I'm not getting wrapped around the axle over it...
Call a Bren a LMG if you wish. I'd argue that it and the BAR did not have large capacity magazines nor were they belt fed so the AR tag seems appropriate to me and I say that in full realization that most won't agree -- and not really caring as the issue really is employment method(s), not the name. :wry:
As Kiwi Grunt says, the issue is use and I've seen way too many MG34-42-3 / M60 / MAG types have problems on patrols to consider carrying one of them unless I determined an overwhelming need would probably exist; to carry it just because it's available is the norm and it's not, IMO, all that smart. :eek:
I've also seen too many machine gunners -- and even AR men -- and ammo bearers killed or wounded because the heavy weapon and / or ammo slowed them down and was a clumsy load. Not because the weapon was a target, though that too has an impact. There is certainly a place for LMGs and some patrols may need one available -- many will not but it is habit to take it...
Accurate, killing fire suppresses -- a large volume of harmless fire does not, certainly not against people who know what they're doing. It also is not smart to think, train or operate as if all your opponents will be lesser beings. :D
METT is where it's at...
Then you know the differences are more than subtle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Schmedlap
I did light and mech.
Or darn sure should be...:wry:
Quote:
...it's sufficiently lethal to get the offensive work done.
So's a hammer but...
Quote:
I think a more useful way to look at it would be "appropriate or inappropriate for the mission."...
Agree with all that, METT said a different way. :D
Quote:
...The risk of killing civilians wasn't worth responding any other way.
Understood and I know you're too smart to not realize all enemies and situations differ and different solutions are often required. I just piggyback on your posts to emphasize that point to those who might not realize it. Mostly because I fit in a couple of wars where the major problem and reason for our less than stellar performance was poor training but the second biggest factor for our shortcomings was certainly Commanders who were NOT aware of that simple and seemingly obvious fact. ;)
I know, I worked with them both outside of Bien Hoa and in Ba Ria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GI Zhou
The Australians in Vietnam and afterwards used the M60 with lttle trouble as we carried an assault pack of 100 rounds...
As did we also use the M60 at Platoon level as a super-AR. We both used it because it was there, not because it was the best tool for the job. Both 1 and 5 RAR did great work -- in spite of the not always appropriate weapon... :D
Quote:
... as used on the M249 SAW which itsxelf is the epitome of a belt fed assault rifle.
That's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one. :wry: . The "belt fed" is the problem that imposes most of the reliability and clumsy handling issues MGs have. Plus, the 249 is not a good weapon on several counts...
Quote:
The BAR isn't much lighter than a M60 and was used a base of fire in three or four man fire teams.
Yeah, I know, I carried one in Korea. When you dumped the Bipod and the actuator and sear trip mechanism to get full and semi auto instead of the rather dumb two auto rates, the BAR weighed only about 13-14 pounds and you could fire semi auto at night without giving away the location of an automatic weapon.
Quote:
The M60/L7 has a three man team for ammuniton, protection of the gunner, and to spread the load of carrying of it and ammo. It is a crew served weapon inside the section/squad.
Yes, it is -- and it takes three men to service it? Not too wise IMO, that means two people are for all practical purposes, slaves to the weapon. As a weapon on a patrol, you're adding two more people plus the gunner -- or you're not carrying enough ammo. Either way, you can adversely affect the patrol's capability for little real benefit in most cases. :eek:
I am not saying never take a belt fed MG on a patrol, I am saying it usually goes out of habit and simply because it is there, not need and that it often is unnecessary. METT-TC rules... ;)
We do the same three man thing thing in Light Infantry units and place the guns in a Weapons Squad at Platoon level; in Mechanized units, there are no weapons squads, it's just a weapon that can be carried, mission dependent by each squad. The Marines still (last time I noticed) very wisely have their 240s / MAGs in Machine Gun Platoons at Company level. They can farm them out to Rifle Platoons when required but they also can train their MG Squads (with more than one ammo bearer per gun) in the finer arts of MG employment like indirect and plunging fire. IOW, they wisely use the weapon as it was designed to be used and as it is most effective.
