• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Cdn Army does not need HMGs (From: CANSOF vs. Boko Haram)

Now that the "war" is over they can get rid of that time consuming stuff and get back to parade squaring bashing  8)

Mortars, HMG's , Howitzers. It's not like we will ever fight a near peer enemy again, unless of course we bump into some "polite green men" or "Russian tourists" in Eastern Europe. 
 
Jarnhamar said:
Which sadly is on the way out of the system.

Funny enough I had a few drinks with a guy who is/was involved in this move.  He was very saddened about it and even when so far as to say the Army will again have to call on the Navy to reteach its operation when it is inevitably brought back into service again.

He was an MWO Weapons Tech Land and if my Wisers fogged memory is correct he was the LCMM for MGs.
 
The Army has no one to blame but themselves.  At least CANSOF and the RCAF are keeping Ma Deuce.  :salute:

G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
The Army has no one to blame but themselves.  At least CANSOF and the RCAF are keeping Ma Deuce.  :salute:

G2G

I don't expect the RCN will get rid of it soon either.
 
Retired AF Guy said:

CH-146 Griffon with GAU-21 (M3M) .50 cal machine gun in AFG

canadian_door_gunner_sergeant_chad__1038502549.640x0.jpg
 
jollyjacktar said:
I don't expect the RCN will get rid of it soon either.

Good point, JJT.  I update my previous statement..EVERY operational CAF service EXCEPT the Army...  :not-again:
 
Good2Golf said:
Good point, JJT.  I update my previous statement..EVERY operational CAF service EXCEPT the Army...  :not-again:

Did you mean, "every CAF service except the Army is operational"?
:nod:
 
Good2Golf said:
The Army has no one to blame but themselves.  At least CANSOF and the RCAF are keeping Ma Deuce.  :salute:

G2G

I'd like to know who,and how that decision was made.
 
Probably some bean counter in Ottawa that figured its cheaper to retire the weapon than spend the money to upgrade the ranges where soldiers can train with them. ;)
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Probably some bean counter in Ottawa that figured its cheaper to retire the weapon than spend the money to upgrade the ranges where soldiers can train with them. ;)

Who knows for sure, but I've heard the .50 became "redundant" once the 25 mm on the LAV came into play.

I don't know about any of you.....but I'm not sold on that.
 
Hamish Seggie said:
Who knows for sure, but I've heard the .50 became "redundant" once the 25 mm on the LAV came into play.

I don't know about any of you.....but I'm not sold on that.

Although the .50 is rather heavy, it still is "man-portable".  The 25 mm is not. 
 
I know it is waaaay off the subject, but just following this interesting thread.
Found on the 'net:
"General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Inc., Williston, Vt., was awarded a $255,486,000 firm-fixed-price contract to support the program manager, crew served weapons, which has a requirement to satisfy the M2A1 quick change barrel (QCB) kit requirement for the Army and other services. This contracting effort procures the additional M2A1 QCB kits for the continued fielding of the M2A1 weapon, and to replace already fielded M2s with the new M2A1 configuration. Funding and performance location will be determined with each order. The contract was solicited via the Web with eight bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command – Picatinny Arsenal, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. is the contracting activity (W15QKN-13-D-0107)."

ME
 
Hamish Seggie said:
I'd like to know who,and how that decision was made.

Was made by a person who never was, nor ever will, be an end user...I seem to remember reading somewhere about how the Brits were freaking out during the Falklands War because they had withdrawn the .50's from Army service, and now realized there was in fact a role for them and hurriedly brought some back into service.  Problem was, there were very few instructors alive/serving with the know how to teach people how to use them. 

Sounds familiar?  ;D

MM
 
medicineman said:
Was made by a person who never was, nor ever will, be an end user...

Such a common theme in the CAF for the last two or three decades.  Goes right up to to the construction of facilities for troops or equipment.  (Memories of a tank hangar being constructed in Pet (1994), where the foundation being laid clearly indicated that the doors would not be large enough to allow a tank to pass through; and proven as such once hangar was built.  Someone, not an end user, found a way to cut costs by reducing the size of the doors.)
 
George Wallace said:
Such a common theme in the CAF for the last two or three decades.  Goes right up to to the construction of facilities for troops or equipment.  (Memories of a tank hangar being constructed in Pet (1994), where the foundation being laid clearly indicated that the doors would not be large enough to allow a tank to pass through; and proven as such once hangar was built.  Someone, not an end user, found a way to cut costs by reducing the size of the doors.)

So many dolts, not enough live ammo...and incidentally there isn't enough live ammo to make sure our weapons are zeroed, much less to cull the dolts off.

MM
 
Back
Top