Squad level MGs, now and then

There is a little bit of "not correct" in that article as you have described it.

1) The M60 was designed to replace three things - the M1918 BAR, the M1919A6 Light MG and the M1919A4 Medium MG. And, it was during its development referred to as a "General Purpose Machine Gun", (GPMG). At the time the Army was moving towards the German squad concept of 9 men and a machine gun rather than the WW2/Korean War doctrine of 9 men and a Automatic Rifle. When the M16 was adopted, this idea solidified as the M60 was far superior to the M16 in maintaining a base of fire on an objective.

2) The M240 was adopted in 1977 as an armor machine gun, ie for tanks and other armored vehicles, as the M73/M219 didn't work as well as it had been hoped. The M240 was never intended to be anything else.

3) The M249 was adopted to replace the M60 at the squad level, as the US was moving away from GPMG doctrine to a Squad Assault Weapon (SAW)/Company Machine Gun doctrine, the M60 being retained as the company level MG. This was more akin the the Soviet idea with the AK-47 and RPK (7.62mm x 39) at the squad and platoon level and the PKM (7.62mm x 54R) at the company level.

4) The M60 was retired because they were all worn out, and rather than going through the whole development/competition/selection process, the USMC said "Hey, the M240C is already adopted and in the supply system, just buy the type that comes with the pistol grip and butt stock and be done with it." and they did, about a year later the Army saw that that was a smart idea and did the same thing.

But yes, there is a faction in the service that believes the 7.62mm NATO needs to be replaced with something more powerful, as there have been improvements in both body armor and vehicle protection.

N9NWO said:

the M60 was 8 lbs lighter than the BAR.

Click to expand...

According to Wiki and several other sources the 1918A2 bar weighed 19.8 pounds. An M-60 weighs 23.5 pounds. I find your statement rather odd.

lysanderxiii said:

the M73/M219 didn't work as well as it had been hoped

Click to expand...

You got that right!!! I was 45B20, Small Arms Repair, in Germany in 1969-70. I spent all of my time in Graf, on the tank ranges, trying to keep the damn things running. You were lucky to get off a ten round burst, without a stoppage. In my opinion, the worst piece of junk the army ever adopted.

Entering the Active Duty Army in the late 90's, all M-60 examples that I layed eyes on or handled where completely passed usable life expectancy.

I carried an M60 in the ROK, and I have handled a BAR. BAR is by far lighter.

Yes the M60 weighed 23 pounds empty and it was about 28 pounds with one belt of ammo loaded. I should know since I had to haul the pig for most of my time in the Army. I know that the TOE/MTOE for for Engineer units was always different than for infantry units. In the engineer battalions I was assigned to in the late 80's to 1995, we kept at least 2 M60's per platoon/section. Like I said in the other thread, even the battalion motor pool section had 2 M60's and 2-4 M249's. The M249's definitely did not replace the M60 at the platoon level in engineer battalions during my time.

And yes we had the M240E1's but they were strictly used as COAX guns in our M728 CEV vehicles.

There were several variants of the M1918 BAR that weighed anywhere from 16 to 20 pounds. The M240B is 27.6 pounds while the M240L is 22.3 pounds.

Actually, doctrine for a while dictated that 2 infantry squad members were "automatic riflemen" and would use their M16A1 rifles primarily in the autagettum mode. This was folly, as the M16 fires from the closed bolt, making it overheat in a big darn hurry, and has no quick change barrel ability- not to mention sustained fire being severely hampered by the 20 or 30 round magazine.
The M60 was chosen in 1960 for adoption over the Belgian MAG 58- which is the daddy of the M240 series MG's. So much so that it is essentially the same weapon. The M60 isn't half the MG that the MAG or any 240 variant is. The M60 was filled with design flaws and suffered from issues like parts breakage, overall reliability issues, and a fairly short overall service life, not to mention a garbage bipod and one of the worst quick change barrel systems out there. A M60 can be improperly assembled with parts either being left out or even installed backwards, and in some cases, still pass a function test. The gunner must make use of bailing wire to insure that parts literally don't fall off of the weapon while on the move. No variant of the M60 lends itself well (despite modification attempts) to using modern accessories like night vision and day optics. In my opinion, the best 2 characteristics of the M60 are lighter weight than the 240 by about 5 pounds, and what I consider a perfect cyclic rate (about 550 RPM). Of course, neither of these traits are relevant if the weapon in question sucks and won't fire.
A new(er) machine gun that I am especially fond of in the SOF community is the MK48. It can be described as the spawn if a M249 and M240 were bred together. It fires 7.62 NATO, and is designed to be employed by 1 man. Ideal in the dismounted/bipod mode, and easy to maneuver with when loaded down with 100 pounds of lightweight gear. A real peach of a MG when doing things like fast roping, freefall parachuting, or humping up and down the endless mountains in buttcrackistan.

