Ask Ian: Why No German WW2 50-Cal Machine Guns? (feat. Nick Moran)
utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/
/ forgottenweapons
www.floatplane.com/channel/For...
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.forgottenweapons.com
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.
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
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 kzhead.info/sun/ktl9da2PkJ6YnJs/bejne.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.
"I'm not a tank historian, but I do know a tank historian!"
The flex is real.
"I'm neither - Let me call my friends at Museum"
"I'm not a tank historian, but I do know a tank historian who can ask Hillary Doyle!"
"Mind if I call a friend to have him check it out?" This was like the best episode of PaawnStars ever! 😀
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!!!
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!".
7:35 Your list of manufacturers got me on a 30 minute quest looking for "Brown-Lipe-Chapin Corp. Fascinating story.
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.
“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. kzhead.info/sun/hNZ8k52QnYCldX0/bejne.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.
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.
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.
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.]
We all should have two.one for front of the house then the 2nd for other things like truck mounting 🤣
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....
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.
The crossover we did not know we needed. Thanks, this was brilliant.
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.
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: 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.
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.
Oprah handing automatic .50cal weapons is the funniest image I've had in my head so far this week
You get a ma deuce! You get a ma deuce! You get a ma deuce! Everybody gets a ma deuce!
Even my wife chuckled at that one. The emotional event line was good too.
In some alternate universe it happened. i am very jealous of other universe me now
@@kizzmequik70four why is it called deuce?
I had the same thought! Rinds me of a meme I saw of her from a silencer company and she had a bunch of suppressor equipped pistols in her belt.
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!!
Ian appreciate the attempt to answer this lingering question. The reference to other sources was enlightening and astute. Congratulations!
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
"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
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.
Ian, you have a great show. I watch it as often as I get notice. Your technical details and explanations are spot on -- keep up the good work...
I really enjoy your videos, even when the topic goes into other areas of expertise you bring in the most knowledgeable guests around to explain it for us. Great job. 👍
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.
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.
It makes me wonder if I'd own some 20mm as an American civilian if the US had standardized on that for aircraft and anti-tank use instead of mass-producing M2 variants. We had the Oerlikon and Hispano-Suiza in 20mm, but I can't imagine either being as widely adopted as the M2.
@@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.
@@jamesleaty7308 I appreciate that new Destructive Devices can still be registered, unlike Machineguns. I also live in Illinois where DDs are legal for non-FFL/SOTs but MGs aren't. What I meant is that if production had been much lower because the 20mm isn't suitable for the other roles the M2HB was put into, there wouldn't have been so many available as surplus, leading to the proliferation of civilian kit builds on registered side plates and as semi-auto.
@@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.
What a legendary vid! Ian & Nick! Extremely insightful and a great watch.
Fascinating video from two experts. Thank you, it was a joy to watch/listen to. Wish I could sit by a bonfire with you two and drink coffee and listen to you yap about WW2 weapons and vehicles all night long. Super interesting.
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
"M2? That sounds like a neat machine gun. What can we bolt this to?" "Yes".
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!
@2:30 Thank God for the foresight of the Coastal Artillery branch.
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... 😂👍🏼
a historian putting "roflstomping" in a sentence completely unironically has made my day
Also more dakka, a warhammer 40k reference
@@vmaldia I had quite a laugh at that, particularly because I already had that reaction in the first part of the video where the "just mounting cal 50's on everything, why not two, why not 4" part came up. Oh, so they were the Orkz? More Dakka!.. To have the second guy actually namedrop it was priceless.
16:20, for anyone interested.
@@vmaldia I came to the comments specifically to see if anyone else would point it out.
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
Wonderful video, as regards both the content and the form. Thanks a lot.
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.
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.
That was excellent. Enjoyed the guest speaker immensely.
Man I love this education you can get, and collaboration is key.
"if you got within range of an M16 you were in for a significant emotional event" - Nick Moran.
Being in effective range of most anything can be a significant emotional event. Even the Rock, M1, Antitank.
"Feh, the M16 is a poodle-shooter. Give me a Garand; now that's got kick." --most of the US Army in Vietnam
@@alaeriia01 "I need quad .50cals to shoot poodles." - Americans probably.
@@samoldfield5220 The quad 50 or the quad 20mm would be very effective in forcing enemy infantry to ground.
@@alaeriia01 He means the M16 MGMC with the M45 .50 quadmount.
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....
Love the input from Mr. Moran. Very insightful!
I love it when all of you guys bring on other experts to give us a different perspective.
Talking About America flexing AND having The Chieftain in one video? Instant favorite!!
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.
"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
Absolutely great explanation about the difference in perception of heavy machin guns, thanks
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
“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. 😂
"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.
Perfect combo with you and nick! Keep it up.
Thunderbolts had 8, mustangs 6, Flying fortress had 13, the M2 and the Oerlikon are engineering marvels on their own, SO MUCH DAKA.
It has been often repeated that when all 8 M2’s on a Jug were fired that it would literally slow the plane down in flight, that the recoil energy was so great. My late F-I-L was in the 9thAAF, 346FBG, 107thTRS of P47’s, ETO, Trinidad to the Ardennes. I would have liked to have been able to ask him, but he passed away when his daughter was a child. P47’s were definitely a beast though.
@@ronaldlollis8895 The Thunderbolt is my favorite wwii single engine aircraft, its an absolute monster.
Fvc oerlikkon , EMNRACE HS404 and GAU-19
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!
love when you two work together, its always a good time
Thanks for another wonderfully informative video Ian!
-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.
The top left of Chieftain's bookshelf seems to be somewhat precariously arranged.
Another thing about the Browning .30 MG and the Ma Deuce was the simplicity of manufacture. Browning was able to come up with a design that did a lot to reduce the need for a large amount of advanced machining to mass produce. The receiver was made from flat steel that required minimal machining and used a lot of riveting instead of welding. And a lot of parts were made from quality cast steel parts that required a minimum of machining. It was mass producible and probably cost less to machine than a Thompson sub MG.
Waiting for the collaboration featuring Ian, Nick, and Drachinifel, though I cannot imagine what circumstance would provoke such a thing.
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 KZhead comments far too seriously. Hope it helps!😉
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]
Love the colab! I love both of you guys!
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.
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.
You just assembled the Elbonian staff officers' college.
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
"If you got within range of an M16 you're in for a significant emotional event" love it.
Excellent and informative video, thank you!
This was an interesting video and was something I long wondered about WW2 armaments as well. Plus, I found another channel to watch! Thanks, Ian!
What I missed is the German philosophy of a universal machine gun, the MG34 and MG42. Instead of a .50 cal a .33 cal and a squad MG we used in all those roles a MG42 that could fire a roughly equal amount of lead per second as the .50 cal. The next step up was the 20mm that could fire HE but it needed a specialized vehicle mount.
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.
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.
Thank you very much for this video! I have learned a lot! Interestingly, during the Cold War, (West-)Germany maintained the strategy of the .30 caliber machine gun - both as a coaxial MG, and as an anti-aircraft MG. In the 1950s and '60s, the 50-caliber MG was available from surplus stocks of the U.S. Army and the vehicles already equipped accordingly (e.g., M7 Priest, M47 Patton, M39 Armored Utility Vehicle), but this gradually disappeared again in favor of the MG3 universal machine gun, the further development of the MG42 in NATO caliber 7.62mm x 51. However, the MG3 was at least also given an anti-aircraft sight. Only with the end of the Cold War, the deployment of the Bundeswehr abroad, the acquisition of new vehicles (e.g. DINGO, FENNEK), improved ammunition and also the use of the .50BMG caliber as a sniper weapon, the M2 is also (again) in use as a super-heavy machine gun. In return, the 20mm x 139 machine gun (with the reconnaissance tank LUCHS "lynx" (1977-2009) and the infantry fighting vehicle MARDER "marten" (1971-202?)) is slowly disappearing from the arsenals. The 20mm is being replaced by either the .50BMG, the "GraMaWa" (Granat-Maschinen-Waffe = automatic grenade launcher) 40mm or a machine gun 35mm upwards.
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?
One additional note as to aircraft use by the US of the M2 vs. the German use of larger weapons. Some of that also came down to who they were shooting at. The USAAC aircraft typically shot at fighters - compact and fairly lightly armored aircraft. Whereas the Germans not only had to deal with beasts like the Jug, but the far tougher heavy bombers. Each side had a weapon that worked for their circumstances.
It should be noted - the US tried to licence build the Hispano 20mm heavily used by the RAF, but made a complete mess of it. The guns (the 20mm Cannon M1/M2) didn't work. They stuck with the .50s until after the war when they worked out the issues.
The Hispano-type 20mm weapons, and all of their derivatives, never worked well for the U.S. for some reason. There were a ton of versions, and to my knowledge, they were all jamomatics, all the way into the 1970s.
@@hunterbidensaidslesion1356 they screwed up the specs for manufacturing. Chamber length was a key one - they changed it, and refused to change it back when the British refused to buy US-made cannons and helpfully gave them a list of reasons why.
I really enjoy Ian-Nick collab videos. It makes for a great informational piece from two accomplished experts. Keep 'em coming!
Tremendously valuable presentation....thank you sir!
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.
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
@@santossteven97 danke
@@okage6219 Bitte
They didn’t really have the 20mm armored half tracks until right at the end of the war.
The Oprah analogy…Love it. “You get an M2, you get an M2….you aaaalllll are getting an M2 .50 machinegun!”
American GLA version: M2 Machine-Guns for Everyone!!
Why the US Army Coast Artillery Corps (CAC) wanted an AA MG: During WWI the CAC acquired the Army's AA mission, and was formally assigned it in 1920. From the adoption of a regimental system in 1924 until mid-WWII, US Army AA units were designated Coast Artillery (Anti-Aircraft).
Ian, your videos are always nothing short of superb. Thank you!!
You make the point that you must have to hit a target with the M2 seem to infer you don’t have to with a 20Mm. The damage from a 20 hit is more severe because it is an explosive round but you still have to hit the target to get that damage. The 20 is too small for a proximity fuse.
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.
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.
This was so cool! I was expecting the answer to be "because that'd require a lot of weapons production where it didn't make sense" and it was 20 minutes of learning really cool things! (It does feel very German to decide the ammo waste wouldn't be worth it versus the American answer of "we can make so much of everything so why not?"
My GG-Grandfather, himself a USMC World War 1 veteran, spent World War 2 building the AN-M2 .50 cal at Colt, which is the version optimized for use on aircraft (higher rate of fire, cooling modified for high altitude, left or right feeding, other changes). When I watch archival footage of the air war or see war birds at an air show, I wonder if my grandmother's grandfather touched any of them at the factory.
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!
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.
Ian, you are a great explainer! Thanks.
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.
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.
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!
Two of the best historians on youtube making a video? Thats gonna be an instant upvote.
Rate of fire over a 20mm cannon and faster velocity for the MA Deuce over same cannon was considered desirable traits. It was used as anti personal in Korea, Vietnam (gun trucks in convoys) and Thunder Runs into Bagdad atop M1A2 Abrams.
Outstanding Ian. I love it when my favorite channels collaborate
It is always a good idea to reach out to the Chieftain. I am glad to see two of my favorite KZheadrs working together.
A point of note: of the around 2 million total Browning M 2 machine guns, a significant number were made for air service. By late war, nearly all wing mounted machineguns were modified M2 in U S service. At between 4 and 8 ( and more ) per airplane that is a lot. When you add in the various mountings for bombers and airfield defense, *The Army Air Corps* would end up with as many or more than any other branch. It is always fun to spot a tanker out in the wild, lol. Thank you to The Chieftain!
And I forgot to even mention that Navy ships of all sizes mounted the M 2 for air and surface use. Seen most often in pictures of landing craft, in period photos and todays films/media of that time. My maternal grandfather would be... unhappy that I did not mention the Navy/Marine use of the M2 first, sigh.
Great video! I think it's worth mentioning, that the German system and hierarchy seemed to have been much more rigid as a whole. As an example of that, Göring promised to obtain and deliver air superiority in offensive operations and thus removing (more or less) the need for ground close-air defence weapons. This strategy seemed to have worked both in the invasion of France, the occupation of Poland and right up to the battle of Stalingrad, where German air-units were unmatched, and therefore fullfilled their purpose. There was simply a lesser need for defensive weapons with a range up to 5 km, and even a lesser need for something like the .50 cal with an effective range of up to 3 km against air-targets. The increasing air-effort of the allied forces with strategic bombing made the 8.8 FLAK (FLieger-Abwehr-Kanon) relevant, but roughly the same time the IL-2 Sturmovik was introduced at the eastern front. Both of these changes to the Air-To-Ground scenarios eventually made something like the .50 cal obsolete. Germany went for the 20, 37 and 88 mm guns instead. That might have been contributing to the "lack of .50 cal" weapons? Production of the chosen calibers were up and running in Germany in 1942 when things changed to defensive operations, and the Luftwaffe was turning into rubbish on a greater scale?