M240 replacement

[Kirkhill]

M240 Medium Machine Gun Successor Now Being Sought By U.S. Army

A replacement for the M240 machine gun could offer Army infantry and other units greater range and terminal effectiveness.

www.twz.com

What's the word @KevinB ?

 

[MilEME09]

I heard Sig's 338 MMG was being looked as an option because it had about 80% of the range and stopping power of a .50, but weighs less than a M240, new ammunition also has 300 rds of 338 weighing the same as 100 rds of 50 cal

 

[KevinB]

M240 Medium Machine Gun Successor Now Being Sought By U.S. Army

A replacement for the M240 machine gun could offer Army infantry and other units greater range and terminal effectiveness.

www.twz.com

What's the word @KevinB ?

More idiots not paying attention to the range beds actually required by infantry.

SOCOM has been playing with .338NM - I'm equally unimpressed - as the gun is heavy and the ammo is heavy - and it cannot take payload like .50 can.
So it is basically a vehicle gun at that point - a 33rd belt weights 38lbs, so it isn't like you are running off to fight with it dismounted for any period of time.

 

[Kirkhill]

More idiots not paying attention to the range beds actually required by infantry.

SOCOM has been playing with .338NM - I'm equally unimpressed - as the gun is heavy and the ammo is heavy - and it cannot take payload like .50 can.
So it is basically a vehicle gun at that point - a 33rd belt weights 38lbs, so it isn't like you are running off to fight with it dismounted for any period of time.

Rate of fire? 600 rpm? 33 rounds = 3 seconds of suppressive fire?

If that then why not the 50 and if the 50, and a vehicle, then why not the M230LF for light vehicles?

....

You would stick with the M240 for the rifle platoons?

 

[MilEME09]

More idiots not paying attention to the range beds actually required by infantry.

SOCOM has been playing with .338NM - I'm equally unimpressed - as the gun is heavy and the ammo is heavy - and it cannot take payload like .50 can.
So it is basically a vehicle gun at that point - a 33rd belt weights 38lbs, so it isn't like you are running off to fight with it dismounted for any period of time.

sigs 338 belt weight is 33lbs for 300 rds, the weapon weighs 21lbs which is less than say a 240G at 24lbs. Not huge differences, and I agree, still more a mounted weapons.

 

[Kirkhill]

sigs 338 belt weight is 33lbs for 300 rds, the weapon weighs 21lbs which is less than say a 240G at 24lbs. Not huge differences, and I agree, still more a mounted weapons.

But, unlike the M230LF, dismountable (no external power source necessary) and at least as humpable as an 81 mortar, a 50 or a C16. No?

 

[MilEME09]

But, unlike the M230LF, dismountable (no external power source necessary) and at least as humpable as an 81 mortar, a 50 or a C16. No?

I mean a 50 is over 50lbs just for the gun, a C16 is 64lbs just for the gun. So I'd take a 338 mmg over that any day

 

[Kirkhill]

I mean a 50 is over 50lbs just for the gun, a C16 is 64lbs just for the gun. So I'd take a 338 mmg over that any day

So if you had a platoon mounted in Senators? 3-4 x 338 and a C16? Or do you need a C-UAS capability (M230 LF)? Is the C16 potentially adequate?

UAV Killers: 40mm Programmable Grenade System Downs UAVs – Small Arms Defense Journal

sadefensejournal.com

 

[Kirkhill]

What the Aussies are using for domestic security patrols by their Light Horse.

Apparently the brakes need fixing. Same supplier as the LSVW perhaps?

 

[Kirkhill]

And, of course, the Bushmaster PMV,

 

[KevinB]

I mean a 50 is over 50lbs just for the gun, a C16 is 64lbs just for the gun. So I'd take a 338 mmg over that any day

Neither is viable to go for a walk with.

sigs 338 belt weight is 33lbs for 300 rds, the weapon weighs 21lbs which is less than say a 240G at 24lbs. Not huge differences, and I agree, still more a mounted weapons.

