# Browning .50 cal HMG - Use and Replacement (Split from: Inf Cbt Sp)



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is the HMG a feasable Rifle Pl weapon?





			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Is the HMG a feasible rifle pl weapon?
> 
> Short answer - it depends. For the most part, I think it is feasible.
> In a heavy mech platoon - yes, for dismtd def ops. In the "olden days" the Grizz mtd a .50 and a GPMG and the .50 was often dismtd from the turret for a def op.
> ...


While the HMG is a fabulous weapon, the M2 is far too heavy and bulky to be a platoon weapon without special attention (i.e a M-113 or Grizzley to truck it around). Tossing one in the back of a LAV runs into much the same problem as the CASW; who gets left on the side of the road to make room for the weapon and ammo?

The CIS .50 HMG is much lighter and has some big advantages (dual feed), but even that would need very careful attention to make it a viable platoon weapon.



[Edit to insert quotes prior to thread split]


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While the HMG is a fabulous weapon, the M2 is far too heavy and bulky to be a platoon weapon without special attention (i.e a M-113 or Grizzley to truck it around). Tossing one in the back of a LAV runs into much the same problem as the CASW; who gets left on the side of the road to make room for the weapon and ammo?
> 
> The CIS .50 HMG is much lighter and has some big advantages (dual feed), but even that would need very careful attention to make it a viable platoon weapon.



I agree with this that the M2 is not feasible with out a form of transport. Perhaps a DFS Platoon would be a solution?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While the HMG is a fabulous weapon, the M2 is far too heavy and bulky to be a platoon weapon without special attention (i.e a M-113 or Grizzley to truck it around). Tossing one in the back of a LAV runs into much the same problem ......



Do you really need a 10 tonne truck (Grizzly/M113) or even a 17 tonne truck (LAV - moving to 25 tonnes) to cart around a ~50 kg gun?  Even with the one tonne of ammo you need to keep an M3M GAU-21 fed (300 Rd burst ~20 seconds - 100 round can 7 seconds - 2 minutes of engagement - 18 100 round cans)?

Couldn't you get by with a 6 tonne (like the Bv206s, or the Jackal) or even a Milverado or G-Wagen? 

Or is it all LAV all the time?


----------



## Spooks (4 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> 3VP attempted to place Cbt Sp types in all Rifle coys in Croatia, and would gather them periodically for training. Not ideal, in fact IMO it could have been disasterous. When 2VP took over, 1 VP sent its AAP and Mor Pl over, as we had none...we were told they weren't needed.



Disclaimer: Everything I mention here is for 3VP. It does not reflect 1VP, 2VP, or any other Bn as I have no idea how they are organised. We are not LAV'd up.

Well, as of right now, in the 3rd, we *puts on OpSec glasses* Cbt Sup (hereafter referred to as CS) used to have under it:

CS CQ
-Sigs Pl
-Recce Pl (which included the snipers)
-DFS Pl

This was the model before I was posted away in early 08. Upon returning, it's a tad different but still the same at the roots.

Can .50s goto the Coys?

Sure they can in theory. Working in RQ right now, I know I have X .50s. We'll take 20-40% of that X down for repairs and we are left with a few. I suppose, due to being a larger weapon that needs transport somehow you can give 1 per coy for the HQ element and give the CSM a bigger punch for his Sup Element. Awesome, good thinking. We still need transport for it (and no, we aren't all hard anymore where we can manpack the .50 like the old stories of the CAR). With current gear and not thinking with our heads in dreamland, we have LSVWs and LUVWs. The .50 could be pulled be either or on a trailer. Could the OC/CSM's LUVW pull a trailer with the .50Cal on it? Sure. It's reasonable. The .50 Cal comes in a nice and neat plastic box while adding a tripod and toolbox. So we come into the problem of manning it. Coy HQ contains the Coy's sigs and tpt elements. I don't know if they Coy TO&E has room to dedicate 2 pers to be dedicated .50 gunners. The gunner cmdr would be the CSM or maybe you could add a 2IC of wpns as a MCpl for when the CSM is worrying about the Coy?

Could you goto the M3?
Sure, whynot? But be ready to pack much much more ammo so the M2 is more viable in that regard since you need to truck much less ammo around with you.

Having a .50 with the Coy wpns det could be a good thing (thinking aloud here) since it would be in the rear with the HQ element and has the range to tough that which the front Pl's are engaging (in the defensive). You could place it definitely in defilade but prioving enfilade fire may be a problem since I am envisioning it in the middle-rear of a defensive position. On an offensive, it would be a large, obese Bertha to maneuver around.

Maneuverability on the Offensive
The .50 on the offensive, I'd forsee a 4-man det for the weapon (barrels, body, tripod, ammo) but is that too much for 1 weapon system? On another note, this is what makes the 60mm mortar in the light role very effective since it's 1 man for the weapon and 1-25 men for the ammo. Throw it with the heavier baseplate and you just add one man to carry the plate and sight. I am very interested to see how the CASW/AGLS is employed on the offensive w/o vehicle transport.

Other thoughts
Is the TLAV used outside of Afghanistan right now. I'm told by those that were directly supported by them, that they rocked overthere and blew through the furrows. 

My 2 rubles


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Oct 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Do you really need a 10 tonne truck (Grizzly/M113) or even a 17 tonne truck (LAV - moving to 25 tonnes) to cart around a ~50 kg gun?  Even with the one tonne of ammo you need to keep an M3M GAU-21 fed (300 Rd burst ~20 seconds - 100 round can 7 seconds - 2 minutes of engagement - 18 100 round cans)?
> 
> Couldn't you get by with a 6 tonne (like the Bv206s, or the Jackal) or even a Milverado or G-Wagen?
> 
> Or is it all LAV all the time?



Short answer is no, you don't really need a huge vehicle to haul it around. I'm thinking something like a Milcot might work. It would need some mods - a rack to mount the .50 receiver/brl combo, a tripod mount plus various boxes for parts and ammo stowage. Then the gun crews kit would need to be hauled around as well.

The M2 weighs 128 lbs, if I recall, that is the barrell, receiver and tripod, with one 100 rd belt. The weight is prohibitive to haul around on dismtd offensive ops. And it can chew up a belt in no time (not like the GAU 21 but still pretty fast).  I think for that sort of thing the .50 truck(s) stays one tac bound behind the lead platoon, then can be deployed on order from the OC. 


Just a wild thought. 

Hmmmmm....maybe there is an oppotunity  here...... ;D


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2011)

The issue of M-113 or AVGP's as the primary weapons/troop carrier for the .50 resolved the problems of transporting the weapon, the troops and ammunition to use it without invoking extra vehicle resources devoted to the weapon. The LAV III with its 25mm automatic cannon has no need to mount a HMG, so there is no provision to carry one under normal circumstances.

Now if we were to invoke some alternative arrangement such as an Arctic BN mounted on BV 206 or equivalent vehicles, then the .50 makes sense to provide mounted and dismounted firepower in the same fashion as was done with the M-113 or AVGP. We also have historic examples of trucks, tank destroyers and even MBT's mounting .50's on ring mounts or attached to the main gun barrel (IDF), as well as vehicle DF platoons for light or motor infantry so the real issue isn't so much how to get it around the battlefield, but how to effectively employ it (providing men and ammunition is the primary issue). Even the classic "Rise, fall and rebirth of the Emma Gee's" demonstrates the issues of using them in the dismounted defense with a full company.

For people considering using it dismounted in the advance, consider that in WWII the US Army had an entire eight man squad (section) devoted to dismounted HMG's; the three man gun team (carrying the barrel, body and tripod when moving) and the remaining five men packing the ammunition and providing rifles to protect the weapon on the move. Even a lightweight CIS .50 would still need a similar manpower bill when off its vehicle mount. Given the plethora of DF weapons already available, I would put the .50 somewhat farther down the list behind ATGW's and mortars, although ahead of the CASW. In the ideal world, I would combine the two capabilities in a weapon similar in concept to the OCSW.


----------



## Spooks (4 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The LAV III with its 25mm automatic cannon has no need to mount a HMG, so there is no provision to carry one under normal circumstances.



The RWS variant uses C6 or .50s...just saying (It doesn't have a 25mm on it)


----------



## MedCorps (4 Oct 2011)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> I also saw a footnote in the Small Arms Modernization (SAM) project that a sharp shooter capability is being addressed.  This is one of the eleven capabilities being addressed by this project which is supposed to be completed by 2019.
> 
> MC



People may be happy to know that the replacement to the M2 .50 HMG is part of the aforementioned project. 

MC


----------



## Spooks (4 Oct 2011)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> People may be happy to know that the replacement to the M2 .50 HMG is part of the aforementioned project.
> 
> MC



 :sarcasm: 

The M2b - the fibreglass version. It'll be lighter to carry but must be replaced every 50 belts due to the body falling apart. We get a better gun, the gun manufacturer gets a bigger wallet.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2011)

This tangent has brought up an interesting point. The capabilities which we want were in separate organizations for may reasons, but one of them was because the "tools" to provide DF and IF (and pioneer support) for the companies were quite specialized and bulky; they needed a separate organization to provide carriage and logistics. Military history buffs know this to be true; think about "regimental artillery" in the past or the DF platoon concept for Canadian Light Infantry of today.

A hard hitting DF weapon is already "built in" to every LAV platoon in the form of the 25mm chain gun, reducing or effectively eliminating the need for the .50 HMG in a LAV battalion.  TOW's "could" be carried on the turret of a LAV, but we choose not to. If man portable ATGMs with a reach and effect similar to a TOW are bought and issued to the troops, then do we really "need" to revive an AAP as well?

Incidentally, a project to replace the HMG in 2019 is quite ridiculous. How many actual contenders are there besides QCB rebuilds or new build M2's or the CIS .50? Unless the parameters are wide open to include such things as the BGR-15 or the ASP 30 cannon this is simply a make work project on the HMG side and we could be jump starting that process right now.


