General Dynamics Lightweight Medium Machine Gun

Way lighter than the .50 cal M2HB
This is actually something that can be carried by 2 guys, with ammo.
It will probably use a tripod more similar to the one of the c6, that give you more than 45 degree angle of fire with pre registered target pass 2km.
 
Matt_dal123 said:
. You would be lucky to create effective suppression beyond 1200m with anything less than a .50cal.

.
Click to expand...

C6 is effective far beyond 1200m in both vehicle coax and suport role (a lot further not just a little). I know i'm a LAV gunner and I have shot out far enough that I have time to look at my watch and see the seconds count by before the rounds hit... And I assure you... the targets were full of holes after I shot at them with a couple bursts. I would love to post the actual distance but it would be a uncosher to do so on a public forum.

The idea behind replacing the 7.62 with .338 is to increase the effective range and punch power at longer range. realisticly.... 2.2km for an effective range would not be beyond the capability of the .338 round in a GPMG.
 
LordEvilPepper said:
C6 is effective far beyond 1200m in both vehicle coax and suport role (a lot further not just a little). I know i'm a LAV gunner and I have shot out far enough that I have time to look at my watch and see the seconds count by before the rounds hit... And I assure you... the targets were full of holes after I shot at them with a couple bursts. I would love to post the actual distance but it would be a uncosher to do so on a public forum.

The idea behind replacing the 7.62 with .338 is to increase the effective range and punch power at longer range. realisticly.... 2.2km for an effective range would not be beyond the capability of the .338 round in a GPMG.
Click to expand...

I'm not very proficient with the C6...

I was a warrior AFV commander which mounted a 7.62 coax chain gun. It was suppressing at 2000m just. I am not saying you can't do it. I'm saying it's freaking pointless having a weapon system like a MG be upgraded to engage further. Why? Like you say, if coaxially mounted or on a vehicle then yes, your going to get daily accurate fire. But really, if your ground grunts, you don't need to engage at silly long ranges. Use your mortars, fast air, armor, snipers (if theyre good lol) and fixed gun emplacements like the .50 or GMG to unleash long range hell. Save the .338 or 7.62 ammo for closer engagements. This isn't a argument either. I'm not disagreeing with the new system. I just personally think its a little pointless really. And for the record, my warrior company proudly served alongside a small detachment of American LAVS. Great vehicles. But nothing beats track ;)
 
the problem is grunt don't have mortars anymore... at leaste our army doesn't; 81 has been gone a long time and the 60 just got phased out (actualy this time). Last time... the only time realy, i have seen .50 in a defensive was in the stan, and they were few and far between. They were given to cars with the gun systems that could mount them more often then not.
There is the new grenade launcher, but its range leaves much to be desired.
The GPMG is the infantrys most capable and universaly employed suport weapon. in the suport role with a good crew it is the most effective weapon for weight cariage at anything that comes at you. Like i stated before, with a OP in place you can put the hammer down and wipe out a section, with little more then a box of ammo at "around' the 2Km mark using 7.62 ball... imagine if you could punch that 400-800 meters further with only slight wieght being added for the ammo?
even with a good motar crew 2km is a hard push to try to wipe out a section with a 60, and the ammo expended to do so is gonna wiegh a ton to pack in.
 
LordEvilPepper said:
the problem is grunt don't have mortars anymore... at leaste our army doesn't; 81 has been gone a long time and the 60 just got phased out (actualy this time). Last time... the only time realy, i have seen .50 in a defensive was in the stan, and they were few and far between. They were given to cars with the gun systems that could mount them more often then not.
There is the new grenade launcher, but its range leaves much to be desired.
The GPMG is the infantrys most capable and universaly employed suport weapon. in the suport role with a good crew it is the most effective weapon for weight cariage at anything that comes at you. Like i stated before, with a OP in place you can put the hammer down and wipe out a section, with little more then a box of ammo at "around' the 2Km mark using 7.62 ball... imagine if you could punch that 400-800 meters further with only slight wieght being added for the ammo?
even with a good motar crew 2km is a hard push to try to wipe out a section with a 60, and the ammo expended to do so is gonna wiegh a ton to pack in.
Click to expand...


Fair points. I was British army so fortunately we had most long range weapons at our disposal which is maybe why I'm not so fond of the idea of a GPMG that is engaging at 2200m plus. It was never needed. To be fair, unless your mounted infantry or mechanized then the use for the GPMG at those ranges is pointless. You don't have the luxury of using up ammo on long rang targets when on the next Engagement you could be facing targets at close range with ALOT more chance of hitting them instead of suppression. I agree that punching out at super far distances is feasible and useable for certain combat roles (vehicle). But never In all my army career did I see a infantry platoon engage targets with a GPMG at ranges over 1200m without bipod or mounting platform use. .338 GPMG's is a good idea for mounted roles as it will obviously increase its range. But why invest in a bigger bullet when you could save that investment for a whole new weapon system? .50's or GMG or Javelin or mortars. Mortars I agree are slowly becoming a little outdated. The resources needed to keep them going is too much formodern day warfare. You don't have time to be setting up fire positions and ammo tubes, and baseplates and fire mission comms. But I just don't see the point in upgrading something that ain't broke. You know the saying....

The GMG is one hell of a impressive weapon, it WILL engage targets over 1500m easily and with one heck of a punch. Obviously it's a whole different ball game as it has to be mounted or emplaced. But it is a perfect area suppression weapon. Lights up the hills with a few squeezes and will create more damage than the .338 obviously. Buy these instead lol.

.338 lapua GPMG is something I personally is going to be a worthy upgrade to coax, mounted and heavy role support fire. Mobile infantry..... Not to sure I we the point. We're not in the cold war days, and not engaging targets over the flatlands and long range battlefields. 7.62 ball does the job for modern combat, close contact to medium range engagements. Save the effort and time and put I towards better weapons. Just my opinion :D

It's nice to have a discussion on here without people being pissy or anything :) why can't all debates work out this way lol. And yeah, Its funny when people actually know what there talking about instead of people just flaming someone for something they know NOTHING about. I am enjoying this discussion though. Some very valid points you brought up man.
 
Before I bust out my old manuals for cartridge drawings, can one of you wise old sages answer one obvious question.

Why the frack did they go with the Norma cartridge instead of the Lapua? While the Lapua is on the fringes of mainstream, who but the British use the Norma case?

(It is the .338 Norma Magnum they use in the AI rifles isn't it??)
 
I would think purely for cost lol. To be fair I'm not used to the .338 rounds. I was not a sniper so we rarely used .338. But I'm not sure to be fair.
 
mudgunner49 said:
This whole concept is just ballistic masturbation. Somebody had a cool idea after a long night of Stella and Jaegermeister and took it to the engineering department. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to insert another ammo type into the supply chain has some crazy mad weed on the go...
Click to expand...

Isn't the .338 already in the supply chain? Just not linked for MG use.
 
Matt_dal123 said:
But never In all my army career did I see a infantry platoon engage targets with a GPMG at ranges over 1200m without bipod or mounting platform use.
Click to expand...

There's good reason for that.

.338 GPMG's is a good idea for mounted roles as it will obviously increase its range. But why invest in a bigger bullet when you could save that investment for a whole new weapon system? .50's or GMG or Javelin or mortars. Mortars I agree are slowly becoming a little outdated. The resources needed to keep them going is too much formodern day warfare. You don't have time to be setting up fire positions and ammo tubes, and baseplates and fire mission comms. But I just don't see the point in upgrading something that ain't broke. You know the saying....
Click to expand...

The old style mortar is becoming outdated for all the reason you mention, keeping in mind of course that lots of the other guys still have them. When they find a way to give precision fire to the small units, in a package thats manageable, not too heavy and doesn't break the bank, I expect you'll find that new weapon system. Until then, I don't think adding .338 Norma Mag to the logistics train is the solution.
 
Or perhaps something smaller then .338 would be the solution, something with a smaller bullet and a shorter case. 7,92mm would be a good diameter, fired out of a 57mm-case.

Let's go and invent the wheel again. :D
 
"I'm hitting my target but he's still shooting back!"

This is another case of "I'm hitting my target but he's still shooting back!"
This first happened when the M4/M16 ACOG equipped infantryman started hitting targets at 500m with 5.56 NATO and nothing happened,
when snipers hit targets at 800m with 7.62 NATO and nothing much happened
and now even machine gunners are complaining that 7.62 is not effective past 800m!

Guess what: 5.56 NATO was designed to be effective at up to 300m and 7.62 NATO at up to 600m!
Historically no one ever complained about 30-06 or 8mm Mauser with open sight weapons and as optical sights and weapon accuracy improve the "problem" will only worsen.

Alex
 
Agree that mortars in thier traditional man packable arrangement are very slow and vulnerable on the mechanized modern battlefield. But a rapid firing mortar under light armour in a good all terrain chassis is a whole different ballgame IMO. Mortars are cheaper to build than rifled artillery pieces and generally are a more rapid setup to the newest baseplate position. The ability to fire a mission and pack up & reoccuppy a new position before your high trajectory high explosive rounds even impact the intended target have great value to the troops in need of fire support. This activity can be accomplished in mere minutes with light armoured vehicles such as our "Wolf." The one mortarman dropping a muzzle loaded mortar round onto the fixed firing pin on the bottom of the tube can effect a pretty darn good rate of fire that most artillery pieces cannot keep up to, with each of his paws occupied holding 81mm rounds and his number three ready to hand him some more ammunition. All without needing smoke evactuation that a fixed breech piece requires inside an enclosed steel turret and engaging a target with a mix of HE and White Phosphorous at up to 5 kms away in any terrain and dug into built up defencive postions. Also tell me of a better battlefield night-time illumination round than the 81mm Bofors? I tell you what, you have to move up to 155mm artillery before you can find equal or superior ammunition. The Russians have built monstorously sized heavy calibre mechanized mortar platforms and last I heard, have no desire to replace them in service.
Traditional light & medium calibre mortars in the hands of insurgents, continue to be a threat to more modern military formations in places such as Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Part of what I think we aren't seeing here is that we've been fighting skirmishes and calling them wars. We completely dominate the enemy from the military standpoint in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc. So when we think about practical usage we fail to understand that there is still the possibility of fighting an actual war against a real enemy with real training and real equipment etc. Up-gunning suddenly becomes a viable solution when you consider things from that point of view. If your enemy is equipped with body armor that is capable of withstanding 7.62 then this tool suddenly becomes a real benefit... So is it going to be really useful against jerks in shirts and an AK? prolly not so much, but thats just what we've been dealing with for the last 15 years and its easy not to imagine anything else.

Personally
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom