Ask Ian: Why No German WW2 50-Cal Machine Guns? (feat. Nick Moran)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- utreon.com/c/f...
/ forgottenweapons
www.floatplane....
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.forgottenw...
From Nathaniel on Patreon:
"Why didn't Germany or Axis powers have a machine gun similar to the American M2?"
Basically, because everyone faced the choice of a .50 caliber machine gun or 20mm (or larger) cannons for anti-aircraft use, and most people chose the cannons - including Germany. There were some .50 caliber machine guns adopted by Axis powers, most notably the Hotchkiss 1930, a magazine-fed 13.2mm gun that was used by both Italy and Japan (among others). However, the use of the .50 caliber M2 by the US was really a logistical holdover form the interwar period. The M2 remained in production because it was adopted by US Coastal Artillery as a water-cooled anti-aircraft gun, and commercial sales by Colt were slim but sufficient to keep the gun in development through the 20s and 30s. It was used as a main armament in early American armor, but obsolete in this role when the war broke out.
However, with the gun in production and no obvious domestic 20mm design, the US chose to simply make an astounding number of M2s and just dump them everywhere, from Jeeps to trucks to halftracks to tanks to self-propelled guns. And that's not considering the 75% of production that went to coaxial and aircraft versions...
Anyway, back to the question. The German choice for antiaircraft use was the 20mm and 37mm Flak systems, and not a ,50 MG on every tank turret. And so, there was really no motive to develop such a gun. The Soviets did choose to go the US route, though, and developed the DShK-38 for the same role as the US M2 - although it was made in only a tiny fraction of the quantity of the M2.
Thanks to Nick Moran (the Chieftain) for his assistance on this video! You can see the video he references about tanks being attacked by aircraft here:
• When Your Tank is Atta...
And his full channel is here:
/ thechieftainshatch
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle 36270
Tucson, AZ 85740
"If you get within range of a [quad .50], you're in for a significant emotional event." Classic.
Still rolling on the floor 🤣😅😂 12:50 btw.
Classic understatement, that is!
Yea, if that Half Track 5cal mounted vehicle will ever be in WoT or WT, i wonder what tier it will be
@@HappiKarafuru the Apex of Tier 1
@@HappiKarafuru Probably tier 2, but they'd give it a colossal "inter clip" reload the T7 CC struggles to pen anything.
Ha! 22 years ago I was visiting the Mauserverke Museum in Oberndorf and this is one of the questions I had wanted to ask. By chance I found a kind, German visitor who spoke English and was gracious enough to help me by translating my questions to the museum's tour guide. When I asked him this question he asked me to wait for a moment while he retreived some documents. When he returned, one of the items he showed me was a photo of himself as a young man in a black uniform sitting in the cupola of a Tiger tank. His answer to this question - "We had an MG34 and an 88mm main gun. What else did we need?"
I wish I couldve talked to him
Sounds like a good point. Where US infantry and armored divisions had the M2 76mm and the organic division artillery assets and TDs along multiple independent artillery battalions/groups firing 105mm, 155mm (both howitzers and field guns) and 8 inch. Never mind air support which while it might not have actually knocked out that many tanks sure the hell shot up the logistics. A tank without ammo or fuel is just as effective as one that is a burned out wreck. I wonder how many Tigers or Panthers broke down between the factory and the train to shipped out on.
Thanks for sharing your anecdote!
That is the sort of response I get out of many veterans of big wars. They tend to appreciate better than most that weapons are part of a system, so if a gun is good or bad depends on how it is used as much as the nature of the gun itself. I am reminded of the silliness around the BAR. To many, mostly younger people who never went to war with a BAR, they think it is not that great a gun because it was not optimized for the LMG role at a time when you had guns like Bren and MG34 around. Ask the veterans who actually used the gun in action, they valued it deeply because they understood that it was not an LMG but an automatic rifle, and by using it like an automatic rifle, they were plenty able to be the squad's base of firepower. They won most every battle with their BARs, so the idea that they were supposedly handicapped by their old gun really never occurred to them at the time.
Twenty years ago, the museum may had a different name, today it is simply ,Waffenmuseum Oberndorf' in socalled Schwedenbau ( Swedish building). It shows weapons from Königliche Waffenmanufaktur, Mauser, H&K and Feinwerkbau and civilian products of Mauser company ( When i, Brittas boyfriend, was young, Mauser caliphers had been not uncommon). The entrance ticket allows you also to visit Heimatmuseum/ homeregion museum in the same building, there is a good collection of sword-, seaxblades and spearheads from graves of alemannic warriors.
Your after a target that the 88 mounter in a tank can't hit and the MG 42 is not mounted so it can be aimed. I think you might want something you could aim at a strafing aircraft.
I am an Armorer in the USMC. I have been responsible for a 6-digit serial number M2 made by the AC Spark Plug Division of GM. Ran like a dream!
A small part of a wonderfully large piece of history
is it true that the M2 is also called Largest Bolt Action Machine gun for it's jamming issues?
@@canobenitez I've never heard it called that. Its super easy to keep these things running smooth, and just as easy to make it not. Guys who have been around it for a while don't have many problems.
@@sarcasticYoda I saw some comments that said otherwise, just trying to check if the is some true on that ( this is the video ruclips.net/video/_uDEIWYlbic/видео.html),
JesseTheKid: "Being a former m2 gunner I can confirm. This is the normal for the weapon unfortunately. In the field it can even get worse, basically becomes a 50 cal bolt action"
also
First Name Last Name
says: " sometimes they're just unfixable. i've had an entire platoon of .50s become bolt action for no reason other than they're older than anyone using them."
@@canobenitez We didn't have that experience while deployed in Iraq ca.2003. As long as they were clean and headspace/timing was set right, they usually cycled just fine. I can only think of once case when we had one gun that didn't want to cycle properly, but it was resolved quickly while in contact.
“Massive industrial flex” is the best way I’ve heard the US involvement in WW2 described. It would also be a good band name.
Yeah. US didn't have the total war mentality of USSR, engineering expertise of Germany or dedication of Japan.
What it DID have was a massive, safe and completely unmolested industrial base, and a clever management system to run it at wartime speed while keeping near-peacetime QC and logistics efficiency.
It's especially noticeable in the firearms models introduced mid-war. USSR and UK made millions of "angry tube"-style stamped&welded blowback SMGs, Germany invented the assault rifle, but could barely field it in numbers, and US gone ahead and introduced a scaled-down Garand in a new caliber specifically for non-infantry frontline troops, frontrunning both the "intermediate cartridge" and "PDW" concepts by years and decades respectively with relative ease and significant success. US did WW2 on ez mode.
The would definitely open for Rammstein
@@BlackBladeGroM I wouldnt say that the US had any less engineering know-how, or really any country, than any other country. Intelligent people arent unique to any one country, its just that different countries will make use of that expertise in different ways. Germany basically threw massive wads of cash at its engineers and told them to make bleeding edge tech, and then threw that tech on to the front lines as soon as it was done and had minimal testing, resulting in many different low production variants of various pieces of equipment.
The US on the other hand, while still throwing money at people to come up with new things, took its time in thoroughly testing new technologies and pieces of equipment. Rather than send out 10 M4s then switch to building 5 M4-As and 3 M4-Bs and 15 M4-Cs like germany did with its tanks, the US made sure any new version was reliable and effective in the field. So while there was a much lower rate of new equipment coming to the field for the US, back home there were tons of experimental systems that were simply deemed to complex or fragile for sustained war thousands of miles from the factories producing them. For instance, the US had the only succesful proximity fuses for shells, and radio guided glide bombs. Theyre not widely known, but then the US also didnt recieve the wheraboo uber-weapon wanking like germany did in recent years.
@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine check you facts.. German scientists proposed the atomic bomb. Hell, we used German scientists to develop the bomb. ruclips.net/video/QrCc9XfNoBE/видео.html
5:20 - They also had 13mm (Sprenggranatpatrone) self destroying rounds contrary to the comments of only > 20mm rounds with the capability of self destroying rounds.
9:37 - I have not watched all the way through, but I feel like the (GERMAN 50 cal) MG-131 now needs a dedicated episode. I want to hear your thoughts on the electronic primers.
17:46 - YAY! I knew someone would mention it!
18:52 - Exactly, hence the triple 151 mounted Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251
@@BlackBladeGroM I’d tend to agree. The US had a ton a steel and lead to throw at the war and if there’s one thing the US has always been good at it’s making guns and making war. I had just never actually heard it described that way and I think it’s the perfect description.
0:42 If you consider that the M2 has been in continuous use for nearly 100 years…it is a super-machine gun.
no reason to change a good thing
We’ll probably still be using them when the Space Force is stomping around in mech suits.
Not necessarily.
Maybe that is a side effect of the massive industrail flexes the US did and probably still does during wartime but at least in the past they have used outdated weapons because they had them. The BAR for example was meant to be used in walking fire, walk at the enemy and provide your own suppression fire. In WW2 they used it like a "light" MG. At that point they had better MGs and better rifles but still used it cause they had it.
Arguably more so the fact that, as a vehicle-mounted secondary weapon there is just no need for anything new due to how ubiquitous parts are and no weight limitations. Noticeably it has been eliminated from wherever weight and firepower is an issue, similar to the Dshk. So while the M2 is a wonderful weapon, its long lasting tenure in armed forces is also due to the fact that no one can be bothered to make anything new, because it simply doesn't matter enough.
@@TJ_Low finnaly we could dual wield M2.
The Chieftain is always entertaining with his humorous remarks. "A significant emotional event" is the most low-key morbid euphemism for "blown into little bloody pieces" in army lingo :P
Yep strangely quite close to Drachinifel 😂
@@khaelamensha3624 my fav is when Drach gives examples of shells penetrating armored decks...
Yeah, such significant emotional events can "tend to ruin one's weekend plans", but should also be considered "a fine opportunity to discover precisely whose religion, if any, is actually correct".
For ineffective fire/weapons, "an irritating opportunity to repaint the vehicle" and "Yeah? Well, this works!".
This crossover really helps validate the idea that FW is a history channel and not just a gun dweeb channel. Admitting "this is outside my expertise" and getting someone to help is how academia works and I'm glad to see channels demonstrating this to everyone's benefit
Couldn’t say it better, while I love firearms I also love history and engineering, FW combines both, I love learning about the factors and limitations that led to a weapons creation while also seeing how they function.
@@crysiswar5
This absolutely. I don't get this unique combination anywhere else. It also helps I really like Ian's narration, he is very easy to listen to.
Guns are a big part of history
you can tell true historians and true scientists by their willingness to say 'I don't know' then with some luck you can get them to explain enough of the surrounding events, that they either actually answer your question (as far as your desire) or give you an excellent starting point for your search.
🚫😕 Well, to be fair, that's how academia USED TO work. Now, large swathes of academia have been co-opted and corrupted by neo-Marxist ideologues, with a goal of subverting western society. Now it's common to hear about leftist "intellectuals" claiming that "2+2=4 is a product of white supremacy". They say the same about science and most everything else. They are replacing the concept of objective truth with "my truth". In other words, subjective is now objective, and 2+2 doesn't necessarily =4....
I don't understand how it could not have been popular. In my opinion every American household should have one....
A .50 in every garage.
More than you'd think actually do.... 100% legally.
I second this notion.
Me: [Writing a carefully worded letter to my congressman in 1938 to petition that every American household could use an M2 Browning machine gun. Y'know, to protect the mainland from invasion.]
@@swindle9695 home anti air defense should be a thing also home anti tank defense
7:35 Your list of manufacturers got me on a 30 minute quest looking for "Brown-Lipe-Chapin Corp. Fascinating story.
Ok, hearing a professional historian use the phrases "Mor Dakka" and "Roflstomping" definitely brightened my day.
The Chieftain is ex-US military so you can expect those sort of things to slip through.
@@davidcopplestone6266 I'm not an ex yet. I'm only pining for the fjords. (Greetings from Fort Bliss)
Came to make this exact comment!
@@TheChieftainsHatch Woohoo! A reply from The Chieftain
@@TheChieftainsHatch Seriously??? 😲I assumed that you were a well spoken Brit by your title, Army to boot ?? AS in CAV? I'm ashamed I didn't catch that sooner ...
Well sir, that changed my whole opinion of you ... Salutations
Full notifications clicked!!!
There's something refreshing about hearing experts say with confidence that they don't know something, then using that as a springboard to educate people. Thank you, Ian and Nick!
It's probably fair to say that most people do who *not* admit they lack knowledge on tangentially related topics are, in fact, no experts at all. Wisdom is acknowledging your limits.
@@patvanderreest7416 However, one can spend a lot less time to say he doesn't know.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not, is a fool; shun him.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not, is simple; teach him.
He who knows, and knows not he knows, is asleep; awaken him.
He who knows, and knows he knows, is wise; follow him.
-Often wrongly attributed to Bruce Lee, but origins are not known.
@@ccramit what of he who knows, knows not that he knows that he knows not?
"hearing experts" Then they are not experts!!
Seeing a lot of people mentioning the MG131, but noone mentioning that it was electrically-primed, which is why you didn't see it mounted everywhere like the .50cal - but it allowed it to be roughly half the weight of the .50 whilst also having nearly double the ROF, which made it extremely useful for 'upgrading' German planes still using rifle-calibre machine guns
I'm only ten minutes into the video, so perhaps this point will still be touched upon
EDIT: ah, there it is. Very good.
He also covered that when converted to a ground based gun, the primer was changed to a standard primer. Which is why the electrical primer is not mentioned often. As most often I see people referring to the MG 131 in it's ground based role. While an intresting piece of information, it's not cogent to the topic of the ground based conversions. It's far more relevant to the air versions.
The electrical priming was mainly done for keeping a high RoF, while being synchronized to fire through the propeller.
It was also primarily designed as aircraft armament.
One of the issues with the German philosophy is that they always design things that are very good in what they are supposed to do, without considering the overall situation.
The US had two MGs, the Browning .30 and .50 cal that were used in different modified form by both ground and air units. The British 20mm Hispano cannon used the same shells as their 20mm Oerlikon cannons for ground AA duty.
The Germans on the other hand had so many different guns and calibers that it probably greatly affected their production capabilities and logistics, hurting them in the long run.
@@williamallen7836 I’ve never heard of the MG 131 in a ground role 😵💫
It’s super impractical. Recoil is high, ballistics are the same or worse than 8mm Mauser and gun and ammunition much heavier.
@@kimjanek646 Rewatch the video. The expert he had cover the issue even covered that it was converted to a standard primer for ground use. A quick Google search also covers it's uses in that role. Not every weapon made, or used has been practical. The same recoil issue can be said of M2 .50 cal. As 13mm (MG131) is only slightly larger then the 12.7mm of the M2. Yet we have used the M2 in a vast array of roles including ground, and sniper roles. Why? Logistics. It was far simpler to settle on the one caliber, and use it for damn near everything.
@@kimjanek646 The big reason why the US had a mixed .30 & .50 was that the Pentagon hadn't figured out that planes were gaining more armor, and felt .30 was good enough. They were forced to introduce the .50 Which came to regular use after the war began. So the .30 was a hold over, and eventually moved away from. So many M2 were produced that they put it on everything.
A historian saying "moar daka" is the highlight of my year currently 😂
Can never have enough dakka. There is always room for 1 more.
@@johnalan6067 there is never enough daka
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!
If you look at the US Navy's steadily increasing numbers of 20mm and 40mm anti-air guns on all their ships over the course of the Pacific war, even at the cost of removing ARMOR, you'd swear there was at least one Ork in an advisory capacity. This has led to Dracinifel, among others, adopting the term of "American levels of firepower" (meaning roughly "all the dakka") as a matter of course.
@@Archangelm127 Seriously, the only military hardware that can match American level of AA was the IJN Yamato in its 1945 config.
i love that even a historian uses the phrase "more dakka" the orks are proud
The Chieftain does play 40k.
and roflstomp
I just stopped the video to comment on it.
It's mind blowing to me that a silly phrase from the 90's, known only to a hand full of nerds, is so wide spread and well known 30 years later.
@@apatheticbystanders "Roflstomp" is such a great word I wish it was used more
American trainer "Hey man, hold it down. It's a machine gun!" German trainee "Ok"
Ian, in 1981 while on the range in Germany we had a timing issue with one of our M2s and the round went off prematurely and bulges out the sides of the receiver. Luckily no injuries, just a change of pants.
When we received a replacement M2 receiver, it was packed in a box with the original packing made by GM in 1945!!! We couldn't believe it. This was not refurbished and was brand new.
I've heard the same story with parts for the Sherman. Even today, if you need a new clutch disk, it will probably be new/old stock.
@@russellstyles5381 Who needs a clutch of a Sherman today? 😲
@@__Mr.White__
A Sherman owner?
@@TeddyBear-ii4yc Who can own a Sherman? 😲
@@__Mr.White__ whoever has the money, i guess
"Bolted to every American vehicle in WW2"
As well as being bolted to most modern American military vehicles
An American tradition.
Willing to bet that we could have spaceships someday that would still have a few M2s mounted somewhere
@@GW71093 that’s honestly probably going to be the primary weapon on any space war vessel, you don’t have to so much as blow up, but damage the enemy enough that they have to get in suits to survive, or die, and just walk across their corpse and take over the ship in a suit of your own
Either a .50 or a laser
Or both, knowing America
@@GW71093 and it would still be the same m2 marked 1939 or something like that
>Be space force trooper in 2250
>Musk corporation on Mars starts a rebellion
>Deployed to quell rebels as a door gunner on atmospheric dropship
>Assigned to gun that is literally a hunk of metal with a tube sticking out of it
>Gun is dated to 1940
>No special polymers or light weight materials here
>First mission out is a particularly hot drop
>Muskies pouring out of their prefab habitats everywhere like ants out of an anthill
>Feel the vibrations of the gun through your power armor as you hold down the trigger until the barrel glows red as the Martian soil
>On exfil you decide to inspect the antique that just saved your life
>See 'North Africa, Italy, France, Germany' scratched on one side
>'Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine' on the other
>Scratch 'Mars' on it with monoblade bayonet
That gun is the very reason I became a machine gunner in the Marine corps. Never touched one again after SOI and had a 240 instead, but the .50 will always have a special place in my heart.
@@TheRealColBosch I was on foot so unfortunately the .50 would have been a pain in the ass to carry
Everyone knows when Ma speaks, the enemy listens.
I think the 240 is more fun to be honest
Should try to buy one, they are able to be owned iirc
Try Kord HMG . You will love it.
Ian: I'm not as familiar with german combined arms tank warefare
Me: looks like we might get a response video later from the Chieftan.
Ian: So I asked the Chieftan if he could help with this answer.
Me: Guess I'm not waiting as long as I expected.
It's pretty wild to me, a Norwegian who has hands-on experience (in 2010) with the M2 .50, that the only reason I ever used it in my service is a minor US military branch kept it in use in the 20's and 30's
Seems like the real question is why why the USA had one, and that was well answered. If it wasn't well developed before we started ramping up production for the war, we wouldn't have made them. The 20mm is better for shooting at stuff, the 7.62ish stuff less of a waste when shooting at people.
@@timewave02012 As American's we can own cannons, still. Just really expensive. In the 1770s , post revol war, specifically, for cannons and everything else. Its never changed. A 20mm is less regulated than a Tommy gun.
@@RonaldPottol The USA wasn't quite the only ones to do the 50 cal. Like so many other things, the USA was actually using an older form of the M2 Browning 50 cal as their main military weapon despite improvements existing to the weapon even prior to WW2. FN actually improved the gun itself and also offered it chambered in 13.2x99mm. This new cartridge allowed them to both have a 20% hotter loading for increased AA range and also to have an effective HE filler. That thing Nick said was only really done in 20mms. Not quite true, Sweden and Romania both adopted this gun and had 50 cals with explosive fillers in active use during the war with Finland also backdooring their way into utilizing them as well through their connections with Sweden although they opted to continue using 12.7x99mm since they already had the ammunition in active production in the country.
@@timewave02012 I got that. Just letting people know, we can. You are 100% correct. I have had a range of ex military weapons. We had a gun/ammo business on my Dads FFL. Ha also had a shipping business. I always thought it was funny that you could buy an artillery piece . The dollars to feed a 50 bmg vs 20 mil is great.
@@timewave02012 Didn't the fullauto/mg ,legislation come out of Capone's predilection for tommy guns. I know Clyde Barrow of Bonnie and Clyde fame was keen with BAR. I think he was a ww1 vet.
I'm simple man of refined taste.
Put Ian and Nick Moran on the same video and I'm happy.
Thought Hillary Doyle was coming in at one point.
I say bravo dear chap, your tastes are impeccable
Ian did a video with Drachinifel a while back, they discussed whiskey.
The German’s did have a Heavy MG - they just used the 20mm variety and the 37mm variety in the AA-role. These weapons were used extensively against light-armor and infantry and fortifications to devastating effect. These models were the Flak 38, the quad mount using the same design and the Flak 18/36/37.
Yes, ,50 cal. was ineffective in most AA roles
the recently recurring Ian-Nicolas collaboration is the best thing that happened on the internet in 2022
God I hope this kinda thing continues!!!!!!!!!!!
If you can get Drach to handle navy stuff maybe we are working on a stand-alone channel on military techno history
@DiversityIsOurStrength thanks bro
@DiversityIsOurStrength haha yeah XD
Needs someone not american to collaborate with. Because he forgets about MG131 and Japanese 13.2mm. For USSR these are many HMGs and DSHK is so limited because its role was not as wide as M2. Soviet HMGs of WW2 : Infantry - DSHK , aircraft - SHVAK , UB. Not fielded but developed in 1944 - KPV
@2:30 Thank God for the foresight of the Coastal Artillery branch.
One additional detail for why the MG151/15 was used a lot on the halftracks and the MG131 wasn't: The 15mm had been used in large quantities by the Luftwaffe on their Bf109s before being replaced by the 20mm version and was readily available, as was the ammunition. The 13mm had to be produced, was still in use with basically all Luftwaffe fighters and bombers, and ammuntion production was a bit problematic due to being a completely new cartridge.
True, it was a bit awkward because the MG151, both in 15mm and 20mm variation, was available abundantly as second hand stuff as it was phased out on frontline fighters in favor of 30mm MK 108 guns. but the 13mm was still just on the way in for the Luftwaffe, replacing 7.92mm MG17s and MG81s as nose MGs on fighters as well as some tailgunner positions, and so getting any was hard, even if they seem superficially a similar type of gun.
It's similar to the StG 44 being adopted over Hitler's disapproval. In the middle of a war you're asking for a weapon to be designed, tested, adopted and distributed, along with spare parts. And a brand new cartridge as well. All that has to be considered vs. deciding to just use what you have on hand. When you have the capacity to crank out 2 million M2s, that decision is much easier to make.
Also the Japanese used the type 3 13mm machine gun in aircraft, 1mm larger than .50
MG131 uses 10 kJ ammo doesn't have higher sectional density and energy density over 7.92 and has lower ballistic coefficient, hence not much higher penetration on long distances (aircrafts can shoot at lower range in thinner air). There was no point use it on ground!
@@peceed There wouldve been plenty of "point" as an AA gun on the ground, because airplanes arent all that armored. And frankly the same goes for infantry, if the need happens to arise. Heck, it would even be dangerous to lightly aromored vehicles like M2/M3 halftracks or Universal Carriers.
Just because its worse at armor penetration than an M2 doesnt mean it suddenly loses all reason to exist.
So, the answer is: The Germans *did have* equivalents to the M2 - *_They just didn't use them!_*
Random note: It's really nice to see how Nick went from speaking 2384238 words per second like a horsetrack narrator, to a documentary quality level of narration in such a short timeframe.
Great vid Ian, very interesting, thank you very much!
Nick is calming down from active military service, or has learned to change speaking cadence when talking to civilians.
Took me quite a while to slow my speech back down after I got out.
As to the "didn't use .50cal equivalents" line, that's almost certainly because the Luftwaffe was a completely separate organization from the Heer and couldn't use Heer production, and vice versa.
It wasn't until the Luftwaffe (and what was left of the Kriegsmarine) was declaring the MG151s as surplus (because they weren't big enough guns to knock down a B17 or B24) that the Heer started using them.
@@ScottKenny1978 Thanks for the great reply Scott, regarding the Nick part, I didn't know it hadn't been long since he retired.
In respect to the MG151 & Co, just wow, that's some info right there, I didn't know, nor was expecting, a Japanese-style rivalry between the different German service branches. And if it wasn't due to a rivalry, but some other piece of, say, legislation (to put it in some way), I gotta admit it's just as unexpected.
Last but not least, the "what was left of the KMS" line brought up a much welcome chuckle 🙂
Thanks again, have a great one mate!
I’ve retired? News to me, I’m currently spending a couple of weeks on Fort Bliss doing the staff officer thing.
@@TheChieftainsHatch oh, sorry, active to Guard.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Ooops! Well Nick, erm **cough** it's not like, hmm... well, not like anyone was picturing you sporting bermudas & a panama hat while fishing in Florida anyway! **coughcough...**
...Aight Imma make sure I steer clear of El Paso in the following weeks... 😂👍🏼
I love the Ask Ian videos! It's like the other gun history vids but on a conceptual level rather than about an individual item. Super informative and I love the way you tell stories. I hope we never run out of historical guns and concepts for you to tell us about.
It's wonderful to see the rarest event I can recall, two experts honest enough to say they don't know something. In the same video no less. Thank you gents.
Got to like this channel... Ian explains what he does know in such a great way- sticks to the main points with a mention to the exceptions- then says "so I asked..." and hits Nick... These are real subject matter experts who can admit what they know and what they don't know... in this case probably because we can't know for sure after this amount of time if the contemporary sources are silent.
Some Russian tanks did begin mounting pintle DShKs towards the end of WWII, primarily the IS series of heavy tanks.
Interestingly, similar mounts for DT/DP mg's on the roofs of BT series tanks seems to have been somewhat common just before 1940, at least in some areas.
@@YourRulerSkeletos , когда приняли Ил-2, РККА решила, что скоро такие же появятся и у других. А раз 7,62 против бронированного штурмовика бесполезен совершенно, то и нечего тратить ресурсы.
ДШК ставили на все танки ИС, штурмовые САУ, бронепоезда, корабли, для многих лёгких Т-40 это было штатное оружие... А остальное отдавали в зенитные полки НКВД, которые прикрывали самые важные объекты (мосты, узловые станции, аэродромы, штабы, склады и прочее). Даже им не хватало.
На северном флоте практически все корабли перевооружили с ДШК на М2: снабжение с большой земли было затруднено, а северные конвои ленд-лиза приходили прямо к ним.
@@RomaNovikov1980 I was referring to the roof mounting for the Degtyaryov machine gun on the BT tanks (www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/FTZP1.jpg). Your point about the navy is interesting and makes sense, I had always wondered why Soviet ships ended up with M2's and DShK's at the same time, while the M2's that came with Sherman tanks ended up "borrowed" by someone along the way.
@@YourRulerSkeletos , такая же турель была на Т-26, иногда на Т-28 (на мото-броне-вагонах на таких же башнях они были), крайне редко они ставились на КВ. Так что это не эксклюзив для БТ.
@@RomaNovikov1980 Ahhh, I'd never seen one on a KV before, but that makes sense.
My grandfather was on a M16 half-track in Korea and he said the only time he ever felt safe over there was behind those .50's.
Here's to your Grandfather for helping S. Korea be FREE for the last 69 years, and for sending relatives of possible future enemies to their ancestors.
I believe him, it's a brilliant piece of machinery.
A tactic used in Korea was to position Jeeps with M2's mounted around a village/town that was infested with enemy soldiers, then fire the M2's knowing full well that whoever was behind those walls would be splattered and no longer a threat.
@@renehinojosa1962 ... That was infested with civilians....
I was a Navy "50" gunner in Vietnam 1970-71. My "50" was built by the Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Co
in 1943. I was born in 1948
I'm glad he stuck some photos in the video this time, that's something that I wished for in the past. I realize Ian's a one-man band, but it was still nice to see the 50 cal variety
Talking About America flexing AND having The Chieftain in one video? Instant favorite!!
Ian,
Yet again, you take a specific niche, guns and gun history (???), and make it interesting!
And, I absolutely love the way you're always so thoughtful. For instance, your intro and outro both showed your respect for your guest, as well as your own generosity of spirit.
Thank you
Loved my .50 on the DDG. Never an issue ever when properly timed and headspace, which is not hard to do. Easy to hit with, big chunky sweet rate of fire on the tripod bolted to the deck with spade grips and thumb trigger = ZERO recoil. The sound and feeling of running belts through those things is one of the most visceral experiences of my life.
loved it when the GM's would let us do morale shoots. Bu puppa puppa!
The top left of Chieftain's bookshelf seems to be somewhat precariously arranged.
The German POWs were marched westward down the middle of the Autobahn to the camps. On both sides of the highway they watched the Allie's non-stop eastward convoy of troops and equipment as well as overhead flights of aircraft. They were overheard to say, "Where in the hell did they get all that gear?"
Guessing you saw the Band of Brothers scene huh
Naw, read the book. @@wrpg9955
That's what happens when you pick a fight with a country the size of your entire continent. Hitler was dumb enough to do that twice
Read the book@@wrpg9955
@@brianjones9780 To be fair to Hitler, he wasn't the one to bring the US in the war. It was Japan that poked the bear and really pissed off the US.
“It’s like Opera handing out 50cal machine guns” present 🎁 🎉😂
I absolutely loved that analogy
You get a 50cal, you get a 50cal, everybody gets a 50cal!
Yes 🙌 please
That's the only way I would go to her show. 😂
Ian and Nick should find a naval expert and aviation expert to form the holy quad-fecta of war experts. This alone was great.
Drachinfel for the naval stuff, and Greg's Airplanes for Aviation.
Military Aviation History would get my vote for the aviation side.
Ryan semanski would be really cool to have aboard, although he mostly focuses on Iowa class battleships
I second the motions for Drachinifel for the Navy, Military Aviation History for the Air Force, and would recommend Military History Visualized for another perspective for the Army
Nick has already collaborated with Drachinifel and Chris of Military Aviation History, and Bernhard of Military History Visualized.
He's also done naval history videos for World of Warships...
Ryan and Drach have collaborated, as have Drach and C&Rsenal... who have in turn collaborated with Ian...
There have been various other cooperative videos with other less well known people.
Expanding the crew can only be a Good Thing.
The MG 131 was electrically fired which gave it a rate of fire of 900 rounds/min it was air cooled so really only suited for use in an aircraft where the electricity and ample cooling is avaliable
Sharing the limelight with Nick Moran is really appreciated. It demonstrates you seriousness of purpose and overall professionalism. That’s why I’ve subscribed to your channel for quite awhile. Have a great day.
Otto Carius said "Hold Mein Beer".
For those that don't know, Otto is believed to shoot down a IL-2 with his 88 on his Tiger Tank.
It’s 04:14 in the morning and I have quite a big day ahead of me, but man do I want to know why the Germans didn’t use 50cals during WW2.
Ian: “Well, there’s actually quite a lot to unpack in order to properly answer that question”
Me: *puts feet up* “this is gonna be good”
No you didn't
@@MrJabez89 you’re right. They were already up, and I was in the bathtub 😘
@@ClericalConsequences Why lie about something like that?
@@MrJabez89 welcome to the internet ❤️
@@MrJabez89 At best it provides amusement to anyone scrolling past. At worst, no-one cares and it stays buried at 0 likes. Somewhere in the middle is trolling people who take RUclips comments far too seriously. Hope it helps!😉
"If you got within range of an M16 you're in for a significant emotional event" love it.
"Silly American, with your .50 caliber machine gun! My 20mm is easily twice as powerful as that little toy!"
"But I don't have a .50 caliber machine gun. I have eight .50 caliber machine guns!"
What if they're in a fw-190 with 4x 20mm and 2x 13mm?
@@apoorhorseabusedbycenk the P-47 can hold something ridiculous like 8000 rounds of ammo though
@@jameson1239 Nah, it's more like 425 rounds per gun. Don't get me wrong I do like the 50.cal it's more versatile in alot of ways. But having a single fuselage mounted 20mm with 200+ rounds would be equal to 3 wing mounted 50.cal easy in the right hands 4.
If I designed a ww2 plane it would have the best of both worlds.
@@jameson1239 no
The p-47 ammo capacity was 3700, or ~460 rounds per gun.
While a bf109 center fire 20mm Cannon can hold 200. Ya those 50cals are pretty shit in the big picture.
