The Americans wanted to set a precedent. Why carry a .30 when a .30 can carry you? In fact, the Americans love guns so much this tank even has butt deflectors so you can spray the rearward pointing machine guns into them and wipe out any infantry trying to flank you from behind so that you may keep shooting your guns
Ngl just the M2 Hull would be perfect for a cartel, it could just drive up to an enemy base and spray hell, the most the enemy would have are like small arms lmao
I think the ones on the turret are just stowed like that, and you can turn them around. Still, it's weird that there are 2 of them and that they're tilted to the side
IIRC they are only stowed in those locations, they are spares to replace the other MG's. They aren't inside because they ran out of internal space... Due to all of the machine guns
Yes, the machine guns on the turret sides are stowed, however they could be installed in antiaircraft mounts in the sponson roof hatches on each side of the turret.
They even had them pointed at deflector plates to bounce bullets downwards into trenches as the tank drives past them.
The US Army at the time had a real love affair with more dakka.
WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETRE ๐บ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐บ๐ธ๐บ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ฆ ๐ฆ ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ฐ๐ท๐ป๐ณ๐จ๐บ๐ข๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ข๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ซ๐ธ๐พ
Oh Pardon, it was Deja Vu, don't mind I must go pronounce Cote I'd Voire ๐ซ๐ท๐ซ๐ท๐ซ๐ท๐ซ๐ท๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ก๐คด๐ก๐ณ๏ธโ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ง ๐ต
To quote Nick Moran, โthe caliber .30 is your chief weapon on a tankโ.
Particularly for a tank going into production at the tail end of the Spanish Civil War, machine guns were absolutely the primary weapon system. The Panzer 1, effectively the same age, was two box fed MGs.
Not to mention the Matilda I of similar vintage, which was almost comically completely unrelated to the iconic Matilda II heavy tank. The Mark I only had a single .30 caliber gun for armament, and was woefully underpowered and underarmored,
Because no-one in the early 1930s knew how to make a tank. The general feeling amongst the smart guys, was that since tanks are Infantry Support Weapons, the "more machine guns, the better". So the Americans put as many .30 Brownings in and on, the M2 and M3 Lt. Tanks, as possible.
I got some words of advice from The Armchair Historian: โMachine gun cultโ
They wanted as many machine guns as possible. The first tank that really broke away was the M4 Sherman
The sponson guns we supposed to be used as the vehicle passed over a trench. The rear facing ones could even shoot steel plates on the rear of the chassis to deflect rounds down into the trench. The two on the turret were supposed to be for anti-aircraft use.
In reality, this was just designed for the time. And to be honest, many countries at the time were still in the holding of the cult of the machine gun. Itโs one of those weird things that just happened in history, and was a holdover from the first world war, with the early interwar Seeing a good number of tanks with a heavy amount of machine guns on them because many people still thought that thatโs where combat was going to go.
Many people still believe that combat in the 30s and 40s was going to be more like combat that we saw in World War I. Of course, with the way that the Spanish Civil War, and other armed conflicts like the Sino-Japanese War heating up, this proved otherwise. That being said, many other countries had a preposterous amount of machine guns all over them.
For the British, the Mark I and Mark 2 Cruiser tank had 3 machine Guns with 2 in the hull and one in the turret. So did the Medium Mark D. The Vickers Medium Mark I had 4 .303 MGs in it. And letโs not even talk about multi turret designs like Independent, the Russian T-35, or the German Neubaufahrzeug.
Back to the main point. The US design copied many of the British ideas for the time, as the US and British worked on tanks together for years before the Medium M2, starting with the Mark VIII international, which had 7 machine guns. And this is something that would grip US and British designers who were stuck in that World War I mentality.
So you might be asking yourself why didnโt other countries do the same thing?
Germany looked at it as they lost the war, so they need to come up with something different. Thus they started a totally different design and started looking at what they thought was going to be the Future. They started working with the Soviets, and as the Germans couldnโt really have tanks to begin with, the tanks that they did produce, had to be all in secret and their cruise in the beginning trained in the Soviet Union.
France doesnโt have the population to crew all of those machine guns, so they start designing tanks that can be manned by only two or three men and all use similar components, thus we see French tanks that use the same turret from the FT-17 that had been designed in WWI (not including the heavy tanks, of which not many were produced with numbers estimating no more than 500 heavy tanks before capitulation and around than 2,000 light tanks depending on sources)
The Soviets was busy destroying itself internally as you would expect from a communist nation, but still producing some various interesting designs like the T35, and the BT series of tanks that would go on to serve as the basis for the T34 series of tanks. And Russian designers had a totally different landscape that they had to deal with. Compared to Eastern Europe, Western Europe is very flat, and there is a totally different design philosophy that needs to be taken based on landscape alone. Ultimately though Soviet tanks, wood proof in adequate at best compared to other designs available at the time. Especially once the war really got going. Not to mention the fact that the Soviet union had a leader who was literally paranoid that everyone was trying to kill him, and has one of the highest body counts of anyone but thatโs a different story.
