It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
.50 cal inefficient for Iraq, Afghanistan conflict?
page: 5share:
Originally posted by iskander I’ll skip the high rof MGs list, since my point was simple enough.
Errr.......actually Iskander, no it isn't! All you have done my friend, is to neatly sidestep the point I raised.
Your list contained an absolete LMG, a revolutionary belt fed rifle that that doubled as an LMG and countless copies of the MG42 and other MEDIUM and one SEMI/HEAVY MG.
Nothing wrong with that. They are all excellent weapons bar one but Iskander, you rated them against the M2, which is heavier because of its size & construction and it fires .50 / .5" ammunition that is both larger and heavier.
How can you justify comparing the rates of fire between the M2 and that of light and medium mgs? Owing to the size and weight of the M2's rounds, it is OBVIOUS that it will have a slower rate of fire.
Your continued assertion that the M2 Browning is obsolete simply does not stand up to close scrutiny especially when you are comparing it with the XM 312, which to the best of my knowledge, has not been used in action in either Afghanistan or Iraq - unless somebody out there knows different!
You say the XM 312 is lighter than the M2 and because of this, it is 'manpad' - PaddyInf has told you time and time again that the M2 is man portable when broken down in parts and distributed throughout the section.
Why not take him at his word?
After all, in the Brit army, an 81 mm mortar can be broken down and carried by a mortar section, so why not an M2?
In the article you quoted - ttp://world.guns.ru/machine/mg39-e.htm, it
The XM312 will be one of the lightest .50 caliber machine guns on the market.
It [article] then goes on to say
This advantage comes at the cost of decreased cyclic rate of fire.
To me as a layman, if I were to read that for the first time, the expensive, lightweight XM 312 just does not come up to scratch against the older, more rugged .50 Browning M2 in whatever varient you mention.
The M2 is battle proven during WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, the I & II GW's not forgetting Afghanistan.
It fires a big and heavy .50 caliber slug and can kill human, soft skinned and lightly armoured vehicles. It can also take on and knock down many rotary wing aircraft, something the XM 312 is not even able to engage due in no small part to its low rate of fire.
reply to post by PaddyInf
Main word – TRANSPORTING, not FIRING.
Again, I never said “one man”, I always said – TEAM.
Yes I have. Until dry heaving, tongue swelling, and loss of consciousness. Dehydration is a b!tch.
It’s not man portable, it can not be fired prone from a bi-pod, and it does not incorporate recoil management, in short, it’s OBSOLETE.
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.
Main word – TRANSPORTING, not FIRING.
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...
Again, I never said “one man”, I always said – TEAM.
Have you ever actually carried any significant weight in the heats we're talking about here?
Yes I have. Until dry heaving, tongue swelling, and loss of consciousness. Dehydration is a b!tch.
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.
It’s not man portable, it can not be fired prone from a bi-pod, and it does not incorporate recoil management, in short, it’s OBSOLETE.
reply to post by fritz
Wrong, I simply listed post WWII high rof MGs do to PaddyInf insistence on the point that high rate of fire is simply a waste of ammunition.
Please list where I have “rated them against the M2”.
It’s not an assertion, it’s a FACT, M2 is OBSOLETE!
I have not directly compared M2 to the XM 312, yet I have repeatedly stated that lower rof of the XM 312 will take away the advantages of its portability.
Because of LOGIC?! Did I EVER say that M2 was a SOLID piece of metal welded to a concrete stand somewhere?
Did you watch the YouTube VIDEO?
Show me a video where M2 can match it!
Just take the time and look into it further.
So was a mule, what, let’s bring the cavalry back? Swords and everything…
Well heck, as I said before, let’s bring back the M1919A4 then! Why not? It did the job of spitting .30 rounds out, who needs all that modern fluff? sarcasm.
Please somebody explain to me, how can M1919A4 be obsolete while M2 is not?
Why is M1919A4 obsolete?
Nothing wrong with that. They are all excellent weapons bar one but Iskander, you rated them against the M2, which is heavier because of its size & construction and it fires .50 / .5" ammunition that is both larger and heavier.
Wrong, I simply listed post WWII high rof MGs do to PaddyInf insistence on the point that high rate of fire is simply a waste of ammunition.
Please list where I have “rated them against the M2”.
Your continued assertion that the M2 Browning is obsolete simply does not stand up to close scrutiny especially when you are comparing it with the XM 312, which to the best of my knowledge, has not been used in action in either Afghanistan or Iraq - unless somebody out there knows different!
It’s not an assertion, it’s a FACT, M2 is OBSOLETE!
I have not directly compared M2 to the XM 312, yet I have repeatedly stated that lower rof of the XM 312 will take away the advantages of its portability.
You say the XM 312 is lighter than the M2 and because of this, it is 'manpad' - PaddyInf has told you time and time again that the M2 is man portable when broken down in parts and distributed throughout the section.
Why not take him at his word?
Because of LOGIC?! Did I EVER say that M2 was a SOLID piece of metal welded to a concrete stand somewhere?
Did you watch the YouTube VIDEO?
Show me a video where M2 can match it!
To me as a layman, if I were to read that for the first time, the expensive, lightweight XM 312 just does not come up to scratch against the older, more rugged .50 Browning M2 in whatever varient you mention.
Just take the time and look into it further.
The M2 is battle proven during WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, the I & II GW's not forgetting Afghanistan.
So was a mule, what, let’s bring the cavalry back? Swords and everything…
It fires a big and heavy .50 caliber slug and can kill human, soft skinned and lightly armoured vehicles. It can also take on and knock down many rotary wing aircraft, something the XM 312 is not even able to engage due in no small part to its low rate of fire.
Well heck, as I said before, let’s bring back the M1919A4 then! Why not? It did the job of spitting .30 rounds out, who needs all that modern fluff? sarcasm.
Please somebody explain to me, how can M1919A4 be obsolete while M2 is not?
Why is M1919A4 obsolete?
Iskander,
Look, you're continually going back on yourself. We were having a conversayion about the M2. I stated that high rates of fire were a waste of ammo in such weapons because of ammo consumption and weight. You countered this by giving the MG42 and various other light and medium machine guns as examples. You have now gone back on that, denying that this occurred.
You then stated that the M2 was not man portable. I have told you that it is and have cited where this happens. You now go back on this by stating that you "didn't say that it was welded to a mount". Does this mean that you concede that the M2 is man portable? Then again, there are no .50 machine guns that can be realistically carried by one person in current operational theatres, so the point is fairly moot.
You later state in your next post that the weapon you cite is cannot be moved by one person and requires a team. This also means transporting, not firing.
You have yet to demonstrate to me (or anyone else here by the looks of it) how the M2 is not achieving the tasks required of it. The lack of bipod mount is a daft point, as there is no requirement for it. The lack of recoil management system is negligable, as the weapon is fired from a hard mount which absorbs recoil with no problems. In any case the recoil management system on the XM312 has lowered the rate of fire so much you could probably fire it faster on semi.
As for the .30 Browning - this weapon system stopped performing the tasks required of a LMG in the theatres that it was required to. It was not easily single man portable at section level, which is the role of a LMG. A HMG is not required at this level, hence the M2 is fully capable of carrying out the role of a HMG. It is portable on a vehicle mount and is mountable on a tripod for fixed roles. It can be transported by a team by being broken down into tripod, gun and barrel. Its' primary limitation is ammunition weight, which is the same for all .50 weapons.
Quite simply put, the weapon is fulfilling the roles put to it, and performing them well.
Oh, as for mules - judging by the quality of some posts here it looks like they're still in use, just at a more G2 (Int & Sy) level.
[edit on 8-11-2007 by PaddyInf]
Look, you're continually going back on yourself. We were having a conversayion about the M2. I stated that high rates of fire were a waste of ammo in such weapons because of ammo consumption and weight. You countered this by giving the MG42 and various other light and medium machine guns as examples. You have now gone back on that, denying that this occurred.
You then stated that the M2 was not man portable. I have told you that it is and have cited where this happens. You now go back on this by stating that you "didn't say that it was welded to a mount". Does this mean that you concede that the M2 is man portable? Then again, there are no .50 machine guns that can be realistically carried by one person in current operational theatres, so the point is fairly moot.
Main word – TRANSPORTING, not FIRING
You later state in your next post that the weapon you cite is cannot be moved by one person and requires a team. This also means transporting, not firing.
You have yet to demonstrate to me (or anyone else here by the looks of it) how the M2 is not achieving the tasks required of it. The lack of bipod mount is a daft point, as there is no requirement for it. The lack of recoil management system is negligable, as the weapon is fired from a hard mount which absorbs recoil with no problems. In any case the recoil management system on the XM312 has lowered the rate of fire so much you could probably fire it faster on semi.
As for the .30 Browning - this weapon system stopped performing the tasks required of a LMG in the theatres that it was required to. It was not easily single man portable at section level, which is the role of a LMG. A HMG is not required at this level, hence the M2 is fully capable of carrying out the role of a HMG. It is portable on a vehicle mount and is mountable on a tripod for fixed roles. It can be transported by a team by being broken down into tripod, gun and barrel. Its' primary limitation is ammunition weight, which is the same for all .50 weapons.
Quite simply put, the weapon is fulfilling the roles put to it, and performing them well.
Oh, as for mules - judging by the quality of some posts here it looks like they're still in use, just at a more G2 (Int & Sy) level.
[edit on 8-11-2007 by PaddyInf]
Originally posted by PaddyInf Oh, as for mules - judging by the quality of some posts here it looks like they're still in use, just at a more G2 (Int & Sy) level. [edit on 8-11-2007 by PaddyInf]
Nice one Mate!
I've given up trying to get him to acknowledge that his list of rifles, LMGs and GPMGs can in no way be compared to the M2 for the very reasons you state.
I think this illustrates what is so wrong with intelligence agencies in the western world these days.
Most intelligence is gleaned from reports, books, the WWW with very little coming from HumInt sources.
Somebody once said, 'Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted!' So it is with the gathering of intelligence Iskander.
You cannot get a feel for what is happening on the ground in a target country from satellites, news reports and films, books or high flying aircraft.
You need to go and get yer boots muddy Iskander, and until you do, I respectfully suggest that you take a long hard look at what combat veterens like Paddy are telling you.
Why is M1919A4 obsolete?
Quite simply Iskander, take a look at the list of GPMGs you compared the M2 against.
The M1919A4 was used by US forces, if memoury serves, in both the LMG (bipod) and GPMG (tripod) roles but was big, cumbersome and heavy, especially when compared against the German MG 42.
When the war ended, the US looked at the design of the MG42, the way it was manufactured and it's low production costs and decided to make their own version of this outstanding GPMG.
In just 12 years, the US DoD took the original M1919A4 (weighing some 31 pounds, fired using 250 rnd belts, with a max effective range of 1300 metres and ROF of 400-600 rpm) -
looked at the MG 42 & variants (weight 25 pounds, 250 rnd belts, less effective [so they thought] beyond 1100 metres but having a higher ROF of 1500 rpm [locked bolt/factory setting] or 900 [open bolt/field/LMG use] -
designing, developing and then deploying the M60 GPMG.
The original M60 weighed in at a very light 23 pounds, fires the 7.62 NATO round, uses 50 rnd belts at a respectable rate of 500 rpm and was effective up to 1100 metres.
Although prone to many faults in the early years - especially in Viet Nam where it became known as the 'Pig', the M60 has become a very reliable weapon and in it's latest version [M60E4] it can be used as an LMG.
That Iskander, is why the M1919A4 was replaced. There was something better and available in large quantities.
Which illustrates very nicely what people like Paddy, Saint and myself have been banging on about for the last 4 pages:
WHEN SOMETHING IS NOT BROKEN - DON'T FIX IT!
[edit on 10-11-2007 by fritz]
You need to go and get yer boots muddy Iskander, and until you do, I respectfully suggest that you take a long hard look at what combat veterens like Paddy are telling you.
Fritz, this is all you get;
The last time the man of my family put boots on the ground was during WWII, as recon paratroopers.
Terms like “haystack counting”, “belops” and “pow” fully apply.
If you think ranking officers get there by being born into it, you never had men under your command.
WHEN SOMETHING IS NOT BROKEN - DON'T FIX IT!
Like horse towed artillery?
Bolt action rifles?
Another simple question, since you guys don’t consider M2 obsolete simply because you are unaware of the technological evolution that’s taking place on the modern battlefield, how much longer should M2 remain in service?
10 years, 20, 40, how many more decades shall pass until it is broken?
Will at least direct energy weapons make it obsolete or you will still insist that fast moving metal will kill just as well? Like a spear?
Again, other then its unjustifiable weight and poor accuracy when compared to modern systems, here’s why M2 obsolete, in self explanatory moving pictures;
3 man team firing M2 from a M3 tripod;
www.youtube.com...
Notice the heavy recoil of the system - it kicks like mule. Furthermore, notice the standard sitting M3 tripod position. In order to fire M2 prone, M3 has to be dug in, thus by default it can not be considered as MOBILE, since its position has to be prepared in advance.
M2 fired from a hard mount on a HUMVEE;
www.youtube.com...
Again, notice how much it jumps every time a burst is fired do to heavy recoil.
A close up on the HEAVY recoil of the OBSOLETE Maxim designed M2 operating principle;
www.youtube.com...
And here’s a close up of the new Kord ACCURETLY shoulder fired from an UNPREPARED prone position;
www.youtube.com...
Notice how much lower Kords recoil is while it’s firing the more powerful 12.7X108 ammunition when compared to M3 tripod/hard mounted M2.
If you guys will continue to refute these obvious facts, all I have to say is that while a picture tells a thousand words, moving pictures like the ones above tell the whole story.
It’s simple, Russians have adopted 12.7mm Kord as a new, mobile shoulder fired medium caliber MG, while filling its place with hard mounted KPVT in DEVASTATING 14.5mm caliber as a HEAVY MG.
14.5 mm KPVT tank machine-gun is a powerful automatic weapon mounted on the armoured vehicles, war boats, movable and stationary mounts.
www.zid.ru...
I’m sure nobody here will attempt to argue that KPVT completely outclasses and out shoots the M2, and that’s exactly what the M2 will have to face in battle, not just Mujahideen riding in Toyotas and hiding in mud-huts.
We don’t even have a heavy MG comparable to KVPT, in fact, since KVPT was based on a ATR round, our own ATR program failed with its .60 inch (15.2 x 114) T1E1 and was “converted” (necked up) into what we now know as 20x102 used in M39 and M61 aircraft guns.
That in turn created a chain reaction effect, and since do to a complete failure of the Bradley program we are stuck with using TRANSPORT class HUMVEEs as combat vehicles, so just image what it would look like if M2 armed HUMVVE had to BRDM-2 with its turret mounted KVPT in combat, while man portable shoulder fired Kord will be able to take prone ambush positions in areas not accessible by vehicles.
If that’s not enough of a reason for “boots on the ground” to start thinking about what would happen when shoulder fired medium MGs like Kord will start appearing on the battlefield while their .50 cal firepower is bound to hard mounts, then inevitable and preventable casualties will be suffered completely unnecessarily.
That will simply show that somebody simply does not care about the well being of the men under their command, and are more preoccupied with pushing contracts to order more of obsolete M2s.
End of story.
Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear...
Iskander, you continually accuse others of failing to grasp basic concepts, yet you are guilty of the very same.
The basic concept is this - A weapon becomes obsolete when it fails to perform the tasks that are required of it.
Horse drawn artillery became obsolete when horses stopped being able to draw artillery fast enough/far enough, and when the motor vehicle became easier to look after than a horse. As for bolt action rifles, they are still in use, just not as primary weapons. The main thing is they are being used within their limits, in which they out perform many semi and fully automatic counterparts.
Here's another concept - Just because another weapon can perform a bit better doesn't make all others obsolete. Otherwise there would be only one HMG, one rifle, one pistol etc.
The russians have been using 14.5mm weapons for years. Nothing special there. The Iraqis have been doing the same. This means nothing. The Iraqis and Afghans have tried deploying these against our troops in the ground mount role many times, yet have been seen off. They ran out of ammo more often than not. I can recall a firefight where a section was ambushed by 2 x 14.5s from different positions in Al Amarah. They were seen off by the section who were armed with rifles and minimis. No UK casualties. 7 dead insurgents, 11 wounded.
They'd wait until the 100rds the gunner could carry ran out, then carry on as normal. The biggest casulaty would be the gunners' no.2, but that would probably go down to heat stroke.
Seriously, in the light role this weapon would only provide extra penetration, not accuracy. The advantages would be greatly outnumbered by the disadvantage of ammo weight, particularly in the current theatre of operations.
The tripod doesn't have to be dug in, but this does improve the accuracy I'll grant you. In the ground mount, the tripod is generally weighted with sand bags, but the lads in MG platoon have informed me that sticking a bergen on the legs works surprisingly well, as does sitting on them(!).
The recoil of the weapon corresponds to the cyclic rate of the rounds. The recoil appears violent, but the weapon completes the recoil cycle as the next round fires. This creates a corresponding uniform beaten zone at the target end, which is the role of a machine gun. All machine guns produce a beaten zone, where the rounds fall within a certain pre-definable area in the target. This is because a machine gun is designed for area suppression, not point target accuracy. There are other weapons for this. Hence the recoil of the weapon is of little consequence, particularly in the vehicle mounted role.
BTW, the mount used on the Humvee is crap. The one on the WMIK is much better and easier to manouevre. Not alot on youtube to show this, but here's one which shows the mount. The second one shows how a decent mount greatly improves the consistency of the weapon. (BTW, ignore the rubbish being spouted by the RAF Reg plonker in the first one - he hasn't got a clue, bless him).
