# The Cdn Army does not need HMGs (From: CANSOF vs. Boko Haram)



## OldSolduer (10 Feb 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Hopefully they provided some effective advice and assistance in the form of .50 Cal HMG.



Yes....my favorite MG.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Feb 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Yes....my favorite MG.



Which sadly is on the way out of the system.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Feb 2015)

Again you mean.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Feb 2015)

Now that the "war" is over they can get rid of that time consuming stuff and get back to parade squaring bashing  8)

Mortars, HMG's , Howitzers. It's not like we will ever fight a near peer enemy again, unless of course we bump into some "polite green men" or "Russian tourists" in Eastern Europe.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Feb 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Which sadly is on the way out of the system.



Funny enough I had a few drinks with a guy who is/was involved in this move.  He was very saddened about it and even when so far as to say the Army will again have to call on the Navy to reteach its operation when it is inevitably brought back into service again. 

He was an MWO Weapons Tech Land and if my Wisers fogged memory is correct he was the LCMM for MGs.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Feb 2015)

The Army has no one to blame but themselves.  At least CANSOF and the RCAF are keeping Ma Deuce.  

G2G


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Feb 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> At least CANSOF and the *RCAF* are keeping Ma Deuce.
> 
> G2G



RCAF ???


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The Army has no one to blame but themselves.  At least CANSOF and the RCAF are keeping Ma Deuce.
> 
> G2G



I don't expect the RCN will get rid of it soon either.


----------



## dimsum (11 Feb 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> RCAF ???



Griffon and/or Chinook comes to mind.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Feb 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> RCAF ???



CH-146 Griffon with GAU-21 (M3M) .50 cal machine gun in AFG


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Feb 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't expect the RCN will get rid of it soon either.



Good point, JJT.  I update my previous statement..EVERY operational CAF service EXCEPT the Army...  :not-again:


----------



## Armymedic (12 Feb 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Good point, JJT.  I update my previous statement..EVERY operational CAF service EXCEPT the Army...  :not-again:



Did you mean, "every CAF service except the Army is operational"? 
 :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Feb 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The Army has no one to blame but themselves.  At least CANSOF and the RCAF are keeping Ma Deuce.
> 
> G2G



I'd like to know who,and how that decision was made.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Feb 2015)

Probably some bean counter in Ottawa that figured its cheaper to retire the weapon than spend the money to upgrade the ranges where soldiers can train with them.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Feb 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Probably some bean counter in Ottawa that figured its cheaper to retire the weapon than spend the money to upgrade the ranges where soldiers can train with them.



Who knows for sure, but I've heard the .50 became "redundant" once the 25 mm on the LAV came into play.

I don't know about any of you.....but I'm not sold on that.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Who knows for sure, but I've heard the .50 became "redundant" once the 25 mm on the LAV came into play.
> 
> I don't know about any of you.....but I'm not sold on that.



Although the .50 is rather heavy, it still is "man-portable".  The 25 mm is not.


----------



## Sigs Pig (12 Feb 2015)

I know it is waaaay off the subject, but just following this interesting thread.
Found on the 'net:
"General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Inc., Williston, Vt., was awarded a $255,486,000 firm-fixed-price contract to support the program manager, crew served weapons, which has a requirement to satisfy the M2A1 quick change barrel (QCB) kit requirement for the Army and other services. This contracting effort procures the additional M2A1 QCB kits for the continued fielding of the M2A1 weapon, and to replace already fielded M2s with the new M2A1 configuration. Funding and performance location will be determined with each order. The contract was solicited via the Web with eight bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command – Picatinny Arsenal, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. is the contracting activity (W15QKN-13-D-0107)."

ME


----------



## medicineman (12 Feb 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'd like to know who,and how that decision was made.



Was made by a person who never was, nor ever will, be an end user...I seem to remember reading somewhere about how the Brits were freaking out during the Falklands War because they had withdrawn the .50's from Army service, and now realized there was in fact a role for them and hurriedly brought some back into service.  Problem was, there were very few instructors alive/serving with the know how to teach people how to use them.  

Sounds familiar?   ;D

MM


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2015)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Was made by a person who never was, nor ever will, be an end user...



Such a common theme in the CAF for the last two or three decades.  Goes right up to to the construction of facilities for troops or equipment.  (Memories of a tank hangar being constructed in Pet (1994), where the foundation being laid clearly indicated that the doors would not be large enough to allow a tank to pass through; and proven as such once hangar was built.  Someone, not an end user, found a way to cut costs by reducing the size of the doors.)


----------



## medicineman (12 Feb 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Such a common theme in the CAF for the last two or three decades.  Goes right up to to the construction of facilities for troops or equipment.  (Memories of a tank hangar being constructed in Pet (1994), where the foundation being laid clearly indicated that the doors would not be large enough to allow a tank to pass through; and proven as such once hangar was built.  Someone, not an end user, found a way to cut costs by reducing the size of the doors.)



So many dolts, not enough live ammo...and incidentally there isn't enough live ammo to make sure our weapons are zeroed, much less to cull the dolts off.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Feb 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although the .50 is rather heavy, it still is "man-portable".  The 25 mm is not.



Its 128 pounds, not including ammo. 

In order to "man pack" it you need to break it down into its three groups: Barrel, receiver group and tripod.

Then the ammo - you need ammo bearers.

It's not easy, but we did it in 1979 in Charlie Coy 1 VP. Yes, the earth had cooled by then.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Feb 2015)

The British Army magically reintroduced the 50 cal in 1983, right after the Argies reminded them (the hard way) that it's a pretty good gun to have on your side.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Feb 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Its 128 pounds, not including ammo.
> 
> In order to "man pack" it you need to break it down into its three groups: Barrel, receiver group and tripod.
> 
> ...



So, the last ice age is _your_ fault.  Where's the global cooling now that we really need it?


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Feb 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So, the last ice age is _your_ fault.  Where's the global cooling now that we really need it?



-25 C here. Cooling is not an issue here. Keeping warm is.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Its 128 pounds, not including ammo.
> 
> In order to "man pack" it you need to break it down into its three groups: Barrel, receiver group and tripod.
> 
> ...



.....and it has a Tripod or AA mount that it can be mounted on.

Now.....Try breaking down a M245 25 mm Chaingun, take it out of the turret and hump it off to a trench somewhere................and find a ground mount of any sort to hold it.   (Realistically) Not going to happen.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Feb 2015)

medicineman said:
			
		

> ...Problem was, there were very few instructors alive/serving with the know how to teach people how to use them.



Although not to make it too complicated, they essentially have the same TOETs as the C6 and C9, being open-bolt, blow-back designs made by FN.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Although not to make it too complicated, they essentially have the same TOETs as the C6 and C9, being open-bolt, blow-back designs made by FN.



The QCB's also did away with the Headspacing and Timing guages, making the checks much easier and safer.


----------



## medicineman (12 Feb 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Although not to make it too complicated, they essentially have the same TOETs as the C6 and C9, being open-bolt, blow-back designs made by FN.



Still remember a few of them, having had to do famil shoots on them in the 90's...though, as I told my platoon warrant, "if gets to the point where I need to throw 60mm bombs down the tube or banging 50 cal rounds out, we need to be running really fast in the opposite direction"  :nod:

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2015)

I found C6s didn't have much vehicle stopping power when used with the RG31s, TLAVs or Bisons.  Taking .50s away really reduces the engagement bands of light (or non-LAV3) infantry.

They say the C16 is man portable but by that they mean take it off a vehicle and set it up.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Feb 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I found C6s didn't have much vehicle stopping power when used with the RG31s, TLAVs or Bisons.  Taking .50s away really reduces the engagement bands of light (or non-LAV3) infantry.
> 
> They say the C16 is man portable but by that they mean take it off a vehicle and set it up.



Not to mention it's three pieces, and a pain to set up, when it first arrived at the weapon school no one was actually trained to assemble it, but we were curious so we pulled out the manual and set it up. That was a annoying few minutes. I'd say it's as heavy if not heavier then the .50 so have fun. It may have a 2.2km max effective range but i'd rather a cheaper .50, not a programmable 40mm high velocity grenade.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Feb 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Although not to make it too complicated, they essentially have the same TOETs as the C6 and C9, being open-bolt, blow-back designs made by FN.



I think it's more in how they are used tactically, however we can just grab Pam's from the US, brits and other more enlightened users. I guess the HMG is just not "tac-cool" and would look out of place on dynamic,integrated,networked,multi-taskable, 21st Century solution powerpoints.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Feb 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Its 128 pounds, not including ammo.
> 
> In order to "man pack" it you need to break it down into its three groups: Barrel, receiver group and tripod.
> 
> ...



Funny you should mention ammo bearers.  I'm just working up an analysis (Go ahead Old Sweat - you can start laughing now  ;D) based on an Afghanistan study of the Americans in 2003 that I am applying to a Canadian context.

If I have my facts straight and you take the Yanks out of their desert gear and put them into their arctic gear, complete with personal protective equipment (including NBC gear), personal weapons, comms and navigation gear with rations and water for 72 hours then you have to ship 160 kg into the boonies.  Then you add heating and shelter (five man tent).  Then you can start thinking about support weapons.

The 160 kg represents 80 kg of soldier and 80 kg of stuff.  160 kg that has to be inserted and retrieved and moved around the frozen north on snowshoes and a pulk.  

Is it worth shipping in that extra 160 kg as an ammo bearer just to lift a small can of ammo or half a dozen 60mm mortar bombs?

Why not leave a couple of ammo bearers behind and ship in a Snowmobile or UTV and have one of the crews or even one of the CQ's guys tote an HMG with a few thousand rounds or a pair or 81s with 100 rounds?


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Feb 2015)

When I was on OP CARIBBE in 2011 we stopped for fuel at Port of France in Martinique.  On the other side of the Jetty was one of the RFA (Royal Fleet Auxiliary) Tankers (for you land lubbers).  I honestly don't remember which one, but I talked my way on board for a tour.  I noted that on the Bridge Wings (balconies if you like on either side of the Bridge), they had a Dillon mounted each side for defensive use instead of a .50 cal.  They also had on the next deck down a 30mm Goal Keeper gun mounted each side for a bigger punch.  

Now personally, I like the idea of Dillons instead of .50's for taking on small boats and think that for the Navy at least it's a better way to go.  Would perhaps a Dillon not be a better option for the Army as a crew served weapon with the .50 being done away with or instead of?  Would volume not make up for weight when it comes to shredding someone or something that desperately needs attention?


----------



## Fabius (12 Feb 2015)

As much as I like the Dillon guns, I don’t think they are the right choice for the army.  They are more complex, require a power source, and require large amounts of ammo.  
The rate of fire for a M2HB is around 500 rounds/min, the Dillon M134D is 3000 rounds/min. That’s a lot of ammo to haul to support a fire plan, and you still need to haul the gun, the battery, the feed chute and a mount.

Vehicle mounted maybe but then we have the same issues as with our AGL.  Now for ships and aircraft good to go.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Feb 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ...Now personally, I like the idea of Dillons instead of .50's for taking on small boats and think that for the Navy at least it's a better way to go.  Would perhaps a Dillon not be a better option for the Army as a crew served weapon with the .50 being done away with or instead of?  Would volume not make up for weight when it comes to shredding someone or something that desperately needs attention?



Griffons in AFG had both the .50 and the Dillon, and the section generally tried to cross-load the configuration between the two helicopters, so as to provide a Dillon and .50 to each side of the section.  Both nice weapons with benefits and some limitations to each.

G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Feb 2015)

Thanks, both of you, for the input.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Feb 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Thanks, both of you, for the input.



I'm pretty sure that this is a great example of the optimal weapon mix for the dismounted rifle section 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR37Z5DzsTg


----------



## my72jeep (12 Feb 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> -25 C here. Cooling is not an issue here. Keeping warm is.


Was -37 @ 5am here in the land of the big Goose keeping warm was not attainable.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Feb 2015)

HMG gunners are good multi-taskers


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Feb 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that this is a great example of the optimal weapon mix for the dismounted rifle section
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR37Z5DzsTg


See, I'm not crazy after all.    ;D


----------



## cryco (13 Feb 2015)

How much does that thing weigh?


----------



## winnipegoo7 (13 Feb 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> When I was on OP CARIBBE in 2011 we stopped for fuel at Port of France in Martinique.  On the other side of the Jetty was one of the RFA (Royal Fleet Auxiliary) Tankers (for you land lubbers).  I honestly don't remember which one, but I talked my way on board for a tour.  I noted that on the Bridge Wings (balconies if you like on either side of the Bridge), they had a Dillon mounted each side for defensive use instead of a .50 cal.  They also had on the next deck down a 30mm Goal Keeper gun mounted each side for a bigger punch.
> 
> Now personally, I like the idea of Dillons instead of .50's for taking on small boats and think that for the Navy at least it's a better way to go.  Would perhaps a Dillon not be a better option for the Army as a crew served weapon with the .50 being done away with or instead of?  Would volume not make up for weight when it comes to shredding someone or something that desperately needs attention?




I know you're a HullTech and that this isn't your 'part ship', but I just wanted to correct a couple misconceptions:

1. I'm not aware of any RFA vessels that are fitted with the Goalkeeper CIWS. If it had a CIWS it was likely the Phalanx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS

2. What you thought was the "30mm Goal Keeper" was likely the DS30M Mark 2 (Which is apparently a 30mm Bushmaster). It would be used much like we use the .50cals, except that since it is remote controlled, has electro-optics and is gyro stabalized it would be much more effective than our .50 cals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30mm_DS30M_Mark_2_Automated_Small_Calibre_Gun

3. The Mk44 Minigun (Is this the same gun as the Dillon?) did not replace the .50 cal, it fills the same role as the GPMG (our C-6), but we use the C-9 in this role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Royal_Navy_weapon_systems

4. In simple terms the Mk44 would be used for close protection, much like we use the C-9 (ie. in a busy harbour where it is too dangerous to fire the .50cal.) The Mk44 would be next to useless against a small boat attack. 7.62mm is too small and the range is too short. The Brits use the DS30 to protect against 'swarming' small boats and fast attack craft. Apparently they thought that the .50 cal was too small.

Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2015)

I picked that minigun up empty with it's pack, you ain't walking much with it. According to the "Hurricane Butterfly" employees where the gun is currently located the actor was strapped to a stake in the ground as the torque kept knocking him over.

speaking of sleds and MG's


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Feb 2015)

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> I know you're a HullTech and that this isn't your 'part ship', but I just wanted to correct a couple misconceptions:
> 
> 1. I'm not aware of any RFA vessels that are fitted with the Goalkeeper CIWS. If it had a CIWS it was likely the Phalanx.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS
> ...



It was RFA WAVE RULER, who was alongside of us that time.  They had two "DS30B 30 mm cannon" fitted on the deck below the Bridge Wings and the "Mk44"  on the Bridge Wings (which to my eyes look just like Dillons). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Wave_Ruler_(A390)

The chap (a civilian crewmember) who was taking me around called the 30mm "the Goal Keeper"  I took him at his word on that as, you're quite correct, it's not my part ship.  Thanks for the correction.  I suppose the 7.62 isn't heavy enough, bullet wise, but I would have thought that the sheer volume would make up for that close in.  As Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own".


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I picked that minigun up empty with it's pack, you ain't walking much with it. According to the "Hurricane Butterfly" employees where the gun is currently located the actor was strapped to a stake in the ground as the torque kept knocking him over.
> 
> speaking of sleds and MG's



We used pulks like this in Norway, with a built in pintle mount for the GPMG. The 3 man crew could easily tow it, with all their ammo, on skis or by hand.

It allowed you to fire relatively accurately in most snow/bog/mud/swamp conditions. We provided them with snow stakes and light cables as well so you could stabilize it using a triangular set up.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2015)

CIS .50 only weighs 30kg, has dual feed, fires all current .50 ammunition and can fit in all existing M2 tripods.

Really, how hard is this stuff....


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> CIS .50 only weighs 30kg, has dual feed, fires all current .50 ammunition and can fit in all existing M2 tripods.
> 
> Really, how hard is this stuff....



Good Lord Thucydides.

You make it sound as simple as looking up the Eaton's Catalogue or heading over to Ali Baba.  Don't you know there are stakeholders to consult? Consultants to employ? Clerks to justify?  Give your head a shake.  

Next thing you know you will have CO's with the authority and the budget to buy approved small arms directly from approved manufacturers and have them delivered by UPS.  The horror of it all.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> CIS .50 only weighs 30kg, has dual feed, fires all current .50 ammunition and can fit in all existing M2 tripods.
> 
> Really, how hard is this stuff....



Cool. That's lighter than a Vickers, I think.


----------



## medicineman (13 Feb 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that this is a great example of the optimal weapon mix for the dismounted rifle section
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR37Z5DzsTg



Of course the funniest thing in there is all the heavyish stuff going nuts, then Carl Weathers steps in with his MP5  :.

MM


----------



## Jed (13 Feb 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Such a common theme in the CAF for the last two or three decades.  Goes right up to to the construction of facilities for troops or equipment.  (Memories of a tank hangar being constructed in Pet (1994), where the foundation being laid clearly indicated that the doors would not be large enough to allow a tank to pass through; and proven as such once hangar was built.  Someone, not an end user, found a way to cut costs by reducing the size of the doors.)



Oh how I enjoyed being the bearer of that message.  :


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2015)

C6 with SF and 6001000 Rounds for 10 minutes sustained = 31 41 kg   Ammo =    47% 60% of load
M2 with SF and 400 Rounds for 10 minutes sustained = 119 kg Ammo = 51% of load
C16 complete and 400 Rounds for 10 minutes sustained = 286 kg Ammo = 83% of load
M224 bipod and 200 Rounds for 10 minutes sustained = 358 kg Ammo = 94% of load
C3 complete and 150 Rounds for 10 minutes sustained = 663 kg Ammo = 95% of load
CG84 M4+FCS12 and 50 Rounds for 10 minutes sustained = 174 kg Ammo = 95% of load
AT4 (50 Rounds Complete) = 335 kg Ammo = 100% of load

The back breaker surely is not the weapon.  It is the ammo. If you can't hump the weapon then you can't hump the ammo.

And disposable systems like the AT4 are not the answer.

It is going to take a little more digging to find the relative cost of 10 minutes worth of ammo, as compared to the cost of the weapon.  But I would be willing to bet that when you add in the cost of shipping and maintaining a weapons tech to maintain the weapons then it more efficient all around just to treat the cost of small arms as a consummable and buy a new one when it breaks.  Have the CQ stock more barrels, receivers, tripods and baseplates than you have official PYs to man.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2015)

Part 2  Cost (Open source replacement costs)

M240 Cost  $6600  10 min sustained (1000 rounds Ball)     $510  TICs per gun = 12
M2    Cost $14002  10 min sustained (400 rounds SLAP)   $3548  TICs per gun = 4
Mk19 Cost  $13758 10 min sustained (400 rounds HEDP)   $12000 TICs per gun = 1
M224 Cost $10658  10 min sustained (200 rounds M720)  $99,400 Guns per TIC = 10
M252 Cost $24717  10 min sustained (150 rounds M821)  $90,750 Guns per TIC = 4
CG84 Cost ~$20000 10 min sustained (50 Rounds HEDP)   $75,000 Guns per TIC = 4
AT4 Cost   $1481    10 min sustained (50 Rounds)           $74,050 "Guns" per TIC = 50 

Cost of CanAm Outlander 6x6 Ammo Bearer MSRP -$13,649
Weight of CanAm Outlander 6x6 (Dry) - 515 kg
Payload - 363 kg
Towed Load - 750 kg

10 Minutes Sustained spreadsheet revised to include estimated costs


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Feb 2015)

If the weight of the ammo is the critical issue, then maybe industry should look at taking another stab at caseless once more.  That is a savings on weight in lack of brass alone.


----------



## McG (13 Feb 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If the weight of the ammo is the critical issue, then maybe industry should look at taking another stab at caseless once more.  That is a savings on weight in lack of brass alone.


That technology is not ready for the field.  There are other options including telescoped ammunition and alternate material for cases.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Feb 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> That technology is not ready for the field.  There are other options including telescoped ammunition and alternate material for cases.



The careless ammo thing has been looked at for over 30 years now.  I think we'll be stuck with brass for a while.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Feb 2015)

Agreed.  But if they can get that issue, cased (pardon the pun), that might be the way forward for the PBI.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2015)

I suspect any successful caseless ammo will come in a disposable mag, rip the top off and load it in. so weight saved at the chamber end may not equate to the same weight saved at the logistical end. Plus you will have to factor the mag cost into it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Feb 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect any successful caseless ammo will come in a disposable mag, rip the top off and load it in. so weight saved at the chamber end may not equate to the same weight saved at the logistical end. Plus you will have to factor the mag cost into it.



A plastic 30 round Magpul P-Mag will run you $20-ish

I've heard our current CF issue metal 30 round mags have a price tag of under $1 in the system, I'll have to confirm that.


----------



## Shrek1985 (16 Feb 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A plastic 30 round Magpul P-Mag will run you $20-ish
> 
> I've heard our current CF issue metal 30 round mags have a price tag of under $1 in the system, I'll have to confirm that.



$6.47 as of one of my troops loosing one and three hours and 40 candidates being unable to find it, this summer.

At heart the issue is that none of us; people who use the damn weapons and understand them make the call. It's made and approved by people who neither use, nor understand weapons, in an army where many of the people who use them don't understand them.

Case in point is the C16. Someone clearly thinks they can save money and look more modern while replacing both an HMG and a light mortar. No. does not work that way. And that fancy ammo? I been in 10 years and I can't believe that that expensive ammo will not be on the budget chopping block soonish. We're lucky to get enough ammo to zero, let along become proficient with our support weapons.


----------



## LightFighter (16 Feb 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A plastic 30 round Magpul P-Mag will run you $20-ish



For a individual purchase, yea the price will be in that area. How ever, a large Government purchase I'm sure will have a lower price per mag.


It's a shame someone/some group decided the HMG is no longer needed by the Army.. maybe the next war that see's Canadian Soldiers deployed someone will decide to send them back to the battalions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2015)

Caseless ammo is so 19th century

The breech was closed by a bolt similar to those of more modern rifles to follow. Amongst the technical features of interest introduced in 1866 on the Chassepot rifle was the method of obturation of the bolt by a segmented rubber ring which expanded under gas pressure and thus sealed the breech when the shot was fired. This simple yet effective technology was successfully adapted to artillery in 1877 by Colonel de Bange, who invented grease-impregnated asbestos pads to seal the breech of his new cannons (the De Bange system).
Cartridge

The Chassepot used a paper cartridge, that many refer to as being 'combustible', whereas in reality it was quite the opposite. It held an 11mm (.43 inch) round-headed cylindro-conoidal lead bullet that was wax paper patched. An inverted standard percussion cap was at the rear of the paper cartridge and hidden inside. It was fired by the Chassepot's needle (a sharply pointed firing pin) upon pressing the trigger.

While the Chassepot's ballistic performance and firing rates were excellent for the time, burnt paper residues as well as black powder fouling accumulated in the chamber and bolt mechanism after continuous firing. Also, the bolt's rubber obturator eroded in action, although it was easily replaced in the field by infantrymen. The older Dreyse needle gun and its cartridge had been deliberately constructed in a way to minimize those problems but to the detriment of its ballistic properties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chassepot


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Feb 2015)

Just out of curiosity, with the .338 Lapua round now in many NATO inventories, would a .338 HMG be a possible solution?


----------



## Jed (16 Feb 2015)

I thought for Machine Guns it was all about the beaten zone. So a flat shooting .338 Lapua wouldn't compare to a .50 HMG. Costs per round would probably be greater. Wt difference, maybe. Just my low knowledge 2 cents.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2015)

I suspect manufacturing tolerances for a .338 MG round would not be the same for the Lapu .338. Make it to the same tolerances as the .50 cal BMG round and with the same volumes the price will drop to less than the .50 cal round. But it won't be sniper ammo.


----------



## KerryBlue (16 Feb 2015)

General Dynamics makes a .338 lmg. Looks very much like a M240B

http://www.defensereview.com/general-dynamics-armament-technical-products-gdatp-338-nm-lwmmg-338-norma-magnum-lightweight-medium-machine-gun-for-overmatch-capability-potential-game-changer-for-mobile-infantry/


----------



## Shrek1985 (23 Feb 2015)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, with the .338 Lapua round now in many NATO inventories, would a .338 HMG be a possible solution?



They have one now, it weighs a little more than a GPMG, but the ammo is twice as heavy. It's not quite the same round as .338LM either.

They really re-invented the wheel on this one; the LWMMG. I would have just gone with the Swedish 8x63mm round, since it had already been around forever and provided what was needed. It was kind of weird though, because the Americans went with more gun when what would have served as well was a proper SF/C2 setup.

I hope we stay away from it for the simple reason that if we already have great difficulty understanding HMGs, light mortars and AGLs, which have been around for 40-100+ years, what hope do we have if we re-introduce an "MMG" of ever seeing it understood by the people who make these calls?


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Feb 2015)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> They have one now, it weighs a little more than a GPMG, but the ammo is twice as heavy. It's not quite the same round as .338LM either.
> 
> They really re-invented the wheel on this one; the LWMMG. I would have just gone with the Swedish 8x63mm round, since it had already been around forever and provided what was needed. It was kind of weird though, because the Americans went with more gun when what would have served as well was a proper SF/C2 setup.
> 
> I hope we stay away from it for the simple reason that if we already have great difficulty understanding HMGs, light mortars and AGLs, which have been around for 40-100+ years, what hope do we have if we re-introduce an "MMG" of ever seeing it understood by the people who make these calls?



After reading all those books about big firefights in Afghanistan and how the bad guys would wait until the US troops' weapons jammed up before assaulting, it would seem that what we need is not a HEAVY machine gun as much as a RELIABLE machine gun. 

Like the Vickers: 

The weapon had a reputation for great solidity and reliability. Ian V. Hogg, in Weapons & War Machines, describes an action that took place in August 1916, during which the British Army's 100th Company of the Machine Gun Corps fired their ten Vickers guns continuously for twelve hours. Using 100 new barrels, they fired a million rounds without a single failure. "It was this absolute foolproof reliability which endeared the Vickers to every British soldier who ever fired one."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2015)

Maybe the fault was not in the guns....

Maybe all that was required was a bit of discipline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDjDL-tIc_Y


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2015)

I think that if anyone were to seriously reconsider getting a heavy DF weapon to soldiers who were not equipped with LAVs, then there are perhaps three choices:

The CIS.50 mentioned upthread. It is currently available, lightweight and has plenty of modern features like dual feed. Anyone needing DF that can chew through brick walls or light armour should certainly consider this as the "minimum" standard.

The ASP 30. I hadn't bought about this until now, but this is a 30mm automatic cannon using the same sort of ammunition found in the Apache attack helicopter, and also sized to fit in any .50 cal mount. The advantage here is you have the use of different types of explosive and armour piercing ammunition (much like the 25mm chain gun on a LAV), and the ability to attack a wide range of targets. Useful future upgrades could include range finding sights with day/night capabilities to increase first round hit probability (also useful on the CIS .50) and the possibility of developing new natures of ammunition, such as programmable rounds like AHEAD or fused rounds that can explode over defiladed enemy troops. While not in production, it has been extensively prototyped and could be put into production quickly.

The XM-307. A much lighter weapon than the ASP. CIS .50 or the C-16, it has the disadvantage of not being in production and needing a new nature of ammunition. However, something like this provides a huge increase in both firepower and portability, so should be looked at carefully. Since it was prototyped, it could be put into production relatively quickly, but manufacturing the ammunition would be a sticking point.

The problem really isn't that there are no effective and practical choices for replacing the Browning M-2, just no will to do so.


----------



## Haligonian (12 Mar 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Who knows for sure, but I've heard the .50 became "redundant" once the 25 mm on the LAV came into play.
> 
> I don't know about any of you.....but I'm not sold on that.



I'd bet on this.  We have a LAV fetish.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Mar 2015)

Watching the video's from Syria/Iraq and Ukraine, even dug in AFV's are very susceptible to ATGM attacks. Against an enemy armed with ATGM you might find your LAV pulled back behind you were they can't support you well.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Mar 2015)

A LAV is a huge target. An 82mm will take it out. 

A well dug in and cammed .50 however.....


----------



## medicineman (14 Mar 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Watching the video's from Syria/Iraq and Ukraine, even dug in AFV's are very susceptible to ATGM attacks. Against an enemy armed with ATGM you might find your LAV pulled back behind you were they can't support you well.



I seem to remember a buddy of mine from 2RCR that actually knocked out a Serbian T54 that was being used as a dug in bunker with a TUA.  IIRC, he shot it twice to make sure due to lack of secondary explosions.  Moral - if you can be seen, you likely can be hit.

MM


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Mar 2015)

Pretty sure that story is on the wall at 2RCR, remember reading it while I was there daging for Op ATTENTION. It was complete with call signs, engagement ranges, etc. If someone is there, maybe they can post a picture of the plaque.


----------



## TCBF (8 Apr 2015)

- As far as carrying things go, there is a reason the 3/4 to Dodge M-37 and its forebear was called "Weapons Carrier" in US service.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2015)

Even dug in MG's are not invincible. I recall reading in the Falkland Islands War the British brought Milan ATGM's forward to attack dug in Argentinian GPMG positions. The Argentinian GPMG's were dug in and mounted on tripods, so could engage to 1800+ metres, while the advancing British using the same guns in the light role could only effectively engage to 800m.

The Milans could nail the enemy positions from over 2000m, leveling the playing field. If we were to do something like that now, the man portable ATGM's would have even greater advantages, since they or their firing posts generally have day/night and thermal imaging sights. Modern ones like Spike also have "man in the loop" capabilities, so the operator can steer the missile right into the target if needed, or abort the attack. In fact missiles like Spike and Javelin (and their associated sights) are so versatile there is a very strong case to make for having them issued down to the lowest levels, and they are light enough for the firing post and ammunition to be carried by a two man team. And of course the "mini Spike" is a man portable APGM (anti personnel guided missile), capable of attacking targets 1300m away.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Apr 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Even dug in MG's are not invincible. I recall reading in the Falkland Islands War the British brought Milan ATGM's forward to attack dug in Argentinian GPMG positions. The Argentinian GPMG's were dug in and mounted on tripods, so could engage to 1800+ metres, while the advancing British using the same guns in the light role could only effectively engage to 800m.
> 
> The Milans could nail the enemy positions from over 2000m, leveling the playing field. If we were to do something like that now, the man portable ATGM's would have even greater advantages, since they or their firing posts generally have day/night and thermal imaging sights. Modern ones like Spike also have "man in the loop" capabilities, so the operator can steer the missile right into the target if needed, or abort the attack. In fact missiles like Spike and Javelin (and their associated sights) are so versatile there is a very strong case to make for having them issued down to the lowest levels, and they are light enough for the firing post and ammunition to be carried by a two man team. And of course the "mini Spike" is a man portable APGM (anti personnel guided missile), capable of attacking targets 1300m away.



Sadly, if you check the orbats of the infantry battalions deployed to the Falklands in 1982, our infantry battalions in 2015 can not match the integral support available way back then. 

Each battalion had a MILAN platoon of 8 x firing posts, a full mortar platoon, a machine gun platoon, and an assault pioneer platoon amongst other assets.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Apr 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Sadly, if you check the orbats of the infantry battalions deployed to the Falklands in 1982, our infantry battalions in 2015 can not match the integral support available way back then.
> 
> Each battalion had a MILAN platoon of 8 x firing posts, a full mortar platoon, a machine gun platoon, and an assault pioneer platoon amongst other assets.



And that ORBAT was stripped to bare bones by bigger brains than us.  :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Apr 2015)

Is there no Gustav Adolph among you that can just decree?

