I've got quite a bit of beltfed experience here and there.
The M249 tends to really eat up M16 mags, which is why the magwell is only an emergency-use thing. No belt to drag up, and rounds are spring-pushed in, so the gun cycles faster and rips up the feed lips.
M855/856 is the standard load for all M249, M4, M4A1, M16A2 and M16A4 rifles, unless the user got their hands on some of the Mk 262 77 grain stuff. There's a few other rounds out there, but that's the common stuff.
The BAR was indeed, open bolt. Hampered by a small mag and fixed barrel from being a true MG, but used in the intended role, it did well.
Nothing quite like the sound of a hand-cranked .45-70 Gatling to get someone's attention.....I've gotten to crank off about a ten round burst, and be there when a guy did off a whole magazine (somewhere around 90 rounds?)
Didn't sound like a minigun or a Vulcan. Had it's own, very unique sound. :)
| Bryce Felperin wrote: |
| Okay, now we're sounding like a gun board! Lots of specifications and talk on which round is better, what weapon is more reliable and what one prefers.
Knew this would happen. Next up, arguments on which is better between AK's and which M4 clone is the best! :-( |
No, we're trying to be accurate. One day this will be history, best make sure it's recorded accurately.
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: | ||
Yeah unfortunately that happens a lot in the military - the brass wants something done a certain way so they propagate a myth to get what they want, and it sticks. In civilian life I enjoy critical thinking, but it's best not to nitpick over such details with a grumpy NCO. I read somewhere that the idea that carrots improve eyesight was invented as a cover for radar during WWII. I'm sure that commanders have been making stuff up for eons. Centurion: What's the matter soldier? You look like you're going to wet yourself. Soldier: those Dacians have these falxes, sir, and the look like they could split my helm in to. I heard that a guy in Legio XIX got his helm split by one. Centurion: Don't be a pansy soldier, that brass band on the front of your helm was engineered to stop falx blows. (smirks) Soldier: Really? Oh that's brilliant sir! Centurion: (snickers) Carry on soldier.... |
That made me chuckle. The more things change, the more they stay the same I guess. I recall DIs telling one group of boots that it was a violation of the Geneva convention to in any way, shape, or form modify their issued rifles from the condition they received them at the armory. :lol:
The white lies of comanders are of course a classic.
A equally classic situation are soldiers making up explanations to appear knowledgable. It is a simple social mechanism; Anyone asked about something they "should" know will want to answer, even if the do not know the answer. This is especially the case with soldiers, who typically want to appear experienced and professional.
Thus, if you do not know you make stuff up.
A equally classic situation are soldiers making up explanations to appear knowledgable. It is a simple social mechanism; Anyone asked about something they "should" know will want to answer, even if the do not know the answer. This is especially the case with soldiers, who typically want to appear experienced and professional.
Thus, if you do not know you make stuff up.
| Christopher H wrote: | ||
The cone of fire and beaten zone effects are actually quite similar to a shotgun - not much point in putting hundreds of rounds downrange into the same spot... |
Unless the beaten zone needs to be an area about 9 ft long by 4 ft tall like the back of a truck full of troops. Tank weapons are direct fire and though true the beaten zone and cone of fire widen with range, our accuracy was greater than hand held or even tripod mounted guns. Being mounted through the trunnion and turret lends a degree of stability. But heat build up in the barrels was still an achilles heel. :)
There was cases in the initial invasion of Iraq where Marine tankers, using the coaxial M240 and the gunner's scope were picking off individual insurgents at around 1,000 yards with "taps" on the trigger, firing 1 or 2 rounds at a time.
Gyrostabilized turret, 10X or greater scope and electrical firing trigger? Insane accuracy. Enough that the Marine infantry complained to the tankers to let some bad guys get in range so they would see some action.
They were effectively using a machine gun as a sniper rifle (not the first time, Korea and Vietnam with scoped M2 Brownings).
Some MGs can be VERY accurate.
