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

[a_majoor]

Is the HMG a feasable Rifle Pl weapon?

Is the HMG a feasible rifle pl weapon?

Short answer - it depends. For the most part, I think it is feasible.
In a heavy mech platoon - yes, for dismtd def ops. In the "olden days" the Grizz mtd a .50 and a GPMG and the .50 was often dismtd from the turret for a def op.

Not an ideal situation - but we did it anyways.

In a light infantry context - again, that depends on the structure of the Light Infantry Bn - does it employ a Direct Fire Support Pl - ie a bunch of wheeled vehicles mounting HMGs?

While the HMG is a fabulous weapon, the M2 is far too heavy and bulky to be a platoon weapon without special attention (i.e a M-113 or Grizzley to truck it around). Tossing one in the back of a LAV runs into much the same problem as the CASW; who gets left on the side of the road to make room for the weapon and ammo?

The CIS .50 HMG is much lighter and has some big advantages (dual feed), but even that would need very careful attention to make it a viable platoon weapon.



[Edit to insert quotes prior to thread split]

 

[OldSolduer]

While the HMG is a fabulous weapon, the M2 is far too heavy and bulky to be a platoon weapon without special attention (i.e a M-113 or Grizzley to truck it around). Tossing one in the back of a LAV runs into much the same problem as the CASW; who gets left on the side of the road to make room for the weapon and ammo?

The CIS .50 HMG is much lighter and has some big advantages (dual feed), but even that would need very careful attention to make it a viable platoon weapon.

I agree with this that the M2 is not feasible with out a form of transport. Perhaps a DFS Platoon would be a solution?

 

[Kirkhill]

While the HMG is a fabulous weapon, the M2 is far too heavy and bulky to be a platoon weapon without special attention (i.e a M-113 or Grizzley to truck it around). Tossing one in the back of a LAV runs into much the same problem ......

Do you really need a 10 tonne truck (Grizzly/M113) or even a 17 tonne truck (LAV - moving to 25 tonnes) to cart around a ~50 kg gun?  Even with the one tonne of ammo you need to keep an M3M GAU-21 fed (300 Rd burst ~20 seconds - 100 round can 7 seconds - 2 minutes of engagement - 18 100 round cans)?

Couldn't you get by with a 6 tonne (like the Bv206s, or the Jackal) or even a Milverado or G-Wagen?

Or is it all LAV all the time? 

 

[Spooks]

3VP attempted to place Cbt Sp types in all Rifle coys in Croatia, and would gather them periodically for training. Not ideal, in fact IMO it could have been disasterous. When 2VP took over, 1 VP sent its AAP and Mor Pl over, as we had none...we were told they weren't needed.

Disclaimer: Everything I mention here is for 3VP. It does not reflect 1VP, 2VP, or any other Bn as I have no idea how they are organised. We are not LAV'd up.

Well, as of right now, in the 3rd, we *puts on OpSec glasses* Cbt Sup (hereafter referred to as CS) used to have under it:

CS CQ
-Sigs Pl
-Recce Pl (which included the snipers)
-DFS Pl

This was the model before I was posted away in early 08. Upon returning, it's a tad different but still the same at the roots.

Can .50s goto the Coys?

Sure they can in theory. Working in RQ right now, I know I have X .50s. We'll take 20-40% of that X down for repairs and we are left with a few. I suppose, due to being a larger weapon that needs transport somehow you can give 1 per coy for the HQ element and give the CSM a bigger punch for his Sup Element. Awesome, good thinking. We still need transport for it (and no, we aren't all hard anymore where we can manpack the .50 like the old stories of the CAR). With current gear and not thinking with our heads in dreamland, we have LSVWs and LUVWs. The .50 could be pulled be either or on a trailer. Could the OC/CSM's LUVW pull a trailer with the .50Cal on it? Sure. It's reasonable. The .50 Cal comes in a nice and neat plastic box while adding a tripod and toolbox. So we come into the problem of manning it. Coy HQ contains the Coy's sigs and tpt elements. I don't know if they Coy TO&E has room to dedicate 2 pers to be dedicated .50 gunners. The gunner cmdr would be the CSM or maybe you could add a 2IC of wpns as a MCpl for when the CSM is worrying about the Coy?

Could you goto the M3?
Sure, whynot? But be ready to pack much much more ammo so the M2 is more viable in that regard since you need to truck much less ammo around with you.

Having a .50 with the Coy wpns det could be a good thing (thinking aloud here) since it would be in the rear with the HQ element and has the range to tough that which the front Pl's are engaging (in the defensive). You could place it definitely in defilade but prioving enfilade fire may be a problem since I am envisioning it in the middle-rear of a defensive position. On an offensive, it would be a large, obese Bertha to maneuver around.

Maneuverability on the Offensive
The .50 on the offensive, I'd forsee a 4-man det for the weapon (barrels, body, tripod, ammo) but is that too much for 1 weapon system? On another note, this is what makes the 60mm mortar in the light role very effective since it's 1 man for the weapon and 1-25 men for the ammo. Throw it with the heavier baseplate and you just add one man to carry the plate and sight. I am very interested to see how the CASW/AGLS is employed on the offensive w/o vehicle transport.

Other thoughts
Is the TLAV used outside of Afghanistan right now. I'm told by those that were directly supported by them, that they rocked overthere and blew through the furrows.

My 2 rubles

 

[OldSolduer]

Do you really need a 10 tonne truck (Grizzly/M113) or even a 17 tonne truck (LAV - moving to 25 tonnes) to cart around a ~50 kg gun?  Even with the one tonne of ammo you need to keep an M3M GAU-21 fed (300 Rd burst ~20 seconds - 100 round can 7 seconds - 2 minutes of engagement - 18 100 round cans)?

Couldn't you get by with a 6 tonne (like the Bv206s, or the Jackal) or even a Milverado or G-Wagen?

Or is it all LAV all the time? 

Short answer is no, you don't really need a huge vehicle to haul it around. I'm thinking something like a Milcot might work. It would need some mods - a rack to mount the .50 receiver/brl combo, a tripod mount plus various boxes for parts and ammo stowage. Then the gun crews kit would need to be hauled around as well.

The M2 weighs 128 lbs, if I recall, that is the barrell, receiver and tripod, with one 100 rd belt. The weight is prohibitive to haul around on dismtd offensive ops. And it can chew up a belt in no time (not like the GAU 21 but still pretty fast).  I think for that sort of thing the .50 truck(s) stays one tac bound behind the lead platoon, then can be deployed on order from the OC.


Just a wild thought.

Hmmmmm....maybe there is an oppotunity  here...... ;D

 

[a_majoor]

The issue of M-113 or AVGP's as the primary weapons/troop carrier for the .50 resolved the problems of transporting the weapon, the troops and ammunition to use it without invoking extra vehicle resources devoted to the weapon. The LAV III with its 25mm automatic cannon has no need to mount a HMG, so there is no provision to carry one under normal circumstances.

Now if we were to invoke some alternative arrangement such as an Arctic BN mounted on BV 206 or equivalent vehicles, then the .50 makes sense to provide mounted and dismounted firepower in the same fashion as was done with the M-113 or AVGP. We also have historic examples of trucks, tank destroyers and even MBT's mounting .50's on ring mounts or attached to the main gun barrel (IDF), as well as vehicle DF platoons for light or motor infantry so the real issue isn't so much how to get it around the battlefield, but how to effectively employ it (providing men and ammunition is the primary issue). Even the classic "Rise, fall and rebirth of the Emma Gee's" demonstrates the issues of using them in the dismounted defense with a full company.

For people considering using it dismounted in the advance, consider that in WWII the US Army had an entire eight man squad (section) devoted to dismounted HMG's; the three man gun team (carrying the barrel, body and tripod when moving) and the remaining five men packing the ammunition and providing rifles to protect the weapon on the move. Even a lightweight CIS .50 would still need a similar manpower bill when off its vehicle mount. Given the plethora of DF weapons already available, I would put the .50 somewhat farther down the list behind ATGW's and mortars, although ahead of the CASW. In the ideal world, I would combine the two capabilities in a weapon similar in concept to the OCSW.

 

[Spooks]

The LAV III with its 25mm automatic cannon has no need to mount a HMG, so there is no provision to carry one under normal circumstances.

The RWS variant uses C6 or .50s...just saying (It doesn't have a 25mm on it)

 

[MedCorps]

I also saw a footnote in the Small Arms Modernization (SAM) project that a sharp shooter capability is being addressed.  This is one of the eleven capabilities being addressed by this project which is supposed to be completed by 2019.

MC

People may be happy to know that the replacement to the M2 .50 HMG is part of the aforementioned project.

MC

 

[Spooks]

People may be happy to know that the replacement to the M2 .50 HMG is part of the aforementioned project.

MC

:sarcasm:

The M2b - the fibreglass version. It'll be lighter to carry but must be replaced every 50 belts due to the body falling apart. We get a better gun, the gun manufacturer gets a bigger wallet.

 

[a_majoor]

This tangent has brought up an interesting point. The capabilities which we want were in separate organizations for may reasons, but one of them was because the "tools" to provide DF and IF (and pioneer support) for the companies were quite specialized and bulky; they needed a separate organization to provide carriage and logistics. Military history buffs know this to be true; think about "regimental artillery" in the past or the DF platoon concept for Canadian Light Infantry of today.

A hard hitting DF weapon is already "built in" to every LAV platoon in the form of the 25mm chain gun, reducing or effectively eliminating the need for the .50 HMG in a LAV battalion.  TOW's "could" be carried on the turret of a LAV, but we choose not to. If man portable ATGMs with a reach and effect similar to a TOW are bought and issued to the troops, then do we really "need" to revive an AAP as well?

Incidentally, a project to replace the HMG in 2019 is quite ridiculous. How many actual contenders are there besides QCB rebuilds or new build M2's or the CIS .50? Unless the parameters are wide open to include such things as the BGR-15 or the ASP 30 cannon this is simply a make work project on the HMG side and we could be jump starting that process right now.

 

[Spooks]

A hard hitting DF weapon is already "built in" to every LAV platoon in the form of the 25mm chain gun, reducing or effectively eliminating the need for the .50 HMG in a LAV battalion.  TOW's "could" be carried on the turret of a LAV, but we choose not to. If man portable ATGMs with a reach and effect similar to a TOW are bought and issued to the troops, then do we really "need" to revive an AAP as well?

What about the rest of the non-LAV folk or even the non-RG folk?

EDIT: Removed irrelevant statement

 

[a_majoor]

What about the rest of the non-LAV folk or even the non-RG folk?

As long as they are willing to devote an eight man section of men to feed and carry the HMG on the ground, and pay the extra for logistics and maint of a separate vehicle for each mounted gun (pref big enough for the dismounted team to ride in as well), then by all means. Not being snide, but this is the reality of why separate organizations for combat support are (sometimes) needed. In real terms this would be a M-113 or AVGP analogue to be both useful and survivable, lesser vehicles like "Bren gun carriers" or "jeeps" will have great difficulty supporting the heavy weapons dismounted or in sustained operations where lots of amunition is needed.

 

[Spooks]

Touche.

Guess I best get a good pair of boots so I can 'hump dem guns'. Something inside of me is really against personally being dependent on a LAV. I'd rather hike for 4hrs than ride up and jump out of a LAV. Just my own personal opinion. You may start the 'LAVs are great pieces of kit!', 'You are just crazy!', or general eTomato throwing now.

 

[OldSolduer]

Touche.

Guess I best get a good pair of boots so I can 'hump dem guns'. Something inside of me is really against personally being dependent on a LAV. I'd rather hike for 4hrs than ride up and jump out of a LAV. Just my own personal opinion. You may start the 'LAVs are great pieces of kit!', 'You are just crazy!', or general eTomato throwing now.

