Churchill Infantry Tank

[Maverick]

Donny, she wasn't his wife, but that's irrelevant.  I'd suggest that given the situation it was more luck than skill that the woman (whoever she was) got hit where she did.

As for being in ambush, that's like being a sniper.  You can take the headshot.  Try the same game 50m away from a guy shooting back.  Slightly different game.

That's the reason why when in training, you are taught gross motor skill type movements in the first instance.  So that when the actual thing is happening, you don't finesse and take the shot centre mass.  The same would be for a tank gunner in combat (not ambush).  He'd line up the crosshairs and punch it, not sit there for seconds or minutes deciding where to hit because by then, the bad guy had fired first and taken him out.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Ever been in a gun fight?

Nope.   I'm well aware of that problems of adrenalin and how it affects accuracy and shooting.  However, a tank gun is a bit different.  Normal training is to aim for the centre-of-mass but telescopic sights allow a little more margin.  Good gunners take advantage of that.  Just as a GPMG gunner will aim not for the window in a building but rather where he thinks the gunman is behind the wall.   Most will aim at the middle of the tank, some will try a bit better.  Its those gunners I was referring to, not the run of the mill ones.

[Maverick]

Brian, I think a GPMG gunner analogy is rather odd, given that the weapon is designed to saturate an area rather than a point target? 

As for 'run of the mill' vs superior marksmen, they're everywhere but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be able to take a better shot every time.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Brian, I think a GPMG gunner analogy is rather odd, given that the weapon is designed to saturate an area rather than a point target? 

It was but its round is quite capable of penetrating a brick wall - something Hollywood appears unable to grasp. 

As for 'run of the mill' vs superior marksmen, they're everywhere but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be able to take a better shot every time.

I don't think I've claimed that.  All I've pointed out is that the Panther's shot trap below the mantlet was known.  Gunners attempted to exploit such known vulnerabilities, when they could.

[Maverick]

Most with any concept of ballistics of various rounds used will agree that a wall offers only marginal cover, but an automatic weapon will not, necessarily, be able to be pin-pointed onto that area.  I've seen enough footage of urban fighting where automatic weapons are spraying the facade of a building rather than targetting a specific part of the structure.  Once again, if the individual is pulling three or four round bursts of the weapon, it may be moreso accurate, but only just.  The weapon isn't designed to provide accurate aimed fire, otherwise its design of supressing a target area has failed.

"Most will aim at the middle of the tank, some will try a bit better.  Its those gunners I was referring to, not the run of the mill ones."

Your words, not mine.  It sounds quite like you're inferring that 'superior' gunners will be taking a better shot?

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Most with any concept of ballistics of various rounds used will agree that a wall offers only marginal cover, but an automatic weapon will not, necessarily, be able to be pin-pointed onto that area.  I've seen enough footage of urban fighting where automatic weapons are spraying the facade of a building rather than targetting a specific part of the structure.  Once again, if the individual is pulling three or four round bursts of the weapon, it may be moreso accurate, but only just.  The weapon isn't designed to provide accurate aimed fire, otherwise its design of supressing a target area has failed.

A GPMG gunner should be able to get about a 6 inch group at 25 yards, Mav.   At 100 yards that equates to about a 24 inch group at 100 yards.  Most GPMG gunners aren't taught to actually aim their weapons like a rifle but it is possible to be quite accurate with one if you're really trying.

"Most will aim at the middle of the tank, some will try a bit better.  Its those gunners I was referring to, not the run of the mill ones."

Your words, not mine.  It sounds quite like you're inferring that 'superior' gunners will be taking a better shot?

Yep.  Perhaps thats why they're "superior"?

[Maverick]

A six inch group of how many rounds tho?  If it's a burst of three or four, fair enough, they've got a bipod and it's only 25 yds.  But is a three or four round burst an effective burst from a tactical perspective?  I tend to think not.  The whole purpose of the automatic weapon is to provide sustained automatic fire at a distance, not three round bursts at 25 yds.  Why else would tactical manuals talk of beaten zones when referring to the fall of shot?

I doubt, beyond showing off, that achieving accuracy with a GPMPG would be of any real tactical use.  I mean, I've witnessed men firing a full belt off an M60 held at the shoulder and firing the same weapon balanced against his chin, but is there any military reason for it?  Nope.

As for 'superior' marksman, initially you suggested that you hadn't claimed that they were able to 'take the best shot every time', now you're suggesting they are 'superior' again, inferring, if you will, once again that they will take the best shot.  One wonders if all this talk of superior vs run of the mill is even valid during an actual firefight?  It's a bit hard to be a crack shot (whether in a tank or behind a gun) when someone else (and perhaps a whole bunch of someone elses) are quite intent on ending your time on the earth with some degree of enthusiasm.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Mav, I think we're arguing semantics.  What I am suggesting is that they will attempt a specific shot and have a higher chance of actually succeeding at hitting their target than a novice would, not that they will necessarily hit it every time.

As for the GPMG, again you're thinking that I'm suggesting they would need pinpoint accuracy to hit a man hiding inside a window.  I am not.  What I am suggesting is that the gunner's aim would be shifted fractionally from the window itself to the side behind which he suspects the gunman would be hiding.  Again, that does not mean he's attempting to snipe the gunman, rather that he is laying his fire in such a way that he has a greater likelihood of actually hitting him through the wall.   Not all MG fire is intended to suppress - that is an intentional byproduct I agree - rather it is intended to kill.

I'm presently at work but I found an interesting website while the forum was down and I book marked it at home.  Once I am home I'll post the URL.  It may help you to understand the point I am making  WRT GPMG.

[Maverick]

Brian, I understand completely where you're coming from now.  Thanks for the explanation.  Look forward to the link.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

While a US Army manual (my M60 training Pam is packed away at the moment) it has some interesting stuff for you Mav - http://www.scribd.com/doc/6133938/Machine-Gunners-Card

[Maverick]

Thanks for that, quite an interesting read and, it seems, current, given the M249 & M240B are mentioned.

Regards,

Mav

[Maverick]

Suppressive fire rather than aimed fire is what I've suggested as the role of the machine-gunner from day one.

Regards,

Mav

[tomo pauk]

Just have wondered if someone bashed/whiffed some kind of JagdChurchill (superstructure expands above tracks, 17pdr or 4.5in armament, not including the real 3in AAA piece @ Churchill hull)?

[dy031101]

How much room is inside of the largest Churchill turret compared to KV-1?



I'm thinking of using a Soviet-designed U-11 122mm howitzer to up-gun the Churchill (in a similar vein as Logan Hartke's close support Sherman evolution)......

I like the idea of the KV-9, but after all the attrition and being replaced on the production line by the IS, there probably wouldn't be that many KV-1s left for conversion; the IS can mount the long-barreled 122mm field gun derivative, so U-11 is likely pointless to it; I kinda want to do a heavy tank in keeping with KV's heavy tank theme, and of the remaining WWII Allied AFV types I either do not remember or do not recognize anything of the sort other than the Churchill......

Just some crude ideas for now- I found someone on the internet claiming that the turret ring diameter of the KV-1 (of which AFAIK the KV-9 is a derivative with that tank howitzer) is 1580mm, which seems to me still larger than the Churchill's turret ring size of 1378mm, so I'm kinda trying to move the trunnion forward (but then I don't know where exactly the stock Churchill 75mm's trunnion is)......

Any suggestions on how I should proceed from there?