The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 20, 2018, 10:34 PM   #1
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,273
no use for the .50 BMG.....

Hold on now, that's not me......but I'll admit the title is a bit of a troll.

I have been researching a family members WWII history/envolvement. Seems my uncle was a WWII vet, in the Pacific, in tanks.....M4 Sherman, Bougainville and Luzon (574th tank battaliion) One item I turned up online was a copy of a period report listing decorations, commendations, causalities (U.S and Japan) and a section entitled "Lessons Learned".

The writer of the report, (and/or whoever signed off on it) advises that the unit did not use for the .50 BMG in the AA role, and believes that swapping the .50 m2 AA gun out for a .30 on the pintle mount would be more useful, and simplify their suppy and parts issues as well. I was a bit surprised by that. I thought everybody loved the .50 M2

Giving it some thought, with no Japanese fighter bombers in the jungle, and the tank role in the jungle used in support of friendly infantry against enemy pillbox and entrenchments and a rolling pillbox (well, moveable) when on the defensive, I guess it makes sense. More ammo, available for suppressive fire and tank defense against enemy infantry. The 75mm gun takes on any hard target, everything else gets hosed by the .30's I suppose in within the city of Manilla, the .50 saw some use against structures.
bamaranger is offline  
Old June 21, 2018, 03:29 AM   #2
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
That report (as you described it) shows the classic tunnel vision of the bean-counter mentality.

That same point of view had the original M1 prototypes with all .30 cal machineguns. The reasoning was the same, commonality of ammo, & parts, more ammo able to be carried, etc.

It was Gen Abrams himself that told them that "you will put a .50 on the tank!"

Being a combat veteran, he knew what the bean counters did not recognize, that everything doesn't come down to simple solutions.

There are quite a few targets that are beyond the capabilities of the .30 caliber and yet do not rate expending a main gun round. (and remember, the tank has lot fewer main gun rounds than machine gun rounds.

AA use of the .50BMG in WWII was a real and important thing. And only a bean counter would take it away, simply because in one particular campaign it wasn't used.

Simply put, the .50 allows you to hit and be effective at ranges beyond what the .30 can do. When an enemy aircraft is attacking, the further away you can engage them, the better.

Take a look at the combat during the last year of the war, in all theaters. You won't find large scale use of individual vehicles .50s as AA weapons. Because there was nothing "large scale" to use them against. Axis airpower had been crippled, if not outright destroyed as a large scale force, by our airpower, strategic bombing crippling production, transport, and fuel industries, meaning very few aircraft able to attack our forces, and a good portion of them being shot down, or destroyed on the ground by our aircraft.
We fielded a lot of .50AA ground mounts, and AA vehicles like the quad .50 M16 halftrack, plus the guns on individual tanks and trucks. It was something that amazed the Germans, we put a .50 on virtually everything that moved.

All the vets I know (including myself) have a love for Ma Duce. Even if we never needed to use it, it is something very comforting to have.

Many of the WWII vets I've talked to also shared the opinion that as ground pounders, they were at greater risk from our air force than from the enemy's. (especially in Europe!)

Now, if you are a tank, supporting infantry in the jungle, odds are you won't be using the .50 as AA very much, even if there are enemy aircraft to be shot at, you might seldom be in a position to actually see them.

BUT, that .50 is better than any .30 at chewing through coconut logs, so while you may not use it for AA, it still has a really, really useful capability.

here's another thing to consider, and M4 Sherman tank had storage for 90-97 main gun rounds (depending on the exact model) and this was divided between AP, HE, and WP. And, only 20 rounds were stored in ready racks in the turret. And, while you can get .50 and .30 cal ammo from everybody (including the infantry you are supporting) you only get main gun ammo from YOUR unit supply, which may be quite a way away, maybe back on the beach....
Modern tanks with their even bigger rounds carry fewer main gun rounds than the Sherman did. Having a heavy machine gun, that can deal with things the .30 can't, and not needing to use a main gun round is a very useful thing, something that veterans know, but bean counters don't.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 21, 2018, 01:25 PM   #3
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
bamaranger that is an interesting piece of history that I didn't know existed. The .50 BMG and ma deuce (now ma tres I suppose) are currently well entrenched in our military. Thank goodness for that, and the bean counters didn't get their way.

Their are valid points made though, .30 ammo takes up A LOT less space. I always wondered why the put the anemic 240C on a Bradley until I became a Bradley gunner... no way you could fit more than 100 rounds in the turret given the space allocated for it when you consider that the gun and mount would take up so much more space. The 240 was the right choice for the Bradley... but the M2 was the right choice for the VC on tanks.

44 hit the benefits pretty well. .50BMG has a much greater effective range. In addition, it is a capable anti-material round. Trucks and thin-skinned personnel carriers can be taken out of the fight with a .50, without the need to spend a main gun round. .30 caliber is much less effective in this role.

Ask any grunt what gun they wanted mounted to their truck... they'll tell you an M2 (now M3, but still really the same design). Even though it is a little more maintenance heavy than the 240, it's worth the effort.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old June 22, 2018, 12:32 AM   #4
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,401
Interesting.

