Like conventional machine guns being field mounted for use as anti-air or tanks being kinda parked in place for extended periods for use as base defense or as a basic form of self-propelled artillery? This thought mainly came about when I was playing Battlefield 1942, (Not the best source by any means, just where I got the idea from) and saw tanks parking or, well staying relatively stationary using their machine guns (The ones above the hatch, not coaxial machine guns) to shoot at planes, mainly on maps like Kharkov where there was a complete lack of proper anti-aircraft and very few machine gun armed vehicles total, I believe the only things with machine guns where the APC's and tank's hatch/top mounted machine guns, and although I can't properly speak for the German side, mainly playing as the Soviets, I've seldom seen anything with a machine gun rolling out on Kharkov, mostly seeing Tigers and Kubelwagens. Another note is that while this is more rare I have seen more static-ly placed tanks being used for base defense, usually when all the areas a tank can normally go are being harassed by Tigers. I've also seen the hatch/top mounted machine guns of Shermans (presumably of the Firefly variety) being used in anti-aircraft roles on maps such as Gazala. Sorry if the semi-ramble about Battlefield 1942 is unhelpful....
Like conventional machine guns being field mounted for use as anti-air or tanks being kinda parked in place for extended periods for use as base defense or as a basic form of self-propelled artillery?
Actually, this would be on the fringe of their intended uses. Quite a few MGs and SAWs had dedicated AA mounts for the express purposes of fixed defense. .50 cals were expected to double as emergency anti-air defense^*. Soviet doctrine intended for all men in the squad, even those equipped with SMGs, to put down defensive fire at enemy aircraft - literally filling the air with suppressive lead (Naturally, this was rarely followed to the letter by commanders).
Sustained-fire mounts for Machine-guns, such as Lafette tripods for the MG series, or M1917s, were expected to and frequently did fire in excess of a kilometer, often indirectly. Firing on a high trajectory to provide suppressive fire at excessive distances, this was highly evident especially in the First World War.
Another note is that while this is more rare I have seen more static-ly placed tanks being
The use of Armor as pillboxes is not recommended, but can be conducted. All armies were aware of the potential for their use as such, the Iraqis did it extensively in 1991, attempting to compensate for various deficiencies and employ the tanks as bunkers. The Soviets did it frequently in the first years of the war. The Germans did it frequently in Normandy, especially when they could not sufficiently disengage mobile units from the front lines.
^* FM 17-22 "Reconnaissance Battalion" states in s. 19 b:
Security from air attack - (1) Effectiveness of air attack is reduced by marching at least 70 yards between vehicles, by use of all antiaircraft weapons to drive off attacking hostile aircraft ... This system includes all elements of the battalion. (My emphasis)
FM 17-22 clearly implies that when under air attack, any and all weaponry may be employed to drive off the air power. Suitably, and most effective is the pintle-mounted .50 cals of the Armored Cars, and the .30 calibers of the 1/4 ton trucks. 1/4 ton trucks could also have an "AA mount" .30 or .50 strapped to the front fender. The picture shows the numerous expedient measures that would be taken to improve the capability of a vehicle well past its intended role.
