Guns On Guns - Grenade Launcher And Shotgun Attachments On Rifles

[NARSES2]

 If you ever get a chance, watch the movie "The Way Ahead".  Made in 1942-3 as a propaganda movie it has towards the end some fantastic battle scenes which were filmed on one of the battle-ranges in England.  There is a scene where Stanley Holloway is firing a Vickers.  He does it properly.  Fire burst, two taps left, fire burst, three taps right (literally when traversing you tap the spade-grip and force the gun across the traverse), and so on.  Its the only movie I know of where its done properly.

Good film all round. Gets a fairly regular airing on TV in the UK. The thing that gets me though is the apparent age of the conscripts - they ain't no teenagers. Or is that me forgetting that prior to about 1955 you had kids and adults - now't inbetween. Once you got out of shorts you wore similar clothes to your dad and grandad, and sometimes their old ones 

[Maverick]

Brian,

I certainly wasn't aware of the burst issue with water-cooled weapons.  Pity my great-uncle wasn't still kicking, he was an MG man from way back in WW2 & Korea.  Would've been fun picking his brains.

I was always taught the No. 2 on the gun was a support and not to use their own weapon also, I guess us 'oldies' were taught the proper way it seems.  I was always a bit iffy with the pushing reload.  I know it works but the 'manual reader' in me cringed when I was taught that way.  I wondered if perhaps it wouldn't be better for the remainder of the section to support the gun during the reload rather than take the chance of a nasty jam, especially in the field, but it seemed to work often enough.  Mind you, I'm not too sure what the armourers thought about the whole thing!

I'm not really surprised the USMC are asking for 600m ranges, they've always emphasised marksmanship as opposed to US Army training, although I tend to think that it's a bit of wishful thinking to engage an enemy at those ranges with 5.56mm ammo with appreciable accuracy.  I also heard somewhere that the US either wanted to develop the round so that it specifically was at maximum lethality at around 200m back in the day.  I guess that was a hang-over from the Vietnam days of course and things have changed in the environments they find themselves in now.

I was a bit nonplussed when the converted 4RAR to a Commando unit.  I guess they would have lost a few during selection assuming that the entire unit would have been expected to pass Commando training.  As for elitism, I was always led to believe that ADF special forces were a bit more egalitarian and frowned on that sort of attitude.  I know ex-SASR who cringed at the word and have also heard similar through the grapevine so I'm surprised that 4 RAR had any of that going on.  Quite embarrassing really for the ADF in general, given our history of not elevating certain units that way.

I guess the choice of the M4 to be able to 'customise' it is either a good or bad one, depending on individual doing the customising.  If they're equipping their weapon with mission-specific tools, the M4 would be a good choice, given the accessories, etc available to it.  If, however, they are doing it to be cool, that's very disappointing, especially from and ADF unit.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

 If you ever get a chance, watch the movie "The Way Ahead".  Made in 1942-3 as a propaganda movie it has towards the end some fantastic battle scenes which were filmed on one of the battle-ranges in England.  There is a scene where Stanley Holloway is firing a Vickers.  He does it properly.  Fire burst, two taps left, fire burst, three taps right (literally when traversing you tap the spade-grip and force the gun across the traverse), and so on.  Its the only movie I know of where its done properly.

Good film all round. Gets a fairly regular airing on TV in the UK. The thing that gets me though is the apparent age of the conscripts - they ain't no teenagers. Or is that me forgetting that prior to about 1955 you had kids and adults - now't inbetween. Once you got out of shorts you wore similar clothes to your dad and grandad, and sometimes their old ones 

Conscription in wartime takes people from the younger and the older age groups first, working inwards towards the middle usually.  By 1942, they were more than likely getting 18-25s and 40-45s.  I also suspect that they wanted fairly well known people who could act and that means older people usually - Stanley Holloway particularly was well known.   Great actor, always enjoy seeing him on screen 'cause he can and does act unlike a lot of the people you get nowadays.   

The movie is good 'cause it's realistic.  It had to be 'cause it was going to be playing to wartime audiences.   So, they got loads of help from the Army and the Army obviously took it seriously and taught the actors properly how to handle the weapons they're using.   Unusual 'cause it shows a real Panzer IV F2 or G, so it has to be sometime after 1942 and it must have been one of the ones shipped back from North Africa for evaluation.   Just love Peter Ustinov in it though.  He helped write it and at the time was a Private.  Officially David Niven's batman, Niven wrote him a pass which said something like, "This man has permission to be where he is because he needs to be."   

[rickshaw]

Brian,

I certainly wasn't aware of the burst issue with water-cooled weapons.  Pity my great-uncle wasn't still kicking, he was an MG man from way back in WW2 & Korea.  Would've been fun picking his brains.

While it takes longer, the barrels of water-cooled MGs still have cooling problems.  The Vickers used to be issued with a little square tin box, usually a 2 gallon oil can.  This was officially "the condenser" - a rubber tube was connected from the cooling jacket and led into the can, where the steam from the water jacket could condense after it had boiled out of the jacket.  When the jacket was semi-dry, the water was poured back in and any that had been lost was topped up as well.  You also had to change the barrels on water cooled MGs.  That required a spanner and the barrel would be withdrawn out the front of the jacket (there was an inner wall that prevented the water from leaking out) and replaced.  When it was replaced, "head spacing" had to be checked, to make sure it wasn't wound in too far or too little (head spacing is the distance from the front of the bolt to the front of the chamber - too close and the bolt will pound itself against the chamber and be damaged and too far and the round won't be chambered properly before it fires).  Barrel changes were usually to allow the barrel to cool or be replaced with a less worn one or allow the water to be changed completely.   Long bursts tended to be less accurate and to wear out barrels faster, so again, bursts were used.  The longest ones I've heard about were in the region of 25 rounds (usually counted by saying the words "one thousand, two thousand," - each "thousand" was about 10-15 rounds).

I was always taught the No. 2 on the gun was a support and not to use their own weapon also, I guess us 'oldies' were taught the proper way it seems.  I was always a bit iffy with the pushing reload.  I know it works but the 'manual reader' in me cringed when I was taught that way.  I wondered if perhaps it wouldn't be better for the remainder of the section to support the gun during the reload rather than take the chance of a nasty jam, especially in the field, but it seemed to work often enough.  Mind you, I'm not too sure what the armourers thought about the whole thing!

They didn't care.  It didn't actually hurt the weapon and was actually less likely to cause a stoppage.  Afterall, all you're doing is mimicking the actual action of the weapon.  Opening the cover, particularly on the M60 in the heat of battle often did result in a stoppage - caused by someone forgetting in the heat of the moment to cock it before opening the cover.  It also would allow foreign bodies to enter the weapon - mud, leaves, sticks, you name it, being thrown around by explosions, etc.  Same with festooning yourself with belts of link.  When you go to ground, the link will pick up crap which the gun then ingests.  You may have seen pictures of diggers in Vietnam with belts of link over their bodies covered in blow-up mattress inserts.  That's one way to keep the clean.  I used to insist on link being carried in the little cloth "dilly bags" they were issued in after I was looking back through the Army's Training Bulletins (a whole load of them were being thrown out and I'd picked them up on their way to the rubbish bin) a report of a training accident (they used to print all major incidents on the covers).  A digger in Vietnam was killed when he was carrying a belt of link over his shoulder and another digger was ordered to give him his belt.  He threw it over the first digger's shoulder and the nose of one round hit the base of another and it went off.  The bullet travelled downwards from his right should to his left hip, killing him.  Made sobering reading.

I'm not really surprised the USMC are asking for 600m ranges, they've always emphasised marksmanship as opposed to US Army training, although I tend to think that it's a bit of wishful thinking to engage an enemy at those ranges with 5.56mm ammo with appreciable accuracy.  I also heard somewhere that the US either wanted to develop the round so that it specifically was at maximum lethality at around 200m back in the day.  I guess that was a hang-over from the Vietnam days of course and things have changed in the environments they find themselves in now.

SS109, the round fired now, as against the original round fired in Vietnam was originally specified to be accurate out to 1,000 metres.  It apparently more than fulfilled that requirement when it won the competition for a new NATO round back in the late 1970s.

I was a bit nonplussed when the converted 4RAR to a Commando unit.  I guess they would have lost a few during selection assuming that the entire unit would have been expected to pass Commando training.  As for elitism, I was always led to believe that ADF special forces were a bit more egalitarian and frowned on that sort of attitude.  I know ex-SASR who cringed at the word and have also heard similar through the grapevine so I'm surprised that 4 RAR had any of that going on.  Quite embarrassing really for the ADF in general, given our history of not elevating certain units that way.

Commandos - as against  SASR - have always had a certain high estimation of their own abilities, I've noticed.   I remember watching a platoon of them going north for K'82, while my unit and they were waiting at Point Cook for our flight.  They were doing lots of rather silly things with knives IIRC and acting very full of themselves.

I guess the choice of the M4 to be able to 'customise' it is either a good or bad one, depending on individual doing the customising.  If they're equipping their weapon with mission-specific tools, the M4 would be a good choice, given the accessories, etc available to it.  If, however, they are doing it to be cool, that's very disappointing, especially from and ADF unit.

Some customisation may be necessary.  You've got to remember most of these kids are literally that - kids.  They're attracted to toys and glitter.    The older diggers are always noticeable.  Their gear is well worn, functional and minimal.   Basically they carry what they need, 'cause they know they need it.  The young diggers until they mature carry stuff that isn't necessary.  Its the maturing process which is important.  Now the F88a2 is being adopted, I suspect we'll see 4 RAR having to give up their non-standard weapons 'cause many of the arguments against them using the F88 won't wear.

[Maverick]

I certainly wasn't aware of the barrel change issues with water cooled weapons.  I assumed there'd be a change when the barrel wore out, but beyond that it seemed to be too much effort.  I'm certainly aware of the issues of head-spacing naturally, however.

I've noticed the covering over belt-links in Vietnam.  I was only aware of it through SASR use, however, and wasn't aware the the line infantry also practised it.  Good to see and inidicative of the level of professionalism the ADF bred in those days.

Whilst the SS109 might very well be able to reach 1000m, I wonder about its ballistics and the like.  Given the ballistics of the heavier 7.62 round, one has to assume that weather would have a marked impact on the smaller 5.56.  In addition, the round is less likely to be able to deal with light vegetation between the weapon and target, something that wasn't a case with the 7.62 if those who served in Vietnam are to be believed.  I also wonder about the requirements of a round out to 1000m if they're talking about a normal rifle.  Without optics, manshapes at a click are fairly obscure to say the least.  I recall our training range and knocking 600m targets with the SLR, but even though my eyesight was quite good back in the day, I doubt I'd be able to hit a target without optics at 1km.  Obviously, today is a different experience with optics being haute de riguer for firearms.

Regarding the Commandoes in '82, I'd think they would have been Reservists anyway, as I'm not aware of any Regular Army units classified as such until the 4 RAR experience.  If that was the case, I can't say I'm awfully surprised that they wouldn't be quite as professional as Regular soldiers.  There was quite a bit said about the boys from No 1 & 2 Commandoes, little of it complimentary.

I'm assuming the F88A2 is a railed type version of the Steyr?  I'm aware that Steyr themselves were offering various versions with RIS assemblies.

Regards,

Mav

[NARSES2]

While it takes longer, the barrels of water-cooled MGs still have cooling problems.  The Vickers used to be issued with a little square tin box, usually a 2 gallon oil can.  This was officially "the condenser" - a rubber tube was connected from the cooling jacket and led into the can, where the steam from the water jacket could condense after it had boiled out of the jacket.  When the jacket was semi-dry, the water was poured back in and any that had been lost was topped up as well. 

There's a wonderfull passage in a book I have on the 1918 defensive battles (defensive from the Allied point of view) where a section of Vicker's were being used in the direct fire role (usually used in indirect roles by then) in fairly open terrain and the rest of the assembled waifs and strays were peeing in any boxes around to provide enough coolant for the guns. There are some preaty amazing ammo usage stats in the article as far as I can remember - I'll have to find it.

Conscription in wartime takes people from the younger and the older age groups first, working inwards towards the middle usually.  By 1942, they were more than likely getting 18-25s and 40-45s.  I also suspect that they wanted fairly well known people who could act and that means older people usually - Stanley Holloway particularly was well known.   Great actor, always enjoy seeing him on screen 'cause he can and does act unlike a lot of the people you get nowadays.   

Didn't realise that. Always assumed they started at 18 and worked up. Mind you I had an uncle who was called up at 40 in 1940. He was a batchelor and spent his time in home based AAA

[rickshaw]

While it takes longer, the barrels of water-cooled MGs still have cooling problems.  The Vickers used to be issued with a little square tin box, usually a 2 gallon oil can.  This was officially "the condenser" - a rubber tube was connected from the cooling jacket and led into the can, where the steam from the water jacket could condense after it had boiled out of the jacket.  When the jacket was semi-dry, the water was poured back in and any that had been lost was topped up as well. 

There's a wonderfull passage in a book I have on the 1918 defensive battles (defensive from the Allied point of view) where a section of Vicker's were being used in the direct fire role (usually used in indirect roles by then) in fairly open terrain and the rest of the assembled waifs and strays were peeing in any boxes around to provide enough coolant for the guns. There are some preaty amazing ammo usage stats in the article as far as I can remember - I'll have to find it.

That would be the barrage by the 100th Machine Gun Company at High Wood?

Found this online:

On 24 August one of the most celebrated machine gun actions of all time took place nearby. This was the famous barrage fired by 100th Machine Gun Company in support of the capture of High Wood. With the assistance of two companies of infantry to do the fetching and carrying, rapid fire (officially laid down as 250–300 rounds per minute) by 10 guns was maintained continuously for twelve hours. At the end of this period they had fired 900,750 rounds. Their target was the area behind the crest-line on which High Wood stands, through which German infantry attempting to counter-attack had to pass. According to a German prisoner, the effect of the machine-gun fire was 'annihilating'. This barrage was of course rather out of the ordinary, both in terms of its duration and in the lavish expenditure of ammunition.

The webpage it came from, on British Machine Gun tactics is quite good: - http://www.essentialsomme.com/articles/british_machine_gun_tactics.htm

Didn't realise that. Always assumed they started at 18 and worked up. Mind you I had an uncle who was called up at 40 in 1940. He was a batchelor and spent his time in home based AAA

The idea was that those in the middle age groups were the most productive and well trained, so were essential to industry.  Younger age groups were preferred 'cause they were more malleable.  Older age groups were acceptable 'cause they were already past their most productive period and had, generally fewer family responsibilities (older/grown up children, etc).   If you look at most group photos of servicemen in WWII you'll see a spread of age groups but the younger ones are the majority.  If you read "Quartered Safe out here" by McDonald Fraser, one of the notable things is the ages of the men in his unit.   IIRC the "average age" for British servicemen in WWII was about 28.

[rickshaw]

I certainly wasn't aware of the barrel change issues with water cooled weapons.  I assumed there'd be a change when the barrel wore out, but beyond that it seemed to be too much effort.  I'm certainly aware of the issues of head-spacing naturally, however.

Even water-cooled weapons can get hot.

I've noticed the covering over belt-links in Vietnam.  I was only aware of it through SASR use, however, and wasn't aware the the line infantry also practised it.  Good to see and inidicative of the level of professionalism the ADF bred in those days.

Despite being conscripts, the diggers were well trained.   Its interesting how the number of accidents went up though, over silly things such as firing mortars under trees and such like.

Whilst the SS109 might very well be able to reach 1000m, I wonder about its ballistics and the like.  Given the ballistics of the heavier 7.62 round, one has to assume that weather would have a marked impact on the smaller 5.56.  In addition, the round is less likely to be able to deal with light vegetation between the weapon and target, something that wasn't a case with the 7.62 if those who served in Vietnam are to be believed.  I also wonder about the requirements of a round out to 1000m if they're talking about a normal rifle.  Without optics, manshapes at a click are fairly obscure to say the least.  I recall our training range and knocking 600m targets with the SLR, but even though my eyesight was quite good back in the day, I doubt I'd be able to hit a target without optics at 1km.  Obviously, today is a different experience with optics being haute de riguer for firearms.

If anything the proliferation of optics nowadays should make rifles more accurate not less yet, it is the lack of accuracy which is one of the biggest complaints which is made.  I still think its a problem with the weapon firing the round, rather than the round itself.

Regarding the Commandoes in '82, I'd think they would have been Reservists anyway, as I'm not aware of any Regular Army units classified as such until the 4 RAR experience.  If that was the case, I can't say I'm awfully surprised that they wouldn't be quite as professional as Regular soldiers.  There was quite a bit said about the boys from No 1 & 2 Commandoes, little of it complimentary.

