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

[tar]

Originally posted by 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.

I suspect that part of this may be related to some modeling issues with the CM engine. Right now all small arms effects are reduced to a single firepower number. Likewise with cover effects. This makes it difficult to separate the the greater penetration power of the .50 caliber from its lower rate of fire.

The RoF of the .30 machine guns can make them more effective against exposed infantry, whereas the .50 would be more effective against (some kinds) of covered infantry. By some kinds I distinguish between, say, foxholes which should provide cover sufficient to stop any MG rounds and light wooden buildings which wouldn't.

As it is, in CMBO the use of the .50 against infantry is rather devastating. Leaving Shermans aside, the .50 caliber equipped halftracks are pretty devastating.

[jtcm]

Originally posted by 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).

Thanks for that clarification. So for AA use, the TC actually stays inside the cupola ? But does he actually see anything ? How is he meant to sight a plane, e.g. with a sufficiently large field of fire for deflection shooting ? Did someone sight for the 50 gunner ? I find the whole process difficult to visalize (like so much in war...)-- not to say i disagree with M. Dorosh, I think he's made a good point, just that I can't understand the concrete processes.

Coming back to .50 use against ground targets: how does that work ? The tank stops in a woodline, the TC pops his head up, says to his people "You guys stay there, I'm out to take a leak then I'll fire off a few rounds with the .50 at that house over there" ? The whole idea of a weapons system on a tank which can't be operated from inside the armoured shell is quite peculiar (e.g. on the same principle, you could bolt on a heavy mortar, which the crew could operate in a spare moment by exiting the tank, or a coffee machine or chow wagon or a phone booth). Again, I'm not disagreeing with M. Dorosh, just saying how slightly odd I'm finding this.

[jtcm]

I do like the image of Olive Oyl as a Sherman tanker, though.

[Maj. Battaglia]

jtcm,

I agree it is somewhat hard to visualize, and perhaps harder to describe, how this would work. But I'll try.

First, let me say I am no expert on the mount of the 50 cal on the Sherman, I have never sat in a Sherman, or been close to one that still had the 50 cal mounted on it. So this is my common sense explanation based on pictures, simple mechanics, and imagined ergonomics. If someone thinks I am full of weasle oil, and can be convincing, please say so and I won't be offended. I only want to get to the truth of things.

Look at the picture on page 1 as a reference, and move the 50 to the front of the cupola. Now, to elevate the gun to, say, 30° or more, you end up with the back end of the gun about level with the top of the cupola. By moving it like this, the back end moves in an arc and also creates more room between the end and the back of the cupola. But in any case, you would probably be less exposed (and not need as much room) because, in order to be holding the handles and aiming with the site, you would need to sit lower in the cupola to align yourself properly. So perhaps only your head would be out of the cupola.

By the way, the 50 cal mounted on the M1 is very different. It has a ring mount, but is attached to the ring by an inverted V assembly. The gun rests on a pivot mount at the point of the V and the two ends are attached to the ring. This makes it easier for the commander to sit exposed in the cupola and still grab the handles of the gun and aim at ground targets. I know this because when I ran for president in 1988 there was a photo op with me. . . oh wait, that was someone else. But at some point the Army realized this type of mount was a better option.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Doing some more searching, I found the following text on the site of Center of Research and Informations on the Battle of the Bulge (Belgium). It describes the capture of the town of Poteau during the Bulge. It was put together by George J. Winter and based on AARs as well as interviews and letters with participants.

"As Van Tine neared the edge of the village his tank was subjected to a near miss from a panzerfaust fired from the building behind Spencer. Almost simultaneous to this the 75mm [gun barrel] struck a tree to the right of the Sherman causing the turret to spin. Nelson, the young gunner, was stunned by the impact. "I was dazed as I was pressing my face against the sights when we hit and just then our tank commander yelled to shoot straight ahead." (letter to the author from Gerald Nelson, August 31, 1987.)

"Van Tine's order to fire was, without doubt, a reaction to the panzerfaust that had just missed his tank. With no immediate response to his order and certainly realizing a quick measure was absolutely necessary to save his imperiled crew and tank, Van Tine climbed out the turret hatch. Manning the .50 caliber machine gun he was almost immediately struck in the head. (Van Tine's intention to leave the tank can only be concluded from the known facts. It is unreasonable to suppose that the tank commander left the Sherman and the security it offered simply to fire at a sniper. Gerald Nelson supports this view. "I don't think Van Tine would have gotten out of our tank to fire a sniper. A sniper wasn't a threat but a bazooka was.")"

(Note: Van Tine was on the deck, as is described a bit further.)

Click here for the whole story.

I don't submit this as proof of anything, rather I suggest we take it for what it is worth: one story. However, it does lend creedence to Michael's theory about engaging ground targets from outside the turret. Why would anyone take the time to climb out if one could simply pop up and fire from within?

Michael, thanks for bringing this up. I admit I was skeptical at first, but I think you are on to something. It's funny how hard it is to find information about this. I suppose to tankers there it was obvious (if it is indeed true) and therefore not stated in manuals or accounts: if you can't do it, you can't do it, end of story. But since it is not stated, we become unwitting revisionists.

[jtcm]

Well, i think that's the piece of evidence everyone was looking for-- someone exiting turret to man the .50, against ground target-- and getting hit !

[rlh1138]

Since it's been mentioned twice in this thread I'll ask, why would a flat trajectory be considered a detriment in an anti infantry weapon? I'd think it would be just the opposite. Flat trajectory equals similar aiming point at varying ranges, etc. What am I overlooking?

Thanks,

rlh1138

[Maj. Battaglia]

Here is another tidbit, a story written by a John M. Williams on the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association website.

An excerpt:

"On the back of the turret [of his M4A3E8] was a pedestal-mounted 0.50 caliber which seldom got used. Lets face it, nobody was dumb enough to get out of the tank and stand on the back deck to fire the thing. No Alan Ladds or John Waynes in our outfit."

I don't know who the author is exactly, other than the info provided by the site. Also, he mistakenly identifies the coax as a 50 cal (unless his M4A3E8 was somehow modified). Again, not proof, just more pieces of the puzzle.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by rlh1138:

Since it's been mentioned twice in this thread I'll ask, why would a flat trajectory be considered a detriment in an anti infantry weapon? I'd think it would be just the opposite. Flat trajectory equals similar aiming point at varying ranges, etc. What am I overlooking?

Thanks,

rlh1138

Less bullet spread, smaller cone of fire, less dispersal of rounds - can't do as much damage that way?

[BloodyBucket]

Good question. Flat trajectory is a good thing, unless you are trying to hit something behind cover with plunging fire.

As to the original question, it might be that the mounting on the Sherman changed over time, and there may be more than one answer. It would be interesting to see if the .50 was used more in Africa, when the sky was not ruled by allied air, and the chance to engage targets at longer ranges was perhaps more prevalent.

This seems like something that might be covered in one of those post war "lessons learned" pubs that the army put out.

The commander might have been required by doctrine or circumstances to expose himself more than he might have liked. A buttoned WWII tank is a pretty blind beast. I seem to recall that the Israeli army at one point required the commander to fight the tank unbuttoned all the time.

If the .50 was considered something that was really needed for ground targets, and the factory mount was unsuited, field modifications would almost certainly be made. I have never read of such, and specific mention is made of extra armor, phones, hedge cutters, etc.

So far, the evidence seems to be pointing to the .50 being unavailable for ground targets without getting out of the turret, or at least having a passenger willing to use it. Maybe this is a good question for R. Lee on "Mail Call".

[Michael Dorosh]

I have actually read of the .50 being used on improvised mounts - at least one person at the Sixth Division forum is talking about it, but hasn't provided any photos. He claims a relative of his was a US TC during the big one and used the .50 a lot - but as I say, has nothing to substantiate the claim.

[BloodyBucket]

Here is some more interesting, completely circumstantial, evidence.

"...combat history of the 4th Armored Division

Covering the period 17 July 1944 to 9 May 1945."

"The 126th Armd Ord Maint Bn began mounting high-speed firing air corps .50 calibre machine guns in place of the .30 calibre machine guns in the coaxial position of all medium tanks mounted with the 76mm gun. The .30 calibre machine gun was then mounted on the turret of the tanks."(March 1945).

Ammo expended in March:

"IX. Ammunition Expenditure.

A. 105mm Howitzer, M2 73.995

B. 76mm Gun 12.995

C. 75mm Gun 10.325

D. 75mm Howitzer 1.900

E. 37mm Gun 2.140

F. 81mm Mortar 4.822

G. 60mm Mortar 1.278

H. Rocket 2.36 Asst. 2.520

I. Grenade, Hand Asst. 21.525

J. Grenade, Rifle Asst. 1.420

K. Cartridge, Carbine M6 1.150

L. Signal A.C. Asst. 432

M. Cal. .50 Machine Gun 2.040.000

N. .45 Ball 104.000

O. Carbine 249.800

P. Cal. .30 Asst. 2.118.000"

From this after action report.

Very interesting.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

Here is some more interesting, completely circumstantial, evidence.

"...combat history of the 4th Armored Division

Covering the period 17 July 1944 to 9 May 1945."

"The 126th Armd Ord Maint Bn began mounting high-speed firing air corps .50 calibre machine guns in place of the .30 calibre machine guns in the coaxial position of all medium tanks mounted with the 76mm gun. The .30 calibre machine gun was then mounted on the turret of the tanks."(March 1945).

Ammo expended in March:

"IX. Ammunition Expenditure.

A. 105mm Howitzer, M2 73.995

B. 76mm Gun 12.995

C. 75mm Gun 10.325

D. 75mm Howitzer 1.900

E. 37mm Gun 2.140

F. 81mm Mortar 4.822

G. 60mm Mortar 1.278

H. Rocket 2.36 Asst. 2.520

I. Grenade, Hand Asst. 21.525

J. Grenade, Rifle Asst. 1.420

K. Cartridge, Carbine M6 1.150

L. Signal A.C. Asst. 432

M. Cal. .50 Machine Gun 2.040.000

N. .45 Ball 104.000

O. Carbine 249.800

P. Cal. .30 Asst. 2.118.000"

From this after action report.

Very interesting.

I don't see how this adds anything to the conversation - they mention the .50 being used as a coax, and then cites increased expenditures of .50 ammo. Seems consistent to me, but says nothing about anti-personnel use by an exposed commander.

However, I've never heard of the .50 being used co-axially before, so that is quite fascinating in itself, even if it is off-topic.

[BloodyBucket]

Just interesting to note that the .50 was moved inside the vehicle, and the enormous amount of .50 expended. I hardly think that was due in total to the conversions. This list is for a division, not just the Shermans, so the .50 expended includes trucks, peeps, halftracks, infantry, wastage, etc. It does show that this division went through a lot of .50, more than the ammo loads mentioned prior in the thread would suggest. The Germans had very few aircraft up in March of 1945, and those .50 rounds were being used on something! Interesting to compare .30 vs .50 calibre (original spelling if transcribed properly!) expended.

The fact that the need arose to move a .50 inside the tank suggests to me that the turret mount was not making folks happy.

I have begun posting the inside/outside, used a little/a lot/not at all, at what targets question on some armored division websites, perhaps some vets will chime in with the answer.

[ December 13, 2002, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

[Maj. Battaglia]

Bloodybucket,

I checked my set of .pdf Combat Lessons. Good idea. I only found this from #6, p.55:

"A .30-caliber machine gun on the antiaircraft mount comes in handy; it can be operated more easily than the .50-caliber and enables the tank commander to stay lower in the turret while he is firing it. The more plentiful supply of .30-caliber ammunition is an additional advantage."

This sort of implies that the commander could be in the turret and fire the 50, but who knows exactly what is meant.

By the way, thanks for including that factoid about 50 cal coax. It shows me that thing I dug up in my previous post (about the 50 in both mounts) may not be fiction or bad memory. However, I would not be so sure about "moving the 50 inside." The maintenance guys could have in fact got hold of some 50s used in fighter aircraft as the sentence implies. Not a big deal either way, just saying it might have been an extremely rare modification.

As for ammo expenditure, who knows what the story is there. I've seen similar stats on the 6th AD site. It is hard to tell what 50 weapon is firing the ammo, and who knows, they could have used their M-16s a lot or included figures for attached AA units with the quad trailers.

As for the case of modified mounts, one has to wonder how common that was. Of course, we want to know this information to evaluate the realism in the CM system and influence its future development: so was it so common that all Shermans should just be considered to have it? I'm thinking no.

Good luck with the posts on the divisional websites. Another good source I would imagine. Perhaps if things really get desparate, we could try to contact someone who, from context of his story, would be in a position to know. However, I fear this might seem like an intrusion over an assinine issue (not that I think it is, but I'm no veteran).

[Harry Yeide]

Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

Bloodybucket,

As for the case of modified mounts, one has to wonder how common that was. Of course, we want to know this information to evaluate the realism in the CM system and influence its future development: so was it so common that all Shermans should just be considered to have it? I'm thinking no.

FWIW, I've been through the AARs and many of the S2 and S3 journals of every separate tank battalion that fought in the ETO, and none mentions converting the co-ax in those units to the .50 cal. Cheers

[Harry Yeide]

I just received the following from a query I sent to John Walker, who was a platoon commander in the 750th Tank Battalion:

"As to the 50 cal machine gun on the tank. For the most part it was of little use to us. Because of its location, it was very awkward for the tank commander to fire standing in the turret. Under some circumstances, you might fire it standing outside on the deck of the tank, but this was very rare. On a few occasions, infantry riding on the tank might also fire it. But again, its use was very limited."

[Michael Dorosh]

I have got to see a picture of this coax .50 to believe it, personally. The ammo is so damn big for that weapon, plus the barrel would have to protrude from the mantlet - or else the butt of the gun would be set well back inside the turret - which in the former case would be visible somewhere in Sherman photos, if any exist. I'm a bit suspicious on that one, and Harry's comments only seem to confirm that. I am sure you all are suitably suspicious as well. Great quote, also, Harry.

[Harry Yeide]

Michael: Your careful skepticism is well taken (as witnessed by this entire thread!), but I did not mean to imply that the 4th AD did NOT install .50s in the co-ax position. The US Army tolerated a remarkable degree of equipment customization by line units. I have not looked hard at the armored divisions, but there are great examples among the separate tank battalions. The 709th, believe it or not, cut the muzzle brakes off captured or disabled 88s and welded them onto their 76mm Shermans because of the disruptive blast produced by the first generation of those guns. The 750th poured several inches of concrete onto the glacis of their Shermans (I have many photos showing that). So, who can say? Cheers.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Some evidence from the 11th Armored Division site.

First, a photo dated May 4, 1945:

This looks like the AA mount was moved to the front of the loader's hatch so he could use the 50 from within the turret. (edited to provide link in case broken graphic: AA mount on Sherman

Next, a quote from a story about a tank unit in the Bulge:

"the Kraut infantry was coming along he ridge on the other side of the river. We opened up on them, knocking off quite a few before they dispersed. It really was a sight to see Junior up there outside his turret on the back deck of the tank, firing his 50 caliber machine gun like mad."

According to the story, they had just been shelled by mortars, so I'm guessing he had gotten out of the tank (where he would have been sheltering) to do this. Also, the implied range is far.

Searching through the 11th's AOM Bn material turned up nothing about the 50 cal.

[ December 14, 2002, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Maj. Battaglia ]

[RMC]

That shows the loader using the gun. The TC is spotting with binos. That MG mount is not in the same place that most seem to have been. It has already been discussed here that on some tanks the MG mount was moved forward. We don't know how many tanks had that modification.

[jtcm]

From that photograph, judging from the angle of the MG barrel, it looks like the MG is firing at some target at long range (or perhaps a church steeple ?)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jtcm:

From that photograph, judging from the angle of the MG barrel, it looks like the MG is firing at some target at long range (or perhaps a church steeple ?)

It would appear the gun is not being fired at all, actually, but is ready for use should a target make itself apparent. Given the two men are so high up in their positions, and the driver is not hatches down, I would suggest the photo is staged.

[ December 14, 2002, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Maj. Battaglia]

RMC, you are quite correct: I mistyped the first time around and fixed it quickly to read loader. I did not think anyone would notice that quickly that time of day. Damn.

I agree the photo may have been staged, especially since it is May 1945: someone probably wanted some photos before it all ended. Either way, the "target" is far away. If real, it would be outside of Michael's 0-300m range.

I thought the photo was interesting because it did show one sort of modification where someone could use the 50 sitting in the turret. Of course, use of the 50 by the loader would likely mean the main gun would be idle.

How common this was, who knows? Further, since it was late in the war, how long had it been like this? Probably not very common.

[HeadHunter]

For those interested in the debate about whether this-or-that is prohibited by some Convention of Warfare or another, check out the following site:

Avalon Project at Yale: Laws of War

I've been awake all night, so I'll leave you to research on your own... but sufice it to say, people have a lot of misconceptions that aren't borne out anywhere in these Articles.