06-15-2015, 02:33 PM
stanc Wrote:Okay, but other people are advocating it for dismounted use, as is the manufacturer:
[video=youtube;JNB7khjOSXc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNB7khjOSXc[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNB7khjOSXc
Yes we are advocating dismounted use. However, we're aware that implementing a .338 MMG and a 6.5 LMG will change tactics for employing machine guns.
Currently we have a 5.56 SAW as the LMG and the 240G as the MMG. There isn't much comparison in the two. In situations where you need the 240G, the SAW is useless. So we have other troops devoted to deploying a 2nd 240G.
A 6.5 LMG would compliment a .338 MMG, and would demand that they be deployed on the battlefield in such a manner. The LMGs could and should be used as the brunt force, allowing the MMG to engage the critical and hard to reach targets. Therefore, if we make the switch to a 6.5 LMG and a .338 MMG, we don't as many MMGs on the battlefield. This would allow more troops to be devoted to a single MMG, allowing more ammunition to be carried.
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin