Why Weren't All .30Cal's the M1919A6 (Airborne version)

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#1


Why Did’t The US Make All .30Cal. into the M1919A6 version of the machine gun, turning it into the highly effective General Purpose Machine Gun? It seems that one of the bigger advantages the German infrantry enjoyed was that their machinegun, the MG42, was easier and more flexible to use in a fluid combat situation because of it’s bipod and buttstock. So why did the US Army only issue it to Airborne forces? Why not everyone?

M1919A6 .30 Caliber Air Cooled Machine Gun


Operation Fully automatic, recoil operated, air-cooled
Caliber .30 (".30-06") (7.62 mm)
Ammunition Ball M1; 174 gr bullet, 50 gr charge
Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)
Capacity 250-round belt
Weight 32.5lbs with bipod
Overall length 53 in
Rate of fire 400 to 550 rounds per minute
Effective range 800 yds

At 41 lbs for gun and tripod, the M1919A4 was much lighter than the water-cooled M1917A1 (93 lbs for gun and tripod). On the other hand, the air-cooled weapon was unable to maintain the same level of sustained fire as the water-cooled M1917A1, and did not have the steadiness of accuracy as the heavier weapon. Also, some combat units criticized the A4 as being too slow to get into action, and that the crew was too vulnerable.

The result was M1919A6, which featured a detachable shoulder stock, folding bipod, carrying handle, and a lighter barrel than the A4. Although only 43,500 A6s were produced in WWII, compared to 390,000 A4s, and although the A6 was even less steady in sustained fire as the A4, some experts argue that the A6 was the most unique weapon in the M1919 series.

The M1919A6 did see some service in Korea, and later in Vietnam.

From: http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30cala6.htm

[/img]

#2

This could be the reason Nick

although the A6 was even less steady in sustained fire as the A4

Airbourne forces need weapons that are light or smaller than those that can be carried by land based forces, or mech/armoured units. A flexible (sliding or folding) stock will never give the support of a fixed stock. Hence I would guess that this was the reason.

Or it would cost too much to convert the existing A4s to A6.

#3

Because it is heavy and kak?

The German as did the putting a butt on an MMG thing in WW1 and it was kak, the M1919A6 was kak, and nobody else really attempted the idea, that I can think of.

#4

According to Jane’s, many of the A6’s were converted back to A4 standard post-war, since the A6 was pump.

#5

You can see what they were trying to do though.

Get rid of the heavy tripod for airbourne forces.

#6

I think the main problem was that the Allies, notably the US and the UK, were reactionary, and fixed in their thinking. That weapons all belong in classes: light (BAR, BREN), medium (Browning, Vickers), and heavy (Browning .50). They developed tactics and thinking based on this. The German MG42 could be either fixed on a tripod for sustained defensive fighting, or used as a base of fire support weapon with a bipod, whereas the US and British armies preferred to use “light support machine guns” which were certainly very good and useful weapons, but they could often put soldiers at a firepower disadvantage while in a small unit firefight. Plus, in the US Army/Marine Corp, there was always the romantic notion of accuracy and “one shot --one kill” mentality, something we learned to reject in WWII, Korea, and especially Vietnam with the adoption of the M-16 and M-60 GPMG…

The M-60 is similiar in concept to the MG42…

#7

Another pump US design, recently replaced with an excellent Belgian design which predates it.

#8

Another pump US design, recently replaced with an excellent Belgian design which predates it.[/quote]

Yes, I was a little surprised to see the US military has phased out the “60,” is the new gun the same weapon that the Bitish Army uses?

#9

As has been said several times before on this site, one of the problems of the GPMG concept is that a) they tend to be a bit too heavy in the LMG role, and b) they don’t be too light in the MMG role.

The M1919A6 was not really an attempt to produce the GPMG – it was an attempt to fill the firepower gap between the BAR and the M1919A4. They were a wartime expedient. The US suffered by never adopting a proper LMG, and this was their less-than-satisfactory attempt to remedy that.

Comparison:

“automatic rifle”
Johnson 1941 - 13lb
BAR M1918 - 16lb
BAR M1918A2 - 19.4lb

LMG
BREN Mk2 - 23.2lb

GPMG
MG42 - 25.5lb (light) +42.3lb mount = 67.8lb (medium)
MG34 - 26.5lb (light) +42.3lb mount = 68.8lb (medium)
M1919A6 - 32.5lb (light) + 14lb mount = 46.5lb (medium)

MMG
M1919A4 - 31lb + 14lb mount = 45lb
M1917A1 - 41lb (w/water) + 53.15lb mount = 94.15lb
Vickers - 40lb (w/water) + 50lb mount = 90lb

HMG
M2HB - 84lb + 44lb mount = 128lb

#10

Another pump US design, recently replaced with an excellent Belgian design which predates it.[/quote]

Yes, I was a little surprised to see the US military has phased out the “60,” is the new gun the same weapon that the Bitish Army uses?[/quote]

Essentially, although the M240 has been “spammed up” with the addition of a heat shield and some picatinny rails. Amazing how the US has finally got around to adopting this 1950s design!

#11

Well, the I doubt the US Army was even aware of the coined-term “GPMG.” I understand that the US weapons in WWII were far from perfect, although they were effective and reliable overall. My limited experience with weaponry leads me to believe there is no perfect solution nor absolute ideal weapon. Better technology that has made the LMG lighter (for instance, in fact, US troops seem to be carrying a lot of SAWs and M249s in Iraq to compensate for the crappy three-round burst on the M-16A2 which puts them at a severe fire-power disadvantage with Iraq Insurgents. Yet, both the US Army and USMC are developing sniper weapons based on old platforms such as a newer version of the M-21 for the Marines, and an updated AR-10 for the Army, to contend with medium range snipers using Russian made Dragunov rifles…

But basically, before I ramble on, it was more tactics of the US and British that dictated that weapons be used in classes, whereas the Germans made the machinegun the center of their infantry force. Rifles, machinepistols, and later assault rifles were used essentially to support the machine gun, whereas the US infantry seemed to emphasize “the rifleman” conceptually. US Airborne troops I think were a little more flexible in their tactical thinking and often overcame their deficiencies in their basic infantry training with small unit tactics designed to compensate for their lack of firepower. Yet, in many ways they had more “organic firepower” than most US infantry with the M1919A6.