MC-W: .30 vs .50 MGs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

mao -> MC-W: .30 vs .50 MGs (2/11/2002 8:59:00 PM)

This is just a comment --- it is not criticism I just want to know... I've got back into playing MC-W; I just finished the (or a) Matanikau scenario by Mogami (which is a really fun scenario, BTW). The game winners for me in this scenario were my few vehicles, specifically the M3-GMCs and Scout Cars and even a couple of trucks - because of their .50 MGs (until they ran out of ammo). I notice that anything with a .50 MG (even a truck) is many times more useful against infantry than anything with .30s - I would often blaze away with a Stuart tank with main gun 'turned off' at close range and have less effect from 5 shots (of 3 guns) than a single .50 MG. Is this historically accurate...? My bombers were a mixed blessing...



john g -> (2/11/2002 9:22:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by mao:
I notice that anything with a .50 MG (even a truck) is many times more useful against infantry than anything with .30s - I would often blaze away with a Stuart tank with main gun 'turned off' at close range and have less effect from 5 shots (of 3 guns) than a single .50 MG. Is this historically accurate...?
That is why the .50 was banned for use against infantry before WWII. It was declared inhumane to use against anything but vehicles or aircraft. Of course as we all know, the US used even the quad .50 against troops.
thanks, John.



Bing -> (2/11/2002 10:43:00 PM)

I served with a number of WW2 veterans, many of them had been in the ETO. They said that the only US infantry (small arms) weapon the Germans truly respected was the Browning .50 cal. The knock on the fifty was changing barrels in combat. The German MG's had a clip arrangement and they could change barrels in a few seconds. The Browning has a threaded barrel mounting which required more time to remove and replace. Then you had to set headspacing for the new barrel. If you didn't take the time to do this, the MG could blow up in your face. The standard issue fifty included a headspace gauge and asbestos gloves, the use of the latter is pretty obvious. The barrels got to glowing red hot after prolonged firing - OK during the day, possibly fatal in a night action. In operation, well, we had nothing else like it, making it possible to totally destroy small wooden buildings out to 500 yards or so. Effective field of fire could extend to as much as a thousand yards depending upon terrain. Imagine what four of them could do. We had a quad fifty in the AA outfit in which I served. Trouble was, when we went on the firing range (Bethany Beach, Maryland) nobody in their right mind volunteered to fire it - you sat in a sling chair between the MG's and the noise and vibration was horrendous. Devastating weapon, yes, almost as much so to the man firing it as to the target. All the above comments refer to the air cooled fifty, the water cooled version is another story. Great weapon the air cooled fifty - I can verify the quality of manufacture, having been in charge of the TLC of a number of them. Beautifully produced piece of machinery. Bing



mogami -> (2/11/2002 11:37:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by mao:
This is just a comment --- it is not criticism I just want to know... I've got back into playing MC-W; I just finished the (or a) Matanikau scenario by Mogami (which is a really fun scenario, BTW). The game winners for me in this scenario were my few vehicles, specifically the M3-GMCs and Scout Cars and even a couple of trucks - because of their .50 MGs (until they ran out of ammo). I notice that anything with a .50 MG (even a truck) is many times more useful against infantry than anything with .30s - I would often blaze away with a Stuart tank with main gun 'turned off' at close range and have less effect from 5 shots (of 3 guns) than a single .50 MG. Is this historically accurate...? My bombers were a mixed blessing...
Hi Thank Mao glad you liked it (did a lone zero come in and bomb in this battle?)
To change a .50cal barrel takes about 60 seconds. When depends on what rate of fire the weapon has be using. Often barrel is changed not because it is hot but to make sure both barrels get the same wear (to keep the gun data as close as possible) Gunner Jacks operating handle to rear pulling the bolt back to a notch on the side.
A-gunner wearing his mitt unscrews barrel and removes, places new barrel and turns all the way then he backs it off 7-8 clicks (the barrel makes a clicking sound) then you set timing and head space (takes about 10 seconds) reload and away you go. Of course the gunners would let the barrel melt before changeing it if they were under assault. (they can droop alittle when they get cherry red but it takes quite alot of rounds to do that) Most of the ones I used were made by AC Delco under liscense. In terrian like jungle, behind a tree is a good place against a .30cal but not a .50cal (mandatory eek)



mao -> (2/12/2002 12:16:00 AM)

"Hi Thank Mao glad you liked it(did a lone zero come in and bomb in this battle?)" Yes, some dude in a Zero named Mogami bombed me on turn 2 or 3. Flew in over my troops in the south (not the very southern village, but the next one), found a juicy M3-GMC advancing across rough ground north of the village and bombed it. Mogami did not damge the M3-GMC but there were 7 infantry squads within 3 or 4 hex range... I think I took about 25% casualties I did manage to get all hexes except the lone ford at the SW, the 2 M3-GMCs at the south pretty much saved the day as they made mince meat of many Japs at the river crossing. Strangely enough I was driving vehicles all across that rough terrain and only lost one vehicle to breakdowns. Got a Moderate vic. (edited: another fun thing was on turn 2 both MGs in the observation bunker in the north broke down at the same time ) [ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: mao ] [ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: mao ]



asgrrr -> (2/12/2002 12:30:00 AM)

This is something I have wondered about too. It is not difficult to see how the .50 can outperform the .30 at extended ranges and agains targets in cover, but what about soft targets at short and intermediate ranges in the open?



Bing -> (2/12/2002 1:20:00 AM)

Good comments on the fifty, Mogami - were these WW2 situaitons you speak of, or later? I wasn't there, the guys who were said the Germans could change a barrel in maybe 6 or 7 seconds. The difference could be fatal. Thankfully I did not have to find out first hand. As to what a fifty can - or should - do to soft targets, short range and in the open. If its the Browning fifty you mean there wouldn't be much left of the vehcile, provdied the gunner hit the thing of course. Bing



asgrrr -> (2/12/2002 2:21:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Bing:

As to what a fifty can - or should - do to soft targets, short range and in the open. If its the Browning fifty you mean there wouldn't be much left of the vehcile,
Bing
I am talking more of men (and women (and horses (and pigs (and ducks (and stuff)))))



Bing -> (2/12/2002 4:13:00 AM)

There shouldn't be much left of them. Though not as rapid fire as some other MG's, the Browning 50 doesn't really have to rip off screaming fast volleys. Most places a human can be hit with a slug the size of your thumb will incapacitate the person, if not outright kill. Why should this be different for the fifty? Catch anybody I know in the open with an automatic weapon, within range, they are dead meat. We are taling about a weapon that can destroy trucks, wooden structures and lightly armored vehicles, so I think it can do the same to humans. Or cows .. sometime I will tell the tory about a friend of mine who along with his Phantom driver created the largest BBQ in world history. Bing



Wild Bill -> (2/12/2002 10:43:00 AM)

You would have to see a .50 caliber in action to fully understand the impact of those rounds. The bullet looks like it would make three (well, two) of the .30 caliber round. I just heard of pilots speaking of strafing German wagons from Thunderbolts. The 8 .50 caliber knocked the animals 20 feet or more in the air and simply shredded the wagons. Unbelievable the devastation one .50 caliber round could have. Something else you may find quite interesting. The Marine machine gun standard was the .30 caliber medium air cooled and their heavy machine gun was also .30 (water cooled). The infantry did not use the .50 caliber machine gun in their inventory. I've searched through TOEs and OOBs. Eric Hammel, noted author on the Pacific states clearly that the .50 caliber was not used very much under battalion level if at all. That is why you see so few of them in MC-W unless mounted on vehicles. I thought that was quite fascinating. I tried to figure out why and I guess it is the weight. I think the gun itself weighs between 80-100 pounds, and I can't imagine lugging one of those babies through the surf to get on the beach. Anyone else have thoughts or background on this?



Redleg -> (2/12/2002 11:34:00 AM)

The .50 cal is a tremendous thing to fire.
Nothing like it that I ever found. Trouble was, the ammo was (is) expensive so I didn't get to play with them much. I am not sure that at closer ranges without cover that the .50s are that well represented in the game. The rate of fire is slower and you still gotta hit the guy. But it must be a terrifying thing to have one cut loose on you. The dirt and rocks thrown around by a .50 would have a big impact on me, I know that! LOL I personally believe that for infantry in the open, a smaller bore MG would work better. But if there is cover or vehicle involved, gimme the .50 every time. I also have read and do not believe the story of the horses and cows being thrown 20 feet by a MG. Period. I must admit that I never shot a horse or cow with a .50 cal but I have shot a deer with at single shot from a .50 caliber rifle. It did not fly anywhere! I also think the AP rounds for MG would be a fine addition in CL.... Light vehicles really caught it from AP in 30 cal weapons. With the .50s, the AP rounds were real killers of lightly armored vehicles.



Bing -> (2/12/2002 11:39:00 AM)

I served in AA while in the Army. Aside from a quad 50, which as I said no one wanted to fire, our 50's were intended for ring mounts. We didn't even own tripods, the MG's would have been used on duece and a half trucks or prime movers. I can't see as the infantry 50 would have been that much heavier than a medium mortar, meaning it would have required some kind of transportation on the battlefield. I would look to heavy weapons platoons for infantry use - which might be the source for the "battalion level" comments. Scout cars and HT's mounted 50's, as did AFV's I think nominally as AA weapons, but of course they would have been used against enemy infantry and with good effect too. As to a couple of guys running across a French meadow with a fifty in their grimy mitts, no I don't think so, but that would have been the same as any truly HEAVY machine gun. The Russians used a golf cart type of arrangment for their HMG. But I can't imagine the fifty in a "limited" infantry role - the Germans learned to hate it from what I was told. The guys were there, I think they were telling it the way it was. I'll agree there wasn't a manual of arms for a fifty. Standard infantry platoon issue, no, again that's true of every country's HMG's. Bing



Bing -> (2/12/2002 8:57:00 PM)

Addendum: In the TO&E charts which come with the game, I find under US Infantry Battalion a Heavy Weapons Company - .50 cal MG's are in there. It certainly was heavy, I'll vouch for that. Bing



AbsntMndedProf -> (2/12/2002 10:41:00 PM)

There is a scene in the movie 'Air Force' where a crew member from a downed B-17 takes one of the Flying Fort's .50s from its mounting and hip-shoots down a Japanese fighter plane. From what is posted on this thread, and other things I've read/heard, this would be very unlikely. Any comments? Eric Maietta



mogami -> (2/12/2002 10:48:00 PM)

Hi, not even Arnold or Rambo or Hercules could do that the first round the gun would come up and the barrel whack him on the noggin (or fly backwards and break his ribs) You'd have to be big enough to hold a Nate Newton in each hand to even think about it. (calls for an eek I think) [ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]



panda124c -> (2/13/2002 1:36:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Bing:
I served with a number of WW2 veterans, many of them had been in the ETO. They said that the only US infantry (small arms) weapon the Germans truly respected was the Browning .50 cal. The knock on the fifty was changing barrels in combat. The German MG's had a clip arrangement and they could change barrels in a few seconds. The Browning has a threaded barrel mounting which required more time to remove and replace. Then you had to set headspacing for the new barrel. If you didn't take the time to do this, the MG could blow up in your face. The standard issue fifty included a headspace gauge and asbestos gloves, the use of the latter is pretty obvious. The barrels got to glowing red hot after prolonged firing - OK during the day, possibly fatal in a night action. In operation, well, we had nothing else like it, making it possible to totally destroy small wooden buildings out to 500 yards or so. Effective field of fire could extend to as much as a thousand yards depending upon terrain. Imagine what four of them could do. We had a quad fifty in the AA outfit in which I served. Trouble was, when we went on the firing range (Bethany Beach, Maryland) nobody in their right mind volunteered to fire it - you sat in a sling chair between the MG's and the noise and vibration was horrendous. Devastating weapon, yes, almost as much so to the man firing it as to the target. All the above comments refer to the air cooled fifty, the water cooled version is another story. Great weapon the air cooled fifty - I can verify the quality of manufacture, having been in charge of the TLC of a number of them. Beautifully produced piece of machinery. Bing

It was very common to have to replace the .50 cal guns in the B-25 strafers after an attack because of melted barrels.



Mojo -> (2/13/2002 2:46:00 AM)

Gonna let my freak flag fly here. Here are approximate energies for comparison’s sake expressed in foot-pounds. 9mm P - 350
.30-06 - 2,700
.50 cal BMG - 12,500 FWIW I heard that the Marines have a new 50 cal round that consists of a relatively light 30 cal sabotted (sp?)projectile. Very high velocity, shoots flat and is very effective against light vehicles. Be sure to check your backstop!



aponly -> (2/13/2002 3:01:00 AM)

The M2HB .50 cal is still an awesome weapon. It's still the tank commander's weapon on an M1 tank and it's still used on multiple other vehicles. One thing that stands out today is that tracer burnout on a .50 is about 750 meters, while a .30 caliber is 900 meters, giving it a little better use for longer ranges. Of course, as a tanker, I don't want infantry getting that close to me. Greetings! New guy, just rediscovered wargames after a long absence. I can trace my history back to Tactics II and D-Day back in Junior High.



Belisarius -> (2/13/2002 5:14:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mojo:
Gonna let my freak flag fly here. Here are approximate energies for comparison’s sake expressed in foot-pounds. 9mm P - 350
.30-06 - 2,700
.50 cal BMG - 12,500 FWIW I heard that the Marines have a new 50 cal round that consists of a relatively light 30 cal sabotted (sp?)projectile. Very high velocity, shoots flat and is very effective against light vehicles. Be sure to check your backstop!
Err..Mojo, is that foot-lbs or foot-poundals? I need to make some sense of it .. that is, convert the energies to Joules.



Bing -> (2/13/2002 5:32:00 AM)

Aponly - Welcome to our intrepid little band of warrors. You'll find some truly fine fellows here. Whle we are on the subject of the Browning 50 (I will always know it as that) - what does the HB stand for? I was an armorer but I don't ever remember an "HB" in the nomenclature, that has a whiff of post-WW2 to me. Same with "CCKW" - or whatever - for the good old deuce and a half. Drove them many, many miles but never knew it as a CCKW. We had Jimmies (automatic trans) and the best 2-1/2 ton by far was the "Walking Stick" Reo (yep, R.E. Olds mfr)with I believe a Timken dual range trans - meaning you had somethng like ten forward speeds if you really needed them. Bing



Mojo -> (2/13/2002 5:42:00 AM)

LOL Belisarius, the ballistics table I took the figures from had the values in joules to begin with. I had to convert to foot pounds. (Kind of humiliated I didn't remember the conversion factor - had to look that up too). Here's what they look like in joules 9 mmP - 476
.30-06 - 3,662
.50 BMG - 16,914 Cheers!



Mojo -> (2/13/2002 6:06:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Bing:
... While we are on the subject of the Browning 50 (I will always know it as that) - what does the HB stand for? I was an armorer but I don't ever remember an "HB" in the nomenclature, that has a whiff of post-WW2 to me. Bing
According to my info the M2 is the air cooled version of the original M1917 which was a water cooled weapon. I think the "HB" just refers to a heavy barrel. Could be wrong but the Army manual I tried to get access to is no longer available probably due to the recent "unpleasantness". I'm no expert on this weapon by any means I just play one on TV.



Grumble -> (2/13/2002 6:31:00 AM)

M2HB does indeed stand for "M2 Heavy Barrel". A definite crowd pleaser. B^&$ to control though-of course with medium/heavy MGs one doesn't "really" aim at point targets, rather keep the bullets flying over the beaten zone. The Objective Crew-Served Weapon looks to have great promise as its replacement. Be great for CSAR-work...



Wild Bill -> (2/13/2002 6:40:00 AM)

Thanks, gentlemen. I've learned a lot in this discussion. I appreciate the info..WB



Bing -> (2/13/2002 8:09:00 AM)

Yep, I found a reference in the website devoted to infantry weapons in Korea. Appears "HB" was indeed part of the nomenclature - been a long time since I was around one of these babies. Haven't yet found a field manual for the fifity, there is almost certainly one out there somewhere. Interesting thread, thanks everyone for your input. Bing



aponly -> (2/13/2002 9:16:00 AM)

Grumble is correct, the HB does stand for heavy barrel. We do use the .50 cal and .30 cal (M240) machine guns currently for point targets. For tank gunnery tables, there are personnel carrier targets (BMP silhouettes) that are engaged from the tank commander's station and troop targets for the M240, primarily from the coax, and occasionally from the loader's position. I did look for a public version of the technical manual for the M2HB and it's not available in an electronic format at the army digital library, sorry.



11Bravo -> (2/13/2002 11:01:00 PM)

In a recent MCOW battle, I had 2 M3 Stuarts (armed with 3X .30cal, and a jeep mounting a .50cal threatening the final VH. The jap squad guarding the hex was armed with some ATR. Previously, they were happy enough to fire it at the tanks. But now, the .50cal Jeep got all their attention! I don't know how the AI evaluates threats/opportunities for choosing targets, but a .50cal got all the attention in those final turns, even though 2 juicy tanks presented themselves at 100 meters in clear view.



chief -> (2/13/2002 11:37:00 PM)

Maybe the AI (japs) gleaned some intel from this forum and realized how deadly these jeeps with 50's running around the jungle were........



mao -> (2/13/2002 11:42:00 PM)

quote:

But now, the .50cal Jeep got all their attention! I don't know how the AI evaluates threats/opportunities for choosing targets, but a .50cal got all the attention in those final turns, even though 2 juicy tanks presented themselves at 100 meters in clear view.

The Jeep is a softer target, I guess...



Truckeye -> (2/14/2002 8:36:00 AM)

ok, kinda off topic, but my 2 cents. i served as a US Army officer and was told several times that the .50 cal being against the rules to use against infantry was a myth. can anyone quote a Field Manual or treaty that says it cant be used? how about the soviet dshk 14.5mm? the 20mm chain guns on some armored cars, modern jets? why wouldnt 2.75inch multiple rocket launchers be banned as well? i guess once i heard the rule was a myth and started thinking about it, it does seem absurd. we even trained using the .50cal vs infantry OPFOR. having said that, we didnt train for long. the .50cals on the ring mounts of the 2.5 ton and 5ton trucks were deadlined due to causing stress fractures on the cabs of the trucks (1996ish). anyway, i look forward to the replies if any on the unauthorized use of large caliber MGs vs INF. i dont believe its true as i once did.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.062988