1 Man Machine Gun Crew

Ja, spent a year and a half at Graf, back in the 70s. Agree, winter's not much fun. -70F with windchill on range 6 one time.

Did the army ever actually issue out spare barrels to go along with the tripod?
Click to expand...
As far as the M60 machine gun is concerned, no. The spare barrel goes with the gun, not the tripod.

They made a big deal, back in the day, about how good the M60 was, but really, its design is crap. They took good features from several guns, and put them together, poorly. I was a Small Arms repairman, and I know what I'm talking about. Worked on a number of M60s.

From a design standpoint, the M60 quick change barrel was both good, and bad. Flip a locking lever and pull the barrel out, good. Hot barrel with carry handle attached to the gun, not the barrel, bad. Bipod legs on the barrel (meaning every barrel was bulkier, heavier, and more expensive than it had to be) good for the guys selling barrels to the govt, not so good for the troops. Several other features that turned into problems also (which I'll happily discuss if anyone wants to talk machineguns)...

Later revisions of the M60 did take care of some of the problems, but not all of them. The M240 (belgian Mag 58) is a superior weapon mechanically, by a large margin.
 
What I meant was, did they issue a spare barrel for the M60 machine gun the same as they issued a tripod for the machine gun. Lots of light machine guns like the Bren and the Madsen had tripods (sometimes four-legged tripods) but I always wondered how much use they got. Other light machine guns never did. Some armies were slow taking up the "general purpose" machine gun concept.

Referring again to the Germans of WWII, they greatly influenced US Army (and others too, I imagine) doctrine and equipment. The NCO club at Ft. Know has portraits of Patton and Abrams on the wall, to be sure, but they also had more portraits of WWII German generals. Didn't notice any portraits of Fuller or de Gaulle. As you probably know, the M60 machine gun was greatly influenced by WWII German guns, some of which were mildly controversial even in the German Armed Forces.

On the other hand, Japanese experiences on the receiving end of American weapons greatly influenced some of the things they did later on after they rearmed.
 
I can't speak to what the did later, but during the 1970s the M60 was issued with one spare barrel, which came in a soft carry case, along with the asbestos mitt. Tripods were issued for the guns, depending on the particular unit TO&E.

I spent most of my time in maint units, and they had tripods, pintles, and T&E mechanisms for their M60s. However, we didn't use them often. Infantry units I'm sure had tripods and accessories, but probably kept them stored most of the time.'

The M60 was designed by a committee, or at least resulted as if it were. Its best point was its light weight, 23.5lbs, much lighter than previous US machineguns. It made extensive use of stampings (concept copied from the German MG 42), used the feed mechanism copied from the MG42 in the cover, and the gas system, oprod, bolt design from other guns.

Even though the feed system was copied from the MG42, it wasn't used the same way. The belt of the M60 jerks as it feeds, unlike the smooth feed of the German gun. The M60 shakes like crazy when firing, to the point that even though they are held with detents and spring clips, the gas cylinder caps have to be wired in place or they vibrate loose. This also means that if the gun is properly cleaned, the wires have to be cut, and new ones installed when reassembled.

The bipod is on the barrel. The gas clyinder is on the barrel. The carry handle (VERY useful for changing a hot barrel) is NOT on the barrel, its on the gun, meaning an asbestos mitt (or much more often, a field expedient) is needed to protect the hands when changing a hot barrel.

The feed tray is a lightweight stamping and cracks often. The hanger on the feed tray is riveted, and the rivets loosen, I swear, when the sun comes up.

The cam on the bolt body is bad, and chews the hell out of the op rod. There is no secondary sear, so the sear gets worn rapidly, and when worn enough, the gun "runs away". And there are other issues as well.

The M60 is the 2nd worst machine gun, the US has had in the last century, not counting the French Chauchat.

It is amazing what so called experts can do. They took good, reliable working features from several different machineguns, and combined them into a single gun that worked poorly, and damaged itself as it operated.

A great gun if you are selling them to the govt (tons of spare parts needed, and each spare barrel assy cost lots more than just a barrel did), but a poor one for soldiers use in combat.

Simply put the only thing an M60 did better than the Browning gun it replaces was weigh less. There are better designs out there, and thank heavens we are using them today.
 
Given all that, it's amazing the M60 lasted as long as it did, for it's still around. Equally amazing is that it was (mostly) replaced with a gun that was first produced at just about the same time.
 
I recall reading that attempts at copying the MG34 and 42 in the US failed because someone forget to fully modify the German guns for the 30/06, they used correct barrels, but that was all. W.H.B. Smith said it took quite amount of courage on the part of UK Ordnance authories to adopt the Czech designed Bren Gun, and after WWI the M1917 was rejected in favor of the M1903 because the M1917 was NIH. I have seen the camel described as a "horse designed by a committee" except the camel is actually quite functional in its normal environment.
 
Do you men the US Rifle Model 1917 was "not in house." If so, that's funny because the 1903 was not exactly home grown either.

I've also heard the story about the MG42 and the .30-06. The .30-06 is a rather long round. I have not read any stories about the British and their reluctance to adopt a foreign weapon but in the case of the Bren gun, it was modified considerably first. It is even more interesting that they also adopted Besa guns, also Czech, and in the original calibers of 8mm Mauser and 15mm. Since then we have obviously been more willing to use foreign designs not only in small arms but in larger weapons as well.

The Czechs seem to be losing their edge to FN at the moment.
 
The discussion on the M60 Machine gun was interesting and brought back a lot of memories.

Do you remember how the trigger assembly was held on to the gun? That dang leaf spring. I saw it come off during firing several times on the range. During class the instructors always said if it came off, keep the gun pointed down range and let it run out of ammo. A runaway gun was so much fun! :mad:

The new ammo back pack looks like it is a heck-of-an idea. I would love to see it in use and get the opinions of the guys who actually have to use it.
 
Yes, the M60 is still around, in small numbers. And it lasted this long, because in spite of all its faults, it usualy does work, for a while. Our military (and ordnance in particular) has an almost pathalogical reluctance to admit error.

And it is evident in the small things as well as the large ones. So long as a weapon can be made to work, in some fashion, its a rare day when the military brass admits it was a loser. They will spend years and tons of money "improving" it, until/unless something better comes along, AND it is politically approved to purchase it.

The Army would have (and probably should have) done that with the M14, but for the political pressure to replace it with the M16. And they kept improving the M16 (and its ammo) for the last 40 years, despite its early poor performance (caused in large part by the military administration).

Another "success" story is the M73, M73A1, and M219 coax machineguns for the M60 series tank. The M73 was an overly complex mechanism, and didni't work very well. They did a redesign, removed/modded some parts, and managed a slight improvement, resulting in the M73A1. They did it again, and had the same results, in the M219. After over 20 years of trying to get what they wanted out of that series of gun, they finally gave up, and replaced them with the M240 (the Belgian Mag 58).

Another example is the M85 .50 cal cupola gun for the same M60 series tank. A wonder of modern engineering. They kind of worked, most of the time.

What's on top of an Abrams? A Browning designed M2. Coming up on 90 years of that design being in service, and still the best working (if not the most modern) thing we have in its class.

I never heard anything about the 1917 Enfield being dropped because of "not in house" meaning a foreign influenced design. At the end of WWI, we had plenty of rifles, and as a sheer economic measure, Springfields, built at govt arsenals were just...cheaper. And the US govt was all about cutting military costs after the war to end all wars....

Getting back to the ammo backpack for the machinegunner idea, I think its not that good an idea. For one thing, it removes a lot of the versatility of ammo supply, if not done right. And also, along with the 70 some odd pounds of gear our boys are humping already, adding that much more weight to the gunner means he's over burdened, or he has to give up something else for the ammo.
 
Could you elaborate on the political pressure to replace the M14? You also realize that is not the same as saying adopt the M16.
 
The idea behind the backpack is "good initiative, bad judgement." Thats a lot of exposed ammo, and considering that machine guns are usually shot in the prone, I don't much see it working out too well. The time it saves to not reload is lost when 75% of your teams firepower is down because your ammo got dirty and jammed up the gun. Or, you have to refeed it because the ammo binds up and broke links. And anyone that's fired a machine gun knows that a hot gun is a finicky gun. The only way I see this working efficiently is standing post. If that's the case though you could just link a few belts together and let them sit in a box.

Of course I could be wrong about all of this, but I suppose time will tell.
 
Could you elaborate on the political pressure to replace the M14? You also realize that is not the same as saying adopt the M16.
Click to expand...

I think it pretty much was the same thing. The story is out there, in several slightly different versions, some, no doubt being more accurate than others.

The way I was given to understand it, The Air Force (and particularly Gen LeMay) were looking for something to replace the M1 carbine their SPs used. Up to this time, the Air Force had been getting their small arms from the Army, and the Army had told them that there were not going to be any more M1 carbines, and pretty soon, no more carbine parts.

Someone introduced Stoner's little rifle (and presumably Stoner himself) to Gen LeMay, and apparently he thought it was just the thing for his airbase guards.

Not sure just how, or who, but not long after, the MacNamara defense dept (known in the day as the "whiz kids) decided that the AR would be the perfect rifle for ALL military troops, and set out to make that happen.

Now, the Army brass wasn't entirely happy with the M14, mostly because they couldn't make it do what they wanted it to do, replace BOTH the M1 Garand and the BAR satisfactorily. The M14 is a fine rifle, an improved Garand, with the same ballistics and 20 rnds on tap, instead of 8. And a pound lighter, to boot!

But, at the point where the army stopped expirimenting and fixed the design for production, it made a pss poor Automatic rifle/LMG. Having fired the M14 on full auto, I can agree with that (there have been conversions done in the years since, modding the gas system, to lower the cyclic rate - and done by civilians as I recall - resulting in a rifle that is both controllable in full auto and not stressed to the point of cracking receivers). The Army just stopped their research too soon.

Since the "boss" (DOD) was pushing for the AR, and since the M14 (as fielded), while a fine rifle, couldn't manage the full auto fire they felt was a necessity, we got the M16, whether us line troops wanted it or not.

Now, there are a host of things about the M16 and its ammo that the govt did after adoption that went a long way to giving the AR gun the poor rep it got in Vietnam, but that's another story.

Back to the op, I have to agree that the specific feed system used to get the ammo from the backpack to the gun is critical. Troops with two or more brain cells are not going to stand there like Jesse the Body in Predator so their gun feeds. If the ammo delivery system won't work flawlessly in all positions, its worse than useless.

IIRC, one of the members of the usual Wehrmacht MG squad had a backpack type thing that would carry 2 or 3 of the regular ammo cans. That is a more reasonable arraingement to me.

its tempting to give the gunner a lot of ammo all by himself, but I think its poor doctrine to look at the gunner as the whole gun crew. Today LMG are more easily operated by one man than earlier ones, but the fact that they can be should not be taker as the way they ought to be operated. They are a crew served weapon for good, sound reasons, and those reasons have not changed. One man simply cannot do and carry everything needed for best operation of the weapon.

Until we get ammo that weighs nothing, barrels that don't ever everheat, and extra eyes and weapons to protect the gunner while he concentrates on his job, one man MG crew is an emergency option, and while looking heroic in the movies, isn't real good for mission success.
 
Edward C. Ezell has written several books on the M-14, its development and cotroversy vis-a-vis the M-16. IIRC there were some quality control problems with M-14 manufacture, the M-14 did not perform well on full auto ( in an 8.5 pound rifle firing a full power rifle cartridge-well, duh!) and the tests of the M-14 versus the M-16 were too slanted in favor of the M-14.
Theoretically, or "officially" anyone who went through 11B-light weapons infantryman-in the 1960s learned the M-60 machine and could serve as a gunner. I am not sure about WWII or earlier but I suspect the more complex design of the Spandau, the Vickers or the M1917 and M1919 required more extensive training and more specialized crews.
Yes, the M1903 was not exactly a "native" design-nor the Krag. That led to all sorts of controversies which were probably never resolved.
 
By the time I was in the army, infantry squads had a version of the M14 (this was in Germany) with a different stock and other accessories that I think was the M14A1E1 or something close. There had been an M15 version apparently (which is why the next one was the M16, I guess) but apparently it wasn't good enough. Either way, they had high hopes for the M14 when it was adopted, if not exactly realistic ones. Other armies of the day generally adopted fairly similiar rifles, none particularly better than an M14, if you ask me, and some not as good. By then I think the standard would have been a 20-round magazine and not all of them had them. However, that's more a case of a 1945 specification, in a manner of speaking, instead of a 1955 specification, if you follow me. On that point, however, it is interesting to speculate on how the M1 came up with its unique feeding system of an 8-round clip.

I believe the infantryman of WWII may have been expected to know how all of the weapons worked in a rifle platoon, or so my father related. There were Browning light machine guns in a rifle platoon at the time, which operated exactly like the water-cooled heavy (as it was referred to then) .30 caliber machine gun. The Vickers and Maxim machine guns used in other armies (and earlier in our) were at a higher level in the organization, so that was probably different.

Interesting but from what both my father and my son told me, setting the headspace on a machine gun is still something that you have to do.
 
if you follow me. On that point, however, it is interesting to speculate on how the M1 came up with its unique feeding system of an 8-round clip.
Click to expand...

I can't give you a specific source, but its been generally known for decades how the Garand got its feed system. Army Brass.

The original Garand design did include a detatachable box mag, 20rnds IIRC, and was also in the non-standard .276 cartridge.

It was MacAurthur who insisted the gun be redesigned to use the .30-06. A not totally unreasonable expectation, considering the tight military budgets and large amount of .30-06 ammo in govt stocks.

Legend has it (and if someone out there knows the specific details, I'd love to hear them) that it was other members of the brass that rejected the large box magazine idea, claiming it would interfere with soldiers performing the manual of arms and drill with that "big box getting in the way".

Today, it seems incredible that anyone would actually think that way, but back then, a number of influential people apparently did. What makes it even stranger to me is the BAR had a 20 rnd mag. I guess in those days, those officers would tolerate a few "rifles" you couldn't do "proper" drill with, so long as the rest of the troops had one you could do it with. I wonder what they used for justification for machine gunners? OH, wait, they carried pistols, didn't they?

Anyway, when Garand redesigned the rifle into something that the service would finally accept, it had the enbloc clip.

Its tough to look back all those years, and understand the attitudes, because today so many of them seem to make no sense. But remember that there were officers who opposed the repeating rifle, because it would "waste ammunition". And some who opposed the Garand, for precisely the same reason, or a different reason all together. Remember, the Garand wasn't "the greatest battle implement ever designed" when it was being considered for adoption, it was a "new fangled, complicated un-necessary and expensive" rifle with a number of flaws, real or imagined.
Interesting but from what both my father and my son told me, setting the headspace on a machine gun is still something that you have to do.
Click to expand...

It is on the M2 .50 cal. Browning designed it that way, and its still in use. Later designed guns, with more rapidly changed barrels use what is called "fixed headspace", there is no adjustment. The M60 used that design.
 
I too have heard the story of the M-1 was forced to use the en-bloc because the mag would interefere with close order drill, think I read about it in the book "American Rifle".
I just can't get over that...all through basic we just marched about with empty magazine wells in our A2s.

As far as the feed can goes....what boggles me is that in my time down range, the -240 was either mounted on a Humvee, or in a guard tower at the FOB. We never hoofed them outside the wire when we were dismounted.

And everybody carried an extra bag with one of the -249 drums in it as well, generally worn on the back of the MOLLE vest under your hydration pack, so the SAW gunner could easily snag it when we were in the prone position.
 
When thinking or discussing the adoption of a new weapon, at least one of the lowly things like rifles and pistols (let along tanks or artillery), it is hard to put ourselves in both the circumstances and mindset of the times. In the case of MacArthur, a sometimes controversial figure (but no more so than Patton), he was chief of staff during a difficult period and the development and adoption of a new rifle was only one project that was underway. The chief problem was the lack of much of a military budget. The difference between the .30 and the .276 Garand rifle was probably not earth shaking, at least as far as the caliber goes, and guns in both calibers were being experimentally produced at the same time. As far as the kind of feeding system it had, that's a toss up. Some even today claim the clip system used in the M1, which is probably easier to use than a stripper clip, allows for a slightly higher rate of fire than a detachable box magazine. I don't know, having only used the M14.

But the mentality of polished boots and a proper manual of arms, both equally unimportant in the field, is common to a lot of armies. It's no doubt related to the mentality that sees trees and rocks around the barracks as things that needs painting. Likewise, "wasting ammuniton" is a problem that troops have apparently had ever since metallic cartridges were introduced. For a time, rifles even had magazine cutoffs, the cartridges in the magazine being saved for emergencies. Jeff Cooper wanted one on his Scout Rifle, so the idea is not dead (if it didn't die with him).

The en bloc clip is not exactly novel and other rifles (all earlier, I think) had something similiar, although they all worked a little differently, in that the empty clip usually fell out the bottom rather than being ejected out the top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top