"If you get within range of a [quad .50], you're in for a significant emotional event." Classic.

@misterdipster4241

Жыл бұрын

Still rolling on the floor 🤣😅😂 12:50 btw.

@donaldoehl7690

Жыл бұрын

Classic understatement, that is!

@HappiKarafuru

Жыл бұрын

Yea, if that Half Track 5cal mounted vehicle will ever be in WoT or WT, i wonder what tier it will be

@simbry49

Жыл бұрын

@@HappiKarafuru the Apex of Tier 1

@GrasshopperKelly

Жыл бұрын

@@HappiKarafuru Probably tier 2, but they'd give it a colossal "inter clip" reload the T7 CC struggles to pen anything.

"I'm not a tank historian, but I do know a tank historian!"

@raideurng2508

Жыл бұрын

The flex is real.

@candidmoe8741

Жыл бұрын

"I'm neither - Let me call my friends at Museum"

@exharkhun5605

Жыл бұрын

"I'm not a tank historian, but I do know a tank historian who can ask Hillary Doyle!"

@Piledriver2235

Жыл бұрын

"Mind if I call a friend to have him check it out?" This was like the best episode of PaawnStars ever! 😀

@Optimusprimerib36

18 күн бұрын

I’m it a tank historian either but I did stay at a holiday inn last night

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.

@russellstyles5381

Жыл бұрын

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.

@__Mr.White__

Жыл бұрын

@@russellstyles5381 Who needs a clutch of a Sherman today? 😲

@TeddyBear-ii4yc

Жыл бұрын

@@__Mr.White__ A Sherman owner?

@__Mr.White__

Жыл бұрын

@@TeddyBear-ii4yc Who can own a Sherman? 😲

@swag_8884

Жыл бұрын

@@__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!

@professionalfire3902

Жыл бұрын

A small part of a wonderfully large piece of history

@canobenitez

Жыл бұрын

is it true that the M2 is also called Largest Bolt Action Machine gun for it's jamming issues?

@sarcasticYoda

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@canobenitez

Жыл бұрын

@@sarcasticYoda I saw some comments that said otherwise, just trying to check if the is some true on that ( this is the video kzread.info/dash/bejne/kal4p6uQic_ImcY.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."

@Slizzo82

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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?"

@Toxicrabbit141

Жыл бұрын

I wish I couldve talked to him

@mpetersen6

Жыл бұрын

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.

@genericpersonx333

Жыл бұрын

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.

@brittakriep2938

Жыл бұрын

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.

@keithstudly6071

Жыл бұрын

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.

Ok, hearing a professional historian use the phrases "Mor Dakka" and "Roflstomping" definitely brightened my day.

@davidcopplestone6266

Жыл бұрын

The Chieftain is ex-US military so you can expect those sort of things to slip through.

@TheChieftainsHatch

Жыл бұрын

@@davidcopplestone6266 I'm not an ex yet. I'm only pining for the fjords. (Greetings from Fort Bliss)

@CF_Sapper

Жыл бұрын

Came to make this exact comment!

@davidcopplestone6266

Жыл бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch Woohoo! A reply from The Chieftain

@charlesangell_bulmtl

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@khaelamensha3624

Жыл бұрын

Yep strangely quite close to Drachinifel 😂

@DisheveledSuccess

Жыл бұрын

@@khaelamensha3624 my fav is when Drach gives examples of shells penetrating armored decks...

@spvillano

3 ай бұрын

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!".

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.

@williamallen7836

Жыл бұрын

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.

@kimjanek646

Жыл бұрын

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.

@kimjanek646

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@williamallen7836

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@williamallen7836

Жыл бұрын

@@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 don't understand how it could not have been popular. In my opinion every American household should have one....

@scrubsrc4084

Жыл бұрын

A .50 in every garage.

@johnqpublic2718

Жыл бұрын

More than you'd think actually do.... 100% legally.

@redcell9636

Жыл бұрын

I second this notion.

@swindle9695

Жыл бұрын

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.]

@jerrynaylor4092

Жыл бұрын

We all should have two.one for front of the house then the 2nd for other things like truck mounting 🤣

A historian saying "moar daka" is the highlight of my year currently 😂

@johnalan6067

Жыл бұрын

Can never have enough dakka. There is always room for 1 more.

@dinosaur6106

Жыл бұрын

@@johnalan6067 there is never enough daka

@Chaosrain112

Жыл бұрын

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!

@Archangelm127

Жыл бұрын

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.

@nhancao4790

Жыл бұрын

@@Archangelm127 Seriously, the only military hardware that can match American level of AA was the IJN Yamato in its 1945 config.

7:35 Your list of manufacturers got me on a 30 minute quest looking for "Brown-Lipe-Chapin Corp. Fascinating story.

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.

Oprah handing automatic .50cal weapons is the funniest image I've had in my head so far this week

@kizzmequik70four

Жыл бұрын

You get a ma deuce! You get a ma deuce! You get a ma deuce! Everybody gets a ma deuce!

@fredbecker607

Жыл бұрын

Even my wife chuckled at that one. The emotional event line was good too.

@krald8421

Жыл бұрын

In some alternate universe it happened. i am very jealous of other universe me now

@ladmad9196

Жыл бұрын

@@kizzmequik70four why is it called deuce?

@wedge259

Жыл бұрын

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.

“Massive industrial flex” is the best way I’ve heard the US involvement in WW2 described. It would also be a good band name.

@BlackBladeGroM

Жыл бұрын

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.

@b1646717

Жыл бұрын

The would definitely open for Rammstein

@battleoid2411

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@shize9ine

Жыл бұрын

​@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine check you facts.. German scientists proposed the atomic bomb. Hell, we used German scientists to develop the bomb. kzread.info/dash/bejne/g6Z3xZuRlrHVcqg.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

@JG54206

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

The MG 131 was electrically fired which gave it a rate of fire of 900 rounds/min it was air cooled so really only suited for use in an aircraft where the electricity and ample cooling is avaliable

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.

@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke

2 ай бұрын

Yes, ,50 cal. was ineffective in most AA roles

0:42 If you consider that the M2 has been in continuous use for nearly 100 years…it is a super-machine gun.

@mikepette4422

Жыл бұрын

no reason to change a good thing

@TJ_Low

Жыл бұрын

We’ll probably still be using them when the Space Force is stomping around in mech suits.

@jasperzanovich2504

Жыл бұрын

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.

@DerLoladin

Жыл бұрын

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.

@cdawson198600

Жыл бұрын

@@TJ_Low finnaly we could dual wield M2.

i love that even a historian uses the phrase "more dakka" the orks are proud

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

The Chieftain does play 40k.

@apatheticbystanders

Жыл бұрын

and roflstomp

@VikingTeddy

Жыл бұрын

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.

@seamusthatsthedog4819

Жыл бұрын

@@apatheticbystanders "Roflstomp" is such a great word I wish it was used more

@zephrizi9034

Жыл бұрын

American trainer "Hey man, hold it down. It's a machine gun!" German trainee "Ok"

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.

The crossover we did not know we needed. Thanks, this was brilliant.

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

@crysiswar5

Жыл бұрын

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.

@WhatIsSanity

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@Kodaiva

Жыл бұрын

Guns are a big part of history

@aldenconsolver3428

Жыл бұрын

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.

@HighlanderNorth1

Жыл бұрын

🚫😕 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....

"Bolted to every American vehicle in WW2" As well as being bolted to most modern American military vehicles

@jaysherman2615

Жыл бұрын

An American tradition.

@GW71093

Жыл бұрын

Willing to bet that we could have spaceships someday that would still have a few M2s mounted somewhere

@bornonthebattlefront4883

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@augustooliveira5588

Жыл бұрын

@@GW71093 and it would still be the same m2 marked 1939 or something like that

@revantii

Жыл бұрын

>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

@2:30 Thank God for the foresight of the Coastal Artillery branch.

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.

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!

@patvanderreest7416

Жыл бұрын

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.

@emintey

Жыл бұрын

@@patvanderreest7416 However, one can spend a lot less time to say he doesn't know.

@ccramit

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Jugoslavija

Жыл бұрын

@@ccramit what of he who knows, knows not that he knows that he knows not?

@michaelmayo3127

Жыл бұрын

"hearing experts" Then they are not experts!!

I'm simple man of refined taste. Put Ian and Nick Moran on the same video and I'm happy.

@fredbecker607

Жыл бұрын

Thought Hillary Doyle was coming in at one point.

@primachpepe8597

Жыл бұрын

I say bravo dear chap, your tastes are impeccable

@calenedgar3722

Жыл бұрын

Ian did a video with Drachinifel a while back, they discussed whiskey.

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

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...

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

@RonaldPottol

Жыл бұрын

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.

@jamesleaty7308

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@alexsis1778

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@jamesleaty7308

Жыл бұрын

@@timewave02012 I got that. Just letting people know, we can. You are 100% correct. I have had a range of ex military weapons. We had a gun/ammo business on my Dads FFL. Ha also had a shipping business. I always thought it was funny that you could buy an artillery piece . The dollars to feed a 50 bmg vs 20 mil is great.

@jamesleaty7308

Жыл бұрын

@@timewave02012 Didn't the fullauto/mg ,legislation come out of Capone's predilection for tommy guns. I know Clyde Barrow of Bonnie and Clyde fame was keen with BAR. I think he was a ww1 vet.

the recently recurring Ian-Nicolas collaboration is the best thing that happened on the internet in 2022

@RoughNek72

Жыл бұрын

God I hope this kinda thing continues!!!!!!!!!!!

@aldenconsolver3428

Жыл бұрын

If you can get Drach to handle navy stuff maybe we are working on a stand-alone channel on military techno history

@mahmoodali5043

Жыл бұрын

@DiversityIsOurStrength thanks bro

@mahmoodali5043

Жыл бұрын

@DiversityIsOurStrength haha yeah XD

@ivanmonahhov2314

Жыл бұрын

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

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.

Ian appreciate the attempt to answer this lingering question. The reference to other sources was enlightening and astute. Congratulations!

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.

@muddyram

Жыл бұрын

@@TheRealColBosch I was on foot so unfortunately the .50 would have been a pain in the ass to carry

@shred1894

Жыл бұрын

Everyone knows when Ma speaks, the enemy listens.

@dasvngerry3609

Жыл бұрын

I think the 240 is more fun to be honest

@corvidconfidential8826

Жыл бұрын

Should try to buy one, they are able to be owned iirc

@patriotenfield3276

Жыл бұрын

Try Kord HMG . You will love it.

"M2? That sounds like a neat machine gun. What can we bolt this to?" "Yes".

Hold up, the mental image of Oprah handing out 50 Cals to WWII Troopers is forever engraved in my imagination. Thank you.

It’s 04:14 in the morning and I have quite a big day ahead of me, but man do I want to know why the Germans didn’t use 50cals during WW2.

Talking About America flexing AND having The Chieftain in one video? Instant favorite!!

a historian putting "roflstomping" in a sentence completely unironically has made my day

@vmaldia

Жыл бұрын

Also more dakka, a warhammer 40k reference

@theholk

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@TheSylfaein

Жыл бұрын

16:20, for anyone interested.

@torgranael

Жыл бұрын

@@vmaldia I came to the comments specifically to see if anyone else would point it out.

What a legendary vid! Ian & Nick! Extremely insightful and a great watch.

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. 👍

Some Russian tanks did begin mounting pintle DShKs towards the end of WWII, primarily the IS series of heavy tanks.

@YourRulerSkeletos

Жыл бұрын

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.

@RomaNovikov1980

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@YourRulerSkeletos

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@RomaNovikov1980

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@YourRulerSkeletos

Жыл бұрын

@@RomaNovikov1980 Ahhh, I'd never seen one on a KV before, but that makes sense.

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!

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

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.

@hansvonmannschaft9062

Жыл бұрын

@@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!

@TheChieftainsHatch

Жыл бұрын

I’ve retired? News to me, I’m currently spending a couple of weeks on Fort Bliss doing the staff officer thing.

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch oh, sorry, active to Guard.

@hansvonmannschaft9062

Жыл бұрын

@@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... 😂👍🏼

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.

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!

@thatonedude2228

Жыл бұрын

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

@fightingfalcon1986

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Northbravo

Жыл бұрын

American but I thank you for your service!

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.

@jasonsabourin2275

Жыл бұрын

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.

