I'll start: the M1917 Browning water-cooled machine gun>absurdly reliable machine gun, can fire tens of thousands of rounds without any issues, all while being extremely simple>capable of precise fire suppression from thousands of meters>excels at defeating massed infantry attacks (AKA human waves), which remain a threat in modern warfare (see Iran-Iraq War, AQ/ISIS suicide bomber swarm attacks, cannon fodder Syrian mercs in the 2020 Karabakh War, Wagner meat wave attacks in Ukraine, etc.)>remote weapons stations, trenches, technicals, UGVs and fortifications have given heavy, tripod-mounted crew-served machine guns a new lease on life>mini UAVs, thermal optics, and ballistic calculators also make heavy MG's more effective at greater range>the M1910 Maxim's still putting in work in Ukraine, so why can't JMB's water-cooled masterpiece still see the battlefield?
>>61481523>reliableYou know that downsizing military overlapping equipment saves millions right?If it was up to every weapon historian there wouldn't be a single retired gun.
>>61481523it was replaced by the M1919A4 for a very good reasonit did everything the M1917 could, but from a lighter package>absurdly reliable machine gun, can fire tens of thousands of rounds without any issues, all while being extremely simpleM1919 was just as reliable, and didnt have the big water jacket>excels at defeating massed infantry attacksthe M1919 did as well>remote weapons stations, trenches, technicals, UGVs and fortifications have given heavy, tripod-mounted crew-served machine guns a new lease on lifeif you plan to stick the gun in a turret where the crew has to leave the vehicle to access it, then giving it a water jacket is not a good idea>the M1910 Maxim's still putting in work in Ukraine, so why can't JMB's water-cooled masterpiece still see the battlefield?because it was replaced by the M1919, which was better than itand the M1919s modern replacement, the M240, is even better since you can actually fire it from bipod if you felt like it
>30-06Because it's shit.
>>61481543>there wouldn't be a single retired gun.This but unironically
>>61481572It is a very good round. It outperforms 7.62 in every metric except weight
>>61481655It matches 7.62. More case capacity is not more power.
>>61481550from the M1919 wikipedia page:>The gun's original design was as a water-cooled machine gun (see the M1917 Browning machine gun). When it was decided to try to lighten the gun and make it air-cooled, its design as a closed bolt weapon created a potentially dangerous situation. If the gun was very hot from prolonged firing, the cartridge ready to be fired could be resting in a red-hot barrel, causing the propellant in the cartridge to heat up to the point that it would ignite and fire the cartridge on its own (a cook-off). With each further shot heating the barrel even more, the gun would continue to fire uncontrollably until the ammunition ran out, since depressing the trigger was not what was causing the gun to fire>Gunners were trained to manage the barrel heat by firing in controlled bursts of three to five rounds, to delay heating. Most other air-cooled machine gun designs were fired in the same way, even those featuring quick-change barrels, and which fired from an open bolt, two features that make air-cooled machine guns capable of somewhat more sustained fire, both features that the M1919 design lacked.the M1919 wasn't intended to entirely replace the M1917, it was meant to give infantrymen and tankers a lighter, more flexible option they could take on the move when necessary. M1917A1's continued to be used in fixed positions and on some vehicle mounts during almost all of the M1919's service life, and continued to be produced through all of WW2. same thing applies to the SG-43 and M1910 Maxim in Soviet service (the Soviets even kept Maxims at the Chinese border up to the 1980s in anticipation of mass infantry attacks).yes, medium machine guns and GPMGs have some distinct advantages over water-cooled MGs like the M1917. but a water-cooled MG will beat out just about any other automatic weapon in terms of reliability and sustained rate of fire.
>>61481543>You know that downsizing military overlapping equipment saves millions right?wah wah wah boo hoo hoo. Are you trying to tell me that you DON'T want to dump more money into guns and other military shit for completely autistic reasons? What are you, a fucking LIBERAL?
>>61481767It's not like the government spends that money better on anything else these days.
>>61481523All water cooled guns are considered obsolete for good reason - not just the old browning, but the vickers, mg 08, and all those maxim derivatives. They're too static, require too much water, and are too expensive. Quick change + gas operation rendered them obsolete even during the late First World War. Firing continuously for an hour isn't worthwhile. It's being used in Ukraine not because it's optimal, but because there is a general armaments shortage.
>>61481543This. Why reformers need to let go and let the bayonet be retired.
>>61481744M1917s only existed in the TOE because they were already procured and being mounted on half-tracks were the least bad use for them
>>61481831have you never seen pics of M1917A1s being used in combat in the Pacific or in Korea? they're virtually always used by dismounted infantry, usually in trenches or overwatch positions. there's a few pics I've seen of half tracks and jeeps with M1917A1's also, but the majority of documentation seems to suggest they were used mostly by soldiers on foot in fixed positions. even the WW2 instructional films from back in the day showed the M1917A1 being used in a ground role, not mounted onto vehicles.should be added too that M1917A1's were still coming out of US small arms factories as late as 1945, even though production for the M1919 commenced two decades before WW2 started and could've entirely replaced the M1917A1 on the production lines if the M1919 was actually the all-around better machine gun (which it wasn't).
>>61481543I thought everyone wanted to retire the BAR as early as the 20s but nobody could get a gun as reliable until the M60.
>>61481879M1917 was only issued as a half-track mount in armored infantry units, as a replacement for the M2 browning which was intended to be the main mounted weaponM1919 was issued to the weapons section the M1917 in the infantry battalion only existed out of inertia, they were placed in the battalion heavy weapons company but each battalion HQ was issued additional M1919s to replace those M1917s in the field when possible, the M1917s simply continued to exist in the weapons pool because it was easier to just assign more guns and keep them as backups
>>61481523There was nothing wrong with the basic design of the M1911. The M9 should have been a modernised, double-stack 9x19 M1911. Iconic.
