m48 machine gun arrangement

[aferguson]

what's the deal with the machine guns on the m48? I was under the impression that the cupola mounted gun (the one in the little turret in the cupola) was usually removed and the standard outside machine gun was normally mounted.

But i'm seeing pictures that have all possible combinations of the two guns. Was there a standard arrangement used during vietnam?

[Threetoughtrucks]

Pictures don't lie. Depends on the tank commander, the tank platoon officer etc., etc. Take your pic for permission to mount mg's in any configuration they feel comfortable with.

TTT

[aferguson]

interesting.

why would tank commanders NOT like the gun that was mounted inthe little turret in the cupola?

i was always under the impression that only the Israelis kept those guns and US always removed them....obviouslyl not.

[Threetoughtrucks]

Depends on whether you want to be exposed. When dealing with snipers, you want as little of you exposed as possible, so using a .50cal in the "little turret" is the way to go.

Most mg fire is used to create a "beaten" area of ground. Not a specific target like a man. You want to spray an area to discourage an enemy from bothering you so using the limited vision of the little turret is not that important.

A good percentage of VN tank combat was having the tanks firing from fixed positions for the defense of a compound so having the mg above the little turret was not important as nighttime action negates sniper activity when an enemy like the VC or NVA did not have night vision.

From a personal point, while in VN, our compound was ringed with bunkers and tank pits. We had no tanks and only manned bunkers. The tanks from neighboring units would support us by driving down to us if they were needed, rolling into the pits to engage the "human wave attacks", that never materialized in my case. We were only attacked very sporadically just to let us know they were out there. As I have said before, we were in more danger from short rounds being fired over us by both the VC on one side and the 173rd Airborne on the other. I saw more ROK M-47's on the roads than M-48's and the few pics I have of tanks were taken while driving past the ROK M-47's. I deserved a medal for taking pictures while steering and shifting, but nobody saw it that way...

TTT

[aferguson]

thanks for the info TTT.

i found this on a tank modelling forum:

"Main thing to remember is that the M48 had a .50 Mg in the commanders cuppola, but that in Nam this turret was found to be too cramped and the MG was most often removed and placed on top of the commanders cuppola, as seen in some of the pictures."

So i guess that explains why it is seen removed in some photos. As i understand it, the M48A1 had both a gun in the cupola and on top, whereas the M48 just had a cupola mounted gun...further explaining why i observed such a diversity in the photos i saw.

I know the Israelis eventually completely redesigned the cupolas on their m48's, eliminating that cupola mounted mg position altogether, so i guess, overall it was of limited use. I would imagine visibility while firing the gun would be a problem too, aside from the cramped space.

[Grognard]

One of the other issues with the cupola mounted MG was the deadspace. As designed the cupola MG was more an ant-material weapon than anti-personnel, so the maximum depression was limited. Can't remember the figures, but over the front I think there was about a hundred feet of space between the tank and the target that tne commander couldn't hit.

Mounting an external MG, either on the cupola, or in some cases M60's on the loaders hatch, you could shoot a lot closer to the vehicle.

If you look at some pictures of Bradley's in Iraq, you will see TC's with M240 MGs on the turret roof. During Gulf one, I kept an M16 in a scabarb on the turret just in case something popped up unexpectedly.