Jump to content


Photo

Machinegun Practicalities


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 11 July 2017 - 0459 AM

 

 

The Brits still practice indirect MG fire, Canada has let that skill set fade.

Trudeau won't give you enough ammo to try it.

 

nah, mostly it's not cool with the new kids, all "old stuff" that does not fit the COIN warfare ops. Wait till they get sent to  Korea.....

 

 

In Germany this has been called "afghanisation" of the Bundeswehr at times. The Bundeswehr is so FUBAR at the moment, that they had  to scrape the whole of the Panzergrenadiertruppe and its equipment to bring a PzGrenBtl(+) into Lithuania... Oh well back to MG employment.

 

 

In my humble opinion a tripod mounted machine gun would be a good thing in COIN ops as collateral damage is better controlled and you can get back at that annyoing long range fire by the taliban. There is a reason even on patrols germans used to carry tripods in WW2. Within a minutes you can return fire and with todays small laser range finders it is going to hit before the Taleban can disperse.

 

 

Indirect fire at 1,5 km plus is more in the realm of actual artillery like bigger mortars and howitzers of course.



#22 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,903 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 11 July 2017 - 0517 AM

 

How would that look for the older machineguns? The M1919's, the water-cooled machineguns?
 


RoF of the plane mounted, air cooled .30 was 1,200 as opposed to well under 1,000 for the ground version.

 

 

The machine guns of an aircraft had an intended 'wearing out' point: usually how long the aircraft carrying them would last in combat before being shot down.  What is the point of building machine guns that could fire 15,000 rounds without wearing out for aircraft , when the aircraft was only expected to last 10 missions?


Edited by DougRichards, 11 July 2017 - 0831 AM.


#23 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 11 July 2017 - 0829 AM

"In my humble opinion a tripod mounted machine gun would be a good thing in COIN ops as collateral damage is better controlled and you can get back at that annyoing long range fire by the taliban. There is a reason even on patrols germans used to carry tripods in WW2. Within a minutes you can return fire and with todays small laser range finders it is going to hit before the Taleban can disperse."--Panzermann

Being able to dial in pre-registered fires with a tripod's T&E gear is also helpful for repelling night assaults. Humping that heavy, bulky tripod is a pain, though.  NOT popular with troops.

 



#24 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 11 July 2017 - 1155 AM


 

How would that look for the older machineguns? The M1919's, the water-cooled machineguns?
 

RoF of the plane mounted, air cooled .30 was 1,200 as opposed to well under 1,000 for the ground version.
 
 
The machine guns of an aircraft had an intended 'wearing out' point: usually how long the aircraft carrying them would last in combat before being shot down.  What is the point of building machine guns that could fire 15,000 rounds without wearing out for aircraft , when the aircraft was only expected to last 10 missions?

And they didn't fire long bursts anyway but very short ones, thus the very high RoF by American standards.

#25 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,487 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 11 July 2017 - 1707 PM

Yeah, the "one second burst" weight (used also to design the MK-108 30mm grenade launcher... Err cannon IIRC).

 

In any case, since the numbers in the opening post for M249 and M240 both counted with changing barrels, how would it look like for weapons without interchangeable barrels? And for that records, given the aim of this board, how would it look like for tank coax / bow machine gun / commander's MG? Even for weapons with quick change barrels i do not imagine it was actually done in combat, so the crews had to fire at lower rates of fire than infantry? (I mean practical, I guess they would not toggle cyclic down unless it was easily done ;))


Edited by Marek Tucan , 11 July 2017 - 1708 PM.


#26 17thfabn

17thfabn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:World War II history. Crime and action novels

Posted 11 July 2017 - 1850 PM

The M-85 .50 caliber had a switch on the back plate.  High rate, 625 rpm, was for aerial targets, low rate, 400 rpm, was for everything else.
 
Odd thing.  I distinctly remember in basic, 1979, they told us the firing rates were 900/600.  I have a pdf of an M-85 manual from 1984 that gives 625/400.


Was the M85 as bad as its reputation?

#27 Tim Sielbeck

Tim Sielbeck

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Tanks, Steel Beasts, WW1 aviation, Epees

Posted 11 July 2017 - 1855 PM

From my experience, no.  And compared with the M-2s in some of the units I served in it was the better of the two.



#28 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,948 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 11 July 2017 - 1939 PM


Was the M85 as bad as its reputation?

 

The "bad" reputation of the M85 was in large part due to the feed ramp from the ammo tray to the weapon's feed tray.  The ammunition and links would often get caught in the flexible chute and cause feed problems.  The rest of the bad reputation was due primarily to poor maintenance training at both the user level and the armorer level.  The feed problem was easily rectified by putting a soda can at the bottom of the feed ramp, this is where most of the hangups occurred and the soda can acted as a bearing surface.  If you go to Facebook sites of M60 veterans you will find all manner of praise and love for the machine gun.  As one that used both the M85 and the M2, I really appreciate the dual rate of fire of the M85 and it being about 20 pounds lighter than the M2.  I took the M2 to war and it worked well enough, but the high rate of fire...if I had my choice, I'd take the M85.  Not with the same feed system on the M60, but in a mount similar to that used by the M2.

 

Addendum:  The crappy charging assembly and the hokey electrical firing of the M2 was a real downer compared to the M85.  The M85 had a stout chain and handle with which to charge the weapon while the M2 had a relatively weak cable and fragile charging assembly (damn things broke all the time).  The M85 also had a backplate with an integral solenoid for firing the weapon electrically.  The M2, as mounted on the M1, had a Rube Goldberg assembly of levers and wheels which engaged the butterfly triggers of the M2 backplate.


Edited by DKTanker, 11 July 2017 - 1941 PM.


#29 demosthenes

demosthenes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 621 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 2016 PM

Here's a brief account from a weapons designer at Springfield on the M73/M219 and M85 development history:

 

https://books.google...ne guns&f=false






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users