.50 cal inefficient for Iraq, Afghanistan conflict?

reply to post by PaddyInf


I'd have to agree whole heartedly. Patrolling with a .50 would be completely impracticle. Not only would your mobility be limited, but the amount of ammo you could carry would be limited. If you had to withdraw hastily, you'd end up having to leave the weapon, as you aren't gonna be moving too fast carrying an M2.

As for the previous poster's question about variable cyclic rates for the M2.
It's just not necessary for one(you can fire longer bursts if you need more rounds on target), and higher cyclic rates wear the guns out faster, requiring armorers to spend more time keeping them in good working order(aside from the waste of ammo).

You dont really get what i mean. I dont say attach a .50 to a squad when patrolling. I just say that a lighter .50 will lead to that more ammo can be carried and you can move it around faster/easier. That is always an advantage.

It is not like if you have a variable cycle rate that you are going to fire in one fire mode all the time. Like what you are saying. No a variable fire means you can fire at a high rpm like in a ambush where its really preferable and a more prolonged firing when you are being attacked. Id say that is a real advantage.

reply to post by tomcat ha


Like I said, you don't need a higher cyclic rate, you'd just fire a longer burst. When firing MGs you have sustained fire, rapid fire, and cyclic.
What's more important is the sustained and rapid fire capabilities. It doesn't matter if you have a super high cyclic rate, if you have to stop frequently to change barrels, or wear out the gun prematurely.

Im quite certain that a higher rof will be much better in cases of ambushes or when you need to take out a target fast. You can fire for a longer time maybe but then the opposing infantry might already be under cover.

The weight of ammo for a .50 weapon will always be the deciding factor. A single 100rd box of .50 weighs 16kg. That's 35lb. Increasing rate of fire chews through ammo. This means you run out of ammo faster. You simply can't carry much .50 ammo. Pure and simple. Drop the weight of the weapon all you like, you'll still have to feed it. Increase the rate of fire and you have to feed it more. This reduces the other mission specific load that the infantryman has to carry, reducing unit effectiveness.

In Afghanistan it is quite common to burn through 1000rds of machine gun ammo per gun during a platoon-level contact. We carry a number of GPMGs at this level to suppress multiple threats. Multiple weapons = multiple arcs of fire. A .50 weapon and ammo at man-pack level would mean removing at least one GPMG (probably more) and reducing ammo carrying capability. This means less support weapons engaging less targets for less time. The .50 is a useful round, but it should not be used if it means sacrificing other weapon systems and reducing overall firepower.

On the other hand you could carry a couple of GPMGs instead. 100rds of 7.62mm 4B1T weighs about 3.2kg (7lb). That means for the same weight you could carry five times the amount of 7.62mm (which cuts through just about any cover in Iraq out to 800m+) and a weapon that can be manoeuvred much faster than any .50 weapon.

Even if you halved the weight of the .50 HMG (which seems to be the biggest cited advantage of the XM312), you're only dropping enough weight for about 1 1/2 boxes of ammo. The weapon would still be too heavy to man pack, so it would have to stay in the support or vehicle mounted role, which removes the advantages you describe. An extra 150rds of .50 does not justify introducing a new weapon system at X million tax payers' beer tokens.

Iskander!

Firstly you start quoting me, then continue your argument with Paddyinf.
I think you are confused between the two of us.

Nothing wrong with that as you are an Intel weenie and in your line of work, mistakes are often made.

Such as your list of MG's which I have reproduced below. You bang on about the M2 being outdated but:

The Valmet KvKK 62 is a 1950's design SAW in 7.62 x 39 mm calibre. Hardly awe-inspiring in 2007.

Next, you sited the M249 SAW. This weapon fires the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO round and is used as a Squad Light/Medium MG. Really, you should have lumped the FN Minimi M249 / Mk.46 model 0 together with the SAW, for they are almost identical, the latter being produced for SF personnel.

The SIG MG 710 is a copy of the MG 42, in 7.62 x 51 mm NATO. Again a medium MG, even when mounted on the tripod in the sustained fire role.

Another innovation, as far as you are concerned, is the FW MG 51. This Swiss version of the MG 42 is 7.5 x 55 mm and even comes complete with a Lafette 42 lookalike tripod for sustained fire.

The Stoner 63 is a mag fed 5.56 x 45 mm RIFLE & LMG. Even in the SEaL Mark 23 Model 0 configuration, it is STILL only an LMG!

The SIG MG50 / M/51 comes in a variety of calibres - 6.5 x 55 mm, 7.5 x 55 mm, 7.62 x 63 mm and 7.92 x 57 mm yet for all that, the weapon is still only rated as an LMG by the Swiss.

Then you mention the two Vektor weapons. The SS77 fires 7.62 mm NATO or the Mini-SS again in 5.56 x 45 mm NATO. Both are MEDIUM MG's.

Which brings us nicely to your much vaunted General Dynamics 12.7mm / .50 XM312 Machinegun. Funnily enough, although it is lighter than the BMG2, weighing in at 19 kg inc tripod , it only has a slow rate of fire at some 260 rounds per minute.

The Browning M1921 M2, M2HB & M2B-QCB heavy machine gun weighs in at 58 kg inc M3 tripod but ASTONISHINGLY, it has double the appetite of the XM 312, at some 450-600 rounds per minute.

Hardly slow when you compare the old guy with the young pretender, now is it Iskander?

What does your list demonstrate more than anything else? That Intel weenies get things wrong - more often than not.

You have drawn up a long list of LIGHT and MEDIUM machine guns and compared their various rates of fire with that of a HEAVY machinegun.

As differant as chalk and cheese!

reply to post by PaddyInf


That is why you have a variable firerate! Sure you can continue chugging along at 500rpm for an entire firefight or you can go. lets fire fast with the first box and then slower with the 2nd etc. It just adds versitallity.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
That is why you have a variable firerate! Sure you can continue chugging along at 500rpm for an entire firefight or you can go. lets fire fast with the first box and then slower with the 2nd etc. It just adds versitallity.

No one is saying that a variable fire-rate is a bad thing in principle. I am just saying that it's not needed and that sacrificing a weapon that is doing a fantastic job just to bring in one that has a feature that isn't needed is a waste of time and money.

The simple fact is that, while having a variable fire rate may seem like a good idea, it simply isn't needed. The fire rate on the M2 is just right. It keeps the rounds impacting fast enough to keep the targets heads down, but not so fast as it blows all your ammo before the assault can go through. 550rpm of .50BMG is quite fast enough to suppress pretty much any ground target that can be damaged by a .50.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by PaddyInf]

reply tomcat ha[/url]

Tomcat a half decent gunner can provide variable rates of fire.

I was trained on both the LMG (7.62 milly Bren) and The General and I consider myself to be an above average gunner. I was taught to fire short, well aimed bursts, especially at hard targets.

As far as I am concerned if a gunner fires short, well aimed bursts that are on target, this type of fire will do more to kill and demoralize an enemy than continuously pouring rounds down a barrel, using ammunition at a faster rate than it can eventually be resupplied.

You must remember Tomcat, a gunner provides between 75-80% of a section's firepower and once his ammunition is exhausted, the section has to rely on their rifles and as such, they [the section] offer very limited options to a commander for offensive operations.

Originally posted by iskander
Valmet KvKK 62


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

Ok, two separate parts quoted:

1st KVKK 62 is NOT a modern weapon it's based on pre ww2 Czech designs, has crappy ergonomics and at best average reliability. It does have a nice rate of fire (around 1000r/min) but the use of 100 round belts makes it a bit useless. We were trained to fire it with 2-4 round bursts. (firing rate is selected by the triggerfinger, no "autoburst") KvKK 62 has been phased out from front line units and replaced by Russian PKM.

And Iskander, could you please enlighten me about the burst only Finnish Mg, as i have handled most types of military weapons built in Finland from 1918 to 2005 and never heard of such weapon?

[edit on 5-11-2007 by northwolf]

North Wolf, I am afraid that Mr Iskander is keeping his head down after.

I don't blame him because if I were taking this much flak, I'd be running for cover as well.

reply to post by fritz


Currently I’m on other more pressing topics, like the Russian navy relocating from Moscow to St. Petersburg, but I’ll be back, don’t you worry.

reply to post by northwolf

We were trained to fire it with 2-4 round bursts. (firing rate is selected by the triggerfinger, no "autoburst") KvKK 62 has been phased out from front line units and replaced by Russian PKM.

I was thinking of HK 21E because of the other forum discussion about 62s short burst use, and how much the Finns liked the 21Es 4 position switch with a 3-round burst mode that PKM does not have.

I’ll give my full attention to this topic (new generation of HMGs) with in a day or two.

Originally posted by iskander I’ll give my full attention to this topic (new generation of HMGs) with in a day or two.

I admit the resurgance of the Russian navy should take up your time.

Having said that, I note that you have made 2 replies to other posters yet have failled to address the issues I raised.

I await your views with bated breath!

Iskander,

HK MGs are only used in Leopard 2s in finland and only because we got them cheap, otherwise we would have converted the mounts for PKMs.


Lets throw in a new idea for the discussion:
How about changing the caliber of the new HMG to .338 Lapua Mag? Range would be nearly equal, but the gun itself could be designed much lighter...

Originally posted by northwolf
Lets throw in a new idea for the discussion:
How about changing the caliber of the new HMG to .338 Lapua Mag? Range would be nearly equal, but the gun itself could be designed much lighter...

This is one of the ideas I was actually throwing about the boys at work. The .338 does increase the range of the weapon system compared to 7.62mm. It doesn't have the penetration of the .50 though, which I personally think is the biggest advantage of the HMG.

A machine gun of .338LM/.300WM etc could possibly be a new class of long range medium machine guns. The rounds are quite a bit lighter than the .50, and the recoil is considerably less. This would mean a lighter recoil control buffer, lighter mechanism, lighter barrels, shorter overall length, longer sustained fire and longer range. With a decent set of high-vis optics this weapon would allow long range observed fire. With todays materials the system may be bipod mountable and of an easily managable weight.

I don't think that it would replace the GPMG or a .50 system, but it may fill a gap. The GPMG can fire in the light role out to 800m. It can fire at longer range, but generally needs a tripod. A .50 has the range but there is no way it is of any use in the man-pack role because of the reasons continually stated. A .338 weapon might fill this long range gap.

wouldnt it be more logical to replace the gmpg with .338 instead?

Originally posted by tomcat ha
wouldnt it be more logical to replace the gmpg with .338 instead?

No. The GPMG fulfills a role for short to medium range fire support and suppression out to 800m. The weapons' size and weight, as well as the weight of the ammunition, allow a disproportionally large amount of firepower to be available to the dismounted infantryman. A .338 weapon would sacrifice the manoueverability and ammo capacity of the GPMG.

I would suggest that a .338 (or similar powered cartridge) weapon should COMPLIMENT the current weapons, not replace one. The .338 would be deployed for mission specific roles where there is an increased chance of long range attack but where vehicles are not suitable, for example in particularly rocky, hilly areas with long range observation points.

There are obvious downsides, for example introducing a new round to the supply chain etc, but these can be overcome with mass production. With the mass of different kit that is in the current supply chain, the addition of such a round would not b as much of a problem as it was a few years ago. Hell, 7.62mm 4B1T isn't supposed to be in the supply chain for dismounted infantry any more, but it still found its' way there.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by PaddyInf]

Back to the topic at hand.

I’ll skip the high rof MGs list, since my point was simple enough.

When it comes to HMGs, I never advocated for a traditional approach to high rof implemented on an infantry weapon.

As I repeatedly pointed out, MODERN HMGs are going MAN PORTABLE, while M2s design is inherently obsolete, and can not be taken mobile.

M2 is BOUND to a hard mount.

M1919A4 was retired for obvious reasons. M2 is simply chambered for a larger .50 cal round, while modern designs are based on fundamentally different operating principle.

Recoil MANEGMENT of the .50 cal round has been done for years (Berrett rifles for example), and while XM prototypes do offer excellent portability and recoil management, their LOW rof compromises their intended use capability.

I repeatedly mentioned Kord as an example of the HMG transition into the manpad world for a specific reason.

It’s rof is actually a bit slower then of its predecessor, but what it offers in exchange is much better recoil manegment and greater long range accuracy.

Simply put;

One unusual feature of the KORD is its relatively low recoil, which allows it to be used not only from the same lightweight tripod or AA mounts as the NSV, but also from a proprietary "bipod" mount 6T19, creating what could be called a lightweight heavy MG. In this configuration the KORD weighs ‘only’ 31kg, thus allowing it to be carried on the battlefield by a single soldier, although obviously for short distances only. This makes the KORD very useful during ‘limited warfare’ operations in urban and forest environments, as the HMG team can change positions almost as fast as the infantry it supports, and is able to fire from almost anywhere, including the high stories of urban buildings (through the windows) or even from the rooftops.

world.guns.ru...

Again, simply do to the age of its design; M2 is simply not capable of coming even close to matching such capability.

Here’s a visual aid for the logically challenged, just watch the moving pictures and absorb what mobile firepower means these days--

Kord fired from bi-pod prone;


www.youtube.com...

Moving on to the very proper argument of medium bore cartridge use on the modern battlefield, because it already happened.

How about changing the caliber of the new HMG to .338 Lapua Mag? Range would be nearly equal, but the gun itself could be designed much lighter...

Here’s a militarized 9.3x64 caliber Russians are forced into adopting;

club.guns.ru..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

We all know it as a hunting 9.3x64 Brenneke cartridge, and while there is has a tad lower performance then its close relative the 9.3x62 Mauser, but note the usuall mass produced steel casing instead of expensive brass.

Full article;

club.guns.ru...

Traditional front-line Soviet/Russian sniper rifle SVD has already been re-chambered to 9.3X64 in its SVDK version, and it already seen action on the battlefield.

world.guns.ru...

Russian 9.3X64 is equal to .358 Norma Magnum or .375 H&H Magnum, and its apparent that their Chechnya lessons clearly outlined the need for a round more powerful then the traditional 7.62X54 rimmed.

Note that the new round is NOT rimmed unlike the old 54, which we all know requires an additional mechanism to cycle through the PK.

I’m sure Northwolf will fill everybody on why PKs belt is not disintegratable links like with rimless ammo MGs.

Now lets move on to the new technologies of recoil management, and the ability of the new 9.3X64 to be used in disintegratable links, and its fluted case, all of which point to an automatic cycling requirement.

Everything points to a new family of medium MGs and here’s why.

For decades everybody knew about the inherent limitations of the small caliber rounds, and it looks like the Russians are bracing for yet another caliber change, with their “Unified Machine Gun (UMG)” 6x49 round.

Full article here;

A third generation of the PK machine gun

club.guns.ru...

The round is to be adopted as a standard assault-rifle (Ak 100 series/Abakan), PKP Pecheneg (GPMG/SAW all in one) and front-line bull-pup SVD modification.

9.3X64 is to be for the medium PK model and already existing SVDK to give that extra punch, while the traditional 12.7X108 is already realized in the man portable Kord.

Chinese are working on 6mm calibers as well, much as a number of private American companies, but so far it seems that only the Russians are moving towards adopting a multilayered concept of general 6x49 UMG, medium 9.3X64 and heavy 12.7mm calibers.

So far Kord is the only mass produced madpad HMG in service, and while various custom loads of medium bore calibers are used by US snipers, Russians have been manufacturing 6.3X64 on a mass scale.

To sum this up, Russians are going through a natural evolution from obsolete 5.45/7.62X39/7.62X54mm calibers towards the new 6x49 as their standard round in their new generation assault rifles and GPMGs, 9.3X64 as a medium sniper/MG round, and 12.7nn in a new generation manpad Kord.

Now honestly, who here can’t see all the advantages such an approach will have over the standard NATO calibers?

5.56 – simply ineffective, as proven time and time again.

7.62X51 –ineffective against medium bore calibers. (.416 Barrett?)

.50 cal – unrealized potential do to use of obsolete technology.

6X49 UMG- perfect balance between 5.45 and 7.62X39 while retaining slim casing diameter which does not reduce magazine load down to 26 rounds as 7mm loads do.

9.3X64 for medium range brute force which 6.5mm/7mm/7.62mm simply can not provide.

It’s all been done and talked about for decades, yet while we’re using forklifts to dump money into the fires of Iraq, Russians are slowly but surely moving along their original Soviet plans to adopt new generation calibers.

Is M2 insufficient? It sure is.

www.65grendel.com...

www.angelfire.com...

Yet again you insist that the M2 is only used in the hard mount role and that it cannot be man porable. Yet the Machine gun platoons of the British army have been manually transporting these things for years. The weapon is broken down into its' component parts and reassembled when needed. This can be done by a decent team in a few seconds. It's not done in Iraq or Afghanistan because it's not practical due to the heat, nor is it needed.

As for 31kg being man portable by one soldier, well I hope the soldier in question doesn't need any food, ammo, water, radios, med kit, body armour...

Have you ever actually carried any significant weight in the heats we're talking about here? Every kg feels like 10. You sweat buckets. Water is literally pouring out of your trousers. Carting 31kg of HMG around on top of your normal kit would dump you on your arse in about 10 minutes. Thus a 31kg weapon is not man portable by one soldier for any realistic use in the Middle East.

Can you actually tell me what roles the .50 M2 in the ground mount is actually failing in? I certainly can't think of one.

I am quite interesed in the intermediate cartridge weapon you cite though.