Remarkable comparison and contrasting of the MG-34 and the improved BAR

[MikeyD]

Early in the Iraq war it seems a fair number of units, especially Guardsmen, were making heavy use of the old M14 7.62 full length rifle pulled out of stateside storage. They seemed to be using it tactically as a kind of ersatz B.A.R. Its been years since I've seen photos of any Army units carrying M14. I assume official word came down from on high to stop using 'em. Some soldiers would really trick-out the old rifle with aftermarket parts.

[akd]

Early in the Iraq war it seems a fair number of units, especially Guardsmen, were making heavy use of the old M14 7.62 full length rifle pulled out of stateside storage. They seemed to be using it tactically as a kind of ersatz B.A.R. Its been years since I've seen photos of any Army units carrying M14. I assume official word came down from on high to stop using 'em. Some soldiers would really trick-out the old rifle with aftermarket parts.

Mikey, look up M14 EBR. Still very much in use.

Edit: e.g. here.

[Michael Emrys]

The idea of supplanting the 5.56mm round in the squad will surely add fuel to soldier criticisms that the 5.56mm is ineffective for today’s battlefield.

I've been wondering for the last 30 years how long before that realization hit home.

Michael

[JasonC]

JonS "...and 5.56 lighter weight ammo after WW2."

If he meant last week why say "after WW2"? Admittedly last week was "after WW2". The year 3000 will also be "after WW2". One assumes such expressions have slightly more meaning than that.

As for the AK comments, the 7.62x39 is a carbine round. It is not a full rifle round. It isn't caliber that makes a carbine, it is muzzle energy, and both the 5.56 and the 7.62x39 are both much lower energy rounds than the full rifle ammo of NATO 7.62, or 30.06, or any of the main WWII era rounds. They aren't all the way down to pistol ammo like SMGs, but they are about halfway between them.

The purpose being just as Sgt said, to carry more ammo for automatic fire at close ranges, for suppression more than direct hits, on the theory that that range envelope is all small arms can do anyway. To me a dubious proposition given little things like cover, and more modern problems like Kevlar, but I said that already. (At Tora Bora the pinned down men had nothing between a 5.56 and an F-16 dropping large bombs, and single MGs in mud huts at 400 yards gave them fits as a result. I prefer aiming for escalation dominance, at every range and weapon-weight match up. If some of the men carry M4s, give others M240s and full caliber sniper rifles. Then 500 yards in light cover is not a mission for the air force...)

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

I'm aware of that, but my point was that the M60 is/was basically a reworked MG-42. See "History" here. Certainly, the weapon is put together in much the same way, as far as manufacturing goes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sgt Joch]

The purpose being just as Sgt said, to carry more ammo for automatic fire at close ranges, for suppression more than direct hits, on the theory that that range envelope is all small arms can do anyway. To me a dubious proposition given little things like cover, and more modern problems like Kevlar, but I said that already. (At Tora Bora the pinned down men had nothing between a 5.56 and an F-16 dropping large bombs, and single MGs in mud huts at 400 yards gave them fits as a result. I prefer aiming for escalation dominance, at every range and weapon-weight match up. If some of the men carry M4s, give others M240s and full caliber sniper rifles. Then 500 yards in light cover is not a mission for the air force...)

sounds like a hasty generalisation.

The newest 5.56 rounds (SS109/M855) can penetrate a standard NATO 3.45mm steel plate out to 600 meters. I also have it on good authority that a M249 can reliably engage live targets at that range, although the practical effective range is 300 meters. This is academic however since WW2 studies had shown that most infantry combat takes place within 200 meters.

The real advantage of 7.62 ammo is the fact that it keeps a flatter trajectory longer due to its greater mass, although its effective range, as I recall, is around 400 meters. BTW, that is also the reason squads liked to keep a few M14s around, because of the longer reach. However since most combat takes place at less than 200 meters, the longer effective range of 7.62 ammo is not enough to outweigh its other drawbacks.

7.62 rounds weigh twice as much as 5.56 ammo, so a soldier can only carry half as much. 7.62 ammo packs a bigger recoil and requires a heavier weapon making it harder to control the weapon on full auto than say a M4, an important

consideration in urban combat.

Of course, the bigger consideration in this, both in WW2 and now, is the fact that the main purpose of infantry is not to kill enemy infantry. They will go to ground as soon as contact is made, so opportunities to shoot an enemy are fleeting. The main role of infantry fire is to pin their opposite number, until heavy weapons can be brought to bear on them. 5.56 ammo is better suited for that role.

[JasonC]

Last I checked, it wasn't WW 2 anymore. Average range reports from WW 2 are not exactly relevant to our modern combats; we aren't fighting the Wehrmacht in central Europe.

For MOUT in Iraq, there is plenty to favor a light M4 certainly. But last I checked, we aren't in Iraq anymore and Afghanistan is not exactly the world's most heavily urbanized country. 400 meters is not exactly a long way on a barren mountainside. As for just pinning the enemy down and waiting for heavy weapons, in the middle of nowhere waiting 20 minutes for an airstrike can be rather a long time. Then there is the fun of trying to talk the F-16 driver to the right pimple on the side of a mountain the size of K2. A direct fire weapon sufficient to defeat a mud hut or a few sandbags at 400 meters is rather useful in such situation. Even at 1 km wouldn't be out of place. (Longer and they probably can't hit you back).

I don't think the army does a particular bad job of this - anymore, initially they did. The men bring M240s and M21s, not just SAWs and 16s. Early, they were leaving the MGs and mortars at base in the name of mobility - that was a mistake. I do think that the defenders of 5.56 (does not equal what the army actually does these days) do a particularly bad job of facing changing reality, instead of defending 40 year old decisions based on 60 year old combat conditions.

[JonS]

I don't think it's entirely realistic to replace the rifle of your entire army each time you invade another country.

[sburke]

I don't think it's entirely realistic to replace the rifle of your entire army each time you invade another country.

Nah that's a brilliant idea!!!

Signed Sburke CEO and sole proprietor of sburke's rifle emporium.

[Lanzfeld]

In this previously posted video why doesnt the M249 SAW gunner have to do a barrel change? Is it because the 5.56 is a lighter round? (That is a SAW right?)

[Sgt Joch]

In this previously posted video why doesnt the M249 SAW gunner have to do a barrel change? Is it because the 5.56 is a lighter round? (That is a SAW right?)

The SAW's barrel does not overheat as quickly as a MG34/42, partly because the 5.56 ammo has less recoil energy, partly because of the lower ROF, both of which generate less heat and the SAW may have a more efficient design. Reports indicate that it can be used a long time without a barrel change as long as the ROF is kept to around 85 rounds per minute.

[Dadekster88]

Thanks for the video, found it very informative as to both weapon systems. Might have been my imagination but he did seem to favor the BAR but then hey, it's a West Point presentation

The helmet can vid bothered me in several ways as being a ex infantry guy myself but mostly it made me a believer once again in the m203 or the newer model 320? floating around.

[Lanzfeld]

Well I'm going to use that video as evidence that we need longer bursts from our MG teams. I know it's not a text book example of the use of a MG but it is a REAL WORLD example of the use of a MG.

[womble]

Well I'm going to use that video as evidence that we need longer bursts from our MG teams. I know it's not a text book example of the use of a MG but it is a REAL WORLD example of the use of a MG.

How is an example of how a weapon might be used by someone who's received no training in the specific doctrinal use of that weapon going to justify that? Hand me the thing and I'd probably rip the entire belt off in one go (or at least as much of the belt as the mechanical reliability of the ever-accelerating cyclic RoF would allow).

[sburke]

How is an example of how a weapon might be used by someone who's received no training in the specific doctrinal use of that weapon going to justify that? Hand me the thing and I'd probably rip the entire belt off in one go (or at least as much of the belt as the mechanical reliability of the ever-accelerating cyclic RoF would allow).

good point, are we expecting BF to configure different usage based on experience? If for MGs, why not for other weapons. And what will it matter if we do not have a jamming capability.

[womble]

good point, are we expecting BF to configure different usage based on experience? If for MGs, why not for other weapons. And what will it matter if we do not have a jamming capability.

From what I remember of the testing done, experience does affect RPM from all weapons.

[stikkypixie]

From what I remember of the testing done, experience does affect RPM from all weapons.

Suppression as well. Especially noticeable in the CMSF titles with everyone toting automatic weapons and such.

[RockinHarry]

... Of course, the bigger consideration in this, both in WW2 and now, is the fact that the main purpose of infantry is not to kill enemy infantry. They will go to ground as soon as contact is made, so opportunities to shoot an enemy are fleeting. The main role of infantry fire is to pin their opposite number, until heavy weapons can be brought to bear on them. ...

as by what WW2 armies doctrine and practice? Maybe for the US in WW2, maybe yet for the british, but for germans, russians and japanese...NO.

Looks like you´re very much confusing nowadays doctrines with those applied in WW2. But surely the US in WW2 could afford the way you describe.

[RockinHarry]

Well I'm going to use that video as evidence that we need longer bursts from our MG teams. I know it's not a text book example of the use of a MG but it is a REAL WORLD example of the use of a MG.

German HMG gunner fire orders are given in "belts" (of 50 rounds +) usually, so if long bursts are to be seen in any vids, it´s not just textbook examples, it´s simply applied practice, based on doctrine and crew training.

Similar with german LMG gunners. Ammo count to be expended on given target is ordered (by squad leader) and the gunner will do as quickly and effective with it as possible (until enemy kaput or back in effective cover/suppressed)

These are just the basics, with numerous adaptions to the given tactical situation, but the main purpose was to exploit the high ROFand FP of MG34/42 to do maximum damage (on attacker) or suppression (on covered defender). That means long bursts (50+) for HMGs and short bursts (5-7) in quick succession for LMGs.

[Baneman]

Right now I could live with the shortish MG bursts if the crew could be persuaded to move the gun slightly to cover an area ( even just a little ).

At the moment, if the first bullet of a burst misses, they all miss, since it's like a laser. Which makes the MG like a big ammo-eating rifle with a somewhat faster RoF.

It would be nice if each bust could produce at least 2 or 3 bullet streams into the target area to give you a better chance of hitting something, simulating the gunner moving the aim point from side to side. ( It doesn't have to be the whole "Beaten Zone" thing )

[womble]

Right now I could live with the shortish MG bursts if the crew could be persuaded to move the gun slightly to cover an area ( even just a little ).

At the moment, if the first bullet of a burst misses, they all miss, since it's like a laser. Which makes the MG like a big ammo-eating rifle with a somewhat faster RoF.

I'm confused as to what you're calling a "burst". Are you considering any given "tracer" on the screen to represent a line of multiple bullets? I don't think that's what's being represented (I think each "tracer" is a single round), and you can certainly get hits from different "tracers" independently of each other.

It would be nice if each bust could produce at least 2 or 3 bullet streams into the target area to give you a better chance of hitting something, simulating the gunner moving the aim point from side to side.

I see plenty of dispersion of "bullet streams" at long range, even in targeted fire, and in Area Fire mode, the weapon's bursts are directed at the AS either side of the targeted one.

I'm going on the spacing in time of MG "tracers": they appear almost simultaneously, so there's no real opportunity for much in the way of controlled dispersion, and between bursts there's definitely some changing of aim point.

[RockinHarry]

I´d like to remind of these shortish 1 game turn vids, showing how german HMGs were definitely used not. Highly inaccurate harrassing fire at best and it´s not even area fire. Has anythings changed since these vids were made in CMBN?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKux4VCkyJw&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egyevu1i37E&feature=plcp

[womble]

I´d like to remind of these shortish 1 game turn vids, showing how german HMGs were definitely used not. Highly inaccurate harrassing fire at best and it´s not even area fire. Has anythings changed since these vids were made in CMBN?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKux4VCkyJw&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egyevu1i37E&feature=plcp

Sorry, but that looks like what I'd expect from an Area fire order. Deliberate shots left and right of centre. Given it's at 10x mag, too, it's pretty long range, hence the low RoF.

[Sgt Joch]

as by what WW2 armies doctrine and practice? Maybe for the US in WW2, maybe yet for the british, but for germans, russians and japanese...NO.

Looks like you´re very much confusing nowadays doctrines with those applied in WW2. But surely the US in WW2 could afford the way you describe.

Interesting way to debate. You pull some words out of context and argue against a point I did not even raise.

A 1944 British study found that less than 10% of CW infantry casualties in NWE were caused by firearms, 66% were caused by mortars/artillery and the rest by various causes, including mines. These were casualties inflicted by the German Army against British/Canadian troops. Statistics from other fronts, including the Russian Front, were similar, namely that mortars/artillery were the main infantry killers.

Now if you want to look at doctrine, we can look at the 1944 CW infantry attack doctrine, which was elaborated before D-Day and used for the rest of the war:

1. the attack begins with a artillery barrage against known/suspected enemy positions to kill, break, rout, suppress enemy troops. As the attack begins, the barrage will lift ahead of the infantry to suppress the defenders as long as possible and prevent enemy reserves from moving up;

2. during the infantry advance, most troops stay out of LOS of enemy troops and advance from cover to cover. Scout units at the tip advance until contact is made and are the ones most likely to suffer casualties from firearms when contact is made;

3. if contact is made with a MG nest/strongpoint, tanks accompanying the infantry will advance to neutralize them (although this could also be from supporting mortars/artillery);

4. steps 2 and 3 are repeated until the unit is on the objective. At that time, troops will dig in, FOs will come up and pre-register artillery against likely avenues of German counterattack and AT guns/AFVs are brought up to deal with German AFVs. During any german counterattack, pre-registered artillery/AT guns/AFVs would provide most of the firepower.

Late WW2 U.S. Army doctrine was basically the same.

So whether you look at the CW, U.S., German or Soviet Army, the results are still basically the same, the main infantry killer is mortars/artillery and infantry firearms have a very secondary role.

[Childress]

A 1944 British study found that less than 10% of CW infantry casualties in NWE were caused by firearms, 66% were caused by mortars/artillery and the rest by various causes, including mines.

Aren't those stats theatre wide? At the tip of the pointy stick, represented by CM battles, one suspects that casualties caused by rifles and MGs represented a somewhat higher proportion.