I believe in the olden days, a mg was also used to fire indirect fire. For that, max range is useful stat, if any army still uses WW1 doctrines...Originally Posted by Jippo
I think it might have a future as a coax gun for tanks and IFV's.. Not for dismounted operations. I think 7.62mm does a splendid job for dismounted firesupport. Add a .338 or .50 cal sniperteam to the platoon if you wanna be able to engage at longer ranges.
So you think that if the services can have an MG that weighs less than two pounds more than the M240 with that kind of increase in range and terminal ballistics, they will be uninterested?
I've got to agree with Ought Six, surely a co-ax would be where the advantages are least. It's only 5lb heavier than a minimi, with a great deal more firepower. Quite an exciting prospect really.
You forget the weight of the ammo. And 7.62mm got enough range and energy to do serious damage at the ranges most engagements takes place. And you forget that you can get Minimi in 7.62mm today that are much lighter than this MG.. Meaning more ammo can be carried, which is an important factor for dismounted units.
MG's are mainly meant for suppressive fire. I agree that .338 have some advantages.. especially at ranges over 500m. against some targets.. a car or another semi hard target. That where we use our .338 cal SAKO bolt action rifles.. If you want a higher rate of fire, then I know it's also possible to buy semi-automatic .338cal today.
If you wanna engage area targets beyond a 7.62mm effective range.. use mortars.
Edit: Bushmaster .338 Lapua Magnum semi-automatic
http://www.defensereview.com/bushmas...-will-it-live/
well our MMG Platoons are still taught map predicted fire....ive seen it used, it scares the hell out of people when it rains lead!!I believe in the olden days, a mg was also used to fire indirect fire. For that, max range is useful stat, if any army still uses WW1 doctrines...
Fair points. We will just have to wait and see if any of the services feel that the extra range and power is worth the extra weight and the logistical burden of adding another caliber to the mix.
----------This is irrelevant, as our services (except specops) use the M240, not the 7.62mm Minimi (aka Mk.48 Mod 0).And you forget that you can get Minimi in 7.62mm today that are much lighter than this MG.. Meaning more ammo can be carried, which is an important factor for dismounted units.
But.. if the M240 was to be replaced, I'm 100% sure that grunts that carry out 5-6 hours footpatrol in Green Zone's or mountains in higher temperaturs will prefer the MK.48 over the heavier LWMMG. Our guy's are really hoping that our MG3's are soon replaced by the MK 48. The MG3 weight is really putting a lot of strain on the fellows who carry them around..
Ask the grunts if they ever get what they prefer, or if they instead get what the Ordinance Board decides is best for them.
The Mk.48 is great for specops, being so light relative to other offerings in the same caliber. But I have my doubts as to whether it can stand up to the sort of pounding and sustained fire that the M240 can take. Weapons qualification tests for new systems are pretty brutal.
The MK.48 isn't as reliable as the M240, that's a proven fact. But the difference isn't that big. New Zealand has just chosen the MK. 48 as their standard MG for dismounted units.. replacing both MK.46 and M240. Smart choice IMO..
Our services have chosen to stick with a common medium machine gun system for dismounted, mounted, helo door gun and naval MG use. This is why MG systems get such brutal testing. When mounted on a Hummer, in the side port of Blackhawk, or on a deck pintle mount on a Coast Guard patrol boat, sustained fire is real need. And given the variety of systems we field now and the tremendous logistical burden that imposes, I can see why they do not want specialist 'niche' systems issued to the infantry to further complicate the situation.
It is this that I think will be the greatest hurdle this new system would have to overcome. The Army is going to have to want this bad enough to push very, very hard for it in this era of rapidly shrinking budgets. We have a bazillion 7.62mm NATO machine guns issued right now. To either switch to a new a caliber add an additional one seems very unlikely. Yeah, if we were starting from scratch, a combination of a 6.5mm or 6.8mm primary infantry rifle and SAW combo, and a .338 NM MGM system with sniper rifles is the same caliber would be sweet. But we are committed to 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO, and for logistical, economic and political reasons, I do not see that changing any time soon.
Article with pics and videos on defensereview.com
http://www.defensereview.com/general...bile-infantry/
You guys should look this as a portable replacement for the .50cal. This gun does pretty much all what fifty does, but it uses lighter and smaller ammunition. It is far better gun by the stats for dismounted troops, and on vehicles the size and the weight of teh ammunition matters just as well.
Seriously speaking this gun is very interesting.
I agree. It's an interesting support weapon for light infantry, airborne infantry and mountain infantry.. at company and battalion level. It doesn't belong in an regular infantry platoon.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
