Things about combat vs. movies

[Adm.Lee]

http://www.cracked.com/article_21622...xperience.html

Yes, it's a comedy website, but I found the descriptions from veterans fascinating. I'd heard of MGs "talking", but not to the detailed level shown in #5. It seems to me they are over-rating the dangers of runaways, but I have zero experience there to judge.

#1 was darkly amusing.

[James Langham2]

While I agree with most of it I do think they have underestimated the value of concealment as opposed to cover - yes it can be shot through but ANYTHING that makes me harder to hit is good!

[kato13]

Cracked articles are generally entertaining but usually only about 75% accurate (for comedy purposes this is understandable).

I like the site but I will usually double check a fact from there a little more diligently than one from a "proper" news source. (But it is a good idea to always double check).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Yeah I have to say Kato has the right of it, Cracked articles are more for entertainment than for education but I reckon he's being a bit generous with a figure of 75%. I'd put the figure at about 66% myself but for this one article I have to admit that they did seem to get four out of five right!

However, No 5 in the article is borderline bullshit. This line from No 5 is complete crap "In reality, if you do that for more than a couple of minutes, your gun explodes." and the second vid they post is not a cook off (as mentioned in a number of comments on the youtube page - even a cursory look shows the gunner had problems with the weapon feeding before the round exploded).

WARNING: Rant Zone Ahead!

I was a machinegunner for several years, carrying the M60 before we transitioned to the MAG58 and F89 Minimi. I've done the "talking" thing but Cracked massively overstate the value of it to keep the gun from overheating. It was done more for tactical considerations than to prevent the gun from getting too warm (for example, conservation of ammo).
I've had two M60s go runaway on me but it had nada to do with them overheating and everything to do with worn safety sears not engaging fully.

I trained to operate the '60 in the normal Infantry Section (Squad) role and also in the Sustained Fire MachineGun (SFMG) role which means instead of firing bursts of 3-5 rounds as required like we did in the Section, we fired bursts of 10 to 20-rds up to 100 rounds per minute for rapid fire and 200-rds per minute for double rapid fire. In the anti-aircraft role the gun was expected to fire up to its cyclic rate - 550-rds per minute.
All of this means the gun gets hot but I've never once seen any machinegun "cook off" rounds or even met anyone who had a machinegun cook off. Any runaways we had were typically from FNGs not applying the safety and keeping their grubby little arse-scratchers on the trigger or because the gun was worn and the sear didn't engage.

MGs are typically designed to draw air into the chamber during extraction and are most often designed to fire from open bolts further reducing the chance of cook offs because the bolt is not in battery (and therefore not contributing its heat buildup to the round as well as leaving the chamber open to allow air to circulate).

On one SFMG range shoot in the early 1990s, we had six M60s on the gun line and being old and worn most of them broke down until my gun was the only one left running. We had a fire mission to complete so until the other guns came back online, my gun was ordered to continue firing without pause. We had other gun teams delivering their ammo to us and my Number 2 (who was actually operating the gun at the time) just kept the trigger down while I linked belt after belt.
We put just over 3000 rounds through that gun without stopping. 3000 rounds divided by the cyclic rate equals approx 5 minutes and 40 seconds of continuous firing and while the barrel glowed white-hot, it never once had any issue with "melting", "exploding" or any other "Cracked-ism".

However, once we stopped, everything was heated up so much that the operating rod wouldn't engage the safety sear and the bolt was still so hot it welded itself to the chamber. The receiver got a nice long crack in it just above the cocking handle as it cooled down apparently due to the metal contracting too quickly as it cooled

Cook offs occur more often with rifles that have being firing automatic for long stretches than they do with machineguns. Fortunately most rifles have a built in limitation to how many rounds they can fire in a minute - the 30-rd magazine. It stops excitable grunts from expending all their ammo in one trigger squeeze!
And any gunner worth the name would still be in control of their gun even if it became a runaway - you'd simply keep it pointing downrange towards the Ens - hardly the "possessed machine gun that is randomly spraying bullets on its own" scenario described by Cracked.


Rant over.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

he's being a bit generous with a figure of 75%. I'd put the figure at about 66% myself but for this one article I have to admit that they did seem to get four out of five right!

I originally put 50-75% but i felt 50% was too harsh. 66% sounds about right.

[Adm.Lee]

Thanks for the rant, SSC. I thought (as stated) that the writer seemed to be overstating the case for runaways. Much of my reading has been WW2, and I certainly do not remember a lot of tales of runaway guns. Barrel changes and water-cooled guns boiling off their water, yes.

Re: concealment vs. cover: It shouldn't count as concealment if the enemy saw you duck behind it? I was just watching a cop show this morning-- the bad guy was letting rip with an Ingram while the hero and his wife ducked behind couches. The hero then popped up and shot a couple times, rolled over one chair to hide behind another couch, then finished off the bad guys with his third pop-up. The hero only reloaded once he was running out of the house to start banging away at the bosses escaping in the limo.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hey Adm. Lee, you're welcome
While I have no problem with any website trying to explain the realities of such things, it annoys the hell outta me when they don't properly research it.
So Cracked asked some serving soldiers about their experiences and wrote the article from that info, I get that, but the article really needed more clarity and perhaps I'm being overly harsh because Cracked authors don't necessarily know the right questions to ask...

However...

A website like Cracked doesn't just have thousands of people reading their articles, they have millions. Some of those readers take the info they got from Cracked and become "Instant military expert, just add Cracked" and further disseminate that flawed info - thereby defeating the point of the article in the first place. They really, really, REALLY need to get it right and that means doing a little more research but in this day and age with many military themed forums available, it's easier than ever - you don't even have to go to a library anymore!

One other thing to mention about runaway guns that I forgot to add while I was so steamed up - if you're using disintegrating link ammo, you're trained to break the belt as close to the feed pawls when a runaway occurs thereby limiting the number of rounds available for the gun.

Although I've never tried this, "soldier's stories" claim even twisting the belt so that it can't fed properly is allegedly enough to stop the runaway because the gun uses a recoil operated mechanical feed and while it is powerful enough to pull in a 100-rd belt, it's not strong enough pull a twisted belt back into line.
But take that as hearsay, because as mentioned, I haven't tried it and I don't know anyone else who has although it does sound as though it would work.

[James Langham2]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Thanks for the rant, SSC. I thought (as stated) that the writer seemed to be overstating the case for runaways. Much of my reading has been WW2, and I certainly do not remember a lot of tales of runaway guns. Barrel changes and water-cooled guns boiling off their water, yes.

Re: concealment vs. cover: It shouldn't count as concealment if the enemy saw you duck behind it? I was just watching a cop show this morning-- the bad guy was letting rip with an Ingram while the hero and his wife ducked behind couches. The hero then popped up and shot a couple times, rolled over one chair to hide behind another couch, then finished off the bad guys with his third pop-up. The hero only reloaded once he was running out of the house to start banging away at the bosses escaping in the limo.

Anything that increases the area that has to be shot to achieve a likely hit on you is good. If someone is shooting at me I will use ANYTHING to help (I always remember the line in All Quiet on the Western Front about recruits not seeing cover unless it is 6 inches high. I was taught to use the slight rise of a curb as cover - every little helps.