.50 cal inefficient for Iraq, Afghanistan conflict?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 



Well, I would say its an excellent gun. Remember we still use alot of outdated stuff, especially in Reserve and National Guard units.


So is a bolt action rifle, and a PETER CHAPMAN 28" choked for that matter, but it doesn’t meatn that American boys should be sent to war with them, paid for courtesy of US tax dollars.

M2 runs at about 14 thousand dollars each as far as I know, and If the boys in Singapore can outfit their army with a modern gas operated HMG, we sure as hell should have been able to do the same some time before the discovery of nuclear power, and sure as hell before man reached space.

Instead, after just “going with it” through out the WWII, they kept trying to take a recoil operated Maxim type gun which was invented BEFORE the age flight, and stuffing it into the jet powered F-86 Saber!

Other then the inevitable stoppages and belt drift, (recoil pull verses gas stepping) they wondered why jet engine compressor would keep choking up and stalling out the engine when the pilots fired the guns.

Talking about Gatling. When it was absolutely no longer possible to use a recoil action in the jet age, instead of actually developing a high performance gas operated mechanism; they just took a good old Gatling and went with the worst 20mm caliber.

Who cares that whole thing weighed 265lb verses conventional Soviet GSh-23L’s 105lb, or even 101 lb Gsh-30-1.

Who cares that in the VITAL 1st second it takes 1/3 of the time to spin up, thus putting out only 70 rounds.

By weight comparison, a paired GSh-23L will INSTANTANIUSLY spit out 113 much harder hitting 23mm rounds, while still being 55 pounds under weight, and by default having FOUR time the reliability margin.

Fully spun up M61 puts out 6000 rpm, while pair GSh-23L will put out 6800 at will, no need for spin up.

As for Soviet/Russian rotary’s, Vulcan’s don’t even come close.

GSh-6-23, a 23mm 6 barreled gas-operated monster.

Its complete weight is a mere 167 lb. That’s 98 pounds lighter then the Vulcan.

Rate of fire? TEN thousand rounds verses 6 thousand of the Vulcan, and that’s with ZERO spin up time.

Is A-10s 7 barreled GAU-8 the ultimate rotary heavy hitter?

It sure is big, and heavy. The A-10 literally had to be built AROUND it since it weighs a massive 620 pounds, firing at 3500 rpm (4200 mode was deleted in the 80s), with a full second spin up time, putting less then 50 rounds out until fully spun up. When spun up it puts out 58 rounds per second.

What do the Russians have?

A six barreled, 30mm gas operated rotary, weighing in at 328 pounds (half that of the GAU-8), firing at full 6000 round per minute, (twice as fast as the GAU-8), with out spin up time - gas operated, thus putting out 100 rounds per second. (twice that of the GAU-8)

The only edge GAU-8 has is the 222 mps muzzle velocity advantage over the same 390-gram projectile of Gsh-6-30. Such muzzle velocity difference is simply negligible from the total performance perspective.

Let’s do the weight comparison again.

In one second, a single 620-pound GAU-8 will put out about 43 pounds of 30mm shells on target.

Similarly, with in the same second, two Gsh-6-30’s totaling at 656 pounds, will put out 172 pounds of shells on target.

Point and case, when it comes to making bullets come out of barrels, we were always lagging behind. Even our European allies have vastly better armament starting from small arms, (Glock, MP-5, P-90, G-36,), machine guns (ours are made by the Belgians), auto-cannons (Bofors and many others), and actual cannons (Abrams cannon is actually a German Rheinmetall L44).

So again, do we need a modern .50 cal? If we can make one that works and if it’ll not end costing up as much as a jumbo jet, then absolutely, but as history shows, that’ll never happen.

As it stands, our boys will keep hammering away on the old sewing machines until we’ll just buy new ones from Singapore or something, or wait until Belgians make one for us.




posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Mate, you have just proven (in about a full page of posts) the difference between real life experience of a weapon system compared to the 'stats'.

You have made a supreme argument based on information gained through the internet and possibly a few written sources. Yet most of the boys on the ground still love the.50 Browning HMG. Why? Because it's battle proven and is a good compromise between hitting power and weight.