@@apoorhorseabusedbycenk well, with that mentality, the FW 190 had at most 120 20mm rounds in each gun, and 400 13mm rounds too
And to be fair, the P47 was more an ground attacker than a fighter, so you should compare the P51 to the both FW190 and BF109 series
-They did have an aircraft 13mm (.51 caliber), (both as main/secondary fighter armament & flexmount & turrets) it was the MG-131, (that could be loaded with HEI-T) & they put in the FW190, BF109, ME-410, & JU 88 (+ some others) to upgun from the 7.92s they’d mounted early on in the war.
EDIT: I should have watched til the end, as the Chieftan pointed it out.
EDIT EDIT: when I watched this the video had gone live for 16 min, shorter than its ~20min runtime. so I now apologize for nothing. Good day, Sir!
They also had ZB 60
The “0.5” is actually a 13mm machine gun. The closest it gets to half inch is the bore across the rifling lands is 12.6mm. The unfired projectile is exactly 13mm, fractionally larger than the Russian equivalent, the 12.7x108mm which actually has a 12.98mm projectile.
@okonkwojones And a very good day to you Sir!!
Loved the edit on the edit, thanks for the laugh.
@@DOMINIK99013 oh yeah, all the Czech weapons & tanks and such seized from their arsenals and assembly lines.
My late uncle manned a quad in WWII. After the war he visited relatives in Holland. His father came here just before WWI. Sold everything and bought farmland in west Michigan.
"Now if you got within range of an M16, you're in for a significant emotional event."
I dunno who this guy is, but I love him.
Yeah the commentary about .50 cal vs 20+mm isn't quite right. You're right that with .50cal you're basically stuck with Ball, AP, and API. However you do not have proximity-fuzed munitions in 20mm, especially prior to WWII. I would argue that we still don't have very many of them today aside from some counter defilade munitions and technology like the Oerlikon AHEAD rounds which are largely above 30mm in size.
What you do have in 20-30mm are impact-fuzed high explosive incendiary rounds. These are really nasty against light targets like aircraft or trucks. They fuze on impact (so you still have to hit a target), but have a fuze delay so that they explode inside the target and do a lot of internal damage.
Some 20+mm guns did have timer-fused munitions, though i’m not sure if these were used outside of a ground-based flak role.
@@TJ_Low I'd be surprised if anyone used them, as they'd be basically useless. 20mm doesn't have nearly enough power or range to benefit from time fuse, since it's only real use is against bomber formations.
I recently read the book Nanette by a US P-39 pilot. His 37mm cannon fired shells with timed fuses in 1943.
A lot of your explosive 20mm & up AA rounds self destruct at predetermined range. This allows gunners to put up a wall of exploding shells in front of both incoming & fleeing aircraft.
Not sure if that's what Ian was referring to, but it is an AA strategy we still see in use today.
@@donwyoming1936 Not really. 20мм rounds created so small fragmentation so pretty much useless to create "cloud of fragments". So till this day mainly use in direct hit role.
Whether you have an AA machine gun or not, it’s probably always better to be safe in your tank armor than it is to be poking your head out looking at the aircraft as they attack you.
Idk man if I was getting attacked by aircraft i’d rather have a chance of forcing them off with the machine gun then having to potentially enduring multiple rocket and strafing runs. Especially since you might end up saving some of the unarmored personnel around you.
Are you seriously claiming that neglecting any and all anti-aircraft fire and hunkering down in tanks to give enemy planes completely free sky to rein fire upon you is somehow better and safer than to firing at them in barrages of aa-rounds to limit how they can manoeuvre and take time to aim at you? Don't make me laugh.
Safer* in your tank
correct according to post WW2 combat analysis and testing.. troops were many times safer in a buttoned down tank than heads out trying to fight planes. the brits estimated it would take 140 rockets and 18 planes to have a 50 percent chance of hitting a tank .
The ground troops were much more at risk due to area effect vs tanks taking direct hits.
and 50s were not effective on tanks as AAs
@@anteshell better to leave that to dedicated anti-aircraft units with quad .50s in dedicated AA mounts, 37mm guns, and 40mm Bofors.
Thank you so much for such a good coverage of this question. Also thanks for bringing in "The Chieftain". He always adds a welcome bit of expertise as well as humor. Love your channel man.
Hello, in the Italian service there were two machine guns derived from the Browning project, the Breda-Safat cal 12.7 and the 7.7 (.303) used on aircraft. belt fed clearly
And so the one of Japanese aircraft mg, which is the adaptation of Breda Safat 12.7 using exact ammunition as the Italian ones. Japan even import the ammo directly from Italy's for some time before producing themselves.
I forget the type though.
@@wisewarnanazara317 .50 High Explosive Incendiary Tracer. [HEIT]
Great video. Would've liked to have seen reference to the M2 in US Navy and USAAF service. Late in WW2, the Navy learned that 20mm and 40mm weren't enough to stop kamikaze attacks and switched to 3" using proximity fuzes.
In 1998 I was on a Danish army camp in Bosnia, chatting with a soldier who was cleaning an M2. He pointed out the wooden grips, serial number, and Nazi Era markings. He told me the gun was bought by Denmark before the war, captured by the Germans, and returned to Denmark after the war. I can not verify anything other than the wooden grips and the Nazi markings, and that the gun ws in service with the Danish Army in 1998.
I would like to add that the Italians developed a 12.7mm Vickers belt-fed machinegun as well. The Breda-SAFAT was heavily influenced by the Browning M2 and, although mainly used on planes, it was often used on AA tripod as well. Not to mention that Italian engineers did also manage to create 12.7mm HE.
It also influenced the Japanese Ho-103, while Hotchkiss 13.2mm basically became the Type 3 machine gun.
Love how the chieftain answers with a full length video. What a treat!
Very good explanation! I was in an Austrian🇦🇹 Tank-Grenardeer Brigade and we had the M-2 heavy machine gun too. I had the opportunity to shoot with this kind of MG and even against air targets. It is a really deadly weapon. Greetings from Linz-Austria 🇦🇹😎👍🍺🥨⛷🏔🛶🐺 Europe!
Well yes M2s are very effective on armored vehicles like tanks, Helis, trucks etc, the mg3 is still preferable as an anti infantry weapon right? Since it’s lighter and has a higher rate of fire and ks cheaper. Grüße aus Tirol
Although it hasn't a huge firing rate (slower than MG 3 and MG 74 GPMG), its compensated with a heavier punch per bullet and its more devastating.
American but I thank you for your service!
They had fast firing MG-34 and very fast firing MG-42 and often they use 20 mm Flak Guns on Half Tracks to support infantery troops ...
Hallo Peter wer wird deutscher meister?
@@okage6219 Bayern oder Union
@@StevieSantosia danke
@@okage6219 Bitte
They didn’t really have the 20mm armored half tracks until right at the end of the war.
I wonder how many viewers are still glossing over the fact that the answer is essentially "because they were too small".
.50 fans cant admit to themselves there are better calibers for such roles lmao
@@danielschneider8101 The Germans had exactly one 13mm machine gun, MG131, that was designed specifically to be as small as possible, fire as fast as possible, and pack as much incendiary as possible. It was never intended to be used outside of an aircraft, and the conversion for ground use was likely seen as awkward and a waste of effort compared to just finding more uses for their MG34 stockpiles. The 15mm sounds like it might be a machine gun, but its really just an undersized cannon that was quickly replaced by it's 20mm modification, hence the nomenclature MG151/20.
It's a little confusing because that's not an "MG", but I think it had something to do with Versailles.
@@danielschneider8101 the OP should have added “to fire a fuzed explosive round”.
On the other hand, Allied troops found it quite daunting enough to face the buzzsaw.
Especially one of his intended roles - anti tank - was already obsolete with beginning of WW2.
@@josevieira5700 Sure we can! There are/were much better weapons systems for AA use from man portable systems, aboard ship and from vehicles. There also are/were much better weapons systems employed as automatic anti-personnel and anti-material tools.
HOWEVER......
If you need a single system that can do a bit of IT ALL... you will be hard pressed to beat the M2 for the efficiency at which it can accomplish multi-missions. It would be easy to say it is a jack-of-all-trades, master of none... but I disagree. It is a jack-of-all-trades and COMPETENT at them all. Few weapons systems can make that claim!
I really enjoyed this. One thing not mentioned. The M2 on a tank was most often used against soft-skinned and lightly-armored vehicles and ground emplacements. With longer accurate range and significantly more hitting power, Ma Deuce did much more than rattle Jabo and Stuka pilots. It saved 37mm, 75mm and 76mm rounds for armored targets or ground formations, including dug in AT emplacements, though as Nick said, this wasn't official policy.
