Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Hull machine guns

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 7 of 7
  • Message 1.Β 

    Posted by ungodfather (U2173708) on Sunday, 24th February 2008

    Up to the 1950s a hull machine gun was considered essential on all main battle tanks - most AFVs in fact. Early Elefants were highly criticised - and punished - for the lack of one.

    Yet since about the 1050s, just as small man-portable RPGs, LAWs, and other cheap handheld antitank rocket launchers have become ubiquitous, the hull MG has virtually disappeared. Just when you'd think a hull MG would be more indispensable than ever.

    Anyone know why?!

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 24th February 2008

    I would think, (And I may be wrong) drilling a hole in the armour gives you a nice weak spot to aim your A P ammo at. Plus the fact a hull gun can only fire forwards. A gun was on some tanks, mounted along side of the main gun, and that would swing with the turret. I think on most tanks, that has gone as well.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Sunday, 24th February 2008

    The one on the turret has much more freedom.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Sunday, 24th February 2008

    The co-axial, I mean.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 24th February 2008

    The dropping of the hull mounted machine gun after WW2 was down to changing tank designs and the realisation that it did not get used that much anyway. A hull mounted machine gun cannot fire from hull down positions and during WW2 many crews used the space for storage.

    The universal adoption of a sloping glacis plate made the use of a hull machine gun problematical, as Fred pointed out, drilling a hole through your very thick armoured front plate just to mount a machine gun was seen as not worth the effort. Plus it meant that each tank required one less crewmember and gained more space for ammo.

    The main fault with the Elephant tank destroyer was that it had no machine guns at all and so could not engage enemy infantry, not the fact that it simply did not have a hull machine gun.


    All tanks since WW2 have a co-axial machine gun that is mounted alongside the main gun, they are normally of rifle calibre.

    Many nations also fit other machine guns of heavier calibre on top of the turret for use as AA guns as well as for suppressing infantry. The Soviets like heavy machine guns of 12.7mm calibre and the USA with many other use the .5 cal browning. The British and Germans use the 7.62mm machine gun on their turrets for AA defence.


    The Israelis found that they needed more machine guns to deal with infantry ATGW after the Yom Kippur war in 1973, so they use .5 cal machine guns mounted over the main gun and linked to it, which can be fire with the co-axial machine gun.
    Their answer to infantry AT weapons is as you suggest, to mount as many machine-guns a s possible, but all on the turret so that they can traverse and fire from hull down positions.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by ungodfather (U2173708) on Monday, 25th February 2008

    makes sense now, thanks!

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008

    When did the design concept of having a driver at the front by himself become universal?

    I know the Matilda II, the Valentine, the Centurion and the JS series, all dispensed with the bow gunner, however the Comet, Sherman, T34 and the US Patton series of tanks after the war all retained the hull gunner.

    Any idea when it became 'so last week' to have the hull gunner in a design?

    Report message7

Back to top

About this Board

The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

or Β to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The message board is closed for posting.

This messageboard is .

Find out more about this board's

Search this Board

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.