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

[OldSolduer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!