Detail of WMIK mount
Firing .50 from WMIK
An example of excess accuracy would be the LSW in british service (I know it's not directly comparable to the M2, but it demonstrates this from a support weapon aspect). One of the main problems cited with our LSWs in the support role was that it was too accurate and failed to produce a beaten zone. Instead it produced two split, tight groups (ratio 7/1 due to barrel harmonics). Hence when we introduced a new LMG, one of the factors taken into account was the beaten zone. It also led to the reintroduction of the GPMG at section level. The same principle applies to all machine guns, including medium and heavy ones.
Iskander, you simply don't want to listen to the experience of troops on the ground. As you seem to like posting youtube vids, try this - Listen to the commenteries from troops actually firing the weapon on the vids. In every vid I found of someone firing the weapon they all love it. They sing its praises while firing it. There's the most important aspect, and one which you couldn't possibly hope to grasp in a thousand years unless you actually pulled on a flacker and a helmet and actually used the weapons for the purpose for which they were designed. Once you've done that, I'll start listening to what you have to say seriously.
Iskander, you continually accuse others of failing to grasp basic concepts, yet you are guilty of the very same.
The basic concept is this - A weapon becomes obsolete when it fails to perform the tasks that are required of it.
Horse drawn artillery became obsolete when horses stopped being able to draw artillery fast enough/far enough, and when the motor vehicle became easier to look after than a horse. As for bolt action rifles, they are still in use, just not as primary weapons. The main thing is they are being used within their limits, in which they out perform many semi and fully automatic counterparts.
Here's another concept - Just because another weapon can perform a bit better doesn't make all others obsolete. Otherwise there would be only one HMG, one rifle, one pistol etc.
It’s simple, Russians have adopted 12.7mm Kord as a new, mobile shoulder fired medium caliber MG, while filling its place with hard mounted KPVT in DEVASTATING 14.5mm caliber as a HEAVY MG.
The russians have been using 14.5mm weapons for years. Nothing special there. The Iraqis have been doing the same. This means nothing. The Iraqis and Afghans have tried deploying these against our troops in the ground mount role many times, yet have been seen off. They ran out of ammo more often than not. I can recall a firefight where a section was ambushed by 2 x 14.5s from different positions in Al Amarah. They were seen off by the section who were armed with rifles and minimis. No UK casualties. 7 dead insurgents, 11 wounded.
what would happen when shoulder fired medium MGs like Kord will start appearing on the battlefield while their .50 cal firepower is bound to hard mounts, then inevitable and preventable casualties will be suffered completely unnecessarily.
They'd wait until the 100rds the gunner could carry ran out, then carry on as normal. The biggest casulaty would be the gunners' no.2, but that would probably go down to heat stroke.
Seriously, in the light role this weapon would only provide extra penetration, not accuracy. The advantages would be greatly outnumbered by the disadvantage of ammo weight, particularly in the current theatre of operations.
Notice the heavy recoil of the system - it kicks like mule. Furthermore, notice the standard sitting M3 tripod position. In order to fire M2 prone, M3 has to be dug in, thus by default it can not be considered as MOBILE, since its position has to be prepared in advance.
The tripod doesn't have to be dug in, but this does improve the accuracy I'll grant you. In the ground mount, the tripod is generally weighted with sand bags, but the lads in MG platoon have informed me that sticking a bergen on the legs works surprisingly well, as does sitting on them(!).
Again, notice how much it jumps every time a burst is fired do to heavy recoil.
The recoil of the weapon corresponds to the cyclic rate of the rounds. The recoil appears violent, but the weapon completes the recoil cycle as the next round fires. This creates a corresponding uniform beaten zone at the target end, which is the role of a machine gun. All machine guns produce a beaten zone, where the rounds fall within a certain pre-definable area in the target. This is because a machine gun is designed for area suppression, not point target accuracy. There are other weapons for this. Hence the recoil of the weapon is of little consequence, particularly in the vehicle mounted role.
BTW, the mount used on the Humvee is crap. The one on the WMIK is much better and easier to manouevre. Not alot on youtube to show this, but here's one which shows the mount. The second one shows how a decent mount greatly improves the consistency of the weapon. (BTW, ignore the rubbish being spouted by the RAF Reg plonker in the first one - he hasn't got a clue, bless him).
Detail of WMIK mount
Firing .50 from WMIK
An example of excess accuracy would be the LSW in british service (I know it's not directly comparable to the M2, but it demonstrates this from a support weapon aspect). One of the main problems cited with our LSWs in the support role was that it was too accurate and failed to produce a beaten zone. Instead it produced two split, tight groups (ratio 7/1 due to barrel harmonics). Hence when we introduced a new LMG, one of the factors taken into account was the beaten zone. It also led to the reintroduction of the GPMG at section level. The same principle applies to all machine guns, including medium and heavy ones.
Iskander, you simply don't want to listen to the experience of troops on the ground. As you seem to like posting youtube vids, try this - Listen to the commenteries from troops actually firing the weapon on the vids. In every vid I found of someone firing the weapon they all love it. They sing its praises while firing it. There's the most important aspect, and one which you couldn't possibly hope to grasp in a thousand years unless you actually pulled on a flacker and a helmet and actually used the weapons for the purpose for which they were designed. Once you've done that, I'll start listening to what you have to say seriously.
Nicely done, Paddy.
It is a pity that Iskander cannot see the other side of the discussion.
It is a pity that Iskander cannot see the other side of the discussion.
PaddyInf, I’ll take the time to continue our discussion, even though there’s not much left to discuss.
fritz, have you always enjoyed cheerleading or is this a new experience for you?
Nicely done, Paddy.
It is a pity that Iskander cannot see the other side of the discussion.
fritz, have you always enjoyed cheerleading or is this a new experience for you?
reply to post by iskander[/url]
No my friend. Unlike you, I do not have a 'blinkered' approach to life.
We have all, in some small way, shape or form, contributed to the great debate you started.
We have all offered you our experience of the big M2 whilst The Saint and PaddyInf have related their recent combat experiencies with the weapon.
That you choose to ignore their collective experiencies and those of your own armed forces is to be honest, quite beyond me.
As you are unable to, or are willing to grasp the views of those opposed to your own, I will no longer take part in this debate.
Your blinkered approach to the subject matter does little to enhance the debate and reinforce your views.
No my friend. Unlike you, I do not have a 'blinkered' approach to life.
We have all, in some small way, shape or form, contributed to the great debate you started.
We have all offered you our experience of the big M2 whilst The Saint and PaddyInf have related their recent combat experiencies with the weapon.
That you choose to ignore their collective experiencies and those of your own armed forces is to be honest, quite beyond me.
As you are unable to, or are willing to grasp the views of those opposed to your own, I will no longer take part in this debate.
Your blinkered approach to the subject matter does little to enhance the debate and reinforce your views.
PaddyInf and fritz, I have also grown tired of going in circles, and I’ll just leave it at this.
Since to my surprise even after I mentioned the very important issue of accuracy, no one made a comment that applies directly to the issue, and I feel it is only prudent to present the basis for my opinions.
www.usna.edu...
PaddyInf did go into irrelevant “beaten zone” issue probably thinking that it’s all news to me, while in fact it’s all “old news” to me.
Above listed document clearly defines the role and performance of the M2, and I expected such specifics to come out much sooner, and from the well experienced veterans of the combat situations mentioned by some in this thread.
It’s basic training kind of stuff.
I’m also very surprised that PaddyInf, being so experienced with the M2, and being from UK, did not mention why exactly UK based Sabre Defence Industries was contracted to make modernized barrels for the old and tired M2, because its those very barrels that are on long requisition lists from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sunnen Products Co. (Nashville& St. Louis), under new ownership (Guy Savage.) have been contracted as of 2002 to manufacture up to 1200 .50 barrels per month, precisely do to their increased accuracy.
Officially as it stands, the standard M2 mil spec barrel must be rated to deliver a 10 round burst and hit an 8 inch circle from 100 feet (30 meters)
That requirement dates back to WWII, and naturally proved insufficient in the reality of modern battlefield, so and a new, heavily modified mass produced and much more expensive barrels that hit 7 inch circle arte now used, while the even more expensive and specially honed barrels hit a 4 inch circle out to 30 meters.
Why is that important? Because the old Soviet NSV outshoot M2 in every scenario, with or with out a scope.
Obviously, unlike PaddyInfs opinion, M2 has been modernized for greater accuracy through adopting a new barrel which requires a much more expensive manufacturing process which required retooling of the plant.
The main difference is that such an expensive barrel manufacturing process is required do to obsolete operating principle of the gun, and its total lack of recoil management.
The fact is that Kord fires the same 10 round burst in a 8 inch circle, but out to 100 meters, not 100 feet, it being mere 30 meters, so the math.
As with ANY MG, what always mattered was high grouping, fire density and accuracy of fire is what matters, not the “beaten zone factor”.
Scoped Kord will outrange, engage and defeat M2, it’s that simple. Shooting up Toyotas and mud huts is quite different from engaging a professional force with superior weaponry, and while I do agree that M2 is sufficient to shoot some slipper wearing religious nut with a half rusted AK, it won’t be the case when those nuts get professionally trained and equipped.
M2 simply falls behind do to its obsolete design thus requiring an extremely expensive barrel manufacturing in order to remain effective on the battlefield, while new generation MGs such as Kord rely on automation mechanisms to reduce influence of the barrel which prevents its resonance oscillation thus enhancing its accuracy.
If you guys really want to know more, just ask.
If after all this you you still honestly think that the old M2 stacks up to the new generation of MGs, all you have to do is prove it, but once again, here’s a simple breakdown of how it is, not speculation or opinion, just reality in fact;
www.zid.ru...
Since to my surprise even after I mentioned the very important issue of accuracy, no one made a comment that applies directly to the issue, and I feel it is only prudent to present the basis for my opinions.
www.usna.edu...
PaddyInf did go into irrelevant “beaten zone” issue probably thinking that it’s all news to me, while in fact it’s all “old news” to me.
Above listed document clearly defines the role and performance of the M2, and I expected such specifics to come out much sooner, and from the well experienced veterans of the combat situations mentioned by some in this thread.
It’s basic training kind of stuff.
I’m also very surprised that PaddyInf, being so experienced with the M2, and being from UK, did not mention why exactly UK based Sabre Defence Industries was contracted to make modernized barrels for the old and tired M2, because its those very barrels that are on long requisition lists from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sunnen Products Co. (Nashville& St. Louis), under new ownership (Guy Savage.) have been contracted as of 2002 to manufacture up to 1200 .50 barrels per month, precisely do to their increased accuracy.
Officially as it stands, the standard M2 mil spec barrel must be rated to deliver a 10 round burst and hit an 8 inch circle from 100 feet (30 meters)
That requirement dates back to WWII, and naturally proved insufficient in the reality of modern battlefield, so and a new, heavily modified mass produced and much more expensive barrels that hit 7 inch circle arte now used, while the even more expensive and specially honed barrels hit a 4 inch circle out to 30 meters.
Why is that important? Because the old Soviet NSV outshoot M2 in every scenario, with or with out a scope.
Obviously, unlike PaddyInfs opinion, M2 has been modernized for greater accuracy through adopting a new barrel which requires a much more expensive manufacturing process which required retooling of the plant.
The main difference is that such an expensive barrel manufacturing process is required do to obsolete operating principle of the gun, and its total lack of recoil management.
The fact is that Kord fires the same 10 round burst in a 8 inch circle, but out to 100 meters, not 100 feet, it being mere 30 meters, so the math.
As with ANY MG, what always mattered was high grouping, fire density and accuracy of fire is what matters, not the “beaten zone factor”.
Scoped Kord will outrange, engage and defeat M2, it’s that simple. Shooting up Toyotas and mud huts is quite different from engaging a professional force with superior weaponry, and while I do agree that M2 is sufficient to shoot some slipper wearing religious nut with a half rusted AK, it won’t be the case when those nuts get professionally trained and equipped.
M2 simply falls behind do to its obsolete design thus requiring an extremely expensive barrel manufacturing in order to remain effective on the battlefield, while new generation MGs such as Kord rely on automation mechanisms to reduce influence of the barrel which prevents its resonance oscillation thus enhancing its accuracy.
If you guys really want to know more, just ask.
If after all this you you still honestly think that the old M2 stacks up to the new generation of MGs, all you have to do is prove it, but once again, here’s a simple breakdown of how it is, not speculation or opinion, just reality in fact;
KORD provides effective firing from any position of the fire on a prepared or unprepared firing emplacement, from buildings, moving or standing vehicles. The relatively small weight and the capability to rapidly convert the weapon from travelling to combat configuration enable the crew to change quickly their firing positions for enhanced survivability, unexpectedness and effectiveness of fire.
www.zid.ru...
What an absolute load of rubbish.
They have been introduced because the older barrels have been in service for 30 years an are in poor condition. They have been wearing out, reducing their consistency. The reason for me not mentioning it was because I wasn't aware of the manufacturer. Saying that I don't know who makes most of our kit, as it's unimportant to me.
The barrels that you describe are probably the same ones we've been using for the last few years. I don't know because they all look much the same. Simple fact is my experience of the weapon is that of a vehicle commander. I can only relate to how the weapons are used. I don't need to know about every change in kit, as this is not a factor to me. I need to know what the weapon is capable of and how best to deploy it to achieve the platoons aims. I really don't care about the ins-and-outs of the procurement process for heavy weapons systems. I care about how they work and are deployed. There's certainly been no change in the related PAMs or instructional methods in the last few years.
This is obviously the complete opposite to you, who spends more time on the theory rather than real life.
As for the beaten zone to be "irrelavent", well that is the most obvious sign that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. You have no inkling of how the machine gun is being used in modern battlefields (1).
The machine gun is a fire support weapon. It is used to satuate an area with fire in order to suppress said area, denying it to the enemy. This allows the unit to assault/withdraw/whatever while the enemys' heads are down. The beaten zone has to be of a reasonable size, or else the area being suppressed is too small. Tight groups are useful in rifle fire. In machine guns they are a hindeance.
Where did I say that the M2 hasn't been modernised in the last 80 odd years? Obviously accuracy is required to a degree as you need to be able to predict where fire will land. In the case of a machine gun however it comes secondary to reliability and fire suppression. However you are under the impression that the weapon needs to be capable of point fire accuracy at extended ranges, which is blatently wrong.
Look at any weapon being fielded at the moment by Western armies. How many of them have not undergone an upgrade of some type since their introduction? Upgrading a weapon is a cost effective way of keeing it in service and allowing it to fulfill its roles. The barrel manufacturing methods must still fall within the limits of cost effectiveness compared to introducing a new weapon. The M2 is already in service. Utilising a new barrel assembly still runs at a fraction of the cost of introducing a new weapon system, particularly if the old one is still fully capable of carrying out its role.
This is where you'll probably hear lots of "Cost shouldn't be an issue". Well unfortunately it is. Introducing a new weapon also includes new training, new mounts, new racks, new cleaning equipment, new spares ets. This can increase the introduction costs by a significant factor. No matter what you hear, money isn't limitless. The top office would find it extremely difficult to justify the massive expendature of introducing a new weapon when upgrading the current one will have a similar result.
I have no doubt that the M2 will be replaced eventually. However 3 things need to happen.
1. There needs to be proof that the weapon is not performing the roles required of it.
2. The cost of introducing a new weapon system outweighs the cost of maintaining the M2
3. The new weapon must be seen to offer significant capabilities over and above the M2.
While I believe that no.3 is probably available (to a degree), the first 2 have not been demonstrated. The M2 is performing well above the standard required of it and the cost of introducing a new weapon could not be justified.
Are there more modern options available? Undoubtably yes. How could there not be after so many years.
Should the M2 be retired from service? Absolutely not. The people who use it have nothing but confidence in it and it still does what's asked of it. It is simple to use, reliable and battle proven. New upgrades allow it to be more consistent while still suppressing the enemy. Its' rate of fire is a good compromise between ammunition consumption and fire suppression.
Put quite simply it is a battle-winning weapon that has proved itself time and gain in modern battlefields.
Iskander, you're boring me. You're very tenatious, but you simply live in a dream world. I think my time on this thread is done, because there's no point having a discussion with someone who thinks they know it all despite nlack of experience.
(1) battlefield - A place where nasty men share big shiny pieces of metal with each other. You may have seen one on TV.
[edit on 15-11-2007 by PaddyInf]
I’m also very surprised that PaddyInf, being so experienced with the M2, and being from UK, did not mention why exactly UK based Sabre Defence Industries was contracted to make modernized barrels for the old and tired M2, because its those very barrels that are on long requisition lists from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
They have been introduced because the older barrels have been in service for 30 years an are in poor condition. They have been wearing out, reducing their consistency. The reason for me not mentioning it was because I wasn't aware of the manufacturer. Saying that I don't know who makes most of our kit, as it's unimportant to me.
The barrels that you describe are probably the same ones we've been using for the last few years. I don't know because they all look much the same. Simple fact is my experience of the weapon is that of a vehicle commander. I can only relate to how the weapons are used. I don't need to know about every change in kit, as this is not a factor to me. I need to know what the weapon is capable of and how best to deploy it to achieve the platoons aims. I really don't care about the ins-and-outs of the procurement process for heavy weapons systems. I care about how they work and are deployed. There's certainly been no change in the related PAMs or instructional methods in the last few years.
This is obviously the complete opposite to you, who spends more time on the theory rather than real life.
PaddyInf did go into irrelevant “beaten zone” issue probably thinking that it’s all news to me, while in fact it’s all “old news” to me.
As for the beaten zone to be "irrelavent", well that is the most obvious sign that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. You have no inkling of how the machine gun is being used in modern battlefields (1).
As with ANY MG, what always mattered was high grouping, fire density and accuracy of fire is what matters, not the “beaten zone factor”.
The machine gun is a fire support weapon. It is used to satuate an area with fire in order to suppress said area, denying it to the enemy. This allows the unit to assault/withdraw/whatever while the enemys' heads are down. The beaten zone has to be of a reasonable size, or else the area being suppressed is too small. Tight groups are useful in rifle fire. In machine guns they are a hindeance.
Obviously, unlike PaddyInfs opinion, M2 has been modernized for greater accuracy through adopting a new barrel which requires a much more expensive manufacturing process which required retooling of the plant.
Where did I say that the M2 hasn't been modernised in the last 80 odd years? Obviously accuracy is required to a degree as you need to be able to predict where fire will land. In the case of a machine gun however it comes secondary to reliability and fire suppression. However you are under the impression that the weapon needs to be capable of point fire accuracy at extended ranges, which is blatently wrong.
M2 simply falls behind do to its obsolete design thus requiring an extremely expensive barrel manufacturing in order to remain effective on the battlefield, while new generation MGs such as Kord rely on automation mechanisms to reduce influence of the barrel which prevents its resonance oscillation thus enhancing its accuracy.
Look at any weapon being fielded at the moment by Western armies. How many of them have not undergone an upgrade of some type since their introduction? Upgrading a weapon is a cost effective way of keeing it in service and allowing it to fulfill its roles. The barrel manufacturing methods must still fall within the limits of cost effectiveness compared to introducing a new weapon. The M2 is already in service. Utilising a new barrel assembly still runs at a fraction of the cost of introducing a new weapon system, particularly if the old one is still fully capable of carrying out its role.
This is where you'll probably hear lots of "Cost shouldn't be an issue". Well unfortunately it is. Introducing a new weapon also includes new training, new mounts, new racks, new cleaning equipment, new spares ets. This can increase the introduction costs by a significant factor. No matter what you hear, money isn't limitless. The top office would find it extremely difficult to justify the massive expendature of introducing a new weapon when upgrading the current one will have a similar result.
I have no doubt that the M2 will be replaced eventually. However 3 things need to happen.
1. There needs to be proof that the weapon is not performing the roles required of it.
2. The cost of introducing a new weapon system outweighs the cost of maintaining the M2
3. The new weapon must be seen to offer significant capabilities over and above the M2.
While I believe that no.3 is probably available (to a degree), the first 2 have not been demonstrated. The M2 is performing well above the standard required of it and the cost of introducing a new weapon could not be justified.
Are there more modern options available? Undoubtably yes. How could there not be after so many years.
Should the M2 be retired from service? Absolutely not. The people who use it have nothing but confidence in it and it still does what's asked of it. It is simple to use, reliable and battle proven. New upgrades allow it to be more consistent while still suppressing the enemy. Its' rate of fire is a good compromise between ammunition consumption and fire suppression.
Put quite simply it is a battle-winning weapon that has proved itself time and gain in modern battlefields.
Iskander, you're boring me. You're very tenatious, but you simply live in a dream world. I think my time on this thread is done, because there's no point having a discussion with someone who thinks they know it all despite nlack of experience.
(1) battlefield - A place where nasty men share big shiny pieces of metal with each other. You may have seen one on TV.
[edit on 15-11-2007 by PaddyInf]
reply to post by PaddyInf
PaddyInf, you are greatly confusing me.
This is an awfully strange statement from somebody who is said to be familiar with M2 BMG, PaddyInf, what is the standard air cooled barrel life as required by NATO standards?
That again is very strange, because M2 is the one of heaviest used hard mount weapons both in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it’s on the top of maintenance and part replacement lists, thus just about everybody knows which barrels to request, and that’s where the saying “hotSabre” comes from.
Wow, no offensive but now this is getting really strange.
Those barrels are nothing alike and are easily told apart from ordinance steel.
Sabre barrels are heavier, with chamber throat and rifling intake coated with Stellite liner.
The liner allows the Sabre barrel to take the heat much better then the stock barrel, and that is precisely why gunners absolutely HAVE to know which barrel they are shooting, because it they are used to Sabre barrel, they will burn stock M2 barrel out real quick.
Tell me how you shot your M2, and I’ll tell you which barrel you were shooting.
On your receiver, was the liner/retainer shrink fit?
Barrel tolerance is a standard and required knowledge. If one does not know for how long his weapon can operate effectively and reliably, well, you got the point.
I do agree with you there entirely, especially about deployment, and since we’re on the topic, I’d just like to ask what are the very important differences between stock M2 barrels and Sabre M2s, and why are they deployed differently?
Oh that’s not a theory, its required procedure, especially when some have to be swapped for others in order to accomplish the mission.
PaddyInf, feel free to be as stubborn as you heart desires. My wife is Irish-Italian, I have all the patience in the world, and once again, I’ll direct you to the way this issue is adrees in United States of America;
www.usna.edu...
Please read first and make statements later.
Just read the “Intro to machine gun employment” basic officer course, the link is just above, it says it all, and not like you see it.
It’s not my “impression”, it’s a requirement of the United States Marine Corps, just read the B2127.
You are simply assuming that, and if not, how much does the new barrel cost, and given the 14 thousand dollars per standard M2 unit, how much does a Sabre modified M2 costs?
Rubbish. How much does a brand new Kord costs on the open market, with all the bells and whistles including all kinds of stands mounts and optics? I’ll give you a hint, less then a bare M2.
And in your opinion that will happen when an M2 gunner will get outranged and killed by a Kord gunner?
On a personal note, I really do despise the type of bastards that will get their arses moving only when body bags start to get filled with young blood., kind of like with M-16A1s.
You lost me there entirely. Introduction on new weapon systems ALWAYS costs more then maintenance of old ones.
KORD! It simply outclasses M2 in every respect.
Those are some pretty low standards there. Not mobile, no optics/night vision capability, can’t be shoulder fired from prone, operates on the design that is literally over a century old, etc.
PaddyInf, you are greatly confusing me.
They have been introduced because the older barrels have been in service for 30 years an are in poor condition.
This is an awfully strange statement from somebody who is said to be familiar with M2 BMG, PaddyInf, what is the standard air cooled barrel life as required by NATO standards?
They have been wearing out, reducing their consistency. The reason for me not mentioning it was because I wasn't aware of the manufacturer. Saying that I don't know who makes most of our kit, as it's unimportant to me.
That again is very strange, because M2 is the one of heaviest used hard mount weapons both in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it’s on the top of maintenance and part replacement lists, thus just about everybody knows which barrels to request, and that’s where the saying “hotSabre” comes from.
The barrels that you describe are probably the same ones we've been using for the last few years. I don't know because they all look much the same.
Wow, no offensive but now this is getting really strange.
Those barrels are nothing alike and are easily told apart from ordinance steel.
Sabre barrels are heavier, with chamber throat and rifling intake coated with Stellite liner.
The liner allows the Sabre barrel to take the heat much better then the stock barrel, and that is precisely why gunners absolutely HAVE to know which barrel they are shooting, because it they are used to Sabre barrel, they will burn stock M2 barrel out real quick.
Tell me how you shot your M2, and I’ll tell you which barrel you were shooting.
On your receiver, was the liner/retainer shrink fit?
Simple fact is my experience of the weapon is that of a vehicle commander. I can only relate to how the weapons are used. I don't need to know about every change in kit, as this is not a factor to me.
Barrel tolerance is a standard and required knowledge. If one does not know for how long his weapon can operate effectively and reliably, well, you got the point.
I need to know what the weapon is capable of and how best to deploy it to achieve the platoons aims. I really don't care about the ins-and-outs of the procurement process for heavy weapons systems. I care about how they work and are deployed. There's certainly been no change in the related PAMs or instructional methods in the last few years.
I do agree with you there entirely, especially about deployment, and since we’re on the topic, I’d just like to ask what are the very important differences between stock M2 barrels and Sabre M2s, and why are they deployed differently?
This is obviously the complete opposite to you, who spends more time on the theory rather than real life.
Oh that’s not a theory, its required procedure, especially when some have to be swapped for others in order to accomplish the mission.
As for the beaten zone to be "irrelavent", well that is the most obvious sign that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. You have no inkling of how the machine gun is being used in modern battlefields (1).
PaddyInf, feel free to be as stubborn as you heart desires. My wife is Irish-Italian, I have all the patience in the world, and once again, I’ll direct you to the way this issue is adrees in United States of America;
www.usna.edu...
Please read first and make statements later.
The machine gun is a fire support weapon. It is used to satuate an area with fire in order to suppress said area, denying it to the enemy. This allows the unit to assault/withdraw/whatever while the enemys' heads are down. The beaten zone has to be of a reasonable size, or else the area being suppressed is too small. Tight groups are useful in rifle fire. In machine guns they are a hindeance.
Just read the “Intro to machine gun employment” basic officer course, the link is just above, it says it all, and not like you see it.
Where did I say that the M2 hasn't been modernised in the last 80 odd years? Obviously accuracy is required to a degree as you need to be able to predict where fire will land. In the case of a machine gun however it comes secondary to reliability and fire suppression. However you are under the impression that the weapon needs to be capable of point fire accuracy at extended ranges, which is blatently wrong.
It’s not my “impression”, it’s a requirement of the United States Marine Corps, just read the B2127.
The barrel manufacturing methods must still fall within the limits of cost effectiveness compared to introducing a new weapon. The M2 is already in service. Utilising a new barrel assembly still runs at a fraction of the cost of introducing a new weapon system, particularly if the old one is still fully capable of carrying out its role.
You are simply assuming that, and if not, how much does the new barrel cost, and given the 14 thousand dollars per standard M2 unit, how much does a Sabre modified M2 costs?
This is where you'll probably hear lots of "Cost shouldn't be an issue". Well unfortunately it is. Introducing a new weapon also includes new training, new mounts, new racks, new cleaning equipment, new spares ets. This can increase the introduction costs by a significant factor. No matter what you hear, money isn't limitless. The top office would find it extremely difficult to justify the massive expendature of introducing a new weapon when upgrading the current one will have a similar result.
Rubbish. How much does a brand new Kord costs on the open market, with all the bells and whistles including all kinds of stands mounts and optics? I’ll give you a hint, less then a bare M2.
I have no doubt that the M2 will be replaced eventually. However 3 things need to happen.
1. There needs to be proof that the weapon is not performing the roles required of it.
And in your opinion that will happen when an M2 gunner will get outranged and killed by a Kord gunner?
On a personal note, I really do despise the type of bastards that will get their arses moving only when body bags start to get filled with young blood., kind of like with M-16A1s.
2. The cost of introducing a new weapon system outweighs the cost of maintaining the M2
You lost me there entirely. Introduction on new weapon systems ALWAYS costs more then maintenance of old ones.
. The new weapon must be seen to offer significant capabilities over and above the M2.
KORD! It simply outclasses M2 in every respect.
While I believe that no.3 is probably available (to a degree), the first 2 have not been demonstrated. The M2 is performing well above the standard required of it and the cost of introducing a new weapon could not be justified.
Those are some pretty low standards there. Not mobile, no optics/night vision capability, can’t be shoulder fired from prone, operates on the design that is literally over a century old, etc.
reply to post by PaddyInf
Which enemy? Villagers in sandals with AKs and RPGs again? Russians made Kord as it is for a reason, that reason being two wars they fought in Chechnya and those guys were not peasants, but a hard core well paid professional mercenary army.
As long as those battle grounds have roads and guys with shovels that don’t mind being shot at while they are digging those mounts in.
Just look into what kind of action M2s got in Angola for example. Not much.
If you can’t hack it’s your business, but know this, you asked me if I knew what it was to like to haul gear in scorching heat, so I’ll tell you that when I started choking on my own swollen tongue I did not have the luxury of getting “bored” or a choice of quitting, and before I collapsed I dragged that goddam comrep to the top of that blasted hill and brought it online.
It is said but true, apparently M2 will become officially obsolete when its reinforced position along with its crew get shredded by a burst from a scoped, shoulder fired Kord engaging from over a klick out.
Isn’t it interesting that women use pretty crystal bowls to put their jewelry and trinkets into, while men use them to put pieces of metal that were cut out of their bodies?
Don’t know about you, but the men of my family that faugh on battlefields of WWII were not “nasty”, they were doing their duty, they were looking out for their men and they were doing it well.
All the best for you PaddyInf.
Are there more modern options available? Undoubtably yes. How could there not be after so many years.
Should the M2 be retired from service? Absolutely not. The people who use it have nothing but confidence in it and it still does what's asked of it. It is simple to use, reliable and battle proven. New upgrades allow it to be more consistent while still suppressing the enemy. Its' rate of fire is a good compromise between ammunition consumption and fire suppression.
Which enemy? Villagers in sandals with AKs and RPGs again? Russians made Kord as it is for a reason, that reason being two wars they fought in Chechnya and those guys were not peasants, but a hard core well paid professional mercenary army.
Put quite simply it is a battle-winning weapon that has proved itself time and gain in modern battlefields.
As long as those battle grounds have roads and guys with shovels that don’t mind being shot at while they are digging those mounts in.
Just look into what kind of action M2s got in Angola for example. Not much.
Iskander, you're boring me. You're very tenatious, but you simply live in a dream world. I think my time on this thread is done, because there's no point having a discussion with someone who thinks they know it all despite nlack of experience.
If you can’t hack it’s your business, but know this, you asked me if I knew what it was to like to haul gear in scorching heat, so I’ll tell you that when I started choking on my own swollen tongue I did not have the luxury of getting “bored” or a choice of quitting, and before I collapsed I dragged that goddam comrep to the top of that blasted hill and brought it online.
It is said but true, apparently M2 will become officially obsolete when its reinforced position along with its crew get shredded by a burst from a scoped, shoulder fired Kord engaging from over a klick out.
(1) battlefield - A place where nasty men share big shiny pieces of metal with each other. You may have seen one on TV.
Isn’t it interesting that women use pretty crystal bowls to put their jewelry and trinkets into, while men use them to put pieces of metal that were cut out of their bodies?
Don’t know about you, but the men of my family that faugh on battlefields of WWII were not “nasty”, they were doing their duty, they were looking out for their men and they were doing it well.
All the best for you PaddyInf.
Iskander, why don't you stop waffling about a subject you know nothing about? You admit, you have no actual combat experience and have never fired a
shot in anger.
Indeed, you claim to be in intelligence but have not one shred of factual, personal, 'hands on' experience or knowledge of what you're talking about.
Your knowledge, such as it is, appears to be gleaned from reports, books, film or videoclips and bears little or no resemblence to the 'real world'.
Incidentally Iskander, an ARMOURER orders parts for weapon systems in barracks, in the field or whilst on ops. The SOLDIER is usually too busy to do so, because he is trading lead with the enemy.
Speaking about the soldier or the gunner in this case, he fires a group - NOT the machinegun. He does this to estimate fall of shot. A Group is usually five rounds or more fired at the same POA. He then adjusts his position and fires another five round group, taking the same POA and so on until his grouping falls within the size parameter for a given range.
As for your assertion that this or that barrel looks differant from another, is, I'm afraid utter rubbish! So long as the weapon system in question performs to the specs in the pamphlet, a Brit squaddie does not give a sh1t how it looks.
You said: Which enemy? Villagers in sandals with AKs and RPGs again? Russians made Kord as it is for a reason, that reason being two wars they fought in Chechnya and those guys were not peasants, but a hard core well paid professional mercenary army.
What utter rubbish you continually spout. What the hell is a well paid
'professional' mercenary army?
What and where is this bloody hill you carp on about? So you lugged a bit of kit up to the summit and established comms. Big deal.
Try doing it under fire without a couple of Generals or an M2 giving you fire support and when you have, come back and tell us all about it!
Indeed, you claim to be in intelligence but have not one shred of factual, personal, 'hands on' experience or knowledge of what you're talking about.
Your knowledge, such as it is, appears to be gleaned from reports, books, film or videoclips and bears little or no resemblence to the 'real world'.
Incidentally Iskander, an ARMOURER orders parts for weapon systems in barracks, in the field or whilst on ops. The SOLDIER is usually too busy to do so, because he is trading lead with the enemy.
Speaking about the soldier or the gunner in this case, he fires a group - NOT the machinegun. He does this to estimate fall of shot. A Group is usually five rounds or more fired at the same POA. He then adjusts his position and fires another five round group, taking the same POA and so on until his grouping falls within the size parameter for a given range.
As for your assertion that this or that barrel looks differant from another, is, I'm afraid utter rubbish! So long as the weapon system in question performs to the specs in the pamphlet, a Brit squaddie does not give a sh1t how it looks.
You said: Which enemy? Villagers in sandals with AKs and RPGs again? Russians made Kord as it is for a reason, that reason being two wars they fought in Chechnya and those guys were not peasants, but a hard core well paid professional mercenary army.
What utter rubbish you continually spout. What the hell is a well paid
'professional' mercenary army?
What and where is this bloody hill you carp on about? So you lugged a bit of kit up to the summit and established comms. Big deal.
Try doing it under fire without a couple of Generals or an M2 giving you fire support and when you have, come back and tell us all about it!
Ok Iskander. Here's the thing. I'm not a member of a machine gun platoon. I'm a rifle platoon 2IC. We're issued the M2 as part of our WMIK package
in ops. I don't deal with barrel life or weapon spares ordering. I deal with deploying and using said weapons. To me a barrel is a barrel. I slaps
onto the front of the weapon. Rounds travel up it on their way to the enemy. They get changed when they're too hot. End of chat. We're only issued
one type of barrel, hence my lack of knowledge which model it is.
Quite frankly I don't know much of what you ask about the technical aspects because I'm not a gunner. As I stated several times, I'm a platoon 2IC. I deal with weapon deployment and effects, not the actual operating of the kit. It's been a while since I actually fired the weapon, so I'm not qualified to answer these questions. I am qualified to answer questions on deployment and usage though.
Ok then. I can't link the british PAMS as they're not available to the public, but I can cite them.
Infantry Training
Volume I
Skill At Arms
pp 2.12
Beaten Zone. At long ranges and less distinct targets, fire is applied to the
ground in the area of the target. The bullets of the cone of fire strike the ground to form a beaten zone (BZ). The shape of the BZ is long and narrow, the lower shots of the cone striking the ground at a shorter distance from the MG than the higher ones and with the pattern of the bullets being more dense in the middle of the BZ. The size of the BZ will vary with the range and the shape of the ground. As the range increases its length decreases and its width increases...
There are then 5 pages on the theory of the beaten zone and the effect on varying ground layouts on it, observation of fire, permissable error, defiladed zones and so on. Bear in mind this is the basic SAA PAM that is taught to all infantrymen, and doesn't even go into the details. Far from irrelavent, I'd say.
Just read it. No where does it mention long range point accuracy. It does mention accurate suppressive fire however, which is completely different.
But the M2 is already in service. The cost of the weapon is not an issue as it's already in situ.
The question at the start of the thread was in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. My argument is that the M2 is performing well in these theatres.
If you think that's the sort of war we're fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan then you need to wake up. The M2 is not used in the scenarios you describe.
Well, the lads I fight with ARE nasty. As are the buggers who fight back.
Grow up. So you had a hard day in the heat once. The stunt you describe is the sort of thing the boys do every day in the 'stan.
[edit on 16-11-2007 by PaddyInf]
Quite frankly I don't know much of what you ask about the technical aspects because I'm not a gunner. As I stated several times, I'm a platoon 2IC. I deal with weapon deployment and effects, not the actual operating of the kit. It's been a while since I actually fired the weapon, so I'm not qualified to answer these questions. I am qualified to answer questions on deployment and usage though.
As for the beaten zone to be "irrelavent", well that is the most obvious sign that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. You have no inkling of how the machine gun is being used in modern battlefields (1).
PaddyInf, feel free to be as stubborn as you heart desires. My wife is Irish-Italian, I have all the patience in the world, and once again, I’ll direct you to the way this issue is adrees in United States of America;
www.usna.edu...
Please read first and make statements later.
Ok then. I can't link the british PAMS as they're not available to the public, but I can cite them.
Infantry Training
Volume I
Skill At Arms
pp 2.12
Beaten Zone. At long ranges and less distinct targets, fire is applied to the
ground in the area of the target. The bullets of the cone of fire strike the ground to form a beaten zone (BZ). The shape of the BZ is long and narrow, the lower shots of the cone striking the ground at a shorter distance from the MG than the higher ones and with the pattern of the bullets being more dense in the middle of the BZ. The size of the BZ will vary with the range and the shape of the ground. As the range increases its length decreases and its width increases...
There are then 5 pages on the theory of the beaten zone and the effect on varying ground layouts on it, observation of fire, permissable error, defiladed zones and so on. Bear in mind this is the basic SAA PAM that is taught to all infantrymen, and doesn't even go into the details. Far from irrelavent, I'd say.
It’s not my “impression”, it’s a requirement of the United States Marine Corps, just read the B2127.
Just read it. No where does it mention long range point accuracy. It does mention accurate suppressive fire however, which is completely different.
You are simply assuming that, and if not, how much does the new barrel cost, and given the 14 thousand dollars per standard M2 unit, how much does a Sabre modified M2 costs?
But the M2 is already in service. The cost of the weapon is not an issue as it's already in situ.
Which enemy? Villagers in sandals with AKs and RPGs again? Russians made Kord as it is for a reason, that reason being two wars they fought in Chechnya and those guys were not peasants, but a hard core well paid professional mercenary army.
The question at the start of the thread was in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. My argument is that the M2 is performing well in these theatres.
As long as those battle grounds have roads and guys with shovels that don’t mind being shot at while they are digging those mounts in.
If you think that's the sort of war we're fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan then you need to wake up. The M2 is not used in the scenarios you describe.
Don’t know about you, but the men of my family that faugh on battlefields of WWII were not “nasty”, they were doing their duty, they were looking out for their men and they were doing it well.
Well, the lads I fight with ARE nasty. As are the buggers who fight back.
If you can’t hack it’s your business, but know this, you asked me if I knew what it was to like to haul gear in scorching heat, so I’ll tell you that when I started choking on my own swollen tongue I did not have the luxury of getting “bored” or a choice of quitting, and before I collapsed I dragged that goddam comrep to the top of that blasted hill and brought it online.
Grow up. So you had a hard day in the heat once. The stunt you describe is the sort of thing the boys do every day in the 'stan.
[edit on 16-11-2007 by PaddyInf]
reply to post by fritz
Mr. fritz, I have been to England on a few occasions, and while working in Thousand Oaks California I did frequently visit a pub called “Crown and anchor”, so I know the type of a loud mouth know it all chaps to avoid.
Good day to you sir.
Mr. fritz, I have been to England on a few occasions, and while working in Thousand Oaks California I did frequently visit a pub called “Crown and anchor”, so I know the type of a loud mouth know it all chaps to avoid.
Good day to you sir.
reply to post by PaddyInf
Dear Sir, changing M2 barrel is the field under fire is not feasible because it is a complicated procedure which requires adjusting of the head spacings.
How in your opinion it just “slaps one on the front of the weapon” simply escapes me.
Sabre barrel has much better heat tolerances then a standard issue barrel, thus it is capable of providing X amount of extra firepower, a factor of which you are obviously not aware of.
If you don’t know basic “technical aspects” of the heaviest and most effective direct fire automatic weapon you have available, I fail to see how you can determine how many rounds that weapon can accurately deliver before required down time.
As you should know, rounds fire from overheated barrel fall short and have a much greater spread, thus greatly reducing weapon effectiveness and risking catastrophic failure.
In order to deploy a weapon one must know its capabilities, Sabre M2 has much greater accuracy and heat tolerance verses standard issue, and it has been know even by nubs for years now.
As I said before, Sabre barrels are different in appearance from stock barrels and do not need special markings.
This is one of the main factors in determination of the ammunition count assigned to each position.
Same goes for patrols, short range verses long range.
Sabre M2s get to fire more rounds and they do it more accurately, that’s why they get more rounds to fire, as simple as that.
Infantry Training
Volume I
Skill At Arms
pp 2.12
B2127 page 2, section 3 “Characteristics of Machinegun fire”, parts d and e.
Clear as a sunny day.
What is M2s bz at thousand yards anyway? Let me clarify that, bz of the standard M2, and not the Sabre barrel M2.
I mean if there are an X number of enemy troops running parallel to your position at one thousand yards, what does X have to be in order for the M2 to effectively engage them?
And by “effectively” I mean what is the expected result before the remaining X of those men take cover, if there are in fact any of them do remain.
B2127 is as stated, an “Introduction to Machine Gun Employment”, naturally it does not reference any given weapon specifics and requirements, only their general use.
It does? Which page? It does mention grazing fire is projected to over a kilometer, and if in your opinion weapons accuracy is not a factor in this formula, I’m not sure how to proceed.
M14 was already in service, but hey, M16 got pushed right on in. What is the saying on your end, it takes a German to make an Englishmen rifle to work? (HKSA80)
What are the most common construction materials in Iraq/Afghanistan provincial verses urban areas?
“As long as those battle grounds have roads and guys with shovels that don’t mind being shot at while they are digging those mounts in.”
That was obvious sarcasm. To clarify, sarcasm on my part. Did you really think I meant guys digging in when they get ambushed?
It’s like this, direct fire – DAR then cover, indirect fire over open ground with no cover - DAD.
It is their land, and they do their fighting just as they did for centuries.
Where are you stationed again? No kidding, let’s get dcom going here, and then share it with the entire ATS community.
I don't deal with barrel life or weapon spares ordering. I deal with deploying and using said weapons. To me a barrel is a barrel. I slaps onto the front of the weapon. Rounds travel up it on their way to the enemy. They get changed when they're too hot. End of chat. We're only issued one type of barrel, hence my lack of knowledge which model it is.
Dear Sir, changing M2 barrel is the field under fire is not feasible because it is a complicated procedure which requires adjusting of the head spacings.
How in your opinion it just “slaps one on the front of the weapon” simply escapes me.
Sabre barrel has much better heat tolerances then a standard issue barrel, thus it is capable of providing X amount of extra firepower, a factor of which you are obviously not aware of.
Quite frankly I don't know much of what you ask about the technical aspects because I'm not a gunner. As I stated several times, I'm a platoon 2IC. I deal with weapon deployment and effects, not the actual operating of the kit. It's been a while since I actually fired the weapon, so I'm not qualified to answer these questions. I am qualified to answer questions on deployment and usage though.
If you don’t know basic “technical aspects” of the heaviest and most effective direct fire automatic weapon you have available, I fail to see how you can determine how many rounds that weapon can accurately deliver before required down time.
As you should know, rounds fire from overheated barrel fall short and have a much greater spread, thus greatly reducing weapon effectiveness and risking catastrophic failure.
In order to deploy a weapon one must know its capabilities, Sabre M2 has much greater accuracy and heat tolerance verses standard issue, and it has been know even by nubs for years now.
As I said before, Sabre barrels are different in appearance from stock barrels and do not need special markings.
This is one of the main factors in determination of the ammunition count assigned to each position.
Same goes for patrols, short range verses long range.
