Questions on tanks -- AA machineguns & "special" ammunition

[Teutonic]

First off, to what extent were AA machineguns used on tanks? Were they standard issue? Did it vary between models? Was there any difference in commonality between the various nations waging war? And in what types of situations were the AA machineguns used?

Moving on to "special" ammunition... To make myself clear, by "special" ammunition, I'm referring to APCR & HEAT (that I have at least gotten the impression were rarer than standard AP and HE shells). How common were they and in what types of tanks? For a tank that had, say, 100 shells, how many were APCR & HEAT and, while we are at it, standard AP and HE too for that matter? How much did this vary between the main combatants (Germany, USSR, USA, UK)?

I hope I didn't come across as overly demanding there. It is just that it is very hard to find out about small details like this. It would be highly appreciated if someone could help out.

/Teutonic

[Kelvin]

Installation of AA MG in tank was not a common practise in WWII. I have seem some optional AA MG in Panther tanks and some deployment in late WWII in Wehrmacht. and Never see in allies as they had air superiority. Fixed AA MG only appeared in tank after WWII. e.g. M1A2 had fixed 12.7 mm AA MG and Russian T-72 only had fixed 12.7 mm while German Leopold and British Challenger had fixed 7.62 mm AA MG.

[lwd]

Most of the referenes I look at show the Sherman as haveing a 50cal AA mg. Availability of "special" ammo was quite varryable from what I've read.

[Tom Houlihan]

and Never see in allies as they had air superiority.

I have to disagree with that statement. Most American vehicles had an MG mount, usually a .50. While nominally for AA defense, they were mostly used against ground targets.

[Commissar D, the Evil]

From the accounts I've read, MG mounts for anti-aircraft defense were regarded as next to useless by panzer crews, but the it may be that the theory behind them as the general rule that infantry were supposed to fire at aircraft with their rifles: it wa better for morale if the troops at least were able to shoot back!

As for this:

Moving on to "special" ammunition... To ... USA, UK)?

Those are really good questions and quite within the knowledge of certain forum members--the problem is that it's too much for a single question. Different tanks had different ammunition capacities and, aside from ammunition loads varying by mission and availability, there was the simple but basic point that most tankers, if they could, would always stuff as much ammunition into their "wagen" as they could carry, despite regulations.

So, if you want to receive detailed answers, you have to ask more precise questions. This is not a criticism, it's just written out of my years of experience on several forums.

Best,
~D, the EviL

[ReinhardH]

What I'm curious about is if the "AA" is reference to "anti-aircraft", or "anti-armor"? So far, I thought "AA" meant only "anti-aircraft".
Reason I ask is because dad served in a unit near the end of the war that was equipped with two types of anti-aircraft guns that were also used against armor when necessary - the 3.7cm Flak43, and the 2cm flak, both of which were mounted on lightly armored tracked vehicles. Didn't both of these guns have a rapid rate of fire?

[Tom Houlihan]

Both of those weapons were designed as antiaircraft guns. Then again, so was the 88, and look what it did at Arras! Both of those weapons were quite effective against lightly- or unarmored vehicles or troops.

[ReinhardH]

After posting my prior comment, I thought I'd misread the original post but no longer was able to edit..

Perhaps the original post was more in reference to AA guns mounted on armored tracked vehicles, instead of just small caliber MG's? That's why I mentioned the 3.7 and 2cm flak.

The P-47 Thunderbolt was a frequent 'visitor' to dad's unit when it was on the move ... concentrated small arms fire from everyone on the ground using their hand-held weapons was about the only way to even come close to getting a bead on those fast-moving planes!

[Commissar D, the Evil]

Hi!

Well, it's all a matter of range, rate of fire and hitting power. Your average MG lacked those three ingredients to make it a consistent AA gun, the caliber of its bullet was too small--7.92mm. By comparison, the American .50 cal. fired a 12.7 mm. shell and four of them were mounted on halftracks for AA use, just as the Germans mounted four 20mm guns for the same purpose on halftracks.

I don't have the stats with me, but a quad 20mm puts out a lot of heavy rounds in a minute. The 37mm is slower firing but has a much heavier "punch" per shell than the 20mm and, I believe, a longer range.

My guess is that against "Jabos", infantry fired whatever they had, but optimally, a 20mm would be perfect against a strafing, low altitude attack, because you could put more heavy metal into the air, while a 37mm would be best against a fighter flying at higher altitudes, before it made its strafing or bombing run, since one hit from a 37mm should be enough to put most down.

Best,
~D

[ReinhardH]

lol, the problem with the Jabos was that they were there and gone within seconds! … far too little time for flak to react (unless by pure chance it was already pointed somewhere along the route of the plane;)
I honestly do not know if allied aircraft carrying out low level attacks were even armed to make more than one pass against ground targets, but pap did say that the best way to make sure a pilot didn't return for a second pass was for everyone on the ground to shoot at the plane with their own weapons :)

[lwd]

I've read in a number of places where it was stated the first plane on a strafing run often got a free ride. In his autobiography Johnston (sp?) mentions using this to his benefit once. He had a German fighter on his tail that he couldn't shake. He was down on the deck and passed over a German airfield. When he did he triggered his mgs. I don't think he hit anything but the airfield AAA was alerted by his fire and got the next plane which turned out to be his LW persuer.

[ReinhardH]

..so apparently AA guns were able to be aimed at targets like that pretty fast after all! I'll bet it didn't take long for those batteries on the ground to go 'uh oh' after they saw what happened...

[lwd]

By that point in time the German AA gunners had a fair amount of experiance I beleive and it's very likely they were already on alert. A moving colum might be a bit slower to react but even there most with any combat experiance at all would likely have seen enemy planes on one front or the other.