"WWII USA heavy machine gun question" Topic

I play Rapid Fire and for the U.S. infantry units it lists both a medium and heavy machinegun in the weapons company.

They call the heavy machinegun a .50 cal.

In my research, it appears that mainly .30 caliber machineguns were issues and those were classes as medium (air cooled) and heavy (water cooled) with only one .50 caliber at the battalion or even regimental level.

Ideas?

The .50 cal was not part of the standard company or battalion level machine gun units. Those used air or water cooled .30 cals. However, the .50 cals were mounted on many vehicles as an AA machine gun and were often dismounted for use in defensive positions. The .50 cal was really too heavy (about 100 pounds without ammo) for regular use with infantry units.

The US Infantry Battalion had 6 × .50 cal, all mounted on jeeps.

Headquarters and Headquarters Company:
1 x.50 cal in the Company Headquarters.
1 x.50 cal in the Anti-Tank Platoon Headquarters.

3 × Rifle Companies:
1 x.50 cal in the Weapons Platoon Headquarters.

Heavy Weapons Company:
1 ×.50 cal in the Company Headquarters.

If they are looking at the 1944-45 period, then as mentioned above the .50-cal wasn't found in MG Pls. An Inf Bn had six (from 1943 onwards), distributed between the Coys for AA defence. The T/Os don't state it but they were most likely mounted on vehicles.

The M1917 was classed as gun, machine, cal .30, heavy, flexible and the M1919 as gun, machine, cal .30,light, flexible. The M2 was gun, machine, HB, cal .50, heavy, flexible. The M1917 was the workhorse of the Inf Regt MG Pls, USMC interchanged between the light and heavy as required.

Gary

I am wondering what the term "flexible" refers to in those MG descriptions. Is it perhaps in reference to being useable both against ground and air targets, depending on mounting?

My understanding is that the 50 cal was used when you could get them to add fire power. So I guess an extra 50 might find its way into you base of fire unit. American are anything if not flexable in these matters.

I am wondering what the term "flexible" refers to in those MG descriptions.

I am far from certain, but I believe that the term is a reference to it's mount.

"Flexible" in reference to a gun was a reference to there being more than one carriage or mounting. If it came with 2 tripods (one for ground work, another for AA work), or a tripod and a bipod, or a vehicle pintle mount and a tripod (or even 2 tripods), it would have been identified as "flexible".

I fully admit this is a poorly evidenced conclusion … not even a fully "educated guess" on my part. But from examining other support weapons, the ordnance name of the weapon would frequently include identification of it's mounting. In these cases where "flexible" is present, the mounting is absent.

Is it perhaps in reference to being useable both against ground and air targets, depending on mounting?

Ordnance naming conventions seldom included doctrinal information. Thus "heavy" does not indicate use, but only weight. A .30cal machine gun can be "heavy" (M1917) just as well as a .50cal machine gun (M2), because "heavy" does not mean more powerful, or greater firepower. It just means the gun weighed a lot. This was important to know when you were planning a force. However you might use the gun, you needed more than 1 guy to carry it. It was heavy.

So also the "flexible" probably does not convey any doctrinal/use case information. Rather, it likely conveys information that would be useful to a quartermaster. So the M1917 might be "Cal. 30 machine gun, heavy, M1917A, flexible" or it might be "Cal. 30 machine gun, heavy, M1917A, on tripod M1918A1".

Again, just my guess.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

'Heavy,' according to a relative (long ago) referred
to the items of equipment with which the gun was
furnished. A water-cooled .30 with jacket, water
container, tripod mount etc. was a heavy MG.

The air-cooled .30 was a light MG irrespective of the
mount.

From my uncle, who served as a machine gunner in
4th AD, later as gunner on an M16MGMC.

There was also of course a water cooled .50 caliber that I believe was issued only to AAA units.

"Flexible" refers to the types of mount that a particular version of the gun is suitable for. For example, for the .50 cal the principle versions are Fixed, Flexible and Turret. Most of the variations in the actual gun are fairly minor. They are described in detail in "The American Arsenal" by Ian V Hogg.

Nomenclature for 'medium' and 'heavy' machine guns varies from one army to the next.

In the British Army heavy MGs were generally of .50 cal and up (such as the .5 cal BESA), whereas water cooled tripod mount weapons were medium MGs. Or so my old Vickers manual entitled 'the tactical employment of medium machineguns' claims.

Given the authors of RF are British, it is perhaps no surprise they decided that the 'heavy' US MGs much be .50 cals….

A US M2 .50 cal. has a longer range and more hitting power than a .30 cal., air or water cooled. And regardless, a .50 is heavier to move and carry than any .30 cal. But if you are part of the crew of either it will be a heavy "mother" to hump. However, AFAIK the term "heavy" refers to size of the round. And in turn it's characteristics and effectiveness.

However, AFAIK the term "heavy" refers to size of the round. And in turn it's characteristics and effectiveness.

In WW2 the US, French, and German armies all had .30 caliber machine guns classified as "heavy". It was due to their weight. The US and French armies also had machine guns of greater caliber (.50 caliber and 13.2mm), that were also classified as "heavy". It was also due to their weight.

In the post-war environment, where even foot-infantry formations had motorized logistics, the critical need to understand if a weapon was man-portable over deployment distances (ie: can a soldier march for 20-30 miles per day, day after day, carrying it) disappeared. So in the post-war environment almost all armies MG classification became oriented to the caliber of the weapon. I don't think there are any modern armies that classify a .30 caliber MG as "heavy" these days. That term, in modern usage, typically designates an MG of .50 caliber or greater.

The Brits seem to have made this transition earlier than many. I believe in WW1 the British classified their Vickers .303 water-cooled MG as "heavy", due to it's weight. This is how the Germans classified their MG08, and the Russians classified their PM10, both of which were local variants of the same Maxim MG as the Vickers, and how the US classified their M1917, which was a Browning design (not based on the Maxim, although similar in appearance). I believe all of those armies provided push-carts for their heavy machine guns, except for the Russians who actually built the wheels into their MG mounting. But clearly, by WW2 the Brits were calling the Vickers a "medium" MG, a label that the US reserved for a gun that did not require wheeled conveyance for deployment (ie: could be carried for deployment by a single foot soldier, even though the tripod might have been carried by another soldier).

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I don't think there are any modern armies that classify a .30 caliber MG as "heavy" these days. That term, in modern usage, typically designates an MG of .50 caliber or greater.

Yes that is what I was referring too. For context with WWII standards. Today it is more clearly defined, I'd think :

Hvy MG – .50 cal +
Med MG – .30 cal
Lgt MG – anything smaller than .30 cal, e.g. .223/5.6mm etc., …

And as I said anyone who ever had to carry an MG any distance would call it "heavy" …

I don't think calibre has a great deal to do with it compared to physical weight and more , MUCH more importantly, tactical employment

No AFAIK, IMO … again, at this point:

.50 cal. – HMG
.30 cal. – MMG
Smaller caliber is @ .223, is a LMG or SAW, etc.

The reason I say that is. Field Artillery and Mortars are/were rated as Heavy, Medium and Light. Based on caliber. Just like with Tanks in WWII.

And part of the reason a Tank was rated that way was because of the size of the main cannon, along with weight, etc.

As well as, in all those cases, tactical employment really has little to do with the weight of these type weapons systems. Save for lighter weapons have a shorter ranges, etc.
Otherwise … Someone needs to let the US ARMY Combat Arms and Historical branches know ?

And based on my time as a Mech Co. Cdr, '87-'89. MGs were rated as I have posted again above. So …
M2 .50s – HMG
M60 .30 cal – Medium
M249 .223 – Light/SAW …

Well, as I said, these things will vary with army and time period.

The Germans in WW2 designated the identical weapon as heavy or light depending on the mounting.

In the context of the Op, I suspect the RF authors just made a mistake, based in current British usage of the term heavy. But what US force is complete without its. 50 cal?

My Mech Co. Had 15 M2s. One for each track and one for our M35 Cgo Trk, "Deuce & 1/2".

Plus just for context, a US ARMY M113 Mech Co. at that time also had :

14 M60 MGs
18 M249 SAWs/[Lgt MG]

And my personal favorite – 18 M203 40mm GL …