Sherman .50 cals

[Heedless Horseman]

Hm. Just WHERE did they stick those MGs? Google M4A3 and images show them all over the place...even 'Blueprints'! Between the hatches, slightly back or much to the rear? Central or offset? Some positions look totally impractical as they would block hatches...others 'just look wrong'. I know they were not always mounted but US tanks look 'American' if they tote extra firepower! Brits, I leave them off.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

They were often in a ring mount around the commanders turret.
I suspect it was a case of wherever it was welded by the mechanics.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Official location - on 75mm turrets is in a pivot mount to the front of the commanders hatch. Not liked since it restricted access for bail out, and made the commander very exposed when using. On the T27 - 76mm turret it was to the rear, again on a simple pivot mount. This removed the access problem, but the user had to get entirely out of the turret to use it.

IanS

[getagrip]

Official location - on 75mm turrets is in a pivot mount to the front of the commanders hatch. Not liked since it restricted access for bail out, and made the commander very exposed when using. On the T27 - 76mm turret it was to the rear, again on a simple pivot mount. This removed the access problem, but the user had to get entirely out of the turret to use it.

IanS

I think you can see an example of that in one of the "Band of Brothers" episodes.

[Westmarcher]

Interesting question I've never previously considered. However, not entirely clear to me why another forward firing MG was needed when you have one in the turret and another in the hull. Furthermore, if it was intended to supplement the existing MGs, why would anyone site this third one in such a manner as to expose the gunner/commander when so near the enemy?

Presumably, therefore, its primary purpose was AA so its location was (finally) picked more for convenience (than with a forward firing configuration in mind)? Of course, given the lack of aerial targets, like many AA weapons, that did not stop it being used for land combat.

[toxicpixie]

"Hard mounted" tank MGs proved surprisingly unhelpful in suppressing enemy infantry. You can't really see where to shoot, and probably can't traverse to bear on them anyway even you could. That's been borne out over the last sixty years, and doubly so in urban or close terrain. We've moved a bit beyond festooning everyone's hatch with MGs now, as remote operated weapons mounts or ones in "mini turrets"/protected or covered positions are actually really viable. See the transition from bodging a fifty cal on a hatch to the M113 ACAV to something like the Abrams TUSK upgrade package or current H-APC designs from the Israelis and Russians...

Although no matter how good the remote systems are these days nothing beats sticking your head out the hatch - the extent the Israelis install bullet proof glass cupolas on some H-APCs despite advanced sensors and tele-operated weapon mounts etc etc!

[DanJ]

I think that I read somewhere that the British armoured divisions in Western Europe gave their tank mounted 50s to their infantry on the basis that the infantry needed the extra firepower.

From a purely practical point of view I'd have thought that a tank commander would have better things to do with his time than fire a heavy machine gun.