In reviewing the spectrum of British armor used in WW2, I see a pattern of absence. There is never an anti-aircraft machine-gun mounting top-side to be seen. I assume British tank-doctrine determined a MG to be an unacceptable risk to operate when lead is flying, but the USA and Germans certainly disagreed. I think the Panther and Tigers with MG34/42 cupola-mounts look absolutely wicked. I wonder why the Sherman .50 was mounted in a way that the tanker had to be standing on the engine-deck to use it? Hmmm. Looking at the Cruiser tanks, Churchill, Matilda, Cromwell, and even the US-import Sherman models, Grant, Mk1 through Vc Firefly, I never see a machine-gun mounting of any kind. Can you picture a Matilda with a big .50 BMG mounted in front of the commanders' cupola? It would have brought a new-level to infantry-support... which was that beast's primary role. Opinions? Tim
British-employed Stuarts had one, I believe it was a 7.92mm though since the British did not have a "domestic" .50cal machine gun.
Actually British did have "domestic" .50 MG, Vickers made it. Apparently they used it also in their AFV's. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_5-62_mk3.htm
well, I don't think a heavy MG is necessary, maybe a medium one. but you say that it should be placed in the commander's copula, it would not be effective since it would contradict with the gunner's control of the Turret. so I believe that's why the mg of the sherman was placed that way.
AFAIK most British tanks had provision for mounting a Bren on the commander's cupola for AA use. Also, AFAIK the Vickers .50 was turret-mounted (Vickers light tanks, Matilda 1 and an AA varinat of the Mk VI Light Tank). I'll see if I can find photos of tanks with a Bren mounted. The MG on the Stuart looks like a .30 cal Browning, presumably US supplied with the tank.
I've always thought that the gunner also fired the MG in the turret, I forgot about the commanders having used them too.
I've got a Sherman Vc Firefly kit that will be reaching the workbench soon. In looking at references, I haven't seen a .50cal mount topside in ANY of the photos I've seen of Fireflys in action. I find that rather odd. Yes, now that you mention it, I have seen a photo or two of the "Honey" (M3 Stuart) sporting a .30cal Browning. But what about the rest of them? Matilda, Lee, Crusader, Churchill, Cromwell? Russian armor took a similar approach. I've never seen an MG-mounting for T-34s, KV-1s or their SU-series of armor. I'm not certain if JS-series went against this trend in WW2, but most all post-war designs began incorporating AA-defense MGs in MBTs. Tim
Roel: Thanks for sharing. I've never seen these pictures before. Based on armor-kits I've built, were these the exception rather than the rule? Tim
I have made 2 different T-34 kits, one with an mg, one without. Most pictures I have seen are without. But it obviously did happen.
Hi. I found this picture of a Bren MG as aa-machine gun with a 100-shot-magazine: From "Waffen Revue" Yours tom!
This site is hosted through www.military.cz/panzer which is where I got the pics above. Just look around over there, it has quite a few gems.
Just remembered that a pic I posted a while back in the 'tanks transported by rail' topic shows a Valentine with a mg for the commander. (picture credits are in the aforementioned topic)
Spitfires (I assume you mean the Supermarine Spitfire plane) had .303 in machineguns. And they were Brownings too...
Early Spits had 8x .303 Brownings, later models had various mixtures of armaments, including .50cal Brownings and 20mm Hispanos, also .303 Brownings were used.
Oh, sorry, yes, the 'E' wing had 2x20mm and 2x.5 in brownings. They were comparatively rare, which is why I forgot them.
