.50 cal inefficient for Iraq, Afghanistan conflict?

Originally posted by iskander


And this is a video which clearly shows what happens when barrels get changed in the field with out proper procedures and accurate headspace gauging.

Enjoy!

splodetv.com...

Does anybody still think that M2 is not obsolete? : )

LOL! Nice video. I saw one quite similar with a M240 a while back.

The M2s in British use are all fitted with the QCB kit, negating the complicated headspace proceedure required with older models. The 2 types of barrel in use on the US issue M2 require headspace adjustment for each barrel change. This is probably where your earlier confusion lies.

We're also using the soft mount which drastically improves accuracy and controlability. Looking back on the earlier posts I can see where some of the disagreements have come from. The British are using superior mounting systems and a more combat efective barrel change system for the weapon than the US versions, making it much more user friendly.

Honestly thought I'd seen the last of this thread...

Until I came across this thread I used to read this site for the shear "sh!t and giggles"aspect of the conspiracy theorists. I took it with a grain of salt. Because of this thread though I just had to register.

Now let me say this, from my experience:
1): I've been too a lot pf places, shot a lot of things, and been shot at by a lot of things, and when I've needed help (which at some point we all invariably do) the "Deuce" has been a welcomed sight and sound.

2): Experience and training has taught me that:
a) I want to be lighter, not heavier.
b) Nothing matters more to me then my brothers, and we want the best gear to complete our mission.
c) Marksmanship wins the day, not how many rounds you pour into a target area.
d) Accuracy means everything (anyone who has been in combat long enough will invariably hit a hot zone which makes re-supply impossible). Short controlled bursts buys a commander the time he needs to assess his enviorment and deploy and redeploy his assets as the situation mandates. You can not count on support just because you called for it. As soldiers we are trained to accomplish our mission with limited support (granted civilian intel is right about 50% of the time).

3): Granted I am also one of the lucky ones (a highly sarcastic remark here), because I get whatever gear I need and or want (usually from my own paycheck). We have the freedom to buy from any vendor and get (to a point) reimbursed (which as a unit we decided to pass on to our regular buddies. This also led me to take a lovin to my modified 416 chambered for 6.8 mm rounds (I'm well aware that the regular 416 is chambered for 5.56 rounds, that's why is pays off to have friends in high places). Though the 417 is also a nice weapon. However the hassle of carrying different rounds is a PITA. I also regularly deploy with four clips for my side arm.

4): I am also a taxpayer as well as a soldier. We currently have a DB well over $600 billion. You want to add another billion or so in rearmament, training (hence new rounds need new training), and kits, well then you pay for it out of your intel paycheck. In my opinion (from actually commanding troops and visiting them in hospiatls, is if your one of those dead heads who love to spend money is this, buy 6.8 mm AR's, Dragon Skins, and invest in technologies that make us lighter not heavier. You stay static in a AOO and you're a casualty.

5): I personally resent a couple of remarks made in this thread. From my days at basic (rugular Army BIT and AIT) we were trained to fire accurately in short controlled bursts. This theory of spray and pray, is just that, good for movies not real life. SOCOM trained us even further on the need to put an emphasis on accurate fires over rate of fire. The remark about my not caring about my brothers in arms is also rediculous. Any leader in any army puts the life of his men above his own. It's training that gets the job done not any particular weapons system. Granted stopping power is a tremendous asset (I love the 6.8 over the 5.56, as well as the .45 over a 9). That being said unless we're pulling out I've never been in a position or read an AAR that required the use on a MANPAD 12.7. The squad 7.86 is more than adequate for what we need.

6): This debate here reminds me of the Cold War era AK vs. M-16 pissing match. I personally could care less about the Kord. I'm sure it's a good weapon and in the hands of someone trained to use it I'm sure it's deadly accurate. That however can be said of any weapon (yes, I have been shot at by bolt action rifles). The enemy today will and is using any firearm they can get there hands on. However rarely have we encountered a MANPAD 12.7mm on patrol. Truck mounted versions are another story.

I'll finish with this, we need to spend more money on the gear that we ABSOLUTELY need, not waste more money on things that we don't. You want to spend my money on my guys, great! I love your enthusiasm. However allocate the resources to body armor, armor kits, and gear that does not inhibit mobility. Like I said before, we want to be made lighter not heavier. Regardless, no weapon system is going to beat this fanatical ideology. Jokers, (so called because these bastards do a whole lot of smiling and laughing), aren't afraid to die. They kill out of fanaticism not because they are better equipped.

reply to post by Raemius


The perfect answer.

Originally posted by Raemius
2): Experience and training has taught me that:
a) I want to be lighter, not heavier.

I agree. There's few things heavier than .50 ammo.

b) Nothing matters more to me then my brothers, and we want the best gear to complete our mission.

Agreed. The .50 M2 is perfectly sufficient for this.

c) Marksmanship wins the day, not how many rounds you pour into a target area.

Agreed to an extent. Fire suppression is also a key however. A machine gun must be capable of area saturation fire. Indeed, sustained fire is what they're designed for. This was proven in the Falklands, with superb effect.

d) Accuracy means everything (anyone who has been in combat long enough will invariably hit a hot zone which makes re-supply impossible). Short controlled bursts buys a commander the time he needs to assess his enviorment and deploy and redeploy his assets as the situation mandates. You can not count on support just because you called for it. As soldiers we are trained to accomplish our mission with limited support (granted civilian intel is right about 50% of the time).

I agree. Despite many years in the infantry, my first experience of real supply shortages was last year in Musa Qual'eh, Helmand provence. The M2 was used to great effect. The rate of fire and reliability were ideal for the situation. There are times that even using short bursts is not enough to keep ammo stocks up. When you're in a platoon house being attacked on 3 sides by over 200 enemy on their home ground, you just need to get the rounds down or be killed.

I personally resent a couple of remarks made in this thread. From my days at basic (rugular Army BIT and AIT) we were trained to fire accurately in short controlled bursts. This theory of spray and pray, is just that, good for movies not real life.

I don't think anyone here has advocated a spray and pray policy. I personally believe that accurate fire is a winner, and an experienced enemy will know the difference between accurate and effective supporting fire and innaccurate undisciplined fire.

However I also believe (from personal experience) that there is a place for suppressive area fire to reduce an enemys movements. We have used this to great effect in Afghanistan, but it must be used with care in order to preserve ammo. It is generally reserved for close range and mass attacks (of which we had plenty). There is always a compromise between effective suppressive fire and ammunition conservation.

That being said unless we're pulling out I've never been in a position or read an AAR that required the use on a MANPAD 12.7. The squad 7.86 is more than adequate for what we need....

...However rarely have we encountered a MANPAD 12.7mm on patrol. Truck mounted versions are another story.

My point exactly. This capability is not required and is unworkable to any realistic extent.

First, I must say, I am probably so far behind, however, I feel I must rant a little.

To those of you suggesting the 'Minigun' (I am going to assume the weapon that I know to be the Vulcan):
Firstly, it IS possible to mount it on a vehicle, the M163 is an example, but that is an AA vehicle, not some ground suppression device. And if you are picking it for it's rate of fire, your are quite honestly misinformed. Yes, I#ll admit, the idea of pushing out 7000 rounds onto an enemy position in a single minute sounds nice, but it is a waste. Besides, if you want rounds per minute there is a developing weapon capable of 1000000rpm.
Going by the original scenario provided, I would choose the Mk 19. Not only does it put out plenty of fire, it also explodes on impact. And, while I do not know as much as some of the people on here seem to about it, the M2 seems great. If anything, though, I would go smaller...mounting something that could put out 7.62 (or around that) and provided just as much speed of fire, if not less) would be just fine, really. Lighter, more ammo...

The ammo necessary to make mini-guns in convoys practical is prohibitive.

A cyclic rate of fire as high as mini guns have is useless if you don't have the ammo to feed them.

Using .50s, m-60s, the M-16 variants, the SAW, and that new Mk 19 grenade launcher and other weaponry already in use with ground troops should be adequate to keep the enemy immobile long enough to get a few choppers in that do have mini-guns and rockets to finish off the work.

I'm an old goat now and the new weaponry is a little foreign to me, but it seems that the fundamentals always remain the same.

As they say, no plan survives contact with the enemy and I can't imagine much that would interrupt the activities of the day more than an IED blowing up a vehicle and everyone inside. However, our men and women are coping with this reality every day.

I have a friend who was wounded severely in Vietnam by what would now be called an IED and just from his account, I know how disruptive those things can be to the day's agenda.


[edit on 2007/12/25 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by Raemius


Raemius, welcome to the discussion.

It's training that gets the job done not any particular weapons system. Granted stopping power is a tremendous asset (I love the 6.8 over the 5.56, as well as the .45 over a 9). That being said unless we're pulling out I've never been in a position or read an AAR that required the use on a MANPAD 12.7. The squad 7.86 is more than adequate for what we need.

All correct, yet remember that before and during D-Day American Paratroopers were getting their hands on any .50 cal they could find. Beg deal and steal, those were their orders, and numerous biographies and diaries of those men clearly record, that with out the hard hitting .50 cals they would not be able to complete their missions in Normandy and survive to tell about it.

They used their .50 cals in MOBILE teams, which allowed them to suppress German MG-42 and mortar positions, and with out their M2s covering them, they simply would not be able to overwhelm German defenses.

History is the best teacher, the tricky part is telling apart a teacher from a BS artist.

Kord is nothing revolutionary; it’s only EVOlutionary, just building on the lessons learned.

6): This debate here reminds me of the Cold War era AK vs. M-16 pissing match.

Actually I think I’ll start a thread about why attempting to compare AK to M-16 can only result in a pissing match, and that’s because just as with most West/East hardware it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

BAR, M-14 and M-16 are automatic rifles, just as SVT-40 is an automatic rifle, while AK is a dedicated assault rifle which evolved from SVT-40, and not the German MP-43/MP-44/Stg.44 AR which evolved form a submachine gun.

I personally could care less about the Kord. I'm sure it's a good weapon and in the hands of someone trained to use it I'm sure it's deadly accurate. That however can be said of any weapon (yes, I have been shot at by bolt action rifles). The enemy today will and is using any firearm they can get there hands on. However rarely have we encountered a MANPAD 12.7mm on patrol. Truck mounted versions are another story.

I’m not sure if any videos of Afghani Mujahideen ambushes on Soviet convoys made it to youtube, but what you’ll one thing seen in all of them is an NSV and a tripod loaded on a mule.

The story was the same, mountain high position, opening up with ATGMS taking out the head and the tail, RPG teams then barraged the cargo, while NSV and AGS brought down heavy suppressing fire.

Then Stinger crews that were previously positioned on the mountain peaks and facing the direction from which Hinds/Frogfoots will be coming from to mop up, just sat there and waited for the them to come in.

I'll finish with this, we need to spend more money on the gear that we ABSOLUTELY need, not waste more money on things that we don't. You want to spend my money on my guys, great! I love your enthusiasm. However allocate the resources to body armor, armor kits, and gear that does not inhibit mobility. Like I said before, we want to be made lighter not heavier. Regardless, no weapon system is going to beat this fanatical ideology. Jokers, (so called because these bastards do a whole lot of smiling and laughing), aren't afraid to die. They kill out of fanaticism not because they are better equipped.

Raemius, I’ll put it this way, when third party manufactured Kord clone makes it’s way into combat zone, with AP rounds they will be able to hit armored vehicles with a single burst and at the very least disable it, and then just evaporate into the background on FOOT, (not truck), and I’m sure you know that for those “joker” RPG gunners it’s a lot easier to hit a static target then a moving target.

Everybody wants to stay light but get more firepower, and this is how you get it;

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

Iskander, why don't you just admit that you simply do not have a clue about what you talk about.

As I said to one of your earlier replies, you are ill-informed and I now find your posts somewhat offensive - not in the literal sense of the word, but because you simply will not bow to or take on board, the views of proper soldiers who have seen action.

Veterens such as Paddyinf, the Saint and Raemius have expressed their views from the experience of recent combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq or Kosovo - whatever!

I would think better of you Iskander, if you could give these very brave souls your undying grattitude and support instead on continually trying to pooh pooh their views in each and every post you make.

Happy New Year!

The thing is Iskander says that they just outperform the M2HB.

Nothing else.

reply to post by tomcat ha


And what everyone else is stating is that in that application being discussed, it's simply not true, or at least the M2 is all that is needed.

Shattered OUT...

And what everyone else is stating is that in that application being discussed, it's simply not true, or at least the M2 is all that is needed.

Well, ironically, today on the Military channels “Weaponology” paratrooper veterans of the D-Day clearly said that what really gave them the edge and allowed them to survive is the M2, and they only wished that it was lighter and easier to shoot.

That’s exactly what Kord does.

Not my words, no opinions, but the very lessons of history spoken by the very guys that were there, the brave souls that fought behind enemy lines, accomplished their mission and survived to tell about it.

It’s as simle as that.

I’m sure the program will repeat, so check your schedules, set your Tivos and see for your selves.

Over and out.

I have to say one thing, Iksander, you are incorrect in saying that the M2 Browning is based on a Maxin designed MG. You are correct though that both Hiram Maxim and John Brownings designs are both recoil operated, the only thing the M2 has in common with a Maxim is the spade grips and butterfly trigger. Just look up a a parts diagram of the two. You will see that they use different operating springs. The Browning design uses a long recoil spring, while the Maxim uses a spring thats kinda like an enlarged version of a watch spring. If you look at a Maxim you will see a peice on the side called a "fusee spring cover", thats the op. spring cover.

The reason we use the M2 still is that its been battle tested numerous times. I beleive the ol' Ma-Duece will be around of awhile yet.

reply to post by seeker83

I have to say one thing, Iksander, you are incorrect in saying that the M2 Browning is based on a Maxin designed MG.

seeker83, I’m not going to split hairs here. A Gatling gun is a Gatling gun, regardless it it’s powered by an electric motor, pneumatics if its gas powered.

Russians have the fastest firing Gatling gun (10K rof 23mm), it’s gas powered, but its revolving multi-barrel operating principle is still a GATLING, same thing with Maxim.

It’s a recoil operated MASCHINE gun, regardless of what kind of a spring it uses.

It’s the revolutionary operating principle that makes a difference, and the next one was gas operated weapons, which stands to this day, and which M2 is NOT.

Anyway you splice it M2 is still based on a RECOIL operating principle invented by Maxim back in 18 hundreds.

The reason we use the M2 still is that its been battle tested numerous times. I beleive the ol' Ma-Duece will be around of awhile yet.

Mounted water cooled Maxim will still cut down trees, but it doesn’t mean it’s a viable weapon in the 21st century. Heck, a spear is a spear, always be one, and will always be able to kill if used properly, but surely years of colonial war showed that a spear against a Maxim is not all that effective.

Ok Iksander, I read ya loud and clear now. You were speaking of the operating systems being similar to one another, even though Browning and Maxim designed two different guns, correct? Any way, I beleive I misunderstood what you were saying before, and after rereading your posts, I see where you are heading. Sorry about that, hopefully I am on the same page now.

reply to post by seeker83

Ok Iksander, I read ya loud and clear now. You were speaking of the operating systems being similar to one another, even though Browning and Maxim designed two different guns, correct?

That’s a roger.

Any way, I beleive I misunderstood what you were saying before, and after rereading your posts, I see where you are heading. Sorry about that, hopefully I am on the same page now.

