Jump to content

German cupola/ AA defence machine guns on tanks


Woody_Wetter
 Share

8 hours 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.

That may be true but MG 42 was one of the WWII feared weapons due to its rate of fire. Also rifle caliber MGs were not that miserable since Battle of Britain was won mostly by 7.7 mm MGs on Hurricanes and early Spitfires. As @WolfFang2003 said is more useful than nothing.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If rifle caliber MG’s are so ineffective then just make them researchable modifications. That way we can choose whether to use them or not. Let us be the judge. 
 

It’s a great idea for them to monetise the idea as well, as there’s a lot of tanks across numerous nations with missing MG’s. They could even add different MG configurations as a research path.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/05/2020 at 01:28, KH_Alan said:

That may be true but MG 42 was one of the WWII feared weapons due to its rate of fire. Also rifle caliber MGs were not that miserable since Battle of Britain was won mostly by 7.7 mm MGs on Hurricanes and early Spitfires. As @WolfFang2003 said is more useful than nothing.

 

And you know, many of those aircraft MGs that they found rather underwhelming often had similar if not even higher ROF than the MG42 and many more of them. 

 

Each of those Hurricanes and Spitfires had 8x 1,000 rpm 7.7 machine guns which adds substantial weight to the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

And you know, many of those aircraft MGs that they found rather underwhelming often had similar if not even higher ROF than the MG42 and many more of them. 

 

Each of those Hurricanes and Spitfires had 8x 1,000 rpm 7.7 machine guns which adds substantial weight to the aircraft.

They had higher RoF but lesser MV due to shorter barells so they can saturate target with many bullets. If it was so undewhelming why did they mount 7.62 mm MG on M48 G2 as anti air MG?

 

They did but it was about rifle caliber round not being effective not MG numbers.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, KH_Alan said:

They had higher RoF but lesser MV due to shorter barells so they can saturate target with many bullets. If it was so undewhelming why did they mount 7.62 mm MG on M48 G2 as anti air MG?

it's more anti infanty weapon mount than AA.

and that's primarly use of roof mounted MG/HMG's

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

it's more anti infanty weapon mount than AA.

and that's primarly use of roof mounted MG/HMG's

No, not at all. Roof mounted MGs on these tanks are used as AA-MGs and that’s their primary purpose. No commander or other crew member would be so stupid to use the turret mounted MG to suppress infantry what would mean the enemy is very near and also in range to attack your tank with small arms. Infantry is suppressed with coaxial-MGs.


AA fire from mounted MGs is a matter of quantity, not quality. A tank platoon with four AA-MGs will open fire on aircraft simultaneously and is able to bring quite some  metal to the target for some time. Usually not all pilots are heros and will realize being under fire and that will have an effect on their ability to continue attacking.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/05/2020 at 01:01, The_Dutchman20 said:

 

And you know, many of those aircraft MGs that they found rather underwhelming often had similar if not even higher ROF than the MG42 and many more of them. 

 

Each of those Hurricanes and Spitfires had 8x 1,000 rpm 7.7 machine guns which adds substantial weight to the aircraft.

You do realize that the 7.7mm brownings on said aircraft are just the standard variant of 400-600 rounds per minute. It really depends on the bolt they fitted to the mg42, 900-1,500.

 

In War Thunder, you can literally use the bf110 defense mg81 (1,600 rpm) to kill any aircraft at BR on your tail. It is more about whether they want to even put in the work to model the mount and machine gun on each tank, the mg42 is more or just as effective as the mg 17 which is sufficient enough for shooting down or damaging aircraft.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tranquillium said:

No, not at all. Roof mounted MGs on these tanks are used as AA-MGs and that’s their primary purpose. No commander or other crew member would be so stupid to use the turret mounted MG to suppress infantry what would mean the enemy is very near and also in range to attack your tank with small arms. Infantry is suppressed with coaxial-MGs.

Coaxial MG is very limited, you don't have precise mouse aim not any great visibility.

You think why cupolas with build In mg were invented along with modern remote controlled guns?

 

Also about m48a2g it isn't even high elevation mount (being not mounted high up like you see in WW2 mounts), you think using that 7.62 against Jet or super prop,

Agains with already dedicated slightly older AA systems had issues?

 

Disclaimer I'm talking about more modern pintle mounts, older ones were more dedicated AA mounts (~WW2), with were pretty exposed or not cumbersome to use.

 

Also why you consider that usage of roof mounted MG requires enemy to be near.. often used 0.5cal have higher effective range that coaxial mounted MG.

 

By time infantry is close, you are already in trouble (as your infantry support is probably gone) and coaxial don't do **** at that range... Nor roof mounted.

 

No crewmember... It doesn't even have to be, especially US had mounts operable by external personel..

Also tell that to people operating unshielded mg/granade launches on APC's and military cars like HMMWY.

 

1 hour ago, WolfFang2003 said:

You do realize that the 7.7mm brownings on said aircraft are just the standard variant of 400-600 rounds per minute. It really depends on the bolt they fitted to the mg42, 900-1,500.

 

In War Thunder, you can literally use the bf110 defense mg81 (1,600 rpm) to kill any aircraft at BR on your tail. It is more about whether they want to even put in the work to model the mount and machine gun on each tank, the mg42 is more or just as effective as the mg 17 which is sufficient enough for shooting down or damaging aircraft.

Issue with 7.62/7.7mm is their effective range.

Agains all metal plane 400m is already starts to lessen not even talking about ranges of 1km.

Edited by arczer25
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, arczer25 said:

older ones were more dedicated AA mounts (~WW2)

 

There is a reason why it was called a Fliegerbeschussgerät and not an Infanteriebeschussgerät

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Chomusuke1 said:

 

There is a reason why it was called a Fliegerbeschussgerät and not an Infanteriebeschussgerät

Yes called, still neither considered effective in it's intended role not popular (in one book it sad that if they accidentally lost one, no one ask for replacement)

 

Also despite it's name was still used as self defense weapon 

Edited by arczer25
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, arczer25 said:

Coaxial MG is very limited, you don't have precise mouse aim not any great visibility.

You think why cupolas with build In mg were invented along with modern remote controlled guns?

You are mixing game-play with reality here? There is no infantry in game. I was only talking about reality and the M48 A2G2.

 

Coaxial MGs I used are very accurate (as accurate as MGs should be - no sniping with those weapons) versus ground targets up to 600m - hitting 1m sized targets at that range was no problem at all.

 

Remote controlled guns are built to keep the crew secure in an unsafe environment in asymmetrical conflicts. The M48 A2G2 wasn’t equipped for these conflicts. It was used as a second line tank in Reserve armored battalions. The cupola was replaced by an AA-MG. (Btw. as a modern example: on Leopard 2 A7 the Remote controlled weapon of the first demonstrator was replaced by another one with better AA-possibilities). 
 

9 hours ago, arczer25 said:

Also about m48a2g it isn't even high elevation mount (being not mounted high up like you see in WW2 mounts), you think using that 7.62 against Jet or super prop,

Agains with already dedicated slightly older AA systems had issues?

Your picture of AA-fire of a tank seems to be limited. Enemy aircraft threatening M48s or Leopards and even late WWII in reality were not circling above your tank and try to hit you with a rocket or bomb and try again if they failed (maybe in very late WWII). WP front-line-airforce had the purpose to go into battle very low and fast and only once - with luck having AA-units being suppressed, but in fact they didn’t care too much....

Nevertheless the MG on the M48 can be elevated to almost 90 degrees without any problem. Only the awareness of the crewmen using it will be reduced a bit. 

 

9 hours ago, arczer25 said:

Issue with 7.62/7.7mm is their effective range.

Agains all metal plane 400m is already starts to lessen not even talking about ranges of 1km.

Get into a plane, fly 10m above the ground with 600km/h into a wall of hundreds of tracers coming at you and try to hit your target and we will talk again. 

Every pilot is afraid of small arms fire against his aircraft. It can be anywhere and like I said before, it’s not a matter of quality, but quantity and who know if there isn’t a burst of 35mm-shells between all those tracers?

 

2 hours ago, arczer25 said:

Yes called, still neither considered effective in it's intended role not popular (in one book it sad that if they accidentally lost one, no one ask for replacement)

 

Also despite it's name was still used as self defense weapon 

Who cares about war-time stories? German forces in late WWII weren’t moving at day-time, just through the nights or bad weather, knowing about the air-superiority of Allies. That’s why they maybe didn’t like the AA-MG, in direct combat - what they were trained for and experienced in -  it was almost useless - they had their hull-MGs for that.

 

I have to admit, I lost one myself on an exercise and it was my fault because I didn’t fix it properly. Luckily it was found by following mechanized infantry and I had to pay them a lot of beer to get it back... :(

 

And yes, of course. the roof mounted MG is for self-defense, self-defense against aircraft, but it is not forbidden to use it against other targets. And if some infantry wants to get on the tank and use it, I would probably let them if the situation allows it. But I would let the tank crew stay on their optics to monitor the battlefield.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WolfFang2003 said:

You do realize that the 7.7mm brownings on said aircraft are just the standard variant of 400-600 rounds per minute. It really depends on the bolt they fitted to the mg42, 900-1,500.

The Browning .303 Mark II of the RAF has a nominal rate of fire of 1150rpm, in the game they have 1000rpm.

Edit: And yes, they were replaced due to their ineffectiveness against aircraft. Combat reports showed that on average, 4500 .303 rounds were needed to shoot down an enemy aircraft.

Edited by pasiasd
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, WolfFang2003 said:

the mg42 is more or just as effective as the mg 17

The MG 42 will be more effective than the MG 17 as with the MG 17 you will be chasing a moving target (enemy aircraft), typically landing hits on his empennage but with the MG 42, you will be landing hits at a higher ROF directly on the enemy's frontal area (cockpit/prop/radiator) as the enemy is diving right at your tank and there is no need for deflection shooting

 

2 hours ago, tranquillium said:
5 hours ago, arczer25 said:

Also despite it's name was still used as self defense weapon 

the roof mounted MG is for self-defense, self-defense against aircraft

And for self defense against infantry, the Minenabwurfvorrichtung or Nahverteidigungswaffe were used, not an exposed AA MG with an AA ring sight that would needlessly expose the commander

 

Edited by Chomusuke1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, pasiasd said:

The Browning .303 Mark II of the RAF has a nominal rate of fire of 1150rpm, in the game they have 1000rpm.

Edit: And yes, they were replaced due to their ineffectiveness against aircraft. Combat reports showed that on average, 4500 .303 rounds were needed to shoot down an enemy aircraft.

I stand corrected, different variants. Though I see the problem in that they don't have enough ammo per gun to sustain any sort of fire for long, which is the general rule for aircraft except for the little ammo they already get with such ROF.

 

The other thing is that if said report is true about 4500 rounds, then technically most rounds did not hit the actual aircraft which does make sense and just saying it would be ineffective is an exaggeration... This essentially means that especially against aircraft like bombers and heavy fighters it would take a lot more ammunition, which is literally the same reasoning why the Germans already were putting cannons on fighters... "Even if the eight Brownings worked perfectly, pilots soon discovered that they were not sufficient to destroy larger aircraft. Combat reports showed that an average of 4,500 rounds were needed to shoot down an enemy aircraft." -Wikipedia

 

It means nothing about it being generally ineffective in fighter combat. Even if it was so ineffective why the hell can't the Germans get a historical equivalent for AA defense to the M2 Browning on most American tanks? Even Gaijn modeled the 7.7mm anti air mount on the Stuart tanks, while every single German tank was overlooked for anything additional except for an nonfunctional grenade launcher on the tiger H1, which was for anti infantry except most Tigers did not even use them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, tranquillium said:

You are mixing game-play with reality here? There is no infantry in game. I was only talking about reality and the M48 A2G2.

 

Coaxial MGs I used are very accurate (as accurate as MGs should be - no sniping with those weapons) versus ground targets up to 600m - hitting 1m sized targets at that range was no problem at all.

 

Remote controlled guns are built to keep the crew secure in an unsafe environment in asymmetrical conflicts. The M48 A2G2 wasn’t equipped for these conflicts. It was used as a second line tank in Reserve armored battalions. The cupola was replaced by an AA-MG. (Btw. as a modern example: on Leopard 2 A7 the Remote controlled weapon of the first demonstrator was replaced by another one with better AA-possibilities). 

Not saying coaxial bad, just that it have certain limitations compared to open mount at last on older vehicles

Not sure about more modern tank's as they aren't exactly my area.

 

Albeit US seem to had large use of pintle mounted MG on their m1 Abrams.

 

22 hours ago, tranquillium said:

 

Your picture of AA-fire of a tank seems to be limited. Enemy aircraft threatening M48s or Leopards and even late WWII in reality were not circling above your tank and try to hit you with a rocket or bomb and try again if they failed (maybe in very late WWII). WP front-line-airforce had the purpose to go into battle very low and fast and only once - with luck having AA-units being suppressed, but in fact they didn’t care too much....

Nevertheless the MG on the M48 can be elevated to almost 90 degrees without any problem. Only the awareness of the crewmen using it will be reduced a bit. 

 

Get into a plane, fly 10m above the ground with 600km/h into a wall of hundreds of tracers coming at you and try to hit your target and we will talk again. 

Every pilot is afraid of small arms fire against his aircraft. It can be anywhere and like I said before, it’s not a matter of quality, but quantity and who know if there isn’t a burst of 35mm-shells between all those tracers?

I was to on side of dakka everything at enemy, but then it's have downsides, along with drawing attention with can go bad.

 

Yes plane go low and fast, but like with WW2 planes they don't need to go on top of the target in order to engage it, especially with all the new fancy modern stuff, even bombs can glide long enough if dropped and high speed.

With is kinda part of the point, due to capacity to go in, fire stuff and disengage before getting into wall of tracers.

What was 7.xx tracer range? ~750-1100m?

 

22 hours ago, tranquillium said:

Who cares about war-time stories? German forces in late WWII weren’t moving at day-time, just through the nights or bad weather, knowing about the air-superiority of Allies. That’s why they maybe didn’t like the AA-MG, in direct combat - what they were trained for and experienced in -  it was almost useless - they had their hull-MGs for that.

 

I have to admit, I lost one myself on an exercise and it was my fault because I didn’t fix it properly. Luckily it was found by following mechanized infantry and I had to pay them a lot of beer to get it back... :(

 

And yes, of course. the roof mounted MG is for self-defense, self-defense against aircraft, but it is not forbidden to use it against other targets. And if some infantry wants to get on the tank and use it, I would probably let them if the situation allows it. But I would let the tank crew stay on their optics to monitor the battlefield.

It was just about it popularity, either it was dismounted, given infantry or taken by tree monster.

 

Still as you sad use of it comes to crew itself as that their lives after all

20 hours ago, Chomusuke1 said:

And for self defense against infantry, the Minenabwurfvorrichtung or Nahverteidigungswaffe were used, not an exposed AA MG with an AA ring sight that would needlessly expose the commander

 

It sad that "some" with would imply "you use what you have" situation rather than "by the book"

 

Why forum editor why you don't let me delete this on mobile without deleting entire post... 

8 hours ago, WolfFang2003 said:

 

 

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Josephs_Piano said:

Actually I don't think any German tanks had coupla' machineguns on the turret roof - they only ever had 

Let there be meme



22-2080a.gif



German's: YOU CAN'T USE ANTI AIRCRAFT GUN TO MOWN DOWN INFANTRY

Murphy:...

  • Confused 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/05/2020 at 00:39, KH_Alan said:

They had higher RoF but lesser MV due to shorter barells so they can saturate target with many bullets. If it was so undewhelming why did they mount 7.62 mm MG on M48 G2 as anti air MG?

 

They did but it was about rifle caliber round not being effective not MG numbers.

 

I can guarantee you its not for shooting down jet aircraft when they were making the conversions in 1978.

 

On 13/05/2020 at 00:53, tranquillium said:

No, not at all. Roof mounted MGs on these tanks are used as AA-MGs and that’s their primary purpose. No commander or other crew member would be so stupid to use the turret mounted MG to suppress infantry what would mean the enemy is very near and also in range to attack your tank with small arms. Infantry is suppressed with coaxial-MGs.


AA fire from mounted MGs is a matter of quantity, not quality. A tank platoon with four AA-MGs will open fire on aircraft simultaneously and is able to bring quite some  metal to the target for some time. Usually not all pilots are heros and will realize being under fire and that will have an effect on their ability to continue attacking.

 

You don't need to be exactly on target to suppress infantry with light anti-tank weapons which is really what later pintle MGs are for which you don't need all that much range for. The mount gives the gun some stability and then you use the tracers to get on target instead of sitting on the sights and exposing yourself farther than to look out the hatch.

 

Quality is also absolutely an important factor of AA fire. Rounds like .50 cal BMG were specifically developed for an anti-material role in response to the inadequacy of rifle caliber machine gun rounds for the role thanks to their lower range, smaller possible payload, and lower capability to penetrate and damage various components.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

You don't need to be exactly on target to suppress infantry with light anti-tank weapons which is really what later pintle MGs are for which you don't need all that much range for. The mount gives the gun some stability and then you use the tracers to get on target instead of sitting on the sights and exposing yourself farther than to look out the hatch.

That depends on your definition of „exactly“. It is no problem to use the gun sights with e.g, thermal vision to use your coaxial. It is very accurate and gives enough time to reload the gun or switch position or even move to the infantry and let them be the ones to **** their pants. If a very heroic infantry man tries to get an AT-weapon to action, he will continue to do so unless you hit him or at least have very near misses. Many small AT-weapons have the same or even lower range than a MG, but nobody with the will to live would go on top of a tank and use the AA-MG with hot metal flying through the air around you. 

 

39 minutes ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

I can guarantee you its not for shooting down jet aircraft when they were making the conversions in 1978.

That‘s exactly what it was used and equipped for, shooting down (jet) aircraft and helicopters.
 

Qualified AD is a training issue.


On a battlefield it is very possible to guess the  ways planes will take to attack you or any other friendly forces in your area. The ways an aircraft will take is given by terrain, maybe weather and other circumstances like your own AD-organization. In the end it is quite clear where enemy aircraft will pass, making it easier to concentrate your qualified (minimum range 300m, caliber 7,62 at least) weapons on these areas. Troops on these ways will be given warnings for AA preparation if needed and will open fire on their own all along the way. It is very likely to hit aircraft and have technical effects on them and even shoot them down. The morale effect is great anyways and the aircrafts attack run will be influenced.

 

Helicopters as a not so easy to calculate threat and being better armored need more flexibility, but are much slower and can be attacked with higher caliber main guns as well and usually fall prey to designated AA guns with higher caliber.

 

1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

Let there be meme

Nobody says that AA weapons are not good versus troops on the ground. Especially infantry in open field is a perfect target for self-destructing shells and these rounds have a terrible effect on target, but designated AA weapon‘s primary mission is air defense. There is a story about one or more Kugelblitz keeping enemy forces in cover for a long time and hurting them badly in Spichra, Germany until it (they) got destroyed by massive tank gun fire in April 45. 
 

42 minutes ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

Quality is also absolutely an important factor of AA fire. Rounds like .50 cal BMG were specifically developed for an anti-material role in response to the inadequacy of rifle caliber machine gun rounds for the role thanks to their lower range, smaller possible payload, and lower capability to penetrate and damage various components.

Quality is given by training, accuracy and mass. Quantity is given by the way I described above. Yes, .50 cal... Nice caliber for many purposes and very flexible in use.

 

Late Cold War German vehicles didn’t have .50 cal, they had the 7,62 MG3 mounted on almost every bigger vehicle - in addition all battalions were issued with 20mm guns. All battalions had at least 5 of them. Purpose of these guns was AA and ground defense, even AP ammo was in use. Every support units platoon had a designated AA-MG with special trained crews. Adding all those weapons - and all small arms with caliber of 7,62 and above with trained crews to your AA capability and you will realize why German army said no additional caliber is needed. It is quite hard to calculate how much metal would be put against WP aircraft trying to attack. Aircraft are expensive and not an endless amount is available.
 

Other armies act differently, but my initial point is about German AA guns mounted on vehicles from late WWII on through the Cold War.

 

And in relation to the game: aircraft and AA are implemented totally nuts, but it is in my opinion acceptable for a shooter game. 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

I can guarantee you its not for shooting down jet aircraft when they were making the conversions in 1978.

Your guarantee doesn't mean much since that MG is called Fliegerbeschussgerät (AA Gun) as @Chomusuke1 already said. Yes roof MG provides limited AA defence but its better than nothing.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎14‎/‎05‎/‎2020 at 15:31, WolfFang2003 said:

Even Gaijn modeled the 7.7mm anti air mount on the Stuart tanks,

+1 Our MG should be a given especially because of the steady increase of allied air support historically and in-game at higher tiers. Instead, inexplicable things like an early war stuart & BT7 (F32) get these 7 mm weapons for no apparent reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 05/09/2019 at 09:15, Drahau said:

German teams will always be bombed to ashes by allied CAS because they lack in the AA department

 

On 05/09/2019 at 09:15, Drahau said:

German teams...lack in the AA department

 

large.jpg

 

I realize that this comment of yours is old...but it's still too funny to let slip:

 

Germany--the nation with the Wirbelwind at 3.7--is short of AA options? Germany's the nation that has the best SPAAs below 8.0--they have more options than other nations do.

 

 

 

Moving on:

 

If the tanks had the MGs or provisions for them, they ought to have them. Gaijin could probably integrate these like they did the smoke canisters back in the old days--a decent chunk per major patch or a few per mini-patch.

Edited by warrior412
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...