MMG or HMG?
Where does one draw the line on this? Looking at tanks, for example - some Brit tanks were equipped with .303 vickers, the majority were fitted with BESA. But both Vickers/BESA came in either .303/7.92mm or (for example in the Matilda 1 or from some sources the Vickers 6/mk E) .50/15mm Is the Maxim M1910 at 7.62mm a heavy or medium MG? Are we really only looking at half inch rounds as 'heavy' and everything else as medium? Cheers, Alex

Are we really only looking at half inch rounds as 'heavy' and everything else as medium? That's always how I have considered it.

All, See p37 - Small Arms types - HMG's are only .50 cal, 12.75, and larger. So a 15mm = HMG. Anything else of a lesser size such as 7.62mm = an MMG. DB

I see it now that you've pointed it out, thanks DB. Question was prompted by a colleague who mentioned he had read that the BAR might be moving from LMG to assault rifle, and the .30 cal might therefore fall into LMG for the Americans? I don't know where he saw that - but it did pose the question 'is an MMG just the gun used in that role (squad support) or is it based on caliber?' - 'heavy machine gun' in common usage often seems to refer anything manned by a 3 man crew on a tripod.

US machine guns always present a bit of a problem as they seem to be in between everyone else's. I think role and usage can help to define things. The BAR I would not rate as an LMG that role was really filled by the air cooled .30 either bipod or tripod mounted. THe water cooled .30 was the MMG and the .50 was of course the HMG.

It's all a bit of a mess - different armies termed different weapons as (and used them) in different roles. The BAR sits somewhere between an AR and an LMG - but if the Garand is already classed as an AR, what's the point of the BAR? It clearly was used as a squad support weapon (or SAW in the modern vanacular), which is arguably what the LMG is supposed to represent. The MG34 and 42 when tripod mounted are clearly MMGs - but the MG34 is also an LMG where represented with a magazine fed version.

All, In 2nd Ed the following MG classifications will apply: LMG = Bren, DP, MG34/42 bipod, .30 cal, etc. MMG = Tripod mounted .30 cal, & MG 34/42, Vickers, Maxims, etc. HMG = .50 cal, 12.7mm, etc. BAR (Browning Automatic Rifles) have been incorporated into the US section firepower which now has a basic modifier of +3 at close range to represent their myriad of auto weapons. So the BAR's presence as the squad support weapon will be represented by a permanent close range improvement to US squads. I don't think the BAR was of to the same standards of such weapons as the Bren, etc, esp. at longer ranges, as the BAR was limited to under 500yds at best. (And having a lousy 20 round, or more realistically 18/19 round mag, is a definite downer when you can only fire the later model in full auto mode :cry: .) DB

That looks about right to me. Are you putting the aircooled .30 on tripod in the LMG or HMG category?

That looks good to me too DB The problem with the BAR was the small magazine, flimsy or no bipod, and the lack of hot barrel replacement unlike true LMGs. Its closest equivalent would be the FG42 also firing a full power round with a small magazine, flimsy bipod and lacking barrel changeover Regards, Dave

NTM, the issue of the air cooled .30 had me thinking too. I believe that the weapon can fall into both categories. The determining factor is the quantity of ammunition available. If the weapon is being carried by a rifle squad, rounds are limited and I’d suggest that it would be deployed as an LMG. The same weapon used by men from a ‘support’ company unit would have more rounds available at the weapon would tactically be used in a sustained fire support role, thus I’d class it as an mmg. The water cooled .30 weapon was only issued to support units, thus it is a true mmg in that sense. Regards B.