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

[PJGary]

Question;

Is the question specifically regarding needing a vehicle to mount the gun? or just transport?

As mentioned before, the M2 has a nice neat packing case that holds everything minus the tripod and toolbox. It could easily fit in almost any vehicle and can be deployed pretty quickly. As far as mounting it, I'm by no means an expert but I highly doubt you would need something giant, as the RWS can use a .50 as is and the yanks mount it on Humvees.

As far as having it as a Pl. level asset on dismounted offensive ops, it is still taught as a Coy support weapon and personally I think there is some merit to that. On my HMG course we "learned the finer points" of humping the gun in 3 man teams and it's not really sunshine and rainbows, but it is still possible. However when you only have a Pl. Weapons det. the problem of manpower arises. If you have an average support section, you have 1 or 2 C6's (two men each, sometimes with more ammo dispersed), 60mm (another two man team), 84mm (again, two man team), as well as the section commander and the 2iC. That's 8-10 men, who are already packing a serious (and heavy) amount of heat. The M2 needs at least 3 men per gun team (plus ammo) and should also have it's own gun commander, so you would either need to take more guys out of the Pl. who could possibly be doing more effective jobs for Off. ops, or give everyone else in the section even more...fun. I also just had a funny vision in my head of scrambling to "Mount gun and tripod!" every time you got bumped.

In my humble opinion.

 

[a_majoor]

While the HMG (or C-16) *can* be carried by three men (usually very large men), as a practical matter you need quite a few more to use it successfully in the dismounted role. My standard of reference is the US Army in WWII, which devoted an entire eight man squad to the task. Three men carried the gun, assembled and fired it, while the other five provided escort for the weapons team on the move and carried the ammunition as well. Going even farther back, WWI Canadian platoons were divided in a similar manner with the Lewis gun section supporting the gunner as he carried the gun and carrying extra ammunition drums to sustain the weapon when firing.

There is no argument that a very small vehicle "could" carry the HMG (or the C-16 for that matter), but then you are either tied to the vehicle, or accept that dismounting the weapon will have to be restricted, or done with lots of shuffling within the company to get those eight guys per gun. A larger "gun truck" is possible, but vulnerable, so that is why I am seeing the M-113/AVGP/STK "Bronco"/Thales Bushmaster or similar sort of vehicle as desirable in this role. You have the added advantages of being able to use the weapon mounted or dismounted, carry lots of ammunition and spare parts, maintain comms with the Coy HQ and the supported platoons and even carry secondary weapons (the USMC had a "one metre" turret that could mount both the HMG and a 40mm automatic grenade launcher for the LVTP7, that is a turret that can fit on an AVGP or TLAV sized vehicle. The MBSGD (Multi Barrel Smoke Grenade Discharger) is also a weapons system, other support weapons could be carried internally (60mm mortar) or mounted externally depending on what you wanted and what sort of manpower budget you were willing to devote to the fire support platoon.

The argument between putting more resources to the line vs the machine guns was resolved in WWI , Brigadier-General Brutinel offering this opinion:

of course this proposal is tantamount to loosing firepower of a great many men so as to add men to do the fatigue work. What would you think of a manufacturer who, being short of hands to clean windows decided to stop his great machines so as to relieve men for that purpose? The policy of reducing machine guns would not remedy the shortage of men in infantry brigades, but would undoubtedly lower their firepower. Instead the number of machine guns should be increased proportionately to maintain, if not improve, their firepower.

It may well be possible that some new technological development like LSAT or an alternative calibre might make this argument moot. Alternatively, advanced ammunition for the 25mm might do the trick (I always wondered why AHEAD ammunition could not be produced in 25mm), or even a successful development of a weapon similar in concept to the OCSW. The 30mm ASP cannon could also be considered, being of a size weight and form factor to directly replace the HMG in various mounts and providing both AP and HE fire. Even breech loading mortars could be designed to provide DF and IF firepower with large calibre HE warheads (a thought experiment mounted a Soviet 2B9 Vasilek on the load bed of an HMMVW to give you an ides of what the concept might look like, the Russians sometimes mount it on the deck of an MT-LB)

Frankly the idea of a fire support platoon is worth considering, and there are lots of "outside the box" concepts that can be applied to this idea. (I have in fact looped back to the Infantry combat support idea but at a Company level...)

