Vehicle based mmg's vs infantry-based mmg's

[Stargrunt6]

I play Bolt Action, which to those who don't know is essentially a very basic ww2 miniatures games.

Medium machine guns in this game are controversial.  Reasons are 1) infantry-based mmg's are underpowered and easily destroyed and 2) vehicle based are overpowered (ie too many).

So with the new version of the game coming out in the Fall, infantry mmg teams are improved and vehicle mmg's have been reduced in capability. 

Reasons cited for this is operators of  vehicle mmg's can't spot as well.

I figured other reasons why mmg teams would be more effective are thst they have more people spotting and probably pre-ranged before the fighting, range cards and all.

Is this how it is in the real world?

[Tim the Tank Nut]

I can't speak to the "real world" but I can say a bit.

Coaxial uses a ton of ammo.  It's just so easy to do...  I think the gunsight and gunner's periscope give good enough spotting.  It's a more stable gun platform too.  Infantry has to carry their ammo, as a rule the tank can carry more.

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

I play Bolt Action, which to those who don't know is essentially a very basic ww2 miniatures games.

Medium machine guns in this game are controversial.  Reasons are 1) infantry-based mmg's are underpowered and easily destroyed and 2) vehicle based are overpowered (ie too many).

So with the new version of the game coming out in the Fall, infantry mmg teams are improved and vehicle mmg's have been reduced in capability. 

Reasons cited for this is operators of  vehicle mmg's can't spot as well.

I figured other reasons why mmg teams would be more effective are thst they have more people spotting and probably pre-ranged before the fighting, range cards and all.

Is this how it is in the real world?

Vehicle based will be less fatigued from humping gear. You're not having to move 4-6 cans of ammo, water, etc. It's all on the vehicle. 

The Vehicle based 4 gun MMG platoon will have a 5th vehicle that will have the platoon sgt with ranging gear and a 6th vehicle with battery commander and they'll have radios they can use to communicate with other observers like PBI further forwards. 

In British practice the Vickers were used from ground OR vehicle so capabilities would be nearly the same. With the fired from vehicles being less fatigued as I noted. Faster response too. 

See here:
https://vickersmg.blog/in-use/british-service/the-british-army/machine-gun-platoon-of-ww2/
https://vickersmg.blog/in-use/transport/the-universal-carrier/

Edited July 22 by rmgill

[rmgill]

For a BESA on a tank (or two) you have a 3 or 5 power scope that's more accurate. You want 8mm mauser THERE in that hedge, it's easy to put it there. You're not going to be doing barrage with a BESA like you would with a Vickers though. 
 

[Ssnake]

I'd say that infantry teams will have superior awareness of close-range threats from all directions. Vehicle-mounted has mobility, fatigue, and supplies-carrying advantage as mentioned, but suffers from situational awareness, at least while moving, especially in directions that deviate a lot from the movement vector.

[rmgill]

Vehicle based crews WILL dismount at the drop of a hat. I certainly do when I'm doing my open topped recce. I also have the ability to see/hear threats from the top of the humber. We've stalked tracked vehicles which we can hear. Depends on the engine. Carriers are less sneaky of course. 

[rohala]

I never played Bolt Action, but this reminds me of Close Combat, at least the 5th one taking place in Normandy, which I played the most. In that game the vehicle-mounted machineguns were absolutely deadly. The Stuart was the ultimate infantry-killing machine because it had the most machineguns. It was deadlier than Shermans, M10s, StuGs and whatever else was available in that game.

On 7/22/2024 at 5:32 PM, Tim the Tank Nut said:

I can't speak to the "real world" but I can say a bit.

Coaxial uses a ton of ammo.  It's just so easy to do...  I think the gunsight and gunner's periscope give good enough spotting.  It's a more stable gun platform too.  Infantry has to carry their ammo, as a rule the tank can carry more.

I always had this question: how accurate is the coaxial machinegun on an armored vehicle in practice. If you spot an enemy infantryman, from how how far away can you reliably hit him?

[Ssnake]

With laser range finder, stabilized platform, and a ballistic computer it's easy-peasy - as close to a sniper weapon as you'll get with an MG that wasn't designed for sniper action, operated by gunners who weren't trained as snipers and who might not be very remarkable shooters at all.

Without stabilization, from a stationary vehicle, it depends on training level and prep time. How good are the crews estimating ranges, how quickly will they develop their range cards? So the MMG with a scope (not the norm at all in WW2) can be very deadly out to 600...800m on the first burst, or only on the second and third. It also depends on exposure time. If the infantry manages to stay in cover for most of the time and expose themselves routinely only for less than ten seconds, the MG crews' ability to engage accurately will suffer. Experienced crews might guess where the dismounts might appear on the next opportunity and have their sights trained on that location - inexperienced MMG crews might not.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

A praciticed WW2 US tanker could hit whatever he wanted to in my opinion based on using the equipment.  We couLD NEVER afford to shoot live in any real quantity but I feel like I could hit most anything I could see by the end.  To be fair, no one was shooting back so there is that.  It all worked really well as far as I could tell.

One thing that was startling is that the belt rolling over the top of the main gun into the Browning generates a fair amount of sparks as tme ammunition feeds across the tray.  Thjey were all like that.  I don't know if we were doing something wrong or had stuff out of adjustment but it got your attention.

[DKTanker]

2 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

One thing that was startling is that the belt rolling over the top of the main gun into the Browning generates a fair amount of sparks as tme ammunition feeds across the tray.  Thjey were all like that.  I don't know if we were doing something wrong or had stuff out of adjustment but it got your attention.

Were they using steel cartridges or bullets?  I ask because brass cartridges and copper jacketed bullets aren't going to spark and, they don't spark when they are drawn across the M1s maingun through a steel track to the coax.

 

[DKTanker]

On 7/22/2024 at 8:33 AM, Stargrunt6 said:

I play Bolt Action, which to those who don't know is essentially a very basic ww2 miniatures games.

Medium machine guns in this game are controversial.  Reasons are 1) infantry-based mmg's are underpowered and easily destroyed and 2) vehicle based are overpowered (ie too many).

So with the new version of the game coming out in the Fall, infantry mmg teams are improved and vehicle mmg's have been reduced in capability. 

Reasons cited for this is operators of  vehicle mmg's can't spot as well.

I figured other reasons why mmg teams would be more effective are thst they have more people spotting and probably pre-ranged before the fighting, range cards and all.

Is this how it is in the real world?

Vehicle mounted MGs, do you mean all vehicle mounted MGs (i.e. tanks and flexible mounts on everything that moved)?
Staying with tanks, US tank crews draw range cards every time they are to be in a defensive position for any length of time.  This is from my personal training and experience and having read historical field manuals going back to 1940.  

• The coax is the most accurate MG on the tank.
• The coax probably should be afforded more power than their infantry counterpart primarily because even a little magnification helps tremendously
• T&E units for the ground based tripod mounted MGs will likely make those weapons just as accurate as a tank's coax, except for not having magnification.   
• IMO, the other turret mounted flexible weapons and the bow machine gun probably shouldn't be afforded more "power" than their ground based counterparts except that their ammo loadout can be significantly greater than infantry weapons
• Vehicle mounted MGs are much more flexible and responsive, the vehicle and MG can move from A to B at a moments notice while the infantry weapon has to be broken down into carry loads, moved, and then dugin and resighted at the next location.

I think if one gives it a bit of thought, it isn't as simple as vehicle v infantry, there are just too many variables involved within their own classes.  That said, I understand that it is just a game so a line has to be drawn somewhere. 

[rmgill]

On 7/23/2024 at 5:27 PM, Ssnake said:

 So the MMG with a scope (not the norm at all in WW2) can be very deadly out to 600...800m on the first burst, or only on the second and third. 

My point on the scope is a Besa in a hull mounting in a Churchill or Cromwell (or Comet) has a scope for the gunner. This adds some accuracy if setup properly. 

[rmgill]

10 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

One thing that was startling is that the belt rolling over the top of the main gun into the Browning generates a fair amount of sparks as tme ammunition feeds across the tray.  Thjey were all like that.  I don't know if we were doing something wrong or had stuff out of adjustment but it got your attention.

Metal belts? 

[sunday]

Was a poster here, many years ago, describing how they shot deer at quite extreme ranges during exercises using the coax MG and the tank FCS?

[seahawk]

On a modern tank, not much of a problem. Laser range finder, automatic wind correction. Put crosshair on target - fire. 

[bojan]

5 hours ago, seahawk said:

...automatic wind correction...

Somewhat OT, but did newer Leo 2s get wind sensor back? IIRC early ones had it, then it was deleted at some point?

Edited July 25 by bojan

[Ssnake]

If "newer" includes Leo 2 HEL, then Yes.

The Bundeswehr never wanted the weather station back for reasons that never really convinced me. I think, it boils down to cost, as always.

[bojan]

Locally, first series M-84 had two axis wind sensor (Swiss Geotec A20X MBL, accounting for side and longitudinal). This was reduced to side wind only (Geotec A20X MB) after first series as it was found out that longitudinal wind does not affect projectiles enough to be an issue up the 5000m. But side wind effect to the HEAT projectile was found out to be significant (less so at HE and APFSDS). I should have tables somewhere...

IIRC "difference in wind near tank and at range can be sagnificant" was most often quoted as a reason for deleting it on Leo 2. But there is a problem with that theory, that HEAT-FS is most affected by the wind at the initial part of trajectory as even small deflections will only increase as projectile goes down the range, while different wind few 100s meters in front of the target will not influence it enough to be real issue.

So I was always puzzled for a real reason of Leo 2 abandoning it. Cost is also iffy excuse, above noted A20X MB was reasonably cheap, at least compared to the rest of FCS (IIRC less than 2% of the cost of the whole FCS).

 

Back on topic - LMGs (I have very limited amount of experience with tripod mounted MGs) are quite stable when fired from prone (unlike as often depicted in movies you actually had to "shake" guns, by holding them looser in the shoulder and inducing small lateral movement with left hand holding stock to get significant beaten zone at the closer distances), and in general it was not uncommon for LMG gunners to have better marks than designated marksmen* when using optics on LMGs. Guns on sandbagged tripod were almost like lasers - if you knew distance and corrected for the wind properly you were hitting targets up the 800m w/o problem.

*Criteria for gunnery was different but final scoring (x/100) was same. 

Edited July 25 by bojan

[methos]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Somewhat OT, but did newer Leo 2s get wind sensor back? IIRC early ones had it, then it was deleted at some point?

Yes, most of the newer Leopard 2s "got them back" (or rather a much improved newer model), but not older ones upgraded. You can see it here on a Qatari Leopard 2A7+ behind the RWS.

... and here on a Leopard 2A7HU:

It is part of KMW's/KNDS Deutschland's optional FCS upgrade for 6,000 meters range.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

we tended to use whatever we could find that was affordable.  The Brownings we had ended up being converted to NATO .308 because it just wasn't possible to pay for the 30-06.  I suspect there was steel case ammo being shot.  I never really gave it any thought about the casings.

Oddly when shooting blank we had to have multipe styles of blank adapters with adjustments in order to accommodate "hot" and "not hot" blanks.  NATO blanks were pretty awful.  At one time we bought a pallet of them.  

those were the days...

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Back on topic - LMGs (I have very limited amount of experience with tripod mounted MGs) are quite stable when fired from prone (unlike as often depicted in movies you actually had to "shake" guns, by holding them looser in the shoulder and inducing small lateral movement with left hand holding stock to get significant beaten zone at the closer distances), and in general it was not uncommon for LMG gunners to have better marks than designated marksmen* when using optics on LMGs. Guns on sandbagged tripod were almost like lasers - if you knew distance and corrected for the wind properly you were hitting targets up the 800m w/o problem.

*Criteria for gunnery was different but final scoring (x/100) was same. 

Back in the 90s a cadet Trainer in the UK (Charles I think) who was on the Enfield-L email list described how in the 60s (iirc) when they had Brens, they would find a good example gun with good barrels, carefully hammer the receiver in a couple of spots to tighten them up in the bolt area (remove a bit of the slop in the milled slots) and then could score REALLY good hits with 2 man teams doing sprints and drops to fire on repeat (semi) at targets. 

The Bren Bible does mention how the receivers had to be over milled a bit to get a better beaten zone. I'll check my email archives from that era on my home computer and see if I can find the comment. 

[bojan]

There is no need for guns to have large beaten zones by design, in LMG role way you hold it can induce enough dispersion for that, and tripods can have limiters set on the traverse mechanism that enable you to move guns left-right, increasing beaten zone. IIRC MG34/42 tripods were like god level good for that, I was always puzzled why our army never adopted those to be compatible with M84 (PKM). M84/PKM tripod is good and quite light, but MG34/42 tripod gives you so much more options and they were already there and paid for.

Edited July 25 by bojan

[alejandro_]

From Stefan's website

The value for the crosswind is set in advance with a fixed direction of use. Initially, the crosswind was permanently determined by a sensor. The crosswind sensor was omitted in later construction lots. 

https://www.kotsch88.de/f_leopard2.htm

[Interlinked]

6 hours ago, bojan said:

There is no need for guns to have large beaten zones by design, in LMG role way you hold it can induce enough dispersion for that, and tripods can have limiters set on the traverse mechanism that enable you to move guns left-right, increasing beaten zone. IIRC MG34/42 tripods were like god level good for that, I was always puzzled why our army never adopted those to be compatible with M84 (PKM). M84/PKM tripod is good and quite light, but MG34/42 tripod gives you so much more options and they were already there and paid for.

Traverse limiter tabs? PKM tripod has those even though they're small.

[bojan]

7 hours ago, Interlinked said:

Traverse limiter tabs? PKM tripod has those even though they're small.

Yes it does.

IIRC MG34/42 tripod can be set so you don't have to poke your head from a trench due the periscope optic. Even w/o trench you cak fire it from the prone position with much lower position of your body. Then there are additional settings that I have forgotten (only played with that tripod once, 17 years ago ). PKM tripod is a good, functional MG tripod. MG34/42 tripod literary turns MG into artillery piece. Yes, it was heavier, but it was still one-man packable.