Why did MGs get so much better?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bastables:

[QB]No In the lmg role (at section lvl) you can get it (C-9)

I edited my comments above. You called it an "FN" which made me think you meant the C6, not the C9.

You have no data on the MG3, it's tech specs, yet categorically state the purpose of the retooling and improvements (MG42 to MG3) is to lower the rof. And then use that as the foundational argument that the high rof was a weakness of the original design. Your initial premis is false as is your conclusion as the MG3 ships with light/std and heavy bolts.

Apparently you have no data on the MG3, its tech specs, or any sort of premise whatsoever for the change to the heavier bolt, much less any information on its actual deployment and use in the field. Did you want to keep swinging in the dark, or perhaps you wanted to flick the light switch and illuminate the both of us?

[Meach]

LSW was used to snipe at things more often than not. Not really fit for purpose.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

I can't figure out what your point is. Is it that 1200 rpm is too high for a suppressive fire weapon? I think we all agree that it is, so I'm assuming that's not it. So what are you going on about?

Steve

[Meach]

Did I mention I had to carry the LSW around like a dead pig?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables:

[QB]No In the lmg role (at section lvl) you can get it (C-9)

I edited my comments above. You called it an "FN" which made me think you meant the C6, not the C9.

You have no data on the MG3, it's tech specs, yet categorically state the purpose of the retooling and improvements (MG42 to MG3) is to lower the rof. And then use that as the foundational argument that the high rof was a weakness of the original design. Your initial premis is false as is your conclusion as the MG3 ships with light/std and heavy bolts.

Apparently you have no data on the MG3, its tech specs, or any sort of premise whatsoever for the change to the heavier bolt, much less any information on its actual deployment and use in the field. Did you want to keep swinging in the dark, or perhaps you wanted to flick the light switch and illuminate the both of us? </font>

[Bastables]

Double post

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Meach:

Did I mention I had to carry the LSW around like a dead pig?

You did.

Were you the new recruit?

[Battlefront.com]

No, he was just the silly guy that raised his hand at the wrong moment. Or perhaps it was one of those things where the SGT asked someone to step forward and Meach, caught daydreaming at the wrong time, didn't notice that the rest of the squad took two steps backwards. Hopefully Meach will return to tell us which one of these possibilities is most accurate.

Steve

P.S. Hopefully he won't come back and say "I volunteered because I thought it would be fun". That wouldn't speak well of his intelligence

[Meach]

I was picked to carry the LSW because of my "superior upper body strength" and my "shooting ability" according to my Sarn't.

The other guys in the section said it was cos I was the smallest (5'4) and worst soldier they had ever come across and they hoped that the guy with the biggest gun got shot first They loved me really...

I think Sgt Williams was being kind....for a change...

Tho I did think if volunteering cos I thought the LSW looked cool..

I did get caught daydreaming one time tho...ended up on Guard for a whole night because of it and I missed 5th November celebrations and all the free hotdogs....and what was I guarding? The toilets that were set aside for the public to use during the fireworks display. Sigh...I should'a joined the Navy.

[Webwing]

LSW? Hum, this acronyms always puzzle me.

LSW – Light Support Weapon. Light Support? Or Light Weapon for support? What is light support? I thought the purpose of support was to be “heavy”! You pick a riffle and put a longer barrel in it, call it LSW and voila, you created something revolutionary. No wonder the soldiers don’t like. But like Meach said, it does look cool.

GPMG – General Purpose Machinegun. General? More general than a medium machinegun? What are the other purposes of this machinegun? What’s wrong with Medium Machine Gun - MMG? Most weapons serve more than one purpose anyway.

The British have this L (land weapon) to designate their weapons. Seems like a good way to organize things. Call an SA80 A2 an L85. That’s fine, I get it. But then they also call it IW – Individual Weapon. I guess a pistol is also an individual weapon, and so is knife. I think that’s way people end up putting nicknames on vehicles and weapons…

I just need some sleep actually!

[Meach]

LSW = light support weapon. I think it should be called a Machine Rifle instead.

[flamingknives]

The different names get dreamt up by different groups.

A GPMG is more general than a medium machine gun, as the latter is a rifle calibre weapon firing from a tripod. A GPMG can be (and is, in the British army) used in the light role as well.

Light support weapon - A support weapon that is light.

I suspect that there was an outbreak of pseudo-honesty where they realised that they couldn't call it a light machine gun.

[vincere]

Yeah, the army converted them from .303 to fire 7.62mm NATO, think the designation was L5A4 or something. They definately saw service in the Falklands. I know some support TA units still had them in the early 90's!

My regular unit armory had them in the 90s.

FAI I don't know about Bren fetish but I'm sure I'm not the only one who had a SLR and Lee Enfield fetish.

[FAI]

Originally posted by vincere:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yeah, the army converted them from .303 to fire 7.62mm NATO, think the designation was L5A4 or something. They definately saw service in the Falklands. I know some support TA units still had them in the early 90's!

My regular unit armory had them in the 90s.

FAI I don't know about Bren fetish but I'm sure I'm not the only one who had a SLR and Lee Enfield fetish. </font>

[flamingknives]

I wouldn't exactly put the PKM in the category of a new machine gun.

At least compared to the LSW, the Bren is a very good machine gun. Fires a more powerful round from a similar sized magazine which is faster to change. More reliable too. Apart from the weight, it stacks up well against plenty of squad automatics, especially the RPKs

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Webwing:

GPMG – General Purpose Machinegun. General? More general than a medium machinegun? What are the other purposes of this machinegun? What’s wrong with Medium Machine Gun - MMG? Most weapons serve more than one purpose anyway.

Simplisticlly GPMG means you can use it as a light weapon: bipod. Or a heavy/MMG mounted on a tripod. and also use it on veh or as a co-ax. As opposed to the army in WWII where you have the Bren as LMG, Vickers as MMG (both firing 303) and a FN MG as tank MG firing the 7,92mm. Thank god the NZ and Aussie armies did not want to turn back the clock and adopt the SA-80 and then a LSW featuring a magazine.

In the heavy role you can have it presighted on areas to give you the ability to create beaten zones. Only ever saw this once with a L7A2 GPMG set up on a tripod to fire into a graveyard on a hill that looked down into a company position. The sentry could just hit a button/trigger and pump 100 rds into the grave yard if we ever took fire from there. Not really somthing you can do with the C-9/FN Mini as it has no tripod in the NZ army. Setup to shoot on presighted arcs the buttstock was also removed .

[ March 14, 2008, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Simplisticlly GPMG means you can use it as a light weapon: bipod. Or a heavy/MMG mounted on a tripod. and also use it on veh or as a co-ax. As opposed to the army in WWII where you have the Bren as LMG, Vickers as MMG (both firing 303) and a FN MG as tank MG firing the 7,92mm.

Interesting.

Thank god the NZ and Aussie armies did not want to turn back the clock and adopt the SA-80 and then a LSW featuring a magazine.

The SA80-A1 had some major problems but not the A2 version of the weapon. The only complains I remember reading is that shooting with the left hand seems impossible. Another thing is the weight distribution that seems to need some getting used to.

Apart from that the SA80-A2 is praised by every soldier that used it as reliable and accurate.

The LSW version is another story altogether.

-

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Webwing:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables:

Simplisticlly GPMG means you can use it as a light weapon: bipod. Or a heavy/MMG mounted on a tripod. and also use it on veh or as a co-ax. As opposed to the army in WWII where you have the Bren as LMG, Vickers as MMG (both firing 303) and a FN MG as tank MG firing the 7,92mm.

Interesting.

Thank god the NZ and Aussie armies did not want to turn back the clock and adopt the SA-80 and then a LSW featuring a magazine.

The SA80-A1 had some major problems but not the A2 version of the weapon. The only complains I remember reading is that shooting with the left hand seems impossible. Another thing is the weight distribution that seems to need some getting used to.

Apart from that the SA80-A2 is praised by every soldier that used it as reliable and accurate.

The LSW version is another story altogether.

- </font>

[cassh]

John Kettler said

This is your best chance at killing or wounding the foe

John I think you may have missed the point about GPMGs deployed at the platoon and company level. Their main role is not to engage opportunity targets but to provide suppression of the enemy, so allowing your own manoeuvre units to move.

The important factors of a GPMG are sustainability of fire, spread of beaten zone and economy of fire. Most GPMG in the SF role have a ROF of about 600-900 RPM.

Good GPMG crews will try and ensure their barrels are balance as near to the lowest gas regulator setting as possible, meaning they 1) don't overheat too quickly, 2) conserve ammo better, and 3) have higher settings to go up to when fowling starts to impair performance.

Someone above mentioned barrel changes on a M240/GPMG taking 10-20 seconds and needing an asbestos mat? 1) it shouldn't take more than ten seconds 2) the barrel has a handle 3) when using it in the light role your forward left hand grip is the bipod legs folded back.

In terms of belt vs. mag feed there is one example where only belt fed will do - final protective fire - if the OC calls in SF101 you'd better hope you've got GPMGs firing along your lines as overwise it's likely to be overrun time.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Bastables:

I'm assuming the Aussies have upped their game and there are no more surprising metal fatigue failuers on brand new rifles.

No, we just wanted to d*ck you around.

Actually, while not a grunt, I fail to understand why Infantry section F89 gunners have to achieve a grouping on the F89 to qualify - to me it defeats the whole idea of cone of fire and beaten zone!

Also for those interested the F89 can fire from magazines too (if there is no link around) but the fun part is that last time I checked not F88 mags, but M16 ones!

So if the section needs F89 fire and has no link, the riflemen can’t just chuck the gunner the F88 mags, they have to unload a mag and refill a different one.

Got to be happy with that!

[ March 16, 2008, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[Wisbech_lad]

Indian Army uses Brens as well. Many front line units have now meant to switched to 5.56 INSAS rifle & minimi type thing, but as the minimi type thing is having problems, there are also a lot of Brens still in front line use...

Pakistan uses the MG3, so as recently as Kargil (1999) the Bren was up against the spiritual successor of the MG42.

And the Bren equiped troops won that one too.

Has there been any war that a Bren equipped army has lost? Case closed...

[cassh]

Wisbech_lad said:

Has there been any war that a Bren equipped army has lost?

Czechoslovakia 1938 (Czechoslovak Army)

Palestine (British kicked out)

Suez (British Army - a political, rather than military defeat)

Aden (British kicked out)

Rhodesia (Anglo-Colonial/Smith Rhodesian Army)

We used L4 as an LMG in one of the section's bricks, with the Gimpy in the other to give the section better distribution of fire-power between the fire teams. Bren was ideal for COIN where background and accuracy were very important.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by cassh:

Wisbech_lad said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Has there been any war that a Bren equipped army has lost?

Czechoslovakia 1938 (Czechoslovak Army)

Palestine (British kicked out)

Suez (British Army - a political, rather than military defeat)

Aden (British kicked out)

Rhodesia (Anglo-Colonial/Smith Rhodesian Army)

We used L4 as an LMG in one of the section's bricks, with the Gimpy in the other to give the section better distribution of fire-power between the fire teams. Bren was ideal for COIN where background and accuracy were very important. </font>

[flamingknives]

Did the Japanese use the Bren? Or was it a design that just looked like it?

[Bastables]

No it (type 97) was a mechanical copy of the ZB 26, the original bren, not just a superficial copy.

Chinese Nationalist used it versus the communists and the Japanese in ZB form. Bren lost that one as well.