You seem to have a big love of high cyclic rates. However high rates of fire in a ground-role fire suppression weapon is not desirable, particularly for a weapon of this calibre. Ammo is eaten up very fast, meaning that ammo quickly runs out. This means that more ammo has to be carried. It also means that barrels overheat quicker, meaning either heavier barrels are needed or more barrels must be carried. These problems negate any difference in weight of actual weapon system.

Fact of the matter is the weapon, despite its' age, still has a role at infantry weapon. I won't pretend to have an intimate knowledge of the weapon in the wing-mounted role as this is not my job. You may have some valid points there. However I do have an intimate working knowledge of it in the infantry ground support role. It meets the needs of the troops perfectly in this role.

[edit on 22-10-2007 by PaddyInf]



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Most of the fighting is done behind vehicles or in and around buildings. None of these fighters are out in the open for it would be certainly death for them. A .50 does a very good job of penetrating whatever it is they are hiding behind and so it is much more effective. We are talking normally a hand full of attackers not waves of them.

A typical convoy has 2 F-16s, 1 gunship, airborne C4, and UAVs with both offensive/defensive capabilities in the air as support. The striker vehicle is normally the first to engage other than small arms then it is escalated very quickly as to what is still needed.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I have always found the big '50' to be a very reliable weapon. In Oman they were used both offensively and defensively, especially as a 'point defence' weapon when mounted on the M3 tripod.

Mounting rifle sights on the Browning is not new Paddy, my old unit used to mount the SUIT and 'Starlight' sights on it once or twice, but the practice of using the SUIT sight stopped abruptly, as it was frowned apon by senior officers.

We had a brill gunner called 'Wheeler' and he claimed he could engage tgts out to four and a half MILES (apparently the max range) and almost guarantee a 'kill' with the first 3 rounds.

Not too sure whether or not I really believed him, but I remember reading about that sniper guy in Viet Nam who scored a first round kill against the VC at a distance of over 3000 metres, so I suppose it could be true.

The only drawback the Browning has, as others have mentioned, is the weight of the ammo and the M2s incredible appetite for rounds - some 850 per minute.

I have often wondered if a 3 round burst facility could ever be fitted to the big gun and if so, could that mod improve accuracy?

I'm thinking along the lines of innocent collateral damage etc. As to using them to return fire from vehs caught by IEDs in an ambush, I can't believe that Lecter meant a 'Mini Gun'. Perhaps he meant Minimi?

Incidentally, do you realise the M2 costs $13,500 whilst the Mk 19 40mm MOD 3 costs $14,000? In this day and age, that surely rates as good value for money?

Iskander you bang on about the DSK. Well old chap we captured a few from the Ado in Oman and I have to tell you they are crap! Might be okay for yer average tundra raised Siberian peasant, but compared to the Browning, they are like something built on a 'Scrapheap Challenge'.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by fritz]



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
This B25 from my Dads outfit was modified with six additional 50s out the front glass.
It was said, it could remove the ties from railroad tracks and even stop a moving train by filling it full of holes with 10 forward firing 50s at the pilots button.
s170.photobucket.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to HDFACTORYCERTIF[/url]

Very good pic my friend. For some reason, I thought you were referring to the Douglas Invader.

I thought that it was armed with 8 x .50 in a nose cone. Weren't these aircraft painted black?

Sorry for going off topic.



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Good Lord!!!!!

I dont think Ive ever seen that many .50's sticking out of the front of plexiglass. The photos of which I am familiar are of some kind of side blisters on the body of the airplane.

Nevertheless in looking at that photo...Good Grief!!! Shooting That many Brownings in a confined space.....does anyone have any teeth left in their heads?? I would think it would be enough noise and vibration to rattle their teeth right out on the deck. THat noise would go right back to the end of the fuselage ...unhindered. Paddy is speaking of just one .50. This is SIX
of them!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Since my last post above I have been running around town doing various errands but at the same time musing on the context of this thread.