I always tried sticking to the main topic; does M2 cut it on the modern battlefield? For shooting at slipper wearing peasants with Pakistani made AK knockoffs, sure, but for the 21st century warfare against well equipped fighters (gorilla included), having the ability to take heavy and accurate .50 cal firepower mobile is just what the doctor ordered, and that’s something M2 is simply not capable of, while next gen heavy MG like Kord does.

Some of our mobile .50 cal developments are promising, but they are just not there yet. Fire rate is to slow, accuracy is questionable, durability, field maintenance, use of plastics in high pressure guns is entirely new, and so as it stands, M2 is obsolete while Kord production is ramping up.

Paddy,

I can't/don't speak on behalf of "Regular" army, I should have made myself a lil clearer on that note. My experiences in Stanley are basically humps through the hills and recon. Never do I have the advantage of a fixed enclosed position (unless you consider caves). More often then not I'm out in the open.

My experiences in Iraq however are just the opposite. Plenty of time to test MOUT and sniping skills. Still though more often then not we travel on foot or in civie's (easier to get in and out of a target area).

Iskander,

Thanks for the welcome. I have the utmost amount of respect for all my brothers, but especially anyone who roughed it through Airbourne training. That being said, the D-Day invasion and our current dilemma are quite different. D-Day, aside from army on army, was mainly against fixed lines and positions. We knew where the brunt of the enemy was and thus easier to fix. Nowadays, that isn't so. You walk down any alley or street in Stanley or Iraq and you keep your eyes in constant motion. The enemy can be anywhere or anyone. I can't tell you the number of times some Joker would come up to us to sell something or be begging for candy (these bastards got a sweeter tooth then any ten year old American kid), and an hour later turns an AK on us.

Size is another factor. We don't fight in platoons, battalions, or companies. At most it's a twelve man squad. I can't afford to loose two of them to one gun. Keep in mind we carry our primary weapon, secondary weapon, ammo, grenades, gear (I'm not getting specific about), and our basic goodies. Then add a SMAW or an AT4 to the mix and you can see the pounds add up. If I'm lucky (being sarcastic here) I get a four man squad with another 12 natives (who curiously shoot alot better at us then they do against the supposed enemy). I couldn't even begin to waste my time asking them to man an HMG (let alone maintain one).

Smaller means quicker, and being quick saves lives. Again I'm sure the Kord is a good weapon, however for Mout Op's you need to be light, quick, and small. Too many dark corners to deal with.

As far as firepower goes, I strongly suggest to every soldier out there to give a 6.8 a go. HK and Barret both make suitable models. Colt I hear is also passing one around the Spec Op's community. If you want an even bigger bang I suggest the 417. The noise alone will scare the crap out of any Joker, add the stopping power of a 7.86 round and all but your eardrumbs will be happy.

Another thought while on the topic, there was some interesting debates going on in other forums (Strategy Page for one) about coaxial MG's. The French use a .50 on the LeClerc, while the rest use a 7.86. Worth looking at from a Tankers POV.

One final note:

I don't know how many of you have gotten a few rounds off on a 107 (or similiar weapon) but after 10 rounds you put a hurting on yourself. Speaking from experience I need a warm shower and an icepack after a session at the range. That SOB kicks like you wouldn't believe, even with all the suppression goodies installed.

reply to post by Raemius

Thanks for the welcome.

Any time.

I have the utmost amount of respect for all my brothers, but especially anyone who roughed it through Airbourne training.

I’m hear you. Airborne recon blood runs through my veins.

That being said, the D-Day invasion and our current dilemma are quite different. D-Day, aside from army on army, was mainly against fixed lines and positions. We knew where the brunt of the enemy was and thus easier to fix.

True to an extent, but it does depend on the areas of opps and operational time lines. A whole lot of ambushing took place there, and a lot of sniping. M2 was an invaluable tool in anti sniper role.