There are times when the 25mm is too large to use and the collateral damage it could cause would unneccessarily risk lives. The C6 (SF) might be too light and not have the effect needed to "neutralize" (kill) the target. The solution - .50 HMG, but that is my opinion only.
And not all of us have LAVs, RG 31 etc,

Be aware that you can "man portage" a .50 BUT you better have a vehicle (ATV with a wagon?) to bring you ammo.  :2c:

 

[McG]

There are times when the 25mm is too large to use and the collateral damage it could cause would unneccessarily risk lives. The C6 (SF) might be too light and not have the effect needed to "neutralize" (kill) the target. The solution - .50 HMG, but that is my opinion only.
And not all of us have LAVs, RG 31 etc,

Be aware that you can "man portage" a .50 BUT you better have a vehicle (ATV with a wagon?) to bring you ammo.  :2c:

If there are times that a C6 is not enough but the current HMG is too much a logistic burden to hump into the battle, could there be a solution in a mid-range calibre?  10 mm is about half-way from 7.62 mm to .50, but such a weapon could be significantly lighter and the ammunition would be even more so when compared to the HMG.

For those situations in which LAV cannon is available, we don't need to consider a new weapon.  Instead, we could consider different ammunition – we could consider 25 mm ball as a means of collateral damage mitigation.  Alternately, there are “reduced trace” rounds available with reduced ballistic stability designed to perform close to the real thing but which fall from the air much sooner after the weapon’s formal max range (I would not want to shoot these at an AFV type target, but they would meet the need if I wanted something to retard the firepower of 25 mm cannon for collateral damage reasons).

Incidentally, a project to replace the HMG in 2019 is quite ridiculous. How many actual contenders are there besides QCB rebuilds or new build M2's or the CIS .50? Unless the parameters are wide open to include such things as the BGR-15 or the ASP 30 cannon this is simply a make work project on the HMG side and we could be jump starting that process right now.

It is possible that the Army anticipates more options on that horizon, and the current weapon will meet our needs until that point in time.  The US Army is looking for a new lighter HMG in the coming years through the XM806.

LSAT is also developing lighter rifles and machine guns within the US Army, and it is apparently looking to branch into larger calibres this year or shortly after.  A .50 cal CTA or CLA HMG could provide significant weight reductions even in comparison to the XM806.

I have also seen speculation that the German Army has (had) interest in developing a 10 mm CLA HMG.  Perhaps one of our German speakers could dig to see if there are more internet references than this dated & obscure piece.

Even if the German Army speculation is untrue, LSAT by its nature is not tied to traditional NATO ammunitions and it could be the path for introducing something between .50 cal and 7.62 mm as a new standard GPMG calibre. 

 

[ArmyRick]

The XM806 looks very promising. I think I saw it on Future weapons. It would be alot easier to hump, although the ammo is still brutal and requires man power (dispersed amongst the platoons usually is best).

Same goes for 60mm, Eryx missiles, support weapons ammo is always a grump when humping it. Sure is worth it though when you smash the enemy with it.

Instead of a 10mm HMG, what about slightly enlarging the 7.62mm to a new caliber. The C6 is still very much man packable, IMO requires minimum crew 2, preferably 3. What if they made say a 8.5mm? A little more punch? I do realize its all hypothetical and not going to happen BUT if we go down the road of CTA ammo which is a whole new technology game, then maybe?

What about a 8.5mm or 9.25mm CTA Machine gun?

 

[vonGarvin]

We already have something that could replace the .50 HMG.  It's called the C16.  It has similar range, similar ability to hurt similar things, but has some advantages in that it has juicy stuff like airbursting ammo.


Just saying, because if you replace the .50 HMG with the C 16, we'll save the government MILLIONS.  (And hopefully make DLR irrelevant.  Or at least burn on a stake whoever it was that thought that a GMG could replace a mortar)

 

[Good2Golf]

Just wondering, does the C16 have AP-HEI?

 

[Journeyman]

We already have something that could replace the .50 HMG.  It's called the C16.

Notwithstanding the recent restrictions on its usage 

 

[vonGarvin]

Just wondering, does the C16 have AP-HEI?

I'd have to check, but I believe that it does.