NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Ma Deuce Goes Back To The Drawing Board

May 19, 2008:  The U.S. Department of Defense has given General Dynamics $9 million to try and develop a lightweight .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine-gun (to be known as LW50MG for the moment) that works. An earlier attempt (the XM312) by General Dynamics did not work out so well.

 

Three years ago, field testing of the XM-312, the proposed replacement for the eighty year old, .50 caliber (12.7mm) M-2 machine-gun, began, in the United States and overseas. Then, nothing. That's because the test results were not encouraging, the biggest shortcoming being the low rate of fire (about 260 rounds per minute). This is about half the rate of the M2, and was believed adequate for the 25mm smart shells the XM312 was originally designed for (as the XM307). But for 12.7mm bullets, it didn't impress the troops. There were some reliability problems, which could be fixed. The rate-of-fire issue, however, has proved to be more difficult. Meanwhile, a new upgrade for the M2 has been fielded, and Ma Deuce still rules the battlefield. The new M2E2 has a quick change barrel, flash hider and lot of small improvements. It is much in demand.

 

Originally, the M2 replacement was going to be the M-307, which was designed so it could fire either the computer controlled 25mm "smart shell" of the XM-25, or (by changing the barrel and receiver), .50 caliber ammo. But it was felt that a straight replacement for the M-2 was needed quickly. The original plan was for the troops to begin getting the XM312 in 2008, or sooner. But the dismal test results produced a trip back to the drawing board.

 

 The M-2, nicknamed "Ma Deuce" by the troops, has been around so long because it was very good at what it does. Accurate, reliable, rugged and easy to use, many of the M-2s currently in use are decades old, and finally wearing out. The army doesn't want to build new ones, and wasn't sure it could do without the venerable, and very useful, M2. So it ended up going ahead with the plan to build a new .50 caliber machine-gun (the XM312). Actually, this Ma Deuce replacement is basically the XM307, but without the ability to fire 25mm rounds. The XM312 weighs 36 pounds (compared to 50 for the M-2), even with the addition of the electronic fire control stuff from the XM307.  The LW50MG will ignore the 25mm business, and probably borrow a lot of ideas from superior 12.7mm designs developed in other nations. That's because the LW50MG won't be the first lightweight rival for the Ma Deuce replacement market. Buying a superior foreign replacement is difficult politically (although it is done), and there is also the feeling that the superior foreign weapons aren't as superior as they could be.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article IRAQ: Iranian Radicals Enraged and Surrounded


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
justbill       5/19/2008 10:04:34 AM
Why do I get the feeling that the U.S. military will still use the M2 in most if not all HMG roles for xx years?
 
What's the big deal about weight? The vast majority of M2's are mounted on vehicles. Even a 50% reduction in weapon weight is inconsequential if you're mounting on a HUMVEE or M1A2.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       5/19/2008 10:57:29 AM
BUT if you can get a .50 caliber weapon that weighs only marginally more than the M-240 you can give light infantry a portable, HMG.
 
Quote    Reply

justbill       5/19/2008 12:52:31 PM

BUT if you can get a .50 caliber weapon that weighs only marginally more than the M-240 you can give light infantry a portable, HMG.


Leg infantry would still need to carry ammo and that can't go on a weight reduction program. .50BMG is a helluva lot heavier than 7.62. There's no way you can make a usable amount man portable.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       5/19/2008 12:58:20 PM
You make a good point, but light infantry go to war carrying 60mm rounds or 81mm rounds, not just those weapon teams, so it becomes a balancing act, doesn't it...2-5Kg. of mortar ammunition or 2-5Kg of 12.7mm ammunition?  But I wouldn't dispute the weight issue...again though if it's not Airborne or Air Assault, but more "leg" light infantry then there is the HMMWV to carry a degree of ammunition and the weapon, but the 12.7mm is still man portable in a much lighter weight package.  Think of it as the water-cooled .30 caliber heavy machine in the Battalion Weapons Company, circa 1930-1953.
 
Quote    Reply

greyghost    they like it   5/19/2008 4:57:58 PM
 The troops in the field like the M2 make a few improvements and put the things into production. Every article about the M2 is how they need a new gun and how much the troops like what they have.
 