Germans had 20mm flaks everywhere. IIRC they produced 100.000 of them (part in quad installation).
Single barreled 20mm Flak 30 or 38 was really good weapon in ground role in eastern front. Whacking farm house far away.
Germans were highly flexible, and AA guns were used where they were needed.
Hey if they work on planes, they must be devastating against people.
@@LUR1FAX the canadians also figured that out with their Skink(sherman based quad 20mm AA vehicle), it was meant to shoot down planes but none were around anymore so they began to use it against infantry which worked amazing
@@chost-059 The Skink wouldn't have been all that good in an SPAA role anyway, closed top SPAA before radar fire-control were all impressively *bad* at it due to the very limited vision (and aircraft being fast and moving in 3D). The Ostwind and Wirbel worked better because they were open top giving unrestricted vision to the crew.
This might seem unrelated but hear me out, this is reminds me of the philosophy of the American Alaska-Class Large Cruisers of late WW2. The ships were built to counter "heavy" cruisers of any rivaling nation, heavy cruisers being the 8 inch gunned jack of all trades ship for any navy. The Alaska's would wind up with 12 inch guns as they didn't have the firepower of a regular battleship, but would have roughly the same displacement (size and weight in layman terms) as a smaller battleship. Leaving nations with less funding for their navies unable to build a proper counter to the Alaskas. They would cost nearly the same as a battleship to build so when a rival navy would ask for funding of such a ship they'd be met with the choice of either build more cruisers for a smaller budget than asked for or just build a battleship and get the exact funds they'd asked for. Leaving the Alaskas as the some of only cruisers in the world who could out gun anything they couldn't out run and out run anything they couldn't out gun.
I see sort of the same here. The U.S. could fund the 50. while also funding 20mm's and 40mm's. The Axis simply couldn't fund so many projects and would have to settle with pure AA guns instead of the happy middle ground that the 50. occupied. Again the U.S. flexing on the world with just how much they could build without breaking the bank.
The simple reality of it is that most nations realized, at some point, that 50 cals were just too small to shoot down aircrafts from the ground/sea, so they all ditched them and built 20mm auto-cannons instead.
Being a somewhat more complex, expensive and thus more valuable gun, a 20mm autocannon wouldn't just be thrown around carelessly, instead it would be carefully assigned and used.
The US produced a zillion 50 cal M2s as an AA machinegun, but pretty soon into the war the US navy realized that it was inadequate, so they quickly ditched them and desperately asked for oerlikons instead.
The US armorers now had a bunch of these huge machineguns they had nothing to do with on their hands
Rather than letting them rust away, they just let the US army bolt them on pretty much anything they could.
Evidently, that was an excellent idea, as the M2 machinegun ended up being just as ubiquitous as any other normal machinegun but much more heavy-hitting, while still being small enough to be handled by a man.
A 20mm autocannon, by comparison, was havier (therefore not as easy to handle, thus they were, more often than not, in some sort of trainable mount, not a simple pintle) and much more expensive (therefore not as common on the battlefield, both the gun itself as well as it's ammo).
Other than that, the US industrial capacity was just so big that when it was asked to quickly design/source, retool and start producing the HUGE amount of 20mm autocannons they needed for AA they could just do it, they didn't have to stop producing M2 machineguns to do it, so why would they stop? They just kept building them, an M2 is still better than no M2 afterall, just give them to the army, they'll find some use for them.
Actually the Breda 20/65, the Scotti 20/70 and the German 2cm FlaK were double-purpose, AA and AT guns, for wich AP, APE, API and HE rounds were available.
The Falkvierling was devastating 4x 20mm cannon did not only shoot down aircraft but all so used against soft skin vehicles & infantry.
Yeah but using a quad 20mm auto cannon on infantry is just cheating.
@@picklesenate9681 If you ain't cheating, you're not doing it right lol.
@@picklesenate9681No such thing as cheating in war.
@@alanwatts8239war crimes have joined the game
Infantry tends to have even softer skin than vehicles.
After watching nick and ian independantly for years, these collabs still warm my cockles
Outstanding Ian. I love it when my favorite channels collaborate
Nice video. Seems to at least imply though that there was a proximity fused 20mm cannon, which there wasn't. Main advantage of the cannon was that hit a wing spar = wing comes off, 50cal hits a wing spar it makes a half inch hole in it, unlikely to cause a complete failure from a single hit.
Great info delivered in a very simple to understand way. As an ex-M113 Mortar Track driver, I loved firing the .50cal, so I really enjoyed this episode. Great work as usual Ian. Cheers from Australia.
I've read everything available on the clash between the 1st Waffen SS and the US 30th Division along the Ambleve in WWII. The German armored column (the spearhead of the 6th Panzer Army) passed through Stavelot on the 18th of December and then got hit by 4 (?) P-47s while strung out along the road in the only break in the weather during that period. Every single German account of that battle speaks of how devastating that one air attack was. They lost vehicles and armor, but worse it completely crushed the morale of every German in the column. They had blown through the Ardennes easily for two days, but that attack made them realize that they were screwed because every time the weather cleared they'd get hit again. One wonders if they'd have felt differently if that armor had been able to shoot back? Even if the defense was relatively ineffective, they probably would have felt like it would have been much worse if they hadn't been able to shoot back. War is as much psychological as tactical, shooting back is a boost to morale, while not being able to shoot back is soul-crushing.
Up to 8 .50 M2 per P-47, multipled by number of P-47's. Everything could look like Swiss cheese.
While the .50 wouldn't have done much damage to actual tanks, it would have shredded halftracks, trucks and other light supporting vehicles. I could totally see it crushing German morale, even if rockets and bombs weren't added into the mix.
@@coltpiecemaker Not to mention that the shredded vehicles also likely included their supply and fuel trucks. Tanks are thirsty.
And that's still with a platoon of quad 20mm or 37mm flak on half-tracks per battalion of tanks. And another platoon per battalion of infantry. Possibly including some MG151 Drillings, too.
The USAAF fighter-bombers were hitting the columns with napalm since the splashed jellied gas would land on several vehicles.
“Like Opera.”
“You get an M2! You get get an M2! Everyone gets an M2!”
Another thing to add, especially for aircrafts, is that bombers are like airliners, big hulls of mostly nothing. Meanwhile, small fighter aircraft are jets or turbines with a little bit of wings slapped on them.
German air defense needed big guns to shoot down big bombers. A puny little .50 hole wouldn't bring down a bomber, an exploding 20mm or 30mm shell absolutely would. Meanwhile, germany wasn't into bombing much, so american and british aircraft were to defend bombers from german fighters, and against these compact planes that are mostly engine, gun and pilot, a .50 bullet hole was enough, and more lighter ammo was nice.
I'd say they were keen on bombing London
The British did have to contend with a bunch of bombers and went to 20mm cannon on their fighter planes. Of course, those 20mm cannon replace .303 machine guns, not 50s.
20mm is more effective against fighters as well. A Hispano Mk.II cannon weighed a little less than twice as much as a Browning M2, but was arguably three times as effective. Filling the wings of a fighter sized aircraft with 6 or 8 M2's came with an enormous weight penalty, while only providing adequate firepower
The Luftwaffe bombed plenty. They just didnt have the capabilities later in the war but from 39 to about 44. Germany bombed alot of enemy targets
The USAF kept with .50cals far too late, up past the end of Korea.
A friend of mine, who also followed WWII history, read an account of an encounter in Europe after D-Day, in which a German motorized column was ambushed by an American halftrack, which pulled out of a cross road in front the the colunm, and raked it along its length with quad .50s, devastating the column. A german crewman inside an armored car recounted that the bullets hitting the vehicle sounded like giant hammers. The armored car officer, he said, opened the hatch, and stood up in it to see what they were facing, and the bottom half of his body fell back into the car's cabin.
I'm enjoying this new take on Q/A - at first I wasn't sure, but being able to dig deeper and invite guests works great for me! Thanks Ian!
The USA being able to do things like build more tanks in a year than the entire German military did in the entire war, or being able to build one B24 bomber PER HOUR at ONE FACTORY is what won the war for the allies. The fact that we could do so whole slapping at least one Ma Deuce on each of them (and like what, a dozen on a B24?) was just icing on the cake.
What is seemingly never mentioned is how much equipment, resources and ammunition the US shipped over to the Soviets; there's nothing special about outproducing Germany but US supplies were critical for the Eastern Front, high octane fuel as well.
@@colonelsmith7757
One aspect about US tank production vs Germany or even Britian. When parts gog to the assembly station for those assembly operations they fit. No filing or grinding required. The main US tank, the M4 in all of its various guises was pretty much a world beater when introduced. By '45 it was showing its age but still doing the job for the most part. But even when the M26 finally got to Europe it proved to be vulnerable to the 8.8 cm. But as Col Moran has pointed out in his own videos there were other factors involved in building the M4. Mainly shipping the damn things from the factories to the ports and overseas. Too bad there weren't more Roll On Roll Off type bulls available. Plus you have to add in the bridging equipment the engineers had.
Probably why we built them a huge oil refinery on Sahklin a decade ago.
Or an Aircraft Carrier per month
...Or an average of 3 Liberty Ships per day in 1943...
@@colonelsmith7757 The supplies the US sent to Soviet was literally the most important thing they did in the entire war (at least in Europe). At the point when USA actually joined militarily in Europe the war was essentially over - it was just a question of time at that point.
That was excellent. Enjoyed the guest speaker immensely.
The elusive uncensored thumbnail!!!!
"50 cal doesn't offer you enough volume for an explosive projectile"
Soviet MDZ bullet: hold my fuze.
Yes, there were viable rifle calibre explosive munitions as far back as 1863. They've been prohibited for use in war against personnel under the St Petersburg declaration and subsequence Geneva conventions. However neither the ww2 german nor soviet armies saw any reason why they should be bound by treaties 'between civilised nations' and used them against one another extensively.
@@EddietheBastard great leap for "soviets are bad" argument here. Very fitting for technical discussion.
@@gargean1671 I was explaining their use - and their use in WW2 was specifically Eastern from and between two of the most vicious and dehumanising regimes in history. Carl and Ian did this informative demonstration video on their InRangeTV channel> ruclips.net/video/AXaaybiRiYY/видео.html
If you don't like the truth maybe you shouldn't fetishise appaling regimes?
@@EddietheBastard The eastern front of ww2 if definitively the nastiest front of any war i've ever heard of. It was an all-or-nothing- total war, for the complete extermination of either country. Gloves were off, in that case
@@eckusprosion5166 two of the nastiest regimes and political cults too.
I think it's very cool that three of my favorite RUclipsrs - Ian, the Chieftain, and Perun - are networked together and help each other out.
Also, Ian's crossover with Jackson Crawford was insanely cool.
Who did a video with Perun?
@@trog7986 I don't know that they've actually done a video together, but Perun has mentioned the Chieftain helping him out with Ukraine-war stuff.
@@ericraymond3734 I remember that part, but you got me all excited for a proper ft. I think Ian and Perun would be great as a combo
Eric, hold that thought....
@@TheChieftainsHatch that's an exciting statement!
Well, Ian rarely completely wrong, but this is one of those cases - so I am in a harry to point this out :) Idea that 20mm (or 25 even - been used too) can detonate "in proximity of a target" - complete misconception. Till this day pretty much (not to go into that super tech US grenade launcher - rifle). Those all had bin setup to explode on impact. But what really a thing - those can make much more damage to a non-armored target. And not much depend on round speed - which is also a thing when you are shooting air targets from land.
Agreed, I don't think Germany had any proximity fuses for AA guns, even on their 88s.
I wondered about his statement as well. I flew USAF fighters, all armed with 20mm. All of these used impact fusing. I guess in theory one could develop a timed 20mm, i.e. set to detonate at a fixed range, but aircraft targets aren't at a fixed range, they varied wildly. You don't want all your projectiles timed detonating at say 800 meters when your target is 1200 meters away. I also believe U.S. tank pintle 50's were more often used to suppress infantry and vehicles on the flank of a column; "hose that suspicious woodline that might be loaded with panzerfaust", etc.
The basic reasoning behind rapid-fire anti-aircraft gun design is that you figure out what size of round do you need to do significant damage to enemy aircraft even with 1 or 2 hits and then build a system that shoots these rounds at as high rate as feasible. If just clipping the enemy kills them you get a huge advantage over having to pour lead on them for considerable time. This (and additional range from heavier rounds) is why AA cannon went all the way to 35mm in recent systems like Gepard. From some testing and field records I think it was something along the lines that an aircraft that can withstand 20 .50 bullet hits will be brought down by 3-5 20mm HE shell hits. Also HE shells do same damage regardless of how slow they fly which is a boon as well.
@@kurtbjorn3841 The pintle was used far more in the ground role yes, but it was more because it was there and by the time U.S. forces with their .50 for everyone doctrine got to mainland Europe there wasn't much Luftwaffe to shoot at anymore (what was left, with gas, was very busy with bombers and less concerned with tanks). May as well use it on that suspicious tree line just in case. :)
US proximity fuses was a secret development that for a long time was restricted to US naval guns to keep them from reversed engineered by Axis. The proximity fuse wasn't released to land artillery toward the end of the war.
The proximity fuse was a surprisingly high tech development. Getting the fuse to survive the initial acceleration was very difficult.
The German Luftwaffe had the MG131 (13mm), and the MG151 (15mm) which might compare to a .50 cal (12.7mm).
The 13mm has a really short case length, only 64mm. Thats a couple mm’s shorter than the 300win mag for example, but with the bullet diameter of alittle bigger than the .50bmg or Russian. The 15mm is alot closer at 15x96mm
@@Rick-bc8lt .50 cal does not necessarily mean .50 BMG. I.e. the Desert Eagle has got .50 AE as an option. That‘s also a .50 caliber. Then there is .50 Beowulf, .500 S&W, the Russians got 12.7x108mm, 12.7x55mm. Those are all .50 cals as well. 50 cal is first and foremost about the diameter. Of course they have different case lengths, projectiles, and power. Lastly, the 13mm round had enough mass and energy to penetrate an airplane‘s hull, while the cartridge being shorter, and lighter than .50 BMG. This is an advantage when it comes to space, and weight, especially on an airplane.
They also had the MG151/20 (20mm) which was far more common than the 15mm models.
@@ThatSpaceKraken not sure if you can call that a machine gun anymore. I‘d consider that being an auto cannon already.
@@sunnyfrisch the 15mm is already an autocannon, it has shells filled with explosive
I always thought it made sense for the USA to fit .50cals to almost all it's aircraft, for offensive and defensive roles.
If you're going to be supplying thousands of guns with millions of rounds of ammunition, it's a lot easier to have everyone making the same thing.
At the same time, the 50 is a great all rounder, you can put enough of them on a fighter to be effective, while not limiting the ammunition too much.
The .303 was never ideal as aircraft armament, which explains the rush to get 20mm's into Spitfires and squeezing 12 .303's into some Hurricanes.
Browning M2 wasn't ideal as an aircraft armament either. Early in the war, 1939-42, it was unreliable in a wing mount, and it weighed a considerable amount, especially when compared against other heavy machine guns like the Russian UB and German MG131. All major combatants standardized on auto-cannons during or before the war, with the exception of the US, who took until after Korea to make the same decision
It made some sense at the start of the war, but, once everyone started cranking out newer better aircraft, 50 wasn't enough
The .303 seems like a pea shooter for aircraft use. You would have to be on top of your target for it to have any effect. I know some US planes had .30 cals but I believe those were phased out early in the war.
The German equivalent of the M2 was the 13.2mm MG131 - generally used as an aircraft gun.
That's mentioned
Yeah, i was waiting for it to show up. They put it into almost all new aircraft from 43 onwards.
Ian appreciate the attempt to answer this lingering question. The reference to other sources was enlightening and astute. Congratulations!
i have wondered this myself for years, glad to see someone talk about it. i always thought about the german 13mm guns in their aircraft and thought, "why not put a spade grip on this bad boy?".
In 1987 in Germany when I was in the US Army on my M113 I had an AC Delco Sparkplug made M2 .50 Cal machinegun issued to me. From remembering back to this. I think the gun must have been refurbished all those years by replacing the trunnion block and other side plates and parts to keep them that long. Next at Fort Carson 1988 I had another M2 made by Frigidaire. The rest were all Ramo Manufacturing.
