OK I'm kidding.
Something that came up in a conversation with Huib recently. Huib wondered if I should have used Universal carriers with MMG's as passengers rather than as part of the vehicle in the Hell's Corner scenario. Neither of us knew if the MMG carried in a Universal Carrier was easily detachable or not. I assume it was, anyone know if this was the case? (sad anoraks that you are)
Huib thought it might be more apt to use said carriers with MG's as part of the unit in armoured formations but as passengers in infantry formations. I tended to concur but am boring myself rigid just typing this.
If you are still reading this you are a sad, sad man. If you are a woman
reading this you should be under some sort of supervision.
So. The benefits of a MMG as a passenger unit means you can bail and
then be useful but you can't fire on the hop. This made me think of halftracks. No difference I assume from Universal carriers? Could MG's be dismounted and used in the field from halftracks also? Were they?
I could go on but to be honest I need to go somewhere else very quickly.
But I hope there is at least one geek out there sad enough to A) respond in a way that proves he has read the entire message, and B) respond with the relevant information.
I have a pair of rubber Spock ears for the first respondent.
Chris
I can't believe I just read that entire post.
;)
The ears are yours Nort - just publish your address on this thread :)
I don't know if this is a serious post or not, but I'm a serious sort of cove so I shall enlighten you as far as I may.
Point 1 (Highly Pedantic) The Universal Carrier was a full tracked vehicle so it should not be considered in this endless saga
Point 2 Flexible little machine, so probably not too doctrinaire about what type of MG was carried -one might suspect the Vickers was capable of being dismounted -it was hardly cast in place at the foundry (Little joke). Bung it on the tripod (if not forgotten to bring) and Bob's your uncle, as we say down our way
Point 3 The Germans mainly used MG 34 or42, with the US preferring the .50 cal. No reason why they couldnt be dismounted. Were they -God knows- but knowing sailors, they wont carry stuff if the don't have to, so why should soldiers?
Point 4 What is the point of this anyway??
Point 5 Why am I still reading this? Am I a sad sad man? Up to a point yes, as are we all, but I am retired and have got bugger all else to do
Cheers
KKR
Early vehicles had a pintle mount just behind the front seats mounting a .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun. The later M3A1 adopted a raised, armored 'pulpit mount' for the .50 caliber, and .30 caliber (7.62 mm) machine guns could be used from mounts along the sides of the passenger compartment. Many M3s were later modified to the M3A1 standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Half-track
So case in point YES the .30s could be unmounted and used in a ground supporting role. The .50 however is a huge HEAVY beast and without a tripod base, I would say it was NOT used in the manner that you're inquiring about.
I once had the misfortunate to read a long thread on the subject of US halftrack MGs. The doctrinal position was that the halftracks were not issued anough ammo for the MGs on them to be used in any serious sustained fire role...eg the .50cal only had 1-200 rounds ammo as standard...
In reality I bet they carried a few more cans of ammo. But I can't regularly see a US halftrack crew letting their precious AA MG out of their sight in the clutches of a bunch of smelly infantrymen, nor can I see them carrying enough ammo for serious sustained fire.....so you shouldn't be depicting them that way in CS, in my opinion.
With the 251/1, on the other hand, it was designed to mount and un-mount the squads LMGs as easy as you please. However I don't know what proportion carried their own Mgs or the basic ammo load.
With the commonwealth I get the feeling they liked shooting off their ammo from the vehicle rather than dismounting. But I don't see why they couldn't, and they probably did if stealth was desired.
Hobbes,
For all you need to know on the Bren/Universal Carrier and variants
Check out
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-armo...arrier.htm
The Picture of the T-16 Carrier with the .50 cal is nice
To quote some of the text
"The first Machine Gun Carrier introduced into British service was produced by Vickers in 1936 and became the prototype for the Machine Gun and Bren Carriers. Designated the Carrier, Machine Gun, No.1, Mk I, it carried a crew of three,
dispensing with the idea of carrying an independent machine gun team and replacing it with the idea that the vehicle and crew were the machine gun team, able to operate with or independent from the vehicle"
This indicates that the original design of the vehicle intended for the machine gun whether it be a .303 Vickers or Bren to be used by the crew either mounted or dismounted. I expect that crews received training in either role and would have carried the standard tripod mount to use away from the vehicle
In the CS Context it is the designers choice I reckon. Same with jeeps carrying scout platoons or MG jeeps..whatever floats your boat.
As for the definition of the combat effectiveness of the vehicle..I think the following account gives a good indication
An example of its limitations are best summed-up in the following account: On 23rd November 1942, General Clowes at Milne Bay, New Guinea ordered a small number of Bren Gun Carriers to Cape Endaiadere as direct support to American troops operating in this area. It was made clear to the Americans that the Carriers were too lightly armoured and the crews too exposed for them to be used as tanks. In addition, they lacked any overhead protection from sniper fire, shell splinters and were extremely vulnerable to flank attacks. Thus they were forced to work with infantry support.
The aftermath of an attack at Cape Endaiadere on 5th December, resulted in vehicle crews being roughly handled and resulted in the abandonment of five vehicles. The supporting American infantry found they could not advance any further and the attack was called off. Sadly, it proved yet again, the futility of attempting to use inappropriate vehicles as tanks'.
Matt ~Digger
The reason of my wondering was that I thought The Cameron Higlanders of Ottawa was an infantry machine gun batallion (this is also how the stock oob editor displays the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa), rather than a mechanized unit. However it seems possible they woould have had carriers. Thats why I wondered why Chris 'overruled' the stock editor.
Huib