Yeah I’ll believe they when I see it. I’ve seen the ammo and weighed it - the poly case stuff doesn’t work for the velocities - so it’s a two piece steel - and while they keep hyping the hybrid case none of it passes environmentals, or reliability - so I would be skeptical.

Not sure what they pulled out of the gun, but the test guns where all in the 38lb range



So when you look at the weight of the ammo and gun for a an actual viable combat weight it’s definitely in the mounted setup.
So GAU-19 or a GMG is going to offer you a lot more.

I have had some disagreements with one of the originators of the idea. He’s a solid dude - but when I started pushing him on it, he got my point. It briefs well for a team to get dropped off a little bird to do overwatch — but if your not a CAG guy - this gun isn’t doing the Rangers or anyone else any good — especially in a non permissive air area, where you can’t keep getting ammo resupply as needed.

Big army is all about ‘overmatch’ instead of teaching soldiers how to shoot their M4 to 5-600m just give them a 1200m system they will keep missing folks at 200m with.

Sad.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Big army is all about ‘overmatch’ instead of teaching soldiers how to shoot their M4 to 5-600m just give them a 1200m system they will keep missing folks at 200m with.

Sad.

This.

'Shoot to qualify and make the boss look good' is different from 'shoot to kill and win the battle' training

 

[Fabius]

Big army is all about ‘overmatch’ instead of teaching soldiers how to shoot their M4 to 5-600m just give them a 1200m system they will keep missing folks at 200m with.

Since Big Army in any country seems adverse to improving the training it’s interesting that the technical focus seems to be the cartridge in the US Army’s case.

The overall cost benefit between using technology to improve the hit ratio of the soldiers vs the terminal effects of the individual projectiles would be interesting.

Things like weapons mounted laser range finders and optics integrating fire control systems are more interesting. Independent weapon mounted range finders seem quite mature in comparison to the fire control stuff like the NGSW-FCS XM 157.

 

[MilEME09]

So if you had a platoon mounted in Senators? 3-4 x 338 and a C16? Or do you need a C-UAS capability (M230 LF)? Is the C16 potentially adequate?

UAV Killers: 40mm Programmable Grenade System Downs UAVs – Small Arms Defense Journal

sadefensejournal.com

I would use the 338 for anti drone, the 40mm ballistic arc isnt the best for that.

 

[CBH99]

View attachment 94896

What the Aussies are using for domestic security patrols by their Light Horse.

Apparently the brakes need fixing. Same supplier as the LSVW perhaps?

The TAPV's breaks were LOUD and ugly sounding when the vehicle was first being brought online (not sure if the brake issue was ever fixed? The TAPV came online shortly after I got out)



The LSVW has created a paradox in my mind...and I'm not sure I really know what to make of it.

Either the LSVW is the raging piece of shit I've always thought it to be (even coming off the assembly line, these vehicles looked 3rd world...to me anyway)

OR (on the account that they are still in service & used by CAF units nationwide) the LSVW is an incredibly underrated vehicle and is an unsung hero that never got the credit it deserves

 

[OldSolduer]

The LSVW (Self Igniting) was and is crap

 

[RangerRay]

LSVW - Light Squeaky Vehicle, Wheeled

There’s a whole sordid history about the acquisition of this vehicle that I’m sure most members here are familiar with that I probably don’t need to re-hash it.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

LSVW - Light Squeaky Vehicle, Wheeled

There’s a whole sordid history about the acquisition of this vehicle that I’m sure most members here are familiar with that I probably don’t need to re-hash it.

The Italians when we roll up in our bastardized version:

 

[KevinB]

I would use the 338 for anti drone, the 40mm ballistic arc isnt the best for that.

The 40mm can offer pre-fragmented area affect with proximity fuzing.

40mm HV isn’t a slouch.