 

[MedCorps]

The focus here for the use of of the .50 cal seems to be on the offensive phases of operation. 

Regardless if  it is suitable for that role due to the HR/logistics issues, there is still clearly a role for this weapons system in the defensive phase of operations where HR/logistics are often (but not always) minimized and geographically fixed.

I am thinking the area defence where things are somewhat static. Or even immediately upon taking an objective moving up (mechanized / motorized) with the .50 cal and dropping it on the objective with a pile of ammo to aid in securing said objective (with the vehicle then leaving for survivability reasons).

There is also a clear role in outpost / FOB / fix base defence as well as VCPs where once again you can truck it and the ammo to the position and then drop it.

It would be a shame not to have this weapons system in the inventory (like the C16) as we cannot find a role for it in offensive operations as there is more to it then A to C, meeting engagements, attacks, raids, recce in force, and exploiting the battle space as the enemy is in on run. 

Maybe it is just the non-combatant in me coming out, who still wants to have people with notable firepower protecting him while he does the medical business 

MC

 

[a_majoor]

We can already use the HMG in the static role, but this limits its effectiveness to a fairly limited set of circumstances. By analogy, what if I were to say the only place we could use a medic is in the Role 3 because there is no practical way to support you in the field?

 

[MedCorps]

If you could only use a medic in the role 3 then I would say you are still pretty lucky to have a medic in the role 3 (assuming you make it there).  I would also recommend that you hone some of the other tools in your toolbox such as combat first aid and TCCC as well as have your evac system sorted out and GTG.

Try not to get effectiveness confused with usefulness.  The .50 cal in the defensive phase of war and the Medic in the role 3 are both useful.  The .50 cal may be less effective in the offensive (due to logistics) but still effective (and useful) in the defensive role. 


MC

 

[a_majoor]

My analogy wasn't very clear I see.

We have some medical "tools" like first aid and TCCC training that we can carry with us at all times (like our regular suite of weaponry); but I can't think of anyone who would not want to have a medic with us in the field.

We would love to have a .50 HMG or some other hard hitting weapon available at all times, but the size and weight of the weapon and ammunition makes it very difficult. Having the weapon on hand to shoot in an attack, move it forward stealthily to set up a cut off in an ambush or even right on the spot while consolidating to prepare for a possible counterattack increases the usefulness of the weapon. 

 

[McG]

In the spring of 2007, I had the opportunity to meet some development staff and see the XM307 ACSW/XM312 HMG.  One boastful observation that the team offered was that the XM312 was so much more accurate than the M2 that it did not require the same “high” rate of fire to achieve desired down range effects.  I observed that their RoF seemed awfully low and questioned if they had considered a selector switch to a high RoF setting for such tasks as anti-aircraft, “winning the fire fight”, or increasing the chances of hits on scattered dismounted groups.  The idea was dismissed as unnecessary but (if Wikipedia is to be believed) higher US Army authorities probably thought the idea was very much necessary as the project was cancelled primarily for the weapons’ low RoF.

Any future HMG replacement should have a rate of fire selector for the operator.  It is possible to just build a weapon with a high rate of fire and allow the operator to control aggregate RoF through burst length, but actually controlling it within the weapon can give significantly more control for efficient ammunition use.  I would suggest three settings:

• High Rate ~ 1,000 to 1,200 Rnds/Min for AA and anti-pers
• Med Rate ~ 600 Rnds/Min for anti-veh and general purpose
• Low Rate ~ 200 to 300 Rnds/Min for suppression (after the firefight is won)

The particular value of the mechanically controlled low rate is that it allows longer burst of fewer rounds – this equates to longer periods of suppression for less weight of ammo carried in.

 

[a_majoor]

While this idea is exciting, I can't think of a mechanical, recoil or gas operated system that would allow that. Even various rate reducers don't change the cyclic rate by that amount (assuming there was a way to insert or remove the rate reducer during firing).

An externally powered weapon like the chain gun could have pre programmed firing rates (and a .50 chain gun would probably be quite easy to do), but a reliable power supply would be a killer, especially when in the dismounted role.

Do you know of any system whic would allow that sort of mechanical control of cyclic rates?

 

[cupper]

What about a system that allowed preselected burst length rather than changing the rate of fire?

Say a selector that allowed a 5 round, 20 round and full rock and roll.

(See, this one is special, the dial goes all the way to 11!) ;D

 

[McG]

While this idea is exciting, I can't think of a mechanical, recoil or gas operated system that would allow that. Even various rate reducers don't change the cyclic rate by that amount (assuming there was a way to insert or remove the rate reducer during firing).

...

Do you know of any system whic would allow that sort of mechanical control of cyclic rates?

The difference between the proposed medium and high rates could be achieved through gas regulation.  The difference between medium and low rates could then be achieved that a mechanism that return force and allows a greater recoil travel distance for the bolt or breach-block.

I do not know of an existing weapon that does this.  Weapons engineers out in industry can be pretty smart though, if we made it known now that we will be very interested in a proven design by 2019, there will be at least a couple manufactures ready to show us something when we are ready to buy.

 

[a_majoor]

I can sort of see the gas regulation thing, but there will have to be some sort of mechanical rate limiter to change the speed of the recoiling action so the bolt can move at the appropriate speed.

Actually, what may work is some sort of cam on the bolt or bolt carrier which engages a variable track (that controls the movement or speed of travel). The tricky part would be finding a way to drive the bolt back into battery with sufficient force to strip a new round off the belt and finish the chambering and locking cycles (if using conventional ammunition) regardless of how far the recoiling mechanism moved. I'm not sure if this would be a consideration with a .50 LOSAT analogue....

 

[Spooks]

Not that I am a WpnsTech or anything, but wouldn't having a MG which is gas operated holding a RoR of 1000RPM have a significant issue with carbon buildup since the CF doesn't use the highest qualist ammunition that burns cleanest?

Just asking an honest Q

 

[a_majoor]

Any military weapon should be designed to use low quality ammunition since there will be no telling where you can get ammunition from in a war zone. The Ross rifle suffered from this problem, as a sporting rifle owners would buy or hand load ammunition of the best quality they could buy, as a military weapon it was subjected to ammunition of varying quality.

The AK series of weapons has lots of clearance between parts to offset the buildup of dirt and carbon, but at a loss of accruacy (which the end user decided could be overcome by quantity of fire).

Some pretty brilliant people will be needed to gunsmith the ".50 McG Gun", because of the various features desired:

Variable RPM
Rugged to operate in a military environment
Ability to fire all service ammunition (if using a new system like LOSAT, any allied nations version of that ammunition)
Some degree of accruacy (certainly no less than a Browning M2 HMG)
Light weight for man portability
Ability to mount various equipment (sight systems, range finders, ballistic computers)
Form factor similar enough to the Browning M2 HMG to fit current mounts and cradles
Dual feed would be nice as well

 

[McG]

Not that I am a WpnsTech or anything, but wouldn't having a MG which is gas operated holding a RoR of 1000RPM have a significant issue with carbon buildup since the CF doesn't use the highest qualist ammunition that burns cleanest?

Most machine guns have a RoF from 600 to 1,2000 RPM.  The FN MAG can get up to the 1,000 RPM and FN Minimi can surpass that.  .... and I have no idea what is in the realm of the possible if we were to consider CLA ammunition and its options of operating mechanisms.

