Infantry Discussion Thread, Mk. 8 Mod. 0 [No Kaiju]

[EsToVnIa]

just mad bc he's right

[Sevvania]

On the subject of flamethrowers, have a Finnish model fitted with an over-barrel Suomi SMG.
(Image)

That, is pretty bad ass I must admit.

Makes your flamethrowers look less like flamethrowers and provides them with the ability to engage at ~150m. *nods*

[The balkens]

just mad bc he's right

mfw the Russians NEVER made anything original.

[EsToVnIa]

everything they made was based off of superior western technology, this is why america and nato won the cold war

[Puzikas]

Modernized StG-44 Y/N?

I think that's called an AK

Try harder :[

everything they made was based off of superior western technology, this is why america and nato won the cold war

Tfw people will believe this.

[The balkens]

everything they made was based off of superior western technology, this is why america and nato won the cold war

Implying the cold war never ended.

Same assholes, different flag, just more natives to kill.

oh and more Europoors in NATO.

[Central Prestonia]

I think that's called an AK

Try harder :[

I meant in concept, but as I've often stated I never claimed to not be an idiot.

[Dostanuot Loj]

n b/c it's called the AK

AK47 is the best garand RSC 1917 clone

Fixed that for ya buddy.

[Gallia-]

AK47 is the best garand RSC 1917 clone

Fixed that for ya buddy.

ur a monstar

[The Kievan People]

How acceptable is it to use tabun,mostar and other gasses in current era? Personal opinion.

Quite often it just isn't worth the effort of bringing them, most chemical munitions must be prepared and handled separately from conventional munitions and cannot be stored in ready form for long periods, not just a hassle but something which can potentially disclose your intentions to the enemy especially if they have modern REC capabilities. Chemical defenses work quite well so surprise is essential: A prepared enemy will suffer hardly any casualties under gas attack, a completely unprepared enemy will suffer relatively heavy casualties. It would be very difficult to find a modern military force which is completely unprepared though.

Nerve agents lethal effects can be largely neutralized with atropine injections, agents without skin effects can be neutralized by masks, lewisite can treated with anti-lewisite. Sulfur mustard is one of the only common agents which has skin effects and resists all treatments and can only be stopped with a full suit. But it is a persistent and slow acting agent, so it is only useful in certain tactical circumstances.

Environmental conditions (wind, sunlight, temperature, precipitation) also have major effects on chemical agents that can make executing effective attacks more difficult: In bad conditions the effectiveness of chemical munitions is greatly reduced against all targets, but a time with bad conditions may be when they are most needed.

So they are... weapons. They can excel but only in relatively niche circumstances.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

1. Separate maneuver and fire, in other words have an asymmetrical (in terms of weapons and capabilities not necessarily manpower) structure. This has supposedly been demonstrated to be more effective than the opposite.

I want sources that are relevant to the modern day, not WW2. But I don't think you have any of those.

I don't. IIRC it was a poster here (quite an acquainted one I think) that made the claim. My opinion is that if you want to employ certain support elements at squad level you need (or want) to have an asymmetrical structure because without one you'd simply be left with erryone a M240 gunner or RPG grenadier which can't really maneuver a lot. In practice even a symmetric structure ends up being asymmetrical in the field if they get non-organic support attached to them (like MG teams or DMs) from the platoon.

2. Have each squad in its own vehicle. This allows for better flexibility and maneuver and is IMO easier to manage. It should also help with better bonding with the vehicle crew - the dismounts aren't simply "baggage" to be lugged around and dropped off into battle by the vehicle crew, they are an integral part of the squad and vice-versa.

We've been trying to do this, and have pretty much done it, for the past forever in warfare, so okay this is literally the only correct thing in its entirety you post.

I've never implied I'm doing something new or out of the ordinary, I'm simply expressing my opinions and clearing up on what I do vs. what could be done but I don't. There are some examples of IRL forces that split their squads in separate vehicles that I'm pretty sure you're well aware of.

3. Have a uniform structure all throughout as far as units and their sub-divisions are concerned. What this means is that instead of being uniform in terms of manpower, my platoons are uniform in number of squads, and so on. This results in tiny platoons for forces using small vehicles manpower-wise, but that is considered to be an advantage in itself and part of the whole point of said type of force - having a light footprint. Generally this will mainly apply to SOF, who are considered special little snowflakes who can punch above their weight which should somewhat compensate. In other words, different types of forces aren't really uniform in manpower nor in capabilities, acknowledging the fact that each is unique and comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. If you find yourself needing to say, use 2 of your squads to engage one enemy squad or something similar to this situation, well, you will, however that's probably a clue you either have the wrong forces for that job or the wrong job for those forces.

SoF organization and tactics are typically much different than the regular infantry, squad layout and weaponry can become more specialized as training and requirements also increase. I fail to see how having small platoons even does anything different considering that the expenditure will still weigh on the company.

What do you mean by this last sentence?

Also you always want to have numerical superiority over your enemy it isn't as you state 'you either have the wrong forces for that job or the wrong job for those forces' or whatever nonsense you like to just let fall out, but literally 11/10 infantry commanders agree that having more people to fight less enemies is a good idea.

Yes, it definitely is something you want but it may not be always possible. Fighting whilst in numerical inferiority is pretty much what SoF do, now I'm not saying that's their "purpose" (to fight a lot of enemies with few soldiers), I'm saying they regularly find themselves doing it because of the nature of their missions.

You never try to fight an enemy head on, thats fucking dumb as fuck and should be avoided. Infantry on infantry combat is literally 50% ambushes and 50% being ambushed, you don't make yourself known to your enemy on purpose.

And where did I imply that you should "try to fight an enemy head on" ? You're misconstruing what I'm saying here.

4. Separate vehicle crews from dismounts. This will either be impossible or unwanted with certain types of units/vehicles, mainly those with a small troop capacity (especially considering #3). However, when possible, it awards greater flexibility and even firepower to the squad: as the dismounts maneuver or engage or do whatever action, the vehicle crew can actively support them (or vice versa) or even another squad by maneuvering to a different location and/or using the on-board weapons etc.

So you mean the driver should go and jump out with his 6.8mm GPC rifle and go suppress the enemy at 1,000 meters because his rifle has the ballistics of the 7.62 battle rifle but the wounding of a 5.56 assault rifle????????????

no, the vehicle gunner will use the on-board HMG/AGL/RWS/gun turret/whatever.

5. The quintessential weapon around which a squad should be formed should be a belt-fed machine gun, whether a LMG or GPMG (typically distinguished by the type of round used, intermediate vs. full size), but preferably a GPMG. Because of the way it is built, it is literally so many things in one - it can provide suppressive fire, precision fire to a greater range (marksman), area fire, and if it uses a full size round it can penetrate things the rest of the squad can't with their rifles. I would say that being belt-fed is essential because it lowers the weight of the ammunition in effect as you don't have to lug the weight of many magazines around. Many LMGs can accept both belts and mags (not simultaneously) without modifying anything, in case you run out of belted ammunition. This is IMO most effective when deployed with a rifleman/ammo bearer, who either has a heavier overall load or IMO preferably a lighter load of their own to maintain the same mobility as the gunner if not riflemen.

You do this allot. You have a semi correct idea but then shit it up. LMG and GPMG aren't distinguished by rounds, they are typically distinguished by weight of the rifle

And it's not like there's any correlation between the type of round a gun fires and its weight..

and if its belt or magazine fed.

Your next sentence literally contradicts this.

An RPK is an LMG, but the M249 is an LMG. LMG and GPMG are void terms in allot of cases, as weapons apply and don't apply based on the operators choice at the time.

Which is fine really. As I've said, you really don't have to delve into fine details and nuances every single time you refer to machine guns, which is why these terms are still useful. As you've said, the layman will think RPK or M249 when you say LMG and he'll think M240 and PKM when you say GPMG. And that's all fine and dandy.

The PKM, being in the same weight range as the M249 can be considered either an LMG (Because of its weight) or a GPMG (Because of its caliber and its ability to fire for longer-sustained bursts, but the M249 can do the same thing in terms of sustainment of fire.

