Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have a potentially ignorant question.

I'm getting ready to assemble my PSC M4A4, but the 50 cal looks to go in a weird position - to the left of the hatch where the gunner would pop out to use the gun. Why would they have positioned the 50 cal to the left of the hatch? Wouldn't the hatch door get in the way of using the 50 cal? Otherwise, did the gunner get out of the tank and actually have to sit outside on top of the tank to use the gun?

Wouldn't you want the 50 cal straight in front of the hatch, so you can just shoot forward (toward whatever the main gun is firing at)?

I have attached a picture to show my point.

Thanks!

Mez

Because the .50 cal was intended for use against air targets so was positioned to allow it to be fired from low in the hatch space at airborne targets. It was not intended as a weapon for engaging ground targets.

Few crew would want to risk exposing themselves to fire to operate it against ground targets.



In British forces, many of these were removed as the threat of air attack was so minimal. They were then used in some units to equip the Motor Battalion halftracks.

Not like that sequence in Band of Brothers eh? As if you would ride on the outside of a tank when a Jagdpather is about. Then again, maybe you would as it's pretty inevitable your tank will get slammed....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=HL1335001401&v=OPYFU4hXDg4#t=362s

(Cannot get the bloody embedded video with start at a specific time to work!)

Bloody silly, as is the completely pathetic Jagdpanther. Still I think that gunner on the left Tank looks like Robert Llewellyn (Crichton from Red Dwarf).

Well they certainly did do that on occasion... I have a pic of a crewman on the rear deck using the .50 to engage targets...

Not sure you would want to do it with incoming tank fire though... Kinda easy to get hit with shrapnel and other bits of metal flying around the place.

Some crews did mount /30 cals in a forward position;



...as it was alot smaller and easier to handle.

But there are cases of crews moving the gun mount as seen here;



It wasnt a common modification and seems to have only appeared during late 1944 - early 1945 when perhaps the threat of infantry and enemy A/T guns was far more of a problem than enemy tanks and aircraft.

I have read that Pattons Forces, tended to mount extra machine guns and charge through French villages all guns blazing when they were charging East. (dread to think of the civilian casualties).

Yer...

Get the Zaloga 'Armoured...' series on Shermans... Shows all the wild armour mods and weapon mods that they did.

Quite surprising how widespread modification was among US tank units. I like the ones who took to welding armour plates cut from Panthers to their Shermans.

Ouch, that must have seriously hampered the vehicle performance up hill and such, the sheer weight of those armour plates is considerable.

Well they used all manner of stuff... Extra plate, concrete and scrap metal!

Concrete;






Not as Mad Max as the USMC...

I can imagine some Military Starched collar type or Civilian Servant not being happy with the pragmatic battlefield modifications. (Just give them the 2 fingers).

An Officer friend of mine cost the MOD £150,000 just by buying some stationary from outside the official supplier. The Official supplier (BANNER i think?) had a massive stationary contract with the MOD, they couldn't supply grease pencils (Chinograph's or GLASCHROME Pencils). He took out his Government Procurement Card and bought £100 pounds worth of them from another place (I think it was an Art shop).

But the auditor informed the higher ups in the MOD and Banner got wind of it and Slapped a £150,000 fine for breach of contract, apparently they have to approve a purchase of any size even if they cannot supply the item (so many badly written contracts). This is just stationary imagine what the MOD's like with equipment and armour!

If you really want machine craziness you'd have to go pretty far to top the Israeli's.

Actually, research indicated that they did actually get out on the back of their tanks to fire the MG.

The guy forced to do it in combat probably wasn't too happy.

I also recall that there are a few Sherman variants with an actual ring mount, enabling that .50 cal to fire 360.

Vertrucio wrote:The guy forced to do it in combat probably wasn't too happy.

Yeah, he must have been really mad when the turret would turn, knocking him off the tank. Or at least screwing up his aim, really, really bad.

In all seriousness, thanks everyone for the answers.

Mez

mwnciboo wrote:I can imagine some Military Starched collar type or Civilian Servant not being happy with the pragmatic battlefield modifications. (Just give them the 2 fingers).!

Indeed. Patton expressly disapproved of the practice of fitting sandbags as protection against hollow-charge weapons, and there is a photo of him allegedly staking away from a tank after telling off the crew. As a result, in 1945 3rd Army tended to adopt the applique armour that you see in Big P's photos, while 7th Army made more use of sandbags. Patton was surprisingly ignorant about the technical aspects of tanks - as were many Allied generals - although the effectiveness of adding sandbags, tracks etc remains unclear. His point was that the additional weight degraded the tank's mobility and shortened the life of its tracks and drive train. The crews were convinced that it lengthened their lives - noone was in a hurry to die fighting the Germans by 1945.

Going back on topic - Big P, is your photo the commander of a US 8th Tank Battalion commander blasting away at German troops trying to blow a bridge on the Marne river? He's not even wearing a helmet, so he obviously wan't too concerned about his exposed position!

Apparently the .50 cal was repositioned because it was very difficult to use from the original mounting on the commander's cupola (see below). It was primarily intended for AA defence, but this wasn't really necessary after 1943, so it was largely used against ground targets.

Mezmaron - I think the PSC kit is incorrect in positioning the .50 cal on a pedestal mounting. The M4A4 was fitted with a split hatch commander's cupola, which had a mounting for the .50 cal. The pedestal mounting was a feature of tanks fitted with the later commander's cupola, which had vision blocks and a single-piece hatch (but no mounting for the .50 cal). The later cupola design coincided with the introduction of the revised 47 degree hull front - the M4A4 did not receive this upgrade, and does not appear to have received the later hatch either. The PSC M4A4 does not include the later cupola (which is correct); it also only includes the 3-piece transmission housing (which is also correct - the M4A4 did not receive the 1-piece cast transmission housing).

The M4A4 did not see active service with the US Army (it was only used for training), and the vast majority produced went to the British - presumably you're building your M4A4s as British tanks. The upshot of this is that you should fill in the hole for the .50 cal pedestal mount. By 1944, it was very rare to see British Shermans with the .50 cal - it was considered cumbersome and unnecessary. if you want to fit one for gaming purposes, it should be re-located to the cupola. Here is a diagram showing how it was fitted - it'd be easy to do in 15mm:

Tailgunner wrote:
Mezmaron - I think the PSC kit is incorrect in positioning the .50 cal on a pedestal mounting. The M4A4 was fitted with a split hatch commander's cupola, which had a mounting for the .50 cal. The pedestal mounting was a feature of tanks fitted with the later commander's cupola, which had vision blocks and a single-piece hatch (but no mounting for the .50 cal). The later cupola design coincided with the introduction of the revised 47 degree hull front - the M4A4 did not receive this upgrade, and does not appear to have received the later hatch either. The PSC M4A4 does not include the later cupola (which is correct); it also only includes the 3-piece transmission housing (which is also correct - the M4A4 did not receive the 1-piece cast transmission housing).

The M4A4 did not see active service with the US Army (it was only used for training), and the vast majority produced went to the British - presumably you're building your M4A4s as British tanks. The upshot of this is that you should fill in the hole for the .50 cal pedestal mount. By 1944, it was very rare to see British Shermans with the .50 cal - it was considered cumbersome and unnecessary. if you want to fit one for gaming purposes, it should be re-located to the cupola. Here is a diagram showing how it was fitted - it'd be easy to do in 15mm:

Thanks for all the information!

Yes, I am assembling as 1st Polish Armoured. For gaming reasons, I may want the 50 cal, but I may find a way to optionally attach (magnet, etc.) to allow it to be removed.

Mez

Mezmaron wrote:Yes, I am assembling as 1st Polish Armoured. For gaming reasons, I may want the 50 cal, but I may find a way to optionally attach (magnet, etc.) to allow it to be removed.

Okay - as you obviously know, the Poles' Shermans were configured in the same way as British Shermans. Apparently 1 Dywizja Pancerna lost so many M4A4s in the Falaise fighting that it was largely re-equipped with the M4A1 (76mm).

I'd suggest that you magentise the commander's cupola, and built versions of the cupola with and without the .50cal (assuming you can get your hands on some replacement cupolas). The 15mm PSC .50 cal is ridiculously fragile so it's a good idea to position it with the barrel pointing downwards.

Tailgunner wrote:

Going back on topic - Big P, is your photo is presumably the commander of a US 8th Tank Battalion commander blasting away at German troops trying to blow a bridge on the Marne river? He's not even wearing a helmet, so he obviously wan't too concerned about his exposed position!

Apparently the .50 cal was repositioned because it was very difficult to use from the original mounting on the commander's cupola (see below). It was primarily intended for AA defence, but this wasn't really necessary after 1943, so it was largely used against ground targets.

Thats the one! He certainly dont seem too bothered... Obviously a man on a mission!

Indeed Tailgunner is correct. I have just been going over the modifications introduced in the Autumn of 1944, and one of them that was very widespread, was to move the .50 cal to a pintle mount infront of the loaders hatch to allow easier use from inside the turret. This seems to have been done on alot of tanks as pictures of both Seventh and Third Army Shermans show this mount on many Shermans from late '44 onwards, often combined with a pintle mounted .30 cal infront of the TCs hatch.

As im just starting my 1945 US Armour this is a very handy topic!

The Zaloga series on US Armour shows tons of pictures of it in use on this mount, but the .50 is always in front of the loaders position.

Big P wrote:Indeed Tailgunner is correct. I have just been going over the modifications introduced in the Autumn of 1944, and one of them that was very widespread, was to move the .50 cal to a pintle mount infront of the loaders hatch to allow easier use from inside the turret. This seems to have been done on alot of tanks as pictures of both Seventh and Third Army Shermans show this mount on many Shermans from late '44 onwards, often combined with a pintle mounted .30 cal infront of the TCs hatch.

As im just starting my 1945 US Armour this is a very handy topic!

The Zaloga series on US Armour shows tons of pictures of it in use on this mount, but the .50 is always in front of the loaders position.

Right. Just so there's no misunderstanding, I was referring to the modification made during production, not field modifications. The 'official' pedestal mounting also involved a couple of brackets on the turret rear, where the .50 cal was stowed when not required - although I've never seen a photo of a Sherman with its .50 cal stowed there!

I look forward to seeing your late war US Army models. You focus on 20mm, I think (your figures are too well proportioned for 15mm). I'm not familiar with the non-plastic AVF ranges in this scale - can you get US vehicles from this period with the field modifications included, or will you have to model them?

No... Not too many field mod kits around in 1/72 or 1/76 for 20mm, but plenty of options to work on.

Im doing bog standard Jumbos and 76's at the moment...



After that will be uparmoured M4s, most likely those with add on glacis armour but Im tempted by a few with concrete.