.50 cal inefficient for Iraq, Afghanistan conflict?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

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


WhiteOneActual, I agree with you absolutely on everything you have said.

M2s are incredibly reliable, specifically because they are based on the Maxim action.

.50 caliber is a heavy hitter, and does heavy damage.

None of that is in question.

My only point is that since Maxims invention more then a century of innovation and development has gone buy, while currently we’re the only one with out a MODERN HMG.


The fact is that there’re NUMEROUS modern HMGs out there that are far better then the old trusty M2.

That’s just a fact.




posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 



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.


PaddyInf, are you playing with me?


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.


That’s it! Type 54 indeed was junky in comparison to the properly made Soviet unit.

They were belt fed, but the first generation of DShK had a drum magazine, and it was not belt fed. That was back in 1930. Later modification converted it into a belt fed design.


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.


M2 sure destroys men and material, no question about it!

But the fact is that do to more then a century of development M2 is inefficient in direct comparison to modern gas operated designs. It’s just how it is.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Isklander,


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


Probably some truth to this. I use as an example...the gas operating rod principle used on the SKS rifles and also the AK series. I think this is a superior design to the gas system used on our current M16 rifles.

If I am correct here some manufacturers are incorporating this gas piston and rod design into modern variations of the M16 with good results. THe Hk company comes to mind though I am sure there are others today as well. What took them so long? This gas piston and rod assembly is not a new design. Probably over 40/50 years olde. To me clearly superior in design to our current system.

By the way..while I am not a soldier out in the field..and own both the AR 15 and the SKS..if I had to make a choice I would choose the SKS over the AR. I just like the .30 calibers. I have no ambition to ever own any of the .50s we are discussing though they are available to the public in bolt actions and semi actions.

As to whether this applies to the M2 in its "obselete design" ...I dont think so. Simply because of the necessity to carry ammunition. If we had the newer, lighter, higher cyclic rates we would still be mounting them on vehicles.This would hinder mobility unless it was mounted as we mostly do today. One still has to carry the ammo...superior up to datet designs or not.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 



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.


PaddyInf, are you serious?

We’re talking about machine guns not small arms!

Even at that, do your self a favor and look into super fast cyclic rates on burst fire modes of the next generation G11 and Abakan assault rifles.


Have you watched TV in the last 60 years? Read any books on Iraq or Afghanistan? The MG42 is not in common use.


Oh man, why are you in the “weapons” forum? Tell us, what fundamental MG design was the M60 based on? And how many nations still use MG42 modifications as their standard MGs to this day?


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.


There’s not even a patch of ground to reply here. It’s all nonsense.


Numerous tours in the operational theatres being discussed as well as many post-tour reports disagree with you.


Show me the reports.


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.


I’m getting tired of this. You’re obviously not only simply unaware of the basics, but are simply unwilling to see beyond your own ill formed opinions.

To be objective, I’ll provide an example;


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. 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.


Absolutely true, but we’re talking about different things here. You’re talking about logistics of re-supply, while I’m talking about evolution and adaptation of tactics.

I’m not sure how this went by you, but currently most modern MGs have either selectable rates of fire or an option for a burst mode.


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.


While logically correct, your notion is absolutely of base when it comes to the ACTUALL implementation of MGs, “in the real world”. This is a forum, and as always I’ll do my part.

Post WWII right up to the latest high (800 and above) RoF MGs;

Valmet KvKK 62

M249 SAW

FN Minimi M249 / Mk.46 model 0

SIG MG 710

F+W MG 51

Stoner 63

SIG MG50 / M/51

Vektor SS77 / Mini-SS

They are many others, but I’ll leave it to you to look into further.

Here are the basics; density of fire and fire sustainability.

High cyclic rates increase the “density of fire” and project it over a proportionally extending range.

Naturally lower fire rates increate fire sustainability while sacrificing fire density.

At extended ranges the object is to put as many rounds in a given area with in the shortest amount of time, as far out as ballistics of the round will allow.

MG42 was literally called a “machine shotgun”, because in a burst it would put out so much lead that all of the fired rounds would hit almost instantaneously.

That is perfect for engaging multiple targets at extended ranges, from both mounted and prone positions.

In direct comparison, a slower firing MGs will accurately put fire down X number of rounds down range while MOUNTED, while a high cyclic rate MG will put the same number of round in a fast BURST, with having the need for heavy mounting.

This is why MODERN MGs have the option for variable rates of fire, between 600 and up to 1200 rounds per minute.

As an alternative, one of the Finnish MGs does not have the full auto mode all together, while having a high RoF burst mode only.

In any case, forum means communication goes both ways, it’s not a one-way street, and I certainly hope that you’ll take the time to look into the topic at hand.


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.


There’s my point! “vehivle mounter role”!

Moving on;


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.


Absolutely correct on every point.


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.


And this is where you’re simply not up to speed to the developing tactics of the 21st century.

Ever evolving nature of war forces new needs, and today’s battlefield of urban warfare requires portable HMG fire support.

Overwhelming majority of urban battles are quick ambushes, and in most cases are simply over even before air or artillery support can effectively mop up the area.

Lessosn learned from a decade of the Russian/Chechen conflict should have gave most of us the hint of why Russians do things the way they do.

Things like BMPT, Petcheneg and Kord on the lightweight 6T19 mount.

