Marvelous…you see ?, is always better to explain in this way rather than simply to say "is crap, is crap ".
All right. Could we go back on topic, please?
What machine guns were used on the Pattons and Centurions?
M46 Patton:
.50cal M2HB AA
.30-06 M1919A4 Coaxial
.30-06 M1919A4 Ball Mount
M47 Patton:
.50cal M2HB AA
.30-06 M1919A4E1 Coaxial
.30-06 M1919A4E1 Ball Mount
M48/A1 Patton:
.50cal M2HB AA
.30-06 M1919A4E1 Coaxial
M48A2/A3 Patton:
.50cal M2HB AA
.30-06 M73 Coaxial
M48A5 Patton:
2x 7.62 x 51 mm M60D AA
7.62 x 51 mm M219 or M240 Coaxial
M60 Patton:
.50cal M85 AA
7.62 x 51 mm M73 Coaxial
M60A1 Patton:
.50cal M85 AA
7.62 x 51 mm M73 or M240 Coaxial
M60A2 Patton:
.50cal M85 AA
7.62 x 51 mm M73/A1 or M219 Coaxial
M60A3 Patton:
.50cal M85 AA
7.62 x 51 mm M73 or M219 Coaxial
Centurion Some form of .30-06 Browning, or L7 variant depending on the model.
The prototype Cent had the Polsten cannon of course. Early Brit Centurions had Besas. Later export Cents had Brownings.
Would have been better off with the Bren 
Not really, since it’s a box magazine fed weapon.
Cheers Man of Stoat,
Not that I approve of this Steyr-fight thread-jacking, but I really don’t mind either.
But I was wondering, never having fired the Galil, I understand that it is basically a recalibrated, 5.56mmNATO AKM. And that the Israelis developed it because they liked the AK-47 derivatives and used them in limited numbers. I think, as with my Mini-14 (5.56mm M-14 basically), that this would negatively effect the accuracy. Did you dislike it due to accuracy problems? I’ve noticed that the vast majority of the IDF’es seem to have M-16A1s or variants of it. I’ve wondered about this.
Interesting, I wonder if the US Army was trying to get rid of large stockpiles of .30-06 by leaving the M1919A4E1 in tanks, or they just didn’t bother to reconfigure the tank to take the updated M-60. This must have presented some logistical complications.
The M-60 (two actually) WAS mounted on the M113 ACAV model, which was essentially an early IFV upgrade of the venerable APC.
I never finished this. We have a few more weapon systems to visit… 
When the Israelis produced the Galil, (the originals on Valmet receivers if I recall correctly,) they had a decent rifle albeit with a unit price that reflected the work done already.
Uncle Sam then offered them a large shedload of M16’s of various sorts for much less than cost price.
Very sensibly, (and true to stereotype 
) the Fourbees paid wholesale as there was no point in issuing the Galil at five or six times the price.
A seaway to the variations of small arms used by the special operations forces of the US/RVN/Aussie side of the conflict…
Carl Gustav M45 “Swedish-K”
A major weapon, though used in small numbers by mostly U.S. special operations forces was the Swedish Carl Gustav M45 sub-machine-gun. Influenced by the German MP38/40, the weapon was prized for its reliability, ruggedness, compact size, and relatively good range for an SMG. Sweden ended arms sales to the US over the controversy of the Vietnam War, so the US Navy SEALS tasked Smith and Wesson to produce a copy called the M76. Few were needed and the US ended most combat operations in 'Nam by the time they took deliveries. Elements of the US military probably still have a few in inventory to this day…
Spec’s here.
From the link:
The m/45 was the official submachine gun of the Swedish Army after the Second World War. The m/45 SMG was also used by US Special Forces in the Vietnam War, with the weapons’ markings filed off. In US service, the m/45 was unofficially known as the “Swedish K” or “K-Rifle”.
…
During the Vietnam War, the US Navy SEALs extensively used the Carl Gustav M/45 SMG, because it can fire almost immediately out of the water. The US Navy so liked the weapon that, when Sweden ended firearms exports to the US in 1966, the Smith & Wesson arms company was tasked to produce a copy, designated the Smith & Wesson M76; however, by when the M76 SMG was ready for combat deployment, the US Navy had ended most SEAL missions in Asia.
A team from the elite MACV-SOG display their varied armaments, including a Carl Gustav…
Link to a nice overview from an Aussie Veteran site:
http://www.vvaavic.org.au/alliedweapons.asp
Some variations of the FN SLR carried by Australian SASR squadrons:
Courtesy of http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=134022&page=4
I noticed some of the men are wwearing some thick lonng scarves. I wonder what the reason for this was. I don;t think it was cold. Maybe it was for the sweat? Unusual thats why I’m wondering if anybody knows…
The blokes second and third from left are wearing what are commonly called sweat rags (but which from distant memory I think were called something else in stores nomenclature) which were standard issue for Australian forces, not just SAS. It was like a net woven out of thick ‘wool’ with small holes in the net. It was very absorbent. It served various other functions, such as helping with camouflage like a personal scrim net.
Mostly the head scarves were triangular bandages.
The reason I wore one was to keep sweat out of my eyes.
I still do that on the farm.
The hats with brims were good in heavy rain to keep that out of the eyes.
You could channel the cold water down the back of your neck.
Today I don’t have to stay out in the rain.
Helmets hinder hearing in recon type applications.
A big deal.
I very much doubt they carried that top SLR as the SUIT was not introduced till mid 70s.
The correct name is “Head Net Cam” and was to provide cam over trenches if you had one that was full size. Much smaller sweat rags were issued but not as big and made form cotton. The HNC was very good at its job either used for cam of around your neck. It was also very good for scratching your back.
I know this is an old thread but I have some more info about the M-16’s jamming problems when it first came out. The switch to Ball powder was the main problem but there is a reason why the ball powder was bad. I read about in Soldier of Fortune magazine in the 80’s…the Ball powder used was made from powder taken from old powder charges for the Navy and it contained talc. I forget why it had talc in it but when the rifle was fired the talc did not burn up and deposited in the gas tube, eventually restricting the gas flow to the bolt. It seems like I remember something about the armorers soaking the upper receivers in agent orange to clean out the gas tubes…I could be wrong but it’s been over 25 years since I read that article.
Lord save us from the experts.