@invisibletosociety8338

Жыл бұрын

I believe him, it's a brilliant piece of machinery.

@renehinojosa1962

Жыл бұрын

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.

@rcmrcm3370

Жыл бұрын

@@renehinojosa1962 ... That was infested with civilians....

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.

@builder396

Жыл бұрын

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.

@davidcox3076

Жыл бұрын

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.

@fireextinguisher7404

Жыл бұрын

Also the Japanese used the type 3 13mm machine gun in aircraft, 1mm larger than .50

@peceed

Жыл бұрын

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!

@builder396

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

That was excellent. Enjoyed the guest speaker immensely.

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.

Thunderbolts had 8, mustangs 6, Flying fortress had 13, the M2 and the Oerlikon are engineering marvels on their own, SO MUCH DAKA.

@ronaldlollis8895

Жыл бұрын

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.

@keenanmcbreen7073

Жыл бұрын

@@ronaldlollis8895 The Thunderbolt is my favorite wwii single engine aircraft, its an absolute monster.

@patriotenfield3276

Жыл бұрын

Fvc oerlikkon , EMNRACE HS404 and GAU-19

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

The Falkvierling was devastating 4x 20mm cannon did not only shoot down aircraft but all so used against soft skin vehicles & infantry.

@picklesenate9681

11 ай бұрын

Yeah but using a quad 20mm auto cannon on infantry is just cheating.

@danielc2701

9 ай бұрын

@@picklesenate9681 If you ain't cheating, you're not doing it right lol.

@alanwatts8239

8 ай бұрын

​@@picklesenate9681No such thing as cheating in war.

@dominatewest25ytgopuffsoof24

7 ай бұрын

@@alanwatts8239war crimes have joined the game

@juliancantarelli

7 ай бұрын

Infantry tends to have even softer skin than vehicles.

In 1987 in Germany when I was in the US Army on my M113 I had an AC Delco Sparkplug made M2 .50 Cal machinegun issued to me. From remembering back to this. I think the gun must have been refurbished all those years by replacing the trunnion block and other side plates and parts to keep them that long. Next at Fort Carson 1988 I had another M2 made by Frigidaire. The rest were all Ramo Manufacturing.

The Oprah analogy…Love it. “You get an M2, you get an M2….you aaaalllll are getting an M2 .50 machinegun!”

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.

@lincolntravelconcierge4846

Жыл бұрын

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.

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?"

@wrpg9955

4 ай бұрын

Guessing you saw the Band of Brothers scene huh

@cooperjackson614

4 ай бұрын

Naw, read the book. @@wrpg9955

@brianjones9780

3 ай бұрын

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

@cooperjackson614

3 ай бұрын

Read the book@@wrpg9955

@fnors2

Ай бұрын

​@@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.

Two of the best historians on youtube making a video? Thats gonna be an instant upvote.

The top left of Chieftain's bookshelf seems to be somewhat precariously arranged.

"if you got within range of an M16 you were in for a significant emotional event" - Nick Moran.

@mpetersen6

Жыл бұрын

Being in effective range of most anything can be a significant emotional event. Even the Rock, M1, Antitank.

@alaeriia01

Жыл бұрын

"Feh, the M16 is a poodle-shooter. Give me a Garand; now that's got kick." --most of the US Army in Vietnam

@samoldfield5220

Жыл бұрын

@@alaeriia01 "I need quad .50cals to shoot poodles." - Americans probably.

@mpetersen6

Жыл бұрын

@@samoldfield5220 The quad 50 or the quad 20mm would be very effective in forcing enemy infantry to ground.

@supersarge24

Жыл бұрын

@@alaeriia01 He means the M16 MGMC with the M45 .50 quadmount.

Love the input from Mr. Moran. Very insightful!

Wonderful video, as regards both the content and the form. Thanks a lot.

“It’s like Opera handing out 50cal machine guns” present 🎁 🎉😂 I absolutely loved that analogy

@aussiejezza

Жыл бұрын

You get a 50cal, you get a 50cal, everybody gets a 50cal!

@KartiacKID

Жыл бұрын

Yes 🙌 please

@invisibletosociety8338

Жыл бұрын

That's the only way I would go to her show. 😂

Ian and Nick should find a naval expert and aviation expert to form the holy quad-fecta of war experts. This alone was great.