The infantry WILL HAVE 9 Bns.  Coys WILL BE of such and such a size.  Platoons WILL BE armed with ....

The Artillery WILL SUPPLY 9 Mortar Troops to include MFCs, FSCCs and FOO/FACs.

The Engineers WILL SUPPLY 9 Assault Engineer Troops to include RECCE parties....

I've been on these boards since 2005.  I've been watching the arguments since 1980.

Your leadership hides behind process and democracy to avoid making decisions and just do stuff - even when people get pissed off and moan.

I'm sure there must have been some whinging in Gustav's ranks when he thinned out the pikes and added those 3 pdr cannons - "How are we ever going to beat the Spanish now?"

Don't your leaders have the confidence or other parts necessary to be unpopular?  Or is Principle 2 "Maintenance of Morale" so ingrained that it has become a liability?


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2015)

Fully agree that we have been stripped bare. One of my points is that the evolution of technology can help us make up the deficit. Mini Spikes are about the size of an AT-4 and can be carried and fired by an individual infantryman. This provides the long range ability to overmatch any handheld weapon or machinegun in the light role, as well as take on bunkered or otherwise protected infantry, attack light vehicles and cause damage to even vehicles like up-armoured HMMVW's, MRAP's or similar. A typical section can have 4 (the people not carrying the C-9's or M-203's). As a thought experiment, the Starstreak MANPAD is also quite light and portable, is amazingly accurate due to its mode of operation and can hit with the kinetic impact of a 40mm cannon shell, giving it the ability to damage light vehicles up to LAV class (no explosive warhead, though).

ATGMs like Spike or Javelin are somewhat larger than a Carl-G, but still man portable enough to be carried by the Platoon weapons det. This gives the ability to take on targets out to 2000+ m (I understand the Javelin can reliably hit targets out to 3000m), including heavy armour.

These capabilities are light and portable enough to be integral to the dismounted platoon, and do not *need* to be carried or used by a separate support organization. In some ways this is like the evolution of other weapons systems. Machine guns used to belong to an entirely separate corps, for example, but advances in technology made the MG's lighter and simpler to operate until they are now integral down to the section level.

The problem, of course, is we don't have Mini-Spikes, Spike or Javelin.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Apr 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Fully agree that we have been stripped bare. One of my points is that the evolution of technology can help us make up the deficit. Mini Spikes are about the size of an AT-4 and can be carried and fired by an individual infantryman. This provides the long range ability to overmatch any handheld weapon or machinegun in the light role, as well as take on bunkered or otherwise protected infantry, attack light vehicles and cause damage to even vehicles like up-armoured HMMVW's, MRAP's or similar. A typical section can have 4 (the people not carrying the C-9's or M-203's). As a thought experiment, the Starstreak MANPAD is also quite light and portable, is amazingly accurate due to its mode of operation and can hit with the kinetic impact of a 40mm cannon shell, giving it the ability to damage light vehicles up to LAV class (no explosive warhead, though).
> 
> ATGMs like Spike or Javelin are somewhat larger than a Carl-G, but still man portable enough to be carried by the Platoon weapons det. This gives the ability to take on targets out to 2000+ m (I understand the Javelin can reliably hit targets out to 3000m), including heavy armour.
> 
> ...



And even though the Egyptians proved that this concept worked well in 1973, using Sagger missiles against Israel in the Yom Kippur War, we still do not have anything like this either deployed, or in the pipeline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M14_Malyutka

We have machine guns. Let's get some more. And some bigger ones. Soon.   :nod:


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jun 2017)

A bit of a blast from the past. The "Dover Devil" was a light weight HMG design which was developed in the early 1980's, but rather inexplicably cancelled. It served as the inspiration for the CIS .50 produced in Singapore, and if revived today could provide a much lighter, more robust replacement for the .50 HMG. The thread makes an interesting observation which I had never heard before; the Dover Devil was apparently meant to be modular enough to convert to 20mm, or alternatively Soviet 12.7mm rounds. There is also some reference to thinking about using .60 cal rounds (developed near the end of WWII as more powerful ammunition for aircraft machine guns) and it would also have been interesting if development had gone on longer to think about provision for the FN BGR 15 round as well.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19011.15.html?PHPSESSID=fclnbg23jud2gi256o6a7rkfu6

Some good pictures of the mechanism in the linked thread.


----------



## AlDazz (21 May 2019)

Not sure why the Army would want to get rid of such a proven weapons platform.  My only problem with them was the reliability issues due to their age. As mentioned the Brits brought them out of storage for their trip to the Falklands. I believe they were used as air defence and as fire bases for their light infantry attacks.


----------

