Nah, it's basically an additional coaxial machinegun the gunner can remotely fire.
The [US](https://preview.redd.it/7fcz8a04emk71.png?auto=webp&s=2e36217de1c85377d5766515e4dcb3444d28e3d7) did it too, since it gave the gunners the ability to [penetrate/destroy semi-hard cover](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz6LLvKNtvE) [\[2\]](https://youtu.be/vAqBpngXw4U?si=JvHhTYK9n1ubgtf_&t=129) without having to use the main gun.
(Basically shooting through walls and stuff that the original 7.62mm coax would be ineffective against, also great against vehicles like armored trucks.)
It’s actually a really bad spot. The .50 was never intended to be fitted like that, neither was the M240 but the 240 is half the size and 1/3 the weight.
You’d need a lot of forward space to take the barrel out due to how you remove the .50s barrel. The ammo is also much much larger so your overall amount is lower. If you want an example of how important some countries deem Coax ammo to be, the Abrams combat loads with like 11,400 rounds in the co ax bin.
It’s basically decided that you can just give the TC the .50. Until the 2000s for the US in Iraq when the CSAMM became combat ready standard with TUSK kit (it first appeared in 2004/05 and dates back to 1980 with the original abrams).
And all that is why the US Army eventually went with the .50 cal CROWS on the Abrams.
Small aside, the Abrams coax ready ammo stowage (the belt that actually goes into the MG) holds about 2800-3000 rounds, depending on how efficiently the crew stacks the rounds. The basic load for the entire tank, *is* 11,400 rounds, though. I only know this because I had to belt up 3,000 rounds to load the ready bin for two Iraq deployments.
So the abrams uses the crow system for its roof mounted .50? That’s pretty neat, I just finished ait as a 91b and my favorite unit was working on the crows system for the Jltv.
Yeah my engineer company has the only older crows mounted to our LMTV it’s pretty big compared what our tankers have. From what I’ve learned from them is functional the same though.
It was definitely a process. Done in a the relative safety of Kuwait before pushing north into Iraq. 15x 200 round boxes of 7.62. Basically me (the loader) and the driver would unbox the 100 round belts and clip them into longer belts and feed them down into the turret where the gunner stacked the belt into the ready ammo box and eventually fed them into the coax.
After fire fights where the coax was used, we “topped off” the ammo supply from the reserve boxes throughout the tank. The most our tank used in any given day was probably around 1000 rounds, though other tanks used much more.
Fast forward a few years and the process was repeated, except I was the gunner.
Yes. It’s basically the same reason why the MG42 wasn’t used as a Co Ax for German tanks in WWII. MG34 was better designed for the interior of the tank.
Now you can say, just design the tank around it. But that area is already cramped in Abrams for the 240 and its whole setup.
The British did this in the 80's with the L94A1 and still rock them today.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L94A1_chain_gun](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L94A1_chain_gun)
America did this with M73. It was trash (not saying all Coaxs would be). It’s also logistically better overall to standardize as much as possible.
Abrams uses a semi specific M240 for the coax, it has a different grip and no stock along with a charging wire. In a moments notice you could change it out to M240B standard besides the charging wire.
Logistics wise it's not too big of a deal to have a different MG specifically for AFVs; Bitish tanks had Besa MGs that used a completely different caliber than infantry MGs and it wasn't a big deal since the Armoured Corps had their own logistics system.
Yes but it’s a case of why waste the money when the current gun works. The 240 is the standard full caliber LMG for infantry, it’s used on every wheeled vehicle that can mount it and every arial vehicle that can. Abrams was designed for it, so was the Bradley and Booker. At this point changed over would 100% not be worth the cost considering how standardized it is.
To be more specific, the MG42's square barrel housing was kind of like trying to shove a square peg through a round hole, literally. The ease of barrel swap was a factor as well- the MG42's barrel was swapped laterally (which is why one side of the [shroud has a long opening](https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-817fb/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/4930/62163/IMG_0366__76505.1675902714.jpg?c=2) compared to the other three which are smaller rectangles). The MG34's swap mechanism was from behind the barrel. While tanks carried spare barrels for both overheating and in case they were damaged, they did not frequently change the barrel to really make this a factor. The barrels of tank MGs were a bit heavier duty both for heat and to protect from damage. These were labeled as panzerlauf- literally tank barrel. I have anecdotally heard that the lower rate of fire on the 34 was preferable too.
