Matrix Games Forums

LOL Belisarius, the ballistics table I took the figures from had the values in joules to begin with. I had to convert to foot pounds. (Kind of humiliated I didn't remember the conversion factor - had to look that up too). Here's what they look like in joules

9 mmP - 476
.30-06 - 3,662
.50 BMG - 16,914

Cheers!

Originally posted by Bing:
... While we are on the subject of the Browning 50 (I will always know it as that) - what does the HB stand for? I was an armorer but I don't ever remember an "HB" in the nomenclature, that has a whiff of post-WW2 to me.

Bing

---

According to my info the M2 is the air cooled version of the original M1917 which was a water cooled weapon. I think the "HB" just refers to a heavy barrel. Could be wrong but the Army manual I tried to get access to is no longer available probably due to the recent "unpleasantness". I'm no expert on this weapon by any means I just play one on TV.

M2HB does indeed stand for "M2 Heavy Barrel". A definite crowd pleaser. B^&$ to control though-of course with medium/heavy MGs one doesn't "really" aim at point targets, rather keep the bullets flying over the beaten zone. The Objective Crew-Served Weapon looks to have great promise as its replacement. Be great for CSAR-work...

Thanks, gentlemen. I've learned a lot in this discussion. I appreciate the info..WB

Yep, I found a reference in the website devoted to infantry weapons in Korea. Appears "HB" was indeed part of the nomenclature - been a long time since I was around one of these babies. Haven't yet found a field manual for the fifity, there is almost certainly one out there somewhere.

Interesting thread, thanks everyone for your input.

Bing

Grumble is correct, the HB does stand for heavy barrel.

We do use the .50 cal and .30 cal (M240) machine guns currently for point targets. For tank gunnery tables, there are personnel carrier targets (BMP silhouettes) that are engaged from the tank commander's station and troop targets for the M240, primarily from the coax, and occasionally from the loader's position.

I did look for a public version of the technical manual for the M2HB and it's not available in an electronic format at the army digital library, sorry.

In a recent MCOW battle, I had 2 M3 Stuarts (armed with 3X .30cal, and a jeep mounting a .50cal threatening the final VH. The jap squad guarding the hex was armed with some ATR. Previously, they were happy enough to fire it at the tanks.

But now, the .50cal Jeep got all their attention! I don't know how the AI evaluates threats/opportunities for choosing targets, but a .50cal got all the attention in those final turns, even though 2 juicy tanks presented themselves at 100 meters in clear view. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Maybe the AI (japs) gleaned some intel from this forum and realized how deadly these jeeps with 50's running around the jungle were........ <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

But now, the .50cal Jeep got all their attention! I don't know how the AI evaluates threats/opportunities for choosing targets, but a .50cal got all the attention in those final turns, even though 2 juicy tanks presented themselves at 100 meters in clear view.

---

The Jeep is a softer target, I guess...

ok, kinda off topic, but my 2 cents. i served as a US Army officer and was told several times that the .50 cal being against the rules to use against infantry was a myth. can anyone quote a Field Manual or treaty that says it cant be used? how about the soviet dshk 14.5mm? the 20mm chain guns on some armored cars, modern jets? why wouldnt 2.75inch multiple rocket launchers be banned as well? i guess once i heard the rule was a myth and started thinking about it, it does seem absurd.

we even trained using the .50cal vs infantry OPFOR. having said that, we didnt train for long. the .50cals on the ring mounts of the 2.5 ton and 5ton trucks were deadlined due to causing stress fractures on the cabs of the trucks (1996ish).

anyway, i look forward to the replies if any on the unauthorized use of large caliber MGs vs INF. i dont believe its true as i once did.

I don't know who put forth the idea that ANY weapon wouldn't be used against infantry. You kill the other guy with anything you have is the way it has always been in warfare - and it is rather likely that will be the case for a long, long time to come.

As said, no, average grunts wouldn't be toting a Browning 50 around, that's why the heavy weapons company in the US infantry battalion TO&E. But I don't remember sayng he would.

So far as 50 cal equipped jeeps go in the game, its shoot and scoot. Strictly. The enemy find you real quick and you are only slightly less vulnerable than a sitting duck. Use'em cautiously , they will last a fairly long time. I"ve pretty much dropped that sort of recon, though, in favor of armored cars. They tend to have a somewhat higher battlefield survival rate than jeeps and scout cars.

Bing

Truckeye, I seem to remember reading that at one time it was considered "unfair" to use a 50 cal against infantry. I can't find a source for that though.

There is a clause in the Hague Conventions about the use of weapons that cause "unnecessary suffering" whatever that means.

While searching I did notice that in 1899 there was a moratorium on the dropping of bombs and similar devices from balloons
<img src="eek.gif" border="0">

bing, it was early on this thread. i once was told a .50 could only be used to defeat body armor like canteens, belt buckles, and helmets. but that seems farcical as well. if there is truely a rule in warfare about it, seems that would still violate the spirit of the law. anyway, i was trained in the army to use the Ma-duece against anyone trying to kill me.

Originally posted by Truckeye:
ok, kinda off topic, but my 2 cents. i served as a US Army officer and was told several times that the .50 cal being against the rules to use against infantry was a myth. can anyone quote a Field Manual or treaty that says it cant be used?

---

No, they cannot, because it's a ridiculous, though amazingly persistent, fable. I wish I knew how this got started. I suspect it's a bit of black humor. The fact of the matter is, that while the weapon is supposed to be used against vehicles and materiel, that's more in the way of a money-saving tip rather than international law. Usually, people will tell you it's against the Geneva Conventions. This is entirely untrue, and can easily be checked by actually *reading* the GC at http://www.icrc.org. It may be that people are thinking of the Hague Conventions of 1900, which ban weapons like explosive bullets, dum-dums and the like. But the .50 does not fall into this category.

It's my personal jihad to extirpate this bit of misinformation.

Jeff

Jeff - Thank you. The historians among us will appreciate your efforts. As to the Hague Conventons, I suspect as I think you do that almost no one who talks about them has actually read them - or understands the background. They were created in a very different world, the one that existed prior to the turn of the 20th century. Per Breaker Morant, from the movie of the same name, "This is a new war ... for a new century."

Another problem with the Hague Conventions business is it would be difficult to find any nation that did any real fighting during WW2 that "honored" it in any way.

War is about killing, we know that. You kill the other guy before he kills you. You do it any way you can. Poison gas wasn't used in WW2 for several reasons, none of them so far as I know having anything to do with a "humane" approach to war fighting. The last idea is kind of funny, in a sarcastic way.

Bing

And remember - it is ILLEGAL by the rules of war to engage personnel with the Ma-deuce. However, engaging their equipment is permissible. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Lost, i once again challenge you to find this "rule of warfare" in a FM-anything or a link to any treaty or convention. above, jeff posted a link to the geneva convention where it does NOT list that as a "rule" of war. it is a very popular myth. if you can provide evidence, i will humbly apologise and promote you to lost 1LT! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

D'oh! I only read the first page and it seems I've been ambushed by the other half of the thread. I'll read more thoroughly next time! (But just had to throw in the anecdote all my buddies love to quote - it's classic military humor.)

But seriously, you're probably right. My unit uses the M2 *prolifically* vs anything that moves, be it crunchies or vehicles. However, I've found that one thing they aren't too effective against is the front glacis of M1A1's though - at least in the MILES game <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> . Sure does make that TC keep his head down, though.