HMGs

[PantherG]

Is the Soviet 12.7 mm HMG identical to the US .50 cal? I know they're the same size, but I mean ammo, ROF,ect.

[Foxbat]

No, soviet ammo is slightly bigger (12.7x108mm vs 12.7x99mm) and the DShK has a better RoF (550-600 vs 450) the DShK is also 2kg lighter and much prettier

[Jussi Köhler]

So are there any cons to this weapon then?

Seems like the Lend-Lease should have been going in the other direction

Seriously though, was it less accurate? Not as reliable?

Jussi

[Rickovich]

Game wise it's the low ammo loadout that makes me pass them up alot of times.In WWII they were considerably more rare then american .50's which were about as common as k-rations.

[ December 28, 2002, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Rickovich ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Jussi Köhler:

So are there any cons to this weapon then?

Seems like the Lend-Lease should have been going in the other direction

Seriously though, was it less accurate? Not as reliable?

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024141

Bullethead:

Anyway, as to the DShK (as in 12.7mm), I've shot both it and the M2. I rather like the M2 better. The DSkK has a slightly higher ROF but, because it's gas-operated, it has a slightly lower MV. Hence, slightly less penetration. This also makes it more subject to jamming, due to powder fouling blocking the little gas ports. Eventually, not enough gas gets through to fully work the action. Finally, while the DShK is significantly lighter than the M2, this lightness makes it bounce all over the place when firing, while the M2 is rock solid (this assumes both guns are properly sandbagged and all).

[ December 28, 2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Of all the weapons the army fields I have always loved the good old Ma Duce. For ease of operation, ruggedness, and accuracy you just can't beat it.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bullethead:

Anyway, as to the DShK (as in 12.7mm), I've shot both it and the M2. I rather like the M2 better. The DSkK has a slightly higher ROF but, because it's gas-operated, it has a slightly lower MV. Hence, slightly less penetration. This also makes it more subject to jamming, due to powder fouling blocking the little gas ports. Eventually, not enough gas gets through to fully work the action. Finally, while the DShK is significantly lighter than the M2, this lightness makes it bounce all over the place when firing, while the M2 is rock solid (this assumes both guns are properly sandbagged and all).

</font>

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Jussi Köhler:

So are there any cons to this weapon then?

Seems like the Lend-Lease should have been going in the other direction

Seriously though, was it less accurate? Not as reliable?

Jussi

For starters, as Ricko' mentioned DShK production was rather low-rate, and it wasn't until the end of the war that there were enough to start supplying them to selected types of their own vehicles.

Producing the gazillions of guns required to satisfy the US Army's thirst for HMG's would have crippled the soviet war economy.

Secondly, US Army soldiers would be rather peeved if those Brownings, that where perfectly suited to their needs, were taken away and replaced with a weapon that might be theoretically supperior but that they would find lacking in every aspect (so BH's post for an American's view of the DShK). Because let's face it, the aspects where the DShK is superior to the M2 are those that the US Army does not require of it's HMG.

Oh and lastly, there were two more or less real shortcomings of the DShK vis-a-vis the M2HB, most importantly it is less capable of sustained or continues fire. And it has a slightly shorter, and significantly lighter, barrel making it more suited to suppression (because of bullet-spread) but giving it comparatively bad accuracy at long-range.

In conclusion: Both the DShK and the M2 have slightly different characteristics because they are optimised to best meet the requirements of their respective armies. And both are simply great weaponsystems that make maximum use of gereat ammo size, no army should be without them

[Kanonier Reichmann]

A question from a non grog MG person. In your opinion, what would be worse taking fire from, a 50 cal. MG (or DShK for that matter) or a German single barrell 20mm Flak gun if in reasonable cover like a properly dug foxhole or entrenched position? Which one would be more likely to kill you when in such cover?

Regards

Jim R.

[MikeT]

Personally, makes no difference you a probably screwed either way.

The 20mm is explosive which gives it some degree of higher damage potential, raining rounds around the area and the like.

The 50cals "might" have high penetration ability since they are solid slugs (the US M2 was intended to be an antitank gun).

MikeT

[SgtMuhammed]

If you are sitting at the bottom of a hole then the 20mm is more likely to get you with fragmentation than the 50 is with a lucky ricochet. Plus the sound of 20mm rounds exploding all around your hole will drive you nuts.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

1) "because it's gas-operated, it has a slightly lower MV".

Nonsense, the bullet is heavier so it has an inherently lower MV ...

Let's see...

DShK have;

- Shorter barrel => Lower MV

- Heavier bullet => Lower MV

- Gas outlet => Lower MV

But what about propellant?

More an/or faster burning propellant can increase internal pressure to offset all of the factors above.

What about the Browning mechanism?

I don't know how the Browning operates. If it's (semi-)locked bolt the remark about gas operation apply, but if it's open bolt action I'd be suprised if it's any better (wrt MV)...

My point is that the DShK doesn't have to have lower MV by design, but that it is a preferred and deliberate choice.

Cheers

Olle