Gyrostabilized turret, 10X or greater scope and electrical firing trigger? Insane accuracy. Enough that the Marine infantry complained to the tankers to let some bad guys get in range so they would see some action.
They were effectively using a machine gun as a sniper rifle (not the first time, Korea and Vietnam with scoped M2 Brownings).
Some MGs can be VERY accurate.
Single/double round bursts and turret mounted machine guns were not really what I had in mind when talking about machine gun principles in general... especially if we're talking about historic examples...
| Christopher H wrote: |
| Single/double round bursts and turret mounted machine guns were not really what I had in mind when talking about machine gun principles in general... especially if we're talking about historic examples... |
Well there is one historical example I can think of:
| Quote: |
| In 1967, [Carlos] Hathcock set a record for the longest combat kill with a Browning M2 .50 BMG machine gun mounting a telescopic sight. The distance was 2,286 meters (2,500 yards) or 1.42 miles. Hathcock was one of several individuals to utilize the Browning M2 machine gun in the sniping role. This success has led to the adoption of the .50 BMG cartridge as a viable anti-personnel and anti-equipment sniper round. |
His record stood until 2002.
| Christopher H wrote: |
| Single/double round bursts and turret mounted machine guns were not really what I had in mind when talking about machine gun principles in general... especially if we're talking about historic examples... |
Historical context is the way machineguns are used, and that can vary from long continuous bursts WWI style to dominate the battlefield with interdicting fire or to very long bursts stop human wave attacks Korean War style, as well as short bursts and single shots.
Anti-aircraft use also means long bursts ground to air or air to air in dog fights: Although even here there is no point of a long burst where most of it misses the target or to continue firing when you are sure you are off target ! If a target is in and out of your sights very quickly as you try to stick to the target one may have to use a long continuous burst since stopping and starting may mean shooting when off target and not shooting when on target due to reaction time delay in pressing the firing button.
Unless one is being overrun and the enemy is in a dense formation it is more effective to look at machinegun fire as a series of aimed bursts at " clumps " of targets rather than long strings of shots hitting nothing in between the " clumps " or groups of enemies ! Since good tactics does mean avoiding " clumping together " if one can, the targets are mostly in ones and twos and bursts are mostly to increase the odds of hitting single targets with hasty snap shooting and moving from target to target quickly: One does this to not run out of ammunitions at inconvenient times, not burn out the machinegun or risk a malfunction and it just works better than looooooooooong wasteful bursts that look good just hitting ground in a War Movie.
Anyway, that's how I see it based on what I think is logic, a lot of reading over the years and I welcome any contrary opinions based on real experience. :cool:
Oh, and snipping with machineguns is also a historical way they where used but one can focus on the feed systems i.e. belt versus magazine fed and the size of magazines. ( A 20 round mag compared to a 30 to 40 round mag and the larger drum types 75 rounds being close to the maximum practical capacity although 100 rounds also exist I think ! )
Those WWI machineguns when watercooled could fire for days on end without stopping as long as the belts were linked together and water was supplied to the cooling jacket and wouldn't overheat past the point where they would become inoperable: I think that some tests where done showing that for any practical purposes these watercooled machineguns could fire extremely long burst and keep on working and working and working ......
