Why does the Abrams have both an M2 and a 240 mounted on top of the turret in addition to the co-ax.

Why does the Abrams have both an M2 and a 240 mounted on top of the turret in addition to the co-ax. Why do most other western aligned nations only mount a 7.62 caliber gun, and former Combloc nations only mount a single 12.7? What made them each choose 7.62, 12.7 or both?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why does the Abrams have both an M2 and a 240 mounted on top of the turret in addition to the co-ax
    the M2 is for the commander, the M240 is for the loader

    >What made them each choose 7.62, 12.7 or both?
    US originally only had the roof .50, which in WW2 onwards was often cited as the most used gun on the vehicle due to being able to hit through brick or sandbags with ease
    the roof mounted .30 is just a standardization of a common field modification, M4 shermans and M48 pattons would often have an M1919 or other medium machine gun strapped to the roof to increase firepower when not using the main gun
    the israelis also followed suit and to an even more extreme degree, with both loader and commander mounts and a third machine gun mounted atop the gun barrel acting as a second co-axial

    the soviets originally didnt even have roof guns in WW2, but added the 12.7mm on top near the end of the war as a means of providing local AA fire
    though the destruction of the luftwaffe meant they used them against ground targets
    they kept them throughout the cold war due to the knowledge the US would often have helos operating in large quantity, necessitating the roof gun

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Apparently the israelis explicitly did the 17 different machine gun bit for suppressing ATGM crews

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can never have enough machineguns

    tbh the commander should get a .50 cal + automatic grenade launcher RCWS, loader gets .50 cal + Javelin RCWS

    Driver gets a twin pintle mounted M240

    .50 cal coax gun replaced by minigun

    There's also a couple of .50 cals on the back

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly replacing the loader's 240 with a Mk19 isn't a bad idea for fighting in built up areas.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Mk19 with coax 240 rcws plus a mossberg pump for drones

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >shotguns for drones
          can't wait for this fuddlore to outlast me

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why does the Abrams have both an M2
        It allows A) the TC to kill anything short of a BMP without wasting a main gun round, B) the TC to kill anything short of a BMP while the gunner focuses on BMP's and up, and C) the TC to help the gunner kill infantry and trucks
        >and a 240
        The obvious reason is for point-defense with the loader. The real reason is that the loader's 240 is a backup coax. It has the same charging cable, lack of a stock, chopped grip, and slim front end (to include lacking iron sights) that the coax does. The handles are on the mount, not the weapon itself, and it can either have the trigger pulled directly or have a removable butterfly trigger attached.
        t. 9 year tanker, current TC

        It's a horrible idea. Frick the Mk19. All my homies hate the Mk19. Also read above about the loader 240 being a spare coax

        https://i.imgur.com/69ikPy8.jpg

        when the Abrams originally came out in 1979 (LRIP) it had provisions for a commander's weapon station aimed via periscope, similar to the M60.
        This was deleted in favor of the flex mount in 1992 (M1A2) but it came back with a vengeance in 2008 (SEP v2) in the form of CROWS.
        The loader's 240 never had such a provision. His station never had a means to fire the 240 from a button'd up position and adding the electronics + screen + controls into that position was likely more difficult to do than the change that the Commander's station saw.

        Actually it also made a comeback as the SCWS on the M1A1 at least as early as the FEP (Marines) and SA (Army). It's basically a flex mount with CROWS-style motors and cameras and I prefer it to the CROWS. Both break all the time but at least the SCWS can be used as a flex mount when it dies.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you can use the CROWS as a flex too, jsyk

          ?si=eJyya-UxUz6W-lA6

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You think I've never done that? Now imagine doing it under threat of direct fire, which is why the CROWS was developed in the first place. In the CROWS II, you will literally be sitting or squatting on top of your hatch. Even in the CROWS-LP, it's better, but you're still halfway outside your hatch. Oh, and the LP has a fraction of the ammo so you're climbing out of the hatch to reload much more often.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              it was always meant as an emergency option, no one ever thought of putting a CROWS on a vehicle and then just using it as a much more expensive flex

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You don't want your mk19 ammo to exolode from nearby explosions.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly replacing the loader's 240 with a Mk19 isn't a bad idea for fighting in built up areas.

      Needs moar dakka

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because moar daka

    But seriously, the tank’s primary weapon has always been its machine guns, not the main gun. 90% of what a tank needs to deal with is going to be soft targets, so the more machine guns the better.

    We unironically had it right with our early tanks. MGs sticking out everywhere. Because why the hell not?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >We unironically had it right with our early tanks. MGs sticking out everywhere. Because why the hell not?
      Inb4 they bring back secondary turrets with an anti-drone 30mm

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's probably going to happen if laser cannons don't get shrunk down to fit on a turret roof first. 30x113 turns out to be a pretty good short-range round; more HE than 25x137, less cartridge and gun weight than 30x173. It obviously has less effective range than either of the newer calibers, but it's good enough for self-defense against FPVs.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think we might essentially revert to the same sort of "strap AA capabilities to every vehicle" mentality of the WWII .50 cal but with small autocannon rcws airburst airburst proximity fused rounds. With all the drone spotted artillery and anti-personel drones it seems like the only fullscale conventional counter is making every vehicle a quasi SHORAD vehicle. I'd argue that that doesn't negate the use of a machinegun, but probably renders multiple machineguns unnecessary.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ....."no"