@crazypetec-130fe7

Жыл бұрын

Drachinfel for the naval stuff, and Greg's Airplanes for Aviation.

@SimuLord

Жыл бұрын

You just assembled the Elbonian staff officers' college.

@shazbotnanu7037

Жыл бұрын

Military Aviation History would get my vote for the aviation side.

@crimmy838

Жыл бұрын

Ryan semanski would be really cool to have aboard, although he mostly focuses on Iowa class battleships

@michaelbourgeault9409

Жыл бұрын

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

Man I love this education you can get, and collaboration is key.

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?"

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

@wisewarnanazara317

Жыл бұрын

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.

@HootOwl513

Жыл бұрын

@@wisewarnanazara317 .50 High Explosive Incendiary Tracer. [HEIT]

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.

@wheel6243

Жыл бұрын

loved it when the GM's would let us do morale shoots. Bu puppa puppa!

"Fliegerbeschussgerät" must be one of the most German words I've ever heard, leave it to them to assign the most bureaucratic name possible to something designed to save your life while there's fire and lead raining from the sky

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.

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.

@TJ_Low

Жыл бұрын

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.

@jojomaster7675

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@crazypetec-130fe7

Жыл бұрын

I recently read the book Nanette by a US P-39 pilot. His 37mm cannon fired shells with timed fuses in 1943.

@donwyoming1936

Жыл бұрын

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.

@vladimirpecherskiy1910

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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”

@MrJabez89

Жыл бұрын

No you didn't

@ClericalConsequences

Жыл бұрын

@@MrJabez89 you’re right. They were already up, and I was in the bathtub 😘

@MrJabez89

Жыл бұрын

@@ClericalConsequences Why lie about something like that?

@ClericalConsequences

Жыл бұрын

@@MrJabez89 welcome to the internet ❤️

@torgranael

Жыл бұрын

@@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 KZread comments far too seriously. Hope it helps!😉

I always figured they used the MG34/42, on just the idea of "We ain't gonna shoot it down, but this thing spits out enough led that it just might..." While I honestly figured the M2 mount was Interwar thinking, and they just kept it, because it turned out to be pretty good against light vics and infantry

"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.

-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!

@DOMINIK99013

Жыл бұрын

They also had ZB 60

@allangibson8494

Жыл бұрын

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.

@maxpax3351

Жыл бұрын

@okonkwojones And a very good day to you Sir!! Loved the edit on the edit, thanks for the laugh.

@okonkwojones

Жыл бұрын

@@DOMINIK99013 oh yeah, all the Czech weapons & tanks and such seized from their arsenals and assembly lines.

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.

I love it when all of you guys bring on other experts to give us a different perspective.

Love the colab! I love both of you guys!

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.

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.

@alun7006

Жыл бұрын

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.

@hunterbidensaidslesion1356

Жыл бұрын

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.

@alun7006

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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).

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!

@leonfa259

Ай бұрын

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.

Otto Carius said "Hold Mein Beer". For those that don't know, Otto is believed to shoot down a IL-2 with his 88 on his Tiger Tank.

"If you got within range of an M16 you're in for a significant emotional event" love it.

Perfect combo with you and nick! Keep it up.

The British experience with the .50 cal is interesting as we seemed to blow hot and cold with it. Obviously we received A LOT thanks to Lend Lease, but then - almost immediately after WW2 - we shelved them only to flirt with the idea again during the Cold War, but then said 'no thank you' BUT THEN made heavy use of them on vehicles during the Afghan War! The current position seems to be none on the MBTs but the new Boxer vehicle will have .50 cals. Like the Germans during WW2 we did develop some AA vehicles based around 20mm cannon, but our doctrine since Dunkirk was the same 'everybody fires' tactic that the Chieftain mentioned that the Germans had! VERY interesting video, brilliant to see these collaborative ones..... Now all you need is someone who's an expert on planes and someone who knows navy ships and you'll completely rule! LOL

If MOAR DAKKA didn't solve your problem then you weren't using enough dakka.🧐

@vksasdgaming9472

Жыл бұрын

DERE IS NEVA 'NUFF DAKKA CUZ U CAN ALWAYS ADD MOAR DAKKA

@wytfish4855

Жыл бұрын

I SAID MOAR AND BIGGAH DAKKA, YA GITZ, GET ON IT!

@katarjin

Жыл бұрын

@@vksasdgaming9472 DAZ ROIT, I DIDNT SEE NO BIG ZAPPA OR SQUIG LAUNCHA, BY MORK I WANTS A ZAPPA

@vksasdgaming9472

Жыл бұрын

@@katarjin Truf B told, dere R fings wen moar dakka just dozn't work n U can't get cloes 'nuff 2 choppa it propa as well. Den U put all you dakka 2getha n make some reely reely big dakka. 4 dat U need thoes mekboyz n stuff dey want so maek suer boyz know wut Ur plan iz even if Ur not in scrap alredym yo.

I would like to add that the Italians developed a 12.7mm Vickers belt-fed machinegun as well. The Breda-SAFAT was heavily influenced by the Browning M2 and, although mainly used on planes, it was often used on AA tripod as well. Not to mention that Italian engineers did also manage to create 12.7mm HE.

@fsdds1488

Жыл бұрын

It also influenced the Japanese Ho-103, while Hotchkiss 13.2mm basically became the Type 3 machine gun.

Thanks for another wonderfully informative video Ian!

Absolutely great explanation about the difference in perception of heavy machin guns, thanks

This might seem unrelated but hear me out, this is reminds me of the philosophy of the American Alaska-Class Large Cruisers of late WW2. The ships were built to counter "heavy" cruisers of any rivaling nation, heavy cruisers being the 8 inch gunned jack of all trades ship for any navy. The Alaska's would wind up with 12 inch guns as they didn't have the firepower of a regular battleship, but would have roughly the same displacement (size and weight in layman terms) as a smaller battleship. Leaving nations with less funding for their navies unable to build a proper counter to the Alaskas. They would cost nearly the same as a battleship to build so when a rival navy would ask for funding of such a ship they'd be met with the choice of either build more cruisers for a smaller budget than asked for or just build a battleship and get the exact funds they'd asked for. Leaving the Alaskas as the some of only cruisers in the world who could out gun anything they couldn't out run and out run anything they couldn't out gun. I see sort of the same here. The U.S. could fund the 50. while also funding 20mm's and 40mm's. The Axis simply couldn't fund so many projects and would have to settle with pure AA guns instead of the happy middle ground that the 50. occupied. Again the U.S. flexing on the world with just how much they could build without breaking the bank.

@eddycolangelo

Жыл бұрын

The simple reality of it is that most nations realized, at some point, that 50 cals were just too small to shoot down aircrafts from the ground/sea, so they all ditched them and built 20mm auto-cannons instead. Being a somewhat more complex, expensive and thus more valuable gun, a 20mm autocannon wouldn't just be thrown around carelessly, instead it would be carefully assigned and used. The US produced a zillion 50 cal M2s as an AA machinegun, but pretty soon into the war the US navy realized that it was inadequate, so they quickly ditched them and desperately asked for oerlikons instead. The US armorers now had a bunch of these huge machineguns they had nothing to do with on their hands Rather than letting them rust away, they just let the US army bolt them on pretty much anything they could. Evidently, that was an excellent idea, as the M2 machinegun ended up being just as ubiquitous as any other normal machinegun but much more heavy-hitting, while still being small enough to be handled by a man. A 20mm autocannon, by comparison, was havier (therefore not as easy to handle, thus they were, more often than not, in some sort of trainable mount, not a simple pintle) and much more expensive (therefore not as common on the battlefield, both the gun itself as well as it's ammo). Other than that, the US industrial capacity was just so big that when it was asked to quickly design/source, retool and start producing the HUGE amount of 20mm autocannons they needed for AA they could just do it, they didn't have to stop producing M2 machineguns to do it, so why would they stop? They just kept building them, an M2 is still better than no M2 afterall, just give them to the army, they'll find some use for them.

@neutronalchemist3241

Жыл бұрын

Actually the Breda 20/65, the Scotti 20/70 and the German 2cm FlaK were double-purpose, AA and AT guns, for wich AP, APE, API and HE rounds were available.

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 ...

@okage6219

Жыл бұрын

Hallo Peter wer wird deutscher meister?

@santossteven97

Жыл бұрын

@@okage6219 Bayern oder Union

@okage6219

Жыл бұрын

@@santossteven97 danke

@santossteven97

Жыл бұрын

@@okage6219 Bitte

@generallawless2669

Жыл бұрын

They didn’t really have the 20mm armored half tracks until right at the end of the war.

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.

@quakethedoombringer

Жыл бұрын

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

@karlwilhelmmeinert7592

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@RouGeZH

4 ай бұрын

Germany was the world's 2nd industrial power in both 1914 and 1939.

@AngelusMortuus

4 ай бұрын

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

@RouGeZH

4 ай бұрын

@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?

I do need to make a minor correction to what you started saying around 4:58. The debate between 12-13mm machine guns and 20mm cannons wasn't due to the latters ability to airburst/proximity burst without directly hitting the aircraft: these kinds of technologies didn't exist until far after WW2, and to this day most aircraft cannons still rely on impact fuses. To airburst a projectile with WW2 technology you would need to manually set a timed fuse, and this is only really practical with large anti-aircraft cannons (e.g. the ubiquitous German 88mm Flak 18) firing at targets from a great distance. The main advantage of explosive vs kinetic projectiles for smaller caliber cannons (e.g. 20mm) is that while a kinetic projectile may punch clean through the wood/aluminum frame of the aircraft and hit nothing vital, an explosive projectile will damage a much larger section of the aircraft because of the radial nature of the explosive force vs. the pinpoint nature of the kinetic force.

I wonder how many viewers are still glossing over the fact that the answer is essentially "because they were too small".

@josevieira5700

Жыл бұрын

.50 fans cant admit to themselves there are better calibers for such roles lmao

@XSpamDragonX

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@jeffkeith637

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@DrKlausTrophobie

Жыл бұрын

Especially one of his intended roles - anti tank - was already obsolete with beginning of WW2.

@leftistsarenotpeople

Жыл бұрын

@@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!

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.

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.

Japan was an axis power who used the Type 3 aircraft machine gun, it's an adapted M2 gun for 13.2 mm rounds. Japanese pilots preferred the Type 3 machine gun over the much lower velocity 20 mm cannons, they said it was like 'shooting piss at the enemy'.

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.

@aidenhall8593

Жыл бұрын

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.

@anteshell

Жыл бұрын

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.

@basedgodstrugglin

Жыл бұрын

Safer* in your tank

@OntarioBearHunter

Жыл бұрын

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

@mlggrievous

Жыл бұрын

@@anteshell better to leave that to dedicated anti-aircraft units with quad .50s in dedicated AA mounts, 37mm guns, and 40mm Bofors.

Another thing to add, especially for aircrafts, is that bombers are like airliners, big hulls of mostly nothing. Meanwhile, small fighter aircraft are jets or turbines with a little bit of wings slapped on them. German air defense needed big guns to shoot down big bombers. A puny little .50 hole wouldn't bring down a bomber, an exploding 20mm or 30mm shell absolutely would. Meanwhile, germany wasn't into bombing much, so american and british aircraft were to defend bombers from german fighters, and against these compact planes that are mostly engine, gun and pilot, a .50 bullet hole was enough, and more lighter ammo was nice.

@20tigerman20

Жыл бұрын

I'd say they were keen on bombing London

@phlodel

Жыл бұрын

The British did have to contend with a bunch of bombers and went to 20mm cannon on their fighter planes. Of course, those 20mm cannon replace .303 machine guns, not 50s.

@travishutchings7068

Жыл бұрын

20mm is more effective against fighters as well. A Hispano Mk.II cannon weighed a little less than twice as much as a Browning M2, but was arguably three times as effective. Filling the wings of a fighter sized aircraft with 6 or 8 M2's came with an enormous weight penalty, while only providing adequate firepower

@EliteNirvana

Жыл бұрын

The Luftwaffe bombed plenty. They just didnt have the capabilities later in the war but from 39 to about 44. Germany bombed alot of enemy targets

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

The USAF kept with .50cals far too late, up past the end of Korea.

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.

Ian, you are a great explainer! Thanks.