Gents,
While I acknowledge the importance of projectile design, I think the weight, profile, and handling characteristics of the machinegun are more important. Using a constant-recoil operating system will increase hit probability drastically, and untrained soldiers need very little time with such a weapon to be effective with it, since it's pretty much an aim and shoot = hit procedure. I posted some about this before the forum was destroyed, with links to video of the Ultimax, KAC LMG, and Kp31 Suomi submachinegun. You simply have to experience the shooter bliss that firing these types of weapons is, as you can basically write your name with them. Well-trained soldiers are simply lethal with them, as the Finns proved in 1939-1940 against the Soviets.
They were basically using a 9mm subgun in the capacity that we use SAW's in today, that is how effective constant recoil is, and they stacked bodies until guys had to be pulled off the front line because the psychological weight of how many humans they had killed was unbearable for them to sustain. Keep in mind that they were shooting 9mm at guys fully-kitted out in winter gear, and still had that effect. They were also in way more enclosed terrain than one would find in Afghanistan, but the effectiveness of that system is a matter of historical record.
When you look at the recoil of the SAW or AK, it is not conducive at all to keeping even short controlled bursts on-target, unless you muscle the crap out of the gun and drive it hard. The M240 on a flex mount was very good, but then they got rid of the flex mounts and installed a new buffer in it, which basically made it feel like constant recoil when the buffer was new. I protested about losing the flex mount..until I shot the gun with the new buffer. You question if you have even fired when there is no felt recoil. The 240 was already a laser gun, but then it got even better. Notice that these features are what Joe loves, but hates the weight.
Regardless of what high-power ammunition is used in an LMG, as long as it has a constant-recoil mechanism, a novice gunner will be able to keep almost all the rounds on-target, and multiple hits of even a mediocre projectile design will ventilate a human target quite destructively. When I think about the capabilities of a Multirole LMG with the ballistics of a 6.5 Swede, I get excited. If one were to compound that with a well-designed projectile that penetrates barriers and fragments in tissue, it would be all the merrier.
I want to reiterate the role that LMG's and GPMG's play in Light Infantry tactics...it is a dominant one. Whenever small unit tactics are being discussed, we always talked about how the 7.62 machineguns represented 50-66% of the firepower of the whole platoon, or figures like that. A belt-fed weapon brings a decisive amount of firepower to any land force encounter, and is usually one of the most addressed components of planning when discussing the details of actual actions on the objective for deliberate attacks, raids, ambushes, defenses, and Immediate Action Drills.
While the guns may not be as sexy as sniper rifles or good marksmen, when they talk, everyone listens. The art of machine-gunning is too often overlooked on the outside, but it is a noble and coveted position in the Infantry. I'm in favor of giving gunners a super-light gun that tracks easy, with a superior cartridge, that they can also fight in the streets with when necessary.
LRRPF52
While I acknowledge the importance of projectile design, I think the weight, profile, and handling characteristics of the machinegun are more important. Using a constant-recoil operating system will increase hit probability drastically, and untrained soldiers need very little time with such a weapon to be effective with it, since it's pretty much an aim and shoot = hit procedure. I posted some about this before the forum was destroyed, with links to video of the Ultimax, KAC LMG, and Kp31 Suomi submachinegun. You simply have to experience the shooter bliss that firing these types of weapons is, as you can basically write your name with them. Well-trained soldiers are simply lethal with them, as the Finns proved in 1939-1940 against the Soviets.
They were basically using a 9mm subgun in the capacity that we use SAW's in today, that is how effective constant recoil is, and they stacked bodies until guys had to be pulled off the front line because the psychological weight of how many humans they had killed was unbearable for them to sustain. Keep in mind that they were shooting 9mm at guys fully-kitted out in winter gear, and still had that effect. They were also in way more enclosed terrain than one would find in Afghanistan, but the effectiveness of that system is a matter of historical record.
When you look at the recoil of the SAW or AK, it is not conducive at all to keeping even short controlled bursts on-target, unless you muscle the crap out of the gun and drive it hard. The M240 on a flex mount was very good, but then they got rid of the flex mounts and installed a new buffer in it, which basically made it feel like constant recoil when the buffer was new. I protested about losing the flex mount..until I shot the gun with the new buffer. You question if you have even fired when there is no felt recoil. The 240 was already a laser gun, but then it got even better. Notice that these features are what Joe loves, but hates the weight.
Regardless of what high-power ammunition is used in an LMG, as long as it has a constant-recoil mechanism, a novice gunner will be able to keep almost all the rounds on-target, and multiple hits of even a mediocre projectile design will ventilate a human target quite destructively. When I think about the capabilities of a Multirole LMG with the ballistics of a 6.5 Swede, I get excited. If one were to compound that with a well-designed projectile that penetrates barriers and fragments in tissue, it would be all the merrier.
I want to reiterate the role that LMG's and GPMG's play in Light Infantry tactics...it is a dominant one. Whenever small unit tactics are being discussed, we always talked about how the 7.62 machineguns represented 50-66% of the firepower of the whole platoon, or figures like that. A belt-fed weapon brings a decisive amount of firepower to any land force encounter, and is usually one of the most addressed components of planning when discussing the details of actual actions on the objective for deliberate attacks, raids, ambushes, defenses, and Immediate Action Drills.
While the guns may not be as sexy as sniper rifles or good marksmen, when they talk, everyone listens. The art of machine-gunning is too often overlooked on the outside, but it is a noble and coveted position in the Infantry. I'm in favor of giving gunners a super-light gun that tracks easy, with a superior cartridge, that they can also fight in the streets with when necessary.
LRRPF52
Comment