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              How come?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because in all of warfare, vehicles have rarely ever carried the counter to every system it might face. Tanks have very rarely ever carried weapons explicitly for defense against aircraft, that job has remained for AA units and your own aircraft, not for tanks.
                It's ridiculous from a budget perspective, from a weight perspective, and a crew overload perspective.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is a .50 cal not sufficient to take out your average drone? Especially the alibaba civilian ones

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              how exactly do you expect the average soldier to manually acquire and accurately engage an FPV racing drone?
              1950s solutions aren't going to cut it here.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Stop walking around in open fields and put up bird nets.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Electronics to improve the target acquisition and fire control shouldn't be that heavy, especially compared to the additional weight of an autocannon and its ammo. You can strap the autocannon to a truck or put it in a dedicated vehicle for situations when you really have to concentrate armor at a particular location.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              soviets using the lend-lease M4 found that the .50 was good enough to hit low-flying planes at about 300-400m, though germans were wise to roof-mounted AAs by the time they were widespread and would fly at 500m before diving
              they were much more useful in manchuria, where japanese planes would often fly that low, and they mentioned firing the .50 until the barrel was red from how often they fired it

              drones are smaller than planes but they are also much slower and less erratic in flight, so you shouldnt have trouble hitting one if it was within the combat envelope of <400m

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They stopped doing that because most of them were unusable anyway. Coax, commander's mg, loaders mg are the most sensible. Hull gunner less so and it complicated the armor scheme of modern plates a bit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nine.
      Nine M1919s.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i love the design process for early american tanks
        >we need to be able to shoot machine guns in every direction, including directly downwards to the rear
        >every man needs to have a gun to shoot, including the driver who gets two

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the setup was popularized in itaqistan. all those MGs are fantastic for supressing infantry that have few or no AT weapons. the crew can just chill 8n their armored death box spitting lead and there is not a lot hadjis could do about it

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    oh buddy, you haven't heard?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Yo dawg we heard you like coaxes so we got a coax for your coax

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You are all like little babies, watch this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What is the point of the two Browning's locked in place facing backwards and up on the turret though?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        probably spare guns

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We Americans just love our MGs.

    Anyhow, the .50 is good against anything lighter than an APC but the .30 is actually better against infantry in the open due to a higher rate of fire. Not much better but notably better. .30 cals are also smaller and we couldn't practically fit a .50 in the co-ax slot. The result is that the M1 Abrams is much more effective against infantry, especially in ambush as it can suppress 3 different targets.

    Most NATO members thought of the cupola gun as an after thought so they went with the bare minimum .30 cal. Meanwhile, Russia fell in love with the .50 cal during WW2 and started making their own version and attached it as an AA gun. Unironically.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why doesn't the 240 get the cool new low profile crows? Having your top half stick out of a tank so it can get shot doesn't sound fun.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      when the Abrams originally came out in 1979 (LRIP) it had provisions for a commander's weapon station aimed via periscope, similar to the M60.
      This was deleted in favor of the flex mount in 1992 (M1A2) but it came back with a vengeance in 2008 (SEP v2) in the form of CROWS.
      The loader's 240 never had such a provision. His station never had a means to fire the 240 from a button'd up position and adding the electronics + screen + controls into that position was likely more difficult to do than the change that the Commander's station saw.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The original designs that would mature into the M1 toyed around a lot with a 20mm cannon for engaging light targets in addition to the main gun. I imagine the .50 was a compromise after they were not able to get the 20mm in a reasonable form factor for mounting it.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the cult of the machine gun never really died

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You could mount anything on top of any tank. 50cal has anti-vehicle use and 240 is preferred against just people.

    Coax is 7.62mm and the most accurate and longest range due to using the Gunner's sight.

    Roof MGs are cheap and easy, don't overthink it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I understand the usefulness of the .50, my question is why the US chose to have it and the .30 while other countries only choose one or the other. Why wouldn't the Leopard, Leclerc, Challenger, Type 10 all have a .50 too instead of just the single .30.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        actually, the Leclerc and Type 10 do have 50 cals
        the Challenger has an optional 50 for the RCWS

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, I guess I'm just dumb and assumed they didn't. So is it mainly just the Leopard without a .50?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            pretty much, yeah.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I understand the usefulness of the .50, my question is why the US chose to have it and the .30 while other countries only choose one or the other. Why wouldn't the Leopard, Leclerc, Challenger, Type 10 all have a .50 too instead of just the single .30.

          The Leclerc has a 12.7 coax and a roof mounted 7.62 (replaced by a RCWS in newer versions). Don't forget that there is only 3 crew members in a Leclerc, and that the AMX30 used to have a 20mm coax cannon.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >CROWS
    There's still a benefit to have the TC, loader or both with head, ears and eyes outside the top of the tank to see and spot for the driver and gunner.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The future Abrams will have have a RWS packing a M230LF that can be controlled by the commander or with auto-tracking via radar.
    It'll be used for fricking up infantry, light cover, drones, and C-RAM duty.

    oh, and a co-axial for the gunner i guess.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *