Ma Deuce & Humvees

[Art Eatman]

I don't spend much time looking at pictures of the military equipment in Iraq. I seem to--vaguely--recall seeing a Humvee with a .50BMG mounted on it. Is it my imagination?

the reason I ask is because in this article,

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/39649.html

is the following comment, lower in the page:

"During a House hearing last week, Reyes questioned one sheriff deputy's testimony that he saw a 50-caliber gun on the Humvee. Speaking as an Army veteran, he said he'd never seen a gun of that power on a Humvee."

I know my father had a ring-mount fifty on his 2-1/2 ton in WW II, and I saw a few in Korea in '54/'55. I even saw one old Jeep with a .50 on a stand in the back, just like "Rat Patrol".

Art

 

[Oldtimer]

Yes, .50 BMG's are commonly mounted on military HumVee's. The movie "Blackhawk Down" was one of the best "realism" movies that I've seen, for the equipment/uniforms/weapons and tactics were all true. Lot's of HumVee's with mounted .50 BMG's in the movie, too.

 

[Rembrandt]

Not sure if this helps....my son in Kabul, Afghanistan.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Mounting a .50 on a HMMWV is very much common practice.

I wonder what the guy in the above article would say if somebody told him that the Mk. IXX is also routinely mounted on HMMWVs?

 

[ConserVet]

HMMWV weapons

I've seen .50 cals, M60s, and the MK19 40mm belt-fed grenade launcher. Woo-hoo, that's some serious whoop-ass!

I've heard either the Army or Marines were experimenting with a 7.62mm minigun, but I don't know how it could function in a ring mount.

 

[Art Eatman]

Thanks,

Art

 

[No_Brakes23]

Bet that LEO would lose it if he saw an Avenger HMMWV.

 

[Langenator]

I've also seen an experimental model with a remote M2/MK-19 mount similar to the one on the Stryker.

MPs and weapons companies have been mounting M2s on HMMWVs (the M996, M1025, and M1026 models) for years.

The M1114 is the newer, uparmored model, also equiped with a ring mount.

 

[larry_minn]

Bet that LEO would lose it if he saw an Avenger HMMWV.

I know when I saw a pair of them roar across base and line up at bay edge and rotate to aim over water. Then guys with flack vests/helmets and M-16s unload a HUGE stand to support a large bonaccular and start scanning the bay I got WORRIED. (thought terrorist attack by boat was expected) There I am in car with pocket knife 2 miles from gate and my rifle/pistol 4 miles other side of gate. I have NO access to any weapons (or even know anyone who does personally) My wife is working 200yds behind me on 3rd floor of hospital and I realize there is NOT A THING I CAN DO.

Then I pay more attention to detail and realize I can see THRU tubes. (empty) it is a drill and the frantic activity to set up is being watched by guy in HMMWV with a watch and clipboard. ..
Yep a drill. Stunk that I realized there was really nothing I could do. Basicly run away (and of course not be allowed back on base for hrs) or stay and use car to run over attackers. (life span 30 seconds)
Have I ever mentioned being unarmed stinks?

 

[Satch]

Ma Deuce

During the Korean War the Army mounted what was called a Quad 50 on half tracks. Four 50's hooked togetter on a movable frame with 250 rd box magazines for each gun. The Army used them to stop Chinese suicide charges. I hear they were very effective.

 

[Bubba Ed]

I am a LONG time lurker and have some insight on this. Yes, they do mount M2's on HMMV's, MK 19's, M249 (SAW), M60's, and M240B. I speak from experience because I am a MP who was in Baghdad from June, 2003 to June, 2004. While there I was a Platoon Leader and saw numerous HMMV's with all these weapons mounted on them. In fact, before we jumped the pond, we welded an additional mount on the turret, opposite of the factory one for balance, so that both a MK 19 and the SAW were available to the soldier who was in the turret. This way, either weapon could be engaged depending on the situation. MP's mainly use the SAW and MK 19 as our heavy weapons, but different units have a different MTOE so they will mount whatever they have.
Talking about the system that is used on the Stryker, on the HMMV it is called a CROWS, or Crew Remote Operated Weapons System and is supposedly better than what is on the Stryker. When I was there, there where only 4 in theater, my company had 2, of which my platoon was assigned 1. It was there for evaluation purposes and was used for every mission possible and would have been used for every mission except the team had to have rest. I have seen where there are now more than 200 in theater, but I read that off the 'net about a year ago. Overall, the system works well, but it does have some faults, of which I will not get into.
I know that there are alot of computer commando's, but I can assure you that I know first hand of what I speak. Any questions, feel free to ask.

 

[Cowgunner]

I could never understand why anyone would want to mount anything lighter than a 50 cal on a Humvee.

 

[Ric]

Air Defence used to have quad 50's an hummvee's
I've been out since 92' so I don't know if they still do but it was one butt kicker of a system

 

[Art Eatman]

Satch, I was a squad leader on an M16 with the Quad-50. An absolutely frabjous way to convert money into noise! I was on occupation duty, but knew guys who'd seen combat and heard some stories.

Truly significant anti-assault-wave critter.

Art

 

[ConserVet]

I could never understand why anyone would want to mount anything lighter than a 50 cal on a Humvee.

Depends on your mission. Many units don't have .50 cals. You're basically a slave to the military TO&E system as to what you're allowed to have. The Combat Engineer unit I was in still had 90mm recoilless rifles; We couldn't get practice ammo for 'em so they collected dust in the armory.

Even REMF units have M60s around though, because its a universally-issued weapon for perimeter defense and vehicle armament. Besides, 600rpm of belt-fed .308 can really put a damper on a bad guy's day. Its a reliable, effective weapon as long as you don't have to engage armored vehicles.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

Depends on your mission. Many units don't have .50 cals. You're basically a slave to the military TO&E system as to what you're allowed to have. The Combat Engineer unit I was in still had 90mm recoilless rifles; We coudn't get practice ammo for 'em so they collected dust in the armory.

Even REMF units have M60s around though, because its a universally-issued weapon for perimeter defense and vehicle armament. Besides, 600rpm of belt-fed .308 can really put a damper on a bad guy's day. Its a reliable, effective weapon as long as you don't have to engage armored vehicles.

Now days it's the (SAW) Squad Automatic Weapon 5.56 cal.
M60s 7.65 (308) could in their day engage armored vehicles armor piercing rounds(Hatches, range finding equipment, lights, Diesel fuel cans mounted on the back, periscopes shot out, Road wheels ect) Armored vehicles like soviet personnel carriers could be penetrated around the hatches.
The 7.62 had more punch and distance than the 5.56 round and I disagree with it's replacement for because it's ability to help neutralize armor.
I don't believe that the 5.56 is capable of delivering what the 7.62 did.
The Army now has to rely on the M2 50Cal machine gun to do that mission to which it is extremely capable of but requires 2 soldiers to deploy the Gun 1 Soldier to deploy the tripod and ammunition. (heavy machine gun).
Many active army units that have vehicles have gun mounts for the .50cal.

On the other hand M60s were never reliable, they required too much maintenance for their performance, the barrel heats up too quickly and have to be changed out. Prone to double feed jams constantly. I was assigned one and carried it for two years in West Germany at the time and a love hate relationship with the thing. Observing the performance of this weapon under various field conditions convinced me that few people if any will ever gain total confidence with the nonjamming reliablity with this weapon. I am glad that the Army replaced it but they should have remained with the 7.62 round as it's main light machinegun.

 

[CoastieTech]

I've also seen an experimental model with a remote M2/MK-19 mount similar to the one on the Stryker.

The first time I ever saw a Stryker I was in Iraq and had been there for about 8 months. We were on a patrol and I was driving a humvee and I saw this vehicle pulling security on one of the check points and there was nobody on the .50. So being the good NCO I was I pulled up next to the Stryker and started chewing some E-4's rear. I was yelling and telling him how he shouldn't be so lax in country and he was staring at me like I was crazy. At the end of my lecture I asked him what he was waiting for, go man the .50. He looked at me and said "It's remote control and there is someone inside manning it." I felt like the dumbest person on the earth.:banghead: I just said "good just making sure you know what your doing have a good day" and I went on my way. That was the first time I'd ever heard of a remote control .50.

