Best use of American 7.62mm MG?

[Atago]

4 man team, works at longer range when set-up. What is the best use? I assume that putting them in an over-watch position before moving troops forward is the way to go. I assume you don't send them up with the squad? Never quite sure what the best use of these units are...

[Elmar Bijlsma]

It depends on the situation, but essentially it has a longer reach then most other small arms so for optimal effect keep it out of the range of enemy AK. You definitely want to keep them a little behind the troops, and in cover as the MMG isn't a very capable of defending itself when suddenly confronted with the enemy at short range.

Also, don't be shy about using them. I fire at every likely looking target for a bit, then the main threat before the troops even move. Typically I burn 1/2 my 7.62 before I see all that much of the enemy. Not only good for suppression and even a few kills but will frequently draw return fire which you can crush with whatever means you have at your disposal. Obviously it's better to have this happen with your MG in cover a long distance away then with exposed troops nearly on top of the enemy.

[Alan8325]

The "Ambush Tutorial" scenario has a good MG setup where the two teams cause probably 80% of enemy casualties on most of my playthroughs. Just make sure you set them to deployed status in the setup phase.

[19Kyle72]

Typically, I try to deploy the 7.62mm machinegun team as closely as possible to their intended destination via whatever armored transport they're riding in, since they're so slow on foot (especially since I almost always have them grab an extra 1000 rounds of ammo; no point in "targeting light" if one doesn't have to). I use their transport to cover them till they're in position, and then I use them (more or less) as over watch for everybody else. Whenever any resistance is encountered, I have them open up with suppressing fire.

Always remember to Deploy your tripod when getting in position and to fold it back up before you have to move anywhere. It may seem to take forever to do so, but it'll save you time in the end.

When a region's been cleared, I'll always try to have an armored transport pick them up again, so that they can restock on ammo (and, once again, grab extra ammo) and then be redeployed quickly to a different region where they may be more needed.

Wash.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Hope this helps!

[jenrick]

Your MG's are used as the fire base for your infantry. When both 240G's are setup and firing you can maneuver your fire teams and squads much more quickly as you don't necessarily have to have one of them laying a base of fire. As noted get extra ammo and fire away, then do it some more. Anything that has the reach to return fire needs to be hit by something heavier then MG fire anyway.

-Jenrick

[Atago]

It sounds like I've been using them right. I often try to set them up in a good upper story position behind where my troops will be advancing, then use them to pepper buildings with fire before my guys move forward (and as they are). Then if something more interesting shows itself I'll shift to specific targeting or just let the MG crew choose.

[meade95]

Do MG once set-up....Do they fire well out of building windows?

[fireship4]

I may have found that an MG cannot see well once you press deploy on a ground floor. I'll see next time I play.

[meade95]

I may have found that an MG cannot see well once you press deploy on a ground floor. I'll see next time I play.

I need to do more playtesting on this as well - On ground floor as well as other floors / including the roof....

[Apocal]

I got this idea talking to a buddy of mine. He mentioned the reason that the Marines kept their 240s in a company weapons platoon was so the company commander could mass fires without "performing surgery" on his platoons. So I gave it whirl in a homebrewed scenario designed to test it. Entering a city, about 350 meters of no cover whatsoever, but a nice draw where I emplaced all six of my MMGs. The first run they were unable to stop the enemy from firing their RPGs and tearing my assualting platoon a new *******, but I wised up and the second run have four of them area targets in suspect locations. One poorly aimed RPG got off, the fire lifted, and my assaulting platoon kicked down doors and shot cowering bad guys in the face.

[snake_eye]

The best way to set an MG on its tripod (for better accuracy) is slighthly offset from the path of the assaulting squad. That way the field of fire doesn't interfere with the charging troops and you can put suppressive fire till they are on the objective and flanked them with fire.

You should set it, preferably from a higher ground position (the safest because difficult to spot on the ground and or behing a small crest, before the firing start) , from an house balcony, rooftop and or behind a window, it affords some protection but if spotted before firing (because in full view), the surprise is over.

In the game even in elite which I only play, since it brings you to react more or less like it would be in real action (since you can't catch a full view of the action, being focused by what seems to you the best -and it happens that you are totally wrong) I usually target, what seems to me the most dangerous one and switch among the others later on depending on the evolutive situation. If the micro management of more units makes it complicated, I rely on the field of fire being set. Usually it works fine. The only drawback is the amount of ammo. With the target being designed the MG keeps firing belt after belt, which it doesn't with the field of fire being set.

The MG crew is brought forward after the accomplished assault by foot and or track depending and usually I have it replenished before doing so. It can that way fight back a counter attack on the taken objective

I only had one in the Marines add on in POOH - they were coming from the far right village - Never saw them in other replay of POOH. That's too bad, because the MG team did a terrific work and seeing the attacking line of a squad of RED being mowed down, I was astonished, even if an MG is done for it, and dumbfound to see the game doing it so close to reality. Too bad, I had no ways to make an AVI of it

[cmfan]

I know that as it currently stands there is no such thing as small arms friendly fire in the game. This makes a significant difference in tactics in that (if you so choose) you can both maintain suppressive fire on an objective as your troops assault it and you don't have to worry about crossing lanes of fire from platoon support weapons like medium machine guns.

What I've been wondering about lately, and haven't been able to determine, is whether or not grazing fire is simulated for enemy troops? Could I create something like an FPLOF (final protective line of fire - sorry if this isn't the correct acronym...its been well over a decade since I was a ground pounder)? In other words, set up an aim point for my machine guns several hundred meters away that lays down a line of fire a meter off the ground throughout?

[Apocal]

Near as I can figure, grazing fire is not simulated.

[cmfan]

Near as I can figure, grazing fire is not simulated.

Too bad. Not that it matters much I suppose so long as your machine guns attack any infantry they spot along the line of fire - though this doesn't do much for infantry they don't see. Would be neat though.

[MikeyD]

It all depends on your interpretation of 'grazing fire'. If you 'area target' the mg will sweep to the left of the aim point, to the right of an aim point, and since individual trajectories are tracked anyone unlucky enough to get between the mg and the aim point will go down.

I find 7.62 mg has two good uses. One is supressing the enemy so your infantry can cover open ground, the other is to punch holes in facades that 5.56 rounds aren't penetrating. I can't recall the stats off the top of my head but at a certain range (150m?) M4 rounds penetration of structures drops like a rock. You need 7.62 to get to the opponent in the buildings.

[Apocal]

It all depends on your interpretation of 'grazing fire'. If you 'area target' the mg will sweep to the left of the aim point, to the right of an aim point, and since individual trajectories are tracked anyone unlucky enough to get between the mg and the aim point will go down.

grazing fire

Definition: (DOD, NATO) Fire approximately parallel to the ground where the center of the cone of fire does not rise above one meter from the ground.

Taken from FM 7-7, appendix C.

As I understand it, it's used as a barrier rather than aimed at any one unit. With grazing fire, you create a wall of lead through which no credible force can pass. I've tried doing it in CMSF and it doesn't appear to function. Not a huge loss; tactically, area fire fills the same role in-game.

I find 7.62 mg has two good uses. One is supressing the enemy so your infantry can cover open ground, the other is to punch holes in facades that 5.56 rounds aren't penetrating. I can't recall the stats off the top of my head but at a certain range (150m?) M4 rounds penetration of structures drops like a rock. You need 7.62 to get to the opponent in the buildings.

I like it because it's effective range is longer than 5.56 and the tripod means even more effective range than the SAW. And it's a dedicated crew. When I have an MG, I know what it's role is, I know exactly how I'm going to use it.

[cmfan]

grazing fire

Definition: (DOD, NATO) Fire approximately parallel to the ground where the center of the cone of fire does not rise above one meter from the ground.

Taken from FM 7-7, appendix C.

As I understand it, it's used as a barrier rather than aimed at any one unit. With grazing fire, you create a wall of lead through which no credible force can pass. I've tried doing it in CMSF and it doesn't appear to function. Not a huge loss; tactically, area fire fills the same role in-game.

What Apocal said. I agree, as far as area fire against infantry I like 7.62 more than 5.56 from a SAW. Depending on the type of cover I think it can also be more useful than fire from a .50 cal because of the slightly higher volume of fire.

[Falconander]

It has been awhile, 10 years, but with grazing fire I never used it in application since the huge amount of ammo it would take to achieve this. Maybe in a static defense but on patrol or movement to contact you would not be able to carry the rounds to achieve this.

Most times I can remember carrying around 400 rounds with 200-300 on my ammo bearer and on a rarity another 2-300 among the squads.

We were able to get more detailed on a static defense where the ammo and the time would allow to set up our cards with the FPL and dead zones for M203s or Claymores.

Yea, the 7.62 from a M60 would strike more fear than the 5.56 from a SAW. Though our expected life spans were significantly lower as soon as we went off, it drew a big target on us:eek:

Kind of like in Anti-Tank guys in CMSF. They pop up their heads only to get 81MM dropeed on them...

[Apocal]

It has been awhile, 10 years, but with grazing fire I never used it in application since the huge amount of ammo it would take to achieve this. Maybe in a static defense but on patrol or movement to contact you would not be able to carry the rounds to achieve this.

It's been awhile since I actually reviewed the applicable FM, but I'm pretty sure they agree with you here.

Most times I can remember carrying around 400 rounds with 200-300 on my ammo bearer and on a rarity another 2-300 among the squads.

