Tank-Borne Machine Guns (Hull Mounted and Otherwise)

[bojan]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:45 PM, sunday said:

Or, perhaps that 180mm could be related to that 17cm German long range heavy cannon.

No, they had naval 180mm before WW2.

Both 130 and 180mm field guns were Grabin's brainchild, and he was known for "inventing" new calibers by starting design from the shell explosive payload and range he wanted. Often he was forced to compromise, due the logistics issue (he wanted 110mm field howitzer at one moment and 95mm field gun as "optimal" calibers, 95mm was almost adopted...). Ironically, there was 95mm calibar already in use, in the Lahitolle 95mm Mle.1875.

Soviet 85mm came to life as a highest caliber that carriage of Model 1938 AA gun could take w/o ill effects. But there was also French export Schneider 85mm Model 1927 gun...

90mm also predates US use of it, it was common field artillery caliber through the 19th century, with French and German field guns in that caliber.

Then there are real weirdness as French 145mm Mle.1916, or German 13.5cm K09.

Edited March 21, 2022 by bojan

[shep854]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

A most true statement, and some interesting pearls of information have come out of drifting threads. The most classic was the one from tanks to dog flatulence in just a few posts while actually making, somewhat of course, some, uhmmm, scents.  

Well done, sir! 

----

There are also the changes to avoid ammo confusion: 77mm tank gun, 106mm RR, and so on...

Edited March 5, 2022 by shep854

[sunday]

5 hours ago, Interlinked said:

Conversely, the Strv 103 had two external fixed machine guns too, but those fired alternately, one at a time, which also makes sense because the Strv 103 could be aimed so it just needed to conserve ammo and two guns for redundancy.

In the Strv 103, those were the coaxial MGs.

[Interlinked]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

In the Strv 103, those were the coaxial MGs.

Obviously, but that's missing the point, which is that there are valid reasons for having a pair of machine guns instead of one. In the case of the Strv 103, the primary question would be - why two coaxial machine guns that fire alternately instead of just one? The same answer of redundancy applies to the IS-7 having two forward and two rearward firing machine guns, instead of just one of each type.

[sunday]

1 minute ago, Interlinked said:

Obviously, but that's missing the point, which is that there are valid reasons for having a pair of machine guns instead of one. In the case of the Strv 103, the primary question would be - why two coaxial machine guns that fire alternately instead of just one? The same answer of redundancy applies to the IS-7 having two forward and two rearward firing machine guns, instead of just one of each type.

I do not understand what are you trying to argue about.

[Interlinked]

2 hours ago, sunday said:

I do not understand what are you trying to argue about.

I'm sorry, but was there any meaning to your post, then? Your interjection that the external machine guns on the Strv 103 are its coaxial machine guns doesn't add anything to the conversation at all.

[sunday]

Well, everyone has the right to express their own opinions. I still could not see the point of your outburst, however.

[Interlinked]

1 minute ago, sunday said:

Well, everyone has the right to express their own opinions. I still could not see the point of your outburst, however.

Opinion? Outburst? I don't see how you stating a fact is an opinion, or how my post is an outburst. But I guess that tone can be so badly conveyed over text that you've somehow magnificently interpreted my rather dry writing as rage-filled hateful ramblings. Or maybe you're just trolling with low-quality posts and trying to start an argument by immediately suggesting one. Jury's still out on which is more likely.

[sunday]

Not going to be drawn in arguing for arguing's sake.

Sorry.

[shootER5]

On 3/4/2022 at 3:50 PM, 17thfabn said:

That one is easy! Because as a 4.2" it got the cool nick name the Four Deuce mortar.

The 4.2 inch mortar had to be one of the last weapons the U.S. adopted with inch versus millimeter designation?

You could have a Deuce and a Half bring up a load of Four Deuce ammunition. 

 

And back in garrison the driver could take his Deuce and a Quarter when he goes on leave.

 

[CaptLuke]

On 3/4/2022 at 8:11 PM, bojan said:

AFAIK all 3 were actual 4.2". US one was rifled, Soviet was smoothbore (being just middle between their 82mm and 120mm), IDK for British.

Since the US got to 4.2" by refining/truing the barrel of the 4" Stokes mortar (same time they added the rifling), I'd imagine the UK got there the same way, just sticking with smoothbore.   No idea about the Soviets.

The US combat trialed the 105mm Mortar T13 in the Pacific in WWII, but I don't know if 105mm was the true caliber or not; it was smoothbore so it wasn't sharing the 4.2" rifled ammunition but that doesn't mean it wasn't really 4.2" as well.

[bojan]

6 hours ago, CaptLuke said:

...No idea about the Soviets....

That one was Brandt design, as noted halfway between 82mm and 120mm. It was issued to mountain units, at regimental and divisional level. They produced about 1000 before war and have kept producing it up the 1945, with somewhat more than 3000 produced in total. Post war it has survived first soviet large-scale modernization in early/mid 1950s, but was replaced by regular 120mm in the early '60s.

My guess it that 107mm caliber was chosen vs some other ~100mm caliber for such compromise weapon because there was a lot of leftover machinery from 107mm artillery production. OTOH, I don't know if 107mm is "real" 107mm or 42 lines, so theory might be wrong, but even if it was real 107mm barrel blanks could be done on old machinery and then finished on the lathe.

Yugoslavia had some quantity of US 4.2", Soviet 107mm and British 4.2". US and British ones were delivered during WW2, Soviet in about 1946/47. They were all gone by the mid-50s from the active service, but languished in the deep reserves for some time (1958 weapons inventory, obsolete section, probably due the lack of ammo). By the time 1968 weapons inventory was compiled all 3 were gone.

 

In the modern times we have another category of the caliber origin - "theory avoidance weapons" like Romanian 98mm mountain gun and Chinese 98mm mortar.

Edited March 6, 2022 by bojan

[Harold Jones]

On 3/4/2022 at 2:50 PM, 17thfabn said:

That one is easy! Because as a 4.2" it got the cool nick name the Four Deuce mortar.

The 4.2 inch mortar had to be one of the last weapons the U.S. adopted with inch versus millimeter designation?

You could have a Deuce and a Half bring up a load of Four Deuce ammunition. 

And the Deuce and a Half could mount a Ma Deuce on a ring mount.

[Poopstain]

On 3/6/2022 at 10:21 AM, Harold Jones said:

And the Deuce and a Half could mount a Ma Deuce on a ring mount.

What the deuce?!?!?

[Klais]

These are, of course, effective weapons, but you can't do without specialized night vision devices. It's easy to spot approaching infantry or an ambush. We recently bought special night vision devices here https://www.agmglobalvision.com/night-vision so they were a great addition to the attack battalion during exercises. I recommend checking it out, it certainly won't be superfluous. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Klais

[17thfabn]

1 hour ago, Klais said:

How effective are they now?

Some tanks now have CROWS and similar high tech remote weapons systems. Those I would say are very effective.

[shep854]

20 hours ago, Klais said:

These are, of course, effective weapons, but you can't do without specialized night vision devices. It's easy to spot approaching infantry or an ambush. We recently bought special night vision devices here https://www.agmglobalvision.com/night-vision so they were a great addition to the attack battalion during exercises. I recommend checking it out, it certainly won't be superfluous. 

What country is this?  Also, Welcome to Tanknet!

Edited July 2, 2022 by shep854