"Why Troops Absolutely Love The .50 Cal Machine Gun" Topic

My youngest daughter served as a gunner on MRAPs in Afghanistan and has "Ma Duece" tattooed on her left shoulder blade. On her right thigh she has a tattoo of a garter belt made from linked .50 cal ammo. I'm not a fan of tattoos but I'm a fan of all my kids and she loves the Ma Duece.

I regret that I never got to fire this weapon during my (brief) military career.

It is noteworthy though, that if you look at MoH citations for our past decade of low-intensity warfare, how many of the heroes cited were firing an M2 against hordes of bad guys.

(Caught some Rat Patrol episodes lately. Heck, the .50 cals on those jeeps were even taking out German tanks!)

A gun that's been largely unchanged in military service for about 100 years must be doing something great.

Because they WORK. Happy time behind a .50 with 850 rds of APIT and hard targets (easy 15-25 round "bursts")

What is not to love ? Ma Deuce will chew thru cinder blocks and who or whatever is behind it ! Had 15 in my Mech Co. '87-'89, one on each track and another on the Company Deuce & 1/2 Cargo Truck.

(Caught some Rat Patrol episodes lately. Heck, the .50 cals on those jeeps were even taking out German tanks!)

We were trained to fire at USSR BMPs and BTRs, etc., the M2 .50cal would punch thru most of their armor. Especially flank and rear.

Private Matter … My youngest daughter served as a gunner on MRAPs …

Your daughter sounds like a real trooper ! I salute her !

The simplest explanation is that it punches well above its weigh and jams/misfires are rare.

In the most recent Rambo movie Stallone used it to good effect against SE Asian bad guys. They were shredded into so many tiny bloody strips of ribbon they literally misted. Thanks to the wonders of CGI realism the horrors of war are no longer sanitized and sugarcoated.

"Made great tank busters as well in the P-51s"

the P-47 had 8 of them
33% more than the P-51

YouTube link

my dad flew them in Burma

As a US Armored Cavalry platoon leader, I had 10 vehicles (3 x M551, 4 x M113s for cmd-scouts and infantry, 2 x Tow M113 variant, a M113 m4.2 mortar variant)
So I had 10 50 cals in my unit. When you did range cards for firing lanes, they were the first thing you plugged into it.
I participated in an experiment to see how many belts/ rounds a barrel would fire before it melted. Now that was fun.

Rudy, who can count that high?

There's nothing like being able to shoot a bad guy BEHIND a brick wall!

Back in the late 70's I was a young Special Forces trooper. I can not say what part of the world I was stationed, but I can say I got to fire a M2 with a 18 inch long sonic surpesser on it at night and the baddies down range did not know what was hitting them. I always wondered why you never hear about those surpessers any more?

BTW, I wish the M2's in my day had the quick change barrels that the ones now a days have. I used to hate those gloves to change a hot barrel, but after 200 to 250 rounds the barrels would glow and sag a little. As any gunner will tell you that is where the term the "Whole nine yards" came from for a .50 cal belt is nine yards long.

Some years ago I stood right next to an M16 Halftrack firing all four. It was an awesome sound of the kind a god of war would make …

I read somewhere that the .50 cal was considered heavy ordinance and as such could not technically be used on human beings per the Geneva Conventions. So whenever soldiers had to open up with the .50, they simply reported that they were targeting guns, bandoliers, radios, trench tools and other hardware that, incidentally, was hanging from a human being.

I read somewhere recently that during the Korean War soldiers discovered that they could use the M2 as a 'sniper' role, taking single aimed shots at very long range… if true, it really underlines the versatility of the weapon – everything from anti-air, to light anti-vehicle, to sniping and all for one low price!

When I was a cadet at Ft Lewis, WA in '78. The 9ID still had Quad .50s mounted on trailers or Deuce & 1/2s (?) We heard in Vietnam, that the Quad .50s could fire indirect. The VC/NVA called them "Whispering Death". As the burst of rounds would cut thru the air in a low "whisper" just before they hit. Now I can't confirm this but that was the info we were told. But with the M2's long range, etc., I could see this … @ PatrickWR, I heard the same about the .50 and the Geneva Convention. You could only shoot at equipment … like helmets, canteens, etc. … A bit out of touch with reality, IMO, like some other "rules". As your getting attacked by waves of the enemy you can't shoot one of your most powerful weapons. I'm pretty sure I knew no one who would have given the order NOT to fire your .50s … But again, helmets, pistol belts, ammo pouches, etc. are equipment …

'I read somewhere…'
Its an internet rumour/meme/bit of propaganda that the .50 cal can't be used against personnel because of the GC – utter rubbish of course. Calibre isn't a determinant of legality or otherwise in the GC (some ammunition is deemed not for use in military conflicts).

There may have been local ROE in Vietnam (wasn't there I'm pleased to say so I couldn't tell you) but it isn't banned against people under the Convention.

<"Made great tank busters as well in the P-51s"
the P-47 had 8 of them-- 33% more than the P-51>

In the film "Red Tails", a P-51 strafes a German destroyer with its 6 .50 cals. The destroyer blows up and sinks. Good enough fer me.
(I actually heard about this exploit from one of the Tuskeegee Airmen at a MAAM Reading airshow several years prior to seeing it portrayed on film. Gave me a special feeling to be a step closer to history.)

<Its an internet rumour/meme/bit of propaganda that the .50 cal can't be used against personnel because of the GC – utter rubbish of course. Calibre isn't a determinant of legality or otherwise in the GC (some ammunition is deemed not for use in military conflicts).

There may have been local ROE in Vietnam (wasn't there I'm pleased to say grin so I couldn't tell you) but it isn't banned against people under the Convention.>

Have they rescinded the Pope's ban on crossbows yet? ;^Þ~~~~

I can truely say, in any training I had as a Grunt in my distant past. No one told me we were not allowed to shoot .50s at personnel. And I as said, no one would have followed that particular "ROE" anyway. And of course never heard of that ROE in Vietnam either. Plus as far as I know the Pope has not said anything about .50 cals or crossbows lately either …

Plus as far as I know the Pope has not said anything about .50 cals or crossbows lately either … wink

Shhh! Let's not remind him!

Calibre isn't a determinant of legality or otherwise in the GC (some ammunition is deemed not for use in military conflicts).

As far as I know, Geneva Convention does not deal with legality of ammunition at all:

link

Hague Conventions however give restrictions for some kinds of weapons, such as dum-dum bullets, chemical and biological weapons, but nothing to do with calibre as far as I know.

__________________________________________________________

There are a lot of combat vehicles that mount both .50 and .30 cal MGs, starting from the humble M1 combat car in the 30s. Officers responsible for logistics probably would have preferred for the crews in those cases to use the .30 cal against enemy infantry (since the rounds for it are cheaper and easier to ship, and should be nasty enough when they contact flesh), with the .50 cal reserved for use against vehicles and hard cover.

Good point re the Hague Conventions – my bad memory, sorry!
But again – nothing about calibres as far as I know, either.
Thanks for the correction.

This nonsense about the .50 cal and the Geneva Convention comes up regularly every year or so on TMP, and other military discussion sites.

Let me be perfectly clear about this:

Neither the Geneva Convention, nor any other international agreement, addresses the 50 cal.

What the Geneva Convention does say, is that soldiers may not use excessive force, i.e. force must be proportional to the target, if lesser means are available.

So, for example, if you are an aircraft pilot strafing a ground position, and you see a soldier in the open, you could either strafe him with MGs, or drop a 500 lb bomb on him. Theoretically, according to the GC, dropping a 500lb bomb on him when there are more proportional instruments of violence available would be a violation, since you could strafe him with MGs.

U.S. Department of Defense lawyers came to a determination many years ago, that using a .50 cal against individual soldiers could represent a theoretical violation of the GC prohibition on excessive force, if U.S. soldiers had other machine guns or individual rifles available to engage enemy soldiers. A simplification of this is what led to the briefings I received as a soldier (and many of you did as well). Drill sergeants weren't very clear, and probably didn't really understand the issue.

So, bottom line: if you are a U.S. soldier firing at enemy soldiers in the open, and you use a .50 cal when you had M60s, rifles or whatever available, you theoretically might be using excessive force when less violent weapons were available. Is anyone going to drag you to The Hague, or is the U.S. Army going to prosecute you for a violation of the GC in this instance? I doubt it (ha!), because there are so many complications that make application of this principle difficult.

So the bottom line is not the .50 cal specifically, but the general principle of using weapons proportional to the target.

And a little follow-on to my point: I have seen crewmen in BTR-60s use turret-mounted 14.5mm MGs against enemy soldiers in wooded areas in combat.

The argument could be made that the 14.5mm was excessive force, and the BTR-60 gunners should have used rifles or light machine guns. Well, they didn't care, and I doubt very much that any Red Army drill sergeants ever instructed Soviet soldiers that use of the 14.5mm against soldiers in the open was excessive force.

The Geneva and Hague conventions are good ideas, and a well-meaning step to limit the violence and destruction of war, but there are many things that in practice are going to be too difficult to apply, and this principle is one of them (when it applies to infantry weapons).

RudyNelson so how many belts does it take?

The first recorded use of the phrase "whole nine yards" is in 1907…something to do with baseball, that sport derived from the girl's game, Rounders.
So it predates the venerable .50 by some 12 years.

sorry about that.

An interesting touch that I recall reading, though I'm too lazy to look it up now, is that the .50 cal was originally intended as a sort of light anti-tank weapon.

It just turned out that despite being useless against that post-WW1, it was very good at shooting at all sorts of other things :-)

(likewise, it's Soviet brother the DHSK was intended as an AA gun originally).

According to various conventions land mines, napalm and cluster bombs are inhumane weapons too.

Complete BS IMHO

The tune on that might change if it was the American country side littered with old mines and unexploded cluster bomb munitions.

The abolition of land mines would be a great humanitarian advance. Their effect on countries decades after the fighting ends is terrible.

Yeah the learning point there is don't start anything that would cause somebody to use those weapons on your turf…

Interesting comments tuscaloosa … that does make it a bit clearer where that GC and .50 cal story came from. Thanks !