----------



## Spooks (5 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A hard hitting DF weapon is already "built in" to every LAV platoon in the form of the 25mm chain gun, reducing or effectively eliminating the need for the .50 HMG in a LAV battalion.  TOW's "could" be carried on the turret of a LAV, but we choose not to. If man portable ATGMs with a reach and effect similar to a TOW are bought and issued to the troops, then do we really "need" to revive an AAP as well?



What about the rest of the non-LAV folk or even the non-RG folk?

EDIT: Removed irrelevant statement


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2011)

GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> What about the rest of the non-LAV folk or even the non-RG folk?



As long as they are willing to devote an eight man section of men to feed and carry the HMG on the ground, and pay the extra for logistics and maint of a separate vehicle for each mounted gun (pref big enough for the dismounted team to ride in as well), then by all means. Not being snide, but this is the reality of why separate organizations for combat support are (sometimes) needed. In real terms this would be a M-113 or AVGP analogue to be both useful and survivable, lesser vehicles like "Bren gun carriers" or "jeeps" will have great difficulty supporting the heavy weapons dismounted or in sustained operations where lots of amunition is needed.


----------



## Spooks (6 Oct 2011)

Touche.

Guess I best get a good pair of boots so I can 'hump dem guns'. Something inside of me is really against personally being dependent on a LAV. I'd rather hike for 4hrs than ride up and jump out of a LAV. Just my own personal opinion. You may start the 'LAVs are great pieces of kit!', 'You are just crazy!', or general eTomato throwing now.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Oct 2011)

GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> Touche.
> 
> Guess I best get a good pair of boots so I can 'hump dem guns'. Something inside of me is really against personally being dependent on a LAV. I'd rather hike for 4hrs than ride up and jump out of a LAV. Just my own personal opinion. You may start the 'LAVs are great pieces of kit!', 'You are just crazy!', or general eTomato throwing now.



There are times when the 25mm is too large to use and the collateral damage it could cause would unneccessarily risk lives. The C6 (SF) might be too light and not have the effect needed to "neutralize" (kill) the target. The solution - .50 HMG, but that is my opinion only.
And not all of us have LAVs, RG 31 etc,

Be aware that you can "man portage" a .50 BUT you better have a vehicle (ATV with a wagon?) to bring you ammo.  :2c:


----------



## McG (6 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> There are times when the 25mm is too large to use and the collateral damage it could cause would unneccessarily risk lives. The C6 (SF) might be too light and not have the effect needed to "neutralize" (kill) the target. The solution - .50 HMG, but that is my opinion only.
> And not all of us have LAVs, RG 31 etc,
> 
> Be aware that you can "man portage" a .50 BUT you better have a vehicle (ATV with a wagon?) to bring you ammo.  :2c:


If there are times that a C6 is not enough but the current HMG is too much a logistic burden to hump into the battle, could there be a solution in a mid-range calibre?  10 mm is about half-way from 7.62 mm to .50, but such a weapon could be significantly lighter and the ammunition would be even more so when compared to the HMG.

For those situations in which LAV cannon is available, we don't need to consider a new weapon.  Instead, we could consider different ammunition – we could consider 25 mm ball as a means of collateral damage mitigation.  Alternately, there are “reduced trace” rounds available with reduced ballistic stability designed to perform close to the real thing but which fall from the air much sooner after the weapon’s formal max range (I would not want to shoot these at an AFV type target, but they would meet the need if I wanted something to retard the firepower of 25 mm cannon for collateral damage reasons).



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Incidentally, a project to replace the HMG in 2019 is quite ridiculous. How many actual contenders are there besides QCB rebuilds or new build M2's or the CIS .50? Unless the parameters are wide open to include such things as the BGR-15 or the ASP 30 cannon this is simply a make work project on the HMG side and we could be jump starting that process right now.


It is possible that the Army anticipates more options on that horizon, and the current weapon will meet our needs until that point in time.  The US Army is looking for a new lighter HMG in the coming years through the XM806.

LSAT is also developing lighter rifles and machine guns within the US Army, and it is apparently looking to branch into larger calibres this year or shortly after.  A .50 cal CTA or CLA HMG could provide significant weight reductions even in comparison to the XM806.

I have also seen speculation that the German Army has (had) interest in developing a 10 mm CLA HMG.  Perhaps one of our German speakers could dig to see if there are more internet references than this dated & obscure piece.

Even if the German Army speculation is untrue, LSAT by its nature is not tied to traditional NATO ammunitions and it could be the path for introducing something between .50 cal and 7.62 mm as a new standard GPMG calibre.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Oct 2011)

The XM806 looks very promising. I think I saw it on Future weapons. It would be alot easier to hump, although the ammo is still brutal and requires man power (dispersed amongst the platoons usually is best).

Same goes for 60mm, Eryx missiles, support weapons ammo is always a grump when humping it. Sure is worth it though when you smash the enemy with it.

Instead of a 10mm HMG, what about slightly enlarging the 7.62mm to a new caliber. The C6 is still very much man packable, IMO requires minimum crew 2, preferably 3. What if they made say a 8.5mm? A little more punch? I do realize its all hypothetical and not going to happen BUT if we go down the road of CTA ammo which is a whole new technology game, then maybe?

What about a 8.5mm or 9.25mm CTA Machine gun?


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Oct 2011)

We already have something that could replace the .50 HMG.  It's called the C16.  It has similar range, similar ability to hurt similar things, but has some advantages in that it has juicy stuff like airbursting ammo.


Just saying, because if you replace the .50 HMG with the C 16, we'll save the government MILLIONS.  (And hopefully make DLR irrelevant.  Or at least burn on a stake whoever it was that thought that a GMG could replace a mortar)


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Oct 2011)

Just wondering, does the C16 have AP-HEI?


----------



## Journeyman (6 Oct 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> We already have something that could replace the .50 HMG.  It's called the C16.


Notwithstanding the recent restrictions on its usage


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Oct 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Just wondering, does the C16 have AP-HEI?


I'd have to check, but I believe that it does.


----------



## PJGary (6 Oct 2011)

Question;

Is the question specifically regarding needing a vehicle to _mount_ the gun? or just transport?

As mentioned before, the M2 has a nice neat packing case that holds everything minus the tripod and toolbox. It could easily fit in almost any vehicle and can be deployed pretty quickly. As far as mounting it, I'm by no means an expert but I highly doubt you would need something giant, as the RWS can use a .50 as is and the yanks mount it on Humvees.

As far as having it as a Pl. level asset on dismounted offensive ops, it is still taught as a Coy support weapon and personally I think there is some merit to that. On my HMG course we "learned the finer points" of humping the gun in 3 man teams and it's not really sunshine and rainbows, but it is still _possible_. However when you only have a Pl. Weapons det. the problem of manpower arises. If you have an average support section, you have 1 or 2 C6's (two men each, sometimes with more ammo dispersed), 60mm (another two man team), 84mm (again, two man team), as well as the section commander and the 2iC. That's 8-10 men, who are already packing a serious (and heavy) amount of heat. The M2 needs at least 3 men per gun team (plus ammo) and should also have it's own gun commander, so you would either need to take more guys out of the Pl. who could possibly be doing more effective jobs for Off. ops, or give everyone else in the section even more_...fun_. I also just had a funny vision in my head of scrambling to "Mount gun and tripod!" every time you got bumped. 

In my humble opinion.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2011)

While the HMG (or C-16) *can* be carried by three men (usually very large men), as a practical matter you need quite a few more to use it successfully in the dismounted role. My standard of reference is the US Army in WWII, which devoted an entire eight man squad to the task. Three men carried the gun, assembled and fired it, while the other five provided escort for the weapons team on the move and carried the ammunition as well. Going even farther back, WWI Canadian platoons were divided in a similar manner with the Lewis gun section supporting the gunner as he carried the gun and carrying extra ammunition drums to sustain the weapon when firing.

There is no argument that a very small vehicle "could" carry the HMG (or the C-16 for that matter), but then you are either tied to the vehicle, or accept that dismounting the weapon will have to be restricted, or done with lots of shuffling within the company to get those eight guys per gun. A larger "gun truck" is possible, but vulnerable, so that is why I am seeing the M-113/AVGP/STK "Bronco"/Thales Bushmaster or similar sort of vehicle as _desirable_ in this role. You have the added advantages of being able to use the weapon mounted or dismounted, carry lots of ammunition and spare parts, maintain comms with the Coy HQ and the supported platoons and even carry secondary weapons (the USMC had a "one metre" turret that could mount both the HMG and a 40mm automatic grenade launcher for the LVTP7, that is a turret that can fit on an AVGP or TLAV sized vehicle. The MBSGD (Multi Barrel Smoke Grenade Discharger) is also a weapons system, other support weapons could be carried internally (60mm mortar) or mounted externally depending on *what you wanted *and *what sort of manpower budget* you were willing to devote to the fire support platoon.

The argument between putting more resources to the line vs the machine guns was resolved in WWI , Brigadier-General Brutinel offering this opinion:



> of course this proposal is tantamount to loosing firepower of a great many men so as to add men to do the fatigue work. What would you think of a manufacturer who, being short of hands to clean windows decided to stop his great machines so as to relieve men for that purpose? The policy of reducing machine guns would not remedy the shortage of men in infantry brigades, but would undoubtedly lower their firepower. Instead the number of machine guns should be increased proportionately to maintain, if not improve, their firepower.



It may well be possible that some new technological development like LSAT or an alternative calibre might make this argument moot. Alternatively, advanced ammunition for the 25mm might do the trick (I always wondered why AHEAD ammunition could not be produced in 25mm), or even a successful development of a weapon similar in concept to the OCSW. The 30mm ASP cannon could also be considered, being of a size weight and form factor to directly replace the HMG in various mounts and providing both AP and HE fire. Even breech loading mortars could be designed to provide DF and IF firepower with large calibre HE warheads (a thought experiment mounted a Soviet 2B9 Vasilek on the load bed of an HMMVW to give you an ides of what the concept might look like, the Russians sometimes mount it on the deck of an MT-LB)

Frankly the idea of a fire support platoon is worth considering, and there are lots of "outside the box" concepts that can be applied to this idea. (I have in fact looped back to the Infantry combat support idea but at a Company level...)


----------



## MedCorps (9 Oct 2011)

The focus here for the use of of the .50 cal seems to be on the offensive phases of operation.  

Regardless if  it is suitable for that role due to the HR/logistics issues, there is still clearly a role for this weapons system in the defensive phase of operations where HR/logistics are often (but not always) minimized and geographically fixed. 

I am thinking the area defence where things are somewhat static. Or even immediately upon taking an objective moving up (mechanized / motorized) with the .50 cal and dropping it on the objective with a pile of ammo to aid in securing said objective (with the vehicle then leaving for survivability reasons). 

There is also a clear role in outpost / FOB / fix base defence as well as VCPs where once again you can truck it and the ammo to the position and then drop it. 

It would be a shame not to have this weapons system in the inventory (like the C16) as we cannot find a role for it in offensive operations as there is more to it then A to C, meeting engagements, attacks, raids, recce in force, and exploiting the battle space as the enemy is in on run.  

Maybe it is just the non-combatant in me coming out, who still wants to have people with notable firepower protecting him while he does the medical business  

MC


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2011)

We can already use the HMG in the static role, but this limits its effectiveness to a fairly limited set of circumstances. By analogy, what if I were to say the only place we could use a medic is in the Role 3 because there is no practical way to support you in the field?


----------



## MedCorps (10 Oct 2011)

If you could only use a medic in the role 3 then I would say you are still pretty lucky to have a medic in the role 3 (assuming you make it there).  I would also recommend that you hone some of the other tools in your toolbox such as combat first aid and TCCC as well as have your evac system sorted out and GTG. 

Try not to get effectiveness confused with usefulness.  The .50 cal in the defensive phase of war and the Medic in the role 3 are both useful.  The .50 cal may be less effective in the offensive (due to logistics) but still effective (and useful) in the defensive role.  


MC


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2011)

My analogy wasn't very clear I see.

We have some medical "tools" like first aid and TCCC training that we can carry with us at all times (like our regular suite of weaponry); but I can't think of anyone who would not want to have a medic with us in the field. 

We would love to have a .50 HMG or some other hard hitting weapon available at all times, but the size and weight of the weapon and ammunition makes it very difficult. Having the weapon on hand to shoot in an attack, move it forward stealthily to set up a cut off in an ambush or even right on the spot while consolidating to prepare for a possible counterattack increases the usefulness of the weapon.


----------



## McG (13 Oct 2011)

In the spring of 2007, I had the opportunity to meet some development staff and see the XM307 ACSW/XM312 HMG.  One boastful observation that the team offered was that the XM312 was so much more accurate than the M2 that it did not require the same “high” rate of fire to achieve desired down range effects.  I observed that their RoF seemed awfully low and questioned if they had considered a selector switch to a high RoF setting for such tasks as anti-aircraft, “winning the fire fight”, or increasing the chances of hits on scattered dismounted groups.  The idea was dismissed as unnecessary but (if Wikipedia is to be believed) higher US Army authorities probably thought the idea was very much necessary as the project was cancelled primarily for the weapons’ low RoF.

Any future HMG replacement should have a rate of fire selector for the operator.  It is possible to just build a weapon with a high rate of fire and allow the operator to control aggregate RoF through burst length, but actually controlling it within the weapon can give significantly more control for efficient ammunition use.  I would suggest three settings:

High Rate ~ 1,000 to 1,200 Rnds/Min for AA and anti-pers
Med Rate ~ 600 Rnds/Min for anti-veh and general purpose
Low Rate ~ 200 to 300 Rnds/Min for suppression (after the firefight is won)

The particular value of the mechanically controlled low rate is that it allows longer burst of fewer rounds – this equates to longer periods of suppression for less weight of ammo carried in.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2011)

While this idea is exciting, I can't think of a mechanical, recoil or gas operated system that would allow that. Even various rate reducers don't change the cyclic rate by that amount (assuming there was a way to insert or remove the rate reducer during firing).

An externally powered weapon like the chain gun could have pre programmed firing rates (and a .50 chain gun would probably be quite easy to do), but a reliable power supply would be a killer, especially when in the dismounted role.

Do you know of any system whic would allow that sort of mechanical control of cyclic rates?


----------



## cupper (15 Oct 2011)

What about a system that allowed preselected burst length rather than changing the rate of fire?

Say a selector that allowed a 5 round, 20 round and full rock and roll.

(See, this one is special, the dial goes all the way to 11!) ;D


----------



## McG (15 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While this idea is exciting, I can't think of a mechanical, recoil or gas operated system that would allow that. Even various rate reducers don't change the cyclic rate by that amount (assuming there was a way to insert or remove the rate reducer during firing).
> 
> ...
> 
> Do you know of any system whic would allow that sort of mechanical control of cyclic rates?


The difference between the proposed medium and high rates could be achieved through gas regulation.  The difference between medium and low rates could then be achieved that a mechanism that return force and allows a greater recoil travel distance for the bolt or breach-block.