It’s painfully simple, in order to effectively repeal and then counter attack a typical ambush - overwhelming and mobile firepower is simply required!

A two man Kord/6T19 crew will put 50 12.7 rounds where it hurts and then simply dismount.

Identify, shoot the crap out of them with 12.7mm, move, and communicate how those 50 rounds ripped them to shreds.

Nobody expects these guys to climb a mountain or run a marathon with their gear. They are a part of a fast, motorized armored team, but with the advantage of infantry mobile heavy firepower.

It’s exactly the same as with AGS-17 Plamya. They have a man portable 30mm auto-grenade launcher, while we simply don’t.

We’re trying with the XM312, but so far I’m skeptical.

Everything heavy we have has to be vehicle mounted, thus making it a juicy target for RPG/IED ambush.

In Chechnya Russians (again) learned that they can’t just drive around in armor and expect to flush out the area with the danger of being blow up at every turn.

They HAD to put boots on the ground, and they HAD to give those guys the most firepower they could, and they did.

Good luck making the M2 man portable.


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.


You’re not in any position to call me your mate, and I sure would appreciate if you’ll have the decency not to assume anything about my character, you don’t know anything about me.

Feel free to ask though.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I'm not going through all of your last post again. It's a waste of time trying to educate someone about the real world when they don't want to listen. I'll ask you a question though. What is your experience with the .50 Browning M2 HMG? Does it actually extend past the internet? It seems to me that the people on this forum who actually have real life experience of the system have nothing but complete faith in it to achieve its' aim. This is the real test of a weapon, not a load of number crunching and statistics.


Absolutely true, but we’re talking about different things here. You’re talking about logistics of re-supply, while I’m talking about evolution and adaptation of tactics.


You are implying that the logistics of the weapon are of little consequence. This is where your lack of experience comes into play. The logistics of a weapon are of supreme importance in modern warfare. You can't talk about a crew-served or support weapon without taking this into consideration.

The purpose of a heavy machine gun is to put a continuous fire onto a beaten zone. This requires the weapon to fire continuously or for prolonged periods into a relitively large area. It is not to put a mass of firepower into a point target for short periods. This is the role of smaller weapon systems such as rifle or LMG fire at closer range. This is why the modern infantry unit has multiple weapon systems to engage a multitude of varying target types. For example the M2 would not be used as the primary weapon to break ambush, the GPMG would be more effective. The .50 would be simply putting down rounds to keep the enemys heads down while the rest of the section assault using rifles and LMGs.

You continually compare the M2 with the MG42. The 42 fires an intermediate level cartridge and was designed to be a man portable general purpose machine gun. The M2 was not. It fires a large calibre round and was designed to be crew served. The MG42 is more accurately compared to the FN MAG or some such, which is designed for the same role as the MG42, and is not the topic of the thread. The same goes for the majority of the weapons on your list. How can you compare the M2 with the M249?


And this is where you’re simply not up to speed to the developing tactics of the 21st century.


Well, unless things have changed dramatically since I finished work on Friday afternoon, I think I'm fairly up to date. Not everything's posted on the internet.


You’re not in any position to call me your mate, and I sure would appreciate if you’ll have the decency not to assume anything about my character, you don’t know anything about me.


"Mate" is an expression commonly used around here when in civil conversation. However, seeing as you're getting all Dorothy about it, I'll not call you it again.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by PaddyInf]



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Iskander, I'm really getting very worried about you.

Apparently you are obtaining your info from 'Google'. Now, to the best of my knowledge, 'Google' is a second rate search engine and one that has never fired an MG or HMG in anger.

Let's get back to basics, shall we?

Cyclic rates of fire refer to factory bench tests. This is where the 'cyclic' rate of fire comes from - the factory rate of fire - refering to the amount of ammunition consumed in a test during a certain period of time - with multiple 50 round belts joined together.

The cyclic rate of fire has no bearing on the battlefield. Just because a pamphlet states the cyclic rate of fire for The General is 850 rpm, that does not mean that a gunner should maintain that rate of fire, he'd run out of ammo!

What evolution of tactics do you refer to, Iskander? I am confused because MGs are, to the best of my knowledge, used to win the firefight thus allowing the infantry to assault the enemy posns.

The MG42 is, even in the sustained fire role mounted on the Lafette '43 tripod, a MEDIUM machinegun. It cannot be used in the light [bipod] role because of its high rate of fire.

The MG34 on the other hand, could be used in both LIGHT and MEDIUM roles unlike your M2 which is a HEAVY machinegun and a 3 man, crew served weapon.

Incidentally, the MG42 was called many things: Buzzsaw, Widdow Maker or Spandau, but I have never heard anybody call it the “machine shotgun”.

Quote: High cyclic rates increase the “density of fire” and project it over a proportionally extending range. End quote. Er, well, almost correct!

This is called the 'Beaten Zone'. The length of a beaten zone will correspond with the range setting [elevation of barrel] whilst the width will depend almost entirely on the 'fall of shot' due in no small part, to the stability of the firing platform.

Quote: Naturally lower fire rates increate fire sustainability while sacrificing fire density. End quote.

To you, this may seem the case but, I'd love you to try and walk through any beaten zone laid down by The General. You'd never make 5 paces!

I also think you are getting confused with co-axially mounted machineguns and cannons such as the Bushmaster on M1A2s and Bradleys and the Hughes EX-34 7.62 chain gun mounted in the UKs Warrior ICFV - which are of course, electrically fired.

Lastly Iskander, I doubt whether you've ever had to hump 120lbs of Bergen with mission specific and personal kit, ammo, section and other kit.

So please friend, don't spout off until you have.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 



I'm not going through all of your last post again. It's a waste of time trying to educate someone about the real world when they don't want to listen.



If you have actually served, have you ever made it passed corporal? Considering your short sighted attitude, I doubt it.


I'll ask you a question though. What is your experience with the .50 Browning M2 HMG? Does it actually extend past the internet?


I see that you’re a fella from Belfast, but still, ever heard of Knob creek? And I don’t mean the whiskey.


It seems to me that the people on this forum who actually have real life experience of the system have nothing but complete faith in it to achieve its' aim. This is the real test of a weapon, not a load of number crunching and statistics.


I don’t know how you boys in Ireland think about this thing called progress, but even after the Falklands, the Brits clearly preferred full auto Argentine FALs to their own semi-autos.

I’m sure you’re familiar with FAL, being from N. Ireland right?

As an American tax payer, I’m NOT satisfied with my tax dollars being spent on an obsolete weapon an improvement of which WILL save the lives of our soldiers, and if you disagree with that, that’s your business.


You are implying that the logistics of the weapon are of little consequence. This is where your lack of experience comes into play. The logistics of a weapon are of supreme importance in modern warfare. You can't talk about a crew-served or support weapon without taking this into consideration.


What is this forum trend of people putting words into other people’s mouths?

Where have I implied that logistics are of little consequence?


The purpose of a heavy machine gun is to put a continuous fire onto a beaten zone. This requires the weapon to fire continuously or for prolonged periods into a relitively large area. It is not to put a mass of firepower into a point target for short periods.


Thank you for stating the obvious, it being the 19th and 20th century tactics for small caliber field guns, auto-canons and HMGs.

Unless you are still stuck in the days of the cold war era stand of doctrine, feel free to be welcomed into the 21st century.

There are NO front lines on the modern battlefield; it’s a fluid environment, which simply does not have a place for offensive static installations.

In the realities of a MODERN battlefield, putting a mass of firepower to a target and relocate IS what it’s all about.

As I clearly stated previously, such mobile HMGs are already available to fighting forces through out the world.


This is the role of smaller weapon systems such as rifle or LMG fire at closer range. This is why the modern infantry unit has multiple weapon systems to engage a multitude of varying target types. For example the M2 would not be used as the primary weapon to break ambush, the GPMG would be more effective. The .50 would be simply putting down rounds to keep the enemys heads down while the rest of the section assault using rifles and LMGs.


UAVs!

The best way to counter an ambush is to obtain intel prior to entering the kill box in the first place.

You seem to keep thinking of classic, WWII/Cold War era infantry tactics, while for a long time it has been about guerilla style warfare.

Portable (even sling launched) UAVs are sent ahead of the main force, in order to continuously scan the area. If enemy forces are sighted, and are setting up an ambush, the best way to is to send a small to medium size force to deliver a fast, powerful blow in order to disperse the enemy, and then let the artillery and air strikes finish up the job.

RPGs are great, but 50 rounds of 12.7 will persuade anyone to lave the area unless they are in a heavily fortified position, which in ambush scenarios is out of the question.

Get out with the old, and get in with the current.


You continually compare the M2 with the MG42.



I’m not comparing, for crying out loud, what is the major malfunction here?

You were attempting to make a point that fast fire rates are only a waste of ammunition, and I made a point with MG42.


The 42 fires an intermediate level cartridge and was designed to be a man portable general purpose machine gun. The M2 was not. It fires a large calibre round and was designed to be crew served.


Care to make any more needlessly obvious observation?



The MG42 is more accurately compared to the FN MAG or some such, which is designed for the same role as the MG42, and is not the topic of the thread. The same goes for the majority of the weapons on your list. How can you compare the M2 with the M249?


With my outmost apologies, I truly can’t because you seem to be incapable of following a basic line of reasoning.

Again, my list was an example of MODERN high rate of fire MGs which you have said did not exist because they only wasted ammo.


Well, unless things have changed dramatically since I finished work on Friday afternoon, I think I'm fairly up to date. Not everything's posted on the internet.


First tuck it in, then since you keep attempting to create an authority image for your self even though we’re all here on a public forum, feel free to PM me on what it is you do, I’ll do the same.


"Mate" is an expression commonly used around here when in civil conversation. However, seeing as you're getting all Dorothy about it, I'll not call you it again.


Earn it. You know damn well what I mean, and I’m not your bloke either.

Cheers.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander But the fact is that do to more then a century of development M2 is inefficient in direct comparison to modern gas operated designs. It’s just how it is.


A question for you Iskander.

In YOUR opinion, just how does the M2 work -from the moment the trigger is pressed and the firing pin strikes the percussion cap?

For whatever reason, you also appear to be at loggerheads with Paddy. I don't know whether or not you know, but he's one of the good guys who has recently returned from using the Browning in Afghanistan.

In MY eyes, that kinda makes him an expert. Ya dig?



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by PaddyInf
 


If you have actually served, have you ever made it passed corporal? Considering your short sighted attitude, I doubt it.


Here we go again


I spent 6 years in 7/10 UDR which became 7 (Home service) Battalion R. Irish in 1992. I left this as a section 2IC in 1996, and re-enlisted as a Ranger (Private equiv) in the 1st Battalion (General service) Apart from the first 6 years in NI, Ops tours include Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a few more NI tours. I'm currently serving as a Sergeant (US Staff Sergeant equiv). Considering I have another 13 years Queens' service to go, I think I'm doing all right.

How about you? I’ve got no secrets, but feel free to U2U me.


I see that you’re a fella from Belfast, but still, ever heard of Knob creek? And I don’t mean the whiskey.


So your experience with HMGs consists of going to a range in Kentucky and squirting off a few rounds? Hardly makes you the expert on battle appreciation, set weapon deployment, platoon battle drills ore offensive operations in the middle-east, does it? I suppose google does that though
.As I said earlier, there’s only so much you can get from looking at a screen.

Ever heard of Sangin Valley?, Helmand Province? These are where I gained respect for this weapon system, not a gallery range.



I don’t know how you boys in Ireland think about this thing called progress, but even after the Falklands, the Brits clearly preferred full auto Argentine FALs to their own semi-autos.


According to who? And what has that got to do with the subject?

By the way, we won the Falklands with SLRs and GPMGs using only the ammunition we could carry.



Where have I implied that logistics are of little consequence?


Every time you advocate wasting large quantities of ammunition with stupidly high rates of fire. By advocating these rates of fire you are increasing strain on the already over stretched logistics chains in Iraq. This implies that you are not taking logistics into account.



There are NO front lines on the modern battlefield; it’s a fluid environment, which simply does not have a place for offensive static installations.

In the realities of a MODERN battlefield, putting a mass of firepower to a target and relocate IS what it’s all about.


You obviously have no knowledge of the patrol houses that are set up around Iraq and Afghanistan. These are required in order to provide a base for standing and fighting patrols in isolated areas. During Op HERRICK 4, we were attacked up to 8 times per day while in these static positions, firing off thousands of rounds and killing lots of enemy.

These bases spend long periods without re-supply, often many days or even weeks, and ammunition has to be conserved. Attacks often come from 270-360 degrees and large areas have to be covered, requiring sustained fire. If we upped our rate of fire, ammunition would have run out much faster. As it was, we still ran out of HMG ammo on more than one occasion before resup could arrive, despite using literally 1-2 round bursts.

As for there being no requirement for static positions in a mobile environment, even a section level assault requires a firm cover group whose job is to pour continuous fire onto a position to keep the enemies heads down. This allows the assault group to advance unhindered, possibly putting down another smaller fire support element on the way, before finally fighting through the position.

This requires coordinated and sustained fire from the cover group and lots of ammo, which has to be carried. This would last about 10 seconds with a .50 with a high rate of fire, considering the weight of ammunition.



UAVs!

The best way to counter an ambush is to obtain intel prior to entering the kill box in the first place.

You seem to keep thinking of classic, WWII/Cold War era infantry tactics, while for a long time it has been about guerilla style warfare.

Portable (even sling launched) UAVs are sent ahead of the main force, in order to continuously scan the area. If enemy forces are sighted, and are setting up an ambush, the best way to is to send a small to medium size force to deliver a fast, powerful blow in order to disperse the enemy, and then let the artillery and air strikes finish up the job.

RPGs are great, but 50 rounds of 12.7 will persuade anyone to lave the area unless they are in a heavily fortified position, which in ambush scenarios is out of the question.

Get out with the old, and get in with the current.


Sorry, but these assets are limited and are not available to the majority of small-unit (platoon size and below) patrols on a regular basis. I agree that the best way of surviving an ambush is to avoid one. However you forget that these people are usually firing from concealed positions within houses and in an area where they have been living and fighting for many years.

The Iraqis and Afghans are warrior peoples. They know how to set and spring ambushes. They know when to look out for UAVs. They know their business. Plenty of allied troops have been killed because they have not looked past the dish-dashes and have underestimated these people.



I’m not comparing, for crying out loud, what is the major malfunction here?

You were attempting to make a point that fast fire rates are only a waste of ammunition, and I made a point with MG42.


My point was in relation to a heavy machine gun. You supported your argument with references to a medium machine gun. There is the comparison.



Again, my list was an example of MODERN high rate of fire MGs which you have said did not exist because they only wasted ammo.


See above comment re HMGs. I did not state that high rate MG don't exist, just that high rate HMGs are not in use by the US or UK armies in Iraq. My point was that these are not needed and no requirement has been demonstrated for them. Both these armies have been pretty hot at getting equipment based on urgent operational requirements in the last few years, yet they haven't requested a high ROF heavy machine gun that can be man portable. Why not? Because there has been no current operational requirement demonstrated, which was the question at the start of this thread.


First tuck it in, then since you keep attempting to create an authority image for your self even though we’re all here on a public forum, feel free to PM me on what it is you do, I’ll do the same.


I don't have to hide what I do. I've already told you. There's no authority image here, just the voice of training and experience in the subject under debate.




"Mate" is an expression commonly used around here when in civil conversation. However, seeing as you're getting all Dorothy about it, I'll not call you it again.


Earn it. You know damn well what I mean, and I’m not your bloke either.


You're a very sensitive lad, aren't you?



Care to make any more needlessly obvious observation?


OK then.

You have been to a range a few times. You fired a couple of big-boys shooters. You can use google. You watch too many war films. You play lots of X-Box 360 or PS3. You know lots of facts about weapons but you have no real experience of anything that you are talking about.

Please, just settle down. You have made a few decent points and there have been some counter arguments. I've tried to keep it civil and you've thrown it back in my face. If you can't have a decent debate without throwing your teddy out of the pram, then don't try.

Now, I don't see the point in continuing a debate if you're going to get all childish about it.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


I think you have been playing to many computer games like Ghost recon and Battlefield.
You do realise that your making your self look stupid and uninformed to us people that are in the armed forces.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I was thinking about the configuration of the Nimitz class carriers in the context of this thread.

When the ship is close to being delivered and the Navy more fully moves back on board ...meals/galleys and bearthing are in use...the yard begins the process of mounting various gun mounts on the of the ship in the side passageways. There are two types of mounts I have seen and they are obviously used in the age old practice of how to repel boarders. These mounts are for some kind of .30 caliber MG and a larger one obviously for the M2.
I do not know what is the current .30 caliber MG is in use by our military as I understand the olde M60 has been removed from service.
However it is obvious by the size of the other mount that it is for the M2 Browning. Between both ...they appear to have alot covered of ground here. You will often see the smaller gun mount positioned not to far from the larger mount. They also have on board the pump shotgun also very effective on repelling boarders. Various other small arms..M16s and sidearms...I think here the 9mm Beretta.
Nevertheless at this phase of contruction close to completion, it is difficult to not notice these mounts when traveling to and fro different jobs on board.

I suspect the M2 would be very effective in this role as well as the roles mentioned here in these posts.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Looks like we've got him bracketed, next post is bound to finish him off!

It was not until he mentioned UAVs overwatching potential ambush sites, that I suddenly realised that Iskander had been playing GRAW 2.


Shot Out!



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Another big problem which Iskander hasn't addressed is the terminal effects of the rounds being fired. If a lighter round won't penetrate a vehicle/barrier/wall/etc... it doesn't matter how many inadequate rounds you fire. Not every situation is troops in the open at relatively close range. That's why there's a mix of M4/M16/M249/M240/M2/MK19. None of these by themselves is the end all be all, but when combined they compliment one another well. HMGs have a different role than GPMGs, so a 1000+ rd/min rate of fire isn't necessary or desired for a .50.
I know when we were downrange, insurgents were less likely to engage a convoy where multiple .50s and MK19s were available vs. smaller/faster firing systems(at least in firefight situations). If you need to stop an SVBIED from attacking your vehicle, you'll appreciate the inefficiency of a .50 vs. 7.62.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
To be fair to the lad, I do know where he is coming from......................

I think Iskander has problems relating to the cyclic rate of fire which, according to him [I think] should be higher in this day and age and, because of this [or lack of it] he believes the M2 is obsolete.

We all know that a higher volume of fire obviously produces more bullets down range but I am afraid that Iskander cannot [or will not] accept that higher rates of fire depleats 'ready' ammunition loadout, especially in constant contact and more so with the heavier wpns mounted in vehs, as Paddy repeatedly pointed out to him.

For Iskander:

The normal ammo loadout for the FN SLR [as you brought it up with Paddy] was 6 x 20 rds 7.62, with a few loose tracer rounds for spotting and a bandolier of 150 rds for the gun [LMG]. Total loadout was 270 rds. Add on 250 x 7.62mm for The General and you get some idea what we carried in the early 70s.

During the Falklands [as you brought it up] each Tom or Crow went into battle with 8 x 20 rds of 7.62, a bandolier of 150 rds + 12 x 30 rd mags of 7.62 milly for the LMG (if you were in the gun group) otherwise you still carried as much 7.62 as you could haul, usually 500 rds per person.

Yes its true that the Paras and Marines ran out of rounds and used Argentinian 7.62 ammo but to state they used the enemy weapons ad hoc is to over simplify the situation.

For the record, the FN SLR had a primative gas regulator that became encased in burnt carbon the more rounds you put down the barrel. On a live fire exercise, my FN SLR [S/No: 118501] only fired 150 rounds before I was forced to battle clean it.

After that [if you had the time and it was safe to do so] you was down to single shot and hand cocking. I can tell you Iskander that the only way to cock the FN SLR once it was beyond all stoppage drills, was to stamp down hard on the cocking handle with your boot.

That was the only reason the Paras and Marines used enemy weapons - the sheer volume of fire required to keep the enemy heads down which, in turn allowed our guys to close and kill the poor Argies with bloody short bayonets - something which had not been done since WWII!

Iskander - high volumes of fire - no matter what the weapon, light, medium or heavy - MG, tank gun or aircraft mounted weapons - sooner or later you will run out of ready ammunition.

That is why Brit soldiers are taught to conserve rounds and FIRE WELL AIMED SHOTS, something our Yank mates should learn.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 






I spent 6 years in 7/10 UDR which became 7 (Home service) Battalion R. Irish in 1992. I left this as a section 2IC in 1996, and re-enlisted as a Ranger (Private equiv) in the 1st Battalion (General service) Apart from the first 6 years in NI, Ops tours include Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a few more NI tours. I'm currently serving as a Sergeant (US Staff Sergeant equiv). Considering I have another 13 years Queens' service to go, I think I'm doing all right.

How about you? I’ve got no secrets, but feel free to U2U me.


