How come the Soviets were obsessed with putting rear facing machine guns on their heavy tanks when pretty much nobody else bothered? Were they actually useful?
>>65556654Their tanks early on were expected to be essentially a mobile pillbox and would often work without infantry close by. They got raped in Finland partly because of this thinking, and a good solution is a rearward Mg to prevent infantry from sneaking up beside the vehicle, its the same reason it has gun ports on the side for a pistol, to keep infantry at bay youself.
Guess it makes people flanking behind you think twice.
>>65556678>its the same reason it has gun ports on the side for a pistol, to keep infantry at bay youself.That seems like it would be really ineffective at threatening infantry closing in on you.
>>65556683It could keep them off of the tank, if you had a suitable smg inside, that would work way better. At this point as a designer I would just put a turret on top of the commanders cupola like an M48.
>>65556678It would also allow, in the event of trench warfare, for your tank to clear both sides of a trench it was rolling over
>>65556683The Germans also had a series of impossible to pronouce systems that were essentially self-defense mortars on many panzers
>>65556691The Soviets were getting there design wise. Twin stockless PPSHs in this cupola
>>65556718
Rear facing MG could sweep an area you drove through. You could also point the turret backwards, protect the main gun, and advance through solid cover while firing at anyone on the other side. Then you get some truly silly stuff like the M2 medium, early M4, or prototype IS-7 that put MGs wherever so you could hose down basically any angle. Or have the driver start wiggling the hull while firing.
>>65556718>>65556724I hate it
>>65556691>>65556718
>>65556678>They got raped in Finland partly because of this thinking, and a good solution is a rearward Mg to prevent infantry from sneaking up beside the vehicleThe T-28's had rear turret MGs before they went into Finland though, as did some of the T-26's (IIRC), and the KV prototype the Red Army used in the Winter War. Turns out it's not a a very good substitute for infantry cover because you can't see shit from inside the tank when buttoned up.
>>65556654Right that's not for machine gunning their own troops, I mean who'd do that?
IS-2 and early T-54 models were equipped with hull fixed machine guns. Even if the aim wasn't precise, the suppressive effect of the gunfire on enemy infantry was likely significant.
>>65556654>How come the Soviets were obsessed with putting rear facing machine guns on their heavy tanks when pretty much nobody else bothered?It is the second most vulnerable part of the tank (the first place would be the top of the tank; attacks from above work great).>Were they actually useful?Meh. In theory, having more ways to keep enemy infantry away from you is always good. However, it just isn't as effective as being protected by friendly infantry.
>>65556654how else will they kill the infantry following behind them?
>>65556707Ah yes the nahverteidigungswaffe. The spelling of that word has actually been etched into my brain after I first encountered it looking up the tank stats on my dad’s old Combat Mission computer game and immediately going “wtf is that”?
>>65556725>early M4I forgot how many hull guns it had. The T1/M6 also had a mess of different MGs on the front and turret. They really liked their fucking machine guns.
>>65557159You can definitely see the relation between the M3 Lee and M4 there. Tall form, cupola gun, size hatches. As well as the M4's initial idea to have a quick change mantlet to swap the gun.The T6 looks goofy, but I do really like the M4A1 that rolled out.
>>65557159>>65556725My favorite thing about the M2 is the absurd bullet deflector plates to allow them to shoot people who've ducked behind the rear of the tank
I also like the Japanese tanks that had the gun in the back of the turret.
>>65556678>a good solution is a rearward MgWe know it isn't, anon and we know Finland didn't cause tge design quirk.Why lie?>>65556707The difference is that those actually kinda worked. Not amazingly but they were actually used and had the intended effect.
>>65556691Krumlauf. Lmao.
>>65556654>How come the Soviets were obsessed with putting rear facing machine guns on their heavy tanks when pretty much nobody else bothered? >Has bustle>Hasn't yet figured out how to use the space properly>What to do?>IDEA>WHAT IF WE COULD SHOOT PEOPLE BEHIND US???>GENIUS!
>>65556654Beacause the normal tactic at the time was for tanks to roll over trenches and someone deduced that the tank's rear might be vunerable to the current occupiers of said trench.
>>65556654>How come the Soviets were obsessed with putting rear facing machine guns on their heavy tanks It was invisoned as trench clear. Tank rolls over trench, turns turret to the side, coax swipes trench on one side, rear turret in the other side.BTW German panzegrenadiers cleared trenches somewhat similar, they parked Hanomag half track over a trench than cleared it shooting over tip with MGs, SMGs and throwing nades without dismounting.
>>65556654I think the Japanese did it too.
>>65556654To shoot deserters.
>>65557791>Hasn't yet figured out how to use the space properlyi guess an mg is cheaper than a radio
>>65560404this is a really neat illustration
>>65556654Everybody had those at the time.
>>65560404This gives me inspiration for some weird wargaming model where its 2 guys with exosuits wearing a turret like this as some infantry fire support unit.
>>65560521Bustles are best used for ammo storage. Massive ROF gain and clears hull space for other shit.
>>65560404The Type 97 tank machine gun itself is really interesting. Japan starting to make the switch towards their 7.7 ammo, and a lot of features to try to make it efficient for usage inside of a tank. Protective jacket for the barrel, stock slightly adjustable for length or rotating forward when in the mount, scope on the left and offset iron sights on the right, attachable bipod for dismounted use. They clearly put a lot of thought into it.
Before that, the Japanese were using Type 11s, designated Type 91. Still in 6.5 and using the hopper feed, which must have been a real pain in the ass in a moving vehicle. Seen some different photos showing them with/without the usual stock or different grip shapes.
>>65556654I might be wrong about this but I heard that some tanks had the rear mg is because there wasn’t enough room to mount them co-axial but they still wanted an mg
>>65557361Some Jap tanks were absolutely hilarious with machine guns pointing at seemingly random directions.
>>65556654So they can shoot anyone who retreats
>>65556678>They got raped in Finland partly because of this thinkingThis is also why they were obsessed with drum mags. Fins had them and really bloodied them, therefore they just needed to get drums of their own.
>>65556779T-26 Mod. 1398 did in fact have the rear facing machine gun, or at least the ball mount for it. Pic related.The Soviets understood their need for them before the Winter War, but most of the T-26s certainly didn't have them. Not that it would have mattered much, what with a two-man turret.
