.50 cal inefficient for Iraq, Afghanistan conflict?

I bounced this question off the company S2, S4, and our SAS Liason Officer and got pretty much the same answer that pretty much everyone has said, there is simply no need for that much firepower. Again this is from a SOCOM perspective. I think all the reasons I pretty much covered save one, shoot and scoot. It's impossible because you need to set-up an HMG and cannot accurately fire it on the move (to much kick, too heavy, and without stabilization it will knock you off your feet).

From the Regular Army perspective I got a rhetorical question, "Why fix something that isn't broken?" Yes the Deuce is big, heavy, and loud, but it's fairly easy to maintain, has excellent ROF, and does the job. I can't argue with that rationale. Though a lighter HMG would be preferable as long as the ROF is adequate.

As for my ideal set up:
4 man recon: 1 Saw, 1 SR-25/M-110 (a beautiful weapon in it's own right), 2 416 (1 w/under 203 (soon to be replaced)/320).
6 man assault/recon: 2 SAW, 2 416 (1w/under 203/320), 1 416 w/under shotgun, and a SR-25/M-110 .
8 man: Same as above with an additional 416 (additional 203/320) and a 240/417.

Note: The 8 man config brings "overwhelming firepower", yet remains light and tactical. Whatever we don't kill we put a serious hurting on. I inadvertently previously said 7.86 when I meant 7.62. To beat the problem of the 30 round clip we stack 27, it's one less squeeze but that's a fair trade off with the additional power behind the round. For us it's not just about killing but taking the bad guy out of the fight. Even a wounded enemy will think twice about reengaging after getting knocked off his feet. I know it's a bit off topic but add the Stoner to your list of weapons you have to try at the range. Another note to all: Barret makes a 416 sniping round, the HK 416 is an AR.

Nobody is going to carry a .50 heavy machine gun! You will never see any soldier, Marine, or sailor carrying it around while on foot. You always see a heavy machine gun on vehicles or on helos. If you want heavy firepower it would be the SAW or the M240.

Sorry about going of topic, but I think Iksander made mention of the Charlton machine gun built during WW2 out of bolt action Enfeild rifles. I found a link, I don't know how long it will be active though, but there are two pictures of this intresting MG:

www.guncity.co.nz...

reply to post by Raemius

I bounced this question off the company S2, S4, and our SAS Liason Officer and got pretty much the same answer that pretty much everyone has said, there is simply no need for that much firepower. Again this is from a SOCOM perspective.

Have a Q for you and the guys. How are the small kill teams doing thee days? You probably know why I’m asking, especially after those 6 Marine snipers got ambushed.

Have Iraqis used smack kill teams lately to flush out and ambush the ambush? They usually just pin down the skt guys until the greeting parties expose their positions, and then their hit teams hit the nests.

Sneaky bastards.

I think all the reasons I pretty much covered save one, shoot and scoot. It's impossible because you need to set-up an HMG and cannot accurately fire it on the move (to much kick, too heavy, and without stabilization it will knock you off your feet).

Have you seen the Kord clip I’ve posted before?

I’ve been told that Russian Federal troops have been taling them on “zachistka” patrols. They usually roll in BTRs, and prior to entering the grind they deploy Kord/sniper/spottet teams so they can give them cover fire or to mop up the runners that got flushed out.

From the Regular Army perspective I got a rhetorical question, "Why fix something that isn't broken?" Yes the Deuce is big, heavy, and loud, but it's fairly easy to maintain, has excellent ROF, and does the job. I can't argue with that rationale. Though a lighter HMG would be preferable as long as the ROF is adequate.

Honestly, I look at it from logistic and procurement point of view. Do Marines really need the Osprey, or 6.8s, new AT-4s, a modern HMG, a new lighter auto-grenade launcher, etc?

I inadvertently previously said 7.86 when I meant 7.62.

I figured it was a typo so I just skipped right over it.

To beat the problem of the 30 round clip we stack 27, it's one less squeeze but that's a fair trade off with the additional power behind the round.

Sure thing, but still a new mag would be nice, would it? Even a 35 extended paired up for a nice 70 round switch.

Again, the same Chechen vet said that they bough or traded what ever they could for 45 round mags from RPKs so they can have take along 3 sets of 90 round taped twins.

People took notice and came up with a single 60 round mag. Everybody loves them, and prefer to the 90 round set.

For us it's not just about killing but taking the bad guy out of the fight. Even a wounded enemy will think twice about reengaging after getting knocked off his feet.

I know it's a bit off topic but add the Stoner to your list of weapons you have to try at the range. Another note to all: Barret makes a 416 sniping round, the HK 416 is an AR.

Hopefully I’ll carve out some time to go to Oregon and shoot some of the new stuff. For some time now I wanted to try out the Tavor.

reply to post by deltaboy

Nobody is going to carry a .50 heavy machine gun! You will never see any soldier, Marine, or sailor carrying it around while on foot. You always see a heavy machine gun on vehicles or on helos.

Watch the clip posted on previous pages.

Other then that, Federal troops are using Kord teams. As I said before, they dismount, take positions and cover the entry teams before they start shaking down the area.

reply to post by seeker83

Sorry about going of topic, but I think Iksander made mention of the Charlton machine gun built during WW2 out of bolt action Enfeild rifles.

I don’t recall bringing up the Charlton, but if you can remind me what the name of the SAS light side fed MG was I’d appreciate it.

It was one of the WWII light .303s.

Sadly most of the great lights MGs of the era are forgotten. Like .303 Hotchkiss MKI, 6.5 mm Fiat - SAFAT LMG M26, 6.5mm Bredas (also side fed), Kulsprutegevar m/40, and so foreth.

In reply to Iksander:

The only side fed Brit MG that comes readily to mind are the Sten SMGs, the MkII, MkIII, and MkV, and the Lanchaster SMG, and the Sterling MkIV after WWII, but I will look further for more info. The other side fed LMG that comes to mind was the Luftwaffe's 8mm Fallschrimjagergewher.

The British used the Bren, but it was magazine fed through the top like the BRNO vz-26. They also used the 7.92mm Breda on their tanks.

Another oldie is the Browning designed gas operated Colt-Marlin "Potato Digger", I don't think it was sed any during WW1, but the Rough Riders used a couple in 7mm mauser along with (if I remember correctly) 7mm Maxims during their ssault on San Juan hill.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by seeker83]for spelling and to add information

[edit on 16-1-2008 by seeker83]

Let them use the ANZIO ARMS 20 MIKE MIKE..lol That will smoke anything. Makes the Barrett 82A1 look like a toy.

JUST RETREAT, CALL IN A SPOOK GUNSHIP,A COUPLE A-10s ,OR A COUPLE APACHE CHOPPERS, HAVE A SMOKE AND COFFEE THEN RECLAIM THE AREA .

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.



[edit on 27-1-2008 by elevatedone]

Just wanted to point out that SF guys already tried sticking a 7,62mm minigun (m134?) on top of the HMMWV in Afganistan a while ago.
I guess it worked pretty good, except the ammo runs out too quickly.

Do a search for that on google, sure there's a vid or 2 floating around somewhere.

I don’t know, back in the 30s Soviet had a 22lb 7.62 ShKAS, a gas operated single barrel MG operating on a 10-chamber drum and pushing out 1800 low and 2700 high spm.

Put 2 of those together, and you got instant 5400 spm.

M134 on the other hand weighs 35lb, has to be externally powered which adds to the total weight, becomes useless if the power is lost, and pushes out 2,000 low and high 4,000 spm, not including spin-up/down time.

The only advantage of the M134 would be the 4 extra barrels which will naturally allow for longer bursts since they will spread the heat, but in a vehicle how much 7.62 ammo can you carry for guns with such high rates of fire anyway?

With a twin ShKAS configuration a 1 second burst will throw out 90 rounds, with the added benefit of redundant reliability. If one jams, the other will still fire.

IMHO for a 4X4, lightly armored transport class vehicle a 9,3x64 chambered Petcheneg paired to a 30mm automatic grenade launcheris what’s really needed.

Less weight then the M2, larger ammo load and the devastating effect of grenades.

I might be wrong on the spm of the original 1932 Shkas, I think its max was 1800, and the 1937s Ultra-ShKAS had the rate between 2500 to 3000 spm.

Two ultras paired up and you got 100 rounds fired per second from a twin barrel rig with a total weighs of about 40 -50 pounds minus the mount, and it does not need the additional batteries or a motor.

Firing a 13 gram heavy type D ball round, that’ll be a kilo and 300 grams fired every second, which is almost 3 pounds.

At an average of 3000 joules per round, that’ll be about 30 kilojoules fired per second.

Now that’ll be some heck of a way to get portable fire power!

Originally posted by iskander
I don’t know, back in the 30s Soviet had a 22lb 7.62 ShKAS, a gas operated single barrel MG operating on a 10-chamber drum and pushing out 1800 low and 2700 high spm. Put 2 of those together, and you got instant 5400 spm.

The Shpitalny-Komaritski Aviatsionny Skorostrelnij or ShKAS, was primarily a fast-firing gas operated aircraft REVOLVER! Nothing too spectacular about a revolver, Iskander.

But we will never know because even the Russians are prepared to admit that the weapon was notoriously unreliable, which is why the Russians used this weapon sparingly and aircraft mounting this weapon saw limited service.

Incidentally Iskander, the ShKAS weighs an astonishingly heavy 88 lbs c/w 650 rounds of armour-piercing-incendiary ammunition.

Reference: Романов Д. И. Оружие Воздушного Боя (Romanov D.I., Aerial Weapons)

reply to post by fritz

was primarily a fast-firing gas operated aircraft REVOLVER! Nothing too spectacular about a revolver, Iskander.

Yes, I mentioned that right here,

“10-chamber drum”

Such “revolver” designs are used to this day and in the 30s it was revolutionary.

But we will never know because even the Russians are prepared to admit that the weapon was notoriously unreliable

That I never heard of, especially after reading countless biographies of pilots that used them.

I’d appreciate a source, because IL-2 Shturmoviks other then their hard hitting 23mm main guns, were specifically fitted with a pair of Shkas for strafing runs, and Germans simply hated them.

I single pass over a truck column would stitch them right through before the troops even had a chance to bail.

which is why the Russians used this weapon sparingly and aircraft mounting this weapon saw limited service.

It was designed as an aircraft weapon, it was used WIDELY through out the entire war, and in order to reliably feed it used a belt with really tight tolerances, which could not be used in ground warfare.

Incidentally Iskander, the ShKAS weighs an astonishingly heavy 88 lbs c/w 650 rounds of armour-piercing-incendiary ammunition.

Well, gas operated drum (revolver) loading shkas weighs 22 pounds, and it does in fact weighs 88 pound when loaded with ammo, so there ‘s nothing astonishing about it, other then the fact that a recoil operated Browning AN M2 .30 Machine Gun weighs the same 21.5 lb, but fired only 1140 spm, and with 650 round load of .30 cal the total weight wil be the same.

blindkat.hegewisch.net...

I did not bring up a paired-up shkas for no reason; various MGs were regularly paired up to increase firepower.

browningmgs.com...

Errrrrrrrrrrr.......................................I thought I'd given you the source.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by fritz]

reply to post by fritz


Fritz, please, this is simply silly.

“Романов Д. И. Оружие Воздушного Боя (Romanov D.I., Aerial Weapons)”

That was taken directly from wekipidia;

en.wikipedia.org...

Similarly, this was also taken directly from Wiki;

In 1939, a small number of Ultra-ShKAS were produced featuring a firing rate of 2,700 rounds per minute but these saw only limited use due to reliability problems.

In reality Ultra was made in 1937, not 1939, which once again shows what wiki is all about = opinion, not fact.

While Romanov is listed as a reference, not a single word is actually reprinted. No page number, no title, no year of publication, nothing.

It’s the typical home-made wikipiaida misinformation garbage on is to expect from a site which anybody can edit.

As for the real source, here are the words of the Shpitalskiy him self, so rest assured that this is reality and not made up wiki garbage;

After war B.G.Shpitalskiy wrote: « When our valorous troops, taken storm Berlin, have rushed into office of the third Reich among the numerous trophies grasped in office, appeared, at first sight, unusual kind a sample of the weapon carefully covered with a glass cap, and a sheet of a paper with personal signature of Hitler.
Arrived for survey of this sample experts with surprise have found out under glass the Tula air machine gun ShKAS-7.62, and the personal order of Hitler taking place at it, saying that the Tula machine gun will be in office until German experts will not create the same machine gun for fascist aircraft., as is known, hitlerites and did not manage it to make. German experts have failed to open all secrets of the Tula machine gun».

www.airpages.ru...

Here’s the real numbers of Shkas.

The batch production of ShKAS machine guns constantly grew. In 1933 365 pieces, in 1934 - 2476, in 1935 - 3566, in 1937 - 13005, in 1938 - 19687, in 1940 - 34233, in 1943 - 29450, in 1944 - 36255 and per 1945 have been issued.

That’s production output by YEAR, not total.

I don't really care Iskander. yes that info came off a website but in all honesty, it looked to be the best of a bad job.

I will bow to your website searching skills, because they are obviously second to none.

