Tankers: do you ever change the co-ax machinegun barrel?

kek, barrel change? Whats that? Just change the whole gun.

Actually i was looking up m1919s. Is there a video out there of a 1919a6 barrel change?

Attached: DesertArmor.jpg (2048x1365, 377K)

How much are you going to use the coaxial?

Short bursts is generally how machineguns are used today, we don't NEED water jackets, because we don't use machineguns for repeated long bursts or sustained fire.

>Short bursts is generally how machineguns are used today, we don't NEED water jackets, because we don't use machineguns for repeated long bursts or sustained fire.
Long range area denial against infantry is one of the uses for coax, it might not be used as much as it has been before but it still has its uses.

M1A1'S BMP'S, AND T72'S, I never thought I'd see the day

The water jacket doesn't need to be large when its on a modern vehicle and you can continuously pump it through the radiator.

was thinking that too. Dont think anyones done that so it seems to be a non-issue? Perhaps?

Attached: 1K17SzhatieSovietLaserTank(Requires30KgOfArtificialRubies).jpg (2250x1425, 2.02M)

Probably just for simplicity reasons.

Bumping with t0nks. Anyone ever see any footage of these in action?

Attached: Type60SelfPropelled106mmRecoillessGun.jpg (3072x2048, 1.52M)

I doubt it. Japan cannot export their military tech and those have definitely never fired any shots in anger. Best you could probably do is find some training footage, but those 106mm RRs were pretty common around the world so you could find footage of those for sure.

you clearly have no idea how often barrel changes are performed on modern machine guns lol

>every 2 boxes

Damn. Its more i want to see how the type 60s guns raise to firing position and how they reload in a combat scenario. I imagine it's more shoot n scoot, 2 chances to nail a target, run off to reload/relocate

If pilots hate lasers, then I'm sure tankers do as well

Is it every 2 boxes of sustained fire? I've never seen combat footage with a barrel change. Not saying its never done but ive never seen it.

>seems to be a non-issue?

This is what I think. They aren't broke so there's no point in fixing it- even if it would theoretically provide an advantage.

What really baffles me is why they weren't used more extensively on armored vehicles in WW2. I can understand why they don't use them today, but in WW2 there would have been a huge demand for machine guns, and for the level of technology they seem completely suitable. The British Army for example losing most of their shit at Dunkirk, and presumably having many thousands of Vickers guns leftover from WW1 instead continued to use the Besa in 7.92mm while Vickers were shoveled onto warships only for them to be replaced with more suitable weapons a year later?

The most logical answer is that neither of the nations that had water cooled machine guns in great number- the USSR and Britain- mounted machine guns on top of their tanks until much later. As coaxial they were probably seen as an unacceptable compromise in both internal space and in leaving a gap in the armor. Armoring the cooling jacket would have probably complicated the gun laying mechanism needing either a system of counterweights or a more robust elevation system (as some early British tanks were trained in elevation using a shoulder pad, without any gearing).

Some early designs like the Matilda 1, some of the early Cruiser tanks etc. used water cooled Vickers, but they never stuck with it, eventually shifting design towards the Besa. Once they adopted the Besa, it would be simpler to just accept the barrel wear than re-introduce the problem of having a large hole in your mantlet.

The most prominent vehicle to use water cooled MGs would have been the Universal Carrier, and in that role I don't understand why they weren't continually developed after WW2 for pintle mounting, or for use on light armored vehicle. Likewise it seems like the remote weapons systems in use today would really benefit from water cooling.

put the water jacket ahead of the mantlet, just port a pair of holes for the inlet-outlet hoses if they need to run into or twine with the radiator system

That all makes sense

>require a larger hole in armor
>added complexity
>added weight, i assume water moving around too would be annoying to deal with mechanically

A lot if you're fighting infantry

This is what most did, but then you have to armor it, since you'd still have gap in the armor as large as the receiver of the machine gun. Of course you'd want to protect the water jacket as well. Then you'd need to engineer the gun cradle to pivot without being weighted too heavily to the muzzle. This would have been less significant in later tank designs (which were heavier with more sophisticated elevation controls), but in the very light turrets of early war or interwar tanks it would have been a significant challenge that would be designed out by simply adopting air-cooled machine guns.

It bears mentioning that the Besa left a large gap in the armor as well, which is why the Churchill, Cromwell etc. have those armored protrusions around their coax and bow MGs so it seems like a complete misstep. Ironically the Vickers outlasted the Besa in British service anyways. Britbongs gonna bong.

Attached: 1200px-Vickers_Mark_VI_Base_Borden_Military_Museum_6.jpg (1200x907, 193K)

If you've got that much of an infantry problem you switch to high ex or canister, International Law be damned.

That pic is now my phone wallpaper thank you

Just two guns on a set of treads?

Perfection.

Np, thats a good one. It floats around here a lot. I'd really like to know the original source.

Attached: Berlin1960.jpg (2804x1856, 1.15M)

h-how about 6 guns?

Attached: M50Ontos.jpg (380x326, 42K)

>protective asbestos glove

Attached: 3ec7eaf4d4b30285d84e32d8b5663d83--tuna-dog-tuna-melts.jpg (612x612, 56K)

truly the material of the future

Attached: asbestos.jpg (500x443, 288K)

What part of area denial do you not understand?

It has been done, but not for coaxial. Shilka had 4 20mm water cooled mg's for AA.

Attached: 1499993180070.jpg (1704x1360, 1.46M)

even doing 5 round bursts every 3-5 seconds blows through a box in just a couple minutes.

Regarding the universal carrier.

Why would you have the bren as the primary and an m2/vickers as secondary. Of course for different variants the setup changed but, if I was making the UC as a machine gun platform as it was intended, I would want the primary to be the beltfed and the secondary to be the bren.

Can anyone enlighten me?

Attached: CCEC03BB-5774-4230-B49D-497693BA3593.jpg (671x426, 136K)

I fail to see a down side.

Modern machineguns don't need to be water-cooled to work effectively. They're made with decent materials in the proper shape to prevent barrel heating from being as big of a problem as it was in the days when water-cooled machineguns were a thing.

Could it be loading mechanisms? The bren was loaded from the top, maybe there just wasnt enough space?

The first UC's had a bren. Later versions had a belt-fed machinegun, anti-tank rifles, mortars, etc. Not all on the same vehicle, though.

Have you seen a UC in person? They're criminally small. I can understand why they didn't try to put anything bigger than a Bren on it at first.

Interesting side note: mg34's continued to be used in German armored vehicles well after mg42 production was in full swing for the sake of changing the barrel. An mg34 barrel change is accomplished by twisting the receiver along a pin on the same axis as the barrel and pulling the barrel straight back. The mg42 opens from the side and is pulled back and to the side. In a cramped vehicle compartment, the method of changing the barrel of an mg42 would be much less convenient and necessitated a bigger hole in the armor

This nigger knows his stuff. They even kept the MG34 for the King Tiger for this reason.

Yeah I think my grandfather had one, I’ve seen one but at the time I was a kid so I guess the size wasn’t appreciated.
I didn’t mean I thought that the bren, a mortar, a PIAT and a vickers were on the same machine, though that would be hilariously cramped.