THe difficulty I have with the premise of the thread is the simple fact that the M2 ,as it is called here, is still around..so many years later in its same basic configuration with little change. By the very test of time it is of obvously of value in the marketplace of ideas and tools. In this it has not been replaced. The .50 caliber MG has obviously left and continues to leave its mark.
Only the whoredom of politics in purchaing weapons can try to substitute a "better mousetrap" so to speak under the guise of improvement.

Statistics and number crunching is not the same thing as men willing to put their lives on the line with a particular tool. Experts and psuedo experts can post or make all the claims they want ..but it is the trooper on the front line who will use this tool and stake thier lives and the futures of their familys/nation on it. In this facet...confidence in the M2 is very high.
To my limited knowlege ,as I am not a expert on this tool, I have noted that of those who have put thier lives on the line with this tool...very few of them tend to vote thumbs down on it.

Another misnomer in the title and OP's statement. The word "ineffecient." This word does not mean much to most soldiers on the line. It can be very deceiving. The term the soldier or trooper on the front lines wants to hear and see is..." Effective." This is all they care about. Anything else is flatulence. In keeping with military humour and crudity,when the M2 speaks it is not flatulence coming out the end of the barrel..it is real doo doo!! In this I join many others out here in saluting John Moses Browning for knowing how to properly and "effectively" sling doo doo.

In that role around which it is designed and utilized..it is highly effective. Some 70 plus years of usage ...clearly testify to this effectiveness.

As I recall ..and it may have been posted on ATS/BTS at some time in the past ...there was a list of what works and doesnt work in Afganistan and Iraq...what weapons and other tools. The M2 received sufficiently high ratings that the humorous point was made that anyone who trys to delete it from the inventory. ....shoot them...immediately. Perhapsed some of you recall this list in times past??

Gotta run,
Take care to all and
thanks for your posts,

Orangetom



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
My Dad is 87, along with his buddies that are still living, they are all nearly deaf. The normal B25 has 4 forward 50s, two on each side.
The outfit was the 490th Burma Bridge Busters, Steven Speilburg did a nice film on them as shown on the History Channel, his dad served with my dad.
We will all gather at the WW2 museum in New Orleans next month.
B 25s also had a 75mm cannon in the belly.
They did find the B25 with the 10 forward 50s was very usefull for raising havoc on the ground.
I am glad you guys liked the photo, I am very proud of my dad.



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 



Yet most of the boys on the ground still love the.50 Browning HMG. Why? Because it's battle proven and is a good compromise between hitting power and weight.


Wrong. M2 has the worst weight to effectiveness ratio. Look it up.


You seem to have a big love of high cyclic rates.


Did I say that? High cyclic rates are a natural EVOLUTION of weaponry.

Do we really have to get this primitive?

Muzzle loading muskets/pistols, revolvers, lever/pump action, bolt-action rifles, semi- auto recoil and gas operated? It’s EVOLUTION, not my personal preference.


However high rates of fire in a ground-role fire suppression weapon is not desirable, particularly for a weapon of this calibre.


Do you own a TV? Read any books about WWII? I’ll cut to the chase here, German MG42 was so incredibly effective, it WAS the main weapon used, while infantry was tasked with supporting it.

It was so effective in stopping allied advances that a special propaganda film was shot by US Army to show nubs before they were sent out.


Ammo is eaten up very fast, meaning that ammo quickly runs out. This means that more ammo has to be carried. It also means that barrels overheat quicker, meaning either heavier barrels are needed or more barrels must be carried. These problems negate any difference in weight of actual weapon system.


Over a century of modern warfare disagrees with you. Type in MG42 in Google and educate your self.


Fact of the matter is the weapon, despite its' age, still has a role at infantry weapon.


So does any functioning weapon, yet some are obsolete while others are just flat out better.


I won't pretend to have an intimate knowledge of the weapon in the wing-mounted role as this is not my job. You may have some valid points there.


Not my points, just history as it happened.


However I do have an intimate working knowledge of it in the infantry ground support role. It meets the needs of the troops perfectly in this role.


No it doesn’t. Other then the obvious fact that M2 is based on the Maxim operating principle is literally the first MG in history, M2 is not a man portable system, while modern .50 cals are.