The current iteration of the M240 is the Lima or L variant. Weighs 22.3 pounds with the standard stock and barrel and 21.8 with the shorter ones. Much of that weight savings by using a titanium receiver. The 240L was the last weapon I saw filtering into line units before getting out. Putting it in the same realm as the M60 for weight. Cutting weight is the current obsession of military logistics. The axiom is everything weighs less, you just carry more of it. When ounces of weight leads to pounds of pain, any reduction in weight makes a huge difference. I remember being issued plate carriers that were 7 pounds lighter than the IOTV. When wearing that for long hikes, the weight difference was a welcome change.

240B can be dismounted to a degree. Normally to the point of sticking 240 teams in fixed locations to cover other units while they lay prone on a bipod or tripod. Typically 240 teams are 2 soldiers: 1 Assistant gunner and gunner in the Army. And 3 Marines in the USMC: gunner, AG, and ammo carrier (guess what that Marine mostly does?). I look forward to development of the LMG and MMG research to see what becomes of the 249 and 240 to make fighting units better.

tark said:

According to Wiki and several other sources the 1918A2 bar weighed 19.8 pounds. An M-60 weighs 23.5 pounds. I find your statement rather odd.

Click to expand...

Well, the M-15 was meant to replace the BAR, and when that fell through, it was decided to push the idea onto the hip newness which was the M-60.

herrwalther said:

Cutting weight is the current obsession of military logistics.

Click to expand...

With each new incremental step in technology, the soldier's load has increased. Look at what grunts typically carried during the world wars and korea, then VN, through the rest of the cold war, and now. Those rucks got progressively bigger and heavier. Todays US service member is more lethal, more able to survive, able to communicate and send data in ways unimagined not that long ago, able to do all this 24/7, and expected to move further and faster- but with a significant weight penalty. Human knees, backs, ankles, etc, remain unchanged. (I know I'm preaching to the choir).

herrwalther said:

240B can be dismounted to a degree. Normally to the point of sticking 240 teams in fixed locations to cover other units while they lay prone on a bipod or tripod. Typically 240 teams are 2 soldiers: 1 Assistant gunner and gunner in the Army.

Click to expand...

This doesn't work as well in smaller units and many SOF formations, as it requires too many personnel to effectively run 1 weapon system. In many situations, sniper teams can be used to both surveil an objective and provide effective covering fires during kinetic operations. While the volume of fire is dwarfed by the massive amount of firepower a MG could potentially bring to bear, it may be preferable in certain applications- especially when covering fires need to be directed in very close proximity to friendly maneuvering elements. I have been out of the military for a while, but where I worked overseas after I retired, weapons like the MK48 and MK46 (an updated version of the M249 SAW) were used in "dismounted maneuver", with the M240 used primarily in static security/hard positions, or as armament on vehicles. My understanding is that this is also the current method of employment in the smaller SOF units.

In February of 1968 in the central highlands of Vietnam I spent five days on a river bank with my M-60,it held them off till the F-4s got there.I can’t say anything bad about that weapon.

