Which heavy machine gun actually performs better?

[def.]

I can't decide, at one moment they both seem effective at destroying light vehicles, but sometimes i absolutely light up something like a pt-76 but either machine gun is not fast enough to kill it.

[DevilDaRebel]

Originally posted by Kay:

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

Yes, the general standard for "cannon" starts at 15mm.

It actually starts at 20mm, not 15mm, so the MG 151/15 would be a machine gun, while the MG 151/20 would be an autocannon

No, 20mm is the normal bore for cannons, especially in NATO. But if you want to get technical, a cannon is simply refer to as such once it starts firing explosive shells, as typically a machine-gun cannot fire an explosive shell due to being too small.

That being said the MG151/15 by all intent and purposes is a cannon, developed as such and referred as such. Firing explosive shells. The 14.5 from the soviets although, considered a HMG, it's borderline between one and a small caliber cannon as it fires explosive shells.

.50 cal HMG has 19kJ, the 20mm ShVAK aircraft cannon has 28kJ and the KPV-14.5 HMG has 31kJ. The KPV is used in quad mounts with HE-I for AA use.

[Kay]

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

Originally posted by Kay:

It actually starts at 20mm, not 15mm, so the MG 151/15 would be a machine gun, while the MG 151/20 would be an autocannon

No, 20mm is the normal bore for cannons, especially in NATO. But if you want to get technical, a cannon is simply refer to as such once it starts firing explosive shells, as typically a machine-gun cannot fire an explosive shell due to being too small.

That being said the MG151/15 by all intent and purposes is a cannon, developed as such and referred as such. Firing explosive shells. The 14.5 from the soviets although, considered a HMG, it's borderline between one and a small caliber cannon as it fires explosive shells.

.50 cal HMG has 19kJ, the 20mm ShVAK aircraft cannon has 28kJ and the KPV-14.5 HMG has 31kJ. The KPV is used in quad mounts with HE-I for AA use.

So, again, in modern parlance, the MG151/15 would be a machine gun, while the MG151/20 would be a cannon.

Or is a .50BMG machine gun also a cannon? Seeing as it fires explosive shells?

What about 12 gauge shotguns, since they can also fire explosive shells?

[Patriot03]

If the people who made and used it called it a cannon, then it's a cannon.

Small arms are LITERALLY small hand cannons so the argument about what bore size counts or not is completely pointless and devoid of any meaning.

[DevilDaRebel]

Originally posted by Kay:

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

No, 20mm is the normal bore for cannons, especially in NATO. But if you want to get technical, a cannon is simply refer to as such once it starts firing explosive shells, as typically a machine-gun cannot fire an explosive shell due to being too small.

That being said the MG151/15 by all intent and purposes is a cannon, developed as such and referred as such. Firing explosive shells. The 14.5 from the soviets although, considered a HMG, it's borderline between one and a small caliber cannon as it fires explosive shells.

.50 cal HMG has 19kJ, the 20mm ShVAK aircraft cannon has 28kJ and the KPV-14.5 HMG has 31kJ. The KPV is used in quad mounts with HE-I for AA use.

So, again, in modern parlance, the MG151/15 would be a machine gun, while the MG151/20 would be a cannon.

Or is a .50BMG machine gun also a cannon? Seeing as it fires explosive shells?

What about 12 gauge shotguns, since they can also fire explosive shells?

What "explosive shell" does the American .50 cal fire? lol. Anyways, cannon is what it is when it fires a caliber larger than guns, 12 guage? lol. Please, if the numbers don't convince you, look up a .50 cal compared to a 15mm shell. The 15mm is double the size in every aspect, plus has a warhead with HE. I'm not aware of any .50 cal BMG round with a HE warhead. The 14.5mm is near double the size of the .50 cal BMG as well in every aspect, but unlike the 15mm cannon from the Germans it uses a large bullet with filled tip. But way larger than a .50 cal.

"In modern parlance" the MG151/15mm is still a cannon, because, it's a caliber larger than guns, using a warhead full of HE. Not a metal slug with an incendiary tip.

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

Originally posted by Kay:

So, again, in modern parlance, the MG151/15 would be a machine gun, while the MG151/20 would be a cannon.

Or is a .50BMG machine gun also a cannon? Seeing as it fires explosive shells?

What about 12 gauge shotguns, since they can also fire explosive shells?

What "explosive shell" does the American .50 cal fire? lol. Anyways, cannon is what it is when it fires a caliber larger than guns, 12 guage? lol. Please, if the numbers don't convince you, look up a .50 cal compared to a 15mm shell. The 15mm is double the size in every aspect, plus has a warhead with HE. I'm not aware of any .50 cal BMG round with a HE warhead. The 14.5mm is near double the size of the .50 cal BMG as well in every aspect, but unlike the 15mm cannon from the Germans it uses a large bullet with filled tip. But way larger than a .50 cal.

"In modern parlance" the MG151/15mm is still a cannon, because, it's a caliber larger than guns, using a warhead full of HE. Not a metal slug with an incendiary tip.

The explosive .50 cal rounds are post-WW2.

[Kay]

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

What "explosive shell" does the American .50 cal fire? lol. Anyways, cannon is what it is when it fires a caliber larger than guns, 12 guage? lol. Please, if the numbers don't convince you, look up a .50 cal compared to a 15mm shell. The 15mm is double the size in every aspect, plus has a warhead with HE. I'm not aware of any .50 cal BMG round with a HE warhead. The 14.5mm is near double the size of the .50 cal BMG as well in every aspect, but unlike the 15mm cannon from the Germans it uses a large bullet with filled tip. But way larger than a .50 cal.

"In modern parlance" the MG151/15mm is still a cannon, because, it's a caliber larger than guns, using a warhead full of HE. Not a metal slug with an incendiary tip.

So, not going to bother arguing with this tbh because it's off topic, debatable with no real answer, and it doesn't matter.

However, the American .50 cal can fire the Mk211 Raufos (HEIAP), and this statement

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

No, 20mm is the normal bore for cannons, especially in NATO. But if you want to get technical, a cannon is simply refer to as such once it starts firing explosive shells, as typically a machine-gun cannot fire an explosive shell due to being too small.

got me diving down a rabbit hole, and I found out that the Vickers MG would be a cannon by this definition, since it can fire explosive rounds (Pomeroy bullets)

[DevilDaRebel]

Originally posted by Kay:

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

What "explosive shell" does the American .50 cal fire? lol. Anyways, cannon is what it is when it fires a caliber larger than guns, 12 guage? lol. Please, if the numbers don't convince you, look up a .50 cal compared to a 15mm shell. The 15mm is double the size in every aspect, plus has a warhead with HE. I'm not aware of any .50 cal BMG round with a HE warhead. The 14.5mm is near double the size of the .50 cal BMG as well in every aspect, but unlike the 15mm cannon from the Germans it uses a large bullet with filled tip. But way larger than a .50 cal.

"In modern parlance" the MG151/15mm is still a cannon, because, it's a caliber larger than guns, using a warhead full of HE. Not a metal slug with an incendiary tip.

So, not going to bother arguing with this tbh because it's off topic, debatable with no real answer, and it doesn't matter.

However, the American .50 cal can fire the Mk211 Raufos (HEIAP), and this statement

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

No, 20mm is the normal bore for cannons, especially in NATO. But if you want to get technical, a cannon is simply refer to as such once it starts firing explosive shells, as typically a machine-gun cannot fire an explosive shell due to being too small.

got me diving down a rabbit hole, and I found out that the Vickers MG would be a cannon by this definition, since it can fire explosive rounds (Pomeroy bullets)

I don't think you understand what you're trying to argue about at this point.

[Kay]

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

Originally posted by Kay:

So, not going to bother arguing with this tbh because it's off topic, debatable with no real answer, and it doesn't matter.

However, the American .50 cal can fire the Mk211 Raufos (HEIAP), and this statement



got me diving down a rabbit hole, and I found out that the Vickers MG would be a cannon by this definition, since it can fire explosive rounds (Pomeroy bullets)

I don't think you understand what you're trying to argue about at this point.

Originally posted by Kay:

So, not going to bother arguing with this tbh because it's off topic, debatable with no real answer, and it doesn't matter.

[DevilDaRebel]

Originally posted by Kay:

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

I don't think you understand what you're trying to argue about at this point.

Originally posted by Kay:

So, not going to bother arguing with this tbh because it's off topic, debatable with no real answer, and it doesn't matter.

Let me bite, you make some statements about .50 cal and a 12 gauge, I respond to those points with my own rebuttal. You then claim it's off topic and won't bother with it, despite the evident, dumbfounding fact you brought it up. While throwing in statements with no supporting evidence behind them.

Okay, then you in the same post, lol, bring up the vickers MG and how I somehow got you going down a rabbit hole because you were unable to comprehend and differentiate between a gun and cannon, and how the ballistics affect this definition.

Should I just say ditto and move on?

[Kay]

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

Originally posted by Kay:

Let me bite, you make some statements about .50 cal and a 12 gauge, I respond to those points with my own rebuttal. You then claim it's off topic and won't bother with it, despite the evident, dumbfounding fact you brought it up. While throwing in statements with no supporting evidence behind them.

Okay, then you in the same post, lol, bring up the vickers MG and how I somehow got you going down a rabbit hole because you were unable to comprehend and differentiate between a gun and cannon, and how the ballistics affect this definition.

Should I just say ditto and move on?

You responded to me stating that 20mm is the cutoff for cannons by saying this:

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

No, 20mm is the normal bore for cannons, especially in NATO. But if you want to get technical, a cannon is simply refer to as such once it starts firing explosive shells, as typically a machine-gun cannot fire an explosive shell due to being too small.

I pointed out this is completely incorrect by pointing out how absurd of a statement it is (the 12 guage, .50 cal, and even .303 British firearms are all cannons by the definition you gave as a response to my initial comment, this is also YOU bringing it up, not me)

You then posted a "rebuttal" that didn't rebut anything, and I decided it wasn't worth arguing since:

A. It's off topic from the original post
B. It's debatable where the cutoff is, and
C. It doesn't really matter

[DevilDaRebel]

Originally posted by Kay:

Originally posted by DevilDaRebel:

Let me bite, you make some statements about .50 cal and a 12 gauge, I respond to those points with my own rebuttal. You then claim it's off topic and won't bother with it, despite the evident, dumbfounding fact you brought it up. While throwing in statements with no supporting evidence behind them.

Okay, then you in the same post, lol, bring up the vickers MG and how I somehow got you going down a rabbit hole because you were unable to comprehend and differentiate between a gun and cannon, and how the ballistics affect this definition.

Should I just say ditto and move on?

You responded to me stating that 20mm is the cutoff for cannons by saying this:

"I pointed out this is completely incorrect by pointing out how absurd of a statement it is "

I stated normally cannons are considered that once it reaches 20mm, simply due to the majority starting there. That doesn't mean anything below that is a "machinegun."

"You responded to me stating that 20mm is the cutoff for cannons by saying this:"

I'm not sure if you have good recollection, but you replied to me when I was replying to someone else agreeing with them about a 15mm cannon. You were claiming that the German 15mm cannon isn't one but a machine gun.


" (the 12 guage, .50 cal, and even .303 British firearms are all cannons by the definition you gave as a response to my initial comment, this is also YOU bringing it up, not me)"

I brought up the 12 gauge and .50 cal? Buddy, are you awake? I digress, my "definition" implies the ballistic differences of a gun and a cannon, which I didn't go into explicit detail due to assuming someone who is trying to argue ballistics understands. Which you clearly don't.

Let me reiterate it for you, a cannon is classified as such once it surpasses "gun" ballistics, such as caliber dimensions. They will typically fire a dedicated shell with a high explosive warhead.

You thinking that a 12 gauge could be considered a "cannon" due to not comprehending my definition only highlights your ignorance, as I'll explain. The 12 gauge firing an "explosive" shell does not enter "cannon" caliber ballistics. It's still a 12 gauge shell with the equivalent of a firecracker in it. It does not have the necessary dimensions to be considered it.

The .50 cal BMG round is merely an APHEI, which is explained to have more of a "controlled combustion chain reaction" than a traditional "detonation." That's because the green/gray tipped BMG round is still a gun caliber, .50 cal is a machine-gun. The jacket has an incendiary filler, followed by again, firecracker equivalent of HE filling, with a dense core making up the rest of the volume of the bullet.

The 15mm CANNON shell, has a warhead, which I can probably say is triple in size of a .50 bmg bullet, packed with HE solely from tip to the neck of the shell.

So, quick lesson on calibers. Sub-machineguns shoot sub-caliber rounds, such as pistol rounds. You then have LMG, MMG, HMG. Consisting of, intermediate rounds (higher than sub, duh), full size cartridges, and heavy calibers. The .50 cal BMG even with green/gray tips, is still in the machine-"GUN" classification. HMG, specifically.

The 15mm MG151 shoots a shell significantly larger than a .50 cal, with a warhead with significant payload of HE. It was built as a cannon, it's classified as a cannon, and it will remain as a cannon despite your arbitrary reasoning for calling it a machinegun.

A quick google search will show how the 15mm shell dwarfs a .50 cal cartridge, and the 15mm warhead utterly dwarfs the bullet of the .50 cal. It's a literal cannon shell, ffs.


"You then posted a "rebuttal" that didn't rebut anything, and I decided it wasn't worth arguing since:

A. It's off topic from the original post
B. It's debatable where the cutoff is, and
C. It doesn't really matter"

Again, it's off topic? despite you bringing up the flawed examples of 12 and .50 cal, and somehow while claiming that it was off-topic, still bringing in another "off-topic" by your definition, in the form of the rabbit-hole Vickers MG.

It's not debatable at all, there is a clear distinction between gun caliber and cannon caliber. Especially if the manufacturers of said technology is telling you so.

If it doesn't matter, why even bring up the rabbit hole vicker's MG points, in the first place? It's almost like you're baiting for replies.

[def.]

how the hell did this thread devolve into this.
i swear you guys i leave you alone for 2 days....

[Chikuwu]

Originally posted by Omega Sirius:

Originally posted by Eila Deker:

fun fact the 14.5 is not a HMG its a Cannon. I say the Russian 12.7 is better for killing Lightly Armored Tanks while the US 12.7 is better against Planes

20mm and above is classified as a cannon

No they're not, cannon vs gun is based on the type of ammo it uses. Shell = Cannon, Bullet = gun.

That's why there is no rail CANNON, even though it can shoot +50mm diameter projectiles, its a gun because its a solid bullet.

All in all, ammo type decides what sort of weapon it is classified as in modern time.

AGES AGO, the classification was based on if it was a smoothbore or rifled barrel weapon. But since now we have smoothbore guns, and rifled cannons, the classifications do not match anymore.

[mogami_99]

Gee I wonder why 14 is larger then 12?

[Omega Sirius]

Originally posted by Chikuwu:

Originally posted by Omega Sirius:

20mm and above is classified as a cannon

No they're not, cannon vs gun is based on the type of ammo it uses. Shell = Cannon, Bullet = gun.

That's why there is no rail CANNON, even though it can shoot +50mm diameter projectiles, its a gun because its a solid bullet.

All in all, ammo type decides what sort of weapon it is classified as in modern time.

AGES AGO, the classification was based on if it was a smoothbore or rifled barrel weapon. But since now we have smoothbore guns, and rifled cannons, the classifications do not match anymore.

Dude shells are just plus size bullets lol