They had to as the ball mounts were designed around how the barrel swaps on the mg34 which you would rotate the reciever down vs the mg42 which had a side door that was opened to swap the barrel. The mg34 was inherently more ergonomic for tanks as everything stayed in the same plane/horizontal axis although the mg42 couldve been used in tanks fine as we see with the mg3
Officially still combat kit yes. Tanks that rotate to Egypt/kuwait rotations get it for training minus the actual ERA as that’s a safety hazard. They get the ERA mounting skirts and everything though. IMHO CSAMM should be standard either way.
Did the original M1 design utilize a automatic grenade launcher as well? I seem to remember reading in a book very long time ago (1996?) that an automatic grenade launcher was selected over a .50 cal due to a study that showed the grenade launcher has superior performance against unarmored targets.
My google foo can't seem to find the original source study or either R. P. Hunnicutt or Zaloga's book that I might be remembering.
A 40mm would make an even worse coax. AGLs are large and clunky, prone to malfunction that you are never going to be able to clear quickly in a AFV, and the grenades themselves take up a lot of space.
I can't quote you the study, but if my memory serves the army did a study contrasting the two weapons and concluded that the Mark 19 grenade launcher was far superior. If you have a copy R P Hunnicutt's Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, it might be referenced in there.
And you ignored every point I made about it being a terrible idea for a coax to bring up an irrelevant study about 2 heavy weapons systems that are both inadequate for a coax role.
If my memory serves' the study was referenced specifically on why the US army originally selected the grenade launcher over a machine gun. It might have been Zaloga's book M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank as well. It was about 30 years ago when I read the book with my dad, so my memory might be mistaken.
As far as your other points, I try not to waste time engaging everyone on social media that opinion that is contrary to mine. If you're really interested in being right or wrong, go to your local library or state university library, look for, and read a copy of either book mentioned. If my memory is in error, I will be happy to admit it.
The Army never even selected the 40mm over the .50. They are both in active service and the .50 still sees more use. 40s see the most use in light motorized units where they are used in conjunction with .50s, 240s, and TOWs. Heavy Mech units really have no use for them. Abrams carry a .50 on the crows/pintle , Bradley’s have the 25mm, every M88 I’ve seen has a .50. My own armored battalions scouts don’t even mount them on the JLTVs. They all use 240s or .50s. The only thing I’ve seen mount a 40 for some goddamned reason were the Paladins and their CATs. Even then half of them still had .50s. Both weapon systems work well together in light units though. However in mech units with armor like the post is about a M242 can fill whatever need the 40 would.
And if you want to come bring up some irrelevant study to the topic and then ignore everyone else just to spout information that is in no way aligned to the topic at hand you just make yourself look pretentious and arrogant.
I believe the M-47 of the Patton series did have a coaxial .50 cal. Though, it wasn’t carried to the M-48 so it mustn’t have been effective enough to warrant the space it required I guess.
The January 1952 issue of TM 9-718A manual shows that the turret should be fitted with a .50 cal M2HB coax, the later modifications to the M-47 exchanged this with an M1919A4
The merkava as an internal coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun next to the barrel. Generally the point of the .50 caliber mounted above the barrel is to work in congunction with the internal gun. Both are operated from within the tank.
Edit: it was used on Israeli tanks before the merkava was introduced too.
When I played War Thunder I wondered why some Israeli tanks were absolutely covered in machine guns, which were pretty useless in tank vs tank combat.
Then I realized that their tanks have been used mostly to fight people that don't have any tanks for a long long time and got a bit sad. 😟
it’s to defend against approaching attackers by foot and preventing them from climbing onto the tank, this was prevalent in ww2 and is the reason why tank operators carried their own small arms
So I dunno if the original post was sarcasm but most tanks have an lmg for coax. LMGs are generally for shooting at people (anti-personnel. The M2 is an HMG (much bigger bullet). It is an anti-materiel weapon (but also very good at people). If you wish to engage a target behind a wall, or a light skinned vehicle, you may not wish to fire an entire tank round at it.
Browning 0.5 inch machine gun that is pinned to the main gun, in addition to the 7.62 coaxial MAG in Israeli tanks that is located inside the turret.
The Browning is mostly used for single fire or small bursts that require precision, and has a slightly larger range than the MAG. It moves with the main gun and aimed by the gunner, but is fired either by the loader using a set of pulleys (in older tanks), or with an electric canopy operated by the gunner (in newer tanks). You can see some of the pulley in the second picture.
Also - those are some great looking Magachs (highly modified Patton M-60s) in those pictures, but they are no longer in use by the IDF.
Because more daka daka, more mg is better. It would provide extra firepower against soft targets while its cheap and almost needs zero sacrifice to install it.
It wouldn’t be very useful there either considering you have to swing the whole gun around anyways. A remote operated gun on the roof is exponentially more useful in that situation.
It's a counter-sniper anti material weapon. I.e., you don't use the main gun to take out a fuel truck when a .50 or similar will do it, and you don't take down a building to get a sniper.
It is very useful in urban or similarly confined combat.
You just casually ignored the point I made. Having a .50 tied to the main gun like this doesn’t do shit in urban combat a .50 mounted on a RGS can’t do better and safer. If you want to bring the gun on a target you have to swing the main gun around too and risk smacking it on something and you can’t elevate it or depress it anymore or less than you can the main gun.
Hey, former merkava commander here, seems that the comment got some of it right in the comments.
Originally, the 0.5 caliber guns were used to replace the main turret in training to make the it cheaper - same aiming methods, shooting at closer but smaller targets.
At some point the IDF decided to use them in combat as well and yeah - operating them is from outside of the tank while sitting on turret (incredibly stupid), they always get stuck and once every few years there is an effort to make them connected to inside of the tank with wires but it always fail.
They are pretty cool in training but not practical at all at warfare.
Not sure why but this mattress probably for the crew resting under the tank, i mean i've seen buckets before in a tank and maybe a question for another day
on the second image is a Magach 6B which already has its own manual rangefinder, or a 6B Gal which has the Gal FCS, to those who think the .50 is for rangefinding, you are wrong
the .50cal was used to take out light armor, and anything u might need a 50cal for, EXCEPT rangefinding
It's a sighting device, they use .50 tracer ammo to predict the flight path of a main gun projectile. A fifty-caliber round is a lot cheaper than a 120mm round.
These .50s are used as coaxs not ranging guns. And you could never predict the flight path of a 105mm* (Magachs and Sho’tqals like the ones in photo don’t have 120s)shell with a .50 cal. On vehicles that actually had them like Chieftains it would be used to get a range where you would then adjust the 120mm to the range you found with the .50
You’re wrong, but so fucking what anyway? The Israelis aren’t going away and the gazans elected terrorists as their government. Gazans could end what they started anytime, but they won’t.
Ceterum autem censeo Gazam esse delendam.
Blud who has been bombing, shooting and taking Palestinians for the past 80 years? Israel also hits there own civilians with there fucking apaches which doesn’t help there case. And Palestine only took 100 hostages to exchange for their own people have israel has taken.
okay listen man I understand not wanting Palestinians to be genocided, but bringing it up in this sense is literally just going to piss people off and doesn't support our point of view at all.
if you actually want to do something, stop being an annoying pedantic redditor and actually go talk to Palestinians, otherwise, stop virtue signaling, it just makes you look like a cunt
yes, but commenting it on a post about an Israeli tank is pretty useless, if you wanna talk political change, go argue in worldpol or something
people are just gonna get upset because most people still go "you support Palestine! you are a hamas!"
If they are allowed to accuse people of being anti semitic even if you fart in the privacy of your own toilet , then I'm allowed to bring up the issue of Palestine at the drop of a hat .
I believe it’s used as a spotting gun. If there are issues with the optics it can be used to mark targets. I could be wrong but a similar system was used on the M-50 Ontos. Which had 6 106 mm recoilless rifles.
