German cupola/ AA defence machine guns on tanks

[pasiasd 275]

On 14/05/2020 at 22:31, WolfFang2003 said:

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.

In air combat it's a combination of limited ammunition by weight and the inherent accuracy issues where only a small amount of shots would hit, meaning a cannon is far better since just a single hit would do far more damage than hundreds of .30cal MG bullets.

 

In case you missed it, I'm all for adding the machine guns where they are missing, and fixing those that are bugged (on many tanks limited to main gun elevation etc.)

Just saying that Gaijin seems to deem it not worth the time & effort to model and implement the machine guns on older vehicles these days.

 

[The_Dutchman20 1,039]

On 14/05/2020 at 23:30, tranquillium said:

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. 

 

 

And instead of taking his time to accurate gauge and aim his anti-tank weapon, that heroic infantry man will be trying to get their weapon off as quick as possible and dramatically reduce their likelihood to hit because they are still suppressed due to the fear of getting hit by a bullet from you or any other of the many MGs going off around you, whether for their life or for throwing away their life without getting a shot off. That pintle MG gives your tank crew another weapon to send hot lead down range to increase the effectiveness of suppression which is as much about denying your enemy the ability to accurately fire back as it is to fully keep the enemies head down. 

 

And you keep making a point about quantity against air targets but you seem ignorant of the effectiveness of quantity of fire against ground targets where the effective range is dramatically greater than against air targets and the weapons that the enemy can easily pick up to shoot dramatically shorter ranged than an aircraft.

 

On 14/05/2020 at 23:30, tranquillium said:

 

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. 

 

And the US army still trains for indirect MG fire. Just because an army trains for using a weapon in a particular fashion doesn't mean they expect it to be used often in such a role merely that they allow for it when the time is right, which for such a short range weapon(less than 1.5km that .50cals enjoy) compared to aerial armaments of the day, would be very rare. There would be the occasional case where an aircraft would try a low altitude attack pass at low speeds/ helicopter coming in nearly right on top of you, but that pintle mounted MG is still going to be effective for adding to your firepower and giving your tank a gun that can be aimed separately of the turret.

[WolfFang2003 160]

On 17/05/2020 at 06:08, warrior412 said:

 

 

 

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.

Shooting down anything with anti aircraft is too easy for any nation to really complain, the point is that we as opposed to the Soviets and Americans don't get any of our anti aircraft mounted machine guns for ww2 tanks. For CAS, Germany players don't rely on bombs or rockets as much as the allies (though the fw 190 A-5 is amazing), but we do have very good CAS cannons for aircraft like the 30mm mk 103s, 50mms, 37mm, ect. In a previous game with the me 410 b3 I got 5 tank kills with cannons, multiple assists, and 3 aircraft, but the enemy is usually to blame when all the AA users seem to have bad leads that they can barley hit anything while I snipe them with 30mm. 

 

I did notice Nahverteidigungswaffe is added onto the Panther A as a smoke launcher, yet they did not even add the anti personnel grenades

 

 

 

[tranquillium 553]

1 hour ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

And instead of taking his time to accurate gauge and aim his anti-tank weapon, that heroic infantry man will be trying to get their weapon off as quick as possible and dramatically reduce their likelihood to hit because they are still suppressed due to the fear of getting hit by a bullet from you or any other of the many MGs going off around you, whether for their life or for throwing away their life without getting a shot off. That pintle MG gives your tank crew another weapon to send hot lead down range to increase the effectiveness of suppression which is as much about denying your enemy the ability to accurately fire back as it is to fully keep the enemies head down. 

 

And you keep making a point about quantity against air targets but you seem ignorant of the effectiveness of quantity of fire against ground targets where the effective range is dramatically greater than against air targets and the weapons that the enemy can easily pick up to shoot dramatically shorter ranged than an aircraft.

Still I don’t know where the difference is between our arguments. If you call me ignorant, you’re ignorant as well, because we are saying the same things. 