PaddyInf, this forum is not about secrets, even though I got lots of them. You show a respectable service record, but you have to realize that this is a public forum where discussions take place on the bases of merit, experience, common sense, etc, not authority “imaging”.

My background is in intelligence.

It’s a family tradition, and it’s a big family with long heritage. Airborne recon paratroopers, pilots, AFISR, AFOSI, NSA, intel analysis, etc.

I guess what stands out in my memory is when the last great Soviet Sea-based control station ship Kosmonavt Yurii Gagarin docked in Seattle.

I remember the look in the captains’ eyes when we were standing and shaking hands for the picture shot.

That marked the end of the great era, 45 000 tonnes of unmatched capability, just scrapped.

She was the last of her kind.

Currently I’m in private sector, while at one point I was actually stupid enough to work for FOX networks. It was a mistake, and I worked for them for less then two years before I quit.

While I won’t talk about my family, here’s what one of the “people I know” do;

www.srmg-link.com...

He used to have info on “training camps” he ran in Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, etc listed in his bio, but he had it taken down. I guess it was just a tad to “school of America”, if you know what I mean.

Start getting used to a new term, “Blackwater Blowback”, or in short – “bowl”. Greedy bastards.


So your experience with HMGs consists of going to a range in Kentucky and squirting off a few rounds? Hardly makes you the expert on battle appreciation, set weapon deployment, platoon battle drills ore offensive operations in the middle-east, does it? I suppose google does that though .As I said earlier, there’s only so much you can get from looking at a screen.


How in the world did you make sergeant by keep assuming everything?


Ever heard of Sangin Valley?, Helmand Province? These are where I gained respect for this weapon system, not a gallery range.


I’ll tell you this; my yearly calendar is marked with days of remembrance. Visiting the graves does not get easier with years, it gets harder.

“I don’t know how you boys in Ireland think about this thing called progress, but even after the Falklands, the Brits clearly preferred full auto Argentine FALs to their own semi-autos.”


According to who?


Are you kidding me?


And what has that got to do with the subject?


It has to do with your notion of automatic fire as a waste of ammo.


Every time you advocate wasting large quantities of ammunition with stupidly high rates of fire. By advocating these rates of fire you are increasing strain on the already over stretched logistics chains in Iraq.


As I repeatedly stated, modern designs feature VARIABLE cyclic rates, and not only the high (+/- 1300) rate of the MG42.

I certainly hope that this is the last time I’ll be forced to point that out.

I’ve never advocated waste of ammo, in fact, I preferred the 3-round burst trigger group for the M14 which was ironically adopted for the A2 but for entirely different reasons.

For that matter, I’ve always wished for standardized phosphorus coating on front sight post.

With your service record I’m sure you’ll agree that when it gets dark, just about everybody starts shooting at the moon.


This implies that you are not taking logistics into account.


Please, don’t tell me anything about logistics. It’s a topic I simply will not discuss with you.


You obviously have no knowledge of the patrol houses that are set up around Iraq and Afghanistan. These are required in order to provide a base for standing and fighting patrols in isolated areas. During Op HERRICK 4, we were attacked up to 8 times per day while in these static positions, firing off thousands of rounds and killing lots of enemy.


Are you implying that I don’t know what a fort is? And assuming again?

Being attacked multiple times a day means serious lack of area control.

Now imagine that instead of AKs, RPGs and maybe an occasional mortar, those guys would regularly attack your position with RPO Shmel, AGS-30 and 6T19 KORD.



From here;


These bases spend long periods without re-supply


to here;


This would last about 10 seconds with a .50 with a high rate of fire, considering the weight of ammunition.


PaddyInf, with all do respect, all of this has been done over and over again for centuries, and it’s nothing new to anybody.

That especially applies to M2, because it has been used in exactly the same role since WWII, all while modern HMGs are rapidly evolving.

If you are happy with the M2, good for you, feel free to tell the procurement boys that there’s no need for XM312/ XM307, and M2 should remain in service indefinitely.


Sorry, but these assets are limited and are not available to the majority of small-unit (platoon size and below) patrols on a regular basis. I agree that the best way of surviving an ambush is to avoid one. However you forget that these people are usually firing from concealed positions within houses and in an area where they have been living and fighting for many years.


I entirely agree with you there, all true. A man portable HMG will be a great asset, would you agree?

PaddyInf, again, none of this is new, it’s just evolving and adapting to the need and requirements of the situation.

What Russians are doing with 6T19 KORD is exactly the same as what they (and others) have been doing in WWI/II with PTRS/PTRD anti-tank rifles.

They want mobile, automatic anti-material fire capability, and a team operated KORD does just that, while M2 will always be a hard mount weapon.

XM312/XM307 is designed to be used by a two man team in order to provide .50 fire support but you seem to think that it’s totally unnecessary, and I disagree with you.

Static positions will ALWAYS be attacked, and that’s why you just have to get out there and rustle some bushes.

I believe that mobile HMGs will significantly increase firepower and dominate the enemy, while you repeatedly state that hard/vehicle mounted, recoil operated M2 is good enough, and you are simply wrong.

I believe that harassing the enemy on their own ground is more effective then being repeatedly attacked in a fortified position.


The Iraqis and Afghans are warrior peoples. They know how to set and spring ambushes. They know when to look out for UAVs. They know their business. Plenty of allied troops have been killed because they have not looked past the dish-dashes and have underestimated these people.


Again, agree entirely, and let me put it this way.

