"m3 lee machine guns" Topic

I note this tank had up to four machine guns, and as the Wiki tells me two were…. mounted in the hull, fixed in traverse but adjustable in elevation, which were controlled by the driver. These were, due to coordination issues, removed.

Most wargame rules seem to ignore these MG s. The tank in Kubinka tank museum shows them so I guess they were used in action, so were they effective?

Hi Frank

No, they weren't effective, so everybody removed them. You had to aim the whole tank to fire them and if you were at leisure to do that you were better off using one of the turret weapons from a hull down position.

Correct. Most rules ignore them because most tankers ignore them. The same was true of the early M3 sponson MGs and the Crusader I mg turrets

I think this youtu.be/RIjLtAt1zII?t=293 covers it. More machine guns than useful got put on a lot of vehicles.

x42

Useless fixed MGs were a feature of a number of AFVs, including the Lee.

Just one more thing to clean and used up valuable space which could be used for other things.

X42Brown. Thanks fort the clip. All interesting the comments unrealated to this thread, on the stabilisers were also very interesting.

Stramgely enough the Modern Russian IFV's BMP3
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-3
has 2 bow Hull machine guns, wheather because this vehicle has stabilisers on the main arrmament, this helps in making the weapons effective is questionable.

you're bang on Martin – as a former Tankie – the amount of cleaning will ultimately colour your views of tactical utility!

Didn't some of the Honeys sent to the desert have 6 Browning MGs? Mad amount of stripping down and cleaning in that environment. Compare that to the Firefly which had just the coax,and a second MG if one was added to the commander's hatch,
EC

Didn't some of the Honeys sent to the desert have 6 Browning MGs? Mad amount of stripping down and cleaning in that environment.

Most I can think of is 5:
- one coaxial with the main gun
- one on AA mount on top
- one for the bow machinegunner
- two forward fixed

Of course there would also be the main gun (37 mm) that would require a bit of looking after.

Besides the maintenance, there would also be the issue of ammo supply.

Iirc very early prototype sherman had 2 fixed mg in the front Hull, Bovington has one. Luckily someone thought better of the idea.

Yes, I had read and scene the same. That the M3 Stuart had about 5 MGs in it's early version. Most of those in the hull were removed and the hole filled with a metal plug or square patch.

You can see in these pics some with the hull mounted MGs, 1 on each side. Which would be like a sponson mount e.g. like some WWI AFVs had.

As well as in these pics you can the plug/patch covering hole once the MGs were removed. link

Besides the maintenance, there would also be the issue of ammo supply.

That is always the bottom line – Logistics …

In one of my numerous manuals is the daily maintenance schedule for a Grant, it makes my heart sink just reading it.

I can see why the crews only got a couple of hours sleep a night. Just what you need when setting off the face the Afrika Korps at dawn.

Only of use if you have the misfortune to play Flames of War in full cheese mode.

In one of my numerous manuals is the daily maintenance schedule for a Grant, it makes my heart sink just reading it.

When I was on Active Duty['79-'90] all vehicles had Before, During and After Maintenance checks. Outlined in the Maint Manuals. Called Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services i.e. PMCS. Sometimes called "Catering to the Iron Monster" …

Every soldier knows those 4 letters well. Fortunately our modern vehicles were more generally operator friendly/easier to maintain than many of the WWII AFVs.

In one of my numerous manuals is the daily maintenance schedule for a Grant, it makes my heart sink just reading it.

At least it had larger than average crew, so more bodies available to do the maintenance.

As for the M3 Stuart, with some searching I found these pictures taken from one in a museum in Australia:

link

The second picture shows very nicely the bow MG, coax MG and the two sponson MGs.

Certainly not a contraption I would like to be found inside when anti-tank rounds start flying around. At least the later M5 had a more sensible hull frontal glasis and more hatches for the crew.

Yes, the M5 was a big improvement.

The infamous cult of the machinegun when the military still believed that tanks would rove the battlefield in search of helpless troops and catch them in the open, mowing them down like gangsters in a drive by shooting.

After reality set in they figured that all these extra "land battleship" guns poking in every direction were next to useless. Just like they figured that putting aircraft guns in flexible mounts didn't make them more accurate (cf the Airacuda)

During WWII, New Zealanders managed to come up with their somewhat infamous Bob Semple prototype tank that was armed with no less than six Bren MGs: two to the front, one at each side, one at the rear and one more in a rotating turret. Though at least it had enough crew to provide a separate gunner for each MG.

Makes you appreciate the humble French FT-17 tank with its simple but functional formulation: a single rotating turret mounting a single MG (or 37 mm gun). This backed with other novel (by the tank standards of the day) features such as suspension, easy to use transmission and separation of the engine space from crew space. Combining the 37 mm gun with a coaxial MG could have been a further innovation, though…

And the FT-17 was used in WWII and not just by the French.

Indeed, back in the 1920's FT tanks ended up in over 20 countries around the world, including China, Japan, Brazil, United Stated and Soviet Union. Apparently all of the customers did not appreciate the elegance of the single turret and single MG approach, based on the results of their own later experiments.

Soviets also made their own derivative in the form of T-18 tank, which had the advantage of mounting both 37 mm gun and MG in the same turret, though not yet coaxially but on two neighboring sides of the turret. I have no idea how smoothly the gunner could transition from operating one weapon to another.

Apparently later on the "Needs More Dakka" approach came to dominate amongst those setting up requirements for new Soviet tank designs, resulting in multi-turret monstrosities such as T-35, T-28 and early versions of T-26, or sticking extra MG to the rear of the turret for KV-1.

___________________________________________________________

Another popular feature in the early WWII tanks were turret pistol ports, which the crews could use to discharge their personal small arms in case they did not have anything better to do. After a while these started to disappear from new designs…

Yes, those pistol ports would both ways if I understand that correctly. The first I heard about it was at Khaklin-Gol just before WWII.

Back to the original topic of the fixed hull MGs, I presume these could have some suppressive effect if the tank happens to be pointed at the right direction. However, actually hitting a specific target with them should be rather challenging, since the only way to adjust the aim is to rotate the tank, which is rather clumsy. Furthermore, driver continuously twisting the tank left and right in an effort to hit something will greatly annoy the turret and sponson gunners, whose aim will be thrown off a bit every time.

In real world combat conditions, driving a tank effectively is probably a full time job already without needing to fiddle around with some fixed MGs.

Gaming wise they would probably best be simply ignored.

An interesting observation on those sponson mounted MGs:

"The M3 had stepped front hull with a machine gun mounted in each sponson in addition to a hull machine gun. These sponson machine guns had a fixed aim and were fired via a control cable. Trials showed that they were more actually more effective than the manually aimed bow machine gun (so long as you wanted to shoot in the direction you were facing)."

From link

I would have though the benefits of wiggling the tank to aim its fixed machine guns would have been more than offset by the risk of throwing a track while doing so.

Pistol ports were a weak point and a fair bit of work to manufacture. They had a limited field of view. Not terribly useful. Chucking a grenade out a batch was more practical. Small mortars were more flexible. And of course support infantry way better.

If you were designing a tank with only the Entente experience from WW1 to work from then hull mounted machine guns made sense. The early days of WW2 showed that tanks had more to fear from other tanks and from antitank guns than from antitank rifles and infantry throwing grenades into the tracks.

I believe that multiple fixed forward-firing MGs should not be seen as an attempt to give the tank some defense against antitank rifles and infantry throwing grenades.

If that were the intent, there is little sense in fixing the MGs to fire forward. You don't throw grenades into the tracks from the front. When we look at the prime examples of tanks with multiple fixed forward-firing MGs (the M3 "Lee" Medium, the French Char B which seems to have had such a large influence on it's configuration, or even the M3 "Stuart" light tank), they all have sufficient armor to be reasonably immune to ATR fire from the front.

I believe that there was a different intent for the fixed MGs. One that does not rely on the driver wiggling the tank (at risk to his tracks) to accurately aim them. The primary purpose of multiple fixed forward-firing MGs, to my readings, is suppressive fire while advancing onto an enemy position. The goal, and one of the principal tactical doctrines for the tank forces using these tanks, was the "shoot the infantry onto the objective". The tanks were to fire while advancing, slowly, at an infantry pace, with the infantry, halting to fire HE from their main gun when an enemy MG position was actually identified, and otherwise spraying thousands of rounds of bullets all over from h3ll to breakfast, to keep the enemy suppressed until GIs with bayonets on the end of their rifles were sharing their trenches.

This was the experience about how to use tanks that the primary combat arms (infantry and artillery) took from the fields of WW1.

Or so I've seen in my readings.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I believe that there was a different intent for the fixed MGs. One that does not rely on the driver wiggling the tank (at risk to his tracks) to accurately aim them. The primary purpose of multiple fixed forward-firing MGs, to my readings, is suppressive fire while advancing onto an enemy position. The goal, and one of the principal tactical doctrines for the tank forces using these tanks, was the "shoot the infantry onto the objective".

I would expect the hull-mounted MGs to have some suppressive effect under such circumstances, though I would expect better effect from MGs that could be actually aimed.

With such tactics, the infantry would be advised to advance behind the tanks, rather than in front of them…

Yes, not to mention you don't want to be anywhere near many of the tanks main cannons when they fire. Save for some of the small caliber weapons.

I would expect better effect from MGs that could be actually aimed.

One would think. But there was surprisingly little thought given to actually aiming most of the MGs on tanks.

Take the Sherman, for example. Even after the two fixed forward-firing hull MGs were deleted, the remaining hull MG had no provision for actual aiming. The hull gunner (actually co-driver, mechanic, and radio operator who just happened to have a gun to use when things got hot) could point the gun, but he could not aim the gun. His only way of putting fire onto a specific target (or even into a specific area) was to observe where his fire was going through his periscope, and walk his fire onto whatever or wherever he wanted his bullets to go.

In contrast, the co-ax MG was generally regarded as accurate. Good sites (for an MG), stable in it's mounting, and able to be trained in any direction at any range where the .30cal round was effective. Many first hand accounts from tankers of the period actually identify the co-ax as the tank's primary weapon. Although just about all the tankers I've ever met were of the general opinion that anything worth a squirt with the co-ax was also worth a main gun HE round.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

The hull gunner (actually co-driver, mechanic, and radio operator who just happened to have a gun to use when things got hot) could point the gun, but he could not aim the gun. His only way of putting fire onto a specific target (or even into a specific area) was to observe where his fire was going through his periscope, and walk his fire onto whatever or wherever he wanted his bullets to go.

That is not particularly effective method of firing, though still quite an improvement over the fixed sponson guns. Given enough practice, I presume that a bow gunner would be able to adjust his gun to point in roughly the desired area after a couple of bursts, which would at least give somewhat useful suppression effect.

That said, in the bigger picture making sure that the radio was working probably produced more important outcomes than the bow MG.

Maybe I should go and check how various rules treat the bow MG performance in action…