sburke Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I did post a thread where the crew where using their personal weapons on the 37mm half track. Which I think is reasonable; what does everyone expect an exposed crew to do when confronted with the enemy? in my case they usually run away screaming unintelligibly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 why should it not be able to let one of the crew (for example the loader in emergency situations) use his weapon (mg)? Because the crew are busy. Doing crew things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wokelly Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Tactical error doesn't justify non-inclusion, in real life better tactics are used by-and-large they managed to see a need to include the gun. The Sherman includes a 12.7mm AA gun but if the Luftwaffe showed up something would obviously be wrong. It's also hard to imagine that a crew wouldn't procure something to defend themselves with regardless of whether it's the MG34 or not. Especially in bocage where it would be easy to be flanked even accidentally I wouldn't think they'd want to be caught with their pants down, a certain percentage of Tigers include an MP40 because of the MP40 racks it seems logical to include a self defense weapon at some probability, heck CMSF crews are fully armed on the US side and I can't contemplate where all four crew can house M4s and 500 rounds in the M1. The .50 cal on the Sherman is on a factory built mount, the Marauder had no mount for the MG34/42 except possible field mounts, thus it is hardly an apt comparison. I have seen photos of 76mm Shermans with a 30 cal mount for the gunner, but we won't see that in game because it was a rare field mod. Close quarters self defense would be nice for all vehicles (M10 is in a similar predicament to the Marauder), I wonder if the engine can handle it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 ...the Marauder... Mr. Picky feels a sudden urgent need to point out that the vehicle in question was not called the Marauder. It was called Marder, which is the German name for the animal known in English as the marten. Always glad to be of service. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemuelG Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Marder III & Grille Vladimir Francev - Charles K. Kliment The tank-hunters and self-propelled heavy infantry guns usually carried a machine-gun complete with a bipod (either MG34 or MG42), stored inside. It could be used outside the vehicle but was mainly meant for antiaircraft defense. In such a case the gun was mounted on a universal mount, which could slide on the arch support of the canvas roof, and had a fifty-round drum magazine. According to German regulations, each vehicle of the Pz.Kpfw. 38(t) also carried one MP38 or MP40 submachine gun with 384 9mm rounds in twelve magazines. Moreover, each crew member had his personal weapon, either a P-08 or P-38 pistol of the same caliber. The first thing to jump out at me was the use of "usually" and "according to German regulations", but I guess I wouldn't argue (too vigorously) if they were given their guns. My money is still on the actuality being that they either never got these weapons or were soon stripped from the vehicle and given to someone who could actually use them. I do have a soft-spot for the ol' 38(t), am expecting sIG 33 armed version of the M (for 'Mitte', indicating mid-engined variants) chassis to make it's appearance with the SS panzer regiments. Thinking of all the versions we wont be seeing anytime soon makes me a little melancholy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Grey Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I *think* that source you're citing got a few years on its back by now - I actually have it in my collection a, but would rather see a newer source checked. Sadly, I don't have one (yet), but we should check ALL avaibale sources - errors creep in very quickly and even newer stuff has got a lot of wrong stuff in it from time to time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 Marder III & Grille Vladimir Francev - Charles K. Kliment The first thing to jump out at me was the use of "usually" and "according to German regulations", but I guess I wouldn't argue (too vigorously) if they were given their guns. My money is still on the actuality being that they either never got these weapons or were soon stripped from the vehicle and given to someone who could actually use them. I do have a soft-spot for the ol' 38(t), am expecting sIG 33 armed version of the M (for 'Mitte', indicating mid-engined variants) chassis to make it's appearance with the SS panzer regiments. Thinking of all the versions we wont be seeing anytime soon makes me a little melancholy. i guess this would at least justify a mp40 for the loader (or another crew member) so the vehicle crew can defend themself against a close threat like a couple of us soldiers throwing grenades at the vehicle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 i guess this would at least justify a mp40 for the loader (or another crew member) so the vehicle crew can defend themself against a close threat like a couple of us soldiers throwing grenades at the vehicle. I would imagine the Marder crews are no exception to the 'crew sometimes have SMGs' determinations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 i guess this would at least justify a mp40 for the loader (or another crew member) so the vehicle crew can defend themself against a close threat like a couple of us soldiers throwing grenades at the vehicle. Is the implication here supposed to be that they currently do not have anything heavier than a pistol? Because I just did a quick check in the editor which took all of 2 minutes; in a battalion of 42 x Marder IIIM, 16 of the crews had a single MP40, while the other 26 had two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 ok than its my fault...the ones i saw till now have had only pistols... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 ok than its my fault...the ones i saw till now have had only pistols... Yeah, most of my Shermans have had pistols only. M10s seem to have SMGs more commonly once they bail, but that's nearly as small a sample size as my German one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wokelly Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Mr. Picky feels a sudden urgent need to point out that the vehicle in question was not called the Marauder. It was called Marder, which is the German name for the animal known in English as the marten. Always glad to be of service. Michael Boy I have been getting that one wrong for a long time then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. J-sun Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 The MP40 isn't usable until after the vehichle has been destroyed so it doesn't matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 The MP40 isn't usable until after the vehichle has been destroyed so it doesn't matter. That simply isn't true. Vehicle crews can step outside any time the player wishes and use their personal weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 oh snap!!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Those photos did make me start trolling through the web and my references. I can't really say I've spotted any mg mounting brackets on any vehicles. And kits, which usually go crazy for obscure widgets, are lacking them too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky_Strike Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Well sirs I beg to differ but ... http://www.dropbox.com/gallery/4560696/1/Marder_III_MG?h=3b6c56 The first is from an old Waffen Arsenal book (vol. 72) about Marders - sorry my German's not that good. The next two are self-explanatory and come from a Kagero PhotoSniper on Marders, these are pics of the Saumur Museum Marder IIIM. Finally number 4 is from Panzerwrecks 1 - again self-explanatory (I highly recommend the Panzerwrecks series by BTW). From what I can make out in other photos and ref - the MG was stored vertically between the two left-hand ammo racks inside the main fighting compartment. My take on it - the crews took the mounts off the overhead tarp rail as it got in the way when they used the rail as a hand rail, and they probably snagged their heads on it all the time! Regards LS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. J-sun Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 http://www.scalewerke.com/images/k59/Marder%20IIIM/C005-Left-inner-armour-02.JPG http://mysite.verizon.net/res6tvm7/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/marder_iii_005s.jpg http://www.millionhappiness.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/bigger_blog_image/tank%20commander%20and%20loader.jpg All of those pic contain an MG rack and show a crew as armed, it may not be an AA rail mount but they do attempt to defend themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 All of those pic contain an MG rack and show a crew as armed, it may not be an AA rail mount but they do attempt to defend themselves. lol Good one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemuelG Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Well sirs I beg to differ but ... Good finds, I never thought of looking at Panzerwrecks. Now, if there was a concession here and Marders were armed by-the-book, what is appropriate in-game considering we are pretty certain they're solely for AA use, and will never be able to be used for their intended purpose, instead likely to be abused to turn the vehicle into some kind of pseudo-tank, pushing ahead in the vanguard mowing down infantry with MG fire? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Well sirs I beg to differ but ... http://www.dropbox.com/gallery/4560696/1/Marder_III_MG?h=3b6c56 The first is from an old Waffen Arsenal book (vol. 72) about Marders - sorry my German's not that good. It says: '...and a MG34 on a bracket for air defense'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky_Strike Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 It says: '...and a MG34 on a bracket for air defense'. Thanks a lot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Grey Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 I, too, believe the MG was intended for air defense, but that some crews certainly used for close self defense. And I'm also certain that some crews abandoning their Marder took the MG with them to boost their firepower - question is: happened it often enough to warrant the request of a code AND model change? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 ...question is: happened it often enough to warrant the request of a code AND model change? Seems doubtful to me. Not the kind of thing that is apt to come into play more than once in a lot of blue moons. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Lets recall just how 'useful' the M10 TD's AA mg mount is in combat. If you're using your tank destroyer as a badly designed tank you're misusing your tank destroyer. I recall in the early 1970s Belgium was given the choice of a stripped-down Leopard 1 or Jpz Kanone for the role of close infantry support cannon. They went with the Jpz Kanone because they feared a stripped-down Leopard 1 would be used by commanders as a tank instead of its intended role. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.