Why tanks don't have a coax HMG?

So for example the Abrams has only one coax (M240) and two CROWS MGs (the loader's M240 and an M2HB on the commander side). However, it's doesn't have a coax HMG - which was added in the TUSK II kit for counter-sniper tasks.

Why is that? I mean with 2x GPMGs and 2x HMG a tank would have a lot firepower against "softer" targets, without resorting to canister, MPAT, or XM1147s.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because if soldiers are within an M2 browning's range away from a tank, that tank has already been blown up by those soldiers

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >M2 Browning
      >Effective firing range: 2km

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Kornet range
        >5km
        Oof

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          XM1147 range 4 - 5 Km
          >oof

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >2A65 MSTA-B range
            >29km
            Nice tank bro

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >M109A7 range
              >40 kilometres
              Nice counter battery work bro (I believe we now go onto rocket based artillery)

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Koksan range
                >90 kilometers
                Nice area vaguely within a 500 meter circle bro

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Paris Gun range
                >120 km
                Nice barrel wear bro

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Paris Gun
                It had significantly more barrel wear than a Koksan, they lasted 65 shots and so much metal was eaten away that each individual round was custom made and numbered as each was slightly larger than the last one.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Impractical to keep that many guns fed

    Increase in firepower negligible when stacked against more ammo for one of the existing guns

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean the coax M240 has 10,400 rounds available. The M2 on top has 1,000 and the M240 on top has 1,400 rnds. That would add maybe another thousand rounds or more in the tank.

      IMHO it's doable... for example the Merkava does have 4 MGs, although 3x M240s and 1x M2

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like the way you think

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Iirc what the Chieftain said about the topic, there are two concerns:
    >internal volume
    >whether you think the gunner's primary sight
    would be more useful with a 7.62 or a .50-cal
    I think he argued (don't quote me though) that the 7.62mm was better for the coax because it gets used more often than the .50-cal does.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >internal volume
      Understandable

      >whether you think the gunner's primary sight
      Care to explain more? (Could be indexed as the 7.62 though)

      >I think he argued (don't quote me though) that the 7.62mm was better for the coax because it gets used more often than the .50-cal does

      Well it's more flexible, although I think the 50-cal would just chop everything

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He was saying if you only have room for one coaxial weapon, you want the one you are likeliest to use be linked to all of the gunner's fancy optics and controls and be available at all times, not just when the commander can spare the time to work the RWS.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I think he argued (don't quote me though) that the 7.62mm was better for the coax because it gets used more often than the .50-cal does.
      feedback from soldiers in WW2 indicated that the M2 browning was better than the co-axial .30 for self-defense purposes and that it was their most effective all-around weapon by far, and this includes the cannon
      the soviets apparently came to the same conclusion with the .50s on their lend-lease M4A2s and post-war tanks had their own 12.7mm for the commander to use when outside his hatch

      a co-axial .50 was used on a few field-modified M4 shermans and by all accounts they were absolutely effective and it was never mentioned why no future tank ever got them
      the reason might be a lack of useable ammo space and nothing else

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a co-axial .50 was used on a few field-modified M4 shermans and by all accounts they were absolutely effective and it was never mentioned why no future tank ever got them
        the reason might be a lack of useable ammo space and nothing else

        Definitely. The roof MGs are the ones with less ammo than the coaxials, and the Sherman had just 600 rounds for the M2 (while it had 6,750 rnd for the 3x M1919)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >feedback from soldiers in WW2

        Hey, you got a link or a source for this? I'd like to give it a read if possible

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the original design period the intended use of a coax was constantly spraying trees and bushes to suppress RPGs. Sniping insurgents wasn't the goal.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And not schwack hordes of commies?

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The french used .50 cal and 20mm coax on the AMX30s, and 50 cals on the leclerc. Purportedly for anti helicopter shenanigans, on the AMX30

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >anti helicopter shenanigans
      This is a good example of when you would make the HMG the coaxial weapon. Going after helicopters flying at low altitude is easiest when you have longer-range, harder-hitting automatic fire that's available as soon as the turret can be traversed, as opposed to as soon as the commander can drop what he's doing, open up the hatch, and get the roof-mounted machine gun into action.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        An M1 (in American service) realistically should never need to engage a helicopter because we have air superiority, and usually establish it before sending in the ground troops.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And you'll note we don't use the M2 Browning as a coax in the M1

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you're saying "frick it" to an obstacle to the point that you're hosing it down with .50 ammo then you can just fling an AMP round through a window or into the side of the structure and vaporize everyone inside. They're in LRIP right now and are only about $15k a piece, when they go into full rate production they will be even cheaper. Sub $10k for the US military is a rounding error

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What about infantry and vehicles that aren't worth throwing an MPAT/AMP/XM1147 at?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What about infantry and vehicles that aren't worth throwing an MPAT/AMP/XM1147 at?

        If you can't kill it with 7.62, but don't wanna shoot 120mm at it then the Brigade CO shouldn't have sent in tanks.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No such thing in a conventional peer war. Tanks are expected to spam everything they see with cannon fire. The point of the coax in that scenario is optimizing for suppression time. You can fit more 762 in the turret than 50.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Dude it has happened since the dawn of time. Regardless of peer or near-peer enemies. It happened with nazis in germany in '45, japs in the jugles, norks in Korea, Vietnam, etc. Hell, we were using sabots to turn haji VBIEDs into stew in Iraq. It has always been the case of spraying the enemy with MGs.

          In a conventional peer war with either the Soviet Union or China, how do you think tanks would've fended off the human waves of commies?

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably a case of the ammo taking up more space internally and by extension you'll have less of it.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what about a middle ground cartridge between 762 and 50 for the co-ax?

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think it makes sense to have only one HMG on a tank because MG's are good enough for a lot of stuff and you can carry so much more ammo.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are higher priorities. Four machine guns instead of three is a negligible improvement compared to sensors and optics and datalinks. There is always a tradeoff and always a budget unless you live in a post scarcity society, which you don't. Not even Star Trek does, and there won't be such a thing until free immortality is invented, because TIME is the ultimate resource.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    An anti-tank team is the same priority as any other thing that can take out a tank, and I can assure you the main gun will be more than sufficient.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hon hon hon

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      See that thin armor plate covered with canvas? There is nothing behind it. Frogs made a tank with a giant hole in the turret front

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't believe you.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >270-490mm KE
          >270-460mm HEAT
          Bro literally anything will go through that

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not like War Thunder anon. You're not gonna aim for a small weakpoint from 1km away. You put the crosshair on center mass.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I want the US to release their testing footage shooting Relikt equipped T90s to make all those armor pen sim channels get BTFO

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >It's not like War Thunder
              >posts other vidia as a proof

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                VBS is also vidya. Your point?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The t90 Bradley video showed that in deed war thunder is shit at predicting outcomes since its made by russians.

              But it also showed that you need to minimise your weak points or you get shredded and that is not some small are to hit. It's right in the middle where you are trained to aim

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because you want to create a beaten zone to surpress infantry at long range. 7.62 is better for that, especially when you consider the limited internal space of tanks.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Armor operates with infantry. Infantry bring their own capabilities. A tank doesn't need to include a kitchen sink because it will doctrinally operate supported by units with the capabilities it lacks. You can mount all the M2s and Mk. 19s you want on HMMWVs (or whatever the army's replaced them with these days). Importantly, many of the units tanks will be operating alongside will already have weapons greater than an M2 anyway.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Armor operates with infantry.
      the M2 was usually used to support the infantry
      the M2 is also used for local defense, easing the burden off the infantry by a bit

      > A tank doesn't need to include a kitchen sink because it will doctrinally operate supported by units with the capabilities it lacks
      except field expedient co-axial .50s were well-regarded by both the crews and the infantry they operated with
      tactical performance was clearly not the issue and logistical or technical ones probably were

      >Importantly, many of the units tanks will be operating alongside will already have weapons greater than an M2 anyway.
      the reason there is a .50 on US tanks to begin with is because the infantry literally cannot get enough of it, since it fills a middle-gap between the .30 and the main gun
      the pintle mount is retained because it fits neatly there and they would shove a .50 in the turret if they could, they just cant for mechanical reasons

  16. 4 weeks ago
    T-I-G-E-R-S

    It's a shit idea. for the coax You want high fire rate and as much ammo as possible.
    >EMBT - less than 700 rounds for coax M2
    > K51 Shitpanther - 250 rounds for coax M2. LMAO

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >K51 250 READY rounds for coaxial 12,7mm gun and 2500 for roof mounted rcws

      A 250 belt is more than enough for a 12.7mm gun you can reload easily. At what point do you fire more than 250 rounds continuesly without fricking up majorly with a gun that can probably hit you in the head from 1,5km away with the first shot.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    .50 cal is for pussies

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because its not ww2 anymore

    It's going to be drones flying on a wire attached to a tank which calculates the hypotenuse so to range find for a 30mm chain gun

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why has nobody mounted a PHALANX to a tank chassis?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cause it weighs over six fricking tons, is unarmoured, and would literally engage everything around it the instant it's turned on

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