New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[stanc]

What the hell difference does it make whether it's classified as an LMG or MMG here on the forum???

Well, if it doesn't actually make any difference, I suppose we could talk about the 5.56mm M249 MMG or the 7.62mm M240 HMG or the .50-caliber M2 LMG...

[JASmith]

What the hell difference does it make whether it's classified as an LMG or MMG here on the forum??? I assure you the nomenclature makes no difference to the Grunts on the ground who are employing it on the battlefield or are on the receiving end of it's barrage. We're arguing the pronunciation of the word "THE".

The only difference that's relevant to this discussion is how it's tactically implemented and how much man power the platform requires.

I ask that we all check our egos at the door, otherwise a worthwhile discussion will continue to only go down the drain.

Right on the mark!

We all need to take this advice!

[Michael]

Copied From MCWP 3-15.1, 1996, Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery –

1002. Types of Machine Guns
Machine guns are classified as light, medium, or
heavy. Classifications are determined by a combination
of weapon caliber, weapon system weight,
crew size, and the primary type of intended target.

a. Light Machine Guns/Automatic Rifles. The
light machine gun (LMG) classification generally includes
.22 to .250 caliber (5.45mm to 6mm) automatic
weapons. An LMG typically weighs between
15 and 30 pounds, complete. An LMG is normally
manned by a crew of one or two individuals depending
on the accessories being used. Neither a tripod
nor a spare barrel is normally used with an LMG
when it is manned by a single individual. Bullet
weights for LMGs normally range from 45 to 72
grains. They are optimally employed against exposed
and lightly protected personnel at ranges less
than 1,000 meters. In this category, the Marine
Corps employs the squad automatic weapon, M249,
5.56mm.

b. Medium Machine Guns. This medium machine
gun (MMG) classification generally includes
.264 to .33 caliber (6.5mm to 8mm) automatic
weapons. Typical MMG weights are 25 pounds or
more when loaded with 50 rounds of ammunition.
Remaining ammunition, ground tripod, spare barrel,
and other accessories can add another 25 pounds or
more to the overall weight of MMG systems. The
MMG is generally employed by a crew of three. A
MMG generally uses bullets that weigh between 140
and 220 grains. Optimally, they are employed
against personnel and light materials ( e.g., motor
vehicles) at ranges of 1500 meters or less. In this
category, the Marine Corps employs several variants
of the 7.62mm, M240G machine gun.

c. Heavy Machine Guns. The heavy machine
gun (HMG) classification generally includes .50
caliber or larger (12.7mm to 15mm) automatic
weapons. The system weight of a heavy machine
gun is substantial. In a ready to fire configuration
using a ground tripod, an HMG without ammunition
can weigh more than 125 pounds. An HMG is normally
manned by a crew of four or more personnel
(although a crew of three may be sufficient if motor
vehicles or draft animals are employed for transportation
over distance). The common bullet weight
of an HMG is 700 grains or larger. HMGs are primarily
employed against field fortifications, vehicles,
and aircraft. They are generally effective
against these types of targets at ranges of 1,000 meters
or greater. The machine guns from this category
currently employed by the Marine Corps are the
caliber .50, Browning, M2HB, machine gun and the
40mm, MK-19 MOD 3 machine gun.

I have been told a rewrite is being done with the M27 IAR classified in category a. above. and I hope this is acceptable for all parties.

[stanc]

Copied From MCWP 3-15.1, 1996, Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery –

a. Light Machine Guns/Automatic Rifles. The light machine gun (LMG) classification...

I have been told a rewrite is being done with the M27 IAR classified in category a. above. and I hope this is acceptable for all parties.

I see the Corps does distinguish between LMGs and automatic rifles, even though the two different weapon types are lumped together in the same category.

However, it's not important enough to engage in further debate about it. Please proceed.

[JASmith]

...However, it's not important enough to engage in further debate about it. Please proceed.

...and that is the difference between undocumented opinion and documented policy.

We are very pleased to have permission to proceed.

[bwaites]

Gentlemen,

I tend to leave these kinds of discussions alone, because they are more a form of conjecture, (although very well informed conjecture at times) than anything else, but please remember that respect for each other is still demanded.

Diffrences of opinion are fine, but disrepect is not.

[LRRPF52]

One of the things I've suggested in the Machine Gun department is a totally new classification of weapon, which embodies the benefits of both a LMG and MMG/GPMG, without either of their main limitations.

LMG
Pros:
* Lightweight (supposed to be, that was lost in the fiasco known as the M249)
* Low recoil
* Individually served
* Supposed to be capable of suppressive volume of fire (high mag cap or belt fed usually)

Cons:
* Limited range and terminal effectiveness, especially if small caliber/conventional projectile construction is used


Medium Machine Gun/General Purpose Machine Gun
Pros:
* Extended range and suitable terminal performance from 800-1200m on soft targets

Cons:
* Weight and weapon size limits maneuverability
* Ammunition weight and space limit carrying capacity
* Limited ammunition capacity significantly reduces unit combat endurance, tires soldiers quickly, and makes gun-mounted solutions even more difficult.
* Recoil and muzzle blast reduce hit probability, while increasing the gun position signature to the enemy

The happy medium 6.5mm takes the pros from each, while cutting out the cons. With a constant-recoil operating principle, we could have an 11lb belt-fed machine gun that is very well suited for the close range maneuver fight in the Fire Team, while being able to exceed the retained energy of both the 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54R belt-fed machine guns past 500yds, staying supersonic well into the 1100-1300m range.

What this suggests is a totally new machine gun classification, that I call the Multi-Role Light Machine Gun-a morphing of the LMG and MMG/GPMG.

[stanc]

...and that is the difference between undocumented opinion and documented policy.

Joe, even the Marine Corps recognizes that there is a distinct difference between (belt-fed) light machine guns and (magazine-fed) automatic rifles. Notice that the M27 IAR is officially classified as an automatic rifle, not an LMG.

We are very pleased to have permission to proceed.

Sarcasm ignored. It's a waste of time trying to offend me, Joe. I cannot be offended.

[nincomp]

AGAIN,

What the hell difference does it make whether it's classified as an LMG or MMG here on the forum??? I assure you the nomenclature makes no difference to the Grunts on the ground who are employing it on the battlefield or are on the receiving end of it's barrage. We're arguing the pronunciation of the word "THE".

The only difference that's relevant to this discussion is how it's tactically implemented and how much man power the platform requires.

Perhaps we should open a new thread entitled "Nit-picking Details and Personal Insults." An alternative title could be: "Picking the Fly Shit out of the Pepper."

[cory]

One of the things I've suggested in the Machine Gun department is a totally new classification of weapon, which embodies the benefits of both a LMG and MMG/GPMG, without either of their main limitations.

LMG
Pros:
* Lightweight (supposed to be, that was lost in the fiasco known as the M249)
* Low recoil
* Individually served
* Supposed to be capable of suppressive volume of fire (high mag cap or belt fed usually)

Cons:
* Limited range and terminal effectiveness, especially if small caliber/conventional projectile construction is used


Medium Machine Gun/General Purpose Machine Gun
Pros:
* Extended range and suitable terminal performance from 800-1200m on soft targets

Cons:
* Weight and weapon size limits maneuverability
* Ammunition weight and space limit carrying capacity
* Limited ammunition capacity significantly reduces unit combat endurance, tires soldiers quickly, and makes gun-mounted solutions even more difficult.
* Recoil and muzzle blast reduce hit probability, while increasing the gun position signature to the enemy

The happy medium 6.5mm takes the pros from each, while cutting out the cons. With a constant-recoil operating principle, we could have an 11lb belt-fed machine gun that is very well suited for the close range maneuver fight in the Fire Team, while being able to exceed the retained energy of both the 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54R belt-fed machine guns past 500yds, staying supersonic well into the 1100-1300m range.

What this suggests is a totally new machine gun classification, that I call the Multi-Role Light Machine Gun-a morphing of the LMG and MMG/GPMG.

No argument out of me. My only question is, why has AA not designed an LMG for the Grendel? I'm assuming Bill A. doesn't have the proper licensing (hasn't paid of the right bureaucrats), correct?

If Bill would partner up with one of the big boys, this could be a worthwhile project for ALL partied involved, mostly the grunts.

[stanc]

Medium Machine Gun/General Purpose Machine Gun

* Limited ammunition capacity significantly reduces unit combat endurance, tires soldiers quickly, and makes gun-mounted solutions even more difficult.

How does the limited ammo capacity tire soldiers quickly?

What do you mean by "gun-mounted solutions"? And how are they made more difficult by limited ammo capacity?