That is "standard" nowadays. Though it's as much dependant on available transport as anything. The guys rolling around in motored or meched up can (and do) carry thousands of rounds of ammunition per man.

Yea, the 7.62 from a M60 would strike more fear than the 5.56 from a SAW. Though our expected life spans were significantly lower as soon as we went off, it drew a big target on us:eek:

The solution to that is taking the tracers out of your ammo and mounting a thermal sight on the gun. Out to about... oh 200-300 meters (depending on conditions) you can see the trails left by the rounds and out to maybe 400 you can spot the impacts, or, rather, the effect of impacts well enough to adjust.

Longer range, you still need the tracers (or a really good spotter), but honestly from that range it's damned unlikely they'll know where you are accuracy enough for anything but harassing fire. Even assuming they can find you, the enemy generally can't respond effectively. It's impossible for their AKs to get a point across when the 240 just talks right over them.*

*Taliban Dushkas and motorized mortars notwithstanding.

[Falconander]

Apocal,

Terrain and available transportation dictates everything. Most of our transport was Blackhawk, Huey, Chinook or C130/C141. So we were jumping in or air assaulting in. Most movements simulated the walk through the jungle where weight was critical. That was the old days where they thought that the 12 mile jungle patrol was prudent. Later as I left Fort Lewis, we started using trasportation a lot more. Though I still remember some pretty tough terrain in the forests/hills/mountains.

I can also remember mortars being distributed. This would really suck. So not only do you have the 60 ammo to contend with, you are also packing a couple mortar rounds as well. (I think they simulated this with sand-packed cannisters at Fort Lewis.)

Thermal scopes huh?? Kids and their toys...NODS sucked back at that time but still better than nothing. The Dragon had a pretty neat thermal scope.

Most simulated encounters were in the range of 100-200 meters anyway.

If not the tracers giving you away it was the 'bark' or the muzzel flash was pretty evident at night.

[Falconander]

YOu know what I remember now is that I did have sight for the M60 at Fort Lewis. It was very expensive as I remember it was tied down and 500-mile-hour taped to the 60. Walking through the woods at night it was ripped off of my M60. The First Sergeant who was a very large black man had the luxury of stepping on it in the middle of the night along the wooded path.

He came up to me and asked me where my sight was and I said it was right here...pointing to where it obviously wasn't.

I was low crawling up and down this ridge all morning long. I also lost my wedding ring during the process so my LT and I had to go back up the ridge to find it. By some miracle, we found it.

But I do not think it was thermal, I think this one had a laser sight with night vision scope.

Anyway, pretty embarrassing memory.

[snake_eye]

Falconander.

see you have been with the DRAGONS. I think that you are going to like that book. I got it in 1991, but you should find it

Dragons at war - Land Battle in the Desert from Daniel P. BOLGER . Hence a Captain B co 34th . He describe the training at NTC. Very interesting for tactics.

[Falconander]

snake_eye,

By Dragon, I meant the anti-tank weapon. I started in Ranger Batt in Georgia after Airborne school. Later decided to go to 1/508th in Panama which was an Airborne battalion (sister battalion to the 82nd). After the treaty deactivated, my Colonel wanted me to go to 3rd SOSC (Spec Ops) but having been recently married to a non-army wife I told him I needed to go back to state-side. Finished up with the 3rd/9th Manchus in Fort Lewis who I believe became 1/24th infantry.

NTC, Northern Training Center?? I believe I remember a couple rounds through NTC.

What I really missed was the Presidio in Monterey California. I had a beautiful girl I met in college who lived there. I was going to be a linguist/cryptologist over there but they goofed my paperwork at the last moment. I was fed up with them and went back to a Ranger Officer who had intercepted me earlier. It would have been a sweet gig at Monterey but in the end I think I was always meant to be a 11-B 1P. This is where my heart was.

[snake_eye]

Falconander

I had completely erased the DRAGON AT from my mind. NTC stand for the once US ARMY National Training Center at Fort Irwin CA. There, were sent in the 80's units to train with Warsaw troops tactics. The OPFOR was the unit trained to act like a soviet MRR - Motorized Rifle Regiment - It use real BMP's and Sheridan to pose like T-72; The Dragon was use, with the LAW's and the TOW's mounted on track with an hydraulic turret. That was the time of huge exercises. Today they rely more on technologies and the size of the units is adapted to the new threats and tactics. That result with having theSpec Ops paying a high tribute, since it is them who are" illuminating" the battlefield and that technologies doesn't work necessarily always like it should.

What do you do with a laptop in sub zero degrees, having to shut it down to avoid batteries run down (they don't stand long and you can't take a battery shop with you) and having to wait 5 to 10 minutes after starting it again in order to have the antenna dish catch a sat and order a strike. You pray, hope and hate technology. That's what you maybe missed and that makes Presidio more beautiful as ever.

Cheer