Why did the British airforce adopted highly similar Hurricane and Spitfire at the same time?

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Lol you think he made it up?

Sometimes the Germans did lose battles ... shocking I know.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Lol you think he made it up?

Sometimes the Germans did lose battles ... shocking I know.

I know they did. I recently watched one

 

[Clayton Magnet]

This thread has meandered wildly off topic, and my last post didn't help.
Sorry

 

[Shortround6]

I am unfamiliar with the described action, and just read the wiki description. Did Murphy continuously reload the M2 while under fire? As far as I understood, the mounted M2 would have only had 50 round belts in each can. Single handedly operating what is normally a crew served weapon, whilst trying to manage cumbersome ammo boxes, while under fire, and injured, seems like a movie script.
Wow

There is no doubt he deserved the Medal of Honor.

Wither the .50 cal deserves the medal of Honor may be a different story.

Read this story

Ben L. Salomon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Clayton Magnet]

There is no doubt he deserved the Medal of Honor.

Wither the .50 cal deserves the medal of Honor may be a different story.

Read this story

Ben L. Salomon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Being unfamiliar with that man as well, Ill use the same word to describe the action.
Wow

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And yet NOT used by the British on anything they built during WW II or in the over 70 years since.
And yet NOT used by the Germans on anything they built during 65 years since Germany could build their own stuff.
And yet NOT used by the French on anything they built during 70 years since they could build their own stuff.
And yet NOT used by the Italians on anything they built during 70 years since they could build their own stuff.
Or the Swedes....................................................
Get the idea??

USA right, rest of the world wrong?

Gee Shortround6, what did the .50 cal ever do to you?

Well actually, a lot of NATO forces used .50 cals, some either went with 20mm or just the .30 cal of one type or another, but quite a few also used the M2.
It's true that the Germans and the British didn't really use a lot of .50 cals, but they are not the whole world.

The Soviets as we all know had their own heavy machine guns, some in 12.7mm like the NSV and the DHK

I think you should take another look at the French on this.
The Leclerc tank, which is the main French tank now, has an M2HB as a coaxial machine gun.
Their VAB wheeled APC also carried M2 HB sometimes.
AMX-10 has an option for carrying 12.7mm M2
Panhard VCR (light APC) uses a 12.7mm M2
The Israelis, no slouches at tank warfare or warfare in general, use the M2 on the Merkava tanks

The Finns use the Russian NSV type 12.7mm though they also use the M2. NSV is mounted on their Patria Pasi wheeled APC
The Indian Arjun tank uses the NSV 12.7mm (Indian army also noted for success in tank warfare)
The Japanese Type 90 also uses 12.7mm
The South Korean K2 MBT carries a K6 (Korean version of M2)
And the Chinese tanks carry the W-85 heavy machine gun (12.7mm HMG I think derived from Soviet)

One other thing I've noticed is that when actual wars start up, the 12.7mm machine guns seem to proliferate.

Finally I'd say, US kit is pretty popular around the world. It's not all bad.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And before you go there, I don't think the .50 caliber heavy machine gun is the "best gun evah" because I'm "Timmy the powergamer" - I know it's not a perfect weapon. They are large and heavy. They are loud. The ammunition is large and heavy. There also not as reliable as people think either.

But they are a known quantity and they are very effective when used right.

Same is true for .30 caliber machine guns and 20mm and 25mm, 27mm etc. cannon, to varying degrees. Everything is a tradeoff. I really just don't get the idea that the M2 is some big fail. It categorically isn't.

 

[Shortround6]

But they are a known quantity and they are very effective when used right.

You are correct.
The problem is that they are often seemed to used a big general purpose gun.

One of Anthony Williams books mentions a study that the Americans did in the last year of the war (WW II) that it took over 50,000 rounds of .50 cal fired for every enemy plane brought down compared to 500 Bofors rounds. It does not go into any more detail but you need a lot of .50 cal guns to take down a single plane, Granted the 40mm Bofors was a bigger, heavy gun and the ammo was lot bigger and heaver but still. Fun fact. It takes 6.66 1 1/2 ton trucks to move 50,000 round of crated belted .50 cal ammo.
This study would include data from the M 45 quad mount. I don't know how much.

the .50 cal seems to have been a "feel good" addition to many vehicles. It improved moral as much as it really did anything (other nations dis similar things, RN ripped out torpedoe tubes to mount single 4in AA guns with no gun director, no height finder, no way to help the gun captain set the fuses. Basically useless except to help the crew think they were fighting back), granted it may have thrown off attackers and caused them to miss.

A .50 on road block to stop a suspect suicide car without blowing up 1/2 the street may be a very good thing. Israelis' used them to suppress anti-tank missile operators back when the missiles were slower and the operator had to fly the missile to the target using a joy stick and about a mile of wires connecting the missile to the control box.

