Platoon Weapons

[ganulv]

but here goes. Is the 1700m range of the weapon really that big a selling point? There are a limited number of environments where that sort of viewshed is consistently available: deserts, mountains in the desert and above the tree line, steppes with the right vegetation mix, tundra (am I missing any?). And while a sniper taking a shot at that distance makes sense to me, am I correct in assuming that it’s not a distance you want to start the shooting from if you are attempting to close with the enemy?

That’s a convoluted way for a layman to ask whether the range of this weapon is one of or the big attractions it holds.

[Fuchs]

Everything beyond 400 metres is at best a 5% capability in my opinion. Unimportant and dispensable in almost all cases.

Such a heavy calibre is in my opinion a calibre for vehicles, though. Vehicles might have a rigid-enough mounting and the fire control system to make use of a machinegun well beyond its practical range in dismounted use.


The more important characteristic of such a large calibre machinegun is in my opinion the penetration capability. Almost all kinds of non-flexible armour is made to resist 7.62NATO and 7.62x54 mm rimmed (non-exotic AP cartridge versions each). See NIJ Level IV, SK IV and the disclosed protection ratings of just about every post-WW2 lightly armoured vehicle.

Tree stems, walls and sandbags are further obstacles that make a bigger calibre than 7.62 long cartridges interesting.

[Ken White]

but here goes. Is the 1700m range of the weapon really that big a selling point? There are a limited number of environments where that sort of viewshed is consistently available: deserts, mountains in the desert and above the tree line, steppes with the right vegetation mix, tundra (am I missing any?). And while a sniper taking a shot at that distance makes sense to me, am I correct in assuming that it’s not a distance you want to start the shooting from if you are attempting to close with the enemy?

It is a selling point -- big is in the eye of the beholder. If one is operating in Afghanistan where extended ranges are the norm, then it's a big selling point. If one is in Jungle somewhere it is not even a minor selling point. For most Armies most places it probably falls in the 'nice to have' but not critical area of equipage...

Consider about 50% of land surface consists of plains, 30% desert, 20% mountains and 14% tundra (all figures rough approximations and add to more than 100% due to mixed landforms, i.e. hilly deserts) and that range has some utility. I do believe it's one of those METT-TC issues...

That’s a convoluted way for a layman to ask whether the range of this weapon is one of or the big attractions it holds.

That plus it's a new type of toy.

[JMA]

but here goes. Is the 1700m range of the weapon really that big a selling point? There are a limited number of environments where that sort of viewshed is consistently available: deserts, mountains in the desert and above the tree line, steppes with the right vegetation mix, tundra (am I missing any?). And while a sniper taking a shot at that distance makes sense to me, am I correct in assuming that it’s not a distance you want to start the shooting from if you are attempting to close with the enemy?

That’s a convoluted way for a layman to ask whether the range of this weapon is one of or the big attractions it holds.

I suggest that the start point for a layman is a study of the theory of small arms fire - (section starting page 19)

By now countries who fight only on home ground should have selected weapons and calibre which suits their circumstances best while the adventurous countries (US, Brits, France) should have the weapons and equipment in their 'golf bags' to select for each geographic zone they may find themselves committed to.

Notice I used the word 'should' ... then factor in stupidity, bribery and corruption and see that this is not so almost anywhere.