While not supportive or argumentative for the subject, I thought I might relay what our crews kept requesting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In our helicopters, we normally had two GAU-2/A miniguns mounted in the 'doors' (left window, right door), with a GAU-18 on the tail (M2 modified for electronic disconnect/safety).
An M2/GAU-18 could also be mounted in any other position, as is also true of a GAU-2/A being mounted on the tail (though very, very rare).
Each mini had 13,500 rounds available as a standard load-out. Each M2 had 300 rounds as a standard load-out, usually with another 200-500 rounds strapped to the floor of the aircraft somewhere.

After less than two months in Afghanistan after 9/11, our crews kept saying the same things:
"We LOVE the fear factor of the miniguns, but the real damage is done by the M2s."
"We want more M2s, but can't give up both of the miniguns."

Eventually, the standard "desert" configuration was settled on as a minigun in the left window, and M2s in the right door and on the tail.
This gave them the "fear factor" if the aircraft could be turned, and the "damage" of the .50 under normal circumstances.
Under special circumstances, the aircraft might even be configured with M2s in all three positions. The fact that they could be dismounted from the aircraft and fire semi-auto in an emergency situation made them more desirable for high-risk missions.

Each had their place. But the M2 was generally more desirable.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old June 23, 2018, 04:06 PM   #5
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,273
more from the letters

Apparently at some point, Uncle Dick's tank and some of the units tanks were topside, , on a transport ship. Dick writes they spent long periods of time "manning" the .50 calibers" watching for aircraft. I have not determined if that was the transport he took to Guadalcanal, Bougainville, or Luczon. The ship he took to Guadalcanal was sunk in harbor that night after they disembarked....torpedoed he wrote.

Supply WAS a major issue with the 574th apparently. One of the "Lessons Learned" was that each tank platoon needed more trucks, a 6x6 for ammo, and a jeep or weapons carrier for the platoon commander to run back and forth to HQ /command. The 574th largely operated detached with infantry units, widely separated. Part of the .30 v. .50 replacement would be ammo supply. I dunno how much .50 cal infantry units advancing in the jungle would be humping,and the heavy M2 as well. But a box of .30 would be close, probably.

I gotta add this, just because. Dick's first combat tank in which he was a driver on Bougainville was named "Jersey Bound". The second, apparently on Luczon, on which he was tank commander, was "Spare Parts". Both M4 Shermans. At some point, likely on Guadalcanal, they were in M3a1 Stuarts, but did not see combat.
bamaranger is offline  
Old June 24, 2018, 10:43 AM   #6
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Just a comment that from my reading, the 50 BMG was a gun of choice for AA on ships early in the war. It was found lacking and replaced by the 20mm and 40 mm mounts. Some ships kept the 50's as the supplies were limited.

Not saying it isn't a fine weapon for the uses mentioned above but not for AA in the intense environment that evolved. The gun solution is still problematic for ships, esp, with the hypersonic missiles coming online (which we are behind on). The time you can engage is short and the rounds may not deflect the missile.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 24, 2018, 05:56 PM   #7
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,273
pics and footage

I think I've seen pics or footage of the gun gallery's/bays just below the flight deck on early WWII carriers lined with .50's instead of the 20mm common by the end of the war.
bamaranger is offline  
Old June 25, 2018, 11:55 PM   #8
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
If you think about it, the .50 BMG was a really good AA gun when it came out. Other than bombing from high altitude, planes had to get fairly close to their target in order to hit it.

And when the .50s (mostly water cooled) got mounted on ships to begin with, the planes they would face were biplanes, and few could make 200knots.

Fast (300mph) monoplane fighters first showed up in the mid 30s and it took more years before attack bombers came close to that speed, and many never did.

Plus, the military rarely went through expense they didn't see a clear need for, and WWII is full of examples of obsolete or outmoded weapons serving on long after they ought to have been replaced, on BOTH sides.

Our Navy had the 5 inch for long range AA, and a 3 inch for a bit closer use, then dropped down to the .50 (and the detested 1.1"). The 1.1"s were gone by early 42, and the .50s stayed a bit longer, until enough 20mm became available. The 20mm replaced the water cooled .50s with essentially the same weight of gun and mount. (and even on a ship, even a big ship, weight matters).

One thing the Navy learned during the course of the war with Japan was that shooting down attacking aircraft wasn't always enough. They had to be STOPPED, and stopped as far away as possible.

Within its range, the .50 was very good at shooting down planes, (it was THE weapon of air to air combat on our side) but not as good at stopping them as bigger calibers. 20mm wasn't great, it could take several 20mm hits to stop a determined attack. 40mm was much better, one 40mm could blow off a wing, or worse, and the 40mm (quad when possible) pretty much became the close range AA of choice for naval use.

War is the sharpest learning curve there is, and a lot of things we held as true before the war turned out to not work as well as we believed.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07617 seconds with 8 queries