Of course, carbon fouling is the result of the total of rounds fired and not so much the RoF at any given point in time.  Where I am advocating mechanically controlled cyclic RoF, I beleive the total number of rounds fired will be reduced in comparison to another MG with a fixed high cyclic rate.  The machine gunner would use the highest RoF for those brief periods in which it was needed (like shredding an exposed Pl of enemy inf in a KZ before they can react and take cover) the lower general purpose rate would be used against vehicles, for winning the fire-fight, and in most other circumstances.  Finally,  The lowest rate would be used to allow longer lasting burst of fewer bullets to maintain suppression.

So - despite of the higher max RoF, overall I think the weapon would achieve equal effects with fewer rounds down range and therefore less carbon build-up and less ammunition weight carried.

Dual feed would be nice as well

On an HMG designed exclusively for mounted use on a RWS, this would not be a bad idea.  What is the weight impact of two types of ammunition?

 

[Good2Golf]

Most machine guns have a RoF from 600 to 1,2000 RPM.  The FN MAG can get up to the 1,000 RPM and FN Minimi can surpass that.  .... and I have no idea what is in the realm of the possible if we were to consider CLA ammunition and its options of operating mechanisms.

...and the FN M3M is 1100-1200 rds/min.

 

[Spooks]

Of course, carbon fouling is the result of the total of rounds fired and not so much the RoF at any given point in time. 

So, logically speaking, if you have a high RoF, you'll have a high number of rounds fired and thus a quicker buildup of carbon fouling. I know RoF doesn't directly cause carbon fouling, but you do have an increased amount of rounds going down the chamber. RoF+ just causes the normal carbon buildup to happen faster.

 

[Spooks]

Also....

Do we still need a MG to carry out AA abilities? We aren't having random Stukas out on a hunting patrol strafing the front. The aircraft now are much faster and to a point where (I believe) MG fire by an infantry soldier would be inaccurate. I believe that having an HMG in the AA role is a tad dated but that is just my opinion based on Int of the modern combat zone where air superiority is won first. I have not been trained on a plausible situation where air superiority is not won.

 

[Good2Golf]

Also....

Do we still need a MG to carry out AA abilities? We aren't having random Stukas out on a hunting patrol strafing the front. The aircraft now are much faster and to a point where (I believe) MG fire by an infantry soldier would be inaccurate. I believe that having an HMG in the AA role is a tad dated but that is just my opinion based on Int of the modern combat zone where air superiority is won first. I have not been trained on a plausible situation where air superiority is not won.

I know of at least a few coalition airframes pulled down by a Dishka..."dated" maybe, but effective nonetheless.  :nod:


Regards
G2G

*edited for spelling

 

[McG]

So, logically speaking ...

Let's please not talk of logically speaking if we are going to quote single sentances and ignore the rest of the content from the post which addresses the concern.  You are worried that carbon fouling would be a significant problem in a gas operated machine gun firing a fixed cyclic rate of 1,000 RPM.  Here are the facts that address your concern:[list type=decimal][*]There are many well known and reliable gas operated machine guns with RoF that meets or exceeds the 1,000 RPM that concerns you.
[*]Some of those machine guns are in Canadian service.
[*]My proposal was for a MG with a variable cyclic rate - in combination with proper operator fire control this would result in few rounds being fired.[/list]

Do we still need a MG to carry out AA abilities? We aren't having random Stukas out on a hunting patrol strafing the front.

There are helicopters and (more & more) UAVs which are still vulnerable to MG fire.  In the case of some of the smaller tactical level UAVs, HMG fire may be the most effective way of responding to the threat.

 

[MedCorps]

Also....

I have not been trained on a plausible situation where air superiority is not won.

Although you have not be trained on a plausible situation where air superiority is not won I can assure you that your officers on maybe phase training (I have not done infantry phase training but it is discussed on various CSS phase training), and certainly on ATOC, AOC, JSOP, and JCSP talk very much about operations in an environment where air superiority is tenuous, not achieved, or fleeting. 

We still plan and big picture train for these events and hence you may (but hopefully not) find yourself conducting infantry operations where bad guys are still flying about you.

Just some food for through.

MC