I do not know of an existing weapon that does this.  Weapons engineers out in industry can be pretty smart though, if we made it known now that we will be very interested in a proven design by 2019, there will be at least a couple manufactures ready to show us something when we are ready to buy.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Oct 2011)

I can sort of see the gas regulation thing, but there will have to be some sort of mechanical rate limiter to change the speed of the recoiling action so the bolt can move at the appropriate speed.

Actually, what may work is some sort of cam on the bolt or bolt carrier which engages a variable track (that controls the movement or speed of travel). The tricky part would be finding a way to drive the bolt back into battery with sufficient force to strip a new round off the belt and finish the chambering and locking cycles (if using conventional ammunition) regardless of how far the recoiling mechanism moved. I'm not sure if this would be a consideration with a .50 LOSAT analogue....


----------



## Spooks (18 Oct 2011)

Not that I am a WpnsTech or anything, but wouldn't having a MG which is gas operated holding a RoR of 1000RPM have a significant issue with carbon buildup since the CF doesn't use the highest qualist ammunition that burns cleanest?

Just asking an honest Q


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2011)

Any military weapon should be designed to use low quality ammunition since there will be no telling where you can get ammunition from in a war zone. The Ross rifle suffered from this problem, as a sporting rifle owners would buy or hand load ammunition of the best quality they could buy, as a military weapon it was subjected to ammunition of varying quality.

The AK series of weapons has lots of clearance between parts to offset the buildup of dirt and carbon, but at a loss of accruacy (which the end user decided could be overcome by quantity of fire).

Some pretty brilliant people will be needed to gunsmith the ".50 McG Gun", because of the various features desired:

Variable RPM
Rugged to operate in a military environment
Ability to fire all service ammunition (if using a new system like LOSAT, any allied nations version of that ammunition)
Some degree of accruacy (certainly no less than a Browning M2 HMG)
Light weight for man portability
Ability to mount various equipment (sight systems, range finders, ballistic computers)
Form factor similar enough to the Browning M2 HMG to fit current mounts and cradles
Dual feed would be nice as well


----------



## McG (19 Oct 2011)

GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> Not that I am a WpnsTech or anything, but wouldn't having a MG which is gas operated holding a RoR of 1000RPM have a significant issue with carbon buildup since the CF doesn't use the highest qualist ammunition that burns cleanest?


Most machine guns have a RoF from 600 to 1,2000 RPM.  The FN MAG can get up to the 1,000 RPM and FN Minimi can surpass that.  .... and I have no idea what is in the realm of the possible if we were to consider CLA ammunition and its options of operating mechanisms.

Of course, carbon fouling is the result of the total of rounds fired and not so much the RoF at any given point in time.  Where I am advocating mechanically controlled cyclic RoF, I beleive the total number of rounds fired will be reduced in comparison to another MG with a fixed high cyclic rate.  The machine gunner would use the highest RoF for those brief periods in which it was needed (like shredding an exposed Pl of enemy inf in a KZ before they can react and take cover) the lower general purpose rate would be used against vehicles, for winning the fire-fight, and in most other circumstances.  Finally,  The lowest rate would be used to allow longer lasting burst of fewer bullets to maintain suppression.

So - despite of the higher max RoF, overall I think the weapon would achieve equal effects with fewer rounds down range and therefore less carbon build-up and less ammunition weight carried.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Dual feed would be nice as well


On an HMG designed exclusively for mounted use on a RWS, this would not be a bad idea.  What is the weight impact of two types of ammunition?


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Oct 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Most machine guns have a RoF from 600 to 1,2000 RPM.  The FN MAG can get up to the 1,000 RPM and FN Minimi can surpass that.  .... and I have no idea what is in the realm of the possible if we were to consider CLA ammunition and its options of operating mechanisms.



...and the FN M3M is 1100-1200 rds/min.


----------



## Spooks (20 Oct 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Of course, carbon fouling is the result of the total of rounds fired and not so much the RoF at any given point in time.



So, logically speaking, if you have a high RoF, you'll have a high number of rounds fired and thus a quicker buildup of carbon fouling. I know RoF doesn't directly cause carbon fouling, but you do have an increased amount of rounds going down the chamber. RoF+ just causes the normal carbon buildup to happen faster.


----------



## Spooks (20 Oct 2011)

Also....

Do we still need a MG to carry out AA abilities? We aren't having random Stukas out on a hunting patrol strafing the front. The aircraft now are much faster and to a point where (I believe) MG fire by an infantry soldier would be inaccurate. I believe that having an HMG in the AA role is a tad dated but that is just my opinion based on Int of the modern combat zone where air superiority is won first. I have not been trained on a plausible situation where air superiority is not won.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Oct 2011)

GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> Also....
> 
> Do we still need a MG to carry out AA abilities? We aren't having random Stukas out on a hunting patrol strafing the front. The aircraft now are much faster and to a point where (I believe) MG fire by an infantry soldier would be inaccurate. I believe that having an HMG in the AA role is a tad dated but that is just my opinion based on Int of the modern combat zone where air superiority is won first. I have not been trained on a plausible situation where air superiority is not won.



I know of at least a few coalition airframes pulled down by a Dishka..."dated" maybe, but effective nonetheless.  :nod:


Regards
G2G
_
*edited for spelling_


----------



## McG (20 Oct 2011)

GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> So, logically speaking ...


Let's please not talk of logically speaking if we are going to quote single sentances and ignore the rest of the content from the post which addresses the concern.  You are worried that carbon fouling would be a significant problem in a gas operated machine gun firing a fixed cyclic rate of 1,000 RPM.  Here are the facts that address your concern:[list type=decimal][*]There are many well known and reliable gas operated machine guns with RoF that meets or exceeds the 1,000 RPM that concerns you.
[*]Some of those machine guns are in Canadian service.
[*]My proposal was for a MG with a variable cyclic rate - in combination with proper operator fire control this would result in few rounds being fired.[/list]



			
				GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> Do we still need a MG to carry out AA abilities? We aren't having random Stukas out on a hunting patrol strafing the front.


There are helicopters and (more & more) UAVs which are still vulnerable to MG fire.  In the case of some of the smaller tactical level UAVs, HMG fire may be the most effective way of responding to the threat.


----------



## MedCorps (20 Oct 2011)

GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> Also....
> 
> I have not been trained on a plausible situation where air superiority is not won.



Although you have not be trained on a plausible situation where air superiority is not won I can assure you that your officers on maybe phase training (I have not done infantry phase training but it is discussed on various CSS phase training), and certainly on ATOC, AOC, JSOP, and JCSP talk very much about operations in an environment where air superiority is tenuous, not achieved, or fleeting.  

We still plan and big picture train for these events and hence you may (but hopefully not) find yourself conducting infantry operations where bad guys are still flying about you. 

Just some food for through. 

MC


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2011)

GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> Also....
> 
> Do we still need a MG to carry out AA abilities? We aren't having random Stukas out on a hunting patrol strafing the front. The aircraft now are much faster and to a point where (I believe) MG fire by an infantry soldier would be inaccurate. I believe that having an HMG in the AA role is a tad dated but that is just my opinion based on Int of the modern combat zone where air superiority is won first. I have not been trained on a plausible situation where air superiority is not won.



I beleive we do. A .50 can take out a chopper. 

Massed small arms fire forces aircraft to fly higher.....where there are other bigger assets to whack bad dudes in airplanes.


----------



## dangerboy (20 Oct 2011)

Unfortunatly for land forces we have lost a lot of the equipment and skill set to handle anti-aircraft.  Ask most soldiers below the rank of Sgt what the M63 anti-aircraft mount is and you will get a lot of blank looks.  We have also more or less grounded the ADATS and they are not in use anymore or very shortly will no longer be in use.


----------



## Spooks (20 Oct 2011)

Thank you for enlightening me about AA roles everyone and I apologize to MCG for my comment about gas-operated MGs. No offense was intended.


----------



## PJGary (20 Oct 2011)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for land forces we have lost a lot of the equipment and skill set to handle anti-aircraft.  Ask most soldiers below the rank of Sgt what the M63 anti-aircraft mount is and you will get a lot of blank looks.  We have also more or less grounded the ADATS and they are not in use anymore or very shortly will no longer be in use.



We tried SO hard to get one on my HMG course for the final shoot (the M63), no dice . As far as AA goes, I think it is definitely effective, especially against low flying helicopters. Does anyone have access to the AA lecture and slides for the .50 course? It goes through a lot of the topics we are talking about here.


----------



## dangerboy (20 Oct 2011)

Here is a useful link

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=b-gl-317-014&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.survivalbus.com%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D16%26Itemid%3D14%26dir%3D%252Fhome%252Fcontent%252F13%252F5642913%252Fhtml%252Fsurvivalbus%252F894teh9rt783etrh4%252Fmanuals%252FGunnery%252FAnti-Aircraft%26download_file%3D%252Fhome%252Fcontent%252F13%252F5642913%252Fhtml%252Fsurvivalbus%252F894teh9rt783etrh4%252Fmanuals%252FGunnery%252FAnti-Aircraft%252FAll%2BArms%2BAir%2BDefence%2B-%2BB-GL-318-017PT-000.pdf&ei=Z8mgToPhFqPciAKHnb1Q&usg=AFQjCNGA08Qx6btfd94tINftpUtLr_ix-g&sig2=SyCyq8IOs86NaDs5EFqo6A&cad=rja


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2011)

As noted, low flying helicopters and UAV's are threat that the HMG (on a proper mount) is quite capable of dealing with. Going back in time, you might discover the M-2 was a Browning design optimized to shoot at observation balloons, and the combination of ROF and energy of the rounds was considered a winning combination when the USAAF was looking at how to arm their aircraft for WWII (and even as late as the Korean War). This actually won over such contenders as 37mm and 23mm automatic cannons firing explosive shells.

I have a mental image of the "McG" gun mechanism in mind. 

