U.S. Army gets a new machine gun
11-01-2009, 09:15 PM
#3
Registered User
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snatchin' your people up
Posts: 3,779
Car Info: Hilux Double Cab with a Dishka on top
This is a move in the right direction. Light infantry needs to be more maneuverable in the mountains while maintaining the ability to lay down a ton of suppressive fire. Now if only they would get rid of the POS SAW all together and replace it with this Mk48 that would be even better. 
11-01-2009, 10:08 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I gotta have more cow bell!!!!
Posts: 9,198
Car Info: 05 STi
I was a weapons squad leader, an AG and a 240 gunner when I was in a line unit at different times and I can tell you an infantry platoon relies VERY heavily on its 2 organic 240s. The majority of the platoon combat power is right there. You can't imagine the waste 2 of those can lay with only 30 seconds of rapid fire. It's horrifying.
11-01-2009, 10:32 PM
#5
Registered User
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snatchin' your people up
Posts: 3,779
Car Info: Hilux Double Cab with a Dishka on top
The 240 is a ferocious base of fire weapon for a platoon. However, it's usually "crew served" meaning it requires 2 or more guys to operate it. The Mk48 is operated by a single guy and delivers the same kind of firepower as the bigger/heavier 240. If they could incorporate it at the squad level, and replace the SAW's with Mk48's, they would significantly increase lethality.
11-01-2009, 10:50 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I gotta have more cow bell!!!!
Posts: 9,198
Car Info: 05 STi
Yeah, I agree but the reason the 240 is "crew served" isn't because of the weight of the weapon, its because of the ammo. No one still carries tri-pods anymore anyway. You throw the 240 down with a bipod and lay into it and your ammo-bearer can observe if you need it. I like the 48 but the saw definitely still has its place in the infantry platoon. It lays an effective base of fire, is easy to maneuver and you can carry a lot more ammo for it (numerically speaking) than in 7.62. Definitely switch out those 240s in the weapons squad out with the 48s for now though. The mountains of Afghanistan are unforgiving when it comes to humping weight. A lot of conventional light guys are still humping in full IBA (not plate carriers which is all you need at the most) with 240 ands mortar rounds too if they're doing a company op. For every ounce the Army takes off and infantrymen the replace it with some new gadget or something that still overbears him with ****. Or, his weapons squad leader says "Carry more ammo and drink water" :-)
11-01-2009, 10:59 PM
#7
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upper North Bay
Posts: 6,967
Car Info: '15 LE STI, '06 WRX White Wheeled Wagon, '06 B9
This is a move in the right direction. Light infantry needs to be more maneuverable in the mountains while maintaining the ability to lay down a ton of suppressive fire. Now if only they would get rid of the POS SAW all together and replace it with this Mk48 that would be even better.
Doesn't work that way. Infantry units maneuver only after they've "returned accurate and sustained suppressive fires". Essentially you put the enemy's head down and make your bold flanking maneuver on whatever flank is weakest. Shoot, move and communicate until you're close enough for you assaulting element to bound over your last covered and concealed position then you close with and destroy the enemy with extreme violence.
I was a weapons squad leader, an AG and a 240 gunner when I was in a line unit at different times and I can tell you an infantry platoon relies VERY heavily on its 2 organic 240s. The majority of the platoon combat power is right there. You can't imagine the waste 2 of those can lay with only 30 seconds of rapid fire. It's horrifying.
I was a weapons squad leader, an AG and a 240 gunner when I was in a line unit at different times and I can tell you an infantry platoon relies VERY heavily on its 2 organic 240s. The majority of the platoon combat power is right there. You can't imagine the waste 2 of those can lay with only 30 seconds of rapid fire. It's horrifying.
The 240 is a ferocious base of fire weapon for a platoon. However, it's usually "crew served" meaning it requires 2 or more guys to operate it. The Mk48 is operated by a single guy and delivers the same kind of firepower as the bigger/heavier 240. If they could incorporate it at the squad level, and replace the SAW's with Mk48's, they would significantly increase lethality.
Yeah, I agree but the reason the 240 is "crew served" isn't because of the weight of the weapon, its because of the ammo. No one still carries tri-pods anymore anyway. You throw the 240 down with a bipod and lay into it and your ammo-bearer can observe if you need it. I like the 48 but the saw definitely still has its place in the infantry platoon. It lays an effective base of fire, is easy to maneuver and you can carry a lot more ammo for it (numerically speaking) than in 7.62. Definitely switch out those 240s in the weapons squad out with the 48s for now though. The mountains of Afghanistan are unforgiving when it comes to humping weight. A lot of conventional light guys are still humping in full IBA (not plate carriers which is all you need at the most) with 240 ands mortar rounds too if they're doing a company op. For every ounce the Army takes off and infantrymen the replace it with some new gadget or something that still overbears him with ****. Or, his weapons squad leader says "Carry more ammo and drink water" :-)
11-02-2009, 04:33 PM
#11
Friendly Neighborhood Ogre
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.gunatics.com
Posts: 19,930
Car Info: GUNATICS.COM
1reguL8NSTi, thank you for your service!
I'm glad that the US military finally found the funding to get a new machine gun out there. The 240 was heavily flawed (when not maintained properly), and it is heavy as hell especially with all that ammo. People think my M1A SOCOM 16 is heavy, PSSSSH! They haven't seen anything yet.
I'm glad that the US military finally found the funding to get a new machine gun out there. The 240 was heavily flawed (when not maintained properly), and it is heavy as hell especially with all that ammo. People think my M1A SOCOM 16 is heavy, PSSSSH! They haven't seen anything yet.
11-02-2009, 07:06 PM
#14
Registered User
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snatchin' your people up
Posts: 3,779
Car Info: Hilux Double Cab with a Dishka on top
LOL!
Yeah I agree about the ammo being the primary reason why you need an AG when operating the 240. There's really no good way to attach ammo to it. Those belts can easily get kinked up and cause a malfunction. The Mk48 uses a "*******" ammo pouch that attaches to the bottom like the SAW. Plus you can still feed it from a 200rd belt or ammo can like a regular 240 if it's mounted.
Don't get me started on why the SAW sucks. There is a reason why it was noted as the most problematic weapon in theater. Nothing like pulling the trigger on that thing, and hearing a "KER CHUNK!". Also, I don't know why they even put a magazine adapter on it. I've never seen a SAW fire using a magazine and didn't jam on at least every 4th or 5th round. Maybe that's why they omitted the magazine adapter on the Mk46 version. Somebody in the Marine Corps must have realized the SAW is a POS too, because now they're planning to replace it with a new weapon called the IAR.
Yeah, I agree but the reason the 240 is "crew served" isn't because of the weight of the weapon, its because of the ammo. No one still carries tri-pods anymore anyway. You throw the 240 down with a bipod and lay into it and your ammo-bearer can observe if you need it. I like the 48 but the saw definitely still has its place in the infantry platoon. It lays an effective base of fire, is easy to maneuver and you can carry a lot more ammo for it (numerically speaking) than in 7.62. Definitely switch out those 240s in the weapons squad out with the 48s for now though. The mountains of Afghanistan are unforgiving when it comes to humping weight. A lot of conventional light guys are still humping in full IBA (not plate carriers which is all you need at the most) with 240 ands mortar rounds too if they're doing a company op. For every ounce the Army takes off and infantrymen the replace it with some new gadget or something that still overbears him with ****. Or, his weapons squad leader says "Carry more ammo and drink water" :-)
Don't get me started on why the SAW sucks. There is a reason why it was noted as the most problematic weapon in theater. Nothing like pulling the trigger on that thing, and hearing a "KER CHUNK!". Also, I don't know why they even put a magazine adapter on it. I've never seen a SAW fire using a magazine and didn't jam on at least every 4th or 5th round. Maybe that's why they omitted the magazine adapter on the Mk46 version. Somebody in the Marine Corps must have realized the SAW is a POS too, because now they're planning to replace it with a new weapon called the IAR.
11-02-2009, 07:29 PM
#15
Well then get me wrong. I knew suppressive fire was needed, but the information that was said was good information indeed. A 1 person suppressing fire unit is wayy better than 2 guys on one gun =D. 1 guy on the gun and the other can move and return fire =0. It's better than 2x, its' like 4x! =P