Re: Do modern tanks feature hull mounted machine-guns?


"Doug" <pigdos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:x8uXe.263$G64.197@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> My brother (ex-USMC) seems to think that modern tanks (e.g. M1 Abrams) do
> not have hull-mounted machine-guns. So, do they?
>
No. Off the top of my head, I think that the last MBT with a hull-mounted
machine gun was propably the M-47 or M-48.
Tanks with a Hull-mounted machine gun typically had a five-man crew --
commander, gunner, loader (or assistant gunner), driver, and assistant
driver. Early tanks often required a lot of physical force to shift gears,
and, given that one needed an extra crew member, it made sense to give him a
machine gun to operate. However, modern tanks don't have the assistant
driver, thus no need for a hull-mounted MG.
Soviet tanks tended to have smaller crews, with, during WWII, the commander
being the gunner (which is a bad idea for command and control), and
post-WWII the use of an automatic loader.
> One other question: how does the Israeli Merkava stack up against modern
> tanks? I had thought the Merkava had the thickest frontal armor plate of
> any
> MBT out there.
>
> --
> there is no .sig
>


.