Wikipedia isn't a reliable source on much of any thing especially politics and history since Wiki adopted revisionist history a few years ago.
Funny, find the quote where I said that. Please. Prove a quote where I said anything even close to that. Sorry, but in my mind you are now a liar (making false quotes and attributing them to others), and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Your ability of logistics and tactics seems more appropriate in a video game then in a real world situation. Go back to your video games please, as the adults discuss the real world. Anybody that does like you are suggesting (spacing the weapons out at set intervals along the border) will very quickly be overrun by even a corporal with the bare minimum understanding of strategy, leaving your force being attacked from the rear and destroyed one unit at a time because they have no logic in their layout.
I could have clarified, the only ME nation actively arming and supporting resistance militia groups in Iraq is Iran. A hand full of airstrikes for show doesn't do much to offset the billions of dollars the Arab League has invested in IS.
It's not an exact quote but a paraphrase to summarize the effect of your long-winded post, which I take to be to oppose my request for 4,800 Heavy Machine Guns (M2s) for the Kurds. Well, if it is a false paraphrase, I'd be delighted to take it back with sincere apologies. Please do clarify. My request for 4,800 M2s to the Kurds. Support or Oppose? If you oppose, as I believe you do, then I paraphrased you correctly. If you support, I misrepresented you and I take it all back, with an apology. Impudence! I've not described exactly how the positions would be deployed. The 200 metres figure was an average spacing to allow an estimate of the numbers of machine gun position required so that the request can be submitted so that the HMGs can be ordered. The precise way the HMGs would be deployed would be decided by commanders on the ground when the HMGs finally arrive. You are crossing your bridges before you get to them. All that is needed now is an estimate of how many HMGs are needed for a 600 mile front line and I stand by 4,800 estimate.
Who exactly is suppose to train these 9,600 to 19,200 Kurds to operate the M-2 HMG ? The M-2 is a crew served weapon and it's not as easy as you think to properly operate and maintain one, it takes a lot of training and I mean a lot of training to be good at operating the M-2. It's been 45 years since I have checked the head spacing and timing and loaded and fired a .50 cal. M-2 HMG and all I ever went through was a familiarization course not spending weeks learning how to be a heavy machine gunner. If the head spacing or timing isn't correct you will find yourself in a world of (*)(*)(*)(*) with a damaged M-2. The average swinging dick wouldn't even know how to load a M-2 let alone checking the head space on the bolt and the timing. From what I remember the M-2 is loaded with a closed bolt set in the semi-auto mode. If you don't have a timing gauge what do you use ? From what I remember it had to be an American nickle or four dog tags. If I didn't have a qauge to set the head spacing I would be up (*)(*)(*)(*) creek because after 45 years I don't remember what the head spacing is suppose to be set at.
Because sending them that many M2s to be spaced out along the border is absolutely retarded. Tell you what, try to learn something about how the military actually works before coming back in here and trying to tell experts how things work. Between Apache and I we have over 2 decades of military experience. And we can throw in a few others if you like, we can probably accumulate over half a century combined if you like, and I am sure all of us would tell you that your idea is retarded. To give an idea, I would have to seriously question of the US Army all together has 4,800 M2 Machine Guns. Even a Marine Infantry Battalion only has 6 of them. That makes less then 25 in a Regiment (I estimated a few for the Regiment Headquarters itself). Maybe 200-250 in an entire Marine Division (and there are only 4 of them, including the Reserves). So in the entire Marine Corps, you are only looking at around 1,000 M2 Machine Guns, not including those modified to work off of other equipment like aircraft, helicopters, and armored vehicles. So before you stand behind that 4,800 number, realize that is more of them then the entire Marine Corps by a factor of 4. So where are you going to get all of these guns? I oppose, because your concept is retarded and a fail. In reality, all they need is likely 100-200 of them, the proper training to use them most effectively, and the proper supporting arms to protect them. But tell you what, once you can talk with me about enfilading fire, beaten zone, and how to properly use plunging fire, then we might be able to have some kind of serious discussion as to what you even think you are talking about. Until then, take it from me (and Apache) that together we know much more about the M2, the logistics, training, and employment of them then you ever will. BTW, I last qualified with the Ma Deuce in 2014, qualified Expert.
And just to give an idea how retarded this concept is, let me bring up a few things. Placing them evenly along a border is a defensive action. We and the Kurds do not want to fight defensively, but offensively. Taking back the lands lost to ISIS and putting them to route. Not simply holding them back. Now let me basically describe how it is really done. At strategic locations along the border (mountain passes, roads, etc) you place fire bases. Artillery, mortars, and heavy machine guns to deny these locations to the enemy. At each one you create a strike force that is mobile (HUMMERs with weapon turrets) that can be rallied and sent to any location in which they are needed. You place these FOBs, Fire bases, whatever you want to call them at strategic locations, ignoring the majority of the border because they are poor locations to attempt a crossing in. You then occupy other strategic locations, major villiages, power plants, bridges, and the like. You keep the majority of your weapons in mobile tactical formations. These are then sent out to where they are needed, either as a force in reserve for defensive operations, or as an attack column in offensive operations. This is the way every military that has won has used their equipment for well over 100 years. If you want an example of how the proposed defensive line would be a failure, look no further then the Maginot Line. By following the directions of one fool, as I said I could take it out with little sweat. Form such a formation as I have described (a few vehicle mounted M2s, along with a few Dragon/TOWs and a couple of 81mm mortars, and I will pick a weak point and take it out. Then the column sweeps forward and through the breech, and then move behind the lines, taking out logistical points, supply columns, and taking out futher enemy positions from the flank and rear, where all of their weapons are pointed in entirely the wrong way. The equivelent once again is the start of WWII. The French with their WWI era Trench Warfare tactic meeting the Blitzkreig. Defending enemies routed, defenses smashed and added to the firepower of the enemy. Complete failure in achieving their goal. God help all of us from amateurs who think they know what they are talking about. They read a few issues of Soldier of Fortune and play Call of Duty, and suddenly think they are Heinz Guderian.
Presumably, whoever it was the Pentagon had planned to train the Iraqis and Kurds up on the first shipment of M2s? Bloomberg: Pentagon Clearing Final Hurdles to Spend All Iraq Training Funds "The Pentagon is clearing the final congressional hurdles in the way of spending the entire $1.62 billion lawmakers approved last year to train and equip the Iraqi and Kurdish military. The first dollars from the fund were spent in the week of May 18, when an Iraqi brigade was equipped with rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, assault packs and protective masks, according to the U.S. Central Command. Kurdish Peshmerga units will receive similar equipment within weeks with money from the fund, the command said. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey likely will be asked about the status of the expenditures Wednesday when they testify before the House Armed Services Committee about the Obama administration’s strategy to counter-Islamic State. Expenditures so far have been limited to incremental steps initially proposed by the Pentagon last year, including a cost-sharing agreement with Iraq and allies that’s being met, according to a military spokeswoman. The required steps also include submitting reports and certifications to Congress. The request to arm forces in Iraq to fight Islamic State was approved as part of this year’s defense budget. It would provide $1.23 billion for the Iraqi Security Forces, $354 million for Kurdish regional forces and $24 million for Sunni tribesman in Anbar province, where the extremists have made significant advances. The U.S. Central Command until recently was limited to spending 25 percent of the $1.618 billion total, or $404.5 million, until the White House and Pentagon submitted a report to Congress, said U.S. Central Command spokeswoman Air Force Major Genieve David. .. List of Weapons The Pentagon last year in its proposal outlined a detailed list of potential weapons and equipment purchases, some benefiting U.S. companies. Proposed purchases include $37 million to buy 57,600 of U.S.-made M4 Carbines for Iraqi Security Forces and Kurdish units. The U.S. also would buy 498 M2 .50-caliber machine guns made by General Dynamics Corp. and U.S. Ordnance Inc., based in McCarran, Nevada, at a cost of about $4.1 million. About $34 million could be used to buy 1,704 Carl Gustaf M3 recoilless rifles from Sweden’s Saab AB. Sunni tribal forces in Anbar province would receive 5,000 AK-47 assault rifles costing $4.5 million. Among the non-weapons items would be 2,256 AN/PSN-15 advanced hand-held Global Position Systems devices valued at $6 million for the Iraqi Security Forces and the Kurds. The U.S. shipped 2,000 AT-4 anti-tank weapons to Iraqi force from existing U.S. stocks to counter Islamic State armored vehicles, David said. Pentagon spokesman Army Colonel Steve Warren told reporters Tuesday that the AT-4s and heavy machine guns will constitute the primary anti-armor capability to be provided Iraqi Security Forces for now. The U.S. rushed delivery of the weapons to counter Islamic State’s use against trucks and armored vehicles as large bombs driven by suicide drivers." So the Pentagon are well aware of the VBIED threat but what heavy weapons they are providing is just not enough. Only 498 M2s for every force in Iraq - Iraqi army, Kurdish Peshmerga, Sunni tribal forces - 498 M2s is just not nearly enough to go around - it's just not serious. Also the Pentagon don't seem to have included any BGM-71 TOW anti-tank weapons, which the Kurds really need if they are going up against any of those 40 Abrams M1A1 main battle tanks which ISIS looted from the Iraqi army when they were routed in Mosul and elsewhere. Any armour with a mounted machine gun on open terrain is going to take out any soldier with only an AT-4 (range 300metres) and even then chances are you are not going to stop a Abrams M1A1 with one AT-4 hit. So they really need an anti-tank weapon with more range and more stopping power for going up against MBTs. Luckily, the Kurds got about 60 to 80 MILAN anti-tank weapons from the Germans which they seem to quite like, but once again, 60 to 80 launchers, no matter how many missiles you have to fire from the launchers, it simply not enough launchers, not to cover a 600 mile front-line with ISIS it's not. I'm sure the Kurds are grateful for what they get but I just don't like to think that we are short-changing them on what they really need. Well no worries because I don't think you're going to be drafted for this war. Just in case you want to volunteer though, here's a refresher course. [video=youtube;_XA107LH2H4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XA107LH2H4[/video]
Do you think that they have no such weapons already? I bet they already have more then 400 heavy machine guns between all of them. They also have hundreds (if not thousands) of Soviet made KPV, DShK and Kord Machine guns (14.5mm, or .57 cal). So why you are assuming they have no heavy machine guns at all is beyond me. Oh, and do not forget the hundreds of ZSU guns they have, Soviet 23mm machine gun (.90 cal). These have been successfully mounted onto technicals for use in both anti-armor and anti-tank engagements. They have also gotten from Germany over 400 Panzerfaulst III launchers, with almost 6,000 missiles. 40 Carl Gustaf launchers, with over 1,000 missiles. 60 MILAN launcher, with over 1,000 missiles. The first missile system i mentioned is the equivelent to the AT4, the last 2 are superior to it. That makes 500 anti-tank missile systems, with over 8,000 missiles. But the best way to fight enemy tanks? It certainly is not going out with a missile launcher and trying to shoot it! Hell, I learned better then that in Infantry Training School back in 1983! First, you pick your ground, and hit it when it is still trying to move into what it expects the attack to be at. Preferably with aircraft (fixed wing or rotar), if not with well placed artillery and a highly trained spotter. Now if you really want to put some teeth into the Kurds, you will scrap most of what you have written. They are already getting lots of good support from the rest of NATO (and the Russians), no need to throw in even more of the same crap. Instead, sell them some surplus M114, M109, M198, or some other 155mm howitzer guns. Then throw in a bunch of surplus MULE ground laser designator units. And finally, throw in not only the appropriate 155mm artillery rounds, but a couple of thousand M712 Copperheads. If you have no air power, that is what you use to take out enemy tanks and other armored vehicles. Then you are not attacking the tanks a few hundred yards from your lines, but from 10 miles away, well out of range of their own weapons. And do not be so damned fast to discount the advice of somebody like Apache. The man was ANGLICO, the exact "highly trained spotter" I was talking about earlier in this response. He was trained to call in things such as airstrikes from carriers hundreds of miles away, or 16" shells from battleships over 20 miles away. That is the real skills that are needed to fight a war, skills that take months and years to develop. Not just somebody to pull a trigger on an M2. I can train a gunner for an M2 in a couple of days. But to train a good gunner? Give me 10 people, of which I can pick the best 5. Then give us thousands of rounds and about 2 months. Then I will give you a good gunner. Want great? Give me 50 people of which I can keep the best 5. A couple of hundred thousand rounds, and about 6 months. I will have them placing plunging fire into the back of a pick-up truch kidden behind a hill at a kilometer away.
Like I said, there's more to it than one would think operating a M-2 HMG. Now do it in the dark with no moon. The soldier was a little slow, an instructor would have informed him that he was already dead. But it's a training film so it's done at a slower pace. One of the biggest drawbacks of the M-2 was changing the barrel when it got hot. Such a hassle, rarely was there a spare barrel issued. Always having to have to check the bolt head spacing. But I hear they have come up with a "Quick Change Barrel" for the M-2. It only took 80 or so years to do it. I was a naval gunfire spotter and when there was one of the newer destroyers on the gun line with the 5"/54 gun my biggest complaint and I'm sure there were other complaining on how long it took to change the type of projectile or fuse. The 5"/54 is an automatic gun that uses a magazine. If the magazine was loaded with 5" HC rounds with FQ fuses and you wanted a VT or time fuse for an air burst it took 20 minutes to 30 minutes to unload the magazine and load it with what you needed. To (*)(*)(*)(*)ing long when you are in a fire fight. The 5"/54 is still the same pop gun we have on todays cruisers and destroyers and it took the Navy over thirty years to fix the problem. Still takes twenty minutes to change the type of projectile you need but they can now change the fuses without unloading the gun magazine. Usually I would use a HC round with a FQ for spotting and adjusting rounds and once on target I would go for a fire for affect with air burst using either a VT or time fuse. The old 5"/38 pop guns were excellent navy guns for Vietnam. If it was 0-Dark Thirty and you needed an illumination round so you could see what the (*)(*)(*)(*) was happening, the navy boys could have one on it's way in less than a minute.
Since this poster likes videos, how about one of an M2 where the Head Space and Timing are not adjusted properly? [video=youtube;rQep2nWGfBw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQep2nWGfBw[/video] Here is another if less dramatic one: [video=youtube;_Px0wErIeJI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Px0wErIeJI[/video] This guy is lucky he was not seriously injured. [video=youtube;XI-Z8zPNHG8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI-Z8zPNHG8[/video]
Like I said, I only went through a M-2 HMG familiarization course not a qualification course. In a worse case scenario I was suppose to be able to man and operate a M-2. If you get it wrong setting the head space and timing you can damage the gun.
Well, what word would you use to describe US and NATO allies military taking thousands of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and still not defeating these jihadi enemies? "Experience"? or "Retarded"? I'm full of praise for soldiers who risk it all on the front lines, but there's no doubt in my mind that the top level strategy from the top brass has been deeply flawed, or "retarded" if you think it is OK to use that word. UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS - HEAVY MACHINE GUNS - STUDENT HANDOUT "During World War II, nearly two million M2 machine guns of all variations were produced." Looks like someone is remembering the history but not applying the lesson that plenty of heavy machine guns is very useful in war. Maybe the US Marines would have done better, taken fewer casualties in Korea and Vietnam if they had had more heavy machine guns? Well it seems you know everything about M2 heavy machine guns apart from the advantage to be had by deploying more rather than fewer of them! Where to get all those M2 guns? From the Defense Industry, where else?
The idea of pulling out of Iraq was a political one, it all went to hell big time after the US left, so you can't hang that on us. As for Afghanistan, who is running the country? The Taliban? Case closed. Well whoopty-doo good for you. I guess those that are not on the front lines are crap. I give praise to anybody who raises their hand and swears to defend their country, be they cooks, mechanics, or grunts. But from your past remarks, I guess you do not even think much of the front line troops, since you think they can be trained in a few days. Reality check here buddy. World War II ended almost 70 years ago! We also made almost 50,000 M4 Sherman Tanks during WWII. How many of those do you think are left in service? Here is something apparently you are not aware of, since your information all comes from video games. Most weapons only have a lifespan of around 20 years or so. Parts wear out, recievers get outside of tolerance, and they are then classified as unserviceable and destroyed and new ones are purchased to replace them. In fact, among my many jobs over my career in the military (starting in 1983) was as Battalion Maintenance Chief for 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment. On average we had 20-50 M-16 rifles declared "unserviceable" every year and discarded (generally for excess barrel wear or upper reciever intolerance). I would be greatly surprised if many M2 Machine Guns from even the Gulf War, let alone the Vietnam War were still in service. As for the ending part, that is simply a stupid statement that is not even worth responding to. Actually not, since my original MOS was 0311, not 0331 (or even 0332). But yes, this was my assigned weapon for many years and I have much more then a passing familiarity with it. What do you know about it, other then what you learned from CoD? Sorry, b ut all I see here is an ugly troll, with a pompus self-agrandizing nick and who really knows nothing about military affairs. You claim to respect the military, yet put down not only a Veteran who tries to tell you "what is is really like" (Apache), but also somebody who is currently serving and really knows what he is talking about. But please, tell me from your vast experience, what is the proper number of M2 .50 caliber Heavy Machine guns for an Infantry Battalion, and how should they be deployed? What should the bassic ammo load for each one be, and how about the other logistical needs? How many crew for each weapon? What should the combat load for ammunition be? How many barrels should be acquired, and how should the T&E be adjusted? How often should each weapon be bore sighted, and what should be done when the tripod assembly group is not properly leveled? Sorry, I really do not care what trolls think or say. All you have done here is belittle and berate people who really know what they are talking about, when you apparently know nothing of what you are talking about. So no, I do not know "everything" about the M2, but I can guarantee that I know a lot more about it (and the AT4, and the TOW, and every other system you talk about) then you will ever know. To me it is not just trivia or something I learn about playing a game, but my actual career we are talking about.
Although most ISIS vehicles are Technicals....they grabbed some M113 Personel Carriers, a few Tanks and some self propelled Howitzers when the Shia Officers got in their cars and drove out of Ramadi and the Sunni Grunts just after that abandoned their posts. We were before I left taking them out with Drone Strikes. They also grabbed some Shoulder Fired Anti-Tank Missiles which would not work on U.S. Abram's but would definitely work on the surviving T-72's in the Iraqi Military Inventory and I am not certain how such Missiles would do against M-1 Abram's EXPORT MODELS which do not have the Classified Composite Armor of the 70 Ton U.S. M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams. But the worse things they grabbed is a great deal of INTEL. on how the predominantly Shia Officered Iraqi Military Communicates. The ISIS achieved in a few weeks what the U.S. State Department could not achieve in Iraq in YEARS...that being the resignation of Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki....was responsible for the complete removal of Sunni Officers from the Iraqi Military as he replaced them with his Shia BUDDIES most of who were just PLAYING SOLDIER as they wore Fancy Uniforms with Pinned on Medals representing participation in battles they were never in or even close to!! Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki is also responsible for compete alienation of the Sunni's as he removed all Sunni Leadership on a Local, Regional and National Level. That IDIOT WAS WARNED OVER AND OVER AGAIN that what he was doing would result in EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!!! But here is where it get's weird. We KNOW that the ISIS is on their way. We have the capability to WIPE OUT A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THEM....as they were all bunched up at the time unlike now as they are spread thin. We also KNOW that the Shia Military Officers who are men who have absolutely no Military Training ARE GOING TO RUN BACK HOME TO BAGHDAD!! But....we are told NOT TO DO ANYTHING!! Now I KNOW WHY....but what I don't understand is why we waited several weeks after Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki resigned from office to begin strikes??? From what I was told the plan was we hit them and hit them HARD the moment Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki steps down. WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED??? AboveAlpha
Arm and assist those in the region deal with them, they are the most threatened by ISIS and should be the ones that deal with them.
Great post, thanks. This is sad... "Not to worry, theres no chance that any of my suggestions will be adopted.."
BTW, it's not an "improvement" to downgrade a water-cooled machine gun, as the M1921 was, which was capable of firing 500 rounds a minute, down to a less-powerful air-cooled version which overheats and limits the long-term firing rate to only about 40 rounds-per-minute. Air-cooled machine guns trade fire-power for reduced weight, which is useful for infantry mobile operations, if the HMG has to be carried, on foot, by mule, or mounted on an aircraft, but for defending fixed positions, even mounted on armoured vehicles, where the weight of the water-cooling would be no problem and the additional fire-power would be very useful, a water-cooled version of the M2 would be better. If I was running the Pentagon or a Defence ministry of any NATO government, I'd be placing a special order for custom-converted water-cooled versions of the M2 and I'd have both versions, standard air-cooled and water-cooled available to my troops.
And we are so thankful for your opinion there. Which is of course why not a single country in the world has used water cooled weapons in decades, and everybody uses air cooled ones. God help me from clueless armchair generals.
Having the numbers of HMGs I request to place along a defensive line, does not in anyway mean I am suggesting that the Kurds should not have mobile reaction forces to reinforce the line where attacked or that the Kurds should not put together offensive strike forces. In fact I suggested the contrary. What part of - - didn't you understand?
As this report explains, the reality is that the Kurds options are limited to defensive actions, for the moment. National Review: Holding Down the Fort in Kurdistan: Peshmerga Play Defense against ISIS by Andrew Doran June 16, 2015 4:00 AM SELECTIVE QUOTES ONLY "Telskuf, Iraq — The front lines in the fight against ISIS stretch for 1,000 kilometers, from the villages north of Mosul, along much of the Tigris, to the region north of Tikrit. It is a no-man’s-land, separated by fixed positions along vast trenches. Like the no-man’s-land of the Great War, to cross it from either side is to be subjected to heavy fire and the near-certainty of death. It is also no-nation-state’s-land, defended on both sides by armies of quasi-states, Kurdistan and the Islamic State, that do not appear on any officially sanctioned map. ... Peshmerga general Khader Husayn explains that the peshmerga need both light and heavy equipment: M4s, armored Humvees, antitank weapons, mortars, and training. ... Outside peshmerga headquarters one sees an armored M998 Humvee and a Chevy truck with a heavy weapon mounted in the bed, both captured from ISIS. ... The peshmerga repeatedly express gratitude to America for the air support, without which they could not have stabilized the front lines. A few hundred meters to the south of Telskuf are the defensive positions of the peshmerga. One can see trenches stretching east and west, with other peshmerga outposts every few hundred meters. To the south are two villages. Standing next to a mounted “Dishka” (DShK) heavy machine gun, the outpost commander points to the villages, perhaps two kilometers away, and says, “Daesh.” The last major attack along these lines from ISIS came in mid-April, and the Kurds repelled it. ... The tactics of ISIS were new to the peshmerga, who have adjusted, proving far more resilient (and reliable) than the Iraqi military, despite being less well equipped. ISIS then came in the night in a suicide attack: a truck packed with explosives. The truck came across the open terrain toward the peshmerga but was destroyed before reaching the Kurdish lines, thanks to new countermeasures. Several meters in front of the fixed positions along the trenches, the Kurds deployed high-powered lights that are aimed each night toward ISIS lines. The Kurds also use improved communications to surge forces to repel ISIS advances quickly. “In a moment, we can have a thousand men here,” the commander says. ISIS will typically lie dormant in the day. “If they do something, it will be at night, often between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m.,” out of fear of coalition airstrikes, he says. When asked if they believe they are ready to go on the offensive, one peshmerga soldier replies, “If we are given the order, we will go.” Such an attack as presently constituted would, of course, mean slaughter — much as a soldier in the First World War had little hope after “going over the top.” They have no armored vehicles, no tanks, no artillery support. They are, however, well positioned to hold what they now possess. They point to weapons recently arrived from the coalition: antitank weapons of a type inferior to the Milan but nonetheless useful. ... U.S. and coalition airstrikes combined with improved peshmerga defensive tactics reduce the likelihood that ISIS will expand its borders in northern Iraq. However, they are nowhere close to being able to conduct an offensive campaign. Neither is the Iraqi military. The status quo is unlikely to change. Talk of an offensive to liberate Mosul is simply unrealistic. Neither the Iraqi military nor the Kurds seem inclined to shed a drop of blood for Mosul — a fact better understood here than in Washington. " That's really a first-rate war-report. Highly recommended reading!
Marines take heavy casualties because they are aggressive, the mission of the Marine grunts is to close with and destroy the enemy. They move fast and only use fire support when their advancement is halted and something more than a rifle is needed to continue the advance. Grunts are already grunting without lugging around a 125 pound M-2 and it's ammunition. I saw a lot of M-2 HMG in Vietnam, most were on vehicles and they weren't manned by grunts. Motor-T employed most of the M-2's in the Nam for convoy security. The gun trucks were invented in the RVN by the U.S. Army. -> http://www.vietnam-guntrucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2227ConvoyAmbushVol1Proof141.pdf Some times you would see a M-2 employed on a fire base or base camp perimeter. I've seen them used and most of the time they were fired in the single shot mode as a counter sniper weapon. We had a M-2 in our ANGLICO Plt. at Hoi An, the scuttlebutt was it didn't work and one day it was shipped off to an armor and never saw it again. All of the M-48 tanks had a M-2 but Vietnam wasn't really great tank country but they were able to be used in the northern part of l-Corps. There were a few tank vs. tank battles in I-Corps but these were usually platoon size engagements and were classified until years later, I suppose they didn't want the hippies to know that the NVA had tanks. During the Korean war both the Army and Marines had the quad mounted M-2's, I believe it was the M-45. Four M-2's mounted on a truck. The Army still had the quad mounted M-2's in Vietnam and again they were used for convoy security. But during the battle for Hue the Marines called for some Army quads to be used as a counter sniper weapon firing across the Perfume River at suspected NVA sniper positions. If you left it up the the generals we still might have the water cooled machine guns but it was the grunts who over ruled the brass at Gudalcanal and demanded the air cooled machine guns. Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) wants to lug around gallons of water at 8 pounds per gallon. water cooled machine guns also required usually two extra members of the machine gun team, and you you have to have a water source. Note: below is reference to the .30 cal water cooled MG.