Lots of people on this site trawl weaponry related websites - some are good, some are bad whilst some are full of crap.

Guess I must have picked the latter - BUT, at least I am man enough to admit MY mistakes.

Oh yes - another thing. Please, please, please do not say I use Wikipedia. I most certainly do not.

reply to post by fritz

I don't really care Iskander. yes that info came off a website but in all honesty, it looked to be the best of a bad job.

fritz, in all honesty I don’t mean to bring you down, it’s just on ATS a rather nasty habit has developed when people site sources which are either totally bogus or inaccurate.

Sometimes it’s just laziness but sometimes it is to cherry pick the info that supports any given point of view, and that’s why Wiki simply can not be considered as a viable source unless a credible source is listed directly on the wiki page.

As much as I hate wiki for it is a obvious social engineering/molding/control agenda, sometimes it’s convenient to look up the basic of things, but one must always be very weary of the continues propaganda, fact twisting and blatant disinformation that’s regularly takes place on wiki.

The fact is that the book in question is available online, and can be found in full version on these sites;

www.airforce.ru...

victory.mil.ru...

militera.lib.ru...

I will bow to your website searching skills, because they are obviously second to none.

No need, it’s just I’m a regular reader of the absolutely excellent militera.ru library, and have came across the book in question.

Knowing how wikipidians operate, it’s only natural to clearly see the patters of wiki historical revisionism. While the site factually sources, they do not give specific foot notes or quotes, while editing the actual wiki content in any way it suit them.

Unfortunate all the sings of the informational dark age are evident. Whith in a decade internet will turn into a McLibrary of manufactured infotainment, and all factual data will be accessible through paid and monitored services only.

Lots of people on this site trawl weaponry related websites - some are good, some are bad whilst some are full of crap.

For me it’s a welcome distraction from my daily headaches. A thinking mans burden, not being able to just shut if off, at least with out “chemical” help. Once one begins to really think, it’s like stepping throw a threshold, there’s no way back. Ironically exactly the same pattern happens to people that have killed, there’s simply no way back, regardless if one got to like it or suffers from it.
The duality of man. A man can drown in though, actually most do, and then they start actively drowning them selves in booze or drugs, but in few cases one must have the strength and courage to murder his previous ignorant self in order to be reborn.

Chekhov – “Any idiot can deal with a crisis - it's this day-to-day living that wears you out.”

How’s that for off topic? : )

Guess I must have picked the latter - BUT, at least I am man enough to admit MY mistakes.

Oh yes - another thing. Please, please, please do not say I use Wikipedia. I most certainly do not.

Well said. I’ll share something personal with you. Since my childhood I’ve always preferred the consuming intrigue of loosing a long and hard round of chess, rather then enjoying a short lived and quickly forgotten satisfaction of a victory.

To me the only victories that count are the ones of self conquest. In the outside world the history is written by the victor, regardless if it was true or not, but when the battle takes place with in your own self, it’s a lot harder to lie to your self.

We all learn from mistakes, from our own or from experience of others, experience being a mere library of mistakes made, overcome and learned upon.

The library of my mistakes is so colossal that in order to hold them all it’ll take an entire race of advanced alien civilization to build a library out of an entire planet.

My notion of your use of wiki is simple, deduction.

I was previously aware of the book, and since the only direct reference to it in the quote as you posted exists only on Wiki and its mirrors, there’s simply no other possibility left.

Elementary my dear Watson.

Originally posted by iskander Elementary my dear Watson.

AH HA! GOTCHA!

Now who's been reading silly books then? Sherlock Holmes has never said 'Elementary, My Dear Watson'.

That phrase was incorporated into the 1 hour specials called 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes', to make it more appealling to our American cousins across the Big Pond.

reply to post by fritz


Oh for crying out fritz, where’s your English sense of humor?

If you want to get boring about it, the phrase first appeared in 1929 film “The Return of Sherlock Holmes” (Basil Dean/Garrett Fort).

Prior to that, a stage actor William Gillette used a longer version of the phrase sometime around 1899.

Finally, the entire POINT of me writing that phrase had to do with the following;

“My notion of your use of wiki is simple, deduction.”

Note, “wiki” and me referring to it as an erroneous and fabricated source of information which has to be doubted, and then posting the phrase.

Are we on the same page now, or are you still in the “AH HA! GOTCHA!” hunting mode like we’re in some kind of a jungle and not a public forum?

Just a friendly hello from our side of the pond, and no, not all of us learn from TV, so can we get back on track please?