German cupola/ AA defence machine guns on tanks

[Ghostmaxi 873]

43 minutes ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

 

 They aren't so much drums as they are 50 round belt holders so you don't have to deal with the assistant trying to hang off one side guiding rounds in so its more likely that the belts are stored either in 50 round belts to keep them manageable when fed in or fed out of a loose ammo box in 250 round counts, a pretty heavy and awkward amount. 

 

The 150 round "belt" when reloaded seems to be based off of how often they would have to change out the barrel.

Tanks didnt have the standart barrle , they got a heavier one

[Deadmmann 386]

2 hours ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

 

 They aren't so much drums as they are 50 round belt holders so you don't have to deal with the assistant trying to hang off one side guiding rounds in so its more likely that the belts are stored either in 50 round belts to keep them manageable when fed in or fed out of a loose ammo box in 250 round counts, a pretty heavy and awkward amount. 

 

The 150 round "belt" when reloaded seems to be based off of how often they would have to change out the barrel.

Well a 50. Has only a box of 105 rounds in their can, and they probably shoot way longer ingame

[Drahau 682]

Yeah .50 CAL have insane long belts in game.

[thegoldenball 229]

6 hours ago, Deadmmann said:

Well a 50. Has only a box of 105 rounds in their can, and they probably shoot way longer ingame

 

59 minutes ago, Drahau said:

Yeah .50 CAL have insane long belts in game.

Ingame it is 200 rounds, at least in the M8 Greyhound, it has 400 total for the .50 and only reloads it once, after that it runs out.

[The_Dutchman20 1,039]

21 hours ago, Ghostmaxi said:

Tanks didnt have the standart barrle , they got a heavier one

 

For MG 42s? An MG that was generally not used on WW2 German tanks aside from the JagdPanzer IV superstructures? 

 

MG 34s have tank specific variants but most of the pintle mounted MGs on German tanks are MG 42s currently.

 

MG3A1s are also used on postwar German tanks, but that isn't exactly what they had around in WW2 Germany.

[Deadmmann 386]

15 minutes ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

 

For MG 42s? An MG that was generally not used on WW2 German tanks aside from the JagdPanzer IV superstructures? 

 

MG 34s have tank specific variants but most of the pintle mounted MGs on German tanks are MG 42s currently.

 

MG3A1s are also used on postwar German tanks, but that isn't exactly what they had around in WW2 Germany.

They are far away from a MG42 ingame... like you said apart from the JPZ70 (V) all others from WW2 have the MG34 as a Coax, Hull and AA MG but it isnt moddled on most of said tanks...

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

On 17/10/2019 at 23:13, The_Dutchman20 said:

An MG that was generally not used on WW2 German tanks aside from the JagdPanzer IV superstructures?

 

and the Sdkfz 140/1, 234/2, 234/3, & Panther F's coaxial, and on the fliegerbeschussgerät on the Sdkfz 4/1 & 234/4

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Chomusuke1

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

Also:

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Chomusuke1

[The_Dutchman20 1,039]

On 18/10/2019 at 17:39, Chomusuke1 said:

 

and the Sdkfz 140/1, 234/2, 234/3, & Panther F's coaxial, and on the fliegerbeschussgerät on the Sdkfz 4/1 & 234/4

 

 

Were they using heavier barrels for the MG 42 however given its a recoil operated system already using a booster on it? For that matter, did the MG 34 tank variants even have a heavier barrel than standard or was it just barrel jacket with less holes in it as its also recoil operated?

 

I know they were used on open air mounts on vehicles, but were their barrels at all modified or was it just removing all the bits that weren't needed for in a tank?

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

Quote

Q. Some tanks are still missing functional hull mounted MGs. In addition, some low-mid tier Japanese and German tanks don't have their AA MGs mounted on the roof, whilst most American and Soviet vehicles do. Are you still working on making MGs functional for all vehicles? Do you plan to bring Japan and German tank mounted Anti-Aircraft MGs more into line with the Allied ones?

 

A. When adding machine guns, or rather when “reviving” them - we first of all included the most necessary and useful ones: coaxial with a cannon and anti-aircraft guns. Offensive machine guns also had very low efficiency in real life due to poor visibility and small sectors of fire and in the game they appeared as an exception on the vehicles that don’t have any other machine guns. The latter refers to German SPG’s or Japanese tanks which had a rather strange design without a coaxial machine gun. As for anti-aircraft machine guns of rifle calibre - their efficiency in the game is quite low as well as against aircraft as against ground targets. Therefore the priority of adding them to the game is quite low and we often have higher priority tasks but we will continue to add them when possible.

 

Latest responses from the Q & A. I underlined the relevant part. This guy is dead wrong and is using excuses of 'low efficiency' in order to justify gaijin's continued resistance & procrastination in implementing these missing AAA weapons on our vehicles. I don't know about the rest of you fellow players but I am sick & tired of being abused by aircraft with absolutely no way to defend oneself and an uninformed, biased opinion like his above makes the situation even worse. 'Low efficiency' my ***:

 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Chomusuke1

[GeneralArmchair 675]

"efficiency is quite low against air targets?"

 

Is that a joke?   Nobody expects a roof mounted MG to rip the wings off of planes left and right.   It only takes one lucky MG round to start a fire.   One MG rounds to cause an oil leak that will down the fighter if he doesn't disengage and RTB for repairs.   One lucky round to damage an important control surface that the plane was depending on having to pull out of a dive.  At the very least the tracer rounds draw attention to the hostile planes so that allied planes can more easily see them in the nametagless environment that is GF RB.  You only need a few "ineffectual" hits to get kill assist credit and rack up some more points.   How is any of that "low efficiency?"

 

The double standard of virtually every american tank getting its fiddie while tanks of other nations only get their roof MG once in a blue moon is the big problem.   It's a lot easier for planes to attack tanks that can't shoot back at all.   A single roof MG is a lot more effective when it's half a dozen tanks throwing lead your way and only one of them needs to get lucky to cause you problems.   The double standard is a problem.   Either every tank of every nation should get their roof guns, or none of them should.

[ThaNToeS 21]

This post actually has very nice balance suggestions and they are historically accurate too . But i dont think gaijin will take this serious . They never did and they never will i have seen so many nice balance post like this but they all forgotten . I hope you guys can reach those thick headed developers 

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

 

 

[Jarms 1,558]

The German’s aren’t the only ones with missing MG’s. The British are missing AA Bren guns, duel Bren guns and duel Vickers K. Many low tier Russian machines are missing DT (or DP, I forget which) AA guns. 

[venator56 185]

If only gaijin would be that nice to give the Jagdtiger the mg to the engine plate mounting. At least I would not be completelly defenseless against plane attacks.

[GoddePro 1,147]

On 27/04/2020 at 21:45, venator56 said:

If only gaijin would be that nice to give the Jagdtiger the mg to the engine plate mounting. At least I would not be completelly defenseless against plane attacks.

I just wish I could get a roof MG for my FV4005

too bad that's never going to happen... 

Looks like I'm just going to constantly die to planes until I grind out every last module...

[venator56 185]

On 04/05/2020 at 04:41, GoddePro said:

I just wish I could get a roof MG for my FV4005

too bad that's never going to happen... 

Looks like I'm just going to constantly die to planes until I grind out every last module...

Such vehicles at least would have them.

And the biggest joke is that Jagd already have the mounting on the engine deck but no MG. 

 

[Thodin 6,784]

Are german tank MGs really as useless as Gajin claims it to be? I mean Gajin said they won't do it due to its insignificance .... which doesn't justify to put any efford in it.

 

If my tank is positioned upill I sometimes shot planes with german tank MGs. If they approach me in straight lines its easy to hit them and quite often they are smoking and abort the attack run or get even killed. Just yesterday I shot down a AD-4 Skyraider with my tank machine gun. It is possible and those anti air mounts would be far from useless. You could also shot into the roof of ASU's or Hellcats if they try to circle around your tank at point blank range.

[pasiasd 275]

1 hour ago, Thodin said:

Are german tank MGs really as useless as Gajin claims it to be? I mean Gajin said they won't do it due to its insignificance .... which doesn't justify to put any efford in it.

Far from useless but usually not enough to save you from that dude you killed from totally outplaying you with bombs, damaging or destroying the engine for example is still useful. Great against unarmored ground targets like SPAA as well.

There already are a lot of tanks with just a small caliber MG on the top like Tiger E or Tiger II H Sla.16, Gaijin probably not interested in putting in the effort to re-model some old tanks like Panthers etc.

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

22 hours ago, Thodin said:

Are german tank MGs really as useless as Gajin claims it to be?

No. That is just gaijin being lazy/biased: link

[venator56 185]

Actually Jagdtiger for example should have the MG42 on the engine deck with bigger rate of fire which could be handy.

[AlanHR 5,261]

On 07/05/2020 at 14:44, Thodin said:

Are german tank MGs really as useless as Gajin claims it to be? I mean Gajin said they won't do it due to its insignificance .... which doesn't justify to put any efford in it.

If German 7.92x57 mm MGs were so useless against planes why did they put them on early Bf 109s (MG 17 which was based on MG 30 which even had lower effective RoF than MG 42)?

[Ghostmaxi 873]

I to think that they should get it but every tank just got 2 mgs and they must have choose where they put them. A good commander still would have been able to get a 3rd

[The_Dutchman20 1,039]

11 hours ago, KH_Alan said:

If German 7.92x57 mm MGs were so useless against planes why did they put them on early Bf 109s (MG 17 which was based on MG 30 which even had lower effective RoF than MG 42)?

 

Because that is what they had pre-war that could use belted ammunition and had assumed would be effective enough but by all accounts they were pretty miserable for shooting down aircraft of WW2 and most nations quickly looked to develop and get heavier armament that could replace them as they got combat experience. Many planes early in the war got a reputation for durability and being hard to kill because they primarily faced planes using only rifle caliber armament.

 

 

[WolfFang2003 160]

1 hour ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

 

Because that is what they had pre-war that could use belted ammunition and had assumed would be effective enough but by all accounts they were pretty miserable for shooting down aircraft of WW2 and most nations quickly looked to develop and get heavier armament that could replace them as they got combat experience. Many planes early in the war got a reputation for durability and being hard to kill because they primarily faced planes using only rifle caliber armament.

 

 

Yeah, but even in real life an mg is more useful than nothing. By all practice, an mg could snipe a pilot or set a plane on fire or cause a general leak. It is whether Gaijn really wants to take the time to even want to model it. In the JU 87 it is really easy to kill a plane on your tail, especially with a dual mount on the bf 110.