Nowadays, that isn't so. You walk down any alley or street in Stanley or Iraq and you keep your eyes in constant motion. The enemy can be anywhere or anyone..

Getting “on the swivel” sure is no fun. Here’s some crude Marine humor for you. While videotaping a regular patrol one Marine casually noted that he found a whole new respect for street walkers that put out 10 buck blowjobs all day, because after being “on the swivel” for a week his neck was so messed up that he had to lean back to take a sip of water.

I can't tell you the number of times some Joker would come up to us to sell something or be begging for candy (these bastards got a sweeter tooth then any ten year old American kid), and an hour later turns an AK on us.

Yeah well I sure by now you know that when he was begging his buds were scoping you guys out. It’s an age old thing with Bazaar thieves though out history. They pose as beggars to distract you and scope out what you got on you, and then set up for a hit from another team which actually robs you. They use kids all the time too, and I’m sure you know that as well. It’s the same damn thing.

I don’t want to get too much off topic, but here’s something I learned from my last trip to Russia after chatting with a Chechen war vet.

A new base was setup outside the city, and an order was given to remove all of the power poles from the road leading from the base to the city so they could not be used as IED markers.

Some crafty desk riding bastard figured that he can make a quick buck, and instead of totally destroying the wooden poles he ordered them to be cut down by the locals, and then sold them back to the locals as building material.

The locals just chain sawed and dragged the poles away with tractors, but left the stumps which were about 2 feet high. Tall roadside grass partially concealed them.

I bet you figured out by now how this one turned out. The buildings on the outskirts of the city were bombed out, abandoned and under direct fire coverage of the Federal troops, so Chechens did not dare to venture out much during day time.

First IEDs started at night and targeted convoys that ran supplies to the troops on CPs inside the city.

Blasts were very accurate, so night patrols had to be bumped up, which naturally only increased casualty count. Night snipers were sent out to clear Chechen spotter teams from the buildings. With in a week they owned the night, so for a while IEDs stopped.

Then day time IEDs started. Again they were accurate but this time Russian sniper teams could not locate Chechen spotters. They were simply not there.

The buildings were searched again and again, and finally teams had to be inserted into the buildings over night in hope of setting an ambush.

In the end they found out that Chechens used wireless security cameras hidden on the roofs of the buildings, and they remotely detonated IEDs by using glass bottles as markers which were simply placed on those very stumps that were left over form the initial clearing.

Grass was tall enough so the bottles could not be seen from level ground, and could only be seen well from an elevated position, so after Chechens successfully dug one in, the next day one of the locals would casually place a bottle on the corresponding stump, and the glare from the glass would be picked up by the remote cameras, so now they had a reference point for the detonation.

A lot of people were lost before the rest of the stumps were taken out and the roadside grass completely removed.

Smaller means quicker, and being quick saves lives. Again I'm sure the Kord is a good weapon, however for Mout Op's you need to be light, quick, and small. Too many dark corners to deal with..

All true, and I do agree that mobile .50 cal is not an absolute necessity for every squad; all I’ve been saying the entire time is that a mobile .50 cal gives a tactical edge. While mounted it does what HMGs have done for years, but being able to be man portable gives it an edge when you have to quickly maneuver in order to set up a quick and devastating ambush with out kicking up a lot of fuss, or take up high ground for area control.

5 men team; 2 on the Kord, 1 on PK, one RPG gunner, and the head. That’s a good minute of devastating fire power that’ll put a dent in anybodies day.

As far as firepower goes, I strongly suggest to every soldier out there to give a 6.8 a go. HK and Barret both make suitable models. Colt I hear is also passing one around the Spec Op's community. If you want an even bigger bang I suggest the 417. The noise alone will scare the crap out of any Joker, add the stopping power of a 7.86 round and all but your eardrumbs will be happy.

Spot on. With the 6.8 I only wish they could bump up the mag load back to full 30. I’m not a fan of the .308 though. It does what it does, but not as good as it could have if it was actually designed from scratch instead of just chopping down a .30-06