The tune on that might change if it was the American country side littered with old mines and unexploded cluster bomb munitions… Their effect on countries decades after the fighting ends is terrible.

Responsible users of land mines record their locations, and clean them up afterwards.

Land mines are also tactically useful in many situations where U.S. troops find themselves these days…

The tune on that might change if it was the American country side littered with old mines and unexploded cluster bomb munitions.

The abolition of land mines would be a great humanitarian advance. Their effect on countries decades after the fighting ends is terrible.

The problem with that is besides of the tactical advantages of such weapons. It would be impossible to enforce … Especially with most of the West's current plethora of enemies. Like Daesh, AQ, the Taliban … even the North Koreans. And the minefields between North and South Korea along the DMZ is one of the obstacles that would slow the Norks down. And it a deterrent … And if there was a ban of land mines, the bad guys could still get them or make them.

Responsible users of land mines record their locations, and clean them up afterwards.

Land mines are also tactically useful in many situations where U.S. troops find themselves these days…

Very true Bill and that was the way we were trained. Not like in Cambodia and other places that still have to deal with the problem. In that case, of their own making …

It's also impossible to try and deter everyone from joining Jihadist groups but nobody would argue that we shouldn't try in any event.

We (as in, the US) do not currently export landmines and from some quick looks online, we aren't currently manufacturing them either. No reason we can't apply more pressure on other arms manufacturers to get on the train.
It was an official policy before and it could be so again.

link

And heck, we're already committed to not using anti-personnel mines outside Korea.

It's also impossible to try and deter everyone from joining Jihadist groups but nobody would argue that we shouldn't try in any event.

That doesn't seem to be working either … just sayin …

I mean, if you don't think it has any effect at all, we can save a TON of money by disbanding all the homeland security and NSA stuff.

No … like many things … it's better than nothing …

There is already a 'legally binding' international treaty outlawing the manufacture and use of anti-personnel landmines:
link
The UK is a signatory (the US isn't) I applaud the humanitarian aim – not sure about the practicality of fighting a major war against say Russia or China without them. It probably seemed a great idea in 1997 when the UK signed. Wonder how good an idea it seems now?

Legion – so why wouldn't that apply to landmine limitations?

As for getting rid of NSA – you really don't mind not having any idea what the bad guys are doing?
Of course Snowden didn't help but the rubbish talked about what Sigint is about is doing the work of people like IS.
Money spent on NSA is probably some of the best money you can spend on defending the US (and the rest of the West).

Well the key is the language "non-detectable and persistant."

Not talking about things like claymores and the like.

Gwydion – I was being coy and pointing out that an inability to do something perfectly is no reason not to do it as best you can.

We all lock our doors, even though we know a determined burglar can knock it down.

"Was he with the "Flying Tigers""

no
90th sqdn 80th group

he was however at a nearby airfield
the flying tigers moved
his unit got their old field

As for getting rid of NSA – you really don't mind not having any idea what the bad guys are doing?

Well, given their track record as of late… I have to wonder!

Sadly, accurate intelligence hasn't been a trait of the US. Midway seems to be the only intelligence triumph that I can think of. The rest, well, not so much.

An interesting touch that I recall reading, though I'm too lazy to look it up now, is that the .50 cal was originally intended as a sort of light anti-tank weapon.

It just turned out that despite being useless against that post-WW1, it was very good at shooting at all sorts of other things :-)

Several of the lighter tanks in the inter-war era would have still been vulnerable to .50 caliber rounds, at least when fired to the flank at close range. And once the actual tanks started to get heavier armour, it could still be useful against armoured cars, halftracks and APCs in a pinch.

And while the M2 Browning and Soviet DsHK were the most famous heavy caliber MGs from the interwar era, there were numerous other designs with 12.7, 13.2 or 15 mm rounds.

British used 12.7 and 15 mm MGs to arm some of their light tanks, armoured cars and even infantry tanks (Matilda I) in an effort to give some means of facing light enemy armour.

French and Italians both utilised 13.2 mm MGs. French used this at least as an AA-weapon and to arm some of their armoured cars, while Italians mounted it on some of their tankettes. Belgians also had a light tank armed with 13.2 mm MG.

Even Finland designed a 13.2 mm anti-tank MG in the late 30's, though only a couple of prototypes were built.

….. Just speculating here, but I could imagine that troops in cover giving them protection from rifle caliber weapons would succumb to an "Oh (insert expletive of your choice)" moment when HMG rounds started flying right through.

B

Legion – so why wouldn't that apply to landmine limitations?

Well, for one many organized modern armies follow procedures about laying, marking and removing, etc. land mines. And I was glad to have them between my troops and I and the Norks on the DMZ. They have their uses tactically … Just because some in the world, like in the past in Cambodia, etc. are irresponsible, that shouldn't be the only reason to stop their use. That being said, I agree they should be of limited use. As well as not for sale to some armies, etc. … However, again like we have seen in the past, some will still be able to get their hands on them regardless. And of course "booby traps"/IEDs are home made …