The Cdn Army does not need HMGs (From: CANSOF vs. Boko Haram)

[Colin Parkinson]

Caseless ammo is so 19th century

The breech was closed by a bolt similar to those of more modern rifles to follow. Amongst the technical features of interest introduced in 1866 on the Chassepot rifle was the method of obturation of the bolt by a segmented rubber ring which expanded under gas pressure and thus sealed the breech when the shot was fired. This simple yet effective technology was successfully adapted to artillery in 1877 by Colonel de Bange, who invented grease-impregnated asbestos pads to seal the breech of his new cannons (the De Bange system).
Cartridge

The Chassepot used a paper cartridge, that many refer to as being 'combustible', whereas in reality it was quite the opposite. It held an 11mm (.43 inch) round-headed cylindro-conoidal lead bullet that was wax paper patched. An inverted standard percussion cap was at the rear of the paper cartridge and hidden inside. It was fired by the Chassepot's needle (a sharply pointed firing pin) upon pressing the trigger.

While the Chassepot's ballistic performance and firing rates were excellent for the time, burnt paper residues as well as black powder fouling accumulated in the chamber and bolt mechanism after continuous firing. Also, the bolt's rubber obturator eroded in action, although it was easily replaced in the field by infantrymen. The older Dreyse needle gun and its cartridge had been deliberately constructed in a way to minimize those problems but to the detriment of its ballistic properties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chassepot

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just out of curiosity, with the .338 Lapua round now in many NATO inventories, would a .338 HMG be a possible solution?

 

[Jed]

I thought for Machine Guns it was all about the beaten zone. So a flat shooting .338 Lapua wouldn't compare to a .50 HMG. Costs per round would probably be greater. Wt difference, maybe. Just my low knowledge 2 cents.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect manufacturing tolerances for a .338 MG round would not be the same for the Lapu .338. Make it to the same tolerances as the .50 cal BMG round and with the same volumes the price will drop to less than the .50 cal round. But it won't be sniper ammo.

 

[KerryBlue]

General Dynamics makes a .338 lmg. Looks very much like a M240B

http://www.defensereview.com/general-dynamics-armament-technical-products-gdatp-338-nm-lwmmg-338-norma-magnum-lightweight-medium-machine-gun-for-overmatch-capability-potential-game-changer-for-mobile-infantry/

 

[Shrek1985]

Just out of curiosity, with the .338 Lapua round now in many NATO inventories, would a .338 HMG be a possible solution?

They have one now, it weighs a little more than a GPMG, but the ammo is twice as heavy. It's not quite the same round as .338LM either.

They really re-invented the wheel on this one; the LWMMG. I would have just gone with the Swedish 8x63mm round, since it had already been around forever and provided what was needed. It was kind of weird though, because the Americans went with more gun when what would have served as well was a proper SF/C2 setup.

I hope we stay away from it for the simple reason that if we already have great difficulty understanding HMGs, light mortars and AGLs, which have been around for 40-100+ years, what hope do we have if we re-introduce an "MMG" of ever seeing it understood by the people who make these calls?

 

[daftandbarmy]

They have one now, it weighs a little more than a GPMG, but the ammo is twice as heavy. It's not quite the same round as .338LM either.

They really re-invented the wheel on this one; the LWMMG. I would have just gone with the Swedish 8x63mm round, since it had already been around forever and provided what was needed. It was kind of weird though, because the Americans went with more gun when what would have served as well was a proper SF/C2 setup.

I hope we stay away from it for the simple reason that if we already have great difficulty understanding HMGs, light mortars and AGLs, which have been around for 40-100+ years, what hope do we have if we re-introduce an "MMG" of ever seeing it understood by the people who make these calls?

After reading all those books about big firefights in Afghanistan and how the bad guys would wait until the US troops' weapons jammed up before assaulting, it would seem that what we need is not a HEAVY machine gun as much as a RELIABLE machine gun.

Like the Vickers:

The weapon had a reputation for great solidity and reliability. Ian V. Hogg, in Weapons & War Machines, describes an action that took place in August 1916, during which the British Army's 100th Company of the Machine Gun Corps fired their ten Vickers guns continuously for twelve hours. Using 100 new barrels, they fired a million rounds without a single failure. "It was this absolute foolproof reliability which endeared the Vickers to every British soldier who ever fired one."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe the fault was not in the guns....

Maybe all that was required was a bit of discipline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDjDL-tIc_Y

 

[a_majoor]

I think that if anyone were to seriously reconsider getting a heavy DF weapon to soldiers who were not equipped with LAVs, then there are perhaps three choices:

The CIS.50 mentioned upthread. It is currently available, lightweight and has plenty of modern features like dual feed. Anyone needing DF that can chew through brick walls or light armour should certainly consider this as the "minimum" standard.

The ASP 30. I hadn't bought about this until now, but this is a 30mm automatic cannon using the same sort of ammunition found in the Apache attack helicopter, and also sized to fit in any .50 cal mount. The advantage here is you have the use of different types of explosive and armour piercing ammunition (much like the 25mm chain gun on a LAV), and the ability to attack a wide range of targets. Useful future upgrades could include range finding sights with day/night capabilities to increase first round hit probability (also useful on the CIS .50) and the possibility of developing new natures of ammunition, such as programmable rounds like AHEAD or fused rounds that can explode over defiladed enemy troops. While not in production, it has been extensively prototyped and could be put into production quickly.

The XM-307. A much lighter weapon than the ASP. CIS .50 or the C-16, it has the disadvantage of not being in production and needing a new nature of ammunition. However, something like this provides a huge increase in both firepower and portability, so should be looked at carefully. Since it was prototyped, it could be put into production relatively quickly, but manufacturing the ammunition would be a sticking point.

The problem really isn't that there are no effective and practical choices for replacing the Browning M-2, just no will to do so.

 

[Haligonian]

Who knows for sure, but I've heard the .50 became "redundant" once the 25 mm on the LAV came into play.

I don't know about any of you.....but I'm not sold on that.

I'd bet on this.  We have a LAV fetish.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Watching the video's from Syria/Iraq and Ukraine, even dug in AFV's are very susceptible to ATGM attacks. Against an enemy armed with ATGM you might find your LAV pulled back behind you were they can't support you well.

 

[OldSolduer]

A LAV is a huge target. An 82mm will take it out.

A well dug in and cammed .50 however.....

 

[medicineman]

Watching the video's from Syria/Iraq and Ukraine, even dug in AFV's are very susceptible to ATGM attacks. Against an enemy armed with ATGM you might find your LAV pulled back behind you were they can't support you well.

I seem to remember a buddy of mine from 2RCR that actually knocked out a Serbian T54 that was being used as a dug in bunker with a TUA.  IIRC, he shot it twice to make sure due to lack of secondary explosions.  Moral - if you can be seen, you likely can be hit.

MM

 

[PuckChaser]

Pretty sure that story is on the wall at 2RCR, remember reading it while I was there daging for Op ATTENTION. It was complete with call signs, engagement ranges, etc. If someone is there, maybe they can post a picture of the plaque.

 

[TCBF]

- As far as carrying things go, there is a reason the 3/4 to Dodge M-37 and its forebear was called "Weapons Carrier" in US service.

 

[a_majoor]

Even dug in MG's are not invincible. I recall reading in the Falkland Islands War the British brought Milan ATGM's forward to attack dug in Argentinian GPMG positions. The Argentinian GPMG's were dug in and mounted on tripods, so could engage to 1800+ metres, while the advancing British using the same guns in the light role could only effectively engage to 800m.

The Milans could nail the enemy positions from over 2000m, leveling the playing field. If we were to do something like that now, the man portable ATGM's would have even greater advantages, since they or their firing posts generally have day/night and thermal imaging sights. Modern ones like Spike also have "man in the loop" capabilities, so the operator can steer the missile right into the target if needed, or abort the attack. In fact missiles like Spike and Javelin (and their associated sights) are so versatile there is a very strong case to make for having them issued down to the lowest levels, and they are light enough for the firing post and ammunition to be carried by a two man team. And of course the "mini Spike" is a man portable APGM (anti personnel guided missile), capable of attacking targets 1300m away.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Even dug in MG's are not invincible. I recall reading in the Falkland Islands War the British brought Milan ATGM's forward to attack dug in Argentinian GPMG positions. The Argentinian GPMG's were dug in and mounted on tripods, so could engage to 1800+ metres, while the advancing British using the same guns in the light role could only effectively engage to 800m.

The Milans could nail the enemy positions from over 2000m, leveling the playing field. If we were to do something like that now, the man portable ATGM's would have even greater advantages, since they or their firing posts generally have day/night and thermal imaging sights. Modern ones like Spike also have "man in the loop" capabilities, so the operator can steer the missile right into the target if needed, or abort the attack. In fact missiles like Spike and Javelin (and their associated sights) are so versatile there is a very strong case to make for having them issued down to the lowest levels, and they are light enough for the firing post and ammunition to be carried by a two man team. And of course the "mini Spike" is a man portable APGM (anti personnel guided missile), capable of attacking targets 1300m away.

Sadly, if you check the orbats of the infantry battalions deployed to the Falklands in 1982, our infantry battalions in 2015 can not match the integral support available way back then.

Each battalion had a MILAN platoon of 8 x firing posts, a full mortar platoon, a machine gun platoon, and an assault pioneer platoon amongst other assets.

 

[OldSolduer]

Sadly, if you check the orbats of the infantry battalions deployed to the Falklands in 1982, our infantry battalions in 2015 can not match the integral support available way back then.

Each battalion had a MILAN platoon of 8 x firing posts, a full mortar platoon, a machine gun platoon, and an assault pioneer platoon amongst other assets.

And that ORBAT was stripped to bare bones by bigger brains than us.  :facepalm:

 

[Kirkhill]

Is there no Gustav Adolph among you that can just decree?

The infantry WILL HAVE 9 Bns.  Coys WILL BE of such and such a size.  Platoons WILL BE armed with ....

The Artillery WILL SUPPLY 9 Mortar Troops to include MFCs, FSCCs and FOO/FACs.

The Engineers WILL SUPPLY 9 Assault Engineer Troops to include RECCE parties....

I've been on these boards since 2005.  I've been watching the arguments since 1980.

Your leadership hides behind process and democracy to avoid making decisions and just do stuff - even when people get pissed off and moan.

I'm sure there must have been some whinging in Gustav's ranks when he thinned out the pikes and added those 3 pdr cannons - "How are we ever going to beat the Spanish now?"

Don't your leaders have the confidence or other parts necessary to be unpopular?  Or is Principle 2 "Maintenance of Morale" so ingrained that it has become a liability?

 

[a_majoor]

Fully agree that we have been stripped bare. One of my points is that the evolution of technology can help us make up the deficit. Mini Spikes are about the size of an AT-4 and can be carried and fired by an individual infantryman. This provides the long range ability to overmatch any handheld weapon or machinegun in the light role, as well as take on bunkered or otherwise protected infantry, attack light vehicles and cause damage to even vehicles like up-armoured HMMVW's, MRAP's or similar. A typical section can have 4 (the people not carrying the C-9's or M-203's). As a thought experiment, the Starstreak MANPAD is also quite light and portable, is amazingly accurate due to its mode of operation and can hit with the kinetic impact of a 40mm cannon shell, giving it the ability to damage light vehicles up to LAV class (no explosive warhead, though).

ATGMs like Spike or Javelin are somewhat larger than a Carl-G, but still man portable enough to be carried by the Platoon weapons det. This gives the ability to take on targets out to 2000+ m (I understand the Javelin can reliably hit targets out to 3000m), including heavy armour.

These capabilities are light and portable enough to be integral to the dismounted platoon, and do not *need* to be carried or used by a separate support organization. In some ways this is like the evolution of other weapons systems. Machine guns used to belong to an entirely separate corps, for example, but advances in technology made the MG's lighter and simpler to operate until they are now integral down to the section level.

The problem, of course, is we don't have Mini-Spikes, Spike or Javelin.