Even if this may theoretically be correct, I would find it dumb to call it a LMG given the existence of the RPK. It would create unnecessary confusion, and assuming you'd do it, what you'd then call the RPK? A V(very)LMG? We're coming across the same problem as before, language is supposed to facilitate communication not hamper it.

Also the two major LMGs able to take belts and mags is an old Russian modification of an RPK/PKM hybrid which didn't go anywhere and the FN Minimi, this isn't 'many LMGs', its two. 2.
Two.

There's actually the initial Stoner LMG, Ares Shrike and Negev as well. I looked it up.

It isn't good for the FN Minimi either. You want to keep spent magazines to reload them later because disposable magazines aren't. The bolt of the FN Minimi crushes the feed lips of STANAG mags and I'm pretty sure it shatters the PMAG feed lips. You get the magazine and its 30 rounds once, then you have wasted a magazine. Automatic Riflemen carry thousands of rounds on them, they don't run out as fast a rifleman will though his ammo.

Is it not supposed to be an emergency feature anyways? I suppose conserving magazines would be among the last concerns of a gunner that is out of ammo and finds himself needing it.

6. I would reckon the second most useful and important "support" weapon in the squad is the so-called "automatic rifle" - this is commonly an "overbuilt" assault rifle commonly with a longer barrel, sometimes called an LMG (as with the RPK) although I dislike this naming convention. It is essentially what #5 offers, scaled down into being a compromise between a MG and a rifle. Different magazines have been built of varying reliability designed to increase the ammo capacity (and thus suppressive/area fire capability) of such weapons, such as quad-stacks, drums and Beta (dual drum) mags. The automatic rifle offers a suppressive, area and precision (marksman) fire capability that is viable at fireteam level.

The second most important weapon is the GRENADE LAUNCHER. 5/6 are completely redundant and do the same thing. Sustained automatic fire is good.

I made a list based on what my opinion is you should get first assuming you're creating different types of squads with different number of men. As in, give everyone a rifle to begin with, then replace a rifle with the belt-fed MG, then another one with the IAR, then have a standalone grenade launcher (if you're not going overboard on support and are left with no simple riflemen) and so on.

Grenades are quite heavy as a matter of fact (IIRC a standard US 40mm HEDP was somewhere around 0.25kg, this of course increases with ER/MV cartridges) and I sling them under my SL and S2ICs rifles mainly for utility purposes like smoke/illumination/signalling, only having HE/HEDP as a pretty much secondary capability.

Also are the PK and M249 not able to provide marksman fire? The PK has a 23 inch barrel and fires a 7.62x54mmR round, isn't that enough?

That's not what I said. Also, the M249 is less accurate than the M27 and much more unwieldy, hence why I think it should sit in the support fireteam whereas the maneuver element gets the IAR.

7. The third thing you should have (if you can) would probably be a dedicated grenadier wielding something like a MGL or Norinco LG6. I do not like the idea of a RPG-er at squad level as I consider that the ammo is too heavy even with an ammo bearer to justify lugging around the weight of the launcher (after you'll expend all your rockets ). The grenadier could potentially have an ammo bearer/rifleman for maximum effectiveness.

No, dedicated grenade launchers like the MGL are dumb to issue per standard to a guy.

And why is that? It's not intended as a substitute to a rifle, but a squad-level support weapon. The specific model that I use is the LG6 which I selected specifically because it is (detachable) mag-fed. The magazine allows for easy follow up shots if needed, the GL can work in a suppressive role if for whatever reason you have a bunch of ammo laying around (yes, I realize that doesn't really happen), and it allows for easy switching between types of ammo by swapping out the mag. It can obviously also be manually loaded.

You might not like the idea of the Anti-Tank Grenadier as they are called, not some retarded 'RPG-er' or whatever words you like to make up.

It's not that I don't like the idea, I really do, but I consider that you're literally carrying dead weight in the form of the launcher once your rounds are gone (regardless of whether or not you missed). Thus, IMO, a standalone GL is better suited for the purpose of squad-based support because at such a low level ammo supply is severely limited (relative to higher up support weapons) and with it you can afford to miss more (which always happens) and/or engage more targets.

Guess what Anti-Tank Grenadiers do? They do allot. An RPG-7 has a number of warheads that perform a number of support duties.

I knew this already.

Its light enough for the operator to carry a service rifle, mags for his rifle, and additional rockets for his launcher.

Or is it? It's 6.3 kg unloaded. The older HEAT won't do shit in today's RL (and definitely not in NS) against anything more than soft skinned and light armored vehicles, against which 40mm (esp. newer, MV/ER) is also effective. Yes, the older RPGs may offer superior penetration, but the kind of vehicles that they could kill that couldn't be disabled by a modern 40mm is essentially a niche. They definitely can't kill a tank or modern IFV or even some up-armored newer APCs but they're overkill against say, a jeep or even some lightly armored vehicles, for example, compared to a 40mm. Yes, the RPGs may fly straighter, but so do newer improved 40mm's. I also suppose they're ineffective as anti-personnel/anti-structure rockets compared to HE/FRAG/thermobaric loads. That leaves you with the 4.5 kg PG-7VR or similarly heavy TBG-7V. The only round that is relatively light and useful is the OG-7V.

At 4.5kg a pop, how many do you really think your team could carry? If you've missed once or twice (or hit 1 or 2 jeeps) you've pretty much expended your antiarmor capability, which was supposedly a big selling point of lugging the 6 kg launcher around to begin with.

There is a dedicated infantryman who carries more rockets for him and reloads it.

The capabilities of the RPG-7 greatly increase the effectiveness of the squad, as it gives them a literal anti-tank weapon that can also kill fortified infantry, AFVs, and other nasty things that can hurt them. Do you think that an RPG gunner (Another proper term) just wastes all his ammo in the first firefight? Really?

No, just that its effectiveness is waning with improved armor as has happened IRL and definitely happens in NS type armies to a much bigger degree. Thus, it can no longer take out that many significant vehicle targets, and yet isn't light enough (or could be lighter) to be efficiently used against softskin and light armor and personnel.

Also, airburst is all the rage now. I'm not trying to move the goalposts but having the launchers means that possibly someday, some of them could get the fancy FCUs.

Also how does that make the MGL any better than the RPG-7? Unless you load PG-7VR or TBG-7V warheads into the launcher, a loaded RPG-7 is never more than five pounds heavier than the loaded MGL and trades away a single highly effective round for six possibly effective shots. You can issue MGLs to like, the company commander or whatever, but don't make it standard issue.

8. The fourth thing would probably be a DMR. The DM shouldn't use a lot of ammo so there is completely no need for an ammo bearer unlike with the rest of the support weapons.

'The DM shouldn't use allot of ammo'. Yeah. No. The Designated Marksman isn't a sniper. Hes a rifleman with typically a bit more marksmanship training and a rifle with a moderate power optic. He is able to take more accurate fire, but he can also suppress when needed to, because he can dish out accurate suppressing fire. Its one thing to fire your M4 at someone allot, its another to use something like an M110 and keep putting very close rounds to them that they can hear or see landing near them.

Fair enough, so should we get the DM his own personal assistant/ammo bearer then? I was saying that in the context of the other squad level support weapons, which is mainly the machine gun.

9. The rest of the firepower of the squad will be provided through the UBGLs mounted to the SL's and possibly S2IC's rifles, individually issued disposable rockets, hand and/or rifle grenades, and obviously run-off-the-mill rifles.

Okay, second thing not totally wrong.

I am assuming this would still work with the HK-416 and M27?

If you use the M27 IAR then I'd recommend having a mix of the M27 and M249 in your platoons. The Russians had a shit load of RPKs, but issued two RPKs at the platoon to give to infantry squads to replace the RPK. The USMC does a similar thing with having the larger USMC squad of like 13 people or whatever replacing all their M249s with M27s, but having the M249s still given to the platoon/company HQ to issue as needed.

Which in the end still leads to an asymmetric structure in practice and the symmetric squad requiring beefier support from the platoon, as I've said before.

[EsToVnIa]

Tfw people will believe this.

mfw ppl think it's false

fake edit jesus christ spoil that

[Crookfur]

Modernized StG-44 y/n?

Technically the direct route of modernisation and improvement on the STG takes you to the HK33, well kinda, sorta.