I don’t usually comment, but the Oprah analogy floored me.
“Reach under your seat…yes! It’s a free 50 caliber machine gun!
What an excellent collaboration!
I think there are a few more explanations, why the germans didn't introduce a heavy machinegun into the Army in larger scale: First off, a big factor for such decisions always was a logistical one: Germany's scarce ressources and limited industrial capacities made it necessary to keep as much equipment as possible on a standardized level (making mass production more efficient). Also, the equipment has to be as flexible and practical as possible. Although this strategy was not always beeing followed, it remains the main concern of the german military, which was used to fight a "poor man's war" against numerical superior enemies (this problem was even a concern in the Reichswehr, the predecessor of the Wehrmacht). The development of the infantry tactic's is a good example for that: Small groups, capable of fighting independent, even if the contact to the superior unit is broken, or the leader has been lost. Therefore the Wehrmacht developed a basic training, which includes the possibility for every soldier to act on one or two rank levels higher, than he actual has. In addition, the smallest tactical unit was the "Gruppe" (lit. group), divided in two "Trupps" (lit. troop): One troop only armed with rifles ("Schützentrupp"/ lit. "Riflemen-troop"), and the other troop, armed with a MG34 (later MG42). The MG-Trupp was the main fighting unit, supported by the Schützentrupp which main purpose was to provide cover and close range defense for the MG-Trupp, which in turns has to suppress enemy fire and break resistance. In turns these both troops would advance towards the enemy's line, providing each other cover and support. And here the german army decided first, to choose a MG, which was light, easy to operate, has considerable fire power and rate of fire, and finally: Uses the same ammunition as the rifles (Kar98k), so ammo can be exchanged between Schützen- and MG-Trupp. By the way: The expression "heavy machinegun" in german doesn’t relate to the caliber or version of a weapon - rather it relates to the intended use of it: A light MG’s purpose is to be used by the individual troops and soldiers for highly flexible direct fire support, whereas heavy MGs are mainly used to suppress enemie’s advances or defenses (wether by direct or indirect fire) or defend fortified positions - for this purpose, the MG where equipped with tripods, which made the MG-Gunner capable to shoot longer, contingent fire bursts, without loosing the possiblity to aim sufficiently. The tripod (in german “Lafette”) contained also mechanisms to rotate the MG automatically while it is firing, from one side to another, to “sweep” smoothly through a large area. The air-defence role of the MG as a main purpose was dropped early in the thirties, because it was outsourced to the Heeres-Flak-Units (lit. army-anti-aircraft-cannons). The basic idea of this separation was, that the Heer (army) should concentrate all it’s capabilities on the ground-fighting, whereas the Flak-Units do the same for air-defence. This complied to the “tactic of combined weapons”, where different branches (which were trained as specialists in their respective roles) where combined to mixed units under a centralized command. This units where raised or disbanded whenever the situation required it. Their size ranged from around “Abteilung” (lit. section - Sections consisted of three companies and a leader-unit) to “Regiment” (around 4 Batallions). This separation in specialized branches lead to the adaption of 20 or 37mm AA-Weapons at Flak-Units as main weapons, whereas the Army relied on the light MG as main ground-fighting weapon. It’s worth to mention, that on a lot of occassions, in mixed combat-groups, Heeres-Flak-Units sucessfully provided heavy, direct ground-fighting fire-support for army-units with their cannons (whenever possible). Regarding MGs on tanks, it’s again a question of purpose: MGs on tanks, even when they were mentioned es AA-weapon, where basically meant (and used) to provide ground-defense against infantry-attacks, or provide covering fire for nearby infantry-units, therefore a bigger caliber wasn’t necessary. Tanks where never intended to fight against aircraft - like all other army-units (despite their basic training in air-defense), except the Heeres-Flak as specialists in this role. Maybe it’s interesting to know, that there where a lot of bickerings between the Luftwaffe (air force) and the Army, because the Luftwaffe insists, that everything which was meant to fight against aircraft belongs to her, whereas the army persists to keep their own Flak-units - a similar conflict persists between the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine (navy) with their “Küstenfliegerstaffeln” (lit. coastal-flying-squadrons). Sorry for this long post, but I think, it’s never a bad idea, to get a bigger overall-view of this topic. But to make a long story short: The answer lies in the purpose of adopted weapons: Against aircraft in Flak-Units we got the 20mm-Upwards calibers, and for ground-ghtinf purposes, the 7,92mm-calibers proved to be sufficient while providing the capability to exchange ammunition between nearly all field units of the army, reagrdless of there branch. So practically, there was no use of an intermediate caliber for the army. 13mm-MGs where mainly adopted by the Luftwaffe for fighting enemy aircraft.
So short answer is because of doctrinal and logistical issue, there is no need for a 50 cal equivalent because the 8mm Mauser is more common and versatile while the 20mm does a better job at taking out aircrafts. The only reason the 13mm was adopted (specifically for planes) is because the 8mm is not very good at punching enemy's aircraft armor as time went on
@@quakethedoombringer And the other thing is that in mid- to late war, the german airforce had to shoot down bombers and the allies fighters. Different targets require different weapons.
Germany was the world's 2nd industrial power in both 1914 and 1939.
Well...actually you have to consider the fact, that indeed we had an excellent industry and a high level technology, but very scarce ressources. And without ressources (like oil, rubber and ores), the best industry is useless. In both worldwars it was the same problem: We can't produce the amount of weapons and equipment, which was necessary to compensate for the losses on the front. That was the main reason, why german strategists always tried to keep the war as short as possible. In addition to that, it was of key importance to rationalyze all production capacities as good as possible. @@RouGeZH
@AngelusMortuus Germany had access to plenty of iron ore and coal. How exactly the lack of oil and rubber would have hampered the production of a German heavy MG?
They already had the MG151/20 20mm aswell.
And MG131
German be like: what? .50? oh you mean 12.7mm? nah we already have 13mm and larger
Audie Murphy knew what to do with a .50 cal. When the need arose .
America's Charles Upham
Great video and I was laughing before Chief was half way thru his talk. As this is a question I asked about 35 years ago and couldn't get an answer then but what Chief said. It boiled down to German thinking and that a dedicated AA team with a cannon can actually knock down planes. Also Ian he mentioned another great youtuber with good historical data, so many good channels so little time....... lol
Always love your collabs- especially with The Chieftain!
Because 50 cal is based on the imperial system (.5inch diameter) and Germans use the metric system!
Doesn't mean they could make a ground mounted hmg like the M2. 12.7mm machine guns were the arsenal of Japan and the Soviet Union who used metric units.
I love it when people realise that they know somebody better placed than them to answer the question and do collab like this. It is probably the best way to find other excellent creators. Thanks Ian and Nick for continuing this tradition! Hopefully Nick will have a question that Ian is expertly placed to answer at some point.
That's a cool question I never thought of.
"Fliegerbeschussgerät" must be one of the most German words I've ever heard, leave it to them to assign the most bureaucratic name possible to something designed to save your life while there's fire and lead raining from the sky
I love Nick’s use of “more dakka” and “roflstomp”
That Oprah comparison really made me laugh 😂🤣😂
And you get a 50 cal and you get a 50 cal and you get a 50 cal - *we all get 50 cal!!!*
Plus, lifetime ammo
Styxhexenhammer666 would be happy lol
@@omd6725 I'd die a very happy man.
"Check under your seats!"
Oprah
We can dream.
Today I dreamt that I was hunting bear sized hamsters with Ian. It was weird.
Not sure we needed the last sentence.
Blessed dream
I’d love to see that video, and the explanation for what gun he decided to use.
Question is, would you rather fight a bear-sized hamster or a hundred hamster-sized bears?
@@JH-lo9ut one bear sized hamster. At that scale, it’s legs couldn’t support it’s own weight.
An important thing to note, the MG131 was a much much lower velocity weapon compared to the M2. As Nick mentioned, it (like many aircraft weapons) had a much high ROF than was practically for ground units. The gun, as a whole was intended as an aircraft weapon, and while it would have done damage against soft ground targets and infantry, it wasn’t well suited to that role.
"Hans stop firing at an Aircraft you're wasting these precious expensive ammo"
meanwhile the Americans:
"Empty those magazine boys yeehaw!!! any soldier that still have ammo after those planes pass away will be punished"