Sabre M2s get to fire more rounds and they do it more accurately, that’s why they get more rounds to fire, as simple as that.
Ok then. I can't link the british PAMS as they're not available to the public, but I can cite them.
Infantry Training
Volume I
Skill At Arms
pp 2.12
B2127 page 2, section 3 “Characteristics of Machinegun fire”, parts d and e.
Clear as a sunny day.
The size of the BZ will vary with the range and the shape of the ground. As the range increases its length decreases and its width increases...
What is M2s bz at thousand yards anyway? Let me clarify that, bz of the standard M2, and not the Sabre barrel M2.
I mean if there are an X number of enemy troops running parallel to your position at one thousand yards, what does X have to be in order for the M2 to effectively engage them?
And by “effectively” I mean what is the expected result before the remaining X of those men take cover, if there are in fact any of them do remain.
Just read it. No where does it mention long range point accuracy
B2127 is as stated, an “Introduction to Machine Gun Employment”, naturally it does not reference any given weapon specifics and requirements, only their general use.
It does mention accurate suppressive fire however, which is completely different.
It does? Which page? It does mention grazing fire is projected to over a kilometer, and if in your opinion weapons accuracy is not a factor in this formula, I’m not sure how to proceed.
But the M2 is already in service. The cost of the weapon is not an issue as it's already in situ.
M14 was already in service, but hey, M16 got pushed right on in. What is the saying on your end, it takes a German to make an Englishmen rifle to work? (HKSA80)
The question at the start of the thread was in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. My argument is that the M2 is performing well in these theatres.
What are the most common construction materials in Iraq/Afghanistan provincial verses urban areas?
“As long as those battle grounds have roads and guys with shovels that don’t mind being shot at while they are digging those mounts in.”
If you think that's the sort of war we're fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan then you need to wake up. The M2 is not used in the scenarios you describe.
That was obvious sarcasm. To clarify, sarcasm on my part. Did you really think I meant guys digging in when they get ambushed?
It’s like this, direct fire – DAR then cover, indirect fire over open ground with no cover - DAD.
Well, the lads I fight with ARE nasty. As are the buggers who fight back.
It is their land, and they do their fighting just as they did for centuries.
Grow up. So you had a hard day in the heat once. The stunt you describe is the sort of thing the boys do every day in the 'stan.
Where are you stationed again? No kidding, let’s get dcom going here, and then share it with the entire ATS community.
Originally posted by iskander
Dear Sir, changing M2 barrel is the field under fire is not feasible because it is a complicated procedure which requires adjusting of the head spacings.
How in your opinion it just “slaps one on the front of the weapon” simply escapes me.
Current issue barrel for the M2 is a QCB. It does require the use of a headspace gauge, but is achievable in a matter of seconds. Then again, someone with your obvious experience in M2 barrels would know this.
As I said before, Sabre barrels are different in appearance from stock barrels and do not need special markings.
Precisely. We only get issued one type of barrel, so one looks very much like the next. Can't honestly say I've sat and studied the barrel much. Better things to do, you know?
This is one of the main factors in determination of the ammunition count assigned to each position.
Rubbish. The only things that determine ammunition distribution amounts in the British army are availability and potential carry capacity.
B2127 page 2, section 3 “Characteristics of Machinegun fire”, parts d and e.
Clear as a sunny day.
Er, yes they relate to a beaten zone. With a M240 and M249.
I quote (my bold)
d. Cone of fire: Machine guns fire multiple bullets with each burst. These rounds do not travel along identical flight paths, and the paths of the bullets of any burst travel in a cluster are called cones of fire. The cone of fire for the M60E3/M240G is always two mils wide.
e. Beaten zone: The ground hit by the bullets is referred to as the beaten zone. Because the cone of fire of an M60E3/M240G is always two mils wide, the beaten zone is always two mils wide. Understanding the effects of range and terrain on the beaten zone allows the machine gunner to manipulate the effects of his fires.
The size of the BZ will vary with the range and the shape of the ground. As the range increases its length decreases and its width increases...
What is M2s bz at thousand yards anyway? Let me clarify that, bz of the standard M2, and not the Sabre barrel M2.
Off the top of my head? No idea. I tend to ask one of the machine gunners that sort of thing. I quoted that part from the PAM.
B2127 is as stated, an “Introduction to Machine Gun Employment”, naturally it does not reference any given weapon specifics and requirements, only their general use.
Then why use it as an authority? You seem to have cited it enough.
It does mention accurate suppressive fire however, which is completely different.
It does? Which page? It does mention grazing fire is projected to over a kilometer, and if in your opinion weapons accuracy is not a factor in this formula, I’m not sure how to proceed.
Page 1 A. (1).
I quote
Offense. Best used in a support by fire (SBF) to provide heavy volume of accurate suppressive fire.
Consider defilade if you can provide an observer with communication to the guns.
End quote
Accuracy is a factor, but point precision point accuracy is not required, as I have stated several times above.
M14 was already in service, but hey, M16 got pushed right on in. What is the saying on your end, it takes a German to make an Englishmen rifle to work? (HKSA80)
Your argument was to compare the cost of the kord with the cost of an M2 as a reason to introduce the Kord. My argument was that the cost of the M2 is inconsequential as the M2 does not need to be purchased as it is already in service.
“As long as those battle grounds have roads and guys with shovels that don’t mind being shot at while they are digging those mounts in.”
That was obvious sarcasm. To clarify, sarcasm on my part. Did you really think I meant guys digging in when they get ambushed?
It's hard to believe some of what you're peddling as fact, so you can see where it's tough to identify sarcasm from you.
Where are you stationed again? No kidding, let’s get dcom going here, and then share it with the entire ATS community.
We're currently based in Clive Bks, Shropshire. The Battle Group are on field firing and AT in Kenya at the moment, doing build up training for Op Herrick 8 early next year, but I'm stuck on rear party due to a cracked ankle bone. I'm spending most of my time banging out CRs and on admin, hence my increased time on ATS.
I'll be sure to mention you to the lads when they get home.
[edit on 16-11-2007 by PaddyInf]
[edit on 16-11-2007 by PaddyInf]
I stumbled upon something that’s so relevant to this topic, that no additional discussion will possible.
My original quote;
“Dear Sir, changing M2 barrel is the field under fire is not feasible because it is a complicated procedure which requires adjusting of the head spacings.
How in your opinion it just “slaps one on the front of the weapon” simply escapes me.
Sabre barrel has much better heat tolerances then a standard issue barrel, thus it is capable of providing X amount of extra firepower, a factor of which you are obviously not aware of.”
PaddyInfs response;
And this is a video which clearly shows what happens when barrels get changed in the field with out proper procedures and accurate headspace gauging.
Enjoy!
splodetv.com...
Does anybody still think that M2 is not obsolete? : )
My original quote;
“Dear Sir, changing M2 barrel is the field under fire is not feasible because it is a complicated procedure which requires adjusting of the head spacings.
How in your opinion it just “slaps one on the front of the weapon” simply escapes me.
Sabre barrel has much better heat tolerances then a standard issue barrel, thus it is capable of providing X amount of extra firepower, a factor of which you are obviously not aware of.”
PaddyInfs response;
Current issue barrel for the M2 is a QCB. It does require the use of a headspace gauge, but is achievable in a matter of seconds. Then again, someone with your obvious experience in M2 barrels would know this.
And this is a video which clearly shows what happens when barrels get changed in the field with out proper procedures and accurate headspace gauging.
Enjoy!
splodetv.com...
Does anybody still think that M2 is not obsolete? : )
new topics
-
How To Spot Fake U.F.O. Photos
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
LA Mayor Bass Demanded $49M in Additional LAFD Cuts One Week Before Wildfires
Mainstream News: 16 hours ago, 17 flags -
Just Came Across These Unusual Old UFO Pics
Aliens and UFOs: 15 hours ago, 7 flags -
Scary video of face in an abandoned house
Paranormal Studies: 12 hours ago, 5 flags -
How To Spot Fake U.F.O. Photos
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago, 5 flags -
Sepultura - Territory - With New Drummer Greyson Nekrutman
Music: 17 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events • 178 • : BedevereTheWise -
Judge rules president-elect Donald Trump must be sentenced in 'hush money' trial
US Political Madness • 123 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Just Came Across These Unusual Old UFO Pics
Aliens and UFOs • 7 • : devilhunter69 -
Oh, Good Gosh. “Kremlin Warns Stay Away from Greenland.”
World War Three • 35 • : Lazy88 -
Gravitic Propulsion--What IF the US and China Really Have it?
General Conspiracies • 40 • : Lazy88 -
Fire insurance in LA withdrawn months ago
General Conspiracies • 39 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Los Angeles brush fires latest: 2 blazes threaten structures, prompt evacuations
Mainstream News • 395 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Archbisop Vigano Warns of Deep State and Deep Church
New World Order • 12 • : FlyersFan -
This should be plastered all over the airwaves
Mainstream News • 56 • : Flyingclaydisk -
How To Spot Fake U.F.O. Photos
Aliens and UFOs • 4 • : SteamyAmerican