gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3371
    MEMBERS
  • 192522
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

LMAO Germany adopts an AR-15   Small Arms <20mm

Started 14/9/20 by QuintusO; 126182 views.
Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

26/3/22

Coming from the land of the M14, LCS, and Zummwalt, might want to tone it down some, bro. The Good Idea Fairy is an International phenomenon, unfortunately.

Apsyda

From: Apsyda

26/3/22

Putting features like a round counter into a gun shouldn't increase the weight by 10lbs. In reality the 10 lbs comes from other aspects of the gun. Round counters aren't new tech, even the Chinese managed to squeeze one in to their new carbine. And this goes for other aspects of the design like the loaded belt indicator.

The MG5 was meant to be a sustained fire gun as a replacement for the MG3 from all physical evidence. That it instead is being treated as a lighter duty machine gun is due to poor casting of the receivers or other design flaws. By the level of weight put into the construction and the design it was meant to be a standard GPMG. With a quick change barrel system and mounting points for tripods or vehicular mounts.  To compare, something like the KAC AMG is distinctly not designed for sustained fire and is said to be such by the manufacturer and contains no real means of mounting to tripods or vehicles for it. It is also built with far lighter materials because there was never the intention of using it for anything other than burst fire in the assault phase. This goes for several of the other mentioned LMGs.

I don't think that we could determine just yet how far the Danes intend to take their new M60s here. They call both the M60E6 and the MG3 (M/62 in Danish service) LMGs with no specific distinction made between them in category. While right now they're using mostly on foot due to changing their doctrine as a result of experience in the Middle East, it is quite likely that they're going to start phasing out the very old M/62s they have in service and putting  the M60s in place. I can't speak as to all of the upgrades that US Ordnance made to the M60, so its ability to better serve in a mounted role compared to the old M60 has to be seen in actual use or not depending on Danish doctrine.

The G36 was a very good rifle, I agree. And as a product of its procurement was unfairly maligned. I do not believe the same about the MG5/HK121. Even going by the trials themselves there was a drop in price associated with its failure to stand up to sustained fire or maintain accuracy after barrel changes. And beyond that, to me does not represent a proper modern LMG for what limitations it has vs what it brings to the table.

stancrist

From: stancrist

27/3/22

schnuersi said:

IMHO the question is if a LMG is really needed in mech inf squads if a SAW is available.

I don't know what you mean.  The Squad Automatic Weapon can be a Light Machine Gun.

schnuersi said:

Another question is if the advantages of a purpose designed LMG for infantry squads outweight the disadvatages of a special piece of equipment used in limited numbers.

Depending how someone answers these question you end up with different needs.

Of course.  There are no right or wrong answers.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

27/3/22

That Danish squad is super hard in the yard.

Only 6x guys, but 2x 7.62 LMG and 2x AT4, plus a 40mm for good measure.

EmericD

From: EmericD

27/3/22

gatnerd said:

That Danish squad is super hard in the yard. Only 6x guys, but 2x 7.62 LMG and 2x AT4, plus a 40mm for good measure.

But probably a very low ammunition allocation... only 6 guys, so who is carrying the ammo to feed the 2x 7.62 mm LMG (probably inside the vehicle?)

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

27/3/22

Apsyda said:

The MG5 was meant to be a sustained fire gun as a replacement for the MG3 from all physical evidence.

What physical evidence? The fact that it was not tested or specified that the gun had to be able to use the same mount interfaces as the MG3 and thus fit onto the same mounts?

Apsyda said:

That it instead is being treated as a lighter duty machine gun is due to poor casting of the receivers or other design flaws.

IF the receiver really is a casted piece, which I doubt, i would agree: this is such a massive design flaw someone should get tarred and feathered.

As far as I can tell from the information i have the MG5 was designed around the use a LMG for dismounted infantry and GPMG use as an afterthought. More or less the same way the M60 concept was. As a result both guns make very poor GPMGs.

Apsyda said:

it is quite likely that they're going to start phasing out the very old M/62s they have in service and putting the M60s in place.

I disagree. It is possible but unlikely IMHO.

Apsyda said:

to me does not represent a proper modern LMG for what limitations it has vs what it brings to the table.

The sad thing is the decision makers disagree on this and procured it anyways.
As you said several of the shortcomings allready have been obvious during initial testing. Didn't matter. No back to the drawing board. No further developement.
Seriously you can not blame the industry for delivering a piece of trash is they get paid anyways. Nobody would put real effort in if he knew that it doesn't matter.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

27/3/22

stancrist said:

I don't know what you mean. The Squad Automatic Weapon can be a Light Machine Gun.

I meant LMG in the traditional sense as a full caliber weapon. While the SAW is a SCHV weapon.
If you have an IFV or armed APC close by the extra range and punch of 7,62 over 5,56 is most likely less necessary.

stancrist

From: stancrist

27/3/22

schnuersi said:

I meant LMG in the traditional sense as a full caliber weapon. While the SAW is a SCHV weapon.

Ah, okay.  It was just a little confusing because previously you said "7.62 SAW/LMG" in your earlier post (#267).

schnuersi said:

If you have an IFV or armed APC close by the extra range and punch of 7,62 over 5,56 is most likely less necessary.

Perhaps.  However, it's clear that many armies think it's better for the squad to have the extra punch of 7.62mm.

stancrist

From: stancrist

27/3/22

EmericD said:

... only 6 guys, so who is carrying the ammo to feed the 2x 7.62 mm LMG?

FWIW, this Danish M60 gunner looks like he may have 100 rounds in the gun, and 4x100 rounds in pouches.

M60e6

Quick draw m60e6 on shooting range in the dainsh army !

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

27/3/22

EmericD said:

But probably a very low ammunition allocation... only 6 guys, so who is carrying the ammo to feed the 2x 7.62 mm LMG (probably inside the vehicle?)

If Stans numbers posted earlier are correct, each Dane60 is carrying 500rd (which is pretty outrageous). That would give 1000rd 7.62 per 6 man squad, which seems pretty respectable (and super heavy.)

The hard in the yard factor really goes up when we imagine multiple squads working together. 3x Danish squads totals 18 men (equivalent to 2x 9 man squads) and would have 6x LMG/3000rd of 7.62 LMG ammo + 6x AT4's + 3x 40mms and (?) ammo.... 

Compared to 18 men of any other infantry...its really a serious amount of dakka. 

TOP