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 



Iskander you bang on about the DSK. Well old chap we captured a few from the Ado in Oman and I have to tell you they are crap! Might be okay for yer average tundra raised Siberian peasant, but compared to the Browning, they are like something built on a 'Scrapheap Challenge'.


I’m not sure but I’m guessing you meant DShK.

Heck, if those boys capture original DShk’s it’s no wonder they would be total crap. They were made back in the 30s! (drum versions), and gas operated battle guns just don’t last that long and still function as intended.

Only by 1938 was the drum abandoned in favor of the belt.

After WWII DShK was modernized to DShKM and truly cam into its own. Incredibly reliable weapon (Korean/Nam) and it’s still used today all around the world.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 



THe difficulty I have with the premise of the thread is the simple fact that the M2 ,as it is called here, is still around..so many years later in its same basic configuration with little change. By the very test of time it is of obvously of value in the marketplace of ideas and tools. In this it has not been replaced. The .50 caliber MG has obviously left and continues to leave its mark.
Only the whoredom of politics in purchaing weapons can try to substitute a "better mousetrap" so to speak under the guise of improvement.




orangetom1999, that’s a very conservative point of view.

You should write to your congressman, and ask for the rearmament of US armed forces with true and proven Winchester Model 1917, Browning Model 1917, and other time proven weapons of the last century.

Heck, why stop there? 19th century lever action Winchesters will just right for medium range combat.

On that note, I will definitely sing a petition to replace M92 back to .45 and M16 for a BAR or an M14.

I cannot entirely agree with you on the notion that evolution of technology is some sort of a scam, or a “the whoredom of politics in purchasing weapons” as you put it.


Statistics and number crunching is not the same thing as men willing to put their lives on the line with a particular tool.


So true, and only to think of all the blood that had to be spilled, because back in the late 19th century a bunch of conservative penny counting bearcats decided that automatic weapons would only waste ammunition.


Experts and psuedo experts can post or make all the claims they want ..but it is the trooper on the front line who will use this tool and stake thier lives and the futures of their familys/nation on it.


Again, if that’s your line of reasoning, go ahead and try taking away a SAW from a Marine and replacing it with a BM1917.


In this facet...confidence in the M2 is very high.


So is in the wheel! It was invented, it does spin, and I’m very confident that it will continue spinning, but I sure as heck would not put a wooden wagon wheel on my SUV!



To my limited knowlege ,as I am not a expert on this tool, I have noted that of those who have put thier lives on the line with this tool...very few of them tend to vote thumbs down on it.


Nobody is voting for anything here, M2 has been obsolete for over a century. It’s a FACT. It shoots .50 rounds, and shoots them well, that’s also a fact. Is there a US armed forces need for a MODERN .50 cal? YES! And that’s IS a fact!


Another misnomer in the title and OP's statement. The word "ineffecient." This word does not mean much to most soldiers on the line. It can be very deceiving. The term the soldier or trooper on the front lines wants to hear and see is..." Effective." This is all they care about. Anything else is flatulence. In keeping with military humour and crudity,when the M2 speaks it is not flatulence coming out the end of the barrel..it is real doo doo!! In this I join many others out here in saluting John Moses Browning for knowing how to properly and "effectively" sling doo doo.


Feel free to salute Mr. Maxim first. As for effectivness, feel free to read up all about it right here;


In that role around which it is designed and utilized..it is highly effective. Some 70 plus years of usage ...clearly testify to this effectiveness.


Same goes for bolt action rifles, so what, let’s re-arm everybody back to the standards of the last century?


The M2 received sufficiently high ratings that the humorous point was made that anyone who trys to delete it from the inventory. ....shoot them...immediately. Perhapsed some of you recall this list in times past??


Nope, remind us.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
P.S.

Here’s an excellent resource for everything on all kinds of guns.

It’s not your typical Wiki bull crap, so enjoy the in-depth reading everybody!

(especially the part on Browning .50 caliber verses other HMG of the era)

www.quarry.nildram.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Here’s a perfect example of a comparison between .50 cals, other calibers and individual weapon EFFICENCIES, here’s a perfect article;


GUN POWER AND EFFICIENCY

The cartridge destructiveness table above only shows the relative effect of one hit. When comparing the guns that fired the cartridges, other factors come into play, namely the rate of fire (RoF) and the gun weight.

To calculate the destructive power of the gun, the 'POWER' factor from the above table has been multiplied by the RoF, expressed in the number of rounds fired per second. This gives the relative 'GUN POWER' figures in the table below. It is important to note that all of the RoF figures are for unsynchronised guns; the exception is the 12.7 mm UB (Soviet Berezin) where the lower RoF figure is for a synchronised gun (which it commonly was in fighters), the higher for unsynchronised. The effects of synchronisation on other guns varied considerably; for German weapons, which used an efficient electrical system, the reduction in RoF was around 10%. For other systems it typically varied between 20 and 40%.

To judge how efficient the gun was, the 'GUN POWER' result is divided by the weight of the gun in kilograms to provide the 'GUN EFFICIENCY' score in the last column. This is, in effect, a measure of the power-to-weight ratio of the gun and ammunition combination.



www.quarry.nildram.co.uk...

As it’s clearly shown, M2’s efficiency is rated at 2.1.

The worst efficiency goes to the Breda-SAFAT at 1.24

The best efficiency goes to 12.7mm UB of a variable between 3 synced to 3.9 un-synced.

This clearly shows that even back in the days of WWII, a Russian UB 12.7 (.50 cal) HMG was TWICE as efficient as the M2.

Similarly note that in the 20mm category, while Hispano V has the highest rating of 6.0, it is almost twice the weight of the Russian Berezin B-20, which is just a hair shy at 5.7

That means that when compared by weight, a pair of B-20s are naturally twice as efficient as a single Hispano V.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

GUN POWER AND EFFICIENCY
To calculate the destructive power of the gun, the 'POWER' factor from the above table has been multiplied by the RoF, expressed in the number of rounds fired per second. This gives the relative 'GUN POWER' figures in the table below. It is important to note that all of the RoF figures are for unsynchronised guns; the exception is the 12.7 mm UB (Soviet Berezin) where the lower RoF figure is for a synchronised gun (which it commonly was in fighters), the higher for unsynchronised. The effects of synchronisation on other guns varied considerably; for German weapons, which used an efficient electrical system, the reduction in RoF was around 10%. For other systems it typically varied between 20 and 40%.

To judge how efficient the gun was, the 'GUN POWER' result is divided by the weight of the gun in kilograms to provide the 'GUN EFFICIENCY' score in the last column. This is, in effect, a measure of the power-to-weight ratio of the gun and ammunition combination.



www.quarry.nildram.co.uk...


This means absolutely nothing. It doesn't take into account the weapons role, environment of use, reliability, ease of use, maintainance, ergonomics, reload speed, proven in-theatre performance or any of the other issues that are REALLY important to the user. It is merely a calculation designed to demonstrate something that has too many variables to accurately calculate.

This type of calculations only demonstrate one very small aspect of a weapon system. They cannot be used in isolation when demonstrating the usefulness of a weapon.

As for sarcastic comments like "Why not arm everyone with bolt action rifles?", - well the Browning HMG has been demonstrated to successfully fulfill a role in modern warfare. Other weapons you cite have not. The age of the weapon seems to be your biggest bug bear. I don't care how old a weapon is. If it works and fulfills the role I intend to use it for, then its' OK by me.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
A lot of people spout statistics about weapons they have never fired.

While I have never personally fired a russian HMG or a chain gun, I did fire a .50 cal as recently as yesterday. I have put hundreds of thousands of rounds through the M2 with only one malfunction, and that was due to an errant mount pin blocking the extraction that caused a triple feed. Operator error.

Hands down most reliable and accurate machine gun I have ever fired. There is a reason we have used it for the better part of the existance of machine guns.

I routinely engage targets over a kilometer away with more precision than I expect from my personal rifle at anthing over 200m. It will punch through walls and light armor. The only thing more powerful and accurate I have ever fired is the 120mm smoothbore on my tank, and as much as I hate it, I don't get to shoot too much stuff with it anymore.

If you had ever seen what a .50 cal round does to a human being in comparison to a 5.56 or 7.62 round, you would be impressed. Total annihilation. You don't even have to hit, the shockwave from passing rounds is enough to tear limbs off as long as you're dialed in pretty close.

For the chain gun guys: we're not defending against the Korean horde here. Accuracy is far more valuable than volume. It might be sexy but its not efficient. We can't afford to carry around all that ammo. We have a budget on weight and finances.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Originally posted by iskander I’m not sure but I’m guessing you meant DShK.

Yeah, sorry. I was referring to the Chinese Type 54 , the 'knock-off' made in Taiwan/Hong Kong copy of the Russian DShK.

Not too sure what variant they were, but they were most definately belt fed and not drum mag - unless you meant the big attachable box mags.

Were you referring to the 7.62 mm Degtyarev M-27 LMG? That is the only drum fed MG I can think of.

Lecter asked if the M2 was inefficient? I suspect he meant to ask if it was effective. Yes! It does exactly what it says on the tin - it destroys men and materiel. Nuff said.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by fritz]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by PaddyInf
 


...High cyclic rates are a natural EVOLUTION of weaponry.

Do we really have to get this primitive?

Muzzle loading muskets/pistols, revolvers, lever/pump action, bolt-action rifles, semi- auto recoil and gas operated? It’s EVOLUTION, not my personal preference.



High cyclic rates are a waste of ammo. You'll find that PROFESSIONAL soldiers use semi-automatic if available or short, controlled bursts to suppress. This conserves ammunition, which the soldier has to carry.





However high rates of fire in a ground-role fire suppression weapon is not desirable, particularly for a weapon of this calibre.


Do you own a TV? Read any books about WWII? I’ll cut to the chase here, German MG42 was so incredibly effective, it WAS the main weapon used, while infantry was tasked with supporting it.



Have you watched TV in the last 60 years? Read any books on Iraq or Afghanistan? The MG42 is not in common use. It is also not comparible to the .50 as it uses a much smaller round. Modern wafare relies on fast moving small groups with uncertain supply chains, often spending large amounts of time with no resupply. A weapon with high cyclic rates would chew up most of its' ammunition in the first firefight.

BTW I do own a TV. Usually watch the Tweenies or porn.




Over a century of modern warfare disagrees with you. Type in MG42 in Google and educate your self.


Numerous tours in the operational theatres being discussed as well as many post-tour reports disagree with you. THE MG42 had a very high rate of fire, yet commonly used modern weapons do not. Why is this? Weapons with slower rates of fire are more ammunition conservative. They don't overheat as quick, requiring less barrel changes. They can sustain fire support for longer periods. Ask anyone who has used any of these weapons.

I'll put it bluntly. For arguments' sake in a WMIK we might carry 2000rds for our MG. Firing non-stop at 600rpm (I know this isn't realistic, but bear with me here), this will last for just over 3 minutes. A weapon firing at 1200rpm will last for 1 1/2 minutes. In real life bursts are kept short to allow the soldier to fight for a longer period without resupply but still have ammunition landing on the enemy position. High rates of fire don't allow this. They will put lots of rounds down quickly, but don't allow this to be sustainable, which is after all the role of a machine gun.





However I do have an intimate working knowledge of it in the infantry ground support role. It meets the needs of the troops perfectly in this role.


No it doesn’t. Other then the obvious fact that M2 is based on the Maxim operating principle is literally the first MG in history, M2 is not a man portable system, while modern .50 cals are.



It does meet our needs. I know because I've been using it for years all over the world in the light vehicle mounted role. The weapon is man portable to an extent, just not by one man. Our Machine gun platoons train for this with the M2. The biggest problem these guys have is not the weapon, it's the ammo. While other weapons may be more portable, the ammo is not. The .50BMG is a heavy round. While you may be able to carry a weapon around, it is a waste of time if you can't feed it. Try to get troops to carry any useable amount of .50 ammunition on top of their personal and mission specific kit is just daft. This would be even more of a problem with a weapon with a very high rate of fire as you suggest.

Plus who cares what operating principle the weapon utilizes? The system works. I depress the triggers and big, heavy, f***-off rounds are spat out the noisy end. That's what matters.

Look mate, you obviously have a decent search engine but no actual experience of the factors involved in the real world when using a machine gun.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Iskander,

I am not promoting the idea that this MG,the M2 Browning, be man carried. I agree entirely with other posters here that the modus operandi of our troops is high mobility. This weapon is usually seen mounted on a vehicle ..either tracked or wheeled. In this manner the problem of carrying heavy amounts of ammunition is somewhat alleviated.
You are correct about the weight issue. Hence you usually see this caliber of weapon mounted and not carried by teams of men. Where this caliber is carried by teams it is again under special usage...as is the bolt action or semi auto sniper rifles. Special teams for special purposes.

You know ...now that I think of it...I believe the cyclic rate...being slow...this is one of the features that with some soldiers or teams is a desirable feature of this tool. As I recall ..with skills/dicipline applied this tool can fire single rounds due to the slow cyclic rate and with reasonable accuracy. Those of you with more expreicnce with this tool would certainly know more than I who have only read accounts on this feature.

I am also not advocating goingn back to the 1917 Enfield or the 1903 Springfield...the Lee Enfield..et al. Though I like these weapons, they are not suited to modern warfare.
I will remind you here that a accurate bolt action has not gone out of use on the battlefield. They are still here in the day of high cyclic rates and lightweight rifles.
This is simply a matter of the niche in which they are applied as is so with the M2.
This is obvious by the reports coming back from the field by those who have resorted to the usage of the M2 in combat....or the bolt action rifle.

As for new technology in the "weapons arena" Modern Gadgets etc etc. I am located about a mile down the road from Langley Air Force base. Here at Langley AFB they are replacing the F15s with the F22 as they come off the assembly lines. It is my belief that the F15 though effective was overdesigned also expensive. This is also my opinion of the F22. This branch of the military, The Air Force, has a long record of buying overly high tech gadgets at huge expense. The intresting thing about this todate is that they seem wont to not deploy the F22 as was done with the F15. THey are simply to expensive. YOu can make this point too about the B2 bombers.
While I am not against new technology if it is "effective" I just know that the military often goes overboard in replacing with such overdesigned gadgets.
In spite of new technology there is still something to the KISS principle..Keep It Simple Stupid.
Keeping It Simple Stupid...has not gone out of style or effectiveness/design by the ground soldier who will ultimately bear the burdens of these technologys.

I am again reminded of this ugly airplane called the A 10. Very effective and not that expensive. It has been demonstrated to fill a niche and an important one.
These planers and designers want something racey, flashy, and also more expensive...ie ..overdesigned. They are phasing the A 10 out and leaving them to national guard units.
The story and hurdles concerning the development of the A 10 are known in certain circles but downplayed for the flash and expense of other aircraft which I describe.

Perhapsed I should say it another way..there is often something very flawed with our weapons purchasing and fielding system. Yet occasionally they do turn out long lasting effective systems like the Browning M2. Astonishing!!
Will the M2 fall out of effectiveness in combat.?? I am sure it will. Just not to date.

Thanks to all again for thier posts,
Oranegtom

[edit on 28-10-2007 by orangetom1999]

[edit on 28-10-2007 by orangetom1999]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 



As for sarcastic comments like "Why not arm everyone with bolt action rifles?", - well the Browning HMG has been demonstrated to successfully fulfill a role in modern warfare. Other weapons you cite have not. The age of the weapon seems to be your biggest bug bear. I don't care how old a weapon is. If it works and fulfills the role I intend to use it for, then its' OK by me.


PaddyInf, M2 is TWICE as heavy as the modern HMG, and cannot be used by infantry unless it’s mounted.


MODERN HMGs are regularly used as an infantry MOBILE role -> That’s called progress, get with it!

And it’s not the “age of the weapon”, it’s the OBSOLETE design of its OPERATING PRINCIPLE.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join