You have some good points, but:
This, your original point, emphasis mine, is something completely different. We are dealing with something we call capability augmentation here. It's a bit analogous to 122mm vs. 152mm artilerie.
Heavy Machinegun and its effectiveness
- Thread starter rhino123
- Start date
You have some good points, but:
This, your original point, emphasis mine, is something completely different. We are dealing with something we call capability augmentation here. It's a bit analogous to 122mm vs. 152mm artilerie.
What are the energy figures for the BMG, .50 Russian, and 14.5x114?
Although it is true that most armoured vehicles, IFVs, are protected up to 12.7 on the sides. Anyone know how truthful these claims are?
Only particular advantage I can see is that in a sniper rifle, 14.5s fly way farther out with punch. (1500-1800 usual vs. 2300)
Although it is true that most armoured vehicles, IFVs, are protected up to 12.7 on the sides. Anyone know how truthful these claims are?
Only particular advantage I can see is that in a sniper rifle, 14.5s fly way farther out with punch. (1500-1800 usual vs. 2300)
Here are the energy comparison between 5 different rounds, from 7.62-14.5mm
Russian 14.5x114=31.7KJ
Russian 12.7x108=18.86KJ
Russian 7.62x54=4.47KJ
American 12.7x99=18.22KJ
American 7.62x51=3.35KJ
Couple more 12.7 or 7.62 GPMG to do a 14.5 work? You then need more troops to operate the gun, more ammunition to carry, more equipment to carry, and in the end you still delivery less energy in the round to the target anyway, unless you somehow increase the velocity of the round to match the 14.5 energy. Well having more 12.7 and 7.62 as to one 14.5 GPMG increases cost of spare parts, unit cost, transportation, maintenance. There is a fine line when one thinks do I want power, range and less volume delivered or more volume, less range and less power delivered? Its based on the scenario, not the desire of the round, having 12.7 and 7.62 just makes logistics difficult. Why bother with 12.7 if couple of 7.62 can do the job, or why bother with 7.62 if a couple of 5.56 can do the job. Just think it like this
If you talk about it this way then why dont the IFV just replace their 20mm cannon with a couple of 12.7 they do the work then dont they? Answer is no.
Also most Western helicopters are only designed to resist rounds up to 12.7 NATO, so the 14.5 nearly x2 the energy being delivered from the round well it speaks for itself. And even in some cases of Iraq war in the 90's the Soviet 12.7 were able to inflict some damage to heli. Western attack heli designed to resist NATO 12.7 is different to resisting Soviet 12.7 it larger and has more energy behind it.
williamhou
Junior Member
12.7mm is clearly much more portable, can carry a lot more rounds and can provide good suppression of energy infantry in a long distance that 7.62mm rounds can not do. 14.5mm is not necessary to counter infantry and accuracy decreases so much at 1000m+ so 12.7mm should do the job.
As for armored vehicles, QLZ87 35mm Automatic Grenade Launcher with HJ-8 ATGM is much more effective.
Propagandalass
New Member
I think machineguns are machineguns and grenade launchers are grenade launchers. There are scenarios that ask for machineguns over grenade launchers.
Heavy Machineguns weren't meant for people to carry them with high mobility to begin with (for that you have light machineguns a la RPK, Minimi, HKG21 etc), its either deployed in a position or mounted. I side with the theory that it can pose a threat to helicopters.
Heavy Machineguns weren't meant for people to carry them with high mobility to begin with (for that you have light machineguns a la RPK, Minimi, HKG21 etc), its either deployed in a position or mounted. I side with the theory that it can pose a threat to helicopters.