You are well aware the difference between being tied to a vehicle route and an ambush MULE trail.

In my line of reasoning, AGS-30 and 6T19 KORD are easily transportable MULE guns, and they do bring a MASSIVE amount of fire power.

Again, if you think the “M2 will just do”, then let’s just forget all about the XM312/XM307 and work on fortifying our positions.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 



My point was in relation to a heavy machine gun. You supported your argument with references to a medium machine gun. There is the comparison.


I’ll just ignore that, I’ve said nothing of the kind.

Please re-read my post.


See above comment re HMGs. I did not state that high rate MG don't exist, just that high rate HMGs are not in use by the US or UK armies in Iraq. My point was that these are not needed and no requirement has been demonstrated for them. Both these armies have been pretty hot at getting equipment based on urgent operational requirements in the last few years, yet they haven't requested a high ROF heavy machine gun that can be man portable. Why not? Because there has been no current operational requirement demonstrated, which was the question at the start of this thread.


What do you base that on?

XM312/XM307!

The question is that in order to control the recoil, the fire rate had to be dropped so low, that its total effectiveness is in question.


I don't have to hide what I do. I've already told you. There's no authority image here, just the voice of training and experience in the subject under debate.


Good, let’s stick to it.


You're a very sensitive lad, aren't you?


I’m a lad with good humor, how about you, chap?


OK then.

You have been to a range a few times. You fired a couple of big-boys shooters. You can use google. You watch too many war films. You play lots of X-Box 360 or PS3. You know lots of facts about weapons but you have no real experience of anything that you are talking about.


Wrong, but hey, you could have just asked instead of assuming. Is that what sergeants generally do until their orders come in?

“X-Box 360 or PS3” – I’ve never owned a “gaming console”, and my first “portable” computer had to be loaded with software from a TAPE reel.

Things like basic pascal, etc, not Atari.

I am fully aware of battlefield simulators like OFP/ARMA, Flanker/Lock-On, Steel Beasts Pro, etc.

It is truly amazing that these days a personal computer can run simulators of such complexity and realism.


Please, just settle down. You have made a few decent points and there have been some counter arguments. I've tried to keep it civil and you've thrown it back in my face. If you can't have a decent debate without throwing your teddy out of the pram, then don't try.

Now, I don't see the point in continuing a debate if you're going to get all childish about it.


“throwing your teddy out of the pram”, I liked that one!

Unfortunately I can tell you things that will anger you beyond belief, because of all the lives that were needlessly lost to IEDs in the current conflicts.

I worked with IED problems back in the 90s, and was appalled to see that even the basic defense techniques were not implemented in Afghanistan/Iraq.

If you want to know, PM me, I won’t talk about it on the forum.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by PaddyInf
 


PaddyInf, this forum is not about secrets, even though I got lots of them. You show a respectable service record, but you have to realize that this is a public forum where discussions take place on the bases of merit, experience, common sense, etc, not authority “imaging”.


My posts are based on experience and common sense, with no authority imaging. I spelled out my record to give an idea of where my experience stems from, nothing more.


My background is in intelligence...

...Currently I’m in private sector, while at one point I was actually stupid enough to work for FOX networks. It was a mistake, and I worked for them for less then two years before I quit.

While I won’t talk about my family, here’s what one of the “people I know” do;

www.srmg-link.com...

He used to have info on “training camps” he ran in Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, etc listed in his bio, but he had it taken down. I guess it was just a tad to “school of America”, if you know what I mean.


OK... you are related to people in private security and have family in the military. You also work for private a int firm. Where does this give you any first-hand knowledge of the M2 in current service with the armed forces in Iraq/Afghanistan?



How in the world did you make sergeant by keep assuming everything?


I don't assume anything. You merely give the impression of someone with no experience of the subject and who gets their information from rather spurious sources.



As I repeatedly stated, modern designs feature VARIABLE cyclic rates, and not only the high (+/- 1300) rate of the MG42.

I certainly hope that this is the last time I’ll be forced to point that out.


As do I. I merely state that high rates of fire in a heavy machine gun waste ammo. Why introduce a variable rate of fire option in a HMG if it is not required?



With your service record I’m sure you’ll agree that when it gets dark, just about everybody starts shooting at the moon.


My God! Finally something we agree on!

It's not just the Provos who shoot at peoples knees at night.


Please, don’t tell me anything about logistics. It’s a topic I simply will not discuss with you.


I'm a Platoon 2I/C. I can't help bringing logistics into a conversation based around tactics.



Being attacked multiple times a day means serious lack of area control.


I challenge you to provide area control in Sangin Valley! It is a Taliban run area slap in the middle of Helmand Province (Taliban City). The area is completely isolated and covers a huge area. Fighters come in from all the surrounding provinces in force to have a go. Aggressive patroling can only achieve so much if you're in an area surrounded by thousnads of enemy. The fighting in Sangin is proper war fighting, not small level insurgent attacks.



I entirely agree with you there, all true. A man portable HMG will be a great asset, would you agree?


Possibly. I simply have yet to be in a situation where we would have needed one. Current in use weapon systems are achieving the aims we set with no problems. I just can't get past the ammo weight problem.


PaddyInf, again, none of this is new, it’s just evolving and adapting to the need and requirements of the situation.


The initial question was whether the M2 wa obsolete for ops in Iraq. I believe that a weapon doesn't become obsolete until it can no longer reliably perform the tasks required of it. I have yet to be convinced that the M2 does not achieve these aims.


Static positions will ALWAYS be attacked, and that’s why you just have to get out there and rustle some bushes...

...I believe that harassing the enemy on their own ground is more effective then being repeatedly attacked in a fortified position.


Agreed. But this is not sustainable for the type of conflicts in question. The boys need to sleep, need resupply, MT and logistics support, need down-time. This requires a patrol base of some sort. No-one outside SF circles (and precious few of them) are required to spend an entire tour living off hard routine. It's simply not sustainable for a useable amount of time. Patrol bases are a necessary evil unfortunately


I believe that mobile HMGs will significantly increase firepower and dominate the enemy, while you repeatedly state that hard/vehicle mounted, recoil operated M2 is good enough, and you are simply wrong...

...You are well aware the difference between being tied to a vehicle route and an ambush MULE trail.

In my line of reasoning, AGS-30 and 6T19 KORD are easily transportable MULE guns, and they do bring a MASSIVE amount of fire power.


You don't seem to realise that the M2 is already doing the job well. You also seem to think that we go out in nice big slow moving convoys on patrol. We don't. We stay off-road. We take out parallelling and satalite patrols. We work as small, highly mobile teams. A WMIK is a hell of a lot more useful over the distances we have to cover. They get out of trouble fast, allow for lots of weapons and ammo to be carried as well as better comms kit. nd fast moving fire support platforms. Foot patrols do happen, but they are already slow and of limited range because of environmental factors.

There is simply no justification for the extra weight that a .50 weapon would add to a foot patrol. Current contact distances and environments, as well as length of foot patrols, water requirements, equipment load requirements and all the other things that are important when going on a patrol in 50 degree C heat come into play. The current loads are just manageable. Adding another X Kg for the sake of a weapon that isn't required just wouldn't happen. End of chat.



Again, if you think the “M2 will just do”, then let’s just forget all about the XM312/XM307 and work on fortifying our positions.


Or lets use the weapon we have in an appropriate way.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by PaddyInf]



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
What is wrong with a variable cycle rate? I think that is perfect. Fire off a quik burst .50 rounds at high speed when neccesairy when you are say in a ambush and then in a normal firefight you can set it lower for a prolonged firing. What is not to like about this?

considering a mobile .50 mg. That is even better. You dont need to put them in squads directly and use it like a gpmg. If you have a mg like this you can set up much more quikly and thus fortify a position you just conquered much quiker. There are many more situations when being more mobile can just give the edge. Considering currently all weapons are already so even then these advantages can just make the difference.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
What do you base that on?

XM312/XM307!


I base it on current UOR requests that have come back from theatre. The vast majority of UOR requests were fulfilled, including those for weapon systems. Yet there were no requests for a new HMG, or one that could be manually carried at section level. This is because no requirement has been highlighted. Essentially it means that the troops on the ground have not requested such a system.

The XM312/307 are in development. They are not there in response to troop demands, as these demands are usually filled by an off-the-shelf weapon in flagged as a UOR until a new system is designed. No such intermediary has been aquired.



Wrong, but hey, you could have just asked instead of assuming. Is that what sergeants generally do until their orders come in?


No. we carry on using the information available to us. You gave the impression of someone who has no real experience of using this weapon in a real-world fightinf situation, and of someone who has gained their knowledge of such situations from third hand, rather spurious sources. I have yet to see evidence to suggest otherwise.



I worked with IED problems back in the 90s, and was appalled to see that even the basic defense techniques were not implemented in Afghanistan/Iraq.


This does strike a nerve with me. My brother lost both of his legs to an IED in Iraq a couple of years ago. Well done if you really have done work trying to counter this threat.


I get the feeling we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. We're just going over and over old ground.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by PaddyInf]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
What is wrong with a variable cycle rate? I think that is perfect. Fire off a quik burst .50 rounds at high speed when neccesairy when you are say in a ambush and then in a normal firefight you can set it lower for a prolonged firing. What is not to like about this?


Nothing's wrong with them as a concept. However in current operational tempos there has been no requirement flagged up for a high ROF heavy machine gun. Therefore what is the point of replacing a weapon to introduce a new alternative because it has an option not generally required on the ground?


considering a mobile .50 mg. That is even better. You dont need to put them in squads directly and use it like a gpmg. If you have a mg like this you can set up much more quikly and thus fortify a position you just conquered much quiker. There are many more situations when being more mobile can just give the edge. Considering currently all weapons are already so even then these advantages can just make the difference.


A M2 .50 BMG can be set on a tripod mount in seconds. Unless you are actually already carrying this machine gun, you will need the reserve platoon to bring it forward. This is usually achievable within a few minutes of a position being taken. A platoon is armed with GPMGs, LMGs, LSWs, ILAWs, 51mm mortar and rifles, and can hold up against pretty much any assault short of tanks for a long enough period to move support weapons into place.

There may be a place for a .50 here, but short of a major armoured assault I fail to see what use a .50 will give over the arsenal already available. The weight of kit already being carried is just manageable as it is, never mind adding X hundred .50 link and a machine gun to the mix on the off chance you're going to be in the unlikely position that you'll be faced with a situation that your current weapons can't handle.

It's a nice idea in theory, but unless you have actually had to patrol through 50C heat with this kit on, you probably won't understand where the troops come from here.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join