# Most Valuable Weapons at the Squad/Squad+ Level



## Etype (Jul 29, 2012)

What goes on the patrol- the saga continues.  I'm going back to A-Stan soon and figured I would incite a little brainstorming session to see what everyone else thinks.  Obviously, I'm doing this from a SOF perspective, so I substitute things like the Carl G for the SMAW-D, etc.  I'm also speaking under the assumption that there about 10-15 bodies available.

Here's my take, they are roughly ordered in precedence-

M240- Definitely your #1 killer.  It's a bit heavy, but very accurate and very reliable.  If you've got your titanium tripod with you, you're even more deadly.  There's a reason squad based combat is centered around it.
M249- If we were talking about Iraq, I might make this #1.  You give up a bit of range and dependability but you gain maneuverability, different firing positions, and 2x the ammo for the same weight.
Carl G- This is a great weapon to have if you can reserve at least a 3 man crew to carry it and its ammo.  It's got incredible range (matches the 240), the HE rounds can be set to airburst and have similar effects to an 81mm, and the HEDP rounds match SMAW-Ds in effects.  However, it's heavy and you have a lot less chances to get it right due the reduced amount of ammo carried.
40mm- Whether it's a M203, M79, 320, etc.  You can carry a lot of ammo for it and don't need to devote a crew to run it.  The user can also employ it and his primary weapon at the same time.  Downsides- the effects are questionable against personnel and structures.
Sniper Rifles- Decent range, although you are only matching he previously mentioned systems.  They are hard to employ well, especially under a lot of stress, and don't have the morale degrading effects of explosions or fully automatic fire.  But, if you can run it well, you can kill people.
Handheld 60mm- This is my least favorite.  It's much harder to fire accurately than the Goose Gun, and the ammo is only slightly lighter.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 29, 2012)

IMHO...SAW... enjoyed the compactness and firepower it brings.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 29, 2012)

If I can only take one of the above I would take the M240.  However, if we are actually talking about a squad+ element of infantry guys I would take all the above on most dismounted patrols except maybe the Goose - due to portability.

I also I believe the SDM, with suppressor, is an important capability to have at the squad level and while he cant lay down the volume of fire a rifleman, AR, or MG is capable of he can suppress the enemy with second shot corrections out to about 600m fairly easy in situations where PID is difficult or the issue of CIVCAS is too great to way waste to everything with a MG.  IMO, it should be a carbine variant (SR25/M110 or SPR) and should go to the guy who can use it, not the guy who thinks he can after a 10 minute class on the 12" drill.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 29, 2012)

Can you ask to get a bipod mounted M-60....  range, knockdown and maneuverability...  although barrel burn is a little higher...

Karl G would be my next pick for unmounted work...  mounted, gotta love the Mk19 if you have a good gun driver, but you lose the airburst.

I'm a 7.62 fan btw...  a little heavier but a more devastating round, unless you can get the old semi-boattail 5.56 rather than the 'devastator' that just punches through unarmored targets....

moo, ymmv


----------



## Crusader74 (Jul 29, 2012)

GPMG/M240 for me followed by the Carl G..Having experience with both, the firepower they bring to a platoon ....although I'm not to fond of their weight..lol


----------



## 0699 (Jul 29, 2012)

The human mind...


----------



## reed11b (Jul 29, 2012)

I wish I had a better idea of how effective a handheld 60mm was, since my time on the 60 was all done using baseplate and poles. Sniper rifle I see as being an asset well above Squad level (Battalion). I have also humped the 240 and 249, and while I like what they bring, I have always felt that there should be some decent direct fire HE at the Platoon level and the G is a good fit for that.
Reed
(I just realized I voted for the only weapon I have never used...)


----------



## Polar Bear (Jul 29, 2012)

Where is the Pig? Do they not use them anymore?


----------



## Brill (Jul 29, 2012)

Most valuable weapon is the attached SIGINTer.


----------



## Crusader74 (Jul 29, 2012)

Polar Bear said:


> Where is the Pig? Do they not use them anymore?


 
Shurup old man, the pig was eaten by the GPMG/M240


----------



## Etype (Jul 29, 2012)

reed11b said:


> I wish I had a better idea of how effective a handheld 60mm was, since my time on the 60 was all done using baseplate and poles.


At the extent of charge 0 and charge 1's range (300 and 1,300m respectively), it's pretty accurate.  That's because then the tube is lying close to a 45 degree angle towards the target.  The closer the tube gets to vertical the harder it is to aim, so lateral misses are pretty much the norm.  That and it's about a 30# trigger pull.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jul 29, 2012)

For me the M203/Mag-58 are on an even footing.  The 58 is great for belt fed hate and kills more fuckers than cancer but the M203 wins out just due the versatility of it.  Scat rounds for angry crowds, illum for ambushes if your short of NVE, smoke for marking targets and HEDP for that special touch.  I know the round is shit for effect beyond 5m but a good man can put a round right into a man size target at 100m quite easily.


----------



## reed11b (Jul 29, 2012)

Etype said:


> At the extent of charge 0 and charge 1's range (300 and 1,300m respectively), it's pretty accurate. That's because then the tube is lying close to a 45 degree angle towards the target. The closer the tube gets to vertical the harder it is to aim, so lateral misses are pretty much the norm. That and it's about a 30# trigger pull.


Thanks. I have fired it a few times on trigger fire and always wanted to do it for real, but 98% of our training missions had us set up and dig a mortar pit and run poles, so I am pretty sure our line guys thought that was all we could do. This was in the mid 90's mind you.
Reed


----------



## x SF med (Jul 29, 2012)

the 60mm fired without a pole set and baseplate is devastating out to about 300m with a good gunner... we had one guy on one of my teams that was a savant with it... and he sighted using the muzzle angle, not the sight...  you should have seen his accuracy with a 203....


----------



## Etype (Jul 29, 2012)

If they came up with a quadrant sight or something to make handheld more accurate, I'd be tempted to put the 60 at the top of the list.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jul 29, 2012)

My guess is the 60 mm is like the 203. You really need a lot of trigger time with it to be accurate. Kentucky windage


----------



## x SF med (Jul 29, 2012)

Etype said:


> If they came up with a quadrant sight or something to make handheld more accurate, I'd be tempted to put the 60 at the top of the list.


 
I believe there is a quadrant sight available for it...  it was an issue item in the VN war IIRC...

here's one for auction.... link

here's the 2007 mortar manual... link


----------



## Etype (Jul 29, 2012)

They use that sight more to verify the elevation on the mortar sight since the bore sight device only works for adjusting the deflection.  I was thinking more like the 203 quadrant sight that has a front post and rear notch so you can actually sight windage and elevation with it.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 29, 2012)

Etype said:


> They use that sight more to verify the elevation on the mortar sight since the bore sight device only works for adjusting the deflection. I was thinking more like the 203 quadrant sight that has a front post and rear notch so you can actually sight windage and elevation with it.


 
if you use the difference in lip angle on the open tube end, you can be really accurate out to 300m ...  use a marker to set center on the outside gunner side and inside target side to sight   it takes paractice, but it ends up like sighting a tennis ball cannon from close range....  I loved being an SF weapons guy....


----------



## Etype (Jul 29, 2012)

I use a piece of luminescent tape down the center of the tube.  I agree, it's pretty accurate out to 300m, but the Carl G is pretty accurate out to 1,000m.


----------



## JBS (Jul 29, 2012)

1.240
2.249
3.203


----------



## The91Bravo (Jul 29, 2012)

M249 for amounts of ammo carried and rate of fire.  You can sustain the fight a little longer with lighter ammo than the 240... For devastation in a MG The 240 cannot be overlooked.  Then if they made a lightweight Mk-19, I'd be all over that... either that or have three privates carry it until you need it... lo.l


----------



## RetPara (Jul 30, 2012)

I voted for the 240... but my actual choice would be a M60E4.  Not sure about the shorter barrel...  but it will stand up to more rounds than the original....  If your man enough you can fire it from the shoulder VERY accurately.







Because I'm old school my second choice would be the venerable M-79.....  much easier to sight in than a 203.  Capable of a lot more precision targeting when you really want to reach out and touch someone....  and their friends.   The wood stock will survive giving a lateral butt stroke if that kind of attitude fine tuning is needed.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 30, 2012)

Preference for me would go towards the NSLMG. Been fortunate enough to have had extensive experience with the 60 along with hands on time with the 240. A good AG is a definite combat multiplier.

As for a secondary choice (METT-T IE)






40mm always provided lots of choices / flexibility for launch (As pics show in RetPara's thread) depending on how far down your ass is/was in the sling and what you needed in response.

Seems that no matter how much any of it weighs, the bitchin goes away once the SHTF. I'm from the school of "Better to have it and not need it than......." but then again, that's just me.


----------



## moobob (Jul 30, 2012)

240 or MK-48 if it's available to you.


----------



## Viper1 (Jul 30, 2012)

The91Bravo said:


> M249 for amounts of ammo carried and rate of fire. You can sustain the fight a little longer with lighter ammo than the 240... For devastation in a MG The 240 cannot be overlooked. Then if they made a lightweight Mk-19, I'd be all over that... either that or have three privates carry it until you need it... lo.l


 
In fact they do make one.  :).  Still requires two dudes but the gun and tripod are much lighter.


----------



## goon175 (Jul 30, 2012)

1) You only need 2 soldiers, not 3, for the goose. Gunner carries it plus 2 rounds, AG carries 4-6 rounds. You need some healthy legs on this team, especially in afghanistan.
2) Here is what the goose can do that none of those other systems can do: knock down a house/structure when you don't have CAS. With the same accuracy. A well placed ASM round will knock just about anything flat.


----------



## Crusader74 (Jul 30, 2012)

goon175 said:


> 1) You only need 2 soldiers, not 3, for the goose. Gunner carries it plus 2 rounds, AG carries 4-6 rounds. You need some healthy legs on this team, especially in afghanistan.
> 2) Here is what the goose can do that none of those other systems can do: knock down a house/structure when you don't have CAS. With the same accuracy. A well placed ASM round will knock just about anything flat.


 
While rucking during a platoon in attack, heading to the start line, I had the goose put on the top on my pack, the bi-pod put in my cargo pocket of my BDU's and carrying a two rd sliver and my primary , My no 2 had 2 slivers, or 4 rds......I don't miss that lol


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 30, 2012)

I voted for the 60 mortar, as mortars can devastate the wnemy. However I think that the 240B would be most important.


----------



## reed11b (Jul 30, 2012)

I am suprised to see the number of 203 votes. I always thought they were nearly useless, since in the '90's Army and the NG, you never get to practice with them eneogh to be proficient.
Reed


----------



## Crusader74 (Jul 30, 2012)

Any one used the MAG SF( sustained fire role) ? Now that is the bomb! I have about 20 mins of me firing it on a VHS from a shoot in the 90's .. must get it put onto DVD.
Brit Army Vid.


----------



## pardus (Jul 30, 2012)

240 all the way for me. Range, weight of fire, damage inflicted, portability of gun and ammo, it has it all.

Also If you use the hydraulic tripod its effective range is approx. 3800m IIRC.



Irish said:


> Any one used the MAG SF( sustained fire role) ? Now that is the bomb! I have about 20 mins of me firing it on a VHS from a shoot in the 90's .. must get it put onto DVD.
> Brit Army Vid.


 
Yes indeed!  Thats the tripod I mentioned. Fucking thing ROCKS!


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 30, 2012)

I was always a big fan of the SAW, especially the paratrooper version.  I liked the rate of fire, the weight, the portability, and the fact that it fired the same ammo that the rest of the platoon did (TOW platoon, no 7.62 weapons).  Although I respect the capabilities of the 7.62 weapons, and recognize the effectiveness of a machine gun on a tripod w/T&E (and a gunner who knows how to use it), I was never particularly enamored of the M60 (but that's most likely because I was always the one stuck carrying it in ROTC and IOBC ;) )

My first platoon had a lot of extra weapons (because we were short on troops... and about everything else... Clinton era) so I carried an M203.  I got to be pretty good with it, but that was when all the shooting was taking place on one-way ranges, not the two-way ones.  I also went to the mortar leaders course and got to fire the 60mm, 81mm, and what was it, 102?mm mortars.  Again, with a gunner who really knows what he's doing, mortars are extraordinary force multipliers.
Of the two, though, for squad-level urban combat (which is kind of how I framed the question) I'd go with a 203.  It has a flatter trajectory of fire than a mortar, it's easier to get good at shooting (IMO), and it's affixed to Joe's primary weapon, so there 's no need to tote around and addition weapon or weapon system.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 30, 2012)

Etype said:


> I use a piece of luminescent tape down the center of the tube. I agree, it's pretty accurate out to 300m, but the Carl G is pretty accurate out to 1,000m.


 
the 60 needs the bipod and bubble sight to be accurate at 1km...   that's the issue with area weapons that have the big projectiles...


