User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:28:20 PM EDT
[#1]
The current push for women in the service is a BRILLIANT opportunity to purchase lightweight gear that the military is of course missing. Congress will find the money...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2014 1:42:05 PM EDT
[#2]
There are a lot of developments going on that are of interest to this topic.
US Machine Gun Armory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Pq4_XdA-k 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2014 4:15:28 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LRRPF52:
There are a lot of developments going on that are of interest to this topic.  http://youtu.be/z2Pq4_XdA-k
Oh that gets me hard! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2014 4:27:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By blacksunshinez51:
So who commenting is an actual 0331 or 0369? Just curious I don't know what them fancy numbers are, but I was an 11M SAW gunner. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2014 8:33:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LRRPF52: There are a lot of developments going on that are of interest to this topic. US Machine Gun Armory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Pq4_XdA-k http://youtu.be/z2Pq4_XdA-k |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2014 8:57:08 PM EDT
[#6]
I can't think of anything that I would use a SAW for that couldn't be done better with M855A1.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2014 12:33:47 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I can't think of anything that I would use a SAW for that couldn't be done better with M855A1. Get a 6.5mm with BC in the mid .5's G1 or high .2's for G7 going even a moderate velocity, and you just over-matched the PKM for energy starting at 400-500m. That is what I'm really interested in. The 6.8 at close range shows good concrete erasing ability. A 130gr 6.5mm would stay supersonic much longer than the .30 cal and .311 cal pills for the 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54R, from a much lighter and handier LMG that can also be used in CQB, with lower pressures than 5.56 NATO, so weapons last longer. All major pluses for an Army looking at logistics and terminal capabilities at the same time. If LSAT is viable, it will make the metallic cartridges only relevant in a SASS carbine I suspect, for DM's and Snipers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 7:36:43 PM EDT
[#8]
Here's a great video detailing US Heavy Machinegun MTOE, Doctrine, Employment, and TTP's. Notice the use of vehicles, overwatch, anti-aircraft roles, tripod emplacement, indirect fire, enfilade, defilade, cover and concealment, pre-planned alternate positions, muzzle blast mitigation, section leader spotting for the guns in defilade position, and conduct of the attack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_HYmcm9A2o
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 8:58:38 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LRRPF52:
Here's a great video detailing US Heavy Machinegun MTOE, Doctrine, Employment, and TTP's. Notice the use of vehicles, overwatch, anti-aircraft roles, tripod emplacement, indirect fire, enfilade, defilade, cover and concealment, pre-planned alternate positions, muzzle blast mitigation, section leader spotting for the guns in defilade position, and conduct of the attack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_HYmcm9A2o http://youtu.be/9_HYmcm9A2oThank you for that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 11:58:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LRRPF52:
There are a lot of developments going on that are of interest to this topic. US Machine Gun Armory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Pq4_XdA-k http://youtu.be/z2Pq4_XdA-kThat Triad FH starts to come off at 1:31!! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2015 8:25:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: LRRPF52]
[#11]
Here's an excellent video showing how a DM and GPMG gunner can work together. For those just seeing this thread, please read the OP before posting. Thank you for your contributions again.
AAR comments: 240 gunner is using an M16A4/ACOG for optics. He should have high quality mini binos and optics on the gun. Communication is good between DM and Gunner. USMC DM & 240 Gunner Engaging Taliban
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 12:48:43 PM EDT
[#12]
The marine ETTs in my AO would go out with no optics on machineguns either...is there a good reason for this other than losing a pound or so of weight? We'd always have them on they it was sooooo much more useful in afghanistan (mountainous area) to have some magnification, faster aiming, target ID, etc. What gives?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 12:57:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Combat_Jack]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Infantry26:
The marine ETTs in my AO would go out with no optics on machineguns either...is there a good reason for this other than losing a pound or so of weight? We'd always have them on they it was sooooo much more useful in afghanistan (mountainous area) to have some magnification, faster aiming, target ID, etc. What gives? A lot of militaries use an NCO with a spotting scope to walk the gunner on. I'm not sure why the Army doesn't do it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 1:10:07 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Infantry26:
The marine ETTs in my AO would go out with no optics on machineguns either...is there a good reason for this other than losing a pound or so of weight? We'd always have them on they it was sooooo much more useful in afghanistan (mountainous area) to have some magnification, faster aiming, target ID, etc. What gives? optics on MGs are more important than service rifles. ACOGs on SAWs were pretty ubiquitous for my guys. 240s were mostly red dots but some had the ELCANs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 1:55:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: R0N]
[#15]
Optics for Marine machine guns are a relatively new thing; up until the SDO,MGO and HGS unit would buy M145s, aimpoints, EOTECHs and ACOGs to use on their guns.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:53:11 AM EDT
[#16]
We had optics on all machineguns as a standard since at least 1999.
Ranger Regiment was using ACOG's on the M240's since the mid-1990's. I know 2nd Bat had them on all their guns in 1997. Elcan's were considered BII for the M240B's and SAW's in the 82nd. The Wermacht was using optics on machineguns in the 1940's. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 1:24:58 AM EDT
[#17]
I don't have any pictures but I had a scope on my M-60 in the 1980's.
I had a Bushnell 4x12 in an M-16 mount that I used before I was a machine gunner. I put it on the gun in the PVS-4 mount  Put the scope way up high, but it was useful. I didn't use it a lot because I had to remove it every night to put the -4 on..... Sure wish we had ACOGs back then.
|
|
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 2:09:46 AM EDT
[#18]
Though we never got much MG practice, I remember my AG Hollingsworth and I tearing it up with the 60 on a Ft Hood range one summer. That was one of my funnest days in the military. We were shooting our targets and the guys on either side of us. One of the range NCO's said to us "Knock that sh*t off Rambo! Let the other guys have a shot at it!" We just clicked that day. Fun stuff! And our 60 actually worked!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:24:32 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1cheapshot:
We were shooting our targets and the guys on either side of us.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2015 12:20:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ThePeach]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Optics for Marine machine guns are a relatively new thing; up until the SDO,MGO and HGS unit would buy M145s, aimpoints, EOTECHs and ACOGs to use on their guns. ETA MDO Some guys pulled the little RMR off and mounted them to the rail |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 2/1/2015 12:34:22 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Forest:
Oh that gets me hard!
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Forest:
Originally Posted By LRRPF52:
There are a lot of developments going on that are of interest to this topic. http://youtu.be/z2Pq4_XdA-k
Oh that gets me hard!
I think he needs to check the torque on that flash hider. Lol. @ 1:30 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2015 12:54:28 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Jack:
A lot of militaries use an NCO with a spotting scope to walk the gunner on. I'm not sure why the Army doesn't do it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By Infantry26:
The marine ETTs in my AO would go out with no optics on machineguns either...is there a good reason for this other than losing a pound or so of weight? We'd always have them on they it was sooooo much more useful in afghanistan (mountainous area) to have some magnification, faster aiming, target ID, etc. What gives? A lot of militaries use an NCO with a spotting scope to walk the gunner on. I'm not sure why the Army doesn't do it. When I'm in the pit with soldiers I always get them qualified. Having a good A gunner is half the battle. I love MG ranges. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2015 3:40:32 AM EDT
[#23]
This is one of the coolest threads I've ever read. So I'm giving it a bump.
|
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 2/25/2015 6:36:58 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Number0neGun:
This is one of the coolest threads I've ever read. So I'm giving it a bump. Ditto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2015 8:37:01 AM EDT
[#25]
bumping this one to keep it going!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 1:27:49 AM EDT
[#26]
There was a training company I saw recently that offers formal MG training now. I just saw it yesterday in the training section of the site, but I'm trying to pinpoint it again.
Somebody's jumping the gun on me..... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 1:54:34 AM EDT
[#27]
^ Tiger Valley, at least from their email advertising a week or so ago...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2015 10:34:19 PM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 6:45:20 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote Historyalways appreciated that concept, but I would like to see the weight comparison and the length of time for the crew drills. Very cool concepts in a deliberate defense and even an SBF. But what are the inevitable penalties? |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 7:19:46 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Sylvan:
always appreciated that concept, but I would like to see the weight comparison and the length of time for the crew drills. Very cool concepts in a deliberate defense and even an SBF. But what are the inevitable penalties? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Sylvan:
always appreciated that concept, but I would like to see the weight comparison and the length of time for the crew drills. Very cool concepts in a deliberate defense and even an SBF. But what are the inevitable penalties? Definitely additional weight, and time to set up. If I was in Afghanistan and engaging beyond carbine range, say 300 meters+, I would definitely want that. On a mounted patrol dismounting that system in contact would be a no brainer to get an MG in the fight. Although since trucks all have MGs, Id want a mortar first, then something like that. You need to have a battle drill for it. Ours, at the platoon level, went something like: 1st squad makes contact, comes on line, establishes SBF. 1st MG comes on line, traversing fire the width of the objective, off the bipod. 2nd squad comes on line, establishes SBF to the left (or right) of 1st squad. 2nd MG on line with 1st MG, Weapons squad leader emplaces it, it starts on the right (or left) side of OBJ, shoots from outside in, off the bipod. We called it 'scissor fire'---left gun shoots left to right, 2/3 of the target; right gun shoots right to left, right 2/3 of the target; WSL makes sure the target is completely traversed and you take turns firing. (Another reason why you need a team leader to command and control the gun team and why an MG needs a leadership position, and the gun team leader should NOT be mashing triggers. It is like a mortar or tank, not a sniper team.) When the WSL makes the decision. gun #1 shifts to tripod, gun #2 goes from sustained rate to rapid rate and traverses across the OBJ until the first gun is UP, and firing off the tripod, guns take turns increasing rate of fire and sector of fire until everyone has shifted from bipod to tripod. SOmwhere in this the riflemen need to be dumping their rucks and getting the ammo cans out and hustling it over to the gun line. That takes a little practice. The guns start out on the bipod and if the AB is laying out the tripod and hooking the T&E and pintle up while the other two are firing, then shifting from bipod to tripod is fast. You need people watching the WSL and proactively get your stuff laid out or it is a big cluster foxtrot. We took a lot of pride in it and with a little practice you can rapidly get the SBF moving, set it up, then go to tripod and get precise fires. That system the Germans have is the bomb. I would think for a dismounted patrol in OEF it would be awesome. IF you could hit a couple Taliban and wound them it would slow their egress enough so rotary wing could catch them. Far better then this concept of hoping you hand everyone a DM rifle and expect great performance. Youd lose a rifleman or two carrying tripods and gear and ammo, so I would assume it would be a bad idea 200 meters and closer in; at longer ranges is where you'd make your money. Id want WSLs and team leaders to have nice optics and range finders; that would help get bursts on target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 7:28:53 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CharlieR:
Definitely additional weight, and time to set up. If I was in Afghanistan and engaging beyond carbine range, say 300 meters+, I would definitely want that. On a mounted patrol dismounting that system in contact would be a no brainer to get an MG in the fight. Although since trucks all have MGs, Id want a mortar first, then something like that. You need to have a battle drill for it. Ours, at the platoon level, went something like: 1st squad makes contact, comes on line, establishes SBF. 1st MG comes on line, traversing fire the width of the objective, off the bipod. 2nd squad comes on line, establishes SBF to the left (or right) of 1st squad. 2nd MG on line with 1st MG, Weapons squad leader emplaces it, it starts on the right (or left) side of OBJ, shoots from outside in, off the bipod. We called it 'scissor fire'---left gun shoots left to right, 2/3 of the target; right gun shoots right to left, right 2/3 of the target; WSL makes sure the target is completely traversed and you take turns firing. (Another reason why you need a team leader to command and control the gun team and why an MG needs a leadership position, and the gun team leader should NOT be mashing triggers. It is like a mortar or tank, not a sniper team.) When the WSL makes the decision. gun #1 shifts to tripod, gun #2 goes from sustained rate to rapid rate and traverses across the OBJ until the first gun is UP, and firing off the tripod, guns take turns increasing rate of fire and sector of fire until everyone has shifted from bipod to tripod. SOmwhere in this the riflemen need to be dumping their rucks and getting the ammo cans out and hustling it over to the gun line. That takes a little practice. The guns start out on the bipod and if the AB is laying out the tripod and hooking the T&E and pintle up while the other two are firing, then shifting from bipod to tripod is fast. You need people watching the WSL and proactively get your stuff laid out or it is a big cluster foxtrot. We took a lot of pride in it and with a little practice you can rapidly get the SBF moving, set it up, then go to tripod and get precise fires. That system the Germans have is the bomb. I would think for a dismounted patrol in OEF it would be awesome. IF you could hit a couple Taliban and wound them it would slow their egress enough so rotary wing could catch them. Far better then this concept of hoping you hand everyone a DM rifle and expect great performance. Youd lose a rifleman or two carrying tripods and gear and ammo, so I would assume it would be a bad idea 200 meters and closer in; at longer ranges is where you'd make your money. Id want WSLs and team leaders to have nice optics and range finders; that would help get bursts on target. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CharlieR:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
always appreciated that concept, but I would like to see the weight comparison and the length of time for the crew drills. Very cool concepts in a deliberate defense and even an SBF. But what are the inevitable penalties? Definitely additional weight, and time to set up. If I was in Afghanistan and engaging beyond carbine range, say 300 meters+, I would definitely want that. On a mounted patrol dismounting that system in contact would be a no brainer to get an MG in the fight. Although since trucks all have MGs, Id want a mortar first, then something like that. You need to have a battle drill for it. Ours, at the platoon level, went something like: 1st squad makes contact, comes on line, establishes SBF. 1st MG comes on line, traversing fire the width of the objective, off the bipod. 2nd squad comes on line, establishes SBF to the left (or right) of 1st squad. 2nd MG on line with 1st MG, Weapons squad leader emplaces it, it starts on the right (or left) side of OBJ, shoots from outside in, off the bipod. We called it 'scissor fire'---left gun shoots left to right, 2/3 of the target; right gun shoots right to left, right 2/3 of the target; WSL makes sure the target is completely traversed and you take turns firing. (Another reason why you need a team leader to command and control the gun team and why an MG needs a leadership position, and the gun team leader should NOT be mashing triggers. It is like a mortar or tank, not a sniper team.) When the WSL makes the decision. gun #1 shifts to tripod, gun #2 goes from sustained rate to rapid rate and traverses across the OBJ until the first gun is UP, and firing off the tripod, guns take turns increasing rate of fire and sector of fire until everyone has shifted from bipod to tripod. SOmwhere in this the riflemen need to be dumping their rucks and getting the ammo cans out and hustling it over to the gun line. That takes a little practice. The guns start out on the bipod and if the AB is laying out the tripod and hooking the T&E and pintle up while the other two are firing, then shifting from bipod to tripod is fast. You need people watching the WSL and proactively get your stuff laid out or it is a big cluster foxtrot. We took a lot of pride in it and with a little practice you can rapidly get the SBF moving, set it up, then go to tripod and get precise fires. That system the Germans have is the bomb. I would think for a dismounted patrol in OEF it would be awesome. IF you could hit a couple Taliban and wound them it would slow their egress enough so rotary wing could catch them. Far better then this concept of hoping you hand everyone a DM rifle and expect great performance. Youd lose a rifleman or two carrying tripods and gear and ammo, so I would assume it would be a bad idea 200 meters and closer in; at longer ranges is where you'd make your money. Id want WSLs and team leaders to have nice optics and range finders; that would help get bursts on target. With ubiquitous magnified optics, a rifle squad can successfully engage anything exposed within 600M now and that includes SAWs providing suppressive base of fire. rotary will ALWAYS be able to catch bad guys whether or not they are fixed by direct fire. Part of what I am seeing is half the platoon abandoning maneuver for setting up an SBF that in unconventional fighting is hugely overkill. That MG set up was designed with WW1 in mind. I am a huge fan of Medium MGs on tripods. I grew up on the GDP. However............... I am not seeing that war now or in the future. the only time I dismounted my 240s was when we air assaulted onto the paki border to isolate a little village. The rest of the time was SAWs, M4s and 203s. The mobility was worth more than the firepower. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 3:36:30 PM EDT
[#32]
In an interesting twist, my son enlisted on monday and he is slotted as an AG in the Weapon's squad
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 5:00:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: LRRPF52]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Sylvan:
In an interesting twist, my son enlisted on monday and he is slotted as an AG in the Weapon's squad Has he read this thread? If you haven't already, get him a pair of good mini or medium small binos with a Mil Scale in them. Next step up would be a mini bino/LRF combo unit. The two that I really like are: Leupold 10x42 BX-2 MIL-L 
Vortex Viper R/T 8x28  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 5:26:58 PM EDT
[#34]
I may or may not have a pair of M24s.
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 10:46:46 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryWith ubiquitous magnified optics, a rifle squad can successfully engage anything exposed within 600M now and that includes SAWs providing suppressive base of fire. rotary will ALWAYS be able to catch bad guys whether or not they are fixed by direct fire. Part of what I am seeing is half the platoon abandoning maneuver for setting up an SBF that in unconventional fighting is hugely overkill. That MG set up was designed with WW1 in mind. I am a huge fan of Medium MGs on tripods. I grew up on the GDP. However............... I am not seeing that war now or in the future. the only time I dismounted my 240s was when we air assaulted onto the paki border to isolate a little village. The rest of the time was SAWs, M4s and 203s. The mobility was worth more than the firepower. Wow. Well, I'm going to disagree with just about everything you just said. As has been said before, in other threads, I sense you try to extrapolate what you personally have seen with everybody else's experiences. If bad guys are not physically being observed by ground troops ROE with rotary can be problematic. Beyond that, I'm not arguing over ROE. I can pretty much guarantee units I was with had to wait a loot longer for rotary then you did, and had to fix the enemy for longer periods of time. It isnt overkill..its just you haven't had to do it yourself. You relate being a huge fan of Medium MGs but talk about dismounting M240s once during a deployment? If you're leaving MGs behind, let alone tripods, and thinking you are achieving effects with rifle squads at 600 meters then while that may have happened occasionally, that's not happening too often. I have seen units leave tripods behind, and fight off the bipod, but we are talking urban terrain, woods, Panamanian jungle, night firing. Otherwise it comes along, unless we are talking about a very small patrol with a two man gun crew that is struggling carrying ammo as is. That, and the lightweight tripod has been out ten years or so. If you're going to sit in an MG thread and just let slip you left yours behind rather then carry them, in Afghanistan...that's not what right looked like in other parts of the country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 10:58:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryMy dot44 MG34 was a fricken laser beam on the Lafette 34 with Romanian 8mm ball.......until you activate the traversing fire mechanism.....like a Swiss watch. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 7:06:07 AM EDT
[#37]
well, that was my experience.
I don't do 240's without a tripod. You might as well have a saw at that point. the MG is a 3 man team. full stop. Now, if that is the best use of 3 men in small unit operations is a METT-T kinda thing. We talk about fixing the enemy. You got to be careful you don't fix yourself. Too many times I saw react to contact become a set up base of fire and wait 30 minutes for CAS. ambush? Sure. We did some of those. had some success mostly in interrupting their movements. We never made contact. and that was a lot of effort lost. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2015 4:53:29 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2015 8:04:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: thekirk]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stoner63a:
My dot44 MG34 was a fricken laser beam on the Lafette 34 with Romanian 8mm ball.......until you activate the traversing fire mechanism.....like a Swiss watch. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stoner63a:
My dot44 MG34 was a fricken laser beam on the Lafette 34 with Romanian 8mm ball.......until you activate the traversing fire mechanism.....like a Swiss watch.
Which was the point behind that whole system. The high rate of fire and "excessive accuracy", as the idiots in our War Department described it, existed to enable the German gun crews to be able to engage and eliminate small targets at max range. The thing you have to remember is that it worked together--The high rate of fire translated to a burst being delivered to a beaten zone very quickly, and with enough volume to thoroughly saturate it before the enemy could get to cover. With an MG that has a comparatively slow rate of fire, like the M60, you just can't do that effectively. The traversing fire mechanism was intended to give the gun crew the best of both worlds--Super-high rate of fire and a well-saturated beaten zone at what we'd probably consider "extreme ranges", and then have the capability to at will spread the beaten zone out at intermediate ranges. The whole intent of German machine gun technique was to engage the enemy at the maximum range possible, and do as much damage as you can. The MG42 and MG34 were optimized for this philosophy, and their design characteristics are there solely to support that. The people who look at those guns and mounts, with the periscopic sights and all the other "bullshit" they carried, miss the point of it all: They were intended to make the gun crew as effective as humanly possible. We never got the point of that, and the evidence is obvious from this thread that a lot of us still don't. An MG without a tripod and sight system are essentially half of a weapons system. You need the tripod, for oh-so-many reasons, along with decent optical sights. I dare say that a well-drilled German gun crew from the early part of WWII would likely be giggling to themselves with joy in Afghanistan, as they took advantage of all the opportunities that the Taliban gave them. One of the Germans I interviewed in the course of researching their MG techniques was a member of a Gebirgsjager unit that fought in the Pamir mountain campaigns. The actions he described to me were amazing, and while I suspect there might have been an aspect of him talking up their accomplishments, I don't think there was all that much. The Soviets learned to respect the German MG teams in the mountains, and to be very, very careful with exposing themselves, even if they thought they were well out of range of the guns. Per what was described to me, achieving kills at ranges of up to 1500m on squad-size elements trying to maneuver from cover to cover on a hillside was pretty routine stuff, for the Gebirgsjager. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2015 8:09:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryI would love to have an Ordie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 12:13:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: LRRPF52]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thekirk:
Which was the point behind that whole system. The high rate of fire and "excessive accuracy", as the idiots in our War Department described it, existed to enable the German gun crews to be able to engage and eliminate small targets at max range. The thing you have to remember is that it worked together--The high rate of fire translated to a burst being delivered to a beaten zone very quickly, and with enough volume to thoroughly saturate it before the enemy could get to cover. With an MG that has a comparatively slow rate of fire, like the M60, you just can't do that effectively. The traversing fire mechanism was intended to give the gun crew the best of both worlds--Super-high rate of fire and a well-saturated beaten zone at what we'd probably consider "extreme ranges", and then have the capability to at will spread the beaten zone out at intermediate ranges. The whole intent of German machine gun technique was to engage the enemy at the maximum range possible, and do as much damage as you can. The MG42 and MG34 were optimized for this philosophy, and their design characteristics are there solely to support that. The people who look at those guns and mounts, with the periscopic sights and all the other "bullshit" they carried, miss the point of it all: They were intended to make the gun crew as effective as humanly possible. We never got the point of that, and the evidence is obvious from this thread that a lot of us still don't. An MG without a tripod and sight system are essentially half of a weapons system. You need the tripod, for oh-so-many reasons, along with decent optical sights. I dare say that a well-drilled German gun crew from the early part of WWII would likely be giggling to themselves with joy in Afghanistan, as they took advantage of all the opportunities that the Taliban gave them. One of the Germans I interviewed in the course of researching their MG techniques was a member of a Gebirgsjager unit that fought in the Pamir mountain campaigns. The actions he described to me were amazing, and while I suspect there might have been an aspect of him talking up their accomplishments, I don't think there was all that much. The Soviets learned to respect the German MG teams in the mountains, and to be very, very careful with exposing themselves, even if they thought they were well out of range of the guns. Per what was described to me, achieving kills at ranges of up to 1500m on squad-size elements trying to maneuver from cover to cover on a hillside was pretty routine stuff, for the Gebirgsjager. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thekirk:
Originally Posted By stoner63a:
My dot44 MG34 was a fricken laser beam on the Lafette 34 with Romanian 8mm ball.......until you activate the traversing fire mechanism.....like a Swiss watch.
Which was the point behind that whole system. The high rate of fire and "excessive accuracy", as the idiots in our War Department described it, existed to enable the German gun crews to be able to engage and eliminate small targets at max range. The thing you have to remember is that it worked together--The high rate of fire translated to a burst being delivered to a beaten zone very quickly, and with enough volume to thoroughly saturate it before the enemy could get to cover. With an MG that has a comparatively slow rate of fire, like the M60, you just can't do that effectively. The traversing fire mechanism was intended to give the gun crew the best of both worlds--Super-high rate of fire and a well-saturated beaten zone at what we'd probably consider "extreme ranges", and then have the capability to at will spread the beaten zone out at intermediate ranges. The whole intent of German machine gun technique was to engage the enemy at the maximum range possible, and do as much damage as you can. The MG42 and MG34 were optimized for this philosophy, and their design characteristics are there solely to support that. The people who look at those guns and mounts, with the periscopic sights and all the other "bullshit" they carried, miss the point of it all: They were intended to make the gun crew as effective as humanly possible. We never got the point of that, and the evidence is obvious from this thread that a lot of us still don't. An MG without a tripod and sight system are essentially half of a weapons system. You need the tripod, for oh-so-many reasons, along with decent optical sights. I dare say that a well-drilled German gun crew from the early part of WWII would likely be giggling to themselves with joy in Afghanistan, as they took advantage of all the opportunities that the Taliban gave them. One of the Germans I interviewed in the course of researching their MG techniques was a member of a Gebirgsjager unit that fought in the Pamir mountain campaigns. The actions he described to me were amazing, and while I suspect there might have been an aspect of him talking up their accomplishments, I don't think there was all that much. The Soviets learned to respect the German MG teams in the mountains, and to be very, very careful with exposing themselves, even if they thought they were well out of range of the guns. Per what was described to me, achieving kills at ranges of up to 1500m on squad-size elements trying to maneuver from cover to cover on a hillside was pretty routine stuff, for the Gebirgsjager. Yeah, when I looked at the auto-traverse and elevate computer on the old German tripods, I was deeply impressed with how far ahead of the power curve they were even compared to our modern systems. The thing is programmable for the gunner, so he can set the amount of elevation and deflection for the scenario, with range playing a huge factor in that equation. 