If you mean keep everything the same but just add railz and a folding stock possibly with a couple of load revisions to 7.92mm kurz then it'll work, it might not be optimal and forever carry the taint of wehraboo, but it'll work. If you were to have retained from its birth it very likely you would have sought a 5.56mm/5.45mm replacement in the 80s as to Weither or not a remodeled and rechambered gun based on the same action or just bought an existing RL system is a story only you can tell.

In short just do it and see how it shakes out for you as part of your national story.

[New Nirvash]

>forever carry the taint of Wehraboo

I think we passed that mile marker like an hour ago.


We're balls deep in totenjude country by this point Crook.

[Eisarn-Ara]

Modernized StG-44 y/n?

Technically the direct route of modernisation and improvement on the STG takes you to the HK33, well kinda, sorta.

If you mean keep everything the same but just add railz and a folding stock possibly with a couple of load revisions to 7.92mm kurz then it'll work, it might not be optimal and forever carry the taint of wehraboo, but it'll work. If you were to have retained from its birth it very likely you would have sought a 5.56mm/5.45mm replacement in the 80s as to Weither or not a remodeled and rechambered gun based on the same action or just bought an existing RL system is a story only you can tell.

In short just do it and see how it shakes out for you as part of your national story.

Relevant to the prior question: http://www.forgottenweapons.com/sturmgewehrs-the-original-and-the-hmg-reproduction/

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/hmgs-us-made-sturmgewehr/

Slightly less relevant but still worth noting:
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/modern-take-on-the-sturmgewehr-and-a-mile-long-shot-to-kill/

[Kazarogkai]

.25-20 Battle rifle developed in the 1955 still being used to the modern day, is it possible? Non-western country whose only real conflicts have been small internal stuff mind you all.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Modernized StG-44 y/n?

Pre-orders are $1800, reserve your copy today. It's not an exact copy of the StG but mechanically very similar (and arguably better). Check out ForgottenWeapons' video series on it, it's real cool.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Modernized StG-44 y/n?

Pre-orders are $1800, reserve your copy today. It's not an exact copy of the StG but mechanically very similar (and arguably better). Check out ForgottenWeapons' video series on it, it's real cool.

I was considering buying one.
But the Mrs. and I are considering the .22LR one from GSG instead. So we can have "His and Hers" StGs at the range. The couple that Sturmgewehrs together, stays together!

But then we found a semi-auto only MG42 available as a non-restricted gun in Canada. And although we can't afford the $8,000 price tag right now, being able to go deer hunting with an MG34 is a really tempting proposition.

[Eisarn-Ara]

Modernized StG-44 y/n?

Pre-orders are $1800, reserve your copy today. It's not an exact copy of the StG but mechanically very similar (and arguably better). Check out ForgottenWeapons' video series on it, it's real cool.

already posted that bruh

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

snip

1. Define "more effective". More firepower? More flexible? Casualty absorption? Cheaper paychecks? There are a lot of ways something is better, and a lot of ways it is worse. There is no universally good "squad", it depends on individual preferences and historical precedent. One cannot automatically say a French infantry squad/section is superior to an American squad, or an Anglo section, or a German Jaeger squad is better than a Panzergrenadier squad, or anything of that sort. You can really just examine what attributes they possess in comparison with each other and where these attributes are useful, and where they aren't.

An infantry squad from the Army of the United States would be able to sustain greater casualties, and (ostensibly) produce more firepower, than an Army of Excellence/Force XXI/Transformation infantry squad would, based on the dismount sections alone. The notional Objective Force squad would outperform both in all relevant faculties, and be able to read their thoughts too.

An asymmetric layout has the unfortunate advantage of concentrating all your firepower with one team, and reducing it significantly when that team inevitably must move.

Fair enough.

2. Splitting the squads is an Army of Excellence thing, TBH. I don't know of any other armies that have squads that can't fit inside their IFVs. Korea, maybe, but not since K21, and Stryker platoons are fine. It works. It might reduce maneuver to section level (a section is an organizational intermediary between the squad and platoon in the US Army), bute in practice since infantry platoons tend to operate in squares rather than triangles, so two-by-two maneuver (aka two-shooting-two-moving) is almost standard the (Western) world over.

