Exactly! I wonder if Armchair General has ever even seen an M2 in person, let alone tried to pick one up. We are talking real life, not in movies where Der Governator can pick up a chain gun and fire it from the hip with no problem. Gun with 1 barrel: 84 pounds Spare barrel: 24 Pounds Tripod with T&E: 44 pounds Weight of 1 can (100 rounds) ammunition: 35 pounds So figure that a complete kit (gun, tripod and T&E, spare barrel) with basic combat load (500 rounds) would total around 327 pounds. Now imagine trying to hump that thing around on a combat patrol in the highlands of Vietnam, or the desert of Iraq. Of course, if a certain somebody who claims to know everything had ever served he would be well aware of these basic facts.
I remember reading somewhere that in Korea, Marines and Soldiers often urinated into the water cooling system when their guns ran out of water to cool the barrel. There is a damned good reason why every single country in the world, NATO and Warsaw Pact, abandoned the water cooled guns. But I guess Armchair General does not have a clue what that might be. He must not, since he obviously thinks they should be brought back. I wonder if he thinks we should bring back the Pineapple grenade, the muzzle loader, and the Gama Goat as well.
Just a bullet hole or a grenade or artillery fragment hitting the water jacket and you were going to have a stoppage and you're out of business. In Korea when it's below zero degrees, the water is probably frozen. From what I gather the water cooled M-2 required 20 pounds of water so around 2.4 gallons of water.
Ehm ... sorry, but who all is inside and makes majority of fighters against IS? Muslims! The fighters in Kurdistan are what? Muslims! The fighter pilot burned alive in a cage by IS was what? From Jordan and Muslim!
Where's your evidence that the Kurds have "thousands" or even "hundreds" of working heavy machine guns? Any fool can source photographs of about 10 Kurdish technicals in one place. If photographs like that is all the "evidence" you've got, you've got a cheek claiming the Kurds have got "thousands" or even "hundreds" of heavy machine guns. What evidence there is that the Kurds are woefully short of heavy machine guns and other heavy weapons. Christian Today: Kurds fight ISIS with outdated arms while foes have modern US, Russian weapons Published 18 June 2015 Kurdish forces are asking the US-led coalition for new and better weapons as they are fighting the Islamic State on the front line using only their ingenuity and relying mainly on weapons at least three decades-old. The Peshmerga—who have given ISIS their worst defeat ever in Syria by taking Tel Abyad at the Turkish border—are using mostly aging munitions from the Iran-Iraq war 30 years ago. ISIS militants, on the other hand, use US weaponry seized from defeated Iraqi forces. "The weapons of [ISIS] are 10 times that of the Peshmerga, said Maj. Gen. Sirwan Barzani, a Kurdish commander. "What America has given to Iraq in the past, what Iraq borrowed from Russia and US, ISIS has," said another commander, Kemal Kerkuki. "They are using many, many mines, C4, TNT, snipers, mortars; they have Humvees, they have tanks, they have different kinds of weapons." Barzani pleaded for Western countries to equip them with good weaponry as it is they who are battling the ISIS face-to-face. "We ask all the Canadians, and the Americans and the whole coalition and NATO, please send good weapons to us to fight against this biggest terrorist group in the world," said Barzani. "We are fighting for all the world, for all civilisation," he said. Improvisation is the other weapon being used by the semi-autonomous Kurds, who won a string of victories against ISIS despite being prohibited by the Iraqi government from acquiring weapons for fear that directly equipping them will boost their separatist movement. Lacking an anti-mine vehicle to enable Kurdish forces to enter ISIS-controlled areas, Barzani had a tank seized from the extremist group redesigned to detonate improvised explosive devices as it passes through mined areas. Such a vehicle is crucial in making lands retaken from ISIS safe again for the residents. Falah Mustafa, Iraqi Kurdistan's foreign minister, said they need more than British admiration for their efforts against ISIS to actually defeat the extremist group. "American, British and other airstrikes have been vital. But we urgently need much more than the 40 heavy machine guns supplied so far by the British. We need tanks, armoured cars and heavy artillery and guns to defend ourselves and work with the Iraqi army to dislodge ISIS," he wrote in The Guardian in March. "We Kurds are fighting the barbarians of ISIS every single day, for our interests and those of the free world. We share a 650-mile border with ISIS militants, and a thousand of our Peshmerga fighters have paid the ultimate price. Almost 5,000 have been injured, some very seriously," Mustafa said. "We are not asking for foreign combat troops. We will provide the boots on the ground. We are already doing most of the fighting, while the Iraqi army does the rest. But Baghdad is getting most of the foreign military supplies and we are getting the smaller portion. This cannot go on." Now if you can provide me with solid evidence and not just a hunch that the Kurds have in their possession today, say 200, heavy machine guns in good working order then I will subtract 200 from my request total leaving 4,800 - 200 = 4,600. But as of now, I don't even have evidence indicating that Kurds have even 200 heavy machine guns. I will be fair, whatever there is proof that the Kurds have in heavy machine guns, that are working, I will subtract that number from my request.
It always gives me chuckles. Mushroom making mistakes while keeping his expert's mask on and then calling people "armchair generals". Both Kord and DShK are 12,7x108 (.50 cal). It is not that I support the ridiculous idea of making a fortified WW1-style defencife line, however.
It was primarily in the Korean Conflict but also early in the Vietnam conflict when U.S. Marines and Army Air Cavalry that they had to urinate on their Mortars and Guns. Both of my Great Uncles were in Korea and they told me stories of how they had to use their water and then urinate on their weapons to cool them down so in a Mortars case they did not blow up and in the case of .50 Cal.s did not seize as the Red Chinese poured over the boarder and we cut them down by the thousands. So many Red Chinese dies that they had to charge into overlapping fields of U.S. Weapons Fire over the bodies of their own dead which according to my Uncles were up to 10 feet high along the lines. AboveAlpha
Ehm ... water cooled or not, no idea. But the father of a kid in the soccer team where I'm trainer has close contacts to Peshmerga and being Kurd (form Iran). He told me in a discussion that some Peshmerga units are still using Old Vickers Machine guns too ... but I can't say if it is true or not. I will only give this as information
Saddam's Iraq had started 2 wars, against Iran and Kuwait and had used chemical weapons on people inside Iraq, had a thriving missile programme, had an impenetrable police state so it was impossible to know for sure what else he was up to in terms of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's Iraq was an extreme threat which necessitated regime-change. So to speak, Saddam's Iraq was still on fire, despite hoses having been applied from the outside of the building, smouldering embers remained inside, requiring the fire-brigade to execute a forced-entry. What is there in Iraq now is of a lesser threat to us than Saddam's rule, however it is important to understand that the so-called "Islamic State" / ISIS / ISIL / Da'esh threat is not localised to Iraq and Syria only. ISIS is a manifestation of state sponsors of terrorism such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and therefore the entirety of the ISIS-related threat is far bigger than Saddam and Assad. Extinguishing the ISIS fire from Iraq and Syria, while important to do, would not stop Saudi Arabia and Pakistan sponsoring other proxy terrorists of theirs committing other acts of terrorism all around the world. Well a "civil war" that is being stoked up by outside powers, like Saudi Arabia stoking up Sunni terrorism, Iran stoking up Shia terrorism ... and the Pakistani military intelligence service, the ISI, stoking up Taliban terrorism. There were and are other ways to fight a war, to command a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan which would minimise the exposure of our troops to risk of casualties. In the Iraq and Afghanistan missions, our political leaders and military commanders denied, still deny, that we were and are still effectively at war with state sponsors of terrorism and, in denial, exposed our troops to enemy fire and road-side bombs by deploying troops in an exposed policing role when there was, and is, no peace to police.
What about payback for the first 9/11? We should pay-back for the first 9/11, since if we punish those responsible for the first 9/11, that will deter them doing a second 9/11, maybe next time with a nuclear weapon, a nuke-9/11. We've let the Pakistani military and Saudi regime off with their part in sponsoring the first 9/11. The US has paid the state sponsors of terrorism billions of dollars since their part in the first 9/11 Pakistani military getting 20+ billions of US taxpayer dollars in aid Saudi Arabia collecting 100s of billions of dollars in tax revenues from $ trillion plus of US business dollars in the oil trade So sadly, by turning a blind eye to the state-sponsors of terrorism and paying them $ billions regardless, the US and allies have given those states no discouragement from sponsoring terrorism. Sorry but you are wrong. Wikipedia is fairly reliable. Not perfect but not bad.