 

[ConserVet]

A remote control .50 huh? Wow, now I feel old.

 

[rero360]

Now days it's the (SAW) Squad Automatic Weapon 5.56 cal.
M60s 7.65 (308) could in their day engage armored vehicles armor piercing rounds(Hatches, range finding equipment, lights, Diesel fuel cans mounted on the back, periscopes shot out, Road wheels ect) Armored vehicles like soviet personnel carriers could be penetrated around the hatches.
The 7.62 had more punch and distance than the 5.56 round and I disagree with it's replacement for because it's ability to help neutralize armor.
I don't believe that the 5.56 is capable of delivering what the 7.62 did.
The Army now has to rely on the M2 50Cal machine gun to do that mission to which it is extremely capable of but requires 2 soldiers to deploy the Gun 1 Soldier to deploy the tripod and ammunition. (heavy machine gun).
Many active army units that have vehicles have gun mounts for the .50cal.

On the other hand M60s were never reliable, they required too much maintenance for their performance, the barrel heats up too quickly and have to be changed out. Prone to double feed jams constantly. I was assigned one and carried it for two years in West Germany at the time and a love hate relationship with the thing. Observing the performance of this weapon under various field conditions convinced me that few people if any will ever gain total confidence with the nonjamming reliablity with this weapon. I am glad that the Army replaced it but they should have remained with the 7.62 round as it's main light machinegun.

we have the M240s now Bravo for the Army and Golf I believe for the Corps, to replace the 60. I've only fired one a couple of times, not on my units MTOE, we have .50s MK19s and SAWs, I think we still have the .50s anyways the 240s are supposed to be a lot better than the 60s although they are longer and heavier, but if they are more reliable then I guess its ok.

 

[Bart Noir]

U.S.SFC_RET, the Army (and USMC) DID replace the M60 with a 7.62mm weapon. That is the M240B. A little heavier, and more reliable.

Ric, I am trying to imagine the quad-.50 on a Humvee. I think of the size of the turret ring it would require, the weight of 4 MGs and ammo, and the electric drive mechanism, and I do not believe it happened. My employer is the one that built the Avenger and it took some pride in providing the first anti-aircraft turret for the HMMWV. If you can find any evidence that the quad-.50 went on any Humvee, I would like to see it. I couldn't, using Google. Did you see this somewhere?

Bart Noir

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

Bartnoir My oversight you are right about the M240B. All I ever saw was the M240. I stand to be corrected.

 

[Cowgunner]

Depends on your mission. Many units don't have .50 cals. You're basically a slave to the military TO&E system as to what you're allowed to have. The Combat Engineer unit I was in still had 90mm recoilless rifles; We couldn't get practice ammo for 'em so they collected dust in the armory.

Even REMF units have M60s around though, because its a universally-issued weapon for perimeter defense and vehicle armament. Besides, 600rpm of belt-fed .308 can really put a damper on a bad guy's day. Its a reliable, effective weapon as long as you don't have to engage armored vehicles.

I knew that............My reasoning is "If the M-2 is mounted on the Humvee, that I don't have to carry it." My back still aches at the thought of packing any part of the M-2.

 

[carebear]

Hump the Golf up a few snowy/icy hills and the difference in weight becomes unimportant.

 

[ConserVet]

I knew that............My reasoning is "If the M-2 is mounted on the Humvee, that I don't have to carry it." My back still aches at the thought of packing any part of the M-2.

Okay, I gotcha. Misunderstood your point. And I agree, packing around any part of a ma-deuce would be about as fun as getting kicked in the nuts. Given the alternative, I don't think I'd mind being a SAW gunner too much.

 

[Farnham]

Given the alternative, I don't think I'd mind being a SAW gunner too much.

Never been a SAW gunner, eh?

All of the weight, none of the respect!

S/F

Farnham