Why machine guns?

[ochoin]

Amazing. Even I, with my limited understanding of modern military requirements, would hardly go to 'Hammerbarn' to find spare bits for a guided missile.


For those of you unsure of the Bluey reference:
https://www.bluey.tv/hammerbarn-for-real-life/

[RMD]

The pulpit mount is a 'Scarfe Ring', so completely 360-degree coverage. The arc doesn't really get any better than that...

I meant elevation. You'd have to lie down to point the thing directly up.

Not true, I'm afraid. The reason the pulpit was raised up was precisely to enable the gunner to elevate the weapon to near-vertical. I can't find a photo of one with a gunner at the gun, but here's one showing the gun at high elevation:

[Spanner]

I'm curious - given WW2 halftracks were relatively frail & not designed to charge into battle, why give them MGs?
I'm working on some Plastic Soldier Company M5s which have 2 MGs mounted - including a mighty .50 calibre. The M5 was a useful vehicle,of course, but in reality it was a glorified truck.
it just seems like wasting a precious resource for little purpose.

donald

As Stu said, part of it is the Condom Theory. The other part is that the enemy, being inconsiderate persons, do not always stay where they are supposed to be. As any No 1 scout will tell you, 15 to 20 rounds automatic makes your displeasure at their presence very obvious.

The SLR lacked a full auto as the Army has always stressed marksmanship and because the weight of ammo needed for a weapon with that function was prohibitive. We can all be cynical and say "well, it saved money, too" but I've talked to former senior NCOs who agreed with the premise.

The ammo was one good reason. But we already carried 100 ball for the SLR, not the SOP 60 rounds (weighed just under 7lb- 60 in mags and 40 loose), which is what the blokes with M16/M203 got. That the barrel wasn't made for auto rates of fire ("droopy barrel syndrome" doesn't just affect the inebriated) and that on auto the rifle bucked like a devil brumby, were of more concern. (It was easy to rig the sear for auto with a bit of paper or a match, you didn't need an L1A2 sear and selector as some claim. The chook stranglers even carried a couple of sawn-off auto L1A1 in Vietnam- probably for photo shoots.....) A fast rate of fire is worth nowt if you can't point a little bit of it at the enemy.


A photo posted by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about- no 'paras' until 1983 (ignore D COY 6RAR experiment 1977-81), and 3 RAR (Para) got the role, not a 'Parachute Regiment'. Shortie SLR is on the bottom. Photo on Reddit.

PS. MoD and DoD pricing was/is a joke. An "Azimuth Rotation Actuator" for a particular sat terminal system cost $300+USD from the OEM. It was a 5/8", 1/4" drive socket glued to a 12" extension bar. I could buy the same make and models socket and extension at the local hardware for $20AUD. The Project Manager (who probably couldn't tell the difference between a screwdriver and an oil tanker) was not interested in that and bought the overpriced shite from the OEM.

[ochoin]

This forum is an education.

On a side note, the PSC M5 half-tracks I've nearly finished are looking particularly nice. Amongst my other sub-standard skills is model making but these are virtually idiot-proof.

I have a number of PSC vehicles but if I was serious about WW2, I'd replace every model-kit, resin & diecast tank, APC & vehicle in the 'collection' with PSC products.

donald

[Buff Redux]

I used to be in charge of maintaining those at Sealand. In the build up to Op Granby we lost one Tornado that was taking photos of their shadow on the desert floor, the tape in the back was playing the theme to Chariots of Fire.

[RMD]

I used to be in charge of maintaining those at Sealand. In the build up to Op Granby we lost one Tornado that was taking photos of their shadow on the desert floor, the tape in the back was playing the theme to Chariots of Fire.

A mate of mine was showing me his back-seat vids from that time, including one Tornado that came arse-clenchingly close to the ground. Apparently the desert sand was absorbing something like 50 feet of the rad-alt height, so when they thought they were at 60 feet they were actually at 10 feet!

Now THAT's what I call a thread-drift!

[Wg Cdr Luddite]

The thing to point out is that the British Army had absolutely no requirement for a half track.
When the US decicided they weren't going to use the half-tracks produced by International Harvester (M5, M9 and M14), they donated the lot to "The Allies" and, and RMD says, they came complete with MGs.
The British Army said "Ta" and incorporated it into their orbats as a Truck, 15cwt.

[Spanner]

The thing to point out is that the British Army had absolutely no requirement for a half track.

Perhaps in the earlier WWII period they ignored or didn't recognise the requirement, but that requirement to have infantry- in protected vehicles- moving in close support of tanks was always there, from September 1916 onwards. They certainly recognised the problem in WWI, where there were experiments with using some tanks as APC in 1917/18 (which didn't work well). Experience against the DAK and in Sicily/Italy showed how useful infantry in half-tracks could be (and how vulnerable, hence the move by the Canadians to develop various "Kangaroos"). War Establishment II/231/3. January 1944 established the ORBAT for Motor Battalions, but with M3 Scout Cars (also called a "Truck, Armoured 15cwt"). The M5/M9/M14 became available from Uncle Sam's Excess Vehicle Emporium in time for the 7th, 11th and Guards Armoured Divisions to train up for Normandy.

RMD can probably give you full chapter and verse on it, mate.

[Wg Cdr Luddite]

The thing to point out is that the British Army had absolutely no requirement for a half track.

Perhaps in the earlier WWII period they ignored or didn't recognise the requirement, but that requirement to have infantry- in protected vehicles- moving in close support of tanks was always there, from September 1916 onwards. They certainly recognised the problem in WWI, where there were experiments with using some tanks as APC in 1917/18 (which didn't work well). Experience against the DAK and in Sicily/Italy showed how useful infantry in half-tracks could be (and how vulnerable, hence the move by the Canadians to develop various "Kangaroos"). War Establishment II/231/3. January 1944 established the ORBAT for Motor Battalions, but with M3 Scout Cars (also called a "Truck, Armoured 15cwt"). The M5/M9/M14 became available from Uncle Sam's Excess Vehicle Emporium in time for the 7th, 11th and Guards Armoured Divisions to train up for Normandy.

RMD can probably give you full chapter and verse on it, mate.

So you are saying my statement is incorrect ?

[Spanner]

Apologies if that offends, but yes. The Cruiser tank/Infantry tank doctrine had been discredited by 1943 (if not earlier). When II/31/3 of January '44 established the Motor Battalions then a suitable vehicle for that role was needed. The original vehicles used- the M3 Scout Cars- did not offer the required cross-country mobility for the Motor Battalion role. Until there were enough Kangaroo conversions- which hadn't happened by the war's end- the US half-tracks offered the only available vehicle that could somewhat meet the requirements for a protected infantry mobility vehicle. Therefore the half-tracks, for all their drawbacks, were required for the Motor Battalion role until something better was available.

Why do think there was no requirement for them, mate? Are you looking at it from a doctrine perspective?