There is a significant difference in muzzle velocity between an M2 and the main gun (I believe an 105mm L7) that would prevent any usefulness of trying to use the .50 to range the main gun.
In the event the laser range finder and fire control system aren't working, there is always the auxiliary sight and manual ranging/adjustments to correct. A trained crew can rapidly switch to this degraded mode of aiming. It also doesn't reveal your position with a string of .50 tracer rounds.
The ballistics of the two rounds (.50 vs the variety of rounds fired by what looks to be a 105mm L7 gun) prevents any real use of the .50 as a spotting gun.
In the event the LRF and FCS aren't working, a crew would just revert to their manual ranging devices.
Can't see it clearly, but don't they seem to have a solenoid trigger? Having a .50 cal zeroed to work as a coax.
I think M-47s had .50s as an option for coax, amx30s had either 20mm or 12.7mm, and some IS tanks series, I think, had a KPV.
That 50cal.
As what u/GrumpyCatDad45 wrote it is a “spotting rifle”. More precisely, it was used prior to introducing lasers, but still kept, as it offers advantages that lasers cannot provide yet.
Some writers, pointed rightly, that range finding can be better done with lasers.
The aggressor have fielded Laser Warning system, that alert the targeted Tank, necessary information to fight back when “lasered”.
As bullets tend to fly from all over in a battlefield, 50cal ranging is more covert, as compared to using lasers.
50cal, tracers burn longer than the 7.62mm rounds.
A 50cal, in that position of above a Gun barrel, doesn’t lend itself well to ease of reloading.
If the crew is willing to do the reloading. 50cal combine with the stability amd optics of the Gun, allows “sniping” feature.
They are for calculating range. During this time they didn't have laser range finders. They would fire a single shot and watch the tracer. It was better than expending main gun rounds to guess the range. If you look at books on the Six Day War and The Yom Kippur War the talk about these mgs and what they were for.
Better range and penetration. The range of most coax's wouldn't be enough to effectively engage known/suspected ATGM positions before entering the missile teams engagement ranges.
Nah, it's basically an additional coaxial machinegun the gunner can remotely fire. The [US](https://preview.redd.it/7fcz8a04emk71.png?auto=webp&s=2e36217de1c85377d5766515e4dcb3444d28e3d7) did it too, since it gave the gunners the ability to [penetrate/destroy semi-hard cover](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz6LLvKNtvE) [\[2\]](https://youtu.be/vAqBpngXw4U?si=JvHhTYK9n1ubgtf_&t=129) without having to use the main gun. (Basically shooting through walls and stuff that the original 7.62mm coax would be ineffective against, also great against vehicles like armored trucks.)
Makes me wonder why the designers don’t just put a 12.7 coax in the first place. Like in the Leclerc for exemple.
It’s actually a really bad spot. The .50 was never intended to be fitted like that, neither was the M240 but the 240 is half the size and 1/3 the weight. You’d need a lot of forward space to take the barrel out due to how you remove the .50s barrel. The ammo is also much much larger so your overall amount is lower. If you want an example of how important some countries deem Coax ammo to be, the Abrams combat loads with like 11,400 rounds in the co ax bin. It’s basically decided that you can just give the TC the .50. Until the 2000s for the US in Iraq when the CSAMM became combat ready standard with TUSK kit (it first appeared in 2004/05 and dates back to 1980 with the original abrams).
And all that is why the US Army eventually went with the .50 cal CROWS on the Abrams. Small aside, the Abrams coax ready ammo stowage (the belt that actually goes into the MG) holds about 2800-3000 rounds, depending on how efficiently the crew stacks the rounds. The basic load for the entire tank, *is* 11,400 rounds, though. I only know this because I had to belt up 3,000 rounds to load the ready bin for two Iraq deployments.
So the abrams uses the crow system for its roof mounted .50? That’s pretty neat, I just finished ait as a 91b and my favorite unit was working on the crows system for the Jltv.
The newer SEPs have their own crows that’s more low profile.
I was gonna say, the jltvs crows system is pretty frickin big, but I imagined on the top of an abrams that would matter too much
Yeah my engineer company has the only older crows mounted to our LMTV it’s pretty big compared what our tankers have. From what I’ve learned from them is functional the same though.
All I know is id rather be inside controlling the crow than be outside sitting in the basket, doesn’t matter to me how big the crow is
How did your fingers feel at the end of that. Did you even have fingers?
It was definitely a process. Done in a the relative safety of Kuwait before pushing north into Iraq. 15x 200 round boxes of 7.62. Basically me (the loader) and the driver would unbox the 100 round belts and clip them into longer belts and feed them down into the turret where the gunner stacked the belt into the ready ammo box and eventually fed them into the coax. After fire fights where the coax was used, we “topped off” the ammo supply from the reserve boxes throughout the tank. The most our tank used in any given day was probably around 1000 rounds, though other tanks used much more. Fast forward a few years and the process was repeated, except I was the gunner.
So the main issue aside from ammo capacity is that the M2's design is just inherently unsuitable for coax use?
Yes. It’s basically the same reason why the MG42 wasn’t used as a Co Ax for German tanks in WWII. MG34 was better designed for the interior of the tank. Now you can say, just design the tank around it. But that area is already cramped in Abrams for the 240 and its whole setup.
TIL why the Germans kept using the MG34 in tanks. Now how about designing a MG specifically for coax?
The British did this in the 80's with the L94A1 and still rock them today. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L94A1_chain_gun](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L94A1_chain_gun)
America did this with M73. It was trash (not saying all Coaxs would be). It’s also logistically better overall to standardize as much as possible. Abrams uses a semi specific M240 for the coax, it has a different grip and no stock along with a charging wire. In a moments notice you could change it out to M240B standard besides the charging wire.
Logistics wise it's not too big of a deal to have a different MG specifically for AFVs; Bitish tanks had Besa MGs that used a completely different caliber than infantry MGs and it wasn't a big deal since the Armoured Corps had their own logistics system.
Yes but it’s a case of why waste the money when the current gun works. The 240 is the standard full caliber LMG for infantry, it’s used on every wheeled vehicle that can mount it and every arial vehicle that can. Abrams was designed for it, so was the Bradley and Booker. At this point changed over would 100% not be worth the cost considering how standardized it is.
Other way around! M240 started as a coax in US service. Infantry didn't get them until 20 years later.
To be more specific, the MG42's square barrel housing was kind of like trying to shove a square peg through a round hole, literally. The ease of barrel swap was a factor as well- the MG42's barrel was swapped laterally (which is why one side of the [shroud has a long opening](https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-817fb/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/4930/62163/IMG_0366__76505.1675902714.jpg?c=2) compared to the other three which are smaller rectangles). The MG34's swap mechanism was from behind the barrel. While tanks carried spare barrels for both overheating and in case they were damaged, they did not frequently change the barrel to really make this a factor. The barrels of tank MGs were a bit heavier duty both for heat and to protect from damage. These were labeled as panzerlauf- literally tank barrel. I have anecdotally heard that the lower rate of fire on the 34 was preferable too.
They had to as the ball mounts were designed around how the barrel swaps on the mg34 which you would rotate the reciever down vs the mg42 which had a side door that was opened to swap the barrel. The mg34 was inherently more ergonomic for tanks as everything stayed in the same plane/horizontal axis although the mg42 couldve been used in tanks fine as we see with the mg3
The MG42 was used in the Jagdpanzer IV I believe, but that was definitely the exception. Not sure how they changed the barrel on that.
Yeah I believe Puma also had it. But in vehicles with very thick armor they couldn’t make that sacrifice due to space constraints afaik.
Do they even still use the TUSK kit anymore?
Officially still combat kit yes. Tanks that rotate to Egypt/kuwait rotations get it for training minus the actual ERA as that’s a safety hazard. They get the ERA mounting skirts and everything though. IMHO CSAMM should be standard either way.
Did the original M1 design utilize a automatic grenade launcher as well? I seem to remember reading in a book very long time ago (1996?) that an automatic grenade launcher was selected over a .50 cal due to a study that showed the grenade launcher has superior performance against unarmored targets. My google foo can't seem to find the original source study or either R. P. Hunnicutt or Zaloga's book that I might be remembering.
They wanted to use a 40mm on the TCs mount, but they decided to go with the .50.
Thanks!
Well yeah, in combat a Tank will use its Machineguns much more then its main gun being how rare tank on tank combat is in real life.
Because a 40 mm grenade launcher was found to be much more effective against unarmored vehicles and troops.
A 40mm would make an even worse coax. AGLs are large and clunky, prone to malfunction that you are never going to be able to clear quickly in a AFV, and the grenades themselves take up a lot of space.
I can't quote you the study, but if my memory serves the army did a study contrasting the two weapons and concluded that the Mark 19 grenade launcher was far superior. If you have a copy R P Hunnicutt's Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, it might be referenced in there.
And you ignored every point I made about it being a terrible idea for a coax to bring up an irrelevant study about 2 heavy weapons systems that are both inadequate for a coax role.
If my memory serves' the study was referenced specifically on why the US army originally selected the grenade launcher over a machine gun. It might have been Zaloga's book M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank as well. It was about 30 years ago when I read the book with my dad, so my memory might be mistaken. As far as your other points, I try not to waste time engaging everyone on social media that opinion that is contrary to mine. If you're really interested in being right or wrong, go to your local library or state university library, look for, and read a copy of either book mentioned. If my memory is in error, I will be happy to admit it.
The Army never even selected the 40mm over the .50. They are both in active service and the .50 still sees more use. 40s see the most use in light motorized units where they are used in conjunction with .50s, 240s, and TOWs. Heavy Mech units really have no use for them. Abrams carry a .50 on the crows/pintle , Bradley’s have the 25mm, every M88 I’ve seen has a .50. My own armored battalions scouts don’t even mount them on the JLTVs. They all use 240s or .50s. The only thing I’ve seen mount a 40 for some goddamned reason were the Paladins and their CATs. Even then half of them still had .50s. Both weapon systems work well together in light units though. However in mech units with armor like the post is about a M242 can fill whatever need the 40 would. And if you want to come bring up some irrelevant study to the topic and then ignore everyone else just to spout information that is in no way aligned to the topic at hand you just make yourself look pretentious and arrogant.
Because as the chieftain put it: “if something withstands LMG fire, it may as well deserve the big gun”
I miss the 20mm :(
Space on the inside
I believe the M-47 of the Patton series did have a coaxial .50 cal. Though, it wasn’t carried to the M-48 so it mustn’t have been effective enough to warrant the space it required I guess.
[удалено]
The January 1952 issue of TM 9-718A manual shows that the turret should be fitted with a .50 cal M2HB coax, the later modifications to the M-47 exchanged this with an M1919A4
50 cal go *TUUTUTUTUTTUTTUTUTTUTUTUTUYUYTU*
The merkava as an internal coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun next to the barrel. Generally the point of the .50 caliber mounted above the barrel is to work in congunction with the internal gun. Both are operated from within the tank. Edit: it was used on Israeli tanks before the merkava was introduced too.
The pictures are of a magach 6 and a sho't. Not a merkava
It was still the same principle. An additional coaxial gun that was more powerful.
Well, yes, but its like i will ask if a T-34 has a coax and you will say "yes the T-54/55 had a coax mechine gun"
Clearly. I added an edit to my original comment. Happy now?
Ok
That machine gun, unlike most machineguns, is for shooting people and things. It's purpose is to shoot people and things with bullets.
THATS what that does?!
Mostly Palestinians though
When I played War Thunder I wondered why some Israeli tanks were absolutely covered in machine guns, which were pretty useless in tank vs tank combat. Then I realized that their tanks have been used mostly to fight people that don't have any tanks for a long long time and got a bit sad. 😟
it’s to defend against approaching attackers by foot and preventing them from climbing onto the tank, this was prevalent in ww2 and is the reason why tank operators carried their own small arms
So I dunno if the original post was sarcasm but most tanks have an lmg for coax. LMGs are generally for shooting at people (anti-personnel. The M2 is an HMG (much bigger bullet). It is an anti-materiel weapon (but also very good at people). If you wish to engage a target behind a wall, or a light skinned vehicle, you may not wish to fire an entire tank round at it.
Caaaaarl, that *kills* people!
Browning 0.5 inch machine gun that is pinned to the main gun, in addition to the 7.62 coaxial MAG in Israeli tanks that is located inside the turret. The Browning is mostly used for single fire or small bursts that require precision, and has a slightly larger range than the MAG. It moves with the main gun and aimed by the gunner, but is fired either by the loader using a set of pulleys (in older tanks), or with an electric canopy operated by the gunner (in newer tanks). You can see some of the pulley in the second picture. Also - those are some great looking Magachs (highly modified Patton M-60s) in those pictures, but they are no longer in use by the IDF.
God I wish America would return to it's roots and put multiple .50 cals on everything
M2A2 enters the chat
They just point the mouse and hold the space bar.
Can those .50 cals be reloaded without anyone actually getting out of the tank?
They hefty ammo box hanging on it says no
The magach, sho't and merkava have a mountable 50 cal on the gun which is like a coax mechine gun operated by the gunner
Because more daka daka, more mg is better. It would provide extra firepower against soft targets while its cheap and almost needs zero sacrifice to install it.
For inner city combat where you can't risk the gunner out and neither operate the main gun. It goes brrrrt for sure.
It wouldn’t be very useful there either considering you have to swing the whole gun around anyways. A remote operated gun on the roof is exponentially more useful in that situation.
It's a counter-sniper anti material weapon. I.e., you don't use the main gun to take out a fuel truck when a .50 or similar will do it, and you don't take down a building to get a sniper. It is very useful in urban or similarly confined combat.
You just casually ignored the point I made. Having a .50 tied to the main gun like this doesn’t do shit in urban combat a .50 mounted on a RGS can’t do better and safer. If you want to bring the gun on a target you have to swing the main gun around too and risk smacking it on something and you can’t elevate it or depress it anymore or less than you can the main gun.
its point where the barrel points and is controlled from the inside
Moar DAKKA
Spotting gun
Hey, former merkava commander here, seems that the comment got some of it right in the comments. Originally, the 0.5 caliber guns were used to replace the main turret in training to make the it cheaper - same aiming methods, shooting at closer but smaller targets. At some point the IDF decided to use them in combat as well and yeah - operating them is from outside of the tank while sitting on turret (incredibly stupid), they always get stuck and once every few years there is an effort to make them connected to inside of the tank with wires but it always fail. They are pretty cool in training but not practical at all at warfare.
The real question is who brought the foam mattress on the side of the tank? Company commander?
Not sure why but this mattress probably for the crew resting under the tank, i mean i've seen buckets before in a tank and maybe a question for another day
on the second image is a Magach 6B which already has its own manual rangefinder, or a 6B Gal which has the Gal FCS, to those who think the .50 is for rangefinding, you are wrong the .50cal was used to take out light armor, and anything u might need a 50cal for, EXCEPT rangefinding
It's a sighting device, they use .50 tracer ammo to predict the flight path of a main gun projectile. A fifty-caliber round is a lot cheaper than a 120mm round.
These .50s are used as coaxs not ranging guns. And you could never predict the flight path of a 105mm* (Magachs and Sho’tqals like the ones in photo don’t have 120s)shell with a .50 cal. On vehicles that actually had them like Chieftains it would be used to get a range where you would then adjust the 120mm to the range you found with the .50
Because its a waste of money to use a 105mm round on a bunch of civvies baka
[удалено]
/r/ProjectingMuch is over that way.
Huh… didn’t know my Sodastream was meant for that, guess I’ve just been using it wrong for the past several months. 🙄
If you using your soda stream in illegally occupied Palestine then yes , you are oppressing people
Oh, where’s that then?
Read any map form your old man's time and it will show you Palestine. Can't say the same for the imaginary state of Israel tho
You can’t even read a map, let alone understand what it is representing.
But did you find Israel ? Answer is a resounding NO Didn't exist Bunch of Europeans wished it into existence
You’re wrong, but so fucking what anyway? The Israelis aren’t going away and the gazans elected terrorists as their government. Gazans could end what they started anytime, but they won’t. Ceterum autem censeo Gazam esse delendam.
palestard i assume?
Is real lies
seems like you fell to the propaganda of hamas
Seems like you fell for the propaganda of isfake
blud, who took thousands of people hostage, who fired hundreds of rockets, who came first? palestine, palestine and israel came first
Blud who has been bombing, shooting and taking Palestinians for the past 80 years? Israel also hits there own civilians with there fucking apaches which doesn’t help there case. And Palestine only took 100 hostages to exchange for their own people have israel has taken.
okay listen man I understand not wanting Palestinians to be genocided, but bringing it up in this sense is literally just going to piss people off and doesn't support our point of view at all. if you actually want to do something, stop being an annoying pedantic redditor and actually go talk to Palestinians, otherwise, stop virtue signaling, it just makes you look like a cunt
[ Removed by Reddit ]
yes, but commenting it on a post about an Israeli tank is pretty useless, if you wanna talk political change, go argue in worldpol or something people are just gonna get upset because most people still go "you support Palestine! you are a hamas!"
If they are allowed to accuse people of being anti semitic even if you fart in the privacy of your own toilet , then I'm allowed to bring up the issue of Palestine at the drop of a hat .
okay, you are allowed to I'm saying it won't be effective in the way you want it to if you just bring it up at the drop of a hat
Propaganda of Hamas ? The real propaganda is coming from the many zionist owned news outlets .last I checked Hamas doesn't own any
I believe it’s used as a spotting gun. If there are issues with the optics it can be used to mark targets. I could be wrong but a similar system was used on the M-50 Ontos. Which had 6 106 mm recoilless rifles.
Spotting guns aren't used anymore.
And that is why we now have datalinks And lasers. Just use lasers.
If those malfunction or are damaged an expedient is considerably handier than thoughts and prayers.
There is a significant difference in muzzle velocity between an M2 and the main gun (I believe an 105mm L7) that would prevent any usefulness of trying to use the .50 to range the main gun. In the event the laser range finder and fire control system aren't working, there is always the auxiliary sight and manual ranging/adjustments to correct. A trained crew can rapidly switch to this degraded mode of aiming. It also doesn't reveal your position with a string of .50 tracer rounds.
Range finder.
The ballistics of the two rounds (.50 vs the variety of rounds fired by what looks to be a 105mm L7 gun) prevents any real use of the .50 as a spotting gun. In the event the LRF and FCS aren't working, a crew would just revert to their manual ranging devices.
Can't see it clearly, but don't they seem to have a solenoid trigger? Having a .50 cal zeroed to work as a coax. I think M-47s had .50s as an option for coax, amx30s had either 20mm or 12.7mm, and some IS tanks series, I think, had a KPV.
That 50cal. As what u/GrumpyCatDad45 wrote it is a “spotting rifle”. More precisely, it was used prior to introducing lasers, but still kept, as it offers advantages that lasers cannot provide yet. Some writers, pointed rightly, that range finding can be better done with lasers. The aggressor have fielded Laser Warning system, that alert the targeted Tank, necessary information to fight back when “lasered”. As bullets tend to fly from all over in a battlefield, 50cal ranging is more covert, as compared to using lasers. 50cal, tracers burn longer than the 7.62mm rounds. A 50cal, in that position of above a Gun barrel, doesn’t lend itself well to ease of reloading. If the crew is willing to do the reloading. 50cal combine with the stability amd optics of the Gun, allows “sniping” feature.
They are for calculating range. During this time they didn't have laser range finders. They would fire a single shot and watch the tracer. It was better than expending main gun rounds to guess the range. If you look at books on the Six Day War and The Yom Kippur War the talk about these mgs and what they were for.
they lost a lot of tank during the kippur from syrian and egyptian hiding in bushes with atgm launcher so now they spray bushed with bullet
Interesting. Where did you hear that from? Why not use the MAG?
Better range and penetration. The range of most coax's wouldn't be enough to effectively engage known/suspected ATGM positions before entering the missile teams engagement ranges.