is cool [insert anecdote here about range or penetration]" or even "Here's a photograph"; not common sense, but clear cut evidence drawn from reference to sources. Very important in military history, i think (having witnessed incredibly witless discussions on e.g. the Arjun tank or the T-72 vs M1)-- and in history in general.

Sorry for pontificating.

Thank you, sincerely. People are going to think I posted that myself, though!

I have to agree, though. It may seem irritating or even high'n'mighty at first, but it is amazing how many mythological stuff gets accepted at face value - untils someone sticks to their guns and demands proof. I've found myself on the losing (and embarrassed) end of several such discussions before realizing the importance (and nature) of historical proof.

[RMC]

Re: .50 cal and infantry.

There is a myth that get perpetuated in the US Army to this day, that it is against the Geneva convention to use the .50 cal against infantry. The joke at the infantry school is similar to what someone already posted here: "just say you were shooting at their web gear." I was told that same thing when I went through the infantry school.

And even now the Army has fielded the .50 cal barrett sniper rifle, but they insist on calling it an "Anti Materiel Rifle." The Army's new game, AA:O features this rifle and in contrast to the qualification with the M24 against man-shaped silhouettes, qualification is achieved by hitting an unexploded mortar round.

I find it strange that this misinterpretation of the "cruel" weapons clause persists like this. It baffles me how you can cream a grid square with MLRS bomblets, converge a battery of 155mm howitzers on a lone LP/OP but heaven forbid you try to engage infantry with your ancient .50 cal MG.

I wonder if the GIs had this myth foisted on them as well and if that influenced the usage of the .50 cal when mounted on Shermans in whatever variation.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by RMC:

Re: .50 cal and infantry.

I wonder if the GIs had this (against the Geneva Convention) myth foisted on them as well and if that influenced the usage of the .50 cal when mounted on Shermans in whatever variation.

I doubt it, frankly, as I suspect you do, too. Is this a red herring, or do you think the possibility of this train of thought actually exists?

You may be backdating your concern - landmines and flame weapons are currently "against the Geneva convention" or some other rules, and the Canadian Army no longer employs them...yet, we fielded both in large numbers in World War Two, so perhaps the concern over rules of warfare is being viewed through today's lens?

[RMC]

Just food for thought. The subject at hand predates the Geneva Conventions, but the Hague conventions were in force. The combatants were actually playing by a different set of rules, even though I see a lot of commentary about breaches of the Geneva convention in WWII.

I thought there might have been a similar misinterpretation of the earlier accords that led the US Army to officially shy away from using the .50 cal against infantry. This may be why the MGs are all mounted in what appear to be illogical or ergonomically-challenged places.

BTW, are you sure the GC is what prevents the CF from using flamethrowers? The Germans still have have a Handflammpatrone. It is a disposable one shot affair that shoots an incindiary cartridge. The Reibert talks about it being used in urban warfare and against prepared positions.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by RMC:

[QB]Just food for thought.

It's an interesting thought, though - good critical thinking there.

The subject at hand predates the Geneva Conventions, but the Hague conventions were in force. The combatants were actually playing by a different set of rules, even though I see a lot of commentary about breaches of the Geneva convention in WWII.

Yes - one could have a similar discussion of shotguns, and their use in the PTO.

I thought there might have been a similar misinterpretation of the earlier accords that led the US Army to officially shy away from using the .50 cal against infantry. This may be why the MGs are all mounted in what appear to be illogical or ergonomically-challenged places.

BTW, are you sure the GC is what prevents the CF from using flamethrowers? The Germans still have have a Handflammpatrone. It is a disposable one shot affair that shoots an incindiary cartridge. The Reibert talks about it being used in urban warfare and against prepared positions.

I am not sure at all, actually. Just what has been handed down to me from NCOs who may or may not be "in the know" for real.

It is interesting that we can use the Claymore, as it is trigger fired and considered a 'directional weapon' - perhaps the Handflamme patrone gets by because it is hand operated?

[reinald@berlin.com]

Flame weapons, land mines et al. is a relatively new development in international law.

Whiney Euro countries like mine signed treaties 2 or 3 years ago that ban AP-mines, incendiary agents n stuff. The US never joined this treaty.

My country (Austria) did away with AP-mines and phosphor-grenades. The claymore-type of weapon we have has been renamed into "Directed Shrapnel Charge" to fit those contracts and now has to be 'fired' by a friendly soldier who gives a tug on the wire or detonates it electrically as he sees the enemy coming.

Also, the makeshift grenade-traps (ya know, the handgrenade and the wire to it) are removed from training. Instead of phosphor as smoke for arty and mortars we now use HC-fog grenades that do no harm and are crappy as everyone and his grammy can see through it with an infrared device.

Conclusion: In WWII these weapons were not banned and the US never joined those treaties anyhow (which is a good thing IMHO, since there's no nice way of killing somebody. Still waiting for the day when I get handed a net-firing device instead of an AUG upon reporting for an exercise ).

[jtcm]

So when and how DO you use the .50 ?

"Gosh there's a plane about to dive bomb us / strafe our trucks, stop the tank driver, let me clamber out of the turret, squeeze past the .50, step on to the rear deck, unlock the travel lock, crank whatever needs to be cranked, where was that plane again, um how much do you need to lead by" ?

or long range recon by fire against e.g. woodlines or houses ? long range fire against soft skinned targets ? suppressive fire when HE running low ? There must be a doctrinal answer, and an "experience" answer

[dalem]

Originally posted by jtcm:

So when and how DO you use the .50 ?

From my readings of the origins and creation of the WWII U.S. army, my impression is that the profligate mounting of .50 cals on vehicles - essentially everything that moved had one, even some trucks - was really for AA work while in march column.

In 1939-40, when the designs for all these things were being finalized and TO&Es being drawn up, the Germans were still masters of the sky over the battlefield, and the folks over here on this side of the pond could see that. Hence .50 cals on everything. In that scenario the mounts on the tanks make sense - if you're in march column the assistant driver or whoever can ride outside and man the AA gun.

But I agree that "just because my theory fits the data" is only worth what it's worth here. To be honest, this is a question I've been asking ever since I started fooling around with my own tactical WWII rules years ago. "Tactically, how much FP should a tank's AA MG contribute?"

-dale

[RMC]

Coincidentally, today at work a guy shows me a picture of an afghan with his head exploded like a burst watermelon. The pic is reported to be of a fighter who was killed with a headshot from a .50 cal sniper rifle used by US Special Forces in Khandahar. It was extremely gruesome and to me the damage fit what I would expect from that weapon.

There was a gun show in town this weekend. They usually have a good bit of militaria (anyone want a Panzerfaust 60 for $600?). I thought about going because there was a vendor there once who had a number of vintage manuals. I thought perhaps there might be one on the .50cal, or maybe on the Sherman and I could see what the Army told the soldiers of the day.

[Maj. Battaglia]

jtcm,

I think the question is more about whether one can use the 50 cal against ground targets (i.e. at low or negative angle) without getting out of the turret. In other words, M Dorosh wondered if anyone other than Olive Oyl could sit upright in the commander's seat, with, say, half the torso above the cupola and actually physically fit (and be able to have any accuracy) in the space between the back end of the 50 cal and the back lip of the cupola. See his diagram on page 1.

For AA use, presumably one could be further down inside the turret to get a high angle (i.e. the breech end of the gun would be near level with the hatch to shoot about 30° or more).

dalem, I agree 100% with your remarks about the Luftwaffe threat and the 50 cal. Even in infantry divisions, which had over 200 50 cals, the vast majority of them were not in the hands of rifle battalions, rather with artillery and support units as (presumably, and often stated so by sources such as Forty) AA defense.

I have been looking through my accumulated sources and can't find a satisfactory answer. I keep finding references to it being mounted as an AA weapon (such as in the Standard Ordnance Items Catalogue: "a cal. .50 machine gun, mounted at the top of the turret, operated by the commander for antiaircraft use") and that, as someone said before, carrying limited rounds for the 50 (300 in M4 75s and 105s, 600 in the M4 76's, compared to 4750 30 cal).

I am very intrigued, however, since the 50 cal is a powerful weapon and certainly has an impact on battles in CM. I am interested to find out a better answer to Michael's questions.

[dalem]

Thanks Major. Glad to see someone doesn't think I'm crazy.

I offer the following as another "slightly fluffy" datum:

For those of us who play/ed Squad Leader or Advanced Squad Leader, note that when the design went into more detail and we started to see the various AFV MG factors split out into bow/coax/AA, the U.S. .50 cal got a FP value of only 4, as opposed to 8 in the ground mount. So one game designer's methodology was to allow every tank to use it but to drastically reduce its effectiveness relative to a true infantry support mount in the same game.

Over the years I've come to think that in a tactical game such as SL/ASL or CM, the AA mounts on tanks should contribute firepower far less often than they tend to in the game. How to achieve this I have no idea. Obviously a mechanic can run the gamut from "fire all the time but at a low FP" to "never fire except under circumstances X, Y or Z, but deliver high FP in those cases."

I asked this question of the newsgroup at AFVnews a couple of years ago but didn't get a satisfactory answer.

-dale