I think it was proposed to me for smaller (manpower-wise) squads.

3. I don't know what you're saying here, you seem to say one thing in the opening, and then disregard that and directly contradict it in the next. A real life example: Mechanized/heavy infantry in the US Army lack weapons squads, but this is by each squad possessing a M240 and Javelin for dismounted use; light infantry in the US Army have the largest organization with CCM (Close Combat Missile) and M240 teams in their weapons squads, and medium infantry are somewhere in between with M240 teams but no CCM teams.

All platoons have the same weapons, but their mounts (or lack thereof) determine the manpower they can be comprised of.

A heavy/Bradley platoon consists of three rifle squads and four Bradleys in two sections (A and B). Each rifle squad has one M240 and one FGM-148 CLU. The riflemen in each squad (two men) are trained to use either the M240 or the Javelin missile, and when they use these they are employed in two-man teams.

A medium/Stryker platoon consists of three rifle squads, a weapons squad, three snipers, and four Strykers. Stryker organization is interesting because each element from squad and up has organic snipers, and the weapons squad shoulders the M240s (machine guns being the most powerful weapons a platoon leader can command) while each squad has Javelin missiles. The weapons team lives in the HQ truck, and the snipers are each one rifleman in the Stryker squad. The other rifleman is trained to use the Javelin missile, being the "Antiarmor Specialist".

A light/Infantry platoon has three rifle squads, a "full" weapons squad consisting of two M240 machine guns and two CCM teams with Javelin missiles. Each rifle fireteam has a sniper in place of the Javelin/M240 trained rifleman, which is twice as many as the Stryker squad.

The organizations are the "same" for each squad, but they aren't. The roles overlap and are rolled up successively as the ability to mount men decreases. Platoons operate differently and have wildly different capabilities from each other on the micro-level, but as the platoons are looked at as a whole, the differences tend to disappear.

The Bundeswehr is even funnier. Jaeger squads are balanced formations with symmetric weapon organization. They all are armed with 5.56x45mm weapons (MG4 is used by the Jaegers), while Panzergrenadiers are asymmetrical and use the MG-3 as the organic squad maneuver machine gun.

What I'm trying to say is that there are inherent advantages and disadvantages with 12+ -man and 6-man squads (as dictated by the type of vehicle used) and I do not plan on uniform-izing my units and formations in terms of manpower, such as having fewer vehicles in a platoon for the big vehicles or w/e.

4. You're contradicting yourself again. You said in #2 you shouldn't split squads, but you're splitting squads right here. Vehicle crewmen are an integral part of a "squad" or "section". Unless you're doing something like attaching the vehicles from a battalion motor/transport pool, you shouldn't be doing anything like this at all.

Squads in modern mechanical armies have two elements/teams/whatever, usually, the mounted and the dismounted. They are both part of the same squad or section.

That's what I meant. Well, on top of this, there is also a separate (in a sense, from the dismount commander) vehicle crew commander. Idk which should be senior tbh but my OCD says the vehicle commander b/c some vehicles have little or no dismounts.

5. This is debatable. A belt-fed machine gun is a very powerful weapon. It is also very heavy, and requires bulky ammunition, and unless it's a very small machine gun such as the Minimi or MG4, it will be eating two squad members to maintain it. Additionally, it will entice section leaders to keep their machine gun in action despite casualties, which is the correct course of action, but you're using twice as many men as you would with a lighter automatic weapon/LSW like L86 or M27 or RPK.

Since you've specified a weapon like MAG or M60 or PKM, you're going to need two men to use a weapon, which basically ties you to having an asymmetric layout. This isn't bad, but it's not very flexible. Barrier penetration is mostly overrated for a cartridge, like the mythical "stopping power", and the "range dilemma", so that's not a terribly convincing argument.

There are a number of relatively lightweight belt-fed MGs apart from the ones you've mentioned which should work by themselves or w/ a rifleman/assistant but not full on dedicated ammo bearer. Like a PKM or smth. Or for the latter, a Stoner LMG.

Medium machine guns are powerful because they can shoot faster and further than a rifle can. This is true of all machine guns, though. Magazines do not take up significant weight, and weight isn't the real factor. Bulk is. You can carry around 200-250 rounds of 7.62x51mm if you're a bro, you can't do that in belts. That would be like 4-5 belts on your person. That's going to make you like as wide as a door with pouches. You're going to start wearing a Bullet Vest just to keep all the belts for your machine gun around.

Belt-fed medium machines have been tried, and found lacking, as section automatic rifles. Light support weapons went from magazine-fed medium MGs to belt-feds, and both of these were bad because they required two-men to operate. A 100% increase in crew size over something like Minimi or MG4 or L86 or RPK, all superior weapons.

A belt-fed might be good, it provides a lot of firepower immediately, but belt-fed machine guns (even Universal Machine Guns) tend to weigh somewhere north of 10 kilograms loaded, which is bad. That's literally twice the weight of an automatic rifle like RPK-74. Have fun with that, and the ammunition too.

Real life armies have gravitated towards lightweight "universal" belt-fed MGs like Minimi/MG4/PKP that can be operated by one man like an automatic rifle, or automatic rifles like FALO/IAR/RPK/L86, since the 1970s. This is what a squad should have, not a man-eater like MAG or M60.

Perhaps "GPMG" was an ill-used term on my part.

Of course, the platoon itself can and should have crew-served machine guns because they are the most powerful weapons for small unit leaders, and they should be organized under the platoon in a weapons squad when possible to allow the lieutenant to mass his fires or distribute them as necessary.

6. You can't really have your cake and eat it too, TBH. Army of the United States had a belt-fed MMG in the squad (M60). Each squad had one. The US Army has hated asymmetric layouts since time immemorial and constantly tried to replace it with a universal MG which ended up as M249.

You can have two crew-served machine guns in a massive squad, like USMC sized, and be fine. Two six man maneuver elements and a squad leader will give you what you want. It'll be bloated, unwieldy, heavy and inefficient compared to a section with universal MGs and half the men.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I don't see what the problem is with giving a IAR to the maneuver element.

7. A grenade launcher like MGL provides less firepower per unit of weight than an RPG-7 or a Carl Gustav. That's a poor choice. There's a reason no army in the world has something silly like MGLs everywhere.

This may be true, but I find that it's akin to saying that a 155mm mortar provides more firepower per unit of weight than a 60mm mortar. It's simply that you don't get to fire the RPG-7 enough at squad level to enjoy that supposed advantage because of the heavy ammo. Also, it's becoming more and more of a niche weapon as far as antiarmor is concerned compared to a 40mm grenade because the number of vehicles that would be disabled by one but not the other is waning. Newer model RPG weapons exist, but these fire even heavier ammunition.

8. In theory the DMR/sniper can be done by a machine gun/automatic rifle, but that requires a bit too much multiplicity of roles for a single man to do.

That said, snipers tend to use the same rifles as the other riflemen, with heavier barrels and optics, or a sniperized variant of the automatic rifle like SDM-R or PSL. They aren't really necessary either, they're an artefact of police actions, like the "range dilemma", the oughties revival of outdated ideas like the GPC, and LWMMG.

What police actions, what range dilemma. You lost me there.

Also if I understand correctly the M2 HMG has been occasionally used as a makeshift sniper rifle

9. No. Section leaders are too busy directing to use grenade launchers. Like a machine gun, they belong with their own operator who can use them at the direction of a squad/section or fireteam leader.

It's mainly for utility purposes like smoke, illumination or signalling, not HE/HEDP, that's pretty much a secondary capability.

[Fordorsia]

deer hunting with an MG34 is a really tempting proposition.

Now I'm wondering if that's ever been done

[EsToVnIa]

yes?

[Fordorsia]

Don't you take that tone with me young lady

More tactical swag

[Kazarogkai]

Don't you take that tone with me young lady

More tactical swag

The 2nd is my favorite personally. Their all pretty cool though.

[Fordorsia]

Don't you take that tone with me young lady

More tactical swag

The 2nd is my favorite personally. Their all pretty cool though.

You will bow down to support model and you will like it