HMG vs AGL

[Timothy OConnor]

I've been working on the near future version of my home grown rules and am tinkering with the differences between these two weapons. At a high level I suppose they're very similar but since the AGLs seem to be growing in importance in modern armies I suppose a good question is: why?

The few books I've read about the Soviet war in Afghanistan suggest that AGLs are better than HMGs at inflicting casualties on infantry targets, especially those in protected positions such as strong buildings and caves. The HGM (12.7-14.5mm) can certainly chip through ciderblock but the AGL can explode behind/within covered positions thus inflicting casualties before the enemy has a chance to retreat deeper into cover. And the AGLs can be set for airburst which makes it easier to hit dispersed targets in the open.

On the other hand, HMGs have a higher ROF and they can come equiped with more ammo since the AGL ammo is so large and heavy. Thus HMGs can maintain longer periods of suppressive fire compared to AGLs.

Finally AGLs seem to be have better anti-armor capability compared to the HMG, at least based on the penetration numbers I've seen on the web (no idea as to accuracy).

So, at a higher level, AGLs seem to be better able to inflict casualties (especially against troops in cover) and kill LAVs better than HMGs, but are maybe less able to maintan suppressing fires than HMGs. And while having rounds similar in size to autocannon they certainly lack the range and penetration capabilities of these higher velocity weapons.

So, what are your opinions on AGLs vs. HMGs? How would you model their differences (if at all) in a game in which each stand is a platoon? For example, if one has a platoon of LAVs armed with HMGs and a platoon of LAVs armed with AGLs, what would their different capabilities be? WHat if the platoon were mixed as seems to be the standard?

Thanks in advance!

Tim

[MTB]

After three deployments to Iraq, I can tell you that most units prefer the .50 cal (HMG) and Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) mounted on their vehicles. In 2004 I saw a good number of the MK 19 40mm AGL but the last two times, 2005 & 2006-07, they are hardly seen.

What are the reasons:

1) They have a better ROF
2) You can carry more ammo
3) Small arms ammo (SAA) do not need to meet an "arming distance" in order for the round to become "armed". This is important for close-in combat
4) SAA armor piercing rounds can punchh through most of the urban type targets.

A new 40mm "canister" rd has been introduced for close-in combat situations. However, even that round is most effective for troops in the open.

Mitch

[av8rmongo]

Mitch,

Can you say if the Mk-19s are still in the TO&E just not fielded or have they been removed/had their numbers adjusted? I guess what I'm asking is do you know if its a field expedient thing or an official policy change?

[Mk 1]

Mitch:

I understand the advantages of MGs over AGLs for close-in work.

I have also heard that some of the troops have come to criticize the Mk19 in longer-ranged engagements, where it should be at its greatest advantage, because of the time-of-flight of its projectiles.

According to at least some stories, enemies have shown the ability to react within the time-of-flight of the rounds. Not a problem if you plan to smother the target area, not a problem if you want to suppress the bad guys while friendlies maneuver to do the close-in work. But if you actually want to hit a bad guy, and have only a brief opportunity to do it, and would rather just rip up the one window he is using rather than have to blow down most of the house and its neighbors on three sides, the AGL just doesn't seem to be much help.

Or so I've heard.

[MTB]

To answer the questions that were asked:

1) To my knowledge, the TO&E's have not been adjusted to remove the MK19 AGL.
2) Having stood on many ranges while the MK19 was engaging targets at long range, it took several seconds for the rounds to impact. The flight time is a bit slow. One could suppose that if an enemy had a keen sense of situational awareness, they might be able to remove themselves from the beaten zone.

Mitch