Firing MG42 through barrel of Ferdinand?

[aktionman]

even if the mg fits in the barrel and you say you can aim, the barrel is 8.8 cm wide, but 600cm long!

if you look thru a tube of 8/600 at the end all you see is a little bright circle as big as a finger

Perhaps only the main gun sights were used and not the MG sights. From another source:

"... Ferdinand crews were firing MG 42 machine guns down the barrels of the main gun while the gunners searched out groups of Russian infantry with the main gun sights..." - http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger-variations.htm

 

[mat69]

[...]
If anything you get off YOUR high horses declaring accounts veryfied multiple times as hoax while having never been in the military, nor having any firearms experience whatsoever.
[...]

If you mean me (well "you", "your" ... is not so obvious) with that part of your post than you should improve your reading skills, because that is not what I posted.

 

[KrazyKraut]

I didn't mean "you".

 

[thedonster]

Oh okay, I'm the asshole now for actually having some experience with said gun (or a derivate), while most of you (with exceptions) are talking out of your behinds. And I'm not even riding on a high horse here, I'm simply annoyed by people from a game community who question accounts like these just because it doesn't fit their pc game spoiled perception of firearms and military in general. If anything you get off YOUR high horses declaring accounts veryfied multiple times as hoax while having never been in the military, nor having any firearms experience whatsoever..

So, exactly who are you addressing there, and what is your basis for claiming no military or firearms experience? It seems to me the majority of posters on these forums have at least some firearms experience, and many have military experience. What military did you serve in, and why do you think that makes you so much better qualified than the rest of us?
Also, what are your "accounts veryfied [sic] multiple times"? So far, we have one source, an SS propoganda officer. That's not exactly reliable now, is it? So, if you have other sources, please list them. Also see Mat69's post on page 1 of this thread about "multiple sources".
Unless you can answer these questions in a specific way, you need to reconsider just who is "talking out of his behind".

 

[Sichartshofen]

How hard is this to understand? It is possible to fire a machine gun down the barrel of a cannon with a diameter of 88mm. It will probably screw up the rifling but it is possible. When you are in a tank with no close defense capabilitiy you will do anything necessary to defend yourself.

This is not some ridiculous claim like a PTRD blowing up a Ferdinand.

 

[Rss]

How hard is this to understand? It is possible to fire a machine gun down the barrel of a cannon with a diameter of 88mm. It will probably screw up the rifling but it is possible. When you are in a tank with no close defense capabilitiy you will do anything necessary to defend yourself.

This is not some ridiculous claim like a PTRD blowing up a Ferdinand.

Soviets called all SPGs and assault guns "Ferninands".

 

[Bolt]

About that PT rifleman - he probably destroyed Hetzer. In a few moments I'll try to give you some proof.

 

[SchutzeSepp]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazyKraut
[...]
If anything you get off YOUR high horses declaring accounts veryfied multiple times as hoax while having never been in the military, nor having any firearms experience whatsoever.

[...]

I think he means me

KK, think you don't undersstand my point by saying i declare those proven"facts" as hoax
if you look back, you will see i never even said it was impossible or not true, all i did was question it's utility.

what i was mad about, is that you have made it clear that you consider yourself superior to others, and that our opinions don't count.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazyKraut
I wonder why everyone here thinks he knows better

Sorry, but this is the typical computer gamers talk that think they know better than real soldiers. Armchair generals at their best.

 

[Bolt]

Here's the original.

Когда я показал Владимиру Матвеевичу фотографии немецких САУ и попросил его выбрать тот самый уничтоженный ими "Фердинанд" он указал на Хетцер. Однако, Хетцер немцы начали выпускать во второй половине 1944 года и таким образом в Марте их не было на Украине. В этом случае разумно предположить, что уничтоженная парой Малышев-Зимаков САУ была Jagdpanzer IV . К сожалению, в тот момент у меня не было ее фотографии, но по силуэту напоминает Хетцер и к тому же выпускалась с января 1944 г.

When I have shown Vladimir Matveevich photos of German SPG and asked to choose that "Ferdinand" destroyed by them, he had chosen Hetzer. However, Germans have started to make Hetzers in second half of 1944 and thus in tha March it couldn't be in Ukraine. In this case it is reasonable to assume, that destroyed by pair Malyshev-Zimakov SPG pair was Jagdpanzer IV. Unfortunately, during that moment I did not have its photo, but its silhouette reminds Hetzer and besides was issued since January, 1944

 

[SchutzeSepp]

Perhaps only the main gun sights were used and not the MG sights. From another source:

"... Ferdinand crews were firing MG 42 machine guns down the barrels of the main gun while the gunners searched out groups of Russian infantry with the main gun sights..." - http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger-variations.htm

this is the only effective way i see this technique could be used, but again it would only work at medium to long ranges.
and the tank would have to be stuck, broke, out of ammo or out of fuel. because i see no logic reason why a good tank commander would use such a risky technique with a tank in perfect condition, and tell everybody afterwards. while he could have damaged his barrel.
i also don't see how it could be used in a desperate attempt in close defense, if a ferdinant is stuck without any infantry support so that it is forced to use the mg42 in such a way with enemy infantry close to it, then i don't think the crew would have lived to tell the story