I just say that the AA -MG on the roof is usually not used for ground attacks. There is no need to do it because you have the same effect with your coaxial on the target. You can say a lot of ammo helps a lot versus the ground target, that might be sort of correct, but we are comparing a stationary ground target with a fast moving air-target. You don’t have to be an expert to realize that the possibility to hit the target with the same amount of ammo is higher versus ground targets, so why double it and spend ammo that is carried for another purpose? 
And again, a tank is armored to keep the crew safe and the gun operational, why should I risk the life of a crewman and take away all his optical supports and put him on the top or the roof to pin down infantry if the same can be done with a coax? 

 

Maybe you would, I wouldn’t.

 

1 hour ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

And the US army still trains for indirect MG fire.

I think anybody else does that as well, and the coax 7,62 is good at it, 50cals are surely more effective, but you use what you got. No need to get 50 cm of height advantage on the turret mounted AA-MG. Modern MP fuzes might be the best choice for that - next to mechanized infantry who are perfectly equipped for these things...

 

1 hour ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

There would be the occasional case where an aircraft would try a low altitude attack pass at low speeds

The standard concept of attack planes in Cold War was to come in low at highest possible speed. Low flying planes are hard to detect by mid-range ground-based AD. Attack planes‘ main enemy is short-range-AD. They don’t try low altitude attack runs occasionally, its their concept.
Other air-forces in cold-war did the same with different philosophies. Some planes enhanced their survivability with speed and extremely low flying capabilities (like the Tornado and SU24), others with armor (like the A-10 or the SU-25). As many AA-MGs as possible is a possible answer to these threats. 
But further discussions will be too off-topic,

 

2 hours ago, The_Dutchman20 said:

but that pintle mounted MG is still going to be effective for adding to your firepower and giving your tank a gun that can be aimed separately of the turret.

It does add fire-power, but again the commander has to decide if it used or not versus ground targets. It all depends on the actual situation. I never used it vs. ground targets, but often vs. air targets (in training). 
 

Changing supporting directions was rarely needed with that thing because the turret is actually faster and more accurate for that. The situation to have the loader (or the commander) and the gunner firing at the same time with the MGs versus ground targets in different directions is quite artificial or a very special situation a (Cold War) tank got into that should be prevented.
 

Before being called ignorant again, I never said you are wrong. Talking about the M48A2, other German more modern Cold War tanks and older late WWII German tanks: Everything is possible if there is the need to, but weapons are not mounted for a very rare occasion, they are mounted for the most possible role. 
That’s why the roof mounted 50cal is used against aircraft and lightly armored ground targets and the roof mounted 7,62 MGs primary purpose is AD (That’s why it got a pintle to make it possible to fire in all directions) and the lowest possibility is ground attack.

[Chomusuke1 1,223]

On 17/05/2020 at 04:43, arczer25 said:

? max range =/ effective range

On 13/05/2020 at 15:48, arczer25 said:

Issue with 7.62/7.7mm is their effective range.

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

Just take the smallest number (2,000m) not that it matters to unarmored crap such as radiators, propellers, frontal cockpits of some craft...etc

21 hours ago, WolfFang2003 said:

For CAS, Germany players don't rely on bombs or rockets as much as the allies

Blame gaijin for that as this bomb (especially on the 87Ds) and this AT bomb are missing from most of our craft

19 hours ago, tranquillium said:

I just say that the AA -MG on the roof is usually not used for ground attacks. There is no need to do it because you have the same effect with your coaxial on the target.

+1. You would be wasting a mounting with 80° of elevation on a mere ground target...That is what the coaxial is for

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Chomusuke1

[WolfFang2003 160]

37 minutes ago, Chomusuke1 said:

Just take the smallest number (2,000m) not that it matters to unarmored crap such as radiators, propellers, frontal cockpits of some craft...etc

Blame gaijin for that as this bomb (especially on the 87Ds) and this AT bomb are missing from most of our craft

+1. You would be wasting a mounting with 80° of elevation on a mere ground target...That is what the coaxial is for

 

I would say we have a lot of great CAS. We probably have the best anti tank CAS, like the 30mm 103. What the Germans had are amazing anti tank cannons, we can always rely on that for kills in War Thunder. I am all for missing machine guns, bombs, and Nahverteidigungswaffe particularly for anti personnel grenades and smoke. Much more common on tanks than what is on the Tiger H1.

Edited May 20, 2020 by WolfFang2003

[arczer25 5,202]

4 hours ago, Chomusuke1 said:

Just take the smallest number (2,000m) not that it matters to unarmored crap such as radiators, propellers, frontal cockpits of some craft...etc

you are really understaminating durability of them (not every plane carries HE-100 UNQUE cooling system were single penetration can end up severly messing it up) also you are severly forgetting how plane cover actually affect round... (reason why i was talking about ALL METAL planes)

15mm AP hitting 3mm of dural at 20 degree drops penetration from 25mm at 300m to 12mm at 300m additonally it can cause projectile to tumble.

now add that generally attack aircraft have additional armor.

 

[Chomusuke1 1,223]

On ‎20‎/‎05‎/‎2020 at 03:01, arczer25 said:

you are really understaminating durability of them also you are severly forgetting how plane cover actually affect round... (reason why i was talking about ALL METAL planes)

 

Not really. Aircraft are flying tin cans made out of the thinnest possible material. Here is some il2 discussion on it:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/54846-armor-penetrationenetration-system-for-mgcannon-bullets

 

On ‎20‎/‎05‎/‎2020 at 03:01, arczer25 said:

not every plane carries HE-100 UNQUE cooling system were single penetration can end up severly messing it up

 

We do not have that guy in this game as we get a He 100 D-1 Dora which had a conventional radiator replacing the unique stuff:

 

 

On ‎20‎/‎05‎/‎2020 at 03:01, arczer25 said:

now add that generally attack aircraft have additional armor

 

The most quoted example brung up by the pinkos was that their il2 had the thickest, most bestest 'bathtub armor' in the entire war such as pictured below:

 

 

Even then despite this armor, this is what happened:

 

 

And these are just four SPW's. Now imagine that all relevant/appropriate tanks on a full German team (augmented by a FlakPanzer) receive their missing MG, be it an MG 34 or 42...

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Chomusuke1

[arczer25 5,202]

1 hour ago, Chomusuke1 said:

 

Not really. Aircraft are flying tin cans made out of the thinnest possible material. Here is some il2 discussion on it:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/54846-armor-penetrationenetration-system-for-mgcannon-bullets

i reapeat again, i sad about ALL METAL planes............................................................................................................................. 1.5mm of Wood or fabric wont stop anything.

 

planes requre durable cover at high speeds.

effect of 3mm of dural against 15mm AP

Spoiler

also on thread you posted it's a lot of back and forth, except for this

Spoiler

I've actually shot 5mm aluminum target plates with 7.62mm, allot. 

 

There is state from where your bullet will damage the skin but will not penetrate, sub 30deg angle at 300m is often enough to get the bullet sheer the metal and change trajectory outwards. 

There is also the random element of the bullet orientation (spin stabilized bullets don't have their point directly forward but wobble a bit about the axis of spin) when it contact the surface, so there is bout 50/50 chance it will either keyhole trough arse first or ricochet. The bullet that ricochets has still plenty of energy left, it just don't go trough the plate, and instead just change direction. 

 

1 hour ago, Chomusuke1 said:

We do not have that guy in this game as we get a He 100 D-1 Dora which had a conventional radiator replacing the unique stuff:

i sad HE 100, not HE 100 D-1.

1 hour ago, Chomusuke1 said:

Even then despite this armor, this is what happened:

 

And these are just four SPW's. Now imagine that all relevant/appropriate tanks on a full German team (augmented by a FlakPanzer) receive their missing MG, be it an MG 34 or 42...

 

that's IL needed to spend heck a lot of time under fire to get to that point, tail isn't easy to cut off even with heaver firepower...

if MG were so effective, maybe German's would actually leave them on tanks and not deem them ineffective and focus on SPAA vehilces...

Edited May 22, 2020 by arczer25

[WolfFang2003 160]

12 hours ago, arczer25 said:

i reapeat again, i sad about ALL METAL planes............................................................................................................................. 1.5mm of Wood or fabric wont stop anything.

 

planes requre durable cover at high speeds.

effect of 3mm of dural against 15mm AP

  Reveal hidden contents

also on thread you posted it's a lot of back and forth, except for this

  Reveal hidden contents

I've actually shot 5mm aluminum target plates with 7.62mm, allot. 

 

There is state from where your bullet will damage the skin but will not penetrate, sub 30deg angle at 300m is often enough to get the bullet sheer the metal and change trajectory outwards. 

There is also the random element of the bullet orientation (spin stabilized bullets don't have their point directly forward but wobble a bit about the axis of spin) when it contact the surface, so there is bout 50/50 chance it will either keyhole trough arse first or ricochet. The bullet that ricochets has still plenty of energy left, it just don't go trough the plate, and instead just change direction. 

 

i sad HE 100, not HE 100 D-1.

that's IL needed to spend heck a lot of time under fire to get to that point, tail isn't easy to cut off even with heaver firepower...

if MG were so effective, maybe German's would actually leave them on tanks and not deem them ineffective and focus on SPAA vehilces...

No one is that dumb to think that only an lower caliber gun would be enough for anti air duties. It was just that even smaller caliber ammunition could still do enough damage or get an aircraft off attacking ground units. You think even the Americans thought that their 50cal was enough for anti aircraft just because they used it more often in AA mounts? They thought that it could be useful, just like the Germans did with putting mg 42s in anti aircraft mounts.

 

Technically it depends on how much it would take to rip a tail off a plane most dependent on stress and pressure created from the bullet holes themselves. You would not be sure whether 50 bullets would rip the tail off or 100. That is why cannons were put on fighters because it is thought that even if they hit the aircraft there is a lower possibility of disabling it with a 12.7mm or a 7.92mm.

Edited May 22, 2020 by WolfFang2003

[Chomusuke1 1,223]

18 hours ago, arczer25 said:

reapeat again, i sad about ALL METAL planes

You need to check your eyes or work on your comprehension skills

 

18 hours ago, arczer25 said:

maybe German's would actually leave them on tanks and not deem them ineffective and focus on SPAA vehilces.

It is gaijin and not the Germans that are denying us these MG as the Germans did leave them on tanks, including the cutting-edge Panther F, right up until the end of the war to supplement Flak tanks. The new simplified post mount used on March 1945+ Panther's replaced the previous, more visible AAA MG ring mount:

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Chomusuke1

[pasiasd 275]

On 22/05/2020 at 12:50, arczer25 said:

if MG were so effective, maybe German's would actually leave them on tanks and not deem them ineffective and focus on SPAA vehilces...

Germans did leave them on tanks and focused on SPAA as well, because they could.

 

I don't think anyone here is saying the 7.62 MG is effective when compared to dedicated AA guns, just that they are far better than nothing at all since AA and especially SPAA were in high demand everywhere, all the time.

 

 

[Ghostmaxi 873]

I know what to do, just give them 20mm Mg 151 with Aphe and I-T rounds in the AA mount, completly unrealsitic but hey know we have AA Mg on tanks that are bigger that 7.92mm and effective :D

[venator56 185]

15 hours ago, Ghostmaxi said:

I know what to do, just give them 20mm Mg 151 with Aphe and I-T rounds in the AA mount, completly unrealsitic but hey know we have AA Mg on tanks that are bigger that 7.92mm and effective

Lol

 

[Chomusuke1 1,223]

 

 

 

..................Where are they gaijin?

[Thodin 6,784]

On 03/06/2020 at 00:25, Ghostmaxi said:

I know what to do, just give them 20mm Mg 151 with Aphe and I-T rounds in the AA mount, completly unrealsitic but hey know we have AA Mg on tanks that are bigger that 7.92mm and effective

 

Luftwaffe had a huge surplus on 15mm and 20mm MG151 guns. Actually had alot more MG151 than they had planes. So they transferred a huge amount of those guns to the army. Quite a few vehicles were developed to use them. Like the official Sdkfz 251/21 with its 20mm MG151 drilling. I also heard alot guns were used used individually by certain units and mounted to alot different vehicles in a more or less irregular way. There are all kinds of tanks and even captured vehicles with MG151 atteached to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But even MG-34 AA  would be useful in Warthunder. Tiger E has an MG 34 AA mount and it works, you can definetly shot down P-47 and stuff.

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Thodin

[Chomusuke1 1,223]

58 minutes ago, Thodin said:

Luftwaffe had a huge surplus on 15mm and 20mm MG151 guns

And MG 81z:

 

 

[Chomusuke1 1,223]

[stuka2689 314]

That MG's are better than nothing. They should add them.

[Drahau 682]

Let's be honest, if every German tank has AA, it's a matter of statistic that among so many fired bullets, one will hit something vital. Spawn in a German plane and there's a .50 Cal rain in the sky.

Players complain on the German AA as it's considered OP. Think of it this way, having no .50 Cal or 14,5 on your tank forces players to get good with AA vehicles while any US tank can be an AA platform, they not often spawn AA.

 

Anyway back to the topic. Tanks had MGs on the roof. The biggest BS is that Tiger II SLA gets the AA mount while the regular tigers do not. Why?

 

Also it would be nice to see if the MGs have a belt option other than default and ammo count in the drum for the MG.

[CodeNameColdWar 823]

7 hours ago, Drahau said:

US . they not often spawn AA.

 

I'm think that also have to do with poor SPAA line that US have. Duel 40mm didn't have enough rof to be effective like 20mm. Also the buggy damage. I've hit fighters with 1 or 2 hit from HE belt but they still fly away with some smoke.....

There are plenty of SPAA prototype for US to be add to fill SPAA line. It just that Gaijin (seem) didn't care much about them.

[venator56 185]

On 15/08/2020 at 17:40, CodeNameColdWar said:

 

I'm think that also have to do with poor SPAA line that US have. Duel 40mm didn't have enough rof to be effective like 20mm. Also the buggy damage. I've hit fighters with 1 or 2 hit from HE belt but they still fly away with some smoke.....

There are plenty of SPAA prototype for US to be add to fill SPAA line. It just that Gaijin (seem) didn't care much about them.

For the good reason that the us line does not needs them....

[CodeNameColdWar 823]

5 hours ago, venator56 said:

For the good reason that the us line does not needs them....

Off topic.

 

Which "good" reason ? . 

I mean lacking good SPAA (around 3.0-8.0 BR) wouldn't be good reason in my opinion.

Edited August 16, 2020 by CodeNameColdWar
edit for correct

[Loongsheep 5,339]

On 15/08/2020 at 16:30, Drahau said:

Players complain on the German AA as it's considered OP. Think of it this way, having no .50 Cal or 14,5 on your tank forces players to get good with AA vehicles while any US tank can be an AA platform, they not often spawn AA.

Think of it this way...

American tanks have the best rooftop AA options (maybe except 9.X with KPz + Leopard 2K). The M2 is far better than the Soviet DsHK as it has far longer belt for extended firing.

But when we look at tanks of other nations such as Japan, Britain, Italy and France, the have even less AA firepower. I would say US is the only nation that can rely on tank rooftop MG for air defense.

 

On the other hand, Germany dedicated SPAAG are better than any other tree at mid BR. Wirbelwind, Ostwind II and Kugelblitz are all king of their league, having great firepower and good survivability to aerial guns and cannons. The R3 T20 has fearful firepower, but any aircraft gun over 12.7mm takes it out in a single burst.

 

I always spawn in SPAAG at the beginning if fighting against US/UK as Germany. I got pretty good at flanking and shooting through Sherman side.

 

On 15/08/2020 at 23:40, CodeNameColdWar said:

I'm think that also have to do with poor SPAA line that US have. Duel 40mm didn't have enough rof to be effective like 20mm. Also the buggy damage. I've hit fighters with 1 or 2 hit from HE belt but they still fly away with some smoke.....

Lets not forget the Crusader AA Mk I at 4.7 with a single 40mm...

 

On 15/08/2020 at 23:40, CodeNameColdWar said:

There are plenty of SPAA prototype for US to be add to fill SPAA line. It just that Gaijin (seem) didn't care much about them.

Skink. Skink. Skink.

[CodeNameColdWar 823]

23 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

Lets not forget the Crusader AA Mk I at 4.7 with a single 40mm...

Yeah UK too They can have Skink (Canada) .

 

while US have ton of SPAA prototype to add. Not to mention even Humvee with minigun would do the job just fine (but it would sit at lower BR like Italy armor car does).  

Edited August 18, 2020 by CodeNameColdWar
edit for correct