Comments by "mpetersen6" (@mpetersen6) on "Ask Ian: Why No German WW2 50-Cal Machine Guns? (feat. Nick Moran)" video.

  1. Sounds like a good point. Where US infantry and armored divisions had the M2 76mm and the organic division artillery assets and TDs along multiple independent artillery battalions/groups firing 105mm, 155mm (both howitzers and field guns) and 8 inch. Never mind air support which while it might not have actually knocked out that many tanks sure the hell shot up the logistics. A tank without ammo or fuel is just as effective as one that is a burned out wreck. I wonder how many Tigers or Panthers broke down between the factory and the train to shipped out on.
    317
  2.  @justnsaliga8518  The M4s not starting when being off loaded was probably due more to dead batteries than anything else. At US factories building tanks I would expect the majority needed to be driven on to the rail cars in the plants shipping yard. Not a complete test by any means but you do know the damn thing runs at least.
    9
  3. Being in effective range of most anything can be a significant emotional event. Even the Rock, M1, Antitank.
    7
  4. And now new for th he 2023 model year. The pintel mount is standard equipment on every Rhino 1/2 ton pickup. Ring mount optional. See your local Rhino dealer for more details.
    6
  5.  @RMJTOOLS  Better a pair of remote operated 20mm turrets from the B-36
    4
  6.  @RMJTOOLS  Mabe initially but the production models along with the YB-60s had twin 20mm. The turrets were mounted on frames that swung down or up after the covering doors retracted out of the way. The Soviets actually kept dorsel mounted turret mounted defensive cannon in use longer than the USAF did.
    2
  7.  @samoldfield5220  The quad 50 or the quad 20mm would be very effective in forcing enemy infantry to ground.
    2
  8. Just my opinion but the USAAF or the USN BuOrd should have put more effort into producing a domestic version of the 20mm Hisso autocannon. The effort on the part of GM (Buick iirc) was lacking. I was watching a video on Soviet efforts to develop first recoilless and then auto cannon for aircraft use starting in the prewar period. In various calibers. They really did develop so very good auto cannon in 23mm and 37mm. Their 37 had a much high muzzle energy than the M4 (1) used in the P-39. For ship board AA use the USN had the 20mm Orliken. Which was a little heavy for aircraft use. 1) Theres that pesky M4 again
    1
  9.  @colonelsmith7757  One aspect about US tank production vs Germany or even Britian. When parts gog to the assembly station for those assembly operations they fit. No filing or grinding required. The main US tank, the M4 in all of its various guises was pretty much a world beater when introduced. By '45 it was showing its age but still doing the job for the most part. But even when the M26 finally got to Europe it proved to be vulnerable to the 8.8 cm. But as Col Moran has pointed out in his own videos there were other factors involved in building the M4. Mainly shipping the damn things from the factories to the ports and overseas. Too bad there weren't more Roll On Roll Off type bulls available. Plus you have to add in the bridging equipment the engineers had.
    1
  10. So we have the Coastal Artillery Branch and the US Post Office to thank for the survival of two American icons. The .50 BMG and the Thompson
    1