 

[thedonster]

Perhaps only the main gun sights were used and not the MG sights. From another source:

"... Ferdinand crews were firing MG 42 machine guns down the barrels of the main gun while the gunners searched out groups of Russian infantry with the main gun sights..." - http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger-variations.htm

Again, no source is listed for this story, so it it very possible that it is just a regurgitation of Paul Carrel's dubious propoganda, as per Mats69's post on page 1 of this thread. So far I only seen one "source" for this story, and given the nature of that source I think it has to be considered a fable unless another, more reliable source is quoted.
If they were using the main sights at substantial range I suspect they would just fire HE rounds using the main gun. This would obviously be far more effective.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

ok people i think we know this happened or could have happened, one other thing i want to clear up is all this tank about messing up the barrel rifeling. seriously, im not in the buisness of making tankguns, but ive heard the extreme quality of the materials going into making one, and i would have doubts that a small rifle calliber bullet could damage a barrel meant towithstand the force of an 88mm shell flying out and the built up gass pressure behind it. sure it might scratch your rifelings up a bit, but other then that i cant see a small 7mm bullet doing damage to the rifeling.

now on to the things of war, please people, when your despirate to live, you do weird things, now if you dident want to stick your head out the top of your retreating tank, and the infantry were running straight at your tank, and you knew they were going to pour some gasoline in your tank and light you all on fire WOULD YOU NOT RAM THAT #@$%^@#^@^ MACHINE GUN DOWN THAT BARREL AND START FIRING LIKE MUNKS YOUR UNCLE!?! if not then dont go join the army, its ususaly the scared guys that get everyone else killed because they cant do their job and they care about themselves instead of the team.

EDIT: to the above poster, tanks dident alway have a full complement of ammunition, and the commander of the tank might have chosen more anti tank ammunition like ap , apcr , apds. (ETC) ammo for his tank instead of HE's.

 

[SchutzeSepp]

i also have no idea about the damage MG42 bullets could do to a barrel, but the inside of the barrel is profiled, so bullets could possibly damage the profile or break pieces of it.
anything can happen...

 

[haoN <-]

i'm just stating my opinion: it happened

why? i would do it in really bad situations too!
thank you

 

[DAT]

I seriously doubt an elefant would even have a MG42 available. Maybe a MG15 or MG34. Also just to even spray and pray with it firing down the barrel you would have to pivot the vehicle to even aim on the azimuth. Also... enough!!! it is so silly that this rumor has even made it into print!

 

[RedOctober]

I seriously doubt an elefant would even have a MG42 available. Maybe a MG15 or MG34.

The MG 15/17 is a Luftwaffe aircraft gun used on fighters and bombers. I doubt that it was used on the Elefant tank:

When later in the war the Luftwaffe no longer needed it's 7.9mm aircraft machine guns (7.9mm was considered obsolete as aircraft armament and the smallest caliber guns were henceforth 13mm and 15mm machine guns) they were given to ground troops, mainly the field units of the Luftwaffe, because the german ground forces suffered from a shortage of machine guns since production of the MG 34 and MG 42 could never meet the demand. Reworking the aircraft machine guns for the ground role began no later than 1942 and involved new sights, a shoulder rest, provision for mounting the weapon on the standard MG - tripods or a bipod, spent cartridge deflector and carrying sling. Official number of MG 15 was 17,648 and of MG 17 was 24,271 in 1944; it is unknown how many of these had been already converted to ground use.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

I seriously doubt an elefant would even have a MG42 available. Maybe a MG15 or MG34. Also just to even spray and pray with it firing down the barrel you would have to pivot the vehicle to even aim on the azimuth. Also... enough!!! it is so silly that this rumor has even made it into print!

the first part about it being a mg34 is true, as that is what was given to tanks, as i said earlier. but the rest is toilet material, ive read stories of this happening, and you obviously dont know that much, the ferdy had 25 degrees of barrel radius, so they wouldent nessicarily have to turn the tank. and , it happened, dont be a dipwad.

 

[DAT]

Not sure where the dipwad came into play but yes most assault guns had to have some azimuth (traverse) movement in the case of the elefant it was only plus or minus 12.5 degrees which is small considering the arc of fire out beyond 100 meters. ALso how would one even stabilize it in the breech to fire? silly but sorry if I came across as a dipwad.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

your first post there seemed a little like a cs kid screamin it never happnened because he said so!!111eleventyelevenand1!

stabelizing a mg in the barrel wouldent be that hard, its the same thing as stabelizing a machinegun deployed on something while standing...

 

[mat69]

[...]
stabelizing a mg in the barrel wouldent be that hard, its the same thing as stabelizing a machinegun deployed on something while standing...

I doubt that you can press your body against the MG while in the barrel, so it would be harder to fire, not the same, but nevertheless possible.