Many US Armored vehicles got them in WW II before the study and and the SP AT guns changed roles, Not enough German tanks meant that the SP AT gun units were used as ersatz tanks. But since they didn't have co-ax guns or bow guns (barring the M36B1) they had to be careful in built up areas or forests or..........
and they had "extra" .30 cal guns mounted in welded on mounts.

Also note that the M2 changed a bit over the years. Early WW II had plain steel barrels, some later ones got chrome plated bores (reduced barrel wear) and at some point some got stellite inserts. (M60s got stellite inserts which allows them to shoot much longer when hot without the barrel failing).

 

[GrauGeist]

Just a side note:
If one looks at actual photos of the M4 Sherman in action, two things become apparent.
1. Few photos show the tank commander fully out of the hatch, let alone manning the .50 MG.
2. A great number of photos show the .50 MG not even mounted in the pintle (either stowed or missing).

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Crunchy on the outside, chewy on the inside.

My favorite Far Side!

 

[SaparotRob]

Mine is "Aphids!".

 

[GrauGeist]

Mine is the "Thagomizer".

Larson's Stegasaurus cartoon was so popular, the scientific community actually made that an official term!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I like to read operational histories and personal memoirs of war. I have specifically read a lot of operational histories of US armor units in WW2.

The .50 cals come up a lot. Not just in WW2 but through every war the US was involved in during the 20th Century, quite a few that the US had nothing to do with, and right up to this day. Heavy machine gun on a Toyota Hilux may not be a glorious endorsement of the concept, but it sure is a popular weapon.

The single .50 may not have been that useful as an AA weapon but they found many other uses for it. The quad .50 such as M16 MGMC was demonstrably extremely effective in several specific battles such as during Operation Bodenplatte. They were also associated with some rather grisly 'friendly fire' incidents. Obviously a heavy machine gun doesn't have the range of a Bofors 40mm, but the latter has a pretty small magazine and has to be reloaded more often, the shells are much larger etc. And the barrels on these AA guns don't last forever either. You also can't stick a 40mm Bofors on top of a tank. Each of these weapons have their role.

How much an externally mounted HMG is used by a tank or other AFV crew is dependent in part on the terrain. In closer terrain (villages, forests) with enemies nearby you are less likely to get out of the tank or even open the hatch (which can pose it's own problems). Where there is a little more space (such as in the desert) is where the heavy machine gun comes into it's own. Quite often tank crews experienced a mix of terrain types, so sometimes the M2 wouldn't be used, sometimes it would and would be considered very helpful.

Some British units may have removed them simply because they did not have the logistical support for them, i.e. they didn't have enough 12.7mm ammunition, spare barrels and other parts in their supply chain.

But the .50 cal in my opinion is actually one of those types of kit which sees sharply increased use as the fighting starts to heat up and pressure from the ground troops increases. For example these images are mainly from the more experienced US armored units from during and right after the Battle of the Bulge. Many of these units either repositioned the M2 for easier / safer access or added extra ones precisely because they were found to be more effective than the .30 caliber.

 

[z42]

I think some of the strong negative feelings about HMG's are due to the fact that it's still a MG. Yes, it carries a lot more punch than a LMG, and API ammo turned out to be decently good for punching holes in engine blocks or (thin) armor plates and for lighting stuff on fire. But for only a little bit bigger caliber you get something firing HE shells which are vastly better against many kinds of targets.
Then again, a HMG seems to be just big enough that you can sprinkle them on all kinds of vehicles without having to worry too much about a massive mount capable of taking the weight and recoil of the gun. Autocannon mounts in comparison tend to be massive affairs, or even mounted in a turret, substantially increasing weight and cost.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

M2s (and any other pintle mounted MG) would also be removed by US crews temporarily sometimes when for example passing through forests because they can get snagged on things. We did this during NATO exercises in the 80s.

 

[EwenS]

I can't help but notice that all the Sherman photos you are posting are of M4A3E8(76). The "Easy 8", with the HVSS suspension and muzzle brake. Only about 2,400 of nearly 50,000 Shermans (excluding post war upgrades) were built as Easy 8.

That model didn't reach Europe for distribution to the front line troops until late Dec 1944. 4th Armored Div was one the first to get them during the fighting around Bastogne. Relatively few reached combat before the end of the war, which is perhaps why there are so many photos of them around.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think some of the strong negative feelings about HMG's are due to the fact that it's still a MG. Yes, it carries a lot more punch than a LMG, and API ammo turned out to be decently good for punching holes in engine blocks or (thin) armor plates and for lighting stuff on fire. But for only a little bit bigger caliber you get something firing HE shells which are vastly better against many kinds of targets.
Then again, a HMG seems to be just big enough that you can sprinkle them on all kinds of vehicles without having to worry too much about a massive mount capable of taking the weight and recoil of the gun. Autocannon mounts in comparison tend to be massive affairs, or even mounted in a turret, substantially increasing weight and cost.

I think it basically comes down to two things, range and cover.

Any kind of machine gun on a free mount is faster to get into action than the cannon, usually. Rather than turn the turret (or in some AFVs, turn the whole vehicle) you just point and shoot. This is very important when dealing with the increasing risks of anti tank infantry teams and smaller crew served weapons. Panzerfaust and panzershriek were a major problem for Allied troops in the last couple of years of WW2, light ATGs were a problem all through the war. As soon as one is spotted, it is a very good idea to immediately engage them. Even a 37mm AT gun can be dangerous to the side armor of most medium tanks let alone say, halftracks.

As a secondary weapon, a .30 cal machine gun is good, and fast to get into action, and you can carry a lot of ammunition. But the effective range is limited to around 800 meters or so (depending on specific type and configuration), and depending on the range, relatively light cover like a logs, a light armored vehicle or a stone wall or thick brick wall can protect against it.

A heavy machine gun (12.7mm, 14.5mm whatever) can be trained onto a target just about as quickly as a .30 caliber weapon, but it has a bit more effective range (maybe 1,200 - 1,500 meters or more again depending on the configuration) and it can destroy cover more effectively.

The German answer to this was so just vastly increase the rate of fire so you have more bullets, and make a very high quality .30 (.311) caliber weapon which has a bit better effective range. The US, Soviet etc. answer was the heavy machine gun.

An HMG is also a bit more intimidating. And people tend to forget, the primary purpose of machine guns in general is suppression of enemy units. Making them put their heads down. Making them stop whatever mischief they are up to. Making them leave the battle area or at least pull back. I think M2 is pretty good a that in particular, or so I hear from my friends who were in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For things like halftracks etc., if someone is shooting at you with a light machine gun and you shoot back with a heavy machine gun they are much more likely to stop and do something else, IMO.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I can't help but notice that all the Sherman photos you are posting are of M4A3E8(76). The "Easy 8", with the HVSS suspension and muzzle brake. Only about 2,400 of nearly 50,000 Shermans (excluding post war upgrades) were built as Easy 8.

That model didn't reach Europe for distribution to the front line troops until late Dec 1944. 4th Armored Div was one the first to get them during the fighting around Bastogne. Relatively few reached combat before the end of the war, which is perhaps why there are so many photos of them around.

Lol I figured somebody might say something about that. That's just because I got them from a website with an article about the use of external armor and applique armor during the Battle of the Bulge, specifically because the images were already sized pretty small so i wouldn't have to resize them to post here (I try to post smaller photos so as not to place a burden on the reader). Not all of those are E8 many are just other (earlier) M4/76, which you will tend to see more of by then.

But I should have known somebody would think it was a conspiracy. Some of those tanks had 'illegal' armor, in one of those photos General Patton himself is walking back after having just chastized a tank crew for putting logs and sandbags etc. on their tank. His units put applique armor from dead tanks on instead.

In general there are a lot more actual combat photos of M4 tanks with the .50 caliber gun because there were a lot more combat photos toward the latter part of the war and by then there were a lot of M4s with 76mm guns. There are also a lot of photos with the .50 caliber removed or not shown, but that doesn't mean they weren't using it, it may have been taken down while moving through something like bocage or forest because they can get snagged. They can be put back on later.

But anyway ok here are some more pics with the 75mm M4s

M4 with 75mm gun (I think M4A3 but not certain) in France

Early cast hull M4 with the .50 cal on the back of the turret

I think this is also France

This is Italy

M4 with 2nd Armored division, Ubach Germany 1944. Early M4 with the vision things on the front.



Plus as a bonus, a few other vehicles:

M10 in action with .50 cals

M-18 in action with .50 cal used

M7 "priest"

M3 halftrack

And finally, yeah this is an "Easy 8" - Korean War

 

[special ed]

The fourth pic down in post 393 shows a sour looking Gen. Patton.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The fourth pic down in post 393 shows a sour looking Gen. Patton.

Yeah that's the one where he just finished telling them off for putting sandbags on the tank.

There was a big debate in 1944, which was the first time the US had encountered the panther in any large numbers, and was increasingly facing panzerfaust and panzershriek infantry anti-tank weapons, as to how to improve the armor. Everyone pretty much agreed it needed to be improved.

There was basically three approaches. One was to put sandbags and logs and extra tracks, whatever you had on the outside of the tank. Everybody has seen this.

Another was to pour concrete slabs and affix those to the outside of the tank.

At the time tests seemed to reveal that neither of these methods was effective. Both added a lot of weight.

The third method was to cut the glacis plate and other armor off of knocked out Shermans and also German panthers, and weld that to the Sherman. This was the most effective of thr three methods, and was the one that Patton allowed. It wasn't quite as heavy (and therefore damaging to suspension) as the concrete and sand bag approach. This field mod was probably the inspiration for the manufactured equivalent Sherman M4A3E2 "Jumbo" which also arrived in small numbers, in time for the relief of Bastogne.