We do not disagree on many points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Compost
The Bren is not an automatic rifle, it is emphatically a light machine gun.
To you and most people -- and I have no problem with that terminology even if I don't personally use it consistently.
Quote:
LMGs and also belt-fed MGs are both needed by infantry platoons but such weapons have to be well designed and engineered.
Agree but I do not agree that the belt fed MG should be assigned to the infantry platoon. To the infantry Company, yes and available with minimum three man crew to the platoons on loan, yes. :D
Quote:
the potential employment of a weapon is determined by the characteristics designed and built into it.
Totally agree and I thought I'd sorta said that...
Quote:
LMG light machine gun - light support weapon, one or two-man crew, EG: Bren, HK11
+ robust, compact, shoulder-fired
+ magazine-fed, quick change barrel (QCB), bipod
= frequent short burst fire to long range {emphasis added /kw}
Agree! Or you can it an Automatic Rifle to upset Fuchs...
Quote:
MMG medium machine gun - support weapon, two-man crew or vehicle, EG: HK21, MAG58
+ robust
+ open bolt, belt fed
+ belt-fed, QCB or water-cooled, bipod, tripod or pintle
= sustained burst fire to long range, indirect harassing fire
Agree!
Quote:
The L2A1 proved unable to supply a reliable base of fire for each infantry section. Hence infantry continued to use the .303in (7.7x56mmR) Bren.
The Bren and its ZB 28 predecessor (and its Japanese Type 99 copy) was a great weapon and it was a vast improvement over the ZB 28s predecessor with the same toggle locking system, the BAR.
We had one was that was as almost as good in the M1944 Johnson, 30 round mag, semi on closed, full on open bolt and less than 6kg/14lbs -- but it didn't make the political cut.
Quote:
The M60 had numerous design faults most of which are quite well known.
Yep. "So although widely criticised the M60 avoided becoming a total disaster." -- but only barely...:D
As an aside, I served on the Troop Test at Fort Campbell for the M60, we had it and the MG3 and uased the M1919A6 browning (then the issueLMG) as a baseline. We all voted for the MG3 but it wasn't invented here. So...
Quote:
...I believe that it empirically demonstrates in respect of 7.62mm ammunition the utility of three principal weapon types - AR, LMG and MMG – and suggests that most 7.62mm HBARs and GPMGs emerge as awkward hybrids.
Agree.
Quote:
Also it is likely that the Bren can be reloaded with a fresh magazine more rapidly than most other LMGs.
Also agree -- and the Stoner 63 system wisely copied that. Politics again intrude...
Quote:
An alternative combination would involve bringing the L4A4 Bren – possibly with a Picatinny sight rail added to each side of the receiver – back into service for use in conjunction with the MAG58. The fire from those weapons may be usefully augmented at shorter ranges by light supporting fire provided by 5.56mm LMGs and GPMGs.
I totally agree. Not likely to happen, the Generals do not like to admit error...:rolleyes:
Quote:
Rigorous training and practice is needed to effectively employ automatic weapons and to conserve ammunition.
Absolutely correct -- and the US does a very lousy job of it!
Quote:
Finally the GPMG concept may be usefully realizeable and realised when 7.62mm and 5.56mm ammunition for rifles (as opposed to 5.56mm for SMGs/PDWs) are succeeded by an intermediate calibre.
Agree. The 6x45 XM732 round back in the 70s had great potential...
Politics again... :wry:
Back in my misspent youth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Schmedlap
Now that I think about it, I'm not even sure if we were authorized 3 M240Bs per platoon. If not, I don't know where the extras came from. Anyone missing some MGs?
Each Mech Squad was authorized one, thus 3 per Mech Platoon versus two per walking infantry Platoon (plus the two Javelins). Ranger Platoons also have three guns (plus the Carl Gustaf -- which is a good deal -- and / or Javelins).