ChalkLine's Desiderata

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

...
(Note that it's a myth that 12.7mm weapons can't legally be used against personnel, you can use tank cannon on personnel and no one cares. That myth arose because originally the M2HB was an AT weapon and troops were instructed not to fire on personnel and unmask the weapon before the proper target was in its sights.)...

I did some research into this years ago, as near as I could find it comes from the 101st AB in Vietnam, when they were using M113 with the .50 and two 7.62 MG's. The Vietnamese were waiting for the MG's to run out of ammo (all ran out at about the same time) then a guy with a RPG would step out and shoot the track. So the commanding General (I do not remember his name and to lazy right now to look it up again) put out an order that you would not use the .50 to engage the troops, but would save it for when the M60's were reloading to take out the anti-tank weapons (this became equipment over time).

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by CDAT

I did some research into this years ago, as near as I could find it comes from the 101st AB in Vietnam, when they were using M113 with the .50 and two 7.62 MG's. The Vietnamese were waiting for the MG's to run out of ammo (all ran out at about the same time) then a guy with a RPG would step out and shoot the track. So the commanding General (I do not remember his name and to lazy right now to look it up again) put out an order that you would not use the .50 to engage the troops, but would save it for when the M60's were reloading to take out the anti-tank weapons (this became equipment over time).

I can't find my source but I think this exact thing happened over and over.
Originally tanks were either little and well protected (FT-17) or big and less protected (British Mk IV). The little ones couldn't survive the .50 AP round but the big ones created a problem; they were so big inside that 37mm AT shells, the standard of the time, could sail right through one and out the back without hitting anything and this got worse as the vehicle got more refined and the crews were reduced in size. However the M2 (not the HB variant I have noted above) could riddle the bastard and kill everyone inside. The US developed this doctrine fighting UK-supplied or captured armour in The Russian Civil War.

[Adm.Lee]

There's a lot to chew on in here, thanks for posting it all!

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

I can't find my source but I think this exact thing happened over and over.
Originally tanks were either little and well protected (FT-17) or big and less protected (British Mk IV). The little ones couldn't survive the .50 AP round but the big ones created a problem; they were so big inside that 37mm AT shells, the standard of the time, could sail right through one and out the back without hitting anything and this got worse as the vehicle got more refined and the crews were reduced in size. However the M2 (not the HB variant I have noted above) could riddle the bastard and kill everyone inside. The US developed this doctrine fighting UK-supplied or captured armour in The Russian Civil War.

Are you sure of this? As near as I can find the M2 (and the .50 BMG round) were not fully developed tell after the death of Browning (in 1926), there were some test bed units as early as 1921 (such as the M1921 MG), but all the issues were not worked out yet. Also it was made due to a need of an anti-aircraft gun, but I have never seen it listed as an AT weapon. As near as I can tell depending on the round (only looking at AP) the .50 BMG can penetrate between 19mm (3/4 of an inch) to 34mm (1 1/3 inch) so not really what I would think of as an anti-tank round (yes it can take out WWI and some of the early WWII tanks). So not saying it was not, but I have never seen it listed as such and the dates that I have seen for it have production starting well after WWI and the Russian Civil war.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Are you sure of this? As near as I can find the M2 (and the .50 BMG round) were not fully developed tell after the death of Browning (in 1926), there were some test bed units as early as 1921 (such as the M1921 MG), but all the issues were not worked out yet. Also it was made due to a need of an anti-aircraft gun, but I have never seen it listed as an AT weapon. As near as I can tell depending on the round (only looking at AP) the .50 BMG can penetrate between 19mm (3/4 of an inch) to 34mm (1 1/3 inch) so not really what I would think of as an anti-tank round (yes it can take out WWI and some of the early WWII tanks). So not saying it was not, but I have never seen it listed as such and the dates that I have seen for it have production starting well after WWI and the Russian Civil war.

It was used during WWII in the anti-armor role but it was more against lightly armored vehicles and not tanks - the AP and API rounds could penetrate the hull plates or fuel tanks on German half tracks and light armored cars and they could penetrate the armor on the light Italian, Japanese and French tanks they faced as well as the rear and side armor of the original Panzer II, III and IV tanks before they started up-armoring them.

But you are right - it was more a weapon of last resort when it came to armor - if you took on a tank there were a lot better weapons to use than the M2 Browning

[kato13]

Have not logged in for a while.

Just wanted to say this thread is awesome.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by kato13

Have not logged in for a while.

Just wanted to say this thread is awesome.

I would like to second what Kato said about the awesomeness of this thread

[ChalkLine]

Ugh, facebook has stopped me linking images to it. Looks like I'll have to go through and find some way to host them.