1 Commando had a squadron of Regulars in 1982, with cadres in each of the reservist squadrons.  Most of the Commandos I observed IIRC were reservists and were very full of themselves.   They reminded me more than anything of School Cadets because of their average age - considering I was 22 at the time - that is saying something! 

I'm assuming the F88A2 is a railed type version of the Steyr?  I'm aware that Steyr themselves were offering various versions with RIS assemblies.

The a2 has rails on top and the bottom.  The a3 has rails on the side as well.  The ADF is adopting the a2 at the moment but I'm unaware of any plans to adopt the a3.

F88a2 in East Timor:


1/6 Model of an F88a3 (only clear picture I can find of it, interestingly):

[Maverick]

Thanks for the info Brian.

The F88A3 looks quite similar to the AUG I saw on Steyr's site.  I wonder if the rails will still allow for the 'guccifying' of the F88?

I wasn't aware No 1 Commando fielded a Regular squadron.  Whilst I realise the Reserves had cadres of Regular soldiers, I guess the more specialist nature of the Commandoes warranted a Regular component.

Perhaps the design of the firearms is, as you say, lacking, although there are plenty of other rounds (in other calibres) that are able to reach those ranges and further without major weapon modification.  I'd still suggest that the 5.56mm isn't the best choice for engagements beyond 400-500m given the detrimental effects the environment can have on such a smaller round.

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

So...... it seems like only M16 and MP5 had shotgun attachments available or in development......

Granted, it seems to be primarily meant as a breaching tool; a standalone shotgun, freed from not adding too much extra length to another weapon, is probably more useful as a combat weapon...... 

[Cliffy B]

Breaching is the only real use if you think about.  It has to be.  Think about how short the barrel is and as a result, the magazine tube.  IIRC, the master key shotgun only holds four shells, one of which is in the breach!  With a ridiculously shortened barrel and only four shells you'd be hard pressed to use that effectively in any room larger than a bathroom.

Didn't the master key gets its name because it was designed for breaching doors?  Who needs a key when you have the master key!    I'll get my coat...

[Maverick]

I've seen plenty of SAS pics where a trooper carries a cut down shotgun along with his normal MP5.  To be honest, if all the Masterkey concept means is a breaching weapon, I can't really see the point.  Given the extra weight and the way it affects the main weapon's weight and balance, I think Sotool's suggestions of a separate weapon have much merit.  Also, the separate weapon could be used beyond just a breaching weapon and have a larger magazine.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Thanks for the info Brian.

The F88A3 looks quite similar to the AUG I saw on Steyr's site.  I wonder if the rails will still allow for the 'guccifying' of the F88?

One rather suspects thats the point of them.  A top and bottom rail I can see the point of but side mounted ones?  They're for gucci.

I wasn't aware No 1 Commando fielded a Regular squadron.  Whilst I realise the Reserves had cadres of Regular soldiers, I guess the more specialist nature of the Commandoes warranted a Regular component.

Basically you need a regular squadron to ensure that training standards are maintained.  Cadre are usually too busy running the show for that.  The regular squadron shows the others how its meant to be done.

Perhaps the design of the firearms is, as you say, lacking, although there are plenty of other rounds (in other calibres) that are able to reach those ranges and further without major weapon modification.  I'd still suggest that the 5.56mm isn't the best choice for engagements beyond 400-500m given the detrimental effects the environment can have on such a smaller round.

Problem is that what is being sought is a compromise - penetration to penetrate armour for targets from 1st world armies, massive wound effect for targets from 3rd world insurgencies and accuracy at long range.   Different people emphasise different things.

What I think is needed is better weapons and above all else, better training, particularly for the yanks.  Teach them proper fire discipline.   Get them to do section fire at long range and at least some of their problems will disappear (literally).

[Maverick]

Lol, you forgot to say 'disappear in a red mist'...

Regards,

Mav

[sotoolslinger]

It is actually a shame that most militaries consider the shotgun merely a breeching tool. I suppose that because of the recoil and and special training it requires to use properly it really is a spec op tool . Most people don't realize that in urban ,jungle, and foresty environments ie short range ,a good shotgunner can put more projectiles into an area than a machinegunner.