* Recoil and muzzle blast reduce hit probability, while increasing the gun position signature to the enemy

The position signature doesn't look that bad to me.

[video=youtube;8xdj0lBklvM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdj0lBklvM[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdj0lBklvM

The happy medium 6.5mm takes the pros from each, while cutting out the cons. With a constant-recoil operating principle, we could have an 11lb belt-fed machine gun that is very well suited for the close range maneuver fight in the Fire Team, while being able to exceed the retained energy of both the 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54R belt-fed machine guns past 500yds, staying supersonic well into the 1100-1300m range.

Okay. How do you suggest making your happy meal 6.5mm machine gun a reality? I sure can't see FN or HK developing it.

What this suggests is a totally new machine gun classification, that I call the Multi-Role Light Machine Gun-a morphing of the LMG and MMG/GPMG.

Oh jeez. MRLMG. Another five-letter abbreviation. Can't we have a three-letter type, preferably one that can be spoken as a word (such as AUG and MAG are)?

[stanc]

My only question is, why has AA not designed an LMG for the Grendel? I'm assuming Bill A. doesn't have the proper licensing, correct?

If AA doesn't have the necessary licensing, it shouldn't be difficult to get. I have a friend who used to be a federally-licensed machine gun manufacturer, and his operation was much smaller than Alexander's.

I imagine a big reason AA hasn't developed a Grendel LMG is that there's no assurance it would prove profitable. In 1986, Reagan banned production of new machine guns for civilian enthusiasts, which eliminates that market, and the possibility of military contracts is far too "iffy" to bet on (especially in a non-NATO caliber).

[JASmith]

AGAIN,



Perhaps we should open a new thread entitled "Nit-picking Details and Personal Insults." An alternative title could be: "Picking the Fly Shit out of the Pepper."

Well stated. It also seems that we don't really have permission to proceed without being harassed.

Oh well ... I hope the moderators are watching as closely as the OZ and the BWaites posts suggest. One gets tired of tantrums and taunting after awhile.

[LRRPF52]

How does the limited ammo capacity tire soldiers quickly?

What do you mean by "gun-mounted solutions"? And how are they made more difficult by limited ammo capacity?

The position signature doesn't look that bad to me.

[video=youtube;8xdj0lBklvM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdj0lBklvM[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdj0lBklvM

Okay. How do you suggest making your happy meal 6.5mm machine gun a reality? I sure can't see FN or HK developing it.

Oh jeez. MRLMG. Another five-letter abbreviation. Can't we have a three-letter type, preferably one that can be spoken as a word (such as AUG and MAG are)?

Limited ammunition carrying capacity is a result of the heavy ammunition, which fills the same amount of space with more weight. Weight is what makes you tired trying to lug it.

Gun-mounted ammunition feed solutions, which we don't have and haven't ever had with the M60 and M240, unless you were in a unit that purchased after-market COTS solutions (i.e. not big Army who could give a crap about it, obviously).

The video you posted is a shining example of so many of the things I'm talking about.

* Burn through starter belt on initial contact....check
* Scream to the enemy, "Here I am with the most casualty-producing weapon!".....check (just a reality with 7.62 NATO weapons, especially in dry/dusty environment)
* Make a tactical pause while reloading the gun when I could be slaying bugger-eater/goat rapers....check
* Hope the gun works as I belt-feed it exposed with no drum or ammunition pouch for the pig.....check

Compare that with the RPD and PKM we've fought against. They always have had a purpose-built canister for carrying at least 100rds on the gun, which is what you need to be effective with an LMG.

[stanc]

Limited ammunition carrying capacity is a result of the heavy ammunition, which fills the same amount of space with more weight. Weight is what makes you tired trying to lug it.

Gun-mounted ammunition feed solutions, which we don't have and haven't ever had with the M60 and M240, unless you were in a unit that purchased after-market COTS solutions (i.e. not big Army who could give a crap about it, obviously).

The video you posted is a shining example of so many of the things I'm talking about.

* Burn through starter belt on initial contact....check
* Scream to the enemy, "Here I am with the most casualty-producing weapon!".....check (just a reality with 7.62 NATO weapons, especially in dry/dusty environment)
* Make a tactical pause while reloading the gun when I could be slaying bugger-eater/goat rapers....check
* Hope the gun works as I belt-feed it exposed with no drum or ammunition pouch for the pig.....check

Compare that with the RPD and PKM we've fought against. They always have had a purpose-built canister for carrying at least 100rds on the gun, which is what you need to be effective with an LMG.

Thanks. But, you still haven't said how you expect to make your idealized 6.5mm machine gun a reality.

[NugginFutz]

Jeeze - would the internet "sniping" please just end? If this sort of thing amused me, I'd be over on AR15.com. This is one of two, otherwise interesting, threads I'm having to plow through.

[joker31]

There is an advantage to having two calibers, many of the Talibs I interrogated said they attacked us in 2 waves,

The first from short distance (Usually 2-3 inexperienced men/kids and 1 experienced man) this team was largely made up of forces who only had command wires and RPG's, no small arms. Their job was to draw fire then blend in to the populace after disabling vehicles or disrupting columns.

The second was set up on a higher or further overwatch type position, they fired mortars from behind mountains if no helos were present and if there were, the long distance crews would fire heavy weapons (DSHK's and DP-25's) at the column to get them to fire their 5.56's at them, meanwhile a second element would maneuver, further down the kill box to assault through the forces, the same way we lift and shift in a box. they were sound in their tactics, I have watched them bounding in on us before. I have also been on FOB's that have been penetrated (Baghram May 2010) they weren't stupid and they took our weakness and used it to their advantage (Only 5.56's are mobile so they hit convoys from the front (German and English Naval Tactic called crossing the T) This gave them firepower advantage and on the narrow mountain passes, we couldn't do anything about it. If we had more MK48's in country, we would have done a little better in the short ambushes but in protracted firefights the lighter caliber stuff worked. We countered this by using overwatch scout teams on routes that were likely to have ambushes and used air assets whenever available.... In my experience if you send a B1 through a valley at lower than mountain peak altitudes, bad guys run and the the good guys get to see cool stuff btw.... good to know when the B1 has no ordnance on board but uses the aircraft to scare the hell out of them (And me because I didnt know what they were going to do)

[JASmith]

The B-1 can go pretty darned fast on the deck. Mach 1.2 is the nominal speed. The Taliban (and you) could well have thought the visual and sound effects were from ordnance dropped on them! Engine noise & sonic boom are pretty deafening up close - together: BOOM! ROAR! I imagine that would cause at least a few sphincters to relax...

[BluntForceTrauma]

Joker, in your examples above is this more a matter of tactics than a question of technical performance of small arms? Even if U.S. units equipped with 6.5 Grendel ARs and LMGs can overmatch 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 and match the range of 7.62x54R, no one would ask them to slug it out with mortars and 12.7x108 DShKs, would they?

Having said THAT, very early on in the 6.8 vs 65G vs 5.56 debate I remember a special operations vet giving the example of needing small arms with range to engage an enemy mortar team at 900 meters. Someone challenged him, "Why didn't you just call in air or artillery?" The vet answered, "Easier said than done. All I'm saying is the mortar team NEEDED to be engaged in that moment."

I still like that with the 65G the high BC gives you range in the mountains and the high SD gives you penetration in the city.

So let's walk through this scenario based on your example above: Your convoy is ambushed on a narrow mountain road by a savvy enemy who "crosses the T." Your heavy weapons mounted on your vehicles are somewhat neutralized by that tactic because they can't easily fire over the vehicles in front of them. However, your infantry dismount and fan out with their 65G ARs and LMGs and their man-portable air-burst grenade launchers.

With the range afforded them using their 65G ARs and LMGs (with 4x optics, firing 123gr slugs twice the weight of 5.56, or 84% the mass of 147gr 7.62N, with less drop and drift) they pin down anything in sight. The harassers now become the harassed. This capability, combined with shoulder-fired, laser-ranged, air-bursting 40mm grenades to reach the mortar and HMG crews in cover, counters the ambush until air and artillery arrive.

In this scenario, I've got a 65G Unified Cartridge to ease strategic supply issues, combined with air-burst grenades to round out the capability, making a 7.62N MMG unnecessary. Workable?

John

[JASmith]

John,

I like your description!

I cannot claim an authoritative viewpoint, and will depend on folks who have been there to weigh-in, but it sure sounds workable!

Also, being vehicle borne, the ammunition load-out for these troops should be less an issue than a patrol having to hike a fair distance before getting in trouble (or should I say doing what they came to do!).