• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Gyroscopic mounts for LMGs

On one of those ridiculous gun makers programs - either American Guns or Sons of Guns I don't remember which - they used a modified steady cam mount for an M16 so that they could shoot from a helicopter.
 
Okay, we've tackled this subject before, but I don't think we ever resolved it. The steadicam mounts used for the support weapons in "Aliens". Would they really help a support gunner in combat?

Here's what I mean; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMfcEvrTSS8

The mounts used made it fairly easy for the actors in Aliens to handle the weapons - they were real weapons with blank-only barrels, but had recoil.

Thing is, they add considerable weight. The principle is sound.
 
Many armies teach free hand as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjgSs7iQO28

I have fired the M-60 free hand, but I would hesitate to try to engage a target at much more than 100 meters while doing so. And for extended range targets, I would take a tripod over a bipod.

And if I were in a defensive position, with extensive cleared areas of fire, I would take a water-cooled medium machine gun every time. Unless I could get my hands on a water-cooled .50 caliber heavy machine gun.
 
True, that is the biggest disadvantage of that stedicam mount is the use of the weapon prone or entrenched.

(Personally I'll take a radio link to a battery of 101A1's over any MG. ;) )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoW_uDojpg8

Depends on the situation, as to whether or not you have a dedicated battery available, condition of the ground, barbed wire out, and land mines and Claymores deployed. If ground is plowed or soft, then your artillery would need to use proximity fuzes for optimum effect, with the chance of a short round possibly causing extensive "friendly fire" casualties. With barbed wire out, shell fragments may cut the wire and reduce it effectiveness. If you have a land mine belt, you do not want to put artillery fire there unless absolutely necessary to avoid detonating the mines. I am not a fan of cluster munitions whatsoever, because of the large number of fuze failures.

If I really had my druthers, and could have any weapon desires, a pair of quad .50 on a halftrack for mobility would be my choice, loaded with standard steel AP rounds for maximum penetration of human tissue.
 
True, that is the biggest disadvantage of that stedicam mount is the use of the weapon prone or entrenched.

Actually, according to the Colonial Marines technical manual the way it is employed while prone is as in this pic;
uscm.jpg
 
Shooting from you back is actually a very valid firing position. I have an old army manual from the early 1800s that shows nearly a hundred or more positions, mostly variations on themes.

So, I'm guessing that even though the steadi-mount looks cool, it's more or less no help whatsoever other than it does look cool in the movie.

To me it seemed like those weapons were so heavy that they needed that extra bit of support spread over the body such that they could be handled by a single individual. Something like the grav assist is supposed to be for a high energy weapon, only this is a mechanical solution that spreads the weight over the body via the harness.

Still, like I said, it looks really cool :)

m56smartgun_imfdb.jpg
 
Well, the Colonial Marines Tech manual describes the harness as being more than just a way to carry the gun. The harness is designed to absorb a lot of the recoil and the breastplate has a fire control computer in it. The wearer has a HUD display, seen in the movie. The FC Computer actually can move the gun tracking on potential targets. Marines are supposed to be wearing IFF beacons so the guns don't fire on friendlies but the book has reports of that malfunctioning sometimes. The smart gun tracks and aims the gun and the system is designed so that all the gunner has to do is pull the trigger. So the smartgun is more than your standard machine gun that lays down suppression fire. It supposed to be designed to put single rounds in multiple targets and all the gunner has to do is support the weapon and do the overall gross movements and pull the trigger. The smartgun does aim adjustments and if the gunner's finger has pulled the trigger back then the computer fires the gun as the bore crosses the center mass of the target. Its firecontrol software even tracks and adjusts for target movement.

Yes, I own the book and yes I think you could use it as a Traveller Sourcebook. ;)
 
That is way cool. I gave one to our LMGer years back, but I think we only gave him something like a DM of +1 for targetting. Wow. We short changed him. Where is this book anyway? :D
 
Last edited:
Firing positions and other concerns

Firing while laying on ones back does indeed feature among the many recommended firing positions for 18th and 19th century Riflemen. The idea is that it is the most stable position for a long range shot. The Rifleman lays down, tucks the stock into the shoulder, crosses his ankles and rest the barrel between his feet to take the shot.

I'm not too sure if any of that is of benefit with the Aliens steady gun mount. By the way as the illustration in the Colonial Marines Manual it looks like many Marine machine gunners would blow their own toes off.

The main problem I see with the whole steady rig concept is being able to throw the gun away quickly. The gun is attached to the rig, and the rig is attached to you. What happens when you really *have* to get through that mousehole in a room entry or when the mg gunner gets hit how does someone else in the squad take over?

There are some benefits but overall is it a workable idea?
 
That weird prone position is what they really did do, and is the old manuals of arms for using the Baker Rifle. Since the weapon was shorter than the musket, and they fought in pairs to cover one another during reloads, shooting from all sorts of prone positions was explored. Here is one example by a re-enactor:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/2_95th_riflemen_in_various_fighting_stances.JPG

I myself have used a variant with a Thompson Contender in .223 for long distance precision shooting by lying on my side and bracing the gun hand on my drawn-up knee and ankle.

But the rig the Colonials use would make it too hard to quickly get back up and reposition in a fight for it to be imagined as realistic. It takes away form the whole point of have squad-level mobile firepower like an LMG. Let alone some the size of an M60.
 
I'm not too sure if any of that is of benefit with the Aliens steady gun mount. By the way as the illustration in the Colonial Marines Manual it looks like many Marine machine gunners would blow their own toes off.

The Smart Gun computer wouldn't allow the gun to fire. :)

The main problem I see with the whole steady rig concept is being able to throw the gun away quickly. The gun is attached to the rig, and the rig is attached to you. What happens when you really *have* to get through that mousehole in a room entry or when the mg gunner gets hit how does someone else in the squad take over?

Watch Aliens and see how quick they drop them. They have quick releases on the breast/back plates and get out of the rig in a couple of seconds

There are some benefits but overall is it a workable idea?

With our current technology? Probably not. With technology as shown in the movie? probably. You have to remember it's more than just a gun on a steadycam. It has an advanced fire control computer and IFF system and it has servos and a recoil system built into it as well.
 
Firing while laying on ones back does indeed feature among the many recommended firing positions for 18th and 19th century Riflemen. The idea is that it is the most stable position for a long range shot. The Rifleman lays down, tucks the stock into the shoulder, crosses his ankles and rest the barrel between his feet to take the shot.

I'm not too sure if any of that is of benefit with the Aliens steady gun mount. By the way as the illustration in the Colonial Marines Manual it looks like many Marine machine gunners would blow their own toes off.

The main problem I see with the whole steady rig concept is being able to throw the gun away quickly. The gun is attached to the rig, and the rig is attached to you. What happens when you really *have* to get through that mousehole in a room entry or when the mg gunner gets hit how does someone else in the squad take over?

There are some benefits but overall is it a workable idea?

Actually, with the way it's mounted, it'll be 15cm above the chest in the laid-back position. Long as they keep their knees and feet down, it'll clear.
 
Firing while laying on ones back does indeed feature among the many recommended firing positions for 18th and 19th century Riflemen. The idea is that it is the most stable position for a long range shot. The Rifleman lays down, tucks the stock into the shoulder, crosses his ankles and rest the barrel between his feet to take the shot.

I'm not too sure if any of that is of benefit with the Aliens steady gun mount. By the way as the illustration in the Colonial Marines Manual it looks like many Marine machine gunners would blow their own toes off.

The main problem I see with the whole steady rig concept is being able to throw the gun away quickly. The gun is attached to the rig, and the rig is attached to you. What happens when you really *have* to get through that mousehole in a room entry or when the mg gunner gets hit how does someone else in the squad take over?

There are some benefits but overall is it a workable idea?

That's one of them, but the basic stance had the firer laying with ankles straight, toes canted outward to form a "V" where the barrel rests. Then, site your target and fire away.

Like you said, the weapon was longer which allowed for that kind of thing.

And yeah, for one of my old gaming groups, the rig was just that and nothing more. We saw it as a labor saving device as opposed to a whole weapon system that actually had more of an integrated role.

It wounds like, using CT rules at least, that there would be a +3DM or something, and a -2DM for accidentally hitting friendlies.

The few times I worked around stedicams (way back in the 80s and early 90s), it seemed to me that the whole thing is just unwiedly. The camera itself has to be balanced with a counterweight on the bottom (sometimes this is the battery for the video tap so the cameraman can see what he's shooting). The camera itself can weigh about 30lbs, so you've got both the camera and the batteries extending off of your torso, and shifting your center of gravity. I always heard the operators say you constantly wanted to fall to your right or left, depending on how you had the camera mounted.

With something like an M60 or SAW, I guess it would be a lighter setup. Another question is how do you reload?
 
With something like an M60 or SAW, I guess it would be a lighter setup. Another question is how do you reload?

In combat? You don't. It's a belt-fed weapon, I think, with the belt ammo case being on the back. If you have a minute or two, you dump the cassette open, find the end, connect the next belt, and shove it all back into the cassette.
 
Back
Top