What payback for 9-11? The people who planned and conducted that are all either dead or in custody. And it was in another country across the continent from Iraq. ISIS is not al-Qaeda. Before his death, even Osama bin Laden was complaining on how the group he founded had become little more then a generic name that terror groups all over the country had adopted as their own. Not unlike the hundreds of "Palistinian Liberation" groups that sprang up in the 1970's and 1980's. And since I now really can't believe you are even an American, why are you acting like a pro-American troll?
Actually, the supply of Carl Gustaf M3 MAAWS looks to be a lot better than "40". OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE - DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2015 BUDGET AMENDMENT Justification for FY 2015 - Overseas Contingency Operations - Iraq Train and Equip Fund (ITEF) Page 7 M2 .50 Cal, Quantity 87, Unit Cost $8,493, FY 2015 $738,891 M3 Carl Gustaf. Quantity 426, Unit Cost $20,000, FY 2015 $8,520,000 So at $20,000 for a unit presumably that's the cost of the launcher and a number of missiles too, or would that be just the cost of the launcher and no missiles, in which case, what use are launchers with no missiles? [video=youtube;0XyDbQ9rRB8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XyDbQ9rRB8[/video] Wikipedia - Carl Gustav recoilless rifle Maximum range 150 metres against tanks 700 metres against stationary targets Viable anti-armor weapon, especially against 1950s- and '60s-era tanks I'm not sure what kind of Carl Gustaf missiles they are getting, because there are a number of different versions? FFV551 is the primary HEAT round and is a rocket-assisted projectile (RAP). Effective range is up to 700 m (400 m against moving targets) and penetration up to 400 mm of RHA. Ammunition weight is 3.2 kg and muzzle velocity is 255 m/s.[10] I think the figures you gave for Panzerfaust 3s and MILANs from the Germans are about right. So it looks like what is promised is further on the way to meeting my request, at least as far as anti-tank, anti-armour weapons, of the equivalent fire power from 12,000 AT-4s and 600 BGM-71 TOWs than that report from Huffington Post I quoted. The BGM-71 TOWs, as a wire-guided missile has a much further range (4,500 metres) than the Carl Gustaf M3 and Panzerfaust 3 - and it is the longer range of the MILAN, also wire-guided, which I think makes the MILAN so liked by the Kurds. The BGM-71 TOW missiles also have a wider range of penetrations, from 430 mm up to 900 mm depending on which missile. So there is still a case for a shipment of BGM-71 TOWs from the US as well as what has been so generously given. Thanks to Defense Secretary Ash Carter for what he has delivered already and I'd like to encourage him to keep accelerating delivery of heavy weapons to the Kurds according to the President's order.
(The M114 is a Vietnam era armoured fighting vehicle, so I'm not sure why you included that AFV in your discussion of 155mm howitzers - self-propelled M109 (Unit cost in FY 1998 $1.624 million) and field gun M198 (unit cost US $527,337)? Unfortunately, defenders on the Kurdish front line don't get to tell ISIS not to charge their front lines with suicide-bomber driver armoured vehicles and trucks (Vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive Devices - VBIEDS) and possibly support those suicide attacks with tanks. If the coalition air-forces can spot ISIS tanks or armoured vehicles anywhere in time they will try to take them out from the air presumably. But ISIS have their armour hidden in cities, like Mosul, where they looted them from the first place, hidden under bridges, inside garages, etc The ISIS armour won't pop out until they are going into action. When the ISIS armour pops out, going on the offense against Kurdish front lines, ISIS will choose a time to attack when there is no air-power about. So probably the time the ISIS armour could be seen by a Kurdish spotter who has infiltrated the city will be when the ISIS armour is on the move and on the attack - the ISIS armour will be moving all the way to the front line which may only be a few miles since Kurdish lines now surround Mosul, so will not be vulnerable to indirect fire - by the time the spotter gives the position of a moving target and the indirect fire is fired, the ISIS armour will have moved. So no, the only time your proposed 155mm howitzers would be sure to engage the ISIS enemy would be on the Kurdish front lines when they turn up for a VBIED attack. Now certainly, a 155mm howitzer can engage an enemy in direct fire and one 155mm howitzer can stop at most 3 to 4 per minute ISIS armoured vehicles advancing at the front line. I would point out that for the 155mm field gun aiming at a moving target in direct-fire mode is no easy task! I presume the self-propelled gun, the M109, has powered-aiming? In which case, OK, hitting a moving target from inside a M109 should be able to be done no problem. Now for the same money, even "surplus" and second hand, discounted down to 25% - say $400,000 for a 109 and $135,000 for a M198 - a real bargain - you've still got much less direct-fire power to stop ISIS armour then if you spend the same money on BGM-71 TOWs or MILANs. ANTI-TANK MISSILES (including prices) TOW-2 PRICES (Launcher) $3960; (TOW-2 Missile) $427, (TOW-2A Missile) $481, (TOW-2B Missile) $922, (TOW-2C Missile) $770, (TOW-BLAAM Missile) $1319.I've no idea if that source's prices are correct - I have read much higher figures quoted for BGM-71 TOW costs elsewhere. So for $135,000 - the 25% cost of a M198 155m howitzer field gun, you could buy 17 BGM-71 TOW launchers and 87 TOW-2C (900mm penetration) missiles and assuming the Kurds operating them could also fire at 3 missiles per minute in that one minute they could fire 17 x 3 = 51 shots, stopping 51 ISIS armoured vehicles, which is 51/4 = 12 to 51/3 = 17 times more stopping power than 155mm howitzers, on the front-line, for the same money! So for $400,000 - the 25% cost of a M109 155m self-propelled howitzer, you could buy 50 BGM-71 TOW launchers and 259 TOW-2C (900mm penetration) missiles and assuming the Kurds operating them could also fire at 3 missiles per minute in that one minute they could fire 50 x 3 = 150 shots, stopping 150 ISIS armoured vehicles, which is 150/4 = 37 to 150/3 = 50 times more stopping power than 155mm self-propelled howitzers, on the front-line, for the same money! So on the front lines, wire-guided missiles offer more stopping power for the dollar, more bang for the buck! Now, I appreciate that 155mm howitzers can do other things, can devastate fixed targets at a huge distance. Of course they can and probably when the Kurds go on the offensive they are going to need some howitzers to attack ISIS bases, but for right now, when they are defending on the front lines, if those really are the prices of BGM-71 TOWs, then it has to be either BGM-7 TOWs or MILANs or some other wire-guided missile.
This is the problem in trying to have a discussion with somebody that does not have a clue as to which they are talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M114_155_mm_howitzer Guess what? Quite often military equipment all share common numerical nomenclatures. Like the M-1 Rifle and the M-1 Tank. You juts comitted that kind of boner right there, because you do not know or understand the equipment. Just as you apparently failed to comprehend that I suggested pairing up these systems with the M712 Copperhead missile. Yes, missile. It is fired by a cannon, then is guided by a LASER designator to strike whatever it is aimed at with pin-point accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead Why don't you just give up? With this latest claim that I was trying to include the amphibious scout car in a list of cannons is simply asinine.
Well you wouldn't have to change a barrel with a water-cooled gun. Just sayin' Takes about half the time, for an expert. 35 seconds for the QCB M2 instead of 71 seconds for the older M2. [video=youtube;yOI-ewSLie0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOI-ewSLie0[/video] So if the Kurds are supplied with only QCB M2 that'll be less training required.
I'm hanging the political decision to pull out of Iraq on President Obama. But I'm hanging the failure to confront the state sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia and Iran - before then on both presidents, Obama and Bush - and in particular the CIA, military top brass and military intelligence - who always seemed to turn a blind eye to who it was who was sponsoring all that terrorism. The top brass and intelligence services let our soldiers down by asking them to police a peace when there was no peace to police, because Saudi Arabia and Iran were still at war with our soldiers in Iraq! They still like to hush these facts up, deny them. Why? It's dishonest. Just admit it. Until we do admit the likes of the Saudis are sponsoring ISIS we are not going to solve the ISIS problem, just sweep it under the carpet until the next time the Saudis want to start up another terrorist group. The Taliban are sponsored by the Pakistani military army high command and the military intelligence agency, the ISI. Pakistan - Inter-Services Intelligence By country - Afghanistan 2010 A new report by the London School of Economics (LSE) claimed to provide the most concrete evidence yet that the ISI is providing funding, training and sanctuary to the Taliban insurgency on a scale much larger than previously thought. The report's author Matt Waldman spoke to nine Taliban field commanders in Afghanistan and concluded that Pakistan's relationship with the insurgents ran far deeper than previously realised. Some of those interviewed suggested that the organization even attended meetings of the Taliban's supreme council, the Quetta Shura.[29][30][31] A spokesman for the Pakistani military dismissed the report, describing it as "malicious".[32][33][34] General David Petraeus, commander of the US Central Command, refused to endorse this report in US congressional hearing and suggested that any contacts between ISI and extremists are for legitimate intelligence purposes, in his words "you have to have contact with bad guys to get intelligence on bad guys". Allegations of support for terrorism The ISI has long been accused of using designated terrorist groups and militants to conduct proxy wars against its neighbors.[101][102][103] According to Grant Holt and David H. Gray "The agency specializes in utilizing terrorist organizations as proxies for Pakistani foreign policy, covert action abroad, and controlling domestic politics."[104] James Forest says there has been increasing proof from counter-terrorism organizations that militants and the Taliban continue to receive assistance from the ISI, as well as the establishment of camps to train terrorists on Pakistani territory.[105] All external operations are carried out under the supervision of the S Wing of the ISI.[106] The agency is divided into Eight divisions.[107] Joint Intelligence/North(JIN) is responsible for conducting operations in Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan.[108] The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau(JSIB) provide support with communications to groups in Kashmir.[108] According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, both former members of the National Security Council, the ISI acted as a "kind of terrorist conveyor belt" radicalizing young men in the Madrassas in Pakistan and delivering them to training camps affiliated with or run by Al-Qaeda and from there moving them into Jammu and Kashmir to launch attacks.[109] Support for militants From the 1990s, the ISI began to court the Jihadists who had emerged from the conflict against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and by 2000 the majority of militant groups operating in Kashmir were either based in Pakistan or were pro Pakistan. These groups are used to conduct a low intensity conflict against India.[110] According to Stephen P. Cohen and Wilson John, the ISI's aid to and creation of designated terrorist groups and religious extremist groups is well documented.[111][112] The ISI have been accused of having close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.[113] The ISI have also given aid to Hizbul Mujahideen.[114] Terrorism expert Gus Martin has said the ISI has a long history of supporting designated terrorist groups and pro Independence groups operating in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.[100][115] The ISI also helped with the founding of the group Jaish-e-Mohammed.[116] ... Al-Qaeda Main articles: Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–92) and Soviet–Afghan War The ISI supported Al-Qaeda during the war along with CIA against the soviet regime, through the Taliban, and it is believed by some that there are still contact between Al-Qaeda and the ISI.[121] An assessment by British Intelligence in 2000 into Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan showed the ISI were playing an active role in some of them.[122] The leak in 2012 of e-mails from Stratfor claimed that papers captured during the raid in Abbotabad on Osama Bin Laden's compound showed up to 12 ISI officials knew where he was and that Bin Laden had been in regular contact with the ISI.[123] Drugs trade Joint Intelligence/North(JIN) are responsible for the control of the heroin trade used to finance ISI operations. They have control over opium production and refining and also control all smuggling operations between Afghanistan and Pakistan.[124] They also control the Army of Islam which consists of Al Qaeda, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Al-Badr and Jaish-e-Mohammed[125] ... Haqqani network The ISI have close links to the Haqqani network[128] and contribute heavily to their funding.[129] It is widely believed the suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul was planned with the help of the ISI[130] A report in 2008 from the Director of National Intelligence stated that the ISI provides intelligence and funding to help with attacks against the International Security Assistance Force, the Afghan government and Indian targets.[131] However, on 5 November 2014, Lt. Gen. Joseph Anderson, a senior commander for US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, said in a Pentagon-hosted video briefing from Afghanistan that the Haqqani network is now "fractured" like the Taliban. "They are fractured. They are fractured like the Taliban is. That's based pretty much on the Pakistan's operations in North Waziristan this entire summer-fall," he said, acknowledging the effectiveness of Pakistan's military offensive in North Waziristan. "That has very much disrupted their efforts in Afghanistan and has caused them to be less effective in terms of their ability to pull off an attack in Kabul," Anderson added.[132]
The BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN" (2 hours) - how Pakistan support Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, 9/11 and the Taliban Part 1 - Double Cross [video=vimeo;67973006]https://vimeo.com/67973006[/video] Part 2 - Backlash [video=vimeo;67972817]https://vimeo.com/67972817[/video]
What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden New York Times Magazine By CARLOTTA GALL - March 19, 2014 "Soon after the Navy SEAL raid on Bin Laden’s house, a Pakistani official told me that the United States had direct evidence that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad. Wikipedia - Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha (Urdu: احمد شجاع پاشا‎, HI(M) (born 18 March 1952) was the Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's main intelligence service, from October 2008 until March 2012 The information came from a senior United States official, and I guessed that the Americans had intercepted a phone call of Pasha’s or one about him in the days after the raid. “He knew of Osama’s whereabouts, yes,” the Pakistani official told me. The official was surprised to learn this and said the Americans were even more so. Pasha had been an energetic opponent of the Taliban and an open and cooperative counterpart for the Americans at the ISI. “Pasha was always their blue-eyed boy,” the official said. But in the weeks and months after the raid, Pasha and the ISI press office strenuously denied that they had any knowledge of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad. Colleagues at The Times began questioning officials in Washington about which high-ranking officials in Pakistan might also have been aware of Bin Laden’s whereabouts, but everyone suddenly clammed up. It was as if a decision had been made to contain the damage to the relationship between the two governments. “There’s no smoking gun,” officials in the Obama administration began to say. The haul of handwritten notes, letters, computer files and other information collected from Bin Laden’s house during the raid suggested otherwise, however. It revealed regular correspondence between Bin Laden and a string of militant leaders who must have known he was living in Pakistan, including Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a pro-Kashmiri group that has also been active in Afghanistan, and Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Saeed and Omar are two of the ISI’s most important and loyal militant leaders. Both are protected by the agency. Both cooperate closely with it, restraining their followers from attacking the Pakistani state and coordinating with Pakistan’s greater strategic plans. Any correspondence the two men had with Bin Laden would probably have been known to their ISI handlers. ... According to one inside source, the ISI actually ran a special desk assigned to handle Bin Laden. It was operated independently, led by an officer who made his own decisions and did not report to a superior. He handled only one person: Bin Laden. I was sitting at an outdoor cafe when I learned this, and I remember gasping, though quietly so as not to draw attention. (Two former senior American officials later told me that the information was consistent with their own conclusions.) This was what Afghans knew, and Taliban fighters had told me, but finally someone on the inside was admitting it. The desk was wholly deniable by virtually everyone at the ISI — such is how supersecret intelligence units operate — but the top military bosses knew about it, I was told. America’s failure to fully understand and actively confront Pakistan on its support and export of terrorism is one of the primary reasons President Karzai has become so disillusioned with the United States. As American and NATO troops prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of this year, the Pakistani military and its Taliban proxy forces lie in wait, as much a threat as any that existed in 2001. $20 billion dollars Pakistan took from the US in aid since 9/11.
What I observed from the video, with the QCB the bolt head still has to be gauged. Bummer, the original problem with the M-2 hasn't been solved. Re: Less training required. There's never enough training.
But if you run out of water, you can't fire the water jacketed gun at all. If any nearby shrapnel or rounds strike the water jacket, water hose or water can/condensor, you are now out of action. Yet other issues with water cooling. They are really only effective in a select temperature range, between 40 and 100 degrees F. Lower then that, then freezing in the jacket, hose and jacket becomes a real issue. Also then they get hot they start to emit steam, which can give away the location of the weapon. Over 100F and the loss of water means that the assistant gunners have to constantly replenish the cooling fluid at an ever increasing rate. Fire an air cooled machine gun to much, and the most you loose is the barrel (and you still have a spare, toss the warped one and put in the replacement or even grab a replacement from another M2). Run out of water in a water cooled gun, and you have just ruined the gun. You now have something as useful in combat as a chock block. Funny how you keep suggesting the perfect weapon is one that the militaries of the world all discarded over 50 years ago. I have yet to see an M-2 QCB. All 3 of my last units are still using the old school threaded barrels. And here is somebody suggesting that we send huge numbers of them overseas, when not even all of our current forces have them issued yet. As for the video, notice that the headspace and timing were dead on both times. No adjustments apparently needed. Also, that was a pretty cool gun, only a few rounds fired through it before changing. It is a much different story when the barrel is actually starting to glow hot and the reciever would almost boil water if it is poored onto it.
I think there's an unwritten rule that the United States only sends it's military to war where it's over 100 degrees F. with 90% humidity like a steam bath, or over 100 degrees with 5% humidity like a freaking oven or below zero degrees F. with a lot of ice. Lots of rain and mud is a bonus. Otherwise we wont fight in any other clime and place.
I've read that the QCB for the M-2 are just being evaluated, will they be adopted ? How often does a M-2 barrel has to be changed in combat ? Unless your using the M-2 as a general purpose macinegun laying down suppressive you wouldn't be firing that many rounds. The M-2 was never intended to be a GPMG for the infantry. The M-2 also fires from a closed bolt. Firing from a closed bolt has the advantage of keeping dust, sand, etc. out of the receiver that would likely result in a stoppage but the disadvantage is a cook off round in the chamber. Mushroom, you ever seen a cook off round with a M-2 that got to hot ? I've probably never fired more than 20 rounds with a M-2 during my short career in the Corps. Maybe a 4 or 5 round burst at ITR then three 5 round burst while going through a M-2 familiarization course. What's the SOP for the M-2 HMG, five round burst ? 10 round burst ? I forget.
Not at all. Keyboard warriors and armchair generals are not on the front lines and we are not crap, right guys? What I went on to say was this and what's "crap" to my mind is top brass, defense secretaries and commanders in chief, ignoring the intelligence officers who are telling them - "Hold on a minute there General, Mr President, Sir, there's no peace for our military to police! We are at war, so admit it! Pakistan / Saudi Arabia / Iran etc are at war with us using proxy terrorists! So don't send our guys out there on a fool's peace mission to be killed when we are war! What are we going to do about the enemies Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran sending terrorists to kill our soldiers with road-side bombs and terrorist ambushes!!!!!" (Steamed up intelligence officer getting ignored by the top brass) That's what's crap. Our leaders were told that it was not over. It wasn't just Saddam and it wasn't just Bin Laden, that we had bigger enemies than that who were fighting us. What did the top brass, the C-in-Cs do? Nothing - they just let our guys get killed and injured. That's "crap" in my book. Well I do too, especially this lady. Swearing in ceremony for Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, 2005. No, what I was meaning was, with the Kurds, they have lightly armed, not very experienced militias, citizen soldiers some of them. So we should be thinking of arming them with weapons that they can use with just a few days training. It's a question of how many M2s, or equivalent heavy machine guns are appropriate for an army of a certain size or for a front-line of a certain length. Now what was it you said, the US Marines have maybe about "1,000 M2s" in total, out of a force of about 194,000 and 40,000 reserve makes a total of 234,000 US Marines full time + reserve? And you say only "1,000 M2s" between the lot of you? Seems far too little. For example, WW2 had 16,000,000 Americans who served in the US Armed Forces and 2,000,000 M2s between them - that's one M2 for every 8 serving in the US Armed Forces. Now, if the M2s were as widely used today as they were in WW2, there would be about 1 M2 per 8 US Marines, today, as it was back then. So we'd be talking about 234,000 / 8 = 29,250 M2s. or nearly 30 times more M2s than I think it was you said the US Marines had. If the Kurds have a force of 80,000 fighters then 1 M2 per 8 fighters would be 10,000 M2s. Now, I've not asked for 10,000 M2s for the Kurds. I've asked for 4,800 minus whatever number of heavy machine guns they have got working, but as you pointed out, most of their older guns will not be working now. But I am just wondering, and this is just a hunch, not making too much out of it but it just looks to me like, just maybe, lots and lots of M2s really were essential to winning WW2 but after WW2 the top brass said - "M2s? Oh, we don't need so many of those old M2s now, do we?" So then they stopped making so many M2s in the numbers required even for a peace time army, which to my mind is still 1 M2 per 8 soldiers or marines or whoever. Then came Korea and Vietnam and those were very tough fights. Tougher than they should have been. Co-incidence? Or was it because the top brass didn't place the orders to pack all the M2s that were needed? Look even if you don't buy that theory, I still think that the M2, or any heavy machine gun, is a good weapon for the Kurds on the front-lines so let's send them thousands more, OK?
The ISIS is something the Arab's and Persian's need to deal with. We can help with with airstrikes but the ISIS is not something the U.S. Military needs to send Ground Forces in to deal with. Their numbers are small and they are thinly spread out throughout the Middle East. AboveAlpha
I see you are a big fan of Condoleezza Rice. I highly respect Condoleezza Rice, she's one of America's top experts on the old Soviet Union and Russia. She served under Reagan, G.H. Bush and G.W. Bush. What I'm asking do you know if there's a site on the internet where all of Condoleezza Rice's papers she has written over the yeas can be viewed ? If there is, I haven't found it. A few years ago I read a paper written by Rice where she compares what Obama has been doing to our military as comparable to what Joseph Stalin did to the Soviet military during the 1930's. Changing the face of the military, it's culture, customs, traditions, purging of officers, political officers, etc. It would be a good link to source to if it were on the internet.