Quote    Reply

Gor       5/19/2008 6:52:28 PM
As a helicopter combat aircrew I fly into "Indian territory" with 4 different pindle mounte weapons at various times, the M-60, the M-240, the M-2 and GAU-16, and my favorite (and most versitile) was the Ma Deuce. The only draw-back was if we went down we couldn't have been to take it with us like we can with the 60 or 240, thankfully the bad guys never got lucky and I didn't have to worry about it.
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Age is more than just a number   5/20/2008 12:26:33 AM
As a former grunt, I also have a certain affection for the Ma Duece, but my experiences have also made me cognizant of its shortcomings.  The fact that the M-2 .50 cal dates almost to WWI should not in and of itself be a determining factor as to whether or not the system should be replaced, but you have to take into consideration the technology of that era and how it might apply in the 21st century.  The achilles' heel of the Ma Duece, in my opinion, is the need for manually set headspace and timing.  I've boogered up the skin on my thumbs more than once trying to adjust the timing on an old and stubborn fifty cal.  A tool is provided to assist with setting the headspacing, but like anything else, that tool could be easily lost in a field environment.  Without proper headspace and timing settings the weapon may not work reliably, if it works at all, and on old and overworked guns the metal and internal will become fatigued to the point where the guns can no longer be coaxed into working reliably. 
 
Safety is another issue.  I can only imagine that a lot of modern safety officers have to turn their heads when they watch soldiers perform maintenance on the Ma Duece.  It is highly possible to injure or even kill yourself if you screw up while disassembling the M-2.  You can easily remove the back plate of the weapon while it's cocked and the guide rod is under pressure.  There's not much securing the guide rod to the receiver, and I've heard that if the guide rod jumps loose somehow it has enough pressure to penetrate a cinder block.  No commander wants to tell some mother than her son was killed while cleaning a weapon that was designed before her baby boy's grandfather was born. 
 
A few countries, such as Singapore and Belgium, have redesigned the Ma Duece to deal with the headspace and timing issues, but for some reason the United States didn't adopt these modifications.  Maybe instead of coming up with new weapons, they should give these foreign modifications another look. 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       5/20/2008 1:51:10 AM
Quite right, smitty, there are new tweaks (e.g., M2 CQHB, IIRC) available.  The new ones headspace, as you know better than I.  I tracked this a while back, when the M2 was made by Saco Defense as far as I could tell and I was trying to find an exploded diagram (anybody got one), that numerous advances could be had. 

Any new guns would be better, your discomfort with the wrench was accentuated by the words 'old gun.'  I do not recall new safety features being added but wasn't looking for info on those (I was younger then).  As the .50 sniper rifles are not au courant I suppose there might be recoil buffer tech available that would make a few hundred RPM controllable - perhaps a selective RPM for monuted vs. individual fire

I do think if it was worth schlepping around a BAR or an M60, it would be worth it at times to be able to carry a .50 even if you only had a can or two of ammo.  You just don't piddle it away in brush-cutting if you are legging it.  Disciplined MGers, IIRC, squeeze off only short bursts rather than mad minutes dumping off whole cans downrange.  I would think that recoil reduction might be a key in new designs - one upside to the XM312's low rpm was no doubt controllability.

Looking back, if Private Ryback (sp?) (Ed Burns) in Saving Private Ryan had had a .30 lb 50  cal with even 50 rounds of ammunition, he could have chewed up that machine gun nest from the beach.  (CROWS .50 stations or armored ball turrets on those Higgins boats would have done a lot of damage, I hope all our new landing craft have such).  Then again he could have done the same with a bazooka (DNE?) or perhaps better still a mortar (weight).

Or perhaps a rifle grenade or twelve...then again as Herald would say, there is nothing in the Allied/US/UK tech tree to have stopped us from developing an M79 equivalent during WWII.  Is there?  What a gift that would have been!
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       5/20/2008 2:52:26 AM
I think we can all agree that the M2 is a great weapon in a vehicle mount or defensive emplacement.   However, a light weight design could provide significant advantages in urban warfare, even if it required a 3 man team to haul the weapon, mount, and a reasonable amount of ammunition.
 
In areas such as the middle east where cement,, and brick are the most common building materials most buildings offer a significant degree of protection from 5.56mm and 7.62mm fire, but almost no protection from .50 cal firepower.  A .50 cal capable of be easily moved by infantry to covered positions or roof tops would be useful for taking out enemy blocking positions and sniper suppression.  Vehicle mounted weapons are frequently of limited usefulness in these roles because of the restrictions on movement in a city make them difficult to get into position or to vulnerable to counterattack.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       5/20/2008 9:06:40 AM
Lots of buildings in the Middle East will easily shrug off .50 cal hits.  Or even 25mm cannon fire.
 
If the argument for a light infantry-friendly weapon to chew up strong-pointed opposition in an urban environment, I'd say the AT-4 or Carl Gustav is a much better choice than a .50 cal.
 
A .50 cal that is more easily man-portable (luggable?) into restricted terrain like up the sides of Afghan "hills" would provide some nice longer range direct firepower than just a 7.62x51 machinegun provides, however . . .
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       5/20/2008 10:23:07 AM

Lots of buildings in the Middle East will easily shrug off .50 cal hits.  Or even 25mm cannon fire.

If the argument for a light infantry-friendly weapon to chew up strong-pointed opposition in an urban environment, I'd say the AT-4 or Carl Gustav is a much better choice than a .50 cal.

 A .50 cal that is more easily man-portable (luggable?) into restricted terrain like up the sides of Afghan "hills" would provide some nice longer range direct firepower than just a 7.62x51 machinegun provides, however . . .


Any perception of the fractions of buildings in the Middle East that can shrug off 7.62mm and .50cal?
 
What about the outer walls that seem the alternative to fences over there?
 
And in urban combat, a stair well is restricted terrain.  What advantages would an easily deployed .50cal bring to the fight?
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       5/20/2008 12:02:05 PM
God yes...There was a great TV series running in Britain with a well known soap star doing an embedded reporter style tour with a regiment of British troops. In one scene they were following in after an air strike by AH-64s and the dished impact strikes from 30mm HEDP were visible, having made only a very passing dent in the thick clay walls of the village.

A soldier did turn in passing to the camera and said  "and these things can take out IFV's and tanks..."

I think if it's a case of folks dug into buildings, posting 25mm grenades through windows is a better bet - skip penetration and go for a direct "in your lap" effect.

The "lets replace the fifty" saga goes back *ages* - the Dover Devil rings a bell.



Lots of buildings in the Middle East will easily shrug off .50 cal hits.  Or even 25mm cannon fire.

 

If the argument for a light infantry-friendly weapon to chew up strong-pointed opposition in an urban environment, I'd say the AT-4 or Carl Gustav is a much better choice than a .50 cal.

 

A .50 cal that is more easily man-portable (luggable?) into restricted terrain like up the sides of Afghan "hills" would provide some nice longer range direct firepower than just a 7.62x51 machinegun provides, however . . .



 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       5/22/2008 4:03:18 AM

God yes...There was a great TV series running in Britain with a well known soap star doing an embedded reporter style tour with a regiment of British troops. In one scene they were following in after an air strike by AH-64s and the dished impact strikes from 30mm HEDP were visible, having made only a very passing dent in the thick clay walls of the village.

A soldier did turn in passing to the camera and said  "and these things can take out IFV's and tanks..."

 

The 30mm HEDP is a shaped charge round, which means it detonates before penetrating the surface.  If the reporter checked closely he would find a 10-16cm deep hole in the center of each strike (it is only a couple mm wide).  Besides the shape charge effect the round also produces useful fragmentation for anti-personnel effect (hence the D for dual purpose).

It is the wrong round for knocking down a wall.  The hits there were probably just "unders".

 
Quote    Reply

SAE       5/22/2008 3:11:41 PM
My commanders when I was servicing always said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This issue of replacing the .50 cal sounds like yet another example of where our "best and the brightest" in our political and military have not figured this out yet.  
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       5/22/2008 10:09:40 PM


Any perception of the fractions of buildings in the Middle East that can shrug off 7.62mm and .50cal?

 

What about the outer walls that seem the alternative to fences over there?

 

And in urban combat, a stair well is restricted terrain.  What advantages would an easily deployed .50cal bring to the fight?

No idea on a % breakdown of which buildings/walls in the region will or won't take 50 cal hits, but know that larger shaped charges are considered a much safer bet for engaging buildings.
On the restricted terrain angle, I was mostly thinking of high ground (which could include building tops as well as hill and mountain tops, etc.) and then having a weapon up there that can reach out further than a 7.62x51 or x54 machinegun, and which can also do a better job of chewing up soft-skinned vehicles (trucks, etc).

 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy