Jump to content


.50 cal Machine Gun vs Airpower


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
27 replies to this topic

Bitter_N_Twisted #21 Posted Sep 30 2013 - 02:39

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7358 battles
  • 849
  • [25CDN] 25CDN
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013
The Canadians mounted four 20mm auto canons in a turret on the Ram, (called the Skink) for use as an anti-aircraft tank but found it wasn't very effective, so I'm not sure how effective the 50 cal would be.

Wyvern2 #22 Posted Sep 30 2013 - 02:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20396 battles
  • 1,780
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
the skink never served, the only british flak tanks that reached combat units in WW2 were the AA MkVI tanks and the Crusader AA's with the modern looking enclosed twin oerlikon turret

Dominatus #23 Posted Sep 30 2013 - 02:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10043 battles
  • 12,244
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostBitter_N_Twisted, on Sep 30 2013 - 02:39, said:

The Canadians mounted four 20mm auto canons in a turret on the Ram, (called the Skink) for use as an anti-aircraft tank but found it wasn't very effective, so I'm not sure how effective the 50 cal would be.

View PostWyvern2, on Sep 30 2013 - 02:46, said:

the skink never served, the only british flak tanks that reached combat units in WW2 were the AA MkVI tanks and the Crusader AA's with the modern looking enclosed twin oerlikon turret
One Skink did serve in Europe. It was "ineffective" because by that point, the Luftwaffe no longer existed, so the whole point of having a flak tank was moot. Apparently it did a good job of rooting out German infantry though.

Wyvern2 #24 Posted Sep 30 2013 - 02:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20396 battles
  • 1,780
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
oh, wow, sry bout that then, i guess i should have read my chamberlain, lol, since its mentioned in there, but i didnt pay attention. I know the crusader AA's were good for infantry hunting too.

Bitter_N_Twisted #25 Posted Sep 30 2013 - 03:21

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7358 battles
  • 849
  • [25CDN] 25CDN
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

View PostDominatus, on Sep 30 2013 - 02:52, said:

One Skink did serve in Europe. It was "ineffective" because by that point, the Luftwaffe no longer existed, so the whole point of having a flak tank was moot. Apparently it did a good job of rooting out German infantry though.

Yes, I heard that with tracers it tended to set the wooded structures on fire

Waelwulf #26 Posted Sep 30 2013 - 03:45

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 4354 battles
  • 684
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013
For the most part I think the .50 AAMGs were psychological for the tankers, and as a deterrent not an actual threat for ground attack air power.

Meplat #27 Posted Sep 30 2013 - 22:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 5978 battles
  • 5,723
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostWaelwulf, on Sep 30 2013 - 03:45, said:

For the most part I think the .50 AAMGs were psychological for the tankers, and as a deterrent not an actual threat for ground attack air power.

Singly? "maybe". The Germans issued a number of bizarre mounts for the '34 and '42 til the end of the war so they thought the smaller rifle caliber MG's were capable, and thought highly enough of the .50" Browning to scavenge and repair the ones from downed bombers for use as airfield defense guns.

So potentially the .50" gun was very capable of damaging a plane silly enough to cooperate and fly through the stream, but as I mentioned earlier the idea was for there to be pretty much everything that'd go bang flinging lead skyward.

Mechanize #28 Posted Oct 03 2013 - 19:10

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1241 battles
  • 2,109
  • [NDP] NDP
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostWyvern2, on Sep 29 2013 - 18:27, said:

Thing is, that the fast firing guns such as the 20mm and .50 cal were putting out the largest volume of fire, but manned by worse trained troops(as far as AA duty goes) whereas 40mm+ guns tended to have a dedicated gunnery crew and later in the war radar guidance all of which made them extremely lethal and probably the more effective of the weapons.
As for soviet commanders using the roof mg, i have a quick question, was the IS-2/ISU 152 AAMG mount as poorly designed as the US tanks mount, aka, did the commander have to climb out to use it, because if he didn't that makes using the AAMG a much simpler process. They also had the tankodesantniki to defend the tank so i assume they could man the AAMG as well. The US marines used a similar system of tank escorts, because of the Japanese tendency to get extremely close with explosives, at which point the best option was for a following tank to use MG's/canister or for the infantry to stop them closing in.
Also, to add to this once again, I actually did re read it, and according to the book "Naval weapons of WWII", even the 5"/38 gun, which was generally considered the best naval gun in it's size class, including in AA roles for It's high accuracy and rate of fire, still took an estimated 1,000 rounds to score a kill on a single aircraft using the highly valued Mark 37 Radar FCS (also considered one of the, if not the best FCS units of the war), while the true number of hits scored is unknown due to the fact a 5" shell barrage obviously puts alot of hot shrapnel in the sky, It's just a testament to how difficult it was for even an experienced gun crew with the best guns of the war to hit a plane from the ground/sea.

Edited by Mechanize, Oct 03 2013 - 19:11.