Just watched a video on M231. With the firing port blacket over on M2 A2/A3 Bradley, I wonder
if the weapon is still in use, e.g. with the rear ramp firing ports.
1 Like
No, haven’t been in a long time. They were pretty useless. The ports in the ramp are there, but in the A2’s at least it was used to toss butts out when the ramp was up.
5 Likes
At 1200 rds/min, it would only be a waste of ammo. and I guess with the vision port off the line-of-sight, it would be hard to aim. Spray-and-pray?
1 Like
It was to be loaded with 100% tracer rounds and aimed through the periscope, more or less how the ball mounted and fixed hull MGs were used up until the M47.
KL
2 Likes
I love that the United States Army had to field a special weapon just to fire out of a pistol port, that they manufactured over 100,000 of them, that it did not really work, that no one seriously trained on the thing, and that it was probably never used. That is the good idea fairy at her very best.
I am kinda kidding. My knowledge of this weapon amounts to three articles I just read. They were definitely not written by subject matter experts. It does bring up something I wondered about for a long time. Were pistol loopholes and pistol ports effective? I know American M4 mediums had them, then did not have them, then had them again because soldiers complained. If I recall correctly, German troops also complained when pistol ports disappeared. It must be very difficult to aim a shot out of the small ones.
1 Like
The M231 design in the original M2 Bradley was in response to the BMP-1 having port guns. The port guns on the BMP are just as ineffective and no longer used either.
At the time (early '60s), the BMP was a game changer and a totally new idea; an Infantry Combat Vehicle that a squad could fight from within and have some protection from small arms. It drove the development of the Bradley to become what it was. The port guns were a good idea that didn’t really pan out.
2 Likes
That is really interesting. In a way, doctrine must have gone backward. Early armored cars and tanks had pistol ports all over the place precisely so that the soldiers inside could fire in all directions. In armored cars with one machine gun, there was a constant worry the main gun would jam. This concern seems ubiquitous to those early vehicles.
I suppose it all goes back to the fear that a squad of foot soldiers will swarm an armored vehicle, leaving the soldiers inside helpless. That certainly did happen during some battles.
I suppose CROWS and similar weapons are the modern solution to the same problem.
1 Like
It was more about protecting the troops inside and them not having to exit the vehicle to fight, esp. in an NBC environment. A future war with the Soviet Union was seen as one where chemical weapons would be widely used. It was reasoned that the troops would be more effective if they were protected within than if they were on the battlefield wearing MOPP protective gear.
2 Likes
The purpose was to fire from inside a vehicle in a nuclear contaminated battle field. Edit-I should say NBC battlefield.
2 Likes
(post deleted by author)
I’ve never understood why they felt the need for a special weapon for this. Why not make a port that a regular M16 would fit into/through?
AFAIK, they complained because the Sherman’s pistol port was useful for other things than shooting out of — such as reloading ammunition and getting rid of spent shell casings and other rubbish while under armour.
What everyone always overlooks is that the AMX VTT had everything the BMP did (except amphibiousness and NBC protection), ten years earlier:
The idea was more that the soldiers would be able to contribute to the firefight without leaving their vehicle. But in practice their firepower is so limited, because it’s so hard to aim, let alone hit anything, that it’s in effect more a minor morale boost for them (because they’re not passive passengers) than an actual threat to the enemy.
2 Likes
Trapped: The Story of Fray Bentos - The Tank Museum
I understand Captain Richardson was a Grocer in civilian life, hence his naming his tank after a popular range of tinned meat products…
Cheers,
M
2 Likes
That was the original idea, as on the BMP. The M16A1 was quite a bit longer than an AKMS though, and with the front sight well back from the muzzle, so it couldn’t engage with the port in the same way. To get past that they started changing things . . . and after a long process they ended up with M231 that stayed with the vehicle instead of going with the soldier..
KL
What I guess I should have said is: “I’ve never understood why, during development of the M231, nobody came to the conclusion that adapting the firing ports to the M16 would be easier and cheaper” 
I mean, it’s not like the M231 is just an M16 with a new fore-end and a sliding wire buttstock — pretty much all of the internals are different too, which seems like an odd path to find yourself going down if you take a step back and wonder why you’re doing all of this again.
That makes lots of sense and I feel somewhat foolish for not making that connection.
In a battle where biological, chemical, and/or nuclear weapons are used, would enough unmounted infantry soldiers survive to make firing from gun ports necessary? It seems like such weapons would force unmounted infantry to seek shelter, leaving so few enemy soldiers around that the gun ports would never get used. Or, perhaps personal equipment exists allowing an unmounted soldier to survive in that environment? I really do not know.
Yes, there is. The US version is called MOPP (Mission Oriented Protective Posture) Gear. It is possible to fight in a contaminated environment, but the gear makes it harder and slows you down.