Tanks using MGs against other tanks.

[Kat Johnston]

When tanks in the game engage other tanks, even at long range, they will often (usually?) fire both their main cannon and their machine guns (which have no chance of penetrating the armour) at the target. I'm curious, would this usually be done IRL, in the hope of damaging optics or whatever? Would machine gun fire damage ERA bricks?

[Wengart]

I think its to sight the main gun. Like how the SMAW has the rifle attached to it. This way the gunner can make sure the main gun will be on target.

[gibsonm]

I think its to sight the main gun. Like how the SMAW has the rifle attached to it. This way the gunner can make sure the main gun will be on target.

Only if you are talking about a tank with a 1950's sighting system fitted.

Lasers (i.e. not spotting MG's) should be the norm for everything fielded in CM:SF, except perhaps the most basic T-54.

[Gen. J-sun]

Inside of about 500m the tanks fire the Heavy MG to attack the optics or score a lucky hit on the gun barrel (ok, fat chance).

[Alan8325]

I've seen my tanks fire the M2 against other tanks while the main gun is reloading many times. Since the M2 is controlled by the commander there shouldn't be any delay with the main gun operation by using it. I'm guessing the point to this is to try to at least damage the external components, such as optics, on the enemy tank while the main gun is reloading. Sure enough, after reviewing the battlefield and looking at enemy tanks that have been hit by this heavy MG fire and not the main gun, I've seen the optics were damaged and sometimes knocked out.

Maybe if there are any real-life tankers here they can pitch in on whether it's a realistic tactic.

[gibsonm]

I've seen my tanks fire the M2 against other tanks while the main gun is reloading many times. Since the M2 is controlled by the commander there shouldn't be any delay with the main gun operation by using it. I'm guessing the point to this is to try to at least damage the external components, such as optics, on the enemy tank while the main gun is reloading. Sure enough, after reviewing the battlefield and looking at enemy tanks that have been hit by this heavy MG fire and not the main gun, I've seen the optics were damaged and sometimes knocked out.

Maybe if there are any real-life tankers here they can pitch in on whether it's a realistic tactic.

I already have.

Note Signature Block - Major Royal Australian Armoured Corps

[Sgt Joch]

I already have.

Note Signature Block - Major Royal Australian Armoured Corps

yes, but you did not answer the question, mr. RL Tanker, is it realistic or not, I presume not?

[gibsonm]

Well I did answer Wengart's question.

As for yours:

Well you can have the short answer "it depends" or the long answer ...

"Normally", no.

The Crew Commander's job is to command the vehicle and direct the crew. Now normally at "usual" engagement ranges (say 1,000m+) the best option is to use the main armament because it uses the turret's sighting and laying systems. The coax MG uses these too but as that's often 7.62mm (and is also operated by the gunner) he is better off keeping his gun selector box (the switch that lets you use main OR coax, you can't fire main AND coax) set to "main" and rely on the loader to shove another round in while the Crew Commander guides the Driver to a new position (you hardly ever sit there and exchange rounds without moving).

Also coax trace "burns out" at approx 1,100m so its harder to adjust onto the target beyond those ranges (you need to see the dust being kicked up or whatever beyond 1,100m).

The CC's 0.50" is a better weapon but it doesn't use the gunner's sighting system so while it packs a better punch round for round, its not as effective as the coax at longer ranges.

Now if is a "Battle Sabot" engagement (less than 1,000m) then again I'd go with the gunner as the main armament is the best way to defeat an enemy tank (note tank, not AFV. Many "non tank" AFV's can be dealt with by the 0.50" and thus save the limited supply of anti armour main armament rounds carried for worthwhile targets).

Again the Commander should be getting the vehicle "Out of Dodge" by telling the driver to move, or popping smoke or ...

Now if its a sheer panic thing, you drive around a corner and there 50m away is a T-80, then no doubt people will start firing everything they've got while again getting out of the Engagement Area (of course if you drive around the corner and he is "Flank On" our "Rear On" to you then you might stay and fire a second round, but you shouldn't have missed with the first).

So there is no "always do this" type answer.

Does that help?

[MeatEtr]

Oh no, the memories of my Tiger or Panther getting immobilized by the .50 cal coming back. :mad:

[Kat Johnston]

Thanks for that.

[tc237]

Was about to answer but....

Got to agree with Major G.

(it's "Battle Sight" range )

[gibsonm]

Was about to answer but....

Got to agree with Major G.

(it's "Battle Sight" range )

In your Army perhaps.

For example:

a. The commander gives the fire order (for example, ‘BATTLE SABOT, TANK……’) while laying onto the target, ensuring that AUTO and APDS are set on the control set and 1 000 m is set on the range scale, and reports ‘ON’ once aligned with the target.

[tc237]

just so we are on the same page,

you are talking about an engagement where the crew cannot get a proper range using the laser range finder,

so the commander uses the "Battle Sabot" button on his control panel to automatically enter a predefined range? (in your example 1000m)

[gibsonm]

Well sort of.

Actually in our training is where the range is short enough (< or = 1 000m) where the trajectory of the round is such that you don’t need use the ballistic computer to calculate a fire solution. This can save you a few precious seconds in an engagement.

That plus the fact that the gun is bore sighted at 1 000m so you know its good.

The tank version of “point and shoot” if you like.

But basically the same scenario as your outlining because you’d use the same lay regardless of whether the range was 300, 500, 800 or 1 100 because the round just flies straight and level.

[tc237]

roger, got it,

Battle Sabot it is!

[gibsonm]

TARGET!

STOP! Target destroyed, next Target left GO ON!

[tc237]

uh-oh, don't get me started....

heading off to bed, Charlie Mike

[gibsonm]

Yes it can get rather sad, can’t it.

[Damian90]

In US.Army and U.S.M.C. battle sight range is 1200m (of course gunner or TC can change that).

M2HB in CWS is used to attack targets that are beyond M240C coax capabilities or are to low priority to fire M256/L44.

CWS is not stabilised, so to fire it accuretly tank must stop, it has only 10x sight IRCC.

In M1A1SA and in M1A1FEP CWS got a new TIS, new sight was an T.U.S.K. upgrade element but like some other elements of kit was adopted as standard equipment.

The fire proccedure in US is looks like that IRCC.

TC: Gunner, SABOT, target, tank (Other options are: HEAT, target, APC or coax, target, troops);

Gunner: Identified;

Loader: UP (the round can be in breech by long time but Loader must prepare the gun to shoot, so UP not only means that round is in the breech but also that main gun is ready to fire);

TC: Fire;

Gunner: On the way.

And the gun fire. :-)

It looks something like that.

[cmfan]

To me it seems like since 2.0 the behavior described by the OP has been the norm. If I remember correctly, pre 2.0 tanks didn't shoot at other tanks with their heavy machine guns unless enemy crew were bailing out. Now it seems they do so until the enemy tank brews up or is listed as knocked out.

I recall my first few games with the new British module where I noticed this and thought, "is this British tank doctrine?" I then played a game with American tanks and saw the same behavior.