Any formal machinegun training program for dismounted infantry should cover the Wermacht doctrine and operational TTP's in detail, in addition to the Asian methods, and the US methods. Gun teams and machinegun leaders should have all 3 sets of doctrinal approaches and the TTP's in their quiver, to draw and use as the situation dictates. That is the biggest lesson I have taken away from studying the history of machinegunnery. Now if there was a way to institute these changes at Benning and the various Combat Brigades.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2015 4:08:43 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swede1986:
I want a PKM chambered for 6.5x55 Ackley Improved. Hell, 6.5CM would fit the bill too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2015 4:40:36 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Jack:
LSAT is the future. In every way. I hope this tech comes out for civies to mess with, we actually do quite a bit in the way of small arms advancement. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2015 6:26:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ArmyInfantryVet]
[#44]
There seems to be some real exciting advancements in machine guns that use the brass cartridge.
But damn, if LSAT is for real, we definitely need to go in on that. What makes me relieved in at least the Army is taking a LMG and GPMG replacement seriously. They aren't just shrugging and saying "well the M249 and M240 are good enough" like with the M4 (which in that case the M4 IS good enough). I hope we can keep this technology a secret from China and Russia, because it probably cost a shitload of R&D to develop and those fucking turds don't deserve a free ride. I'm gonna get hated on, but if that means the tech is not available to civilians, I'm all good with that. Since I believe a company has every right to deny business to whoever customer they choose. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2015 7:47:48 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
There seems to be some real exciting advancements in machine guns that use the brass cartridge. But damn, if LSAT is for real, we definitely need to go in on that. What makes me relieved in at least the Army is taking a LMG and GPMG replacement seriously. They aren't just shrugging and saying "well the M249 and M240 are good enough" like with the M4 (which in that case the M4 IS good enough). I hope we can keep this technology a secret from China and Russia, because it probably cost a shitload of R&D to develop and those fucking turds don't deserve a free ride. I'm gonna get hated on, but if that means the tech is not available to civilians, I'm all good with that. Since I believe a company has every right to deny business to whoever customer they choose. I agree 100%, and more than likely that would/will be the reasoning behind such a decision. With that said, civilians should be able to buy MGs...I know its a long shot but I do hope Nolo wins this case... 
|
|
|
|
SGP
|
Posted: 5/6/2015 9:32:08 AM EDT
[#46]
Small Arms Review conducted an interview with James Sullivan designer of the Ultimax 100 In Part I and II of this Interview (SAR Vol. 11, No. 5 and 6), Jim Sullivan filled in the blanks on ArmaLite and the AR-15 project, the Stoner 63 project, dug deep on the Ichord Committee regarding M16 failures in Vietnam, covered the Ruger Mini 14 and M77, as well as his work on the 7.62mm Chaingun, the EPAM, Chiclet Guns, caseless ammo, Italy, Somalia, Gordon Ingram, the Beta C-Mag and the Ultimax 100. We now rejoin the Interview. Jim Sullivan: That's right. You don't have two things going on in there: it's constant over the stroke. You can't do it perfectly because of friction and a lot of other things. If you take an assault rifle of the same weight as the Ultimax, the Ultimax out-hits them about eight-to-one, on light machine guns it out-hits them three-to-one, but they're heavier. It's finding the harmonic of a machine gun, and balancing it with a constant recoil system. SAR: So, what was the response from CIS to this? Jim Sullivan: Excellent. We went to the range, and they were impressed. It's a shame it never made it to the SAW trials in the US. The Ultimax kicked the M249's ass in all of our trials! But, the politics involved kept it out. SAR: It's 1978 and you're with your family in Singapore, and you've designed the constant recoil system in the Ultimax 100. Jim Sullivan: Singapore was 1978 to 1981, and the Ultimax was what I did first. We got the proof of concept done and we took it to one of their army bases to shoot. They did the firing against their M16s as I think that was all they had to compare it with. Later on, they got a hold of some of the Minimis. This is before the US adopted the Minimi. After they fired the Ultimax they were sold on it, and that was very early in the program. Bob hadn't finished the 100-round drum yet and we just used a standard M16 magazine. The prototype gun looked really crude but it was the first step. This