----------



## max velocity (Jul 30, 2012)

I vote for the 240. My favorite. A little background on that: the 240 is the same as the British GPMG, as per Irish's video, above. The 240 is a bit more high speed then the GPMG because, as with all things, the US bought it and stuck a rail on it and some awesome high speed gear etc. The GPMG ("Gimpy" - pronounced with a J) has been around "forever". It was used in the Falklands in 1982. Back then, the deal was that in a Para Battalion, there was a machine-gun platoon which specialized in SF (Sustained Fire) use of the GPMG, using the tripod). At section (squad) level the GPMG (or "Gun") was carried in the dismounted role by a gun group of a N0. 1 and his No 2. Back then, the rest of the section was armed with the British SLR, which is the FN FAL. The gun was deployed to a flank while the riflemen carried out the assault.
With the advent of the SAW (Minimi) at British section level, there is less need for a 240. Each fireteam has a SAW. However, what I used to find useful is to either attach a two man gun group to an eight man section to beef up available firepower, or alternatively to have a gun group, possibly two, at platoon level. These gun groups can then be deployed to influence the battle. Nothing better than the beat of the "gimpy" going in as fire support.
Brit Paras were always sticklers for how the gun was carried. No sling over the neck, the sling could only be over one shoulder so the wepaon could be brought into action rapidly. The Gimpy was carried extensively dismounted on patrol.


----------



## RetPara (Jul 30, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> .....and what was it, 102?mm mortars. Again, with a gunner who really knows what he's doing, mortars are extraordinary force multipliers.


It's a 4.2 in or 120 mm mortar....  same size warhead as a 155 round.  Called the Bn Cdr's dedicated artillery....   



Marauder06 said:


> Of the two, though, for squad-level urban combat (which is kind of how I framed the question) I'd go with a 203. It has a flatter trajectory of fire than a mortar, it's easier to get good at shooting (IMO), and it's affixed to Joe's primary weapon, so there 's no need to tote around and addition weapon or weapon system.


I don't want Joe putting fire down with what he thinks is his primary weapon.  The 40mm grenade launcher should BE HIS PRIMARY weapon.  If you shot at it with a 5.56 round, you can damn well bring a 40mm round on it.


----------



## dknob (Jul 30, 2012)

Most practical and useful for the squad is the 249. You can implement it in many situations, CQB/rural and longer distance, great for ambush, great for cover fire, great for mass casualty. Lighter then the 240 which means its more mobile and can be utilized in any part of an operation in a moments notice.

- 240 too bulky and not always as practical for many types of operations (Urban/CQB)
- Carl G - very limited to where and when you can use it
- Sniper Rifle - a sniper in today's battlefield is a sharpshooter supporting a platoon operation. If you want snipers go watch Tom Berenger in action. Again it's great to have a sniper on your squad but a squared away shooter with an ACOG can do just as much damage in support of a line squad and not a traditional sniper operation.
- 40mm 203 - again not always practical and very situational dependent. Nobody likes a noob tuber.
- 60 mm mortar - probably the least most important item to a squad on this list. Yeah sure you can reach out and touch somebody.. but you can get the job done with many of the above tools.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 30, 2012)

For me, it would be the one in my hands.


----------



## Etype (Jul 30, 2012)

goon175 said:


> 1) You only need 2 soldiers, not 3, for the goose. Gunner carries it plus 2 rounds, AG carries 4-6 rounds. You need some healthy legs on this team, especially in afghanistan.
> 2) Here is what the goose can do that none of those other systems can do: knock down a house/structure when you don't have CAS. With the same accuracy. A well placed ASM round will knock just about anything flat.


We liked to call him PVT Gustav. He could destroy lots of things- vehicles, buildings, people- and he reached just as far as a 60mm or 240B.

And another big plus- Taliban doesn't like a big boom.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 31, 2012)

249/240 depending on the environment. Though I would have to say that sniper rifles can have some pretty devastating psychological effects too. They might not have the 'shock and awe' of sustained fire and/or explosions, but they can be morale-killers. They create that fear that someone out there, in an unknown position, has the power to reach out and hit you with extreme precision at any second. That fear is further amplified once someone starts seeing their friends getting picked off from a spot which they thought was safe. The longer a fight draws on, the more psychological damage they can do (limiting these effects to prolonged engagements). You might not want to bet on these psychological effects as much as you can on suppressive fire, but they're always a plus to a weapon system which is already extremely deadly in the right hands and the right situation.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 1, 2012)

On a purely fucking shit up level, I'm a fan of the Gustav.

For pouring hate, it's the MAG all day long. Throw it on a tripod in the SF role and you can reach out to 1800m. Sure it's a bit of a cunt to carry but with the right man behind a MAG, it can do serious damage.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 1, 2012)

max velocity said:


> I vote for the 240. My favorite. A little background on that: the 240 is the same as the British GPMG, as per Irish's video, above. The 240 is a bit more high speed then the GPMG because, as with all things, the US bought it and stuck a rail on it and some awesome high speed gear etc. The GPMG ("Gimpy" - pronounced with a J) has been around "forever". It was used in the Falklands in 1982. Back then, the deal was that in a Para Battalion, there was a machine-gun platoon which specialized in SF (Sustained Fire) use of the GPMG, using the tripod). At section (squad) level the GPMG (or "Gun") was carried in the dismounted role by a gun group of a N0. 1 and his No 2. Back then, the rest of the section was armed with the British SLR, which is the FN FAL. The gun was deployed to a flank while the riflemen carried out the assault.
> With the advent of the SAW (Minimi) at British section level, there is less need for a 240. Each fireteam has a SAW. However, what I used to find useful is to either attach a two man gun group to an eight man section to beef up available firepower, or alternatively to have a gun group, possibly two, at platoon level. These gun groups can then be deployed to influence the battle. Nothing better than the beat of the "gimpy" going in as fire support.
> Brit Paras were always sticklers for how the gun was carried. No sling over the neck, the sling could only be over one shoulder so the wepaon could be brought into action rapidly. The Gimpy was carried extensively dismounted on patrol.


 
All MAG's come with rails fitted now.

As for the Minimi and less of a need for the MAG, there was enough of a need for it that it's been put back into sections in the BA.


----------



## max velocity (Aug 1, 2012)

> Throw it on a tripod in the SF role and you can reach out to 1800m


 
2500 meters map predicted.....


----------



## Poccington (Aug 1, 2012)

max velocity said:


> 2500 meters map predicted.....


 
Between myself, yourself and Pardus we've managed to come up with three different ranges for a MAG in the SF role.


----------



## max velocity (Aug 1, 2012)

> Between myself, yourself and Pardus we've managed to come up with three different ranges for a MAG in the SF role.


 
Really? Had not picked that up. I have 800 meters light role, 1800 meters SF role direct fire, 2500 meter SF role map predicated....


----------



## Poccington (Aug 1, 2012)

max velocity said:


> Really? Had not picked that up. I have 800 meters light role, 1800 meters SF role direct fire, 2500 meter SF role map predicated....


 
Roger, I was talking SF direct fire when I said 1800.


----------



## x SF med (Aug 1, 2012)

max velocity said:


> Really? Had not picked that up. I have 800 meters light role, 1800 meters SF role direct fire, 2500 meter SF role map predicated....


 
show me your fire plan with dead spots, cover  FPF's and FPL's....  gun placement and fall back positions....   show me that you can get clean 2500m LoF from a MG  in any more than 10% of the situations where it is set up for SF in the current militaty situations....   were this battles in the Golan, the steppes or huge open fields....  maybe....  but in the current situation, not a textbook   clean 1000m lines are difficult to find.... but I'm an end user, not a textbook expert....


----------



## x SF med (Aug 1, 2012)

Oh, wait....  I guess I might even be considered a textbook expert in the care, use, emplacement and training of MG (LMG and HMG) by virtue of having a diploma naming me a United States Army Special Forces Weapons Specialist...


----------



## goon175 (Aug 1, 2012)

thats kinda like shooting expert in BRM right?


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 2, 2012)

Yeah I qualified "expert" in that America's Army game a couple years back.  Thats similar, right?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 2, 2012)

*stares at Deathy*


----------



## max velocity (Aug 2, 2012)

> show me your fire plan with dead spots, cover FPF's and FPL's.... gun placement and fall back positions.... show me that you can get clean 2500m LoF from a MG in any more than 10% of the situations where it is set up for SF in the current militaty situations.... were this battles in the Golan, the steppes or huge open fields.... maybe.... but in the current situation, not a textbook clean 1000m lines are difficult to find.... but I'm an end user, not a textbook expert....


 
That's just the book ranges. I think the map predicted range is interesting. I'm not a qualified machine gunner, apart form firing them light role. I am commenting from an "asset user" perspective. I was anti-armor at one point in Brit Mil. We used "MSGs" or mobile support groups of mixed anti-armor/MG groups. If I needed to know about technical capabilities, I asked the experts.

Helmand is an example of where this sort of long range capability can be/is/was employed. Thinking places like Kajaki Dam etc. Lots of open spaces covered by OPs on high round, that sort of thing. Can get some good "beaten zone" fire patterns down onto DFs, 'specially when the enemy tended to come from pretty much the same areas, which sould be considered the FLET.

Where MGs are mounted on vehicles, they are not SF mounted so you can't do the MPF stuff etc, but there were/prob still are a lot of long range engagements in Helmand. Green zone is a mixed close combat/"paddy/poppy field"/irrigation ditch/compound environment, but outside of that it can be long open ranges to enemy in and around compounds etc.


----------



## max velocity (Aug 2, 2012)

About the anti-armor thing and ranges: back when we had the MILAN, that had a max range of 1850 meters but was wire guided. When planning the battalion anti-armor defense plan and looking for defilade positions covering TAIs, it was a matter of planning around "goose eggs" drawn on a map board. Being wire guided, the MILAN could fire out to 1850, but had to have clear line of sight, which also included the 12 seconds it would take tracking the vehicle at maximum range. The goose eggs represented the kill areas to be covered by each firing post at a det location, and had to be amended for obstacles out in the killing areas. Having the Javelin makes the lives of current anti-armor planners so much easier....


----------



## x SF med (Aug 2, 2012)

goon175 said:


> thats kinda like shooting expert in BRM right?


 
sure...  just like it...  whatever you say.... irony and sarcasm intended...


----------



## x SF med (Aug 4, 2012)

anybody else hear crickets?


----------



## digrar (Aug 5, 2012)

That's just tinnitus, too much USASFWS bang bang, not enough ear pro...


----------



## Etype (Aug 5, 2012)

2,500m with a 240???  That's ridiculous.  How the hell would you observe that?  You are looking for a beaten zone through a 4x optic at over 1.5 miles.  I guess if your AG had a spotting scope this might be possible, but not with binos or the gun's optic.  Tracer burn out occurs at 800m, which coincidentally is the Army's book answer for the point target range, range for an area target is 1,100m- both ranges are for the tripod mounted configuration.

Note- You foreigners have some strange terminology.


----------



## HOLLiS (Aug 5, 2012)

x SF med said:


> the 60mm fired without a pole set and baseplate is devastating out to about 300m with a good gunner... we had one guy on one of my teams that was a savant with it... and he sighted using the muzzle angle, not the sight... you should have seen his accuracy with a 203....


 
We had a guy in our company with a Charlie 60mm,  base plate and a handle,  king of like the one use on a old wood stove.   He was pretty lethal with it.


----------



## Etype (Aug 5, 2012)

I'm surprised to see the 40mm getting more votes than the Carl G, I guess it's because a lot more people have experience with the 40mm.


----------



## pardus (Aug 5, 2012)

Etype said:


> 2,500m with a 240??? That's ridiculous. How the hell would you observe that? You are looking for a beaten zone through a 4x optic at over 1.5 miles. I guess if your AG had a spotting scope this might be possible, but not with binos or the gun's optic. Tracer burn out occurs at 800m, which coincidentally is the Army's book answer for the point target range, range for an area target is 1,100m- both ranges are for the tripod mounted configuration.
> 
> Note- You foreigners have some strange terminology.


 
Ridiculous? You've never heard of map predicted fire? You don't need to directly observe mortar fire either and the GPMG uses the same C2 sight and aiming posts.

There's more than one way to skin a cat!


----------



## Etype (Aug 5, 2012)

Oh geez.  Now I've heard it all.  It's like the Marines and their indirect fire with the M2 and a gunner's quadrant.


----------



## pardus (Aug 5, 2012)

Etype said:


> Oh geez. Now I've heard it all. It's like the Marines and their indirect fire with the M2 and a gunner's quadrant.


 
See, and you SF guys think you're well trained ;) lol


----------



## RetPara (Aug 6, 2012)

Up to and during WWII machine guns were concentrated in separate platoons, companies, and even battalions in both the Army and Marines. Both the Marine and Army had machine gunners as separate infantry sub specialty till sometime in the 80's.  Since then with L/M MG's at the platoon/squad level I don't think the time, ammunition, and other resources have been available to really train professional machine gunners.  It's been somewhat of a lost art for decades now.

The following a few links that might be interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Browning_machine_gun
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/infantry/28480-motor-battalion-machine-gun-units.html
http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/history/upton/smith13.htm
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/divmguns.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-65/ch62.htm#s2p7
http://books.google.com/books/about/Machine_Gun_Manual.html?id=AcEHRAAACAAJ - 1916


----------



## Etype (Aug 6, 2012)

RetPara said:


> It's been somewhat of a lost art for decades now.


I try to devote a lot of time to developing a machine gun team when we are deployed. A lot of people seem to be reluctant to carry a tripod because they don't truly understand the value of it. Once they get out in the desert, start firing beyond 800m, and really start to understand how to work the T&E they wouldn't leave home without it.


----------



## RetPara (Aug 6, 2012)

I was hoping that there might be a resurgence of the artistry in A'stan.  To me it would be great terrain to map out beaten zones and other of the old school TTP's that haven't seen the light of days in decades.


----------



## x SF med (Aug 6, 2012)

A good machinegunner sees the world in fire maps... oh hell, dead zone, no fire cover.... great beaten zone and since there is a lot of rock good ricochet potential for secondary damage... 10m behind that hill is where a beaten zone starts if I emplace 300m back and set to ..... y'know, like driving down the Interstate and writing attack/defense plans for the multiple targets you see..... :-"


----------



## max velocity (Aug 6, 2012)

Pardus: is that Battery Sergeant Major "Shut Up" Williams from "it aint half hot mum? Or do you just look like him?


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 6, 2012)

Map predicted fire is a known beast, not akin to the Unicorn.


----------



## digrar (Aug 7, 2012)

Intervisibility is the only 7 syllable word that DFSW types know. Or know of, I never heard any of them talk in anything other than grunts and growls.


----------



## RetPara (Aug 7, 2012)

x SF med said:


> A good machinegunner sees the world in fire maps... oh hell, dead zone, no fire cover.... great beaten zone and since there is a lot of rock good ricochet potential for secondary damage... 10m behind that hill is where a beaten zone starts if I emplace 300m back and set to ..... y'know, like driving down the Interstate and writing attack/defense plans for the multiple targets you see..... :-"


 
Glad I'm not the only one who does that....


----------



## pardus (Aug 14, 2012)

Ive been hearing about the titanium M240. I have to say that just from what Ive heard it sounds pretty bloody cool. Anyone know this beast intimately?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 16, 2012)

Hard pick to make, obviously it dependent to several aspects: type of terrain, type of enemy, engagement distances, type equipment the enemy has (body armor, weapons), the mission tasks, type of movement to contact (mounted, dismounted, air assault), what support assets are available (indirect, CAS, etc) and the mission equipment assessment of all of the above.

Generally speaking, I like having a 7.62 mm weapon of some kind in the squad. Now if I had the ability to pick and choose, I would like an EBR (SDM), a 240B team, and 2 fire teams with standard load out. A 60mm will be a great added tool, especially for Astan. However, again it would be mission dependent.


----------