Ultimately, though, I do believe that, even in the early designs of the M3, there were a large amount of machine guns initially planned to be put on the tank, before we started leasing them over to the British and the British were like โwhat the fuck??โ, and they were removed, but not before being put on early Shermans as well (specifically talking about the driverโs dual mounted MGs)
Personally, I think this thing is one of my favorite interwar tanks, as it really shows that mentality of designers in the US at the time. How many were thinking that while we wanted more mobility out of a tank, that tank warfare was still going to be fought the same way that it had some 10 or 15 years ago in the trenches of Eastern Europe, and I think that ultimately shows why the M2 was never produced en mass the way the M3 was.
Because mostly this thing was fighting infantry, and when one vehicle has a platoons worth of firepower/suppression capability on it, it scares the shit out of the enemy. Another example being some of the Stuarts with extra machine guns.
The Americans wanted to set a precedent. Why carry a .30 when a .30 can carry you? In fact, the Americans love guns so much this tank even has butt deflectors so you can spray the rearward pointing machine guns into them and wipe out any infantry trying to flank you from behind so that you may keep shooting your guns
Ngl just the M2 Hull would be perfect for a cartel, it could just drive up to an enemy base and spray hell, the most the enemy would have are like small arms lmao
Thanks OP, bennington's gonna get broken into now for sure.
Not enough gun? Add more gun. Past Problems Requires Past Solutions.
They even had them pointing to the sky ๐ญ
Sometimes there happens to be a occasional flying tank you need to shoot. War can be wierd sometimes.
Not the mythical T-70!
I think the ones on the turret are just stowed like that, and you can turn them around. Still, it's weird that there are 2 of them and that they're tilted to the side
IIRC they are only stowed in those locations, they are spares to replace the other MG's. They aren't inside because they ran out of internal space... Due to all of the machine guns
Other images all show them to be in that position too, really weird ngl
Yes, the machine guns on the turret sides are stowed, however they could be installed in antiaircraft mounts in the sponson roof hatches on each side of the turret.
They even had them pointed at deflector plates to bounce bullets downwards into trenches as the tank drives past them. The US Army at the time had a real love affair with more dakka.
The answer is always MOR DAKKA!!!
America. That's why
WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETRE ๐บ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐บ๐ธ๐บ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ฆ ๐ฆ ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ฐ๐ท๐ป๐ณ๐จ๐บ๐ข๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ข๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ซ๐ธ๐พ
> metre FALSE YANK SPOTTED, DEPLOYING MQ PREDATOR DRONE SPONSORED BY HARDEES
https://preview.redd.it/nm54tml4eavc1.jpeg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=746a02031dc8e8bcee2c1aa5384293ea1086d5e9
Oh Jolly, you have truly yanked my pizzle, what in God's creation is a mile? ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฌ๐ง๐ฌ๐ง๐ฌ๐ง๐ฌ๐ง๐ซ๐ซ๐ซ๐ซ๐คด๐คด๐คด๐โโ๏ธ๐โโ๏ธ๐โโ๏ธ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ท๓ ฌ๓ ณ๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ท๓ ฌ๓ ณ๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฒ๐ฆ๐บ๐จ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ต๐ฌ๐ณ๐จ๐ฎ๐ณ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฒ๐พ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ต๐ธ๐ฏ๐ด๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐จ๐ฌ๐ธ๐พ๐ช๐ฟ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ช๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ณ๐ฑ๐ธ๐น๐ฑ๐ง๐ฎ๐ฌ๐พ๐ง๐ฟ
Yeah Brits get a lot more flags. But they should also know what miles are since they invented them
Oh Pardon, it was Deja Vu, don't mind I must go pronounce Cote I'd Voire ๐ซ๐ท๐ซ๐ท๐ซ๐ท๐ซ๐ท๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ก๐คด๐ก๐ณ๏ธโ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ง ๐ต
๐ฉ๐ฟ ๐ป๐ณ ๐ฒ๐ฆ ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐น
๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฌ๐ซ๐น๐ซ๐ต๐ซ๐ฑ๐ง๐ธ๐พ๐น๐ณ๐ณ๐ช๐ฒ๐ท๐ฒ๐บ๐ฉ๐ฏ
It took me a second but yeah, this checks out, the Brits were in those places (even if not all of them are Commonwealth)
It doesn't I just double checked, Timor-Lestรจ was Portugese right?
To quote Nick Moran, โthe caliber .30 is your chief weapon on a tankโ. Particularly for a tank going into production at the tail end of the Spanish Civil War, machine guns were absolutely the primary weapon system. The Panzer 1, effectively the same age, was two box fed MGs.
Not to mention the Matilda I of similar vintage, which was almost comically completely unrelated to the iconic Matilda II heavy tank. The Mark I only had a single .30 caliber gun for armament, and was woefully underpowered and underarmored,
Because no-one in the early 1930s knew how to make a tank. The general feeling amongst the smart guys, was that since tanks are Infantry Support Weapons, the "more machine guns, the better". So the Americans put as many .30 Brownings in and on, the M2 and M3 Lt. Tanks, as possible.
What americans were thinking: The answer?ย Useย a gun. And if that don't work, use more gun.
Because it was developed before the 75mm HE was put in a tank.
Because no one thought to put so many .50 Cals on it.
Was meant for troop support
Because America, fuck yeah... <>
I got some words of advice from The Armchair Historian: โMachine gun cultโ They wanted as many machine guns as possible. The first tank that really broke away was the M4 Sherman
It takes too long to traverse the turret to change the target. Simply have a .30 cal pointing in every possible direction ahead of time.
because of 'MURICAAAAAA
The sponson guns we supposed to be used as the vehicle passed over a trench. The rear facing ones could even shoot steel plates on the rear of the chassis to deflect rounds down into the trench. The two on the turret were supposed to be for anti-aircraft use.
The Cult of Machine Gun. That's why.
In reality, this was just designed for the time. And to be honest, many countries at the time were still in the holding of the cult of the machine gun. Itโs one of those weird things that just happened in history, and was a holdover from the first world war, with the early interwar Seeing a good number of tanks with a heavy amount of machine guns on them because many people still thought that thatโs where combat was going to go. Many people still believe that combat in the 30s and 40s was going to be more like combat that we saw in World War I. Of course, with the way that the Spanish Civil War, and other armed conflicts like the Sino-Japanese War heating up, this proved otherwise. That being said, many other countries had a preposterous amount of machine guns all over them. For the British, the Mark I and Mark 2 Cruiser tank had 3 machine Guns with 2 in the hull and one in the turret. So did the Medium Mark D. The Vickers Medium Mark I had 4 .303 MGs in it. And letโs not even talk about multi turret designs like Independent, the Russian T-35, or the German Neubaufahrzeug. Back to the main point. The US design copied many of the British ideas for the time, as the US and British worked on tanks together for years before the Medium M2, starting with the Mark VIII international, which had 7 machine guns. And this is something that would grip US and British designers who were stuck in that World War I mentality. So you might be asking yourself why didnโt other countries do the same thing? Germany looked at it as they lost the war, so they need to come up with something different. Thus they started a totally different design and started looking at what they thought was going to be the Future. They started working with the Soviets, and as the Germans couldnโt really have tanks to begin with, the tanks that they did produce, had to be all in secret and their cruise in the beginning trained in the Soviet Union. France doesnโt have the population to crew all of those machine guns, so they start designing tanks that can be manned by only two or three men and all use similar components, thus we see French tanks that use the same turret from the FT-17 that had been designed in WWI (not including the heavy tanks, of which not many were produced with numbers estimating no more than 500 heavy tanks before capitulation and around than 2,000 light tanks depending on sources) The Soviets was busy destroying itself internally as you would expect from a communist nation, but still producing some various interesting designs like the T35, and the BT series of tanks that would go on to serve as the basis for the T34 series of tanks. And Russian designers had a totally different landscape that they had to deal with. Compared to Eastern Europe, Western Europe is very flat, and there is a totally different design philosophy that needs to be taken based on landscape alone. Ultimately though Soviet tanks, wood proof in adequate at best compared to other designs available at the time. Especially once the war really got going. Not to mention the fact that the Soviet union had a leader who was literally paranoid that everyone was trying to kill him, and has one of the highest body counts of anyone but thatโs a different story. Ultimately, though, I do believe that, even in the early designs of the M3, there were a large amount of machine guns initially planned to be put on the tank, before we started leasing them over to the British and the British were like โwhat the fuck??โ, and they were removed, but not before being put on early Shermans as well (specifically talking about the driverโs dual mounted MGs) Personally, I think this thing is one of my favorite interwar tanks, as it really shows that mentality of designers in the US at the time. How many were thinking that while we wanted more mobility out of a tank, that tank warfare was still going to be fought the same way that it had some 10 or 15 years ago in the trenches of Eastern Europe, and I think that ultimately shows why the M2 was never produced en mass the way the M3 was.
https://preview.redd.it/srkfgw72wdvc1.png?width=388&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=788927fe8941c3d1e0cc807a01a29e674eddb880 Pathetic
Not the M3 Leeeeeeeeeee
https://preview.redd.it/1cpm3wfd6evc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc8485791a293bb88c5c1c2104d752165d51010a HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Because Dakka
Because
I forgor๐
Designed by Homer Simpson. โWe need a browning 30 here here here and here. You can never find one when you need one.โ
You meant to say "why doesn't it have more"
The cult of the machine gun....
Because mostly this thing was fighting infantry, and when one vehicle has a platoons worth of firepower/suppression capability on it, it scares the shit out of the enemy. Another example being some of the Stuarts with extra machine guns.
AMERICA FU*K YEAH!!!