was about the time that I found out that they had been running a parallel program to make the Sterling rifle, what became the SAR80 in Singapore. The US military had come out and I suggested that we go in this new direction, do this machine gun first, partly because the US military already had come out with the Squad Automatic Weapon requirement. SAR: I understand that the Mark IV Ultimax, with the quick changeable barrel, has some interest in the US military. Vince Dinero is involved in that project. Jim Sullivan: Yes. Bob Waterfield and I went back to Quantico and put on a demonstration with the Ultimax. This was a different group of people from the ones who had tested it a year before that. There were four guns they had tested at 29 Palms. Ultimax was one, and they had a Colt Light Machine Gun, HK's MG36, and the M249. Somebody had taken off the elevation slide on the Ultimax. On the Ultimax, when the aperture drops down without the slide, all you see is a pivot pin and you can't get a sight picture at all. Still, on one of the tests, it beat the M249, and yet nobody could get a sight picture. Out of all the four guns, the Ultimax was chosen by almost all the Marines that tested it. SAR: Are you familiar with the Israeli Negev? Jim Sullivan: Yeah, I am, I've fired it. I was over at IMI one time, and they were going through their paces with that thing. A lot of similarity in the Negev system to the Ultimax but it's not controllable like the Ultimax and it's no better than the M249 in my opinion. They shortened the travel, and didn't really get the constant recoil thing although people say the Negev does. It doesn't. SAR: Let's get back to the four things you were saying that should have been the focus of designers...
Jim Sullivan: I've got four things I've been working on that I think are the next steps, and I have been working on them for years. One is constant recoil, improving it. As I mentioned earlier, there was a one hundred to one advantage, but the most I've ever been able to get out of it is about eight to one. I've got some systems I've worked out that's a lot higher now. Another problem with it was the long stroke needed that if you tried to scale it up to 7.62, it wouldn't fit in a comfortable gun package anymore. I've got it now where I can do an 11-pound 7.62 light machine gun that is far shorter than the M240 and knocks 15 pounds off the package. That's the equivalent of 330 rounds of 7.62 ammo. The soldier can carry twice as much ammo as his opponent. For the second major innovation, remember, belt fed guns are damn near impossible for a walking man to reload. He's got to set it down. He's got to make sure that that last link is either out of the gun, or the bolt is forward when he lifts the feed cover or the link drops down in, and the only way he can get it out is to turn the gun upside-down and shake it. We timed a walking man firing and reloading his M249. It took 17 seconds from the time the guy fired his last round until he fires his next round. Anybody walking with 30-shot magazines on an M16 can fire more rounds than that. The Ultimax, the concept of the expendable 100-shot drum magazine you only use once, come fully loaded. The operator tears open the paper bag and snaps the thing into the gun. I wanted to be able to do that just as fast, only have it belt-fed. All magazines have to be expendable, because they are anyway. One of the problems with the BAR showed up in Korea. After these gun battles, they realized that they had to go out and crawl around out in no-man's land trying to find BAR magazines. They tried to court-martial men for not pocketing empty magazines in the middle of a firefight. That would be suicidal! What the army finally had to do was issue fresh empty magazines with every issue of ammunition for the guys to load them. Link to Interview Part 1 Link to Interview Part 2 Link to Interview Part 3 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 12:54:36 PM EDT
[#47]
Awesome interview; thanks for sharing. Best explanation of the continuous recoil concept I've seen.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 12:37:15 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LRRPF52:
Here's a great video detailing US Heavy Machinegun MTOE, Doctrine, Employment, and TTP's. Notice the use of vehicles, overwatch, anti-aircraft roles, tripod emplacement, indirect fire, enfilade, defilade, cover and concealment, pre-planned alternate positions, muzzle blast mitigation, section leader spotting for the guns in defilade position, and conduct of the attack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_HYmcm9A2o http://youtu.be/9_HYmcm9A2othis video put a big smile on my face
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2015 5:45:54 PM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2015 6:13:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryGreat powerpoint, but certainly nothing in it that I haven't been saying for years. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
