Next release: Nato-Modul!

[Battlefront.com]

No matter how you slice it, H&K rocks

Thomm,

I'm sure it does degrade the integrity of the barrel, but I suspect they have treated it in such a way that the gunner would more likely see a decrease in capability from barrel wear before problems from rapid cooling. If you figure a barrel can shoot about 200 rounds before needing to cool down, that means for every 10 times you cool the barrel via the water method 2000 rounds have gone through it. I don't know what the rated barrel life is for the MG4, but the M16 is about 8,000 and the cancelled XM8 is stated as 20,000.

So the question is how frequently is a soldier going to be in a position to dunk a barrel in water? If the barrel life is 20,000 (which I doubt) then he can dunk it roughly 100 times before the barrel would be disposed of. I don't see that happening

Steve

[Dietrich]

The new light MG4, which is also in Bundeswehr service, rocks, too!

No matter how you slice it, H&K rocks

I wonder if the first Bundeswehr MG-Schütze who spent a while with an MG4 on a firing range thought: "Minimi, Schminimi."

[lomir]

Uhm... and the video just shows a test done by a H&K technician, probably to measure the barrel wear and so on. You can't expect such a vicious automatic fire unless you have the "bad guys" really on top of you, and then you'll surely won't expend any time cooling your barrels in water... apart of the fact that I'm sure you'll never find this nice pool next to you when it might be more needed In my unit we don't use the MG4, but we have one 7.62x51mm Rheinmetall MG3 per squad, so that's 3 in a section (An American platoon). With every "machine" (we never call it MG3 or MG42/59, but "la máquina" - the machine) we carry two extra barrels (1,8 kg. each) together with the cleaning set and a thick leather "glove"-like to remove the hot barrel. To avoid bending the barrel, it should be changed every 200-250 shots max. when in sustained firing. A fresh barrel is then inserted in around half a minute and the hot barrel slowly cools by itself next to the MG3. When you'll need it again, after another 400-500 shots, it will be completely cooled and ready to be used safely. We'll never dunk the barrels in water because a fast cooling will end up bending it and then you'll only have a nice useless metal rod or because most of the times the only water we have available around is in our one litre canteens just for drinking or just because to dip a weapon in water is the best way to rust it when you might won't be able to clean it thoroughly with WD-40 for a few days. About the fast rate of fire displayed in the video, it's really mad! To avoid fast overheating we use short bursts of 5 shots, alternating the use of three "machines": the first, the next, the last, the first, the next, etc. We practice enough so that we can deliver a continuous automatic fire on the targets for longer periods of time and with more precision. Nonetheless, the H&K MG4 is a 5.56 mm light machine gun just for the infantry role and can't be compared with the venerated 7.62 mm general purpose "machine", but I just wanted to add some info.

Cheers,

Lomir

[Battlefront.com]

Lomir,

Yeah, I think the tech was just showing off Notice the belts of ammo were also lying in the dirt. Clearly H&K is showing that the weapon is robust enough to handle a quick bath and dirt. Of course, we have no idea if the guy was hitting anywhere near what he was aiming at!

Yes, as you point out the G4 is *not* a replacement for the G3. I find it odd that the BW didn't give it a different designation completely, like G50 or something so it won't get confused with the G3. I mean, what are they going to number the G3 if it is ever upgraded? G5? That's going to get even more confusing!

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

MG4, Steve, not G4. But that's the whole marketing idea, surely? There's still that MG42 mystique clinging to the MG3 so continuing the "heritage" is the smart move to make.

Besides, they are German. It's a Machine Gun and the previous one was numbered 3 so Germans wouldn't really know what else to call it anyway but MG4. I don't think they even perceive different options.

PS

Still better then the American naming conventions. M1 this, M1 that. Let's not even begin to speak on such wonders as the M-1114 HMVVOMGWTF!

[jeffsmith]

Snip

Yes, as you point out the G4 is *not* a replacement for the G3. I find it odd that the BW didn't give it a different designation completely, like G50 or something so it won't get confused with the G3. I mean, what are they going to number the G3 if it is ever upgraded? G5? That's going to get even more confusing!

Not to mention raise the attention of the Apple Computer Legal Dept

[dan/california]

Not to mention raise the attention of the Apple Computer Legal Dept

And they are more dangerous than Al Queda!

[Battlefront.com]

DOH!! So true Elmar. However, my point is still somewhat valid even though I goofed it. Why call it a G4? Makes it sound like a successor to the G3 RIFLE. You'd think the Germans would be only too happy to come up with a new acronym for their first even SAW.

Don't even get me started on US naming conventions. Requiring a full English description of the item first so you can make sense of the M number is stupid. Plus the inconsistency of having some M numbers be like "mark" numbers (i.e. sequential starting from 1) and others being more like serial numbers (i.e. numbers picked out of thin air, like M240, M203, etc.). Not to mention the... oh fudge it... I'm obviously getting started on a pretty good rant. Thanks Elmar

Steve

[lomir]

It seems that the MG4 was initially known as the MG43 prior to its adoption by the Bundeswehr. I didn't know that myself. Yup, sounds like a kind of marketing thingy, although you won't be able to buy any of these from your closest retail shop here in old Europe and the potential military customers don't choose just because fancy names. But it might be as well that the shorter name helps for a faster saying: "Where is this f***ing MG4?! bring it here NOW, you ars****e!!"

Elmar, they are German but still two different designers/manufacturers (Rheinmetall and Heckler & Koch). But it could be that they have reached an agreement on the naming for easier designation conventions as long as it's very likely that we won't see any further modification on the MG3 as it just works perfect as it is and that Rheinmetall will produce the German Puma IFV (to replace the veteran Marder IFVs). Guess the secondary armament: a coaxially mounted 5.56 mm H&K MG4. New beast-the last version in

[Elmar Bijlsma]

But Steve, I don't think anyone calls it a G4.

When the rest come back from their holidays, it is your turn, I hope?

Lomir,

A 5.56 co-ax weapon? Now I'm not one of those bigger is better crowd, but that's just odd. Co-ax seems 7.62 territory. Even paired with a 30mm auto cannon the extra range and punch of a MG3 seems rather desirable, especially since the weight of the thing and it's ammo is no issue for mounted weapons.

[Battlefront.com]

I do need to sleep

OK, so we go back to my original point after I've gone round and round with my screwups. Why is it called MG4 instead of something else? This is neither a rifle nor is it a machinegun. The Germans used to be so good at coming up with nice, clean designations for their small arms:

P = Pistole

G = Gewehr

MG = Maschinengewehr

MP or MPi = Maschinenpistole

Couldn't they come up with a new acronym? C'mon, we're talking about the GERMANS for Pete's sake. They have entire sections of their government slaving away on nothing but new terms with an entire different section of the government figuring out how to abbreviate them.

I'm so disappointed

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Dunno, MG seems perfectly reasonably to me for the MG4. You lot may want to call it a Squad Assault Weapon, but face it, that's only for the cool acronym. To me, 5.56 or not, it's a machinegun. Same mechanics and function. Sure, no doubt it is a lot more fun to burst in a room with an MG4 then an MG3 but in the end it's a weapon where volumne of fire is the significant factor in it's usefulness.

[Flanker15]

But a machine gun has to fire rifle bullets! You can't just change the definition, military analysers would have a melt down.

How about MSG for MaschinenSturmGewehr.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree with Flanker15 that we get into some definition issues. While it is not absolutely necessary for a machine gun to fire a full rifle cartridge (or larger), that's generally the accepted definition. However, Elmar is correct that the SAWs made today are basically just smaller machine guns from a mechanical standpoint. But they are not the same in terms of their intended roll. And that, traditionally, is what defines the gun... not the mechanism.

For example, the MG34 and MG42. Used on a bipod it was a LMG, used on a tripod it was a HMG. Identical weapons in two different rolls. It was also different when mounted on a AA platform or in an aircraft or an armored vehicle. A US M1919A6 was a LMG even though it was mechanically identical to one used as a MMG. A Bren has nothing in common with either of these weapons, but it is called a LMG. A Soviet DP also has nothing similar to any of these weapons, yet it is also called a LMG.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter since it is what it is. I'm just surprised that the Germans didn't distinguish it from the 7.62 MG3. A SAW really isn't a MG, even if they are very similar mechanically.

Steve

[Lee]

I agree, a SAW is more like a light support weapon, something meant to boost firepower somewhat when combined with the rifles. Whereas an MG-42 or an MG3 is a full blown machine gun in the true sense.

[Dietrich]

Why is it called MG4 instead of something else? This is neither a rifle nor is it a machinegun. The Germans used to be so good at coming up with nice, clean designations for their small arms...

Well, if the Germans were to equivalentize "Squad Automatic Weapon", the result would be Gruppenschnellfeuerwaffe, with the initialism GSW, which would be pronounced (in German, that is) Gay-Ess-Vay.

I think the Minimi/M249/MG4/etc. could be classified "light machine guns" because:

1. They fire a cartridge which is light in comparison to the cartridges typically fired by "actual" machine guns.

2. The belt-fed full-auto nature of these weapons is more or less equivalent to those of their larger counterparts.

For the M249 and such, "Squad Automatic Weapon" is more a description of its intended role rather than a designation which indicates its essential nature.

Thus, to me it's no big deal that the MG4 is called what it is, even though it's not an MG in the same way that the MG3 is. To me, "MG4" is (or is as nears as makes no odds to) a "nice, clean designation" for this particular small arm.

For example, take that certain late-war German automatic weapon which (in part) inspired the AK-47 -- whether you call it an MP44 (Maschinenpistole 44) or an StG (Sturmgewehr 44) doesn't change the weapon itself.

[Smaragdadler]

'Ge-wehr' is an old word.

'Wehr' can mean 'defense', 'fortification', 'retaining dam'.

'Wehr-macht' means 'defense power' (in german the word for 'power' comes from the word for 'doing something (for real)' (= 'machen').

'Bundes-wehr' = 'federal defense' (forces)

'Feuer-wehr' = 'fire brigade/department'

'Gewehr' was used in military context before the invention of firearms. Originally it designates every weapon, which can be carried and used by one man.

'Er steht in vollem Gewehr.' = He is fully readily armed.

19. cent. prussian cavalry order "Gewehr auf" means you have to draw your sabre (saber).

The modern meaning of 'Gewehr' designates every weapon who has developed from the 'Handrohr'. That was the first firearm which could be carried and used by one man alone:

'Maschinen-' in this context designates the full-automatic reload capability. (means: you just have to pull the trigger till the magazine/belt is empty)

< 5,56mm = Maschinen-Pistole

5,56mm - ca. 15mm = Maschinen-Gewehr

> ca. 15mmm = Maschinen-Kanone

[Smaragdadler]

Well, if the Germans were to equivalentize "Squad Automatic Weapon", the result would be Gruppenschnellfeuerwaffe, with the initialism GSW, which would be pronounced (in German, that is) Gay-Ess-Vay.

That's just silly. Because in German you don't pronounce 'G' this way.

-> 'Gay-Ess-Gay 9' ? (BS!)

(but it's sounds like some schwul anglo-saxons-ami tries to sound german.)

[Dietrich]

That's just silly. Because in German you don't pronounce 'G' this way.

-> 'Gay-Ess-Gay 9' ? (BS!)

(but it's sounds like some schwul anglo-saxons-ami tries to sound german.)

Ach, I should have known that spelling the German pronunciation of "G" that way -- aside from being incorrect, as it turns out -- would be misinterpreted. :cool:

According to my Oxford-Duden German dictionary, "G" is pronounced /ge:/.

Besides, does my simply forgetting to check my German phonetic alphabet tablet invalidate the mere supposition I made that the German equivalent of "squad automatic weapon" could possibly be Gruppenschnellfeuerwaffe?

"Schwul" heißt "gay" auf Deutsch, nicht wahr?

[Smaragdadler]

That's all correct.

(Gruppenschnellfeuerwaffe as schwul and gay)

[LOL. But now, if i think about it, - GSW don't sounds gay in German. But if you literally re-translate Gruppenschnellfeuerwaffe back to english it would be 'groups fast fire weapon']

end point: MG4 is just right.

[akd]

Nice pic of the MG4 in Afghanistan:

[Battlefront.com]

Nice pic AKD! That's most likely a member of German Special forces, based on the parka he is wearing. Which makes sense because Special Forces always get the best toys to play with

Steve

[akd]

Caption says only QRF in Mazar-e-sharif.

[Cpl Steiner]

Isn't the M249 gunner in a rifle squad referred to in OOBs as an Automatic Rifleman or AR? That may be a throwback to the when he used to carry a BAR but it does make the distinction of the weapon being somewhat between a Rifle and a genuine MG.

[Lee]

I could be wrong, but off the top of my head, I think they are usually referred to as SAW gunners, as opposed to machine gunners. The new IAR they are thinking of adopting, would mean he would likely be called an automatic rifleman or some such. Indeed, we are right back where we started with the BAR, the more things change, the more they stay the same.