How Effective Are Machineguns vs. Tanks?

lindy said:

In 1958 I did a demonstration firing of the then new Vulcan 20mm M/G at a
M48 Tank sitting 1500 yards down range (Aberdeen proving grounds MD.)
I fired 5000 rounds of 1/1 tracer in just under one minute. It took the track off
the tank and set the road wheels on fire. the damage to the exterior of tank was enough to totally disable the tank, it tore the machine gun off the commanders Hatch and destroyed all vision devices on one side, the bore evacuator on the main gun was destroyed as well as the coaxial machine gun
on the main gun. It left enough dents on the 90mm gun barrel to make it unsafe to fire.

Good shooting

Lindy

Click to expand...

That must have been fun!

5000 rounds in one minute must have done some interesting things to the barrels. Did they remain serviceable?

To keep things in perspective: no 20mm weapons systems that I know of has 5000 rounds in its magazine. I think the CIWS have maybe half that. The mere fact that damage can be inflicted does not make a weapon effective. Tanks do not typically make themselves stationary targets for thousands of rounds of 20mm fire. Even when a tank is stationary, aircraft using cannons have few rounds to fire and even fewer they make hits with because of the limitations of magazine capacity and accuracy. I suspect that all land based ADA 20mm cannons have the same limitations.

Machineguns vs Tanks ?

This has got too be a trick question, right ?

Aw, please !

I would think the tracks of a WWII era tank would be the vulnerable part to machine gun fire? 50 cal could do some serious damage to those I'd bet. But then again, if you're close enough to aim an MG at the tracks, his main gun is in spitting distance of your position.

Shooting the rest of the tank is just making things loud for those inside I'd guess.

Been thinking more out it. And I'm really going out on a limb here, but...

IF, the barrel were level, and IF the breech were lowered AND no round was chambered, and IF the path of the machine guns's bullet was angled JUST RIGHT, traveling down the bore, and IF at this time the loader opened the ammo storage door by hitting the knee switch, then a tracer round could possibly ricochet off the side of the bore and hit a 120mm round- possibly causing it to ignite, causing injury or death. I think the halon extinguishers would also be a risk- no one would want to exit the tank under gunfire. I'd place the odds of such an occurrence ever occurring at 1 in 10^9- but that's just total speculation.

And even less likely scenario- but within the bounds of reality- is a sub-30 caliber bullet traveling down the barrel of the M240 coax and ricocheting and hitting someone.

Both scenarios are so unlikely as to be ridiculous of course- but Carlos Hitchcock put one through the scope of an enemy sniper. Weirder things have happened.

Yes, 5000 rounds in about one minute! Keep in mind that "Aberdeen Proving grounds" is a weopons testing military facility. the barrels got very hot but not destroyed.

Good shooting

Lindy

lindy said:

Yes, 5000 rounds in about one minute! Keep in mind that "Aberdeen Proving grounds" is a weopons testing military facility. the barrels got very hot but not destroyed.

Good shooting

Lindy

Click to expand...

I am familiar with APG having gone to a school there. I have to believe that while the barrels were not destroyed they were probably unserviceable after after having 800+ rounds fired through them in about 50 seconds. Even in a 6 barrel rotary cannon, 800+ rounds through a barrel in less than a minute has got to cause serious erosion. These guns are never fired anywhere near that much in service. Like all air cooled automatic weapons short bursts are required to keep them serviceable. BTW I have seen a firepower demonstration at APG that featured an M167 amongst other weapons. It was awesome but of course nothing like what you experience occurred.

CLP said:

..... but Carlos Hitchcock put one through the scope of an enemy sniper. Weirder things have happened.

Click to expand...

Maybe.

In post #41 I told of a Brits diary I read in Berlin. I do not think I was clear in what I said. 51st Highlander marksmen were ordered to high ground with Enfield rifles, not machine guns. Admittedly these were not the later Panther and Tiger tanks. This is why I was told Her Majesty's Highlanders (Scots) were holding Berlin in 1968. It may have been spoofing an American GI, but I was assigned to 3rd Btn, 6Inf Berlin Brigade in 1968. My father was in 3rd Bn, 6th Inf all the way up to Cisterna in WWII.


Sgt
Berlin Brigade

but Carlos Hitchcock put one through the scope of an enemy sniper. Weirder things have happened.

Click to expand...

Even if he did, on purpose, or by chance?

Tank view port periscopes were not like that.

Heavy bullet proof glass, off-set 90 degrees, twice, and quickly replaceable from inside the tank in seconds if necessary.

There is about a zero chance of a MG or rifle bullet getting through a drivers or gunners view port on even WWII tanks and hitting anyone inside.

Even shooting it would only give you 30 seconds or so before it was replaced and back in operation again.

rc

blindhari said:

In post #41 I told of a Brits diary I read in Berlin. I do not think I was clear in what I said. 51st Highlander marksmen were ordered to high ground with Enfield rifles, not machine guns. Admittedly these were not the later Panther and Tiger tanks. This is why I was told Her Majesty's Highlanders (Scots) were holding Berlin in 1968. It may have been spoofing an American GI, but I was assigned to 3rd Btn, 6Inf Berlin Brigade in 1968. My father was in 3rd Bn, 6th Inf all the way up to Cisterna in WWII.


Sgt
Berlin Brigade

Click to expand...

Desperate leaders tell desperate men to do desperate things in desperate times. It makes perfect sense to me that this happened at Dukirk. Why wouldn't you try to slow down tanks with rifles if there was the slightest chance of doing so. It may be a myth, but it is my understanding that in the first Arab-Israeli War at the birth of the State of Israel soda water bottles were on one occasion dropped from an observation aircraft to slow down Arab soldiers during an attack.

rcmodel said:

Even if he did, on purpose, or by chance?

Tank view port periscopes were not like that.

Heavy bullet proof glass, off-set 90 degrees, twice, and quickly replaceable from inside the tank in seconds if necessary.

There is about a zero chance of a MG or rifle bullet getting through a drivers or gunners view port on even WWII tanks and hitting anyone inside.

Even shooting it would only give you 30 seconds or so before it was replaced and back in operation again.

rc

Click to expand...

I an not sure, but I think some of the early WWII tanks did not even have armor glass view ports, let alone periscopes.

No, the early ones between wars didn't.
I think they had to open a little port and peep,out through the slit!
Not good for your health!

But I have seen a lot of view port periscopes show up in surplus through the years, so at least by WWII, I think they must have been using them.

Like this:
http://www.anchoroptics.com/catalog/product.cfm?id=127

http://warchronicle.com/staffsyeo/soldierstories_wwii/tankmus4.jpg

They normally ran with the driver & turret hatches open to allow air flow to carry away engine heat.
Better to be shot in the head then fry inside a sealed pressure cooker I guess??

rc

I wouldn't scoff at this next machine gun no matter what tank I was in.

Click to expand...

As the Avenger was specifically developed to kill tanks, probably a good plan!

I would doubt that even the most modern and heavily armored MBT's could stand up to GAU-8 punishment.

My Drill Sergeant told me about a time in Iraq when he was a E-5 Sgt and a gunner on a tank. A combatant stepped in front of his tank hip firing an AK. The whole crew kinda sat there dumbfounded till DS Lopez lit the guy up with the coax.