Yeah the .50 is coming back

[TangoTwoBravo]

At the risk of starting "thread drift", it can be useful to look at US practices.  They do operate under financial constraints.  I wouldn't argue for simply copying their organizations, weapons and tactics but they do have experience with AGLs (the USMC battalion still had 60mm mortars at the company level even with the Mk19).  I should admit, however, that I have spent time on exchange with the US military on individual and collective training so I do have some biases.  I'll also admit that many of my collegues are tired of my "US band camp" stories...

I have a hard time accepting cost as a reason to cut the HMG.  50 cal ammo does cost money, of course, and the system does have further O&M costs such as parts, techs and individual training.  I still figure, however, that the costs for this rather simple and proven system are justified by its capabilities.

For the LAV battalions I recognize that the 25mm cannons make the HMG somewhat superfluous.  It is for our "Light" forces that I want the HMG.  I have seen some "big hand, little map" briefings on the CASW but little that gets into details.  How does it compare with the HMG with respect to effects on fortifications and structures?  For vehicles, how would the CASW compare with the HMG for dealing with car bombs and "technicals"?  How does its accuracy compare?  Please note that I am not arguing against the CASW, just that I would rather see a mixed DFS platoon for the light infantry.

I suppose one could argue for a "DFS" platoon consisting of C6s and CASW.  I would still like to actually see the CASW as opposed to a powerpoint wish list of capabilities.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Gunnerlove]

CASW= 40mm automatic grenade launcher.

I disagree with the "which is better" arguments between the two weapons systems. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.
All I know is I want to be engaged by neither and really don't want both opening up on me.

By useless against armour you must mean "useless against modern MBTs" as a .50 will chew through APCs and most other armoured vehicles including those used by Canada. If you want to sit in an M113 while someone feeds it a belt from an M2 you are nuts. Punching through 34mm of mild steel at 500m a SLAP round is quite impressive.  

 

[Tracker 23A]

Keep the thinking  of the two systems in simple terms, of course they have their pros an cons.

WRT armour, the .50 cal can chew through light armour, however by the time they make their first hit at range, that enemy armour will most likely engage it with its superior armaments.  And if you consider we don't employ AVGP's with pintel mounted .50's anymore in the infantry and consider the horrible accuracy that was the reality of the mount on the M113, that .50 cal isn't that effective at range against point tgts, unless you consider the beaten zone "maybe hitting something". 
A reality we all must come to terms with is that everything we do in this world is defined by available money and to say that cost isn't a valid argument or it shouldn't be, well it is.

Army Rick,

if you compare the damage of the .50 cal to that of the CASW, there is none.  One round from a .50cal travelling in a line to where it hits as compared to one round of a 40mm grenade exploding over head/on impact and placing fragments in every direction is uncomparible.  The probability of hitting a tgt at range increases with the CASW as with the .50cal because it has more fragments that cover a greater area.  Without getting into the BS of both systems, if you had to pick one, over the other, I would suspect anyone with experience/knowledge of the two systems would pick the CASW.

It does give you a bigger bang for the buck.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I do recognize that money is a big "driver" of equipment.  We have infinite wants, and money is indeed one of the big determinants of what we can actually have (reference my signature quotation).  There are other drivers as well, such as available technology and prevailing doctrine.

With respect the HMG, we already have the piece of equipment in question, so it is not like we have the extra costs associated with a "program".  I recognize the O&M costs (I used to manage the ammo budget for a training centre), but I still do not accept that the "costs" of the HMG outweigh its capabilities (cost/benefit).  There are training costs as well (measured mostly in time), but I believe that our soldiers can master multiple weapon systems within the time that we have.

 

[GO!!!]

given that cost is a factor, I don't see why we are acquiring the CASW as an alternative anyway.

We already have a number of wpn systems that no-one has ever fired, due to monetary restraints. The ERYX comes to mind.

We already own the M2 - why not stay proficient with it?

We all know that the Mk 19 allotment will be something ridiculously low, like 20rnds/gunner/year, with the stupid chalk round that does not have the ballistics of the HE.

Both of these systems can be mounted on a LUVW, and neither is very hard to use - more is better!

 

[bigdog031]

who out ther does not think the 50 cal MG should not be brought back as a vechile mounted weapon,and if so why

 

[Michael OLeary]

bigdog, slow down; you're posting one-liners that should start with a search to see what discussions have already been done.

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

You will also find that putting a little time and energy into phrasing clearly worded posts is worth the effort, and attracts good debate.

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" or poor writing versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34015/post-260446.html#msg260446

Grammar and Sentence Structures - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31327.0.html

Re: Grammar and Sentence Structures - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31327/post-340105.html#msg340105

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How good is the grenade launcher when you dealing with an enemy under/behind cover? What sort of penetration does it have against light armour?

Never got to see one  as they came in after I left, but I have had the distinct displeasure of being shot at by a .50cal (ft Lewis, US National Guard) I also have seen what they can do to light armour and field fortifications. 

Getting rid of them is just plain dumb. If the Mech units don’t need them because of the 25mm, then move them to the units that don’t have a lot of organic firepower, like the arty, Log and to the reserves. At least then they can come back and grab them when they realize the new “wonder weapon dejour” will not solve everything. I frankly see the mix of a .50 and a grenade launcher as a nice package.

There is a reason why this gun has been around for as long as it has and like the tank it’s the announcement of it’s death is always premature. 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"but I have had the distinct displeasure of being shot at by a .50cal (ft Lewis, US National Guard)"
Oh this needs elaboration!

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

As I read the reports of our troops in sunny Afghanistan, I keep running our ambush drills through my head, and asking myself which weapons would yield what result.  There is no question that a .50 HMG lays down a heck of a beaten fire zone, and will turn walls and masonry into shrapnel with no effort.  What strikes me as more important though, is that it is just LOS.  Firing from sangers or slit trenches the .50 may as well be a .223 for all the threat it offers, whereas the grenade launchers lays down a fragmentation pattern that is a threat to anyone without serious overhead protection.  Also, when your ambushers escape and evade down routes planned to be out of sight of the ambush position, the .50 may as well be on the moon for all the good it will do.  Grenade launchers and mortar fire have the potential to turn the enemies line of retreat into a shrapnel alley.  .50 and the grenade launchers would be a great mix, but given the choice of only one, I think the rapid fire grenade launcher would add the most advantage to our troops.  As far as anti-armour goes, neither system is the weapon of choice, we have other tools for tank-killing.

 

[Dissident]

Hey, maybe the MP Bn that is supposed to be stood up in 07 can use them, since one of our main task is convoy escort. Just a thought.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The problem with that is that by having just the grenade option you have the potential for huge collateral damage where as the .50 is more precise comparatively speaking.  I believe the Americans do try to alternate with the aforementioned wpn systems to have a mixed bag.

 

[KevinB]

WRT the .50 being a LOS direct fire weapon -- you obviously where never a MG student... It is possible to do indirect fire with the .50

WRT to the AGL -- the 40mm Hiv-Vel (as opposed to 40mm M203) HE-DP round has a surprising amount of chemical energy for armour penetration - while it is not about to take a MBT - it will due a nasty job on Light Armoured Vehicles and destroy the perescopes, LRF's, and comms on heavier vehicles.

There needs to be a mix.

  Neither is a replacement for the other.

 

[DG-41]

Aren't the mounts interchangeable, ie, a Mk19 will fit an M2 mount and vice versa?

RUMINT has the C&R GWagon Recce Tp mounting a 50% mix of Mk19 and M2.

DG

 

[Colin Parkinson]

CRL

Just patrolling along the edge of the impact area when we came over the rise just as a group of NG in M113’s a bit further off the edge of the impact area opened up.

KevinB

The British used to issue indirect firing tables for the Vickers, it was a common practice to use them for denial of dead ground.

Wouldn’t putting the .50 on top of the G wagon increase the topweight by quite a bit?

I notice the Bison does not use the same turret as the G-wagon, any particular reason?

 

[vonGarvin]

The Mech Bn's lost them and cut the .50 from the MG course (so it became "advanced" C6).
So when they needed .50 instruction - some of the dinosaur Cpl's got stuck teaching it (Jay4th and I amongst others...)
The Light Battalions where not as stupid as the Mech ones...

Well, mech/light battalions are just force generators for whatever's needed: mounted or otherwise.  But, given the choice between 138 grams of tungsten going at 1410 metres per second and a ball round going much MUCH slower, well, I'd take the tungsten

But, in all seriousness, there was no more need for the .50 in a mech company.  With 15 stabilised 25mm Autocannons slaved to a thermal and II sight in a company, there wasn't much use for a .50.  Remember its primary role (if it still is listed as such) to "provide anti APC fire out to 500 (?) metres".  Given that that M242 can do in a BMP, front on, while on the move, at up to 2200 metres, and given that with FAPDS-T it is also highly effective vs Aircraft, and given the HEI-T out to 2400m, it was a matter of "either/or".  And remember that bn's don't really get to pick and choose what weapons they use: it's "the corps" (or some other think tank, probably in Ottawa) that decides who gets what.

 

[vonGarvin]

Aren't the mounts interchangeable, ie, a Mk19 will fit an M2 mount and vice versa?

RUMINT has the C&R GWagon Recce Tp mounting a 50% mix of Mk19 and M2.

DG

RUMINT SUPPRESSION: the CASW will NOT be the Mk 19

 

[GO!!!]

The problem with that is that by having just the grenade option you have the potential for huge collateral damage where as the .50 is more precise comparatively speaking.

With a 4000m range, and the ability to punch through several (dozen?) mud walls?

I would think that the 40mm grenade would cause less CD, because frag and blast can only go so far, while that half inch slug can go a loooong way!

 

[KevinB]

RUMINT SUPPRESSION: the CASW will NOT be the Mk 19

CASW = German
is it not? 

 

[Canadian Sig]

Not to dig up an old thread but I saw a G-wagon drive by with a .50 mounted on it in Wainwright a few days ago. Man that gun looks huge on that truck!