FL-NC said:

Actually, doctrine for a while dictated that 2 infantry squad members were "automatic riflemen" and would use their M16A1 rifles primarily in the autagettum mode. This was folly, as the M16 fires from the closed bolt, making it overheat in a big darn hurry, and has no quick change barrel ability- not to mention sustained fire being severely hampered by the 20 or 30 round magazine.
The M60 was chosen in 1960 for adoption over the Belgian MAG 58- which is the daddy of the M240 series MG's. So much so that it is essentially the same weapon. The M60 isn't half the MG that the MAG or any 240 variant is. The M60 was filled with design flaws and suffered from issues like parts breakage, overall reliability issues, and a fairly short overall service life, not to mention a garbage bipod and one of the worst quick change barrel systems out there. A M60 can be improperly assembled with parts either being left out or even installed backwards, and in some cases, still pass a function test. The gunner must make use of bailing wire to insure that parts literally don't fall off of the weapon while on the move. No variant of the M60 lends itself well (despite modification attempts) to using modern accessories like night vision and day optics. In my opinion, the best 2 characteristics of the M60 are lighter weight than the 240 by about 5 pounds, and what I consider a perfect cyclic rate (about 550 RPM). Of course, neither of these traits are relevant if the weapon in question sucks and won't fire.
A new(er) machine gun that I am especially fond of in the SOF community is the MK48. It can be described as the spawn if a M249 and M240 were bred together. It fires 7.62 NATO, and is designed to be employed by 1 man. Ideal in the dismounted/bipod mode, and easy to maneuver with when loaded down with 100 pounds of lightweight gear. A real peach of a MG when doing things like fast roping, freefall parachuting, or humping up and down the endless mountains in buttcrackistan.

Click to expand...

The M60 was not "chosen for adoption over the MAG-58". There never was a competition when the M60 was developed, The Army simply told Springfield Armory to develop a GPMG ,and gave them some parameters it must fit, weight(approx 20 lbs) and length (approx 40 in) being the two big ones.

In 1947, Springfield contracted Bridge Tool & Dies to develop a machine guns, the T52, based on a conceptual idea from the 1940s grafting an MG-34 feed system with an FG-42 receiver. After the concept was fully developed by Bridge, Inland Division of GM was contracted to convert the prototype into a production item, this was designated the T161. As Inland proceeded with its contract Bridge continued work on the T52 as a back-up in case the T161 failed to develop. So, the decision the adopt the T161/T52 was made before the MAG-58 was even a thing.

Further, the M13 link was developed specifically for the T52, and its design was not finalized until late 1956. The MAG-58 was developed with the German DM-1 belt and only had minor changes to the design to accept the M13 link after the fielding of the M60 (the pitch of the DM-1 and the M13 are the same). And, it wasn't until the US adopted the MAG-58 did the M13 Link become NATO standard.

Roy Rayle, the Army officer in charge of Research and Development at Springfield during the development of the M60, has a chapter of his book on this.

All of the post war small arms weapons (with one exception) were adopted in similar non-competitive programs, the M37 Caliber .30 Tank MG, the M39 20mm Automatic Cannon the M60 GPMG, the M61 20mm Automatic Cannon, the M73 Tank MG, the M79 Grenade Launcher, the M85 Tank Heavy Machine Gun. None of these were competitive, the T25 was supposed to be a non-competitive development for the rifle, but it got tangled up in politics and the common round testing.

To drill down to the title here, the notion of adding an automatic weapon to the Rifle Squad starts with the French, in 1915, with the Chauchat.
The US had JMB gin up a similar automatic rifle idea, which was adopted in 1918 (and was meant for full field trials in the Spring Offensive of 1919).
Application was meant to be one Automatic Rifleman with two assistants =per squad. (French Squads were 12, US Squads were 13--both featured Grenadiers.)

The interwar years saw no real change to this; although several nations adopted lighter-weight Platoon or Squad level MGs.

The Germans decided to skip machine rifles (except for parachutists) and go to a lightweight MG, the MG-34 at the Maniple level, which could be "heavied" for use as a Platoon or Company support roll with a tripod and dedicated heavy supply. The "squad level" MG was in a three man team of MG gunner and two AG, with additional ammo spread across the squad.

The US stuck to using the BAR as squad level MG, supporting that with bandoliers of spare magazines to keep the BAR "fed." This ranged to a high of 2 BAR per Squad down to 1 per Squad. To muddy the waters, the M1919A6 MG, an ostensibly "lightened" M1919 MG with a shoulder stock was issued out as a Squad weapon as well. Note that these automatic weapons were only that, everything used the ubiquitous M2 .30-06 ball. At the Company level, there would be a Weapons Platoon with some number of M1919 MGs and a fire team of M2 MGs if "heavy" enough.

The Brits adopted the Bren as their Squad support weapon. Even to revamping their LBE, so that all rifle troops were to carry one entire pouch of loaded Bren mags, and a bandolier of rifle ammo for their No 4 rifles. Brit Rifle Squad members were all trained on the Bren; it was issued to the one member with the highest score in familiarization training. The Brits had the venerable Vickers for support at the Company level

Now, US Ordnance, as soon as they saw the MG-34 and MG-42 developed unnatural desires for both, and without asking much about their fetish with guys actually out in the dirt (or even the POW on hand). The Korean War interrupted that process. for a while. The Soviets were sorting out their What if we field a rifle-caliber SMG and whether or not to have a Squad Weapon or not (or to just have bigger Weapons Platoons).

Coming out of KW, the US, and the Brits pretty much agreed that the SMG was too specialized for Rifle Company combat. That the Squad rated some automatic fire support integrally, and that heavier MGs at the Company level made sense. The Brits went through the agonies of adopting a select fire battle rife, and retained the Bren and the Vickers. The US was spared the self-loading rifle angst, but still needed 13 year to get the M-14 adopted.
The M-15 was meant to solve the problem of not having a BAR at the Squad level. Ordnance's new hotness, the M-60, would be the replacement for the M-1919.

But, with the M-15 canceled, the new M-60 was the only automatic that could e brought to the Squad on an expedient basis. And, on paper, that scans--M-14 in 7.62nato and M-60 in 7.62nato. Except, the M-60 was a pig, and was not soldier-proof.

Meanwhile, the Brits had retired their Vickers for the FN MAG in 7.62nato. Rebuilding Bren Mk III in 7.62nato worked really well, too (no surprise, the original Czech design was in 8mauser). The Brits wanted to field the EM-2 which was to be battle rifle and replace the Bren (and the Vickers, maybe). But, everyone agreed the .280enfield was going to be under powered as a Squad support weapon (which is twas in the 50s. And STANAG stifled ammo consideration.

USAF became enamored of a Fairchild design using this spiffy new ammo from this dude named Stoner. And, it was select fire. And, once again, everyone embraced the notion that riflemen can be SAW gunners and vice versa. Technology has saved us, Huzzah! Or not. So, send the Squad out with an M-60, and if they needed the Weapons Platoon, they'd support with . . . their M-60s.

Now, enter the M-1 tank development. Which was a joint US-UK (and German) development, if not for a single vehicle, but families of similar tech. While at that task, the treadheads mentioned what an awful mess the M-6nn & 7nn Tank MGs had been (not all Engineers are equal, hiring guys who had built canning machines for Dole to "fix" MGs was not a winner). The Brits pointed out that the FN MAG had worked out so well, they had adapted it for their own tanks. So the Abrams was designed to work with the MAG, now enumerated as the M-240.

The 240 worked so well, the tankers ditched the M-60A2 at the loader's hatch for a pintle mount 240.

Along the way, the nice folk at FN pointed out their new hotness,the MINIMI. They touted it as an ideal Squad support Weapon--see, look it uses regular STANAG rifle magazines! (sorta). Army knew the M-60 was not popular as a SAW. Long, heavy, prone to breakage--what was not to love?

So, the US Rifle Squad is meant to field an M249 SAW and the balance of the Squad in M-4 carbines or M-16 rifles. USMC took that to an extreme for a while--Each Squad fielding 3 SAW, & 3 M203 grenadiers, enough for one of each per Fire Team. Company support was from an 7.62nato MG, typically M-240.

Now, after having used the M-249 SAW for a while, some shortcomings have appeared. The extra inch or so of barrel does not give much range advantage. The 5.56nato round, at the far end of its performance curve, can be less effective than desired.

So, now what is wanted is a 6.8mm sized round that will span the distance from the 5.56 to the 7.62 effective ranges, and make that as compact and handy as the cartridge will allow, so the Squad can either get into, or out of trouble as required.

Most importantly is that the focus, the purpose of the Rife Squad is its riflemen; the SAW is the support for those riflemen to achieve the goals set for the Squad, Platoon, and Company.
This was the flaw in the German MG-centric Squad. Instead of 8-9 riflemen to spread around on the target, you had 1 MGer and the other 6-9 anchored on the MG.

FL-NC said:

With each new incremental step in technology, the soldier's load has increased. Look at what grunts typically carried during the world wars and korea, then VN, through the rest of the cold war, and now. Those rucks got progressively bigger and heavier. Todays US service member is more lethal, more able to survive, able to communicate and send data in ways unimagined not that long ago, able to do all this 24/7, and expected to move further and faster- but with a significant weight penalty. Human knees, backs, ankles, etc, remain unchanged. (I know I'm preaching to the choir).

Click to expand...

Everything is lighter, but you carry more of it.

FL-NC said:

This doesn't work as well in smaller units and many SOF formations,

Click to expand...

SOF does things differently. Because they are special. My time was in traditional line grunt units with occasional cross overs with community members. We were pretty fortunate to deploy with more weapons than we needed. Every vehicle had an M2 or Mk19 in the turret and a 240B on a mount, without sacrificing weapons from the line. We also had several weapons destroyed in combat and we had enough spares to replace them with. Except the time we broke a 50cal. That took longer to get replaced.

I was attached to 3rd AD during Desert Storm. Our engineer squad had our M2 mounted on the M113 along with my M60 in the back hatch. I would dismount with my 60 along with the rest of the squad.

I never had much issues with any of the 60's I was assigned. I had an old timer that was a 60 gunner in Vietnam explain the 60 to me quite well. He said it was like an old car, you had to tweak and fine tune it and it would purr just right for you.

One of the biggest issues I did see with the M60 was the extractor. Too much dry firing during training would cause the ejector to break.

I wonder, what did the later M60 gunners replace the C rats can with?

herrwalther said:

We were pretty fortunate to deploy with more weapons than we needed.

Click to expand...

We have a pretty solid model for sourcing additional weapons. We have our standard MTOE at the team level, and a depot like arrangement at the Group level (GSB) that maintains an inventory of additional crew served weapons and specialty weapons to plus up whichever units are headed downrange. There is also another joint source that we can receive weapons and other additional equipment from (things like water purifiers, generators, etc.) Finally, each FB/FOB has its own inventory of additional SOF supplied weapons, which will include more machine guns, mortars, items like Gustavs, sometimes extra grenade launchers and shotguns, extra night vision and thermals, additional suppressors, comms gear, and so on- down to things like the vehicles and ATCV's, fuel bladders, chow hall items, the generators that run the place, motor pool items, etc. During each RIP, all of these items on the base are signed over to the incoming unit. During deployments, maintenance people visit the base to do their thing. Does big army have a SOP like this?

jeepnik said:

I wonder, what did the later M60 gunners replace the C rats can with?

Click to expand...

Lots of lube and cussing, I guess.

I haven't been around a M60 since 1996 and can't remember ever having to use a can or anything to help feed.

I was USN 96-01 and all I saw was M60E3. I never laid eyes on a 240 or 249. I was an M60 gun team lead and also shared duties as "ammo humper". I never saw an M60 "worn out". All the M60s I saw or used in our TOA were serviceable. The only thing I really hated about the M60 was the tripod and T&E system. I felt it limited the gun.

Additionally, I'm not familiar with using a c-rat can for anything. We used the green cloth bags and 100 round cardboard box of ammo hung on the side of the feed ramp and that worked fine. With the short barrel the 60 was a beast.

N9NWO said:

there is now talk of replacing

Click to expand...

Perpetual, as long as people are given authority, spending budgets and other perks, spending taxpayer dollars is a must. If you don’t spend your budget you risk loosing it next time.

There are many changes in government that only make sense to the individual that made that decision. Also worth noting they often never have to rely or even use equipment they have procured.

I've nothing useful to add to the doctrinal discussion here, but with regard to very light machine guns, viewed as simple and elegant designs, have you fellows seen this thing:

CapnMac said:

Now, enter the M-1 tank development. Which was a joint US-UK (and German) development, if not for a single vehicle, but families of similar tech. While at that task, the treadheads mentioned what an awful mess the M-6nn & 7nn Tank MGs had been (not all Engineers are equal, hiring guys who had built canning machines for Dole to "fix" MGs was not a winner). The Brits pointed out that the FN MAG had worked out so well, they had adapted it for their own tanks. So the Abrams was designed to work with the MAG, now enumerated as the M-240.

Click to expand...

Not quite. The UK never was in a partnership with the US to develop a new tank. The MBT-70 was a US-German venture to replace the M60 and Leopard. The British Chieftain was a little bit newer than the US and German tanks being introduced into service in 1967 (the M60 coming into service in 1959 and the Leopard in 1963*, but designed around the same time as the M60). The MBT-70 was cancelled in 1970, and the US started to develop the "MBT-70 Light" or the XM803. The XM803, as it turned out, was not going to be much more capable than the M60A1, but considerably more expensive, so it was cancelled at the end of 1971. This is when the development of the XM1 started, with a more or less clean sheet.

In the meantime, the British were reasonably happy with the Chieftain, as during the 1960 and early 1970s it was the only western tank that had the armor to withstand the Soviet 115mm, and a gun easily capable of perforating any known Soviet tank. It did have its problems in mobility and reliability. In the mid-1970s the UK and Germany started a joint program to develop a new tank, but this quickly ended as the Germans wanted a far more aggressive timetable. So, the UK started the MBT-80 (no relation the the US-German MBT-70) program, but this started to get really expensive, so they cancelled it, and just bought an existing design developed for Iran but not produced due to the Revolution and overthrow of the Shah.

As to the tank machine gun, the M73 was designed specifically for the M60, but never quite lived up to the hopes of its designers. The USMC replaced the M37 (Caliber .30) in the M48 tanks with the M60E2 Machine Gun, as the deliveries of the M73 to the USMC were going to be delayed, and later retained them when they started to receive the new M60s. The Army suffered along with the M73 throughout the 1960s, and in 1970 developing the M73A1 later designated the M219 (it's 3X better! Actually, just a coincidence). Then the Yom Kippur War happened and US stocks of Army M60s (war reserve) were rapidly shipped to Israel, and the Israelis had nothing but bad things to say about the M73, which sparked a Congressional Inquiry.

By 1974, the Army finally decided that a new tank machine gun in 7.62mm was going to have to found, so they bought examples of every machine gun currently in production at the time. The list of competitors were (in no particular order):

MAG-58 (Belgian GPMG)
PK-T (Soviet armor version of the PK, in 7.62mm X 54R)
L8A1 (British license produced MAG-58 modified for the armor role)
M60E2 (M60 modified for armor role, current USMC armor MG)
MG-3 (German development of the MG-42 in 7.62mm NATO)
AAT-52 (French standard GPMG, modified for 7.62mm NATO, vice the usual 7.5 French)
C1 (Canadian modified M1919A4 in 7.62mm NATO)
M219 (then current Army armor MG)
M219 IP (Improved Product M219)

After a long series of tests, lasting until 1976, the following were short listed (again no particular order):

PK-T
MAG-58
M60E2

The PK-T, while it was deemed very durable, accurate, and easily maintained, was eliminated as it did not fire 7.62mm NATO and a redesign would require time and money (although they did consider the idea). By 1977 the MAG-58 was selected as the new armor machine gun.

_________________________
* But production would net start until 1965 due to funding.

EMC45 said:

I was USN 96-01 and all I saw was M60E3. I never laid eyes on a 240 or 249. I was an M60 gun team lead and also shared duties as "ammo humper". I never saw an M60 "worn out". All the M60s I saw or used in our TOA were serviceable. The only thing I really hated about the M60 was the tripod and T&E system. I felt it limited the gun.

Additionally, I'm not familiar with using a c-rat can for anything. We used the green cloth bags and 100 round cardboard box of ammo hung on the side of the feed ramp and that worked fine. With the short barrel the 60 was a beast.

Click to expand...

The M240G, the infantry MG wasn't introduced until around 2003 (?. plus or minus a year), the Army followed suit a year or so later.

And, the M60E3s would have been in relatively good shape, most of them were built in the late 1980s-early 1990s. The M60s (unmodified) were 1960s and early 1970 production. In Germany in 1990, all of our M60s had loose rivets that held the front trunnion block to the sheet metal receiver. If you picked them up by the carry handle, you could see the back of the receiver droop about a degree. The "good" ones went to the infantry units. Stateside, the M60s I saw were in better shape, but you could tell they were a few thousands rounds from retirement.