Page 1 of 2
Why machine guns?
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 6:34 am
by ochoin
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
Re: Why machine guns?
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:43 am
by RMD
That was the view taken by the British Army and they were generally removed from Lend-Lease vehicles as they were delivered (along with other things packed inside, such as crew helmets and smallarms). However, squaddies generally like machine guns, so they were often replaced in the field.
I've only ever come across one account where M5 halftrack MGs played any significant part in a battle; The defence of Wetteren Bridge by 4 Fd Sqn RE, 7th Armoured Division, in September 1944. Most of the squadron's 18 sections were truck-mounted, but one section in each troop of six had a pair of halftracks armed with .50 Cals, which provided essential additional defensive firepower.
Re: Why machine guns?
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 9:40 am
by ochoin
I'm sure I read somewhere they were intended for AA. Odd.
After D-Day, I don't think this was much needed, the German air force being what it was. And the pulpit mount doesn't seem to allow any arc that would be of much use to confront a bombing run.
I guess "comfort" is the answer. Even gallivanting about in a vehicle with such fairly useless armour plate must have felt better than not.
donald
Re: Why machine guns?
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 1:58 pm
by RMD
The pulpit mount is a 'Scarfe Ring', so completely 360-degree coverage. The arc doesn't really get any better than that...
Re: Why machine guns?
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 3:09 pm
by Buff Redux
In American terms the 50 cal wasn't a scarce resource, nor were M5's. Churned out by the thousand they were pretty much consumable stores. The British High Command have had a long standing habit of regarding everything as a precious asset. Heaven forbid that the troops should use lots of ammunition, that's why we soldiered on with the Lee Enfield and why the SLR lacked a full auto function. This approach knocks on into having low stock holdings, the Falklands War saw BAOR & RAFG virtually stripped of 9mm ammunition.
Re: Why machine guns?
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:16 pm
by ochoin
RMD wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 1:58 pm
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.
A thrifty government you say, Buff? Personally, I support the concept. I mean, think how much Lend Lease money we'd have saved if the Tommies had thrown rocks at the Germans instead of shooting them with expensive ammunition?
donald
Re: Why machine guns?
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:56 pm
by BaronVonWreckedoften
Buff Redux wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 3:09 pm
Heaven forbid that the troops should use lots of ammunition, that's why we soldiered on with the Lee Enfield and why the SLR lacked a full auto function. This approach knocks on into having low stock holdings, the Falklands War saw BAOR & RAFG virtually stripped of 9mm ammunition.
I always saw this as more of a Civil Service thing than a military "higher ups" one - there were constant requests from CS's during the recent kerfuffles in Iraq and Afghanistan along the lines of "Do you
really have to use
that much ammunition? It doesn't grow on trees you know!" I often wondered what Paras and RMCs said when such messages were read out to them - on top of having to eat freshly-cooked porridge when the temperature was 40 degrees-plus by breakfast time.
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.
Re: Why machine guns?
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:14 pm
by bangorstu
I always assumed it was basically 'condom theory'.
Better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.....
Re: Why machine guns?
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 9:49 pm
by Buff Redux
BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:56 pm
Buff Redux wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 3:09 pm
Heaven forbid that the troops should use lots of ammunition, that's why we soldiered on with the Lee Enfield and why the SLR lacked a full auto function. This approach knocks on into having low stock holdings, the Falklands War saw BAOR & RAFG virtually stripped of 9mm ammunition.
I always saw this as more of a Civil Service thing than a military "higher ups" one - there were constant requests from CS's during the recent kerfuffles in Iraq and Afghanistan along the lines of "Do you
really have to use
that much ammunition? It doesn't grow on trees you know!" I often wondered what Paras and RMCs said when such messages were read out to them - on top of having to eat freshly-cooked porridge when the temperature was 40 degrees-plus by breakfast time.
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.
That's a reasonable point but even our own could be somewhat parsimonious. I remember a supply officer ringing me when I was running the squadron stores asking why we kept ordering these very expensive section 28 (AGS) nuts & bolts when cheaper alternatives were available. I had to explain to him that AGS stood for Aircraft General Standard and that we were not allowed to use general hardware parts on aircraft even if they were visually identical. It just so happened that the Universal Joint on the drive shaft for a Whirlwind tail rotor and the rotor shaft brake band were identical to those on our Land Rover but we never used them. Mind you, the same supply cell used to query our high usage of 4" wide Sellotape. I would cheerily inform them that we used it to repair main rotor blades (which was true), then casually ask them if they wanted to put their name down for a jolly as a survivor. Never got any takers.
The view about ammunition weight does seem to be making a virtue of necessity, the FN was used by many nations and an awful lot of our troops in the Falklands acquired one for the duration of the campaign.
Re: Why machine guns?
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 10:15 pm
by RMD
Buff Redux wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 9:49 pm
I remember a supply officer ringing me when I was running the squadron stores asking why we kept ordering these very expensive section 28 (AGS) nuts & bolts when cheaper alternatives were available. I had to explain to him that AGS stood for Aircraft General Standard and that we were not allowed to use general hardware parts on aircraft even if they were visually identical.
The same was true of the C15 casette tapes used to load nav data into Tornado GR1. Three for £1 down the local pound-shop, but £15 per tape for the MoD (at 1990s prices). Not that the crews were complaining, as theirs was the only fast jet with a stereo.