Foxgamer | 11 Oct 2016 1:37 a.m. PST |
Hi folks! At the moment I am (like many amateur wargamers) tinkering about and writing my own WWII ruleset. My focus is upon battalion and above level actions with the company as the basic building block. Here's a current issue I'm looking for help on… After doing a little scratching around on how half track mounted infantry fought, it seems that the main idea is that the infantry got out of the halftrack before serious combat began. So. What role did the halftrack actually play? This description would suggest that the half track played very little role in the engagement itself. if that was the case, why were they fitted with machine guns? This would suggest an active role in combat. Were the machine guns purely for defensive fire while on the manouvre? Suppressive fire on the attack? I know that one size doesn't fit all in this discussion, but I imagine there would have been some tactical guidance on the role of the halftrack during the sharp end of combat actions of their infantry? Thanks for your ideas…. |
Martin Rapier | 11 Oct 2016 1:53 a.m. PST |
By and large they were used as battle busses in WW2, they were APCs, not IFVs. Their principal use was in traversing the beaten zone of the enemy defensive artillery barrage (as they provided reasonable protection from shell fragments). In some cases the vehicles would remain to provide fire support (particularly the ones with heavy weapons mounted on them!) and in rare cases assaults would be conducted mounted by the infantry (usually against light opposition or if they had been thoroughly prepped by artillery and airstrikes first). Generally the infantry got out though as the vehicles were hideously vulnerable to close assault, any sort of AT weapon and even MGs could penetrate them at close range. The Nafziger 'German Squad Tactics' includes doctrine for panzergrenadiers, mounted and dismounted. For my own rules using company stands, I base armoured infantry with halftracks, bump up their firepower to represent the extra heavy weapons and ammo and treat them as (very light) armoured targets for direct and indirect fire. They have the option to dismount and send the halftracks away, in which case they are treated as dismounted infantry stands (which makes them more effective in close terrain, and allows them to dig in). Seems to work OK. |
Foxgamer | 11 Oct 2016 2:05 a.m. PST |
Many thanks Martin, some great advice |
Martin Rapier | 11 Oct 2016 2:22 a.m. PST |
I generally rate WW2 era field artillery as pretty poor when firing indirect against armoured targets, so the armour rating gives them a fair degree of protection against defensive fire. Once your basic element is a company, you can abstract a lot of stuff away, which is hugely helpful. The area I really struggle with halftracks is in tactical games where everyone wants to use them as a light tank, and cite daft situations like Graebners charge over Arnhem Bridge (that went well, didn't it!). |
Andy ONeill | 11 Oct 2016 2:36 a.m. PST |
That's a good summary from Martin. The idea was definitely NOT for the half tracks to provide cover or fire support or drive right onto the objective. Some units did this though. A bunch of machine guns can provide a substantial weight of fire. They were successful against light or demoralised opposition. They could come unstuck otherwise. It's largely the weight of machine gun fire gave them their effect when used to support an assault. I've not heard of jeeps used like this but bren carriers were used for coup de main and to provide fire support. There's like 12 or 13 machine guns in such a unit. Not much tougher than a bunch of "technicals" really. Bren carriers and US half tracks were not (even) immune to rifle fire. A machine gun could penetrate at short range; "beat" through armour by overheating and weakening; drop rounds in at range or from a higher elevation. |
Griefbringer | 11 Oct 2016 3:13 a.m. PST |
Regarding the machine guns, they would also provide some degree of air defense for the halftracks, which were probably moderately vulnerable to air attacks. There were also actual AA-guns mounted on halftrack chassis, and in the late war these were supposed to be found in the German panzergrenadier units even at the company level (at least on paper). Also, the machine guns could also be dismounted from the vehicle and placed on a tripod/bipod for use on the ground, if so desired. As for other weapons mounted on halftracks, don't forget the mortars! |
Weasel | 11 Oct 2016 4:08 a.m. PST |
If your scenario involves any sort of victory points or casualty limits, increase the value of the half tracks to make the player a bit more reluctant. I played one game somewhere for some system where you couldn't move your transports beyond the middle of the table. A bit "gamey" but it worked well enough. |
Foxgamer | 11 Oct 2016 4:28 a.m. PST |