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| Those WWI machineguns when watercooled could fire for days on end without stopping as long as the belts were linked together and water was supplied to the cooling jacket and wouldn't overheat past the point where they would become inoperable: I think that some tests where done showing that for any practical purposes these watercooled machineguns could fire extremely long burst and keep on working and working and working ...... |
From Wikipedia on Vickers Machinegun, quote by Ian Hogg:
"The Vickers gun accompanied the BEF to France in 1914, and in the years that followed proved itself to be the most reliable weapon on the battlefield, some of its feats of endurance entering military mythology. Perhaps the most incredible was the action by the 100th Company of the Machine Gun Corps at High Wood on August 24, 1916. This company had ten Vickers guns, and it was ordered to give sustained covering fire for 12 hours onto a selected area 2,000 yards away in order to prevent German troops forming up there for a counter-attack while a British attack was in progress. Two whole companies of infantrymen were allocated as carriers of ammunition, rations and water for the machine-gunners. Two men worked a belt-filling machine non-stop for 12 hours keeping up a supply of 250-round belts. One hundred new barrels were used up, and every drop of water in the neighbourhood, including the men’s drinking water and contents of the latrine buckets, went up in steam to keep the guns cool. And in that 12-hour period the ten guns fired a million rounds between them. One team fired 120,000 from one gun to win a five-franc prize offered to the highest-scoring gun. And at the end of that 12 hours every gun was working perfectly and not one gun had broken down during the whole period. It was this absolute foolproof reliability which endeared the Vickers to every British soldier who ever fired one. It never broke down; it just kept on firing and came back for more. And that was why the Mark 1 Vickers gun was to remain the standard medium machine-gun from 1912 to 1968."
That kind of answers the question I think. :-)
Bryce
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| Anti-aircraft use also means long bursts ground to air or air to air in dog fights: Although even here there is no point of a long burst where most of it misses the target or to continue firing when you are sure you are off target ! If a target is in and out of your sights very quickly as you try to stick to the target one may have to use a long continuous burst since stopping and starting may mean shooting when off target and not shooting when on target due to reaction time delay in pressing the firing button. |
Not quite; some WW2 fighter training manuals and publications about pilot experiences advise new pilots to stick to relatively short bursts rather than wasting their ammunition in one long burst, though there may also be some evidence to the contrary. In any case, short bursts actually tally well with the kind of method most likely to produce kills in air-to-air combat--that is, "jumping" the enemy and making a quick pass before fleeing away at top speed rather than engaging in a prolonged maneuvering dogfight. This was the method favored by Erich Hartmann, perhaps the highest-scoring fighter ace ever with 352 claimed kills.
I recall a picture in "Hatcher's Notebook" which showed an early Maxim machine gun after firing 20,000 rounds in an endurance test at Springfield Armory-I assume that the firing was continuous although I do not know this for a fact ( I think the test would require it to be so). The photo shows a huge pile of spent brass under the tripod-mounted gun.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||
Not quite; some WW2 fighter training manuals and publications about pilot experiences advise new pilots to stick to relatively short bursts rather than wasting their ammunition in one long burst, though there may also be some evidence to the contrary. In any case, short bursts actually tally well with the kind of method most likely to produce kills in air-to-air combat--that is, "jumping" the enemy and making a quick pass before fleeing away at top speed rather than engaging in a prolonged maneuvering dogfight. This was the method favored by Erich Hartmann, perhaps the highest-scoring fighter ace ever with 352 claimed kills. |
You could be right there and I would think the more skilful the pilot/shooter would be calm enough and good enough to time their shot burst efficiently.
Depending on calibre of machines guns or machine canons and the model of aircraft, the amount of rounds per gun was also limited so too many long bursts would leave one empty very fast: I think 10 seconds to 30 seconds of continuous fire is about all one could expect before running dry. ( Cyclic rate also being a consideration ).
A long burst might be worth while if one had a bomber targeted to bring it down and if one's piloting was steady enough to not waste the burst ?
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
|
A long burst might be worth while if one had a bomber targeted to bring it down and if one's piloting was steady enough to not waste the burst ? |
Yup.
Here's some gun camera footage from a various German fighters. There's one that lasts for over a minute, but if you watch, you see he's taking no return fire. Look closely and you'll see that the tailgun isn't firing back, nor are the ball turret or chin (the chin isn't even moving) making me think he was performing a coup de grace and that most of the crew was already dead. Even then, he still yawed back and forth to rake the engines with fire and make himself a harder target, just in case. Watch how the pilots use steady controlled bursts until they either see flames or are close enough to not miss.
The silence is kind of chilling. Each one of those bombers going down was 10 men dead.
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum