Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: medium machine guns
qwertyuiop    2/28/2005 5:12:57 PM
i know that every squad has a few light m249s but does anybody carry a medium m240 or are they only on vehicles. i can't imagine anyone carrying a ma deuce
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
JCT    RE:medium machine guns   3/1/2005 6:09:32 PM
USMC rifle companies have a weapons platoon with a machine gun section. Each MG section has 3 squads, each with two M240s for a total of 6 M240s in a rifle company. The MG squads are often attached out to the rifle platoons.
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:medium machine guns   3/8/2005 3:00:23 PM
M2s are typically vehicle mounted. It'd be hell to carry them (sort of like carrying a mortar in its pieces?), though the OCSW will be sort of portable, I think.
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:medium machine guns   3/9/2005 8:23:58 AM
All US Army infantry platoons have 2 x M240B MGs, and Ranger Platoons have 3 x M240B MGs. These machines are equipped with Elcan 3.5x optical sights and the medium thermal weapon sight.
Quote    Reply

doggtag    medium-heavy MG   3/9/2005 12:46:24 PM
Just a thought (daydreaming again....) If we want something with more oomph than 7.62, but don't want the burden of carrying around Ma Dueces and their heavier ammo (or even heavier and more cumbersome Mk19s), perhaps we get someone to design us a medium-heavy MG firing CheyTac 408, or 338 Lapua? Unfortunately, current manufacturing techniques of the 408 round are too expensive for mass quatities necessary to feed MGs...but the downrange effects of the current 420-grain (both KE and MoA), and perhaps a future AP round, are most promising (the "standard" round alone does very credible effect against bulletproof/armor glass.) A semiauto 408 weapon, capable of long range snipe and burst/continuous mode against body-armored targets (or light-protected vehicles) could make for an interesting weapon.
Quote    Reply

big79    RE:medium-heavy MG   3/22/2005 12:37:07 AM
is that really a need though? a .308 will penetrate most body armor now as long as it doesn't have a plate. if your need more power than a m240 I would think unit mortor capabilities, or cannon fire would be a better use of man power. or even a mk19 machine grenade launcher or future 25mm cannon could be used. I just don't see a use of a middle heavy machine gun. if a .30 caliber woln't do it can in something much larger. ma-duece should be used only for anti vehichle any how. also you don't have to kill every one you attack as long as they stop thats good enough.
Quote    Reply

TriggaFingaz    ELCAN   3/27/2005 1:49:23 PM
Does the ELCAN have any glowing tritium sights like the ACOG?
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:ELCAN   3/27/2005 7:50:23 PM
Elcan sells a tritium version as well as a battery powered version. They're very good sights and were very durable.
Quote    Reply

doggtag    What calibers do we or don't we really NEED?   3/27/2005 9:00:39 PM
So long as people keep developing new cartridges, there will always be those "what if" individuals seeking to exploit them. We already use so many different cartridges for various apps: you can find hundreds of different bullet sizes, anything from .170 to .50 inch. Besides, there used to be the people who argued against 7.62, which gave us the 5.56. And the Russians opted to build 14.5 because they thought 12.7 was insufficient(and it was the smallest round to effectively employ a fuze for a shell, yet much lighter than the 20mm of the day.) Just as sniping systems have surpassed 7.62 and even utilized 12.7, and just because one group sees no use for it, that doesn't mean another sees no value in it. Considering the performance of these latest rounds in between 7.62 and 12.7, certainly it bears merit for someone to pursue it further (just as we stepped away from the 7mm and 8mm systems common prior to WW2.) Something in between means better performance against light armored vehicles, but still ligther overall than the big Ma Duece, as well as lighter ammo meaning more can be carried. And, many obstacles immune to 7.62 could be compromised by something heavier. And even though it was thought that 9mm and .45 were the pistol calibers of choice, it didn't stop the development of the rounds in between (10mm, .40in, 44 mag, etc...) Just as western nations opted for both 20mm and 25mm, the Russians opted for 23mm. But all of them have their merits. Just as some opted for 35mm or 40mm, while others opted for 37mm. The same goes for every gun upwards in caliber: 75mm or 76mm? 88mm or 90mm? 100mm or 105mm? 120mm or 125mm? 150mm, 152mm, or 155mm? It's no different. It all depends on who is going to consider the capabilities offered by another caliber over the tried and true more familiar "everybody else uses it" ammunition. We should always be looking to improve our weapons performances, not clinging to ideals of international commonality and politically-motivated "stay with this because my constituents build it, and the contractor paid me a stipend to vote to keep using it" systems. For decades, we have been replacing one 7.62mm machine gun with another (from M1919 to M60 to M240.) Maybe we should consider: the biggest drawback may not be in the weapons themselves, but in the ammunition they fire. Realizing that the ammunition, not the weapon firing it, has been the unfavorable element in the system, has long been a driving force in weapons development.
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:What calibers do we or don't we really NEED?   3/27/2005 10:09:40 PM
This doesn't go down the ammo development road, but they look like good potential weapons replacements. I'm curious what the R&D timeline is and the procurement decision timeline.
Quote    Reply

stinger       11/2/2007 3:05:15 AM
i heard there was talk about maybe adding a  third  m-240 to the rifle platoon and each squad would have there own crew served weapon?
Quote    Reply
1 2