fab feedback… In my head the use of the machine guns would relate to their effective range. For them to be used would require a certain 'closeness' to the enemy. Factor in the ability of the dismounted infantry to communicate and co-ordinate their actions with those of the halftracks creates a certain quandary in the machine guns effectiveness at all. Yet the machine guns were still incorporated as a standard part of the halftracks inventory when transporting infantry… I rather like Griefbringer's idea that the MGs would be dismounted and carried forward (except maybe the 50cals?).; gives them a reason to be there if the halftracks were not expected to engage in direct firefights |
Martin Rapier | 11 Oct 2016 5:21 a.m. PST |
Oh yes, most of the US and German MGs were supposed to be dismounted. The British often didn't bother to arm the halftracks at all. I wouldn't overthink the tactical nuances if a single stand is representing a company. Think about the capabilities of the battalion. Armoured infantry battalion = cross country mobility similar to tanks, armoured protection vs artillery fire and small arms, more firepower than a leg infantry battalion, can operate mounted or dismounted. (and can attach out as companies to support the fully tracked elements and/or form combat teams). |
Griefbringer | 11 Oct 2016 5:28 a.m. PST |
I rather like Griefbringer's idea that the MGs would be dismounted and carried forward (except maybe the 50cals?). Good old .50 cal is certainly a bit on the heavy side, but should still be portable over short distances. Then again, if there is any risk of enemy air action, you might want to leave at least one MG per platoon mounted on the halftracks for AA defense, and for that the .50 cal would be the best. That said, one of the squads in a US armored infantry platoon was designated as an MG squad, and they had two .30 cals designated for dismounted use (plus a .50 cal to go with the halftrack), which would already provide some firepower. As for the German panzergrenadiers, they had typically two bipod mounted MGs for dismounting, plus a third one to be kept at the vehicle. When the squad would mount the vehicle, it would also attach one of the "dismount" MGs on the rear pintle (where it could be used for air defense). |
miniMo | 11 Oct 2016 6:53 a.m. PST |
The machine guns were there to protect a valuable and vulnerable transportation resource to protect the vehicles and troops from any mayhem that might occur before they reach their deployment zone, or maybe for potshot suppression fire at bypassed positions while punching through with the armour on a breakthrough. And mounting machine guns that are getting lugged around anyway is a very good back-up plan. At the higher level engagements, halftracks are not a weapons platform beyond incidental suppression fire. The biggest armoured infantry engagement I've read up on is Operation Totalize. The Canadians scraped together every possible armoured carrier they could find (or convert!) Their sole role was transport to get the troops moving, there was no doctrine for using them in engagements during the battles. The assualt began at night, and on that first night all the machine guns were removed — the possibility of friendly fire amongst columns during a nighttime blitz was seen as too great a threat. The machine guns were put back on the next day. But the vehicles were not used in a direct combat role. If transports were lost on day 2 of the assault, there would be no day 3 of the assault… |
79thPA | 11 Oct 2016 7:48 a.m. PST |
The problem with wargamers is that they want to use tracks as chariots instead of as transportation. Start at page 31: PDF link The following field manuals have a lot of info for US use of armored infantry:
PDF link
PDF link I agree that the loss of tracks should count heavily against whatever side uses them -- they are not throw away assets. |
Andy ONeill | 11 Oct 2016 7:51 a.m. PST |
50 cals were rarely removed from half tracks for purposes of combat. They're pretty heavy things to lug round without a very good reason. The mg squad would usually remove and set up their 30 cals when entrenching. I'm not at all sure how that would be represented in a stand = company game. |
vtsaogames | 11 Oct 2016 8:08 a.m. PST |
I think vehicles should just drive off after unloading, unless you are doing a last stand scenario where the unit is surrounded and possibly out of fuel. I recall games of Panzerblitz where players would unload infantry from trucks and then have the trucks drive into enemy positions to draw fire. If you let wargamers do just what they want you'll get stuff like that. Just like based on Ramsay's horse artillery at Fuentes d'Onoro, people want limbered artillery to be able to charge. Take the extreme exception and make it the norm. If you've assembled and painted a lightly armored vehicle with a weapon mounted on it, you're going to want to use it to shoot at the enemy. |
Griefbringer | 11 Oct 2016 8:20 a.m. PST |
I agree that the loss of tracks should count heavily against whatever side uses them -- they are not throw away assets. Especially for the Germans, who were only able to equip a fraction of their panzergrenadiers with them. Not to mention that good drivers were also valuable source, especially if they have mechanical skills to maintain the vehicle. |
idontbelieveit | 11 Oct 2016 8:29 a.m. PST |
Yeah, I was going to bring up the equipment issue. For the Germans it was often pretty hard to come by. And I have a great pic of the motorized infantry of a Soviet tank army advancing at the start of '44. Not a vehicle to be seen anywhere…. |
Dan 055 | 11 Oct 2016 8:42 a.m. PST |
I agree with what Martin Rapier and vtsaogames are saying. Think of it from another point of view – the end result. If you allow it (and the rules reward it), then the main attacks will be made by the mobile armoured mg nests (the halftracks) and the infantry will become nothing more than the excuse for being allowed to field the halftracks. |
Griefbringer | 11 Oct 2016 9:19 a.m. PST |
Regarding game and scenario design, another way to encourage sparing use of the halftracks is to design scenarios where the armoured infantry will need to secure multiple locations in a reasonable time, and these locations are separated by long distances – if too many vehicles are lost early on, the unit would no longer have the required mobility to reach them all in time. Though on the other hand too tight time limit might mean that they would not have time to dismount/remount for each encounter, thus leading to a hurried and costly mounted rush on some of the objectives. Another issue is fatigue and supplies – armoured infantry can stash plenty of spare ammo, water, bandages, chocolate bars etc. in their vehicles, thus allowing easy tactical resupply as long as the vehicles are still intact (you don't want to try and fetch ammo resupply from a burning wreck…). Thus maybe armoured infantry formations should have an option to be "well stocked" when they dismount, given them a bonus on their firepower for a round or two when they initially engage the enemy. After those rounds, the bonus would be lost, but it could be regained if they re-connect with their vehicles for a turn when not under fire. US halftracks could also have mineracks on the sides for anti-tank mines. Not sure how often those were used in practice, but in principle this should allow a rifle company to lay a small minefield in a reasonable time and then pull to a defensive position to cover it with fire from small arms, bazookas and anti-tank guns. Also, travelling on a halftrack should ensure that the men are in fresher condition than if they had travelled the whole distance on foot (though cross-country trips might get a bit bumby). Though this is something a bit trickier to present in-game. |
UshCha2 | 11 Oct 2016 10:27 a.m. PST |
While it is true that the MG would be more for air defense most wargames rules fail to get Machine guns right anyway. Reading up on such things a 50 cal would be effective out to 1500 yds (where the Tracer runs out). Therefore it could provide fire support from a distance well beyond all but artillery, anti tank guns and mortars. Even the humble Bren carrier with an LMG is no more effective closer than 400 yds. This does not make a good wargame if you have just spent huge amounts of time and money on a half track that never gets on table. I think it is in "War without Garlands" one quote from an armoured infantry man says they spent hours under fire huddled in their Hanomags as they crossed enemy lines then got out and dug in behind enemy lines and then spent weeks in trenches. |
doug redshirt | 11 Oct 2016 11:31 a.m. PST |
The US was chronically short of infantry to support the armor. By the end of the war there was not enough organic armored infantry. So they just addd an infantry division to an armored division and loaded the infantry on the tanks and surplus trucks. Tankers always preferred to have their own infantry squad on board for the extra eyes. Of course at this time mobility was more important. |
lapatrie88 | 11 Oct 2016 12:49 p.m. PST |
Were the 50cal MG useful if the company en route ran into an ambush, or if the bivouac was in the way of a night counterattack? We're there any differences in doctrine regarding use of haltracks for Gemans, British, Russians, or Americans; or was everyone pretty much alike? |
Thomas Thomas | 11 Oct 2016 1:19 p.m. PST |
Armored INF in WWII present an interesting problem. Here's how I handled in Combat Command (platoon is atomic unit). Mounted count as Light(-) AFV w/1 INF shot; spotted as a Vehicle. Dismounted but retaining halftrack count as an INF target BUT spotted as a Vehicle; 1 INF shot from dismounted platoon but counts High Firepower (+1) for extra MGs; retained halftrack adds another +1 for MGs and esp. extra ammo carried. Can dismiss halftrack (taken off table); still count as 1 INF shot but retain +1 High Fire Power (No halftrack support bonus though). Spotted as INF. Principles: Halftracks either support armored infantry or leave table they do not wander around or "pick" up other units. Armored Inf have more firepower than regular grunts due to extra MGs this is enhanced if they retain halftrack BUT if they do they are spotted as a Vehicle. TomT |
Fred Cartwright | 11 Oct 2016 1:54 p.m. PST |
While it is true that the MG would be more for air defense most wargames rules fail to get Machine guns right anyway. Reading up on such things a 50 cal would be effective out to 1500 yds (where the Tracer runs out). Therefore it could provide fire support from a distance well beyond all but artillery, anti tank guns and mortars. Even the humble Bren carrier with an LMG is no more effective closer than 400 yds. This does not make a good wargame if you have just spent huge amounts of time and money on a half track that never gets on table. I doubt US Armoured infantry were trained in the area fire techniques to use their 50 cals out to 1500m. An air cooled pintle mount MG is not the right weapon for it anyway. Squad LMG's were designed to win the firefight at 100-400m range. Outside that range other weapons such as mortars and artillery are more effective. |
Legion 4 | 11 Oct 2016 1:57 p.m. PST |
Yes, the .50cal was mounted primarily as an AA weapon. As well as an Infantry support weapon. And as noted, the APC, could provide fire support for dismounted Infantry. To suppress and kill the enemy. [Much like the modern M113.] Were the 50cal MG useful if the company en route ran into an ambush, or if the bivouac was in the way of a night counterattack? The .50 cal would be very useful to provide suppressive firepower in both those scenarios. Keeping the vehicles moving if at all possible. Use all that firepower, sound, falling foliage, etc., for slowing up or even stopping an attack. And in a WWII Armor Inf Company, you could have as many as 15 or so .50s As noted the 50 cal stayed on the vehicle, that was our SOP even in the '80s. The only time we may dismount it is in a deliberate defense. The .50 in the '80s, the gun, tripod, etc. weighed 127 lbs. So I'm sure the WWII .50 was pretty similar. And again you really could not carry the heavy beast too far. It would take at least 2 men just for the weapon itself. Not including the tripod, plus the ammo. Another reason to keep it mounted, was ammo storage and availability. That was all on the track/APC. Dismounting means based on the situation, it may limit your ammo. And staying mounted retained your mobility. But again, in certain defensive situations it could be dismounted. Also note a .50 could easily penetrate thin armor, light vehicles and chew thru cinder block bricks like it was peanut brittle. We would practice on the side aspect of a BMP target. So if it could penetrate the flank and rear of that modern vehicle. Imagine what a .50 would do on some WWII vehicles. German Armored Cars, Halftracks, light tanks etc., could be damaged or KO'd by .50 cal fire. |
Lion in the Stars | 11 Oct 2016 5:47 p.m. PST |
I've always heard that the .50cal was a 3-man load: one guy carries the barrel, one carries the receiver, and the third packs the tripod. Everyone else within shouting distance of the sergeant carries ammo for it. As far as I've read, only the Germans really had any doctrine for fighting out of their Hanomags. Everyone else used them as a nominally artillery-proof taxi and left the halftracks in cover. |
Mark 1 | 11 Oct 2016 6:05 p.m. PST |
As far as I've read, only the Germans really had any doctrine for fighting out of their Hanomags. Everyone else used them as a nominally artillery-proof taxi and left the halftracks in cover. My readings paint a somewhat different picture. At least initially. From what I have read the US Army had a rather cavalry "shock of action" view of armored attacks in the early war. US armored battalions were heavily weighted towards light tanks. The working theory seemed to favor a cavalry-charge style of attack, with light tanks leading and halftracks of armored infantry right behind, driving at high speed, all MGs blazing, directly on to the enemy position. Initial US tank designs featured many MGs to help in this model. The M3 Stuart initially had two fixed forward-firing MGs in over-the-track hull sponsons. The M3 Lee and even the initial pre-production M4 Sherman also had fixed forward-firing MGs. These in addition to the MGs we all know of from later versions (co-ax and hull gunner MGs). It was only when the US Army got to Tunisia that they found that a battle-experienced enemy did not cower and flee when the armored armada charged across no-man's land with MG rounds bouncing from ground to sky. Rather, they stayed in cover and shot back with a great number of weapons, inflicting casualties while taking almost none. And the enemy positions, generally sited in depth, did not get "carried" by a single charge, as the objective was in fact a zone rather than a place. Subsequently, yes, the doctrine was very much for the armored infantry to dismount outside of direct fire and fight on foot. Even there, I do believe that the halftracks would frequently provide a base of fire, though, if the troops were expected to advance through enemy fire on to their objective. Looking at the FM for halftrack crew drill, linked above by 79thPA PDF link , which was the 1943 FM and so not entirely purged of pre-1942 notions, you can see a fair bit of information on how the troopers were expected to fight from the halftrack. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Skarper | 12 Oct 2016 1:55 a.m. PST |
I think you have to remember that the gun is not the weapon – the bullets are. For a .50 cal the ammo is heavy and cumbersome. You are looking at huge boxes that only hold 100 rounds [going by memory here so maybe wrong]. The box is going to weight about 30lbs. Infantry aren't going to be very mobile if they have a box to carry plus their regular gear. Even the halftracks didn't carry a huge supply of ammo – 700 rounds is one figure I've found. In a static defense we can envisage stockpiles of ammo from the reserves. But the armoured infantry aren't going to be dismounting .50 cals and setting them up on the attack. Plenty of .30 cals around if they need that anyway. A lot of rules rather gloss over ammo issues. I can see why – it's a faff to keep track of it. But it is important to somehow factor it in. Another downside of the .50 cal is its huge signature. Easy to spot and suppress unless in a well entrenched position. |
christot | 12 Oct 2016 4:48 a.m. PST |
Always find it somewhat peculiar that wargamers (and rule writers) think that troops just love lugging HMG's and their ammo (and water) around in attacks on foot. It just didn't happen very often. HMGs in support of attacks set up and then fired pretty much on a pre-set fire plan, they didn't run around the battlefield on foot seeking out targets…think artillery rather than LMG. |
Legion 4 | 12 Oct 2016 7:15 a.m. PST |
I've always heard that the .50cal was a 3-man load: one guy carries the barrel, one carries the receiver, and the third packs the tripod. Everyone else within shouting distance of the sergeant carries ammo for it. That sounds about right. A .50cal like any MG can go thru a lot of ammo with sustained fire. Another downside of the .50 cal is its huge signature. Easy to spot and suppress unless in a well entrenched position. That pretty much can be said about most heavy weapon. E.g. The sound of the German's M42s high rate of fire gave it away. In the defense, on some occasions you wouldn't fire all your heavy weapons, like .50cals. Until the enemy had reached the FPF [Final Protective Fire] Line. But as always it depends on the specific situation and terrain, etc., … We used to say, "Heavy Weapons draw heavy return fire." HMGs in support of attacks set up and then fired pretty much on a pre-set fire plan, they didn't run around the battlefield on foot seeking out targets The supporting MGs, etc., would be given specific Sectors of Fire or specific target(s). Then those could be changed based on the situation. Using specific signals, etc., to "Lift and Shift". |
badger22 | 12 Oct 2016 7:59 a.m. PST |
Skarper yes, 100 rounds. I dont think they were 30 pounds though. we always carried them in the M548, so I dont really remeber packing them around. it seems like they were about twice the weight of a box of 7.62, but I dont remember what they weighed either. but, still very heavy however much it was. Owen |
Skarper | 12 Oct 2016 8:30 a.m. PST |
I googled .50 cal weight and got a figure of 117g for 'ball' ammo. Then multiplied by 100 to get 11.7 kg. added a bit for the links and a bit more for the box. Getting towards 30lbs. I guess I overestimated a little. maybe 25lbs? |
Legion 4 | 12 Oct 2016 8:55 a.m. PST |
Yes, most who had experience with a .50 cal can all agree. The weapon and ammo are some heavy Mutha' Frakkers ! |
Lion in the Stars | 12 Oct 2016 5:00 p.m. PST |
@Skarper: About 35lbs for 100 rounds linked in a steel ammo can. link 200 round boxes of 7.62NATO were bad enough! |
Skarper | 12 Oct 2016 10:46 p.m. PST |
Thanks Lion.. In my own rules I make it really hard to move the ammo for a .50 cal on foot. It is also an issue for the Germans with their preponderance of MG34/42s which chew thru their ammo fast. If the boxed ammo is 35 lbs then you can't very well carry one in each hand and will probably need to carry one between two guys. This must be awkward if people are or might be shooting at you. |
UshCha | 13 Oct 2016 8:55 a.m. PST |
In all our periods WWII onwards in Maneouver Group you can only use an MG in sustained fire mode if it has a lot of ammo local to it. In WW2 the Germans can do it as every platoon has a hores and cart so if that is close by you have ammo. Otherwise the squad can be used to carry ammo to the sites of the MG and dump it off. But while doing so they cannot fight. I see no massive diffrence for a 50 cal as the ammo weighs more but you would not expect it to fire round for round the same number as say a 30 cal MG. |
Legion 4 | 13 Oct 2016 2:44 p.m. PST |
The Rate of Fire of .50 cal is slower than a .30 cal. IIRC, a .50 cal RoF is @ 450/min. and most .30 cal @ 600 ? |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Oct 2016 8:09 p.m. PST |
But either .50cal or .30cal (air-cooled) will only fire about 50 rounds a minute for sustained fire. Turns out a .30cal ammo can is about half the weight of a .50cal, ~17lbs full. Though oddly enough, if you filled a .50cal ammo can with .30cal, it's still ~35lbs! |
Skarper | 13 Oct 2016 10:10 p.m. PST |
.50 cals cyclic rate of fire is lower but I don't think it has a big impact on sustained rate of fire. Air-cooled MGs typically get fired in bursts of 3-10 rounds [I understand]. The weight of the .50 cal rounds compensates for having shorter bursts. I have read the .50 smashes up the target area so much it creates local shrapnel. Though an 8mm bullet is pretty heavy too and there are a lot more coming downrange in the case of an MG42 anyway. |
Legion 4 | 14 Oct 2016 6:27 a.m. PST |
The MG 42 has a lot higher RoF than other MGs. We were taught MGs should fire in 6-9 bursts to prevent overheating etc., … And if you ever heard a .50 cal, you can clearly discern the slower RoF, from other MGs. However, for gaming purposes, I don't think it will matter. Save for .50 cal range and penetration is generally better. |
badger22 | 14 Oct 2016 6:58 a.m. PST |
Man I dont remember them being that heavy, guess my 25 yo self was a lot tougher than my 55 yo self. Legion the .50 was so slow that when they first mounted them on planes to shoot through the propeller, with the interrupter gear, they almost were single shot. I use an old M60 box as a foot rest, I should have just filled it up and weighed it. |
Legion 4 | 14 Oct 2016 11:04 a.m. PST |
the .50 was so slow that when they first mounted them on planes to shoot through the propeller, with the interrupter gear, they almost were single shot. Didn't think of that ! LOL ! Man I dont remember them being that heavy, guess my 25 yo self was a lot tougher than my 55 yo self. That is a natural progression … the older you get … the less you can pick-up … |
Starfury Rider | 14 Oct 2016 12:27 p.m. PST |
I recently found some info on the ammunition carried by PzGren units in halftracks, limited to the SdKfz250 equipped Light Recce Coy, and only for the Apr44 version, but something at least. This was based on 44 LMGs, 18 dismounts for Squad use and 26 mounted on 250s. For the 18 LMGs the total allowance was 37,800 rounds (s.S.), 5,400 rnds (s.m.K.) and 1,800 rnds (S.m.K.L.) That works out to 2,500 rounds per dismount LMG. For the halftrack weapons it was 26,130 rnds each of S.m.K. and S.m.K.L. making an odd 2010 rnds per LMG. I'm not a German speaker/reader, and so abbreviations are even more problematic. From an old manual I 'think' that s.S. means heavy pointed round (ie standard), s.m.k. denotes a steel core and S.m.K.L. is a tracer round. I was also recently gifted some US Armd Div T/Os, which included the equipment sections (I've only ever gone for the organization part in past research). For the Sep43 US Armd Rifle Coy the 20 halftracks had 10 M2 .50-cal and 10 M1917A1 .30-cal MGs. Each shows as being provided with the relevant tripod, so they could be dismounted for the ground role. No indication of how much ammo was available per gun. Gary |
Legion 4 | 14 Oct 2016 12:41 p.m. PST |
Yes, pretty much all US MGs, then and now came with tripods, T&Es, etc., … Sometimes, as I mentioned you had to dismount and dig in. |
number4 | 06 Nov 2016 7:57 p.m. PST |
One important point: the vehicle mounted MG is fired by the squad leader, so forget about blatting away with the gun while your squad bravely charges that MG42 nest. Only ever happens in wargames. A simple rule in combat is, if you can see the enemy and shoot at him, he and his buddies sure as hell can shoot back. |
Blutarski | 06 Nov 2016 8:59 p.m. PST |
M2 50cal HB wing mounted guns in US WW2 a/c had a cyclic rate of fire of 650-750 rpm per gun; IIRC, this was improved to about 800+ rpm in the immediate postwar period. Ground and vehicle mounted M2s had a cyclic rate of 450-550 rpm. B |
Lion in the Stars | 07 Nov 2016 12:30 a.m. PST |
The A/N M2 .50cal used in aircraft was much lighter than the M2HB used on the ground. When you have a 300mph wind cooling your gun you don't need as much metal to heat up. This let the aircraft guns have a cyclic rate of 750-850rpm, when the M2HB on the ground has a cyclic rate of ~450-550rpm. The A/N M3 .50cal had a mechanically-boosted feed system that could handle 1200rpm cyclic rates, but that was used on early jets in the 1950s like F80s, F84s, and F86s. |