Firing main gun and MGs on tanks

[birdstrike]

I don't know if that's already on the list, but

as right now in CM only the MGs can be fired without the gun, I guess it would be nice to have the additional feature in CMX2 to fire only the main gun on tanks, to save MG ammo (especially for the flexible).

[Pzman]

Yes, that would be nice, but I bet crews used the turret based MG often to help get an idea of how far off enemy tanks were.

[flamingknives]

I agree that the flexible MGs on tanks should be used less frequently.

The Co-axial, AIUI. got used as much as possible, but the hull gun was used less frequently.

[stoat]

American tank gunners in WW2 were trained to test range and aim with the co-ax before firing the main gun. The roof-mounted gun shouldn't be used for aiming or ranging because this was the job of the gunner, not the TC, who fires the roof mount.

[SgtMuhammed]

Remember that a lot of roof mounted guns (US at least) had to be fired from outside the turret and were intended for AA. Many were later modified to a more sensible arangement.

[stoat]

Just look at the pintle-mounted .50 on the M24. Is it even possible to fire that in a forward direction? It was placed there for AA. The .30s were for anti infantry fire.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by stoat:

The roof-mounted gun shouldn't be used for aiming or ranging because this was the job of the gunner, not the TC, who fires the roof mount.

...And who should be watching fall of shot and calling corrections anyway. Besides, the roof MG would not give you any useful aiming information, since it is independently mounted from the main gun, unlike the coax.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by stoat:

Just look at the pintle-mounted .50 on the M24. Is it even possible to fire that in a forward direction? It was placed there for AA. The .30s were for anti infantry fire.

I'm not sure about the M24, but this same topic has been discussed ad nauseam for the M4. I'd reccomend doing a search of the old CMBB & CMBO archives.

My own conclusion basd on past discuusion is that, least for the M4, the answer probably depended on the individual unit, and in some cases perhaps even the individual tank. There is clear anectodtal evidence that some M4 tank crews used the .50 for ground fire a lot -- For starters, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's recent "Brothers In Arms," a history of the 761st Tank Battalion, recounts numerous examples of M4 crews using the .50 against ground targets. Although it is mainstream "pop" history, since the author did extensive interviews with surviving members of the battalion, the book would seem to be a good source for this kind of first-person thing.

But I've read other accounts of units that completely removed them because they tended to catch on tree branches and overhead wires (and the luftwaffe was scarce by this point). Photo evidence is ambiguous. Most photos show the .50 in the standard rear-turret position, where the firer would have to stand on the rear deck to fire the .50 in a forward direction (assuming the turret is facing forward, but there are photos of some Shermans, especially late war, where the .50 is clearly moved to a position in front of the TC's hatch. I'm not sure whether this was a field modification, or a "factory option", so to speak, and it's hard to say how common the forward mounting was.

I do think that firing the pintle-mount .50 on any of the various Allied vehicles would be extremely difficult while the vehicle was moving at any speed, even it it could be fired from the hatch. More likely the vehicle would have to stop if the .50 was going to hit anything smaller than a barn. Then again, the Sherman was known for its very smooth ride, so perhaps I'm overestimating the amount movement would throw off aiming the MG; I guess it might be possible to fire on the move over relatively flat ground, and at lower speed (Move/Hunt speed in CM).

Cheers,

YD