The weapon is gas operated much like the "Dover Devil" or the CIS .50. The bolt carrier rides on a pair of guides, but has a cam on the bottom, which engages a bar with a track cut in. The bar can be rotated by the gunner using a knob or toggle on the back of the weapon to one of three different positions. The two lower rate positions expose longer cam tracks, allowing the bolt carrier to move longer distances, and at the same time (somehow) varying the power of the return mechanism to throw the recoiling mechanism forward with enough speed to strip new rounds off the belt and cycle the action but not imposing too much stress on the weapon either in the "short throw" (rapid cycling rate) position, nor the "long throw" (slow cyclic rate) position.

I can't think of how the return mechanism will work under these conditions, a fixed spring is out for obvious reasons, but I don't think a hydraulic or hydropneumatic system will have the power or reliability to do the job. Anyone have ideas on this?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Oct 2011)

I'm sure, there is no doubt that HMGs can be made with selected rates of fire. It's design and engineering. You guys are getting way to far in the weeds for a simple problem, that in the end, is not our (your) problem.

If we decide we have a need and can get an arms supplier on board, I'm sure it'll happen. You're getting way out on the weird end of a tangent here.

Stick to what you know. The guys with the big salaries, degrees, research budgets and edjumucation can take care of your wishes. You develop the concept. They develop the machine. It's what they are paid for.

 :2c:


----------



## cupper (22 Oct 2011)

Nobody has answered my question, would a single rate of fire with a variable burst selection be a simpiler and more effective method than a variable rate of fire?


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Oct 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Of course, carbon fouling is the result of the total of rounds fired and not so much the RoF at any given point in time.  Where I am advocating mechanically controlled cyclic RoF, I beleive the total number of rounds fired will be reduced in comparison to another MG with a fixed high cyclic rate.  The machine gunner would use the highest RoF for those brief periods in which it was needed (like shredding an exposed Pl of enemy inf in a KZ before they can react and take cover) the lower general purpose rate would be used against vehicles, for winning the fire-fight, and in most other circumstances.  Finally,  The lowest rate would be used to allow longer lasting burst of fewer bullets to maintain suppression.



This explains the reasoning behind where different RoF would be appropriate.  If you are advocating a 'select-fire' (like a 3-round burst) for a heavier machine gun, vice a light carbine, I think the answer would be "no, that wouldn't be practical."  The fire duration can be controlled well enough by the MG operator with the trigger IMO.  A select-fire mode would likely not be used often and not worth the relative complexity of design required in a heavier MG.

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Nobody has answered my question, would a single rate of fire with a variable burst selection be a simpiler and more effective method than a variable rate of fire?


The answer from G2G is exactly right.  There is no value in a burst setting as this is something the gunner can already control.  The value of variable cyclic rate is that bullets are better dispersed in time within a burst.

Consider that studies on artillery effects determined that the most casualties were achieved in the first few seconds of a bombardment because that was the time it took persons in the target area to recognize what was happening and properly react.  The same moment of vulnerabilty exists for a dismounted enemy obliviously wandering into an ambush or kill-zone.  To exploit that moment of vulnerability you want the highest possible rate of fire through that brief period - that means machine guns firing with a high cyclic rate in long bursts with short pauses in between.

Conversly, when it comes to maintaining suppression, you want to spread it out more.  Even at a lowly 200 RPM, a LAV cannon fires fast enough that nobody is going to try doing anything between shots of the same burst  (though, they might try the dash for glory between burts).  At 900 RPM a MG can put a five round burst down range in a third of a second - if suppressing a target, most of those bullets would be traveling so closely in time as to be superflous to the desired effect (ie. most of those bullets were wasted).  A 300 RPM MG could spread those same five rounds over a full second.  The pause between bursts should be the same regardless of the weapon's cyclic rate - and so, through every min of firing the 300 RPM MG reduces the number of rounds fired by a handfull.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Oct 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> The answer from G2G is exactly right.  There is no value in a burst setting as this is something the gunner can already control.  The value of variable cyclic rate is that bullets are better dispersed in time within a burst.
> 
> Consider that studies on artillery effects determined that the most casualties were achieved in the first few seconds of a bombardment because that was the time it took persons in the target area to recognize what was happening and properly react.  The same moment of vulnerabilty exists for a dismounted enemy obliviously wandering into an ambush or kill-zone.  To exploit that moment of vulnerability you want the highest possible rate of fire through that brief period - that means machine guns firing with a high cyclic rate in long bursts with short pauses in between.
> 
> Conversly, when it comes to maintaining suppression, you want to spread it out more.  Even at a lowly 200 RPM, a LAV cannon fires fast enough that nobody is going to try doing anything between shots of the same burst  (though, they might try the dash for glory between burts).  At 900 RPM a MG can put a five round burst down range in a third of a second - if suppressing a target, most of those bullets would be traveling so closely in time as to be superflous to the desired effect (ie. most of those bullets were wasted).  A 300 RPM MG could spread those same five rounds over a full second.  The pause between bursts should be the same regardless of the weapon's cyclic rate - and so, through every min of firing the 300 RPM MG reduces the number of rounds fired by a handfull.



Damn good answer!! I fully concur!!


----------

