Minimi LMG to go?

D

Deleted 20555

Guest
Someone is going to be handed a severe lesson in how to win a firefight sometime in the future.
 

Tattieheed

Clanker
Lessons learned being thrown straight out the window again. Theres a reason we adopted it and it was from learning from our mistakes. Unfortunately it seems to be the same old circle of thats past lets bin it off
 
Unfortunately, it won't be the person making the decision to get rid of it that's in the firefight
I was going to say almost exactly that.
 
I managed to fire the L129A1 Sharpshooter rifle fairly recently; to say that I was impressed with it was an understatement! In a sad, tragi-comic way, I though that I was equipped with Rogue Trooper's rifle, Gunnar.
 

184461

*Russian Troll*
I managed to fire the L129A1 Sharpshooter rifle fairly recently; to say that I was impressed with it was an understatement! In a sad, tragi-comic way, I though that I was equipped with Rogue Trooper's rifle, Gunnar.
Where would the belt or box go though?
I was LSW gunner in Canada a long time ago and having a magazine-fed support weapon struck me a really, really stupid as being in a support role armed with something you need to change mags on every 15secs is a contradiction in terms.
1522012193480.png

Refreshing to see the powers that be have decided to go back to using mag-fed for the support role.
Tools and fools that they are.
 
I believe the current system is shagged and at the end of its life.
 
I'd prefer that rather than retire them they stick them in storage.

I understand the argument that is being made am done accuracy does have it's benefits, and the minimum isn't exactly known for its accuracy, but suplressive fire in a FOB in helmand differ somewhat to suppressive fire to a foot patrol in Basra.

It would be really nice if the grown ups would allow Tommy Atkins access to a range of different weapons that can easily be chosen to fit the situation. 81mm mortar is easier to move around than a 120mm for example, but give the guys acess to it so if they're based in a static location they can bring the 120mm along.
 

Slime

LE
I managed to fire the L129A1 Sharpshooter rifle fairly recently; to say that I was impressed with it was an understatement! In a sad, tragi-comic way, I though that I was equipped with Rogue Trooper's rifle, Gunnar.
You can't just leave it at that !
What did you like about it?
I'm not ever going to fire one so am curious. :)
 

184461

*Russian Troll*
You can't just leave it at that !
What did you like about it?
I'm not ever going to fire one so am curious. :)
Look's gucci.
1522014921174.png


But a belt-fed is needed a support weapon.
 
I was LSW gunner in Canada a long time ago and having a magazine-fed support weapon struck me a really, really stupid as being in a support role armed with something you need to change mags on every 15secs is a contradiction in terms.
Not really, once you think about it in a bit more depth...

Here's your first question:
If you have a belt of fifty rounds on your GPMG, and you're firing three-to-five round bursts, how many times will you squeeze the trigger before you have to change the belt? If you've got a 200-round box on a Minimi, is a reload faster or slower than a magazine change on an LSW?

Here's another question:
Do you have one person on the GPMG, or two? Because if you have a two-person team working the GPMG, and one of them does good spotting through optics, and really slick belt changes (but doesn't do any shooting as a result), will you still outperform two people with optic-sighted LSW in terms of "hits on target"?

Here's your next question:
Which is more accurate - a belt-fed weapon that fires from an open bolt, or a magazine-fed weapon that fires from a closed bolt? That delay while the bolt slides forward and fires, has a negative effect.

Here's your final question:
Which is more reliable - a belt-fed weapon that exposes its ammunition to dust and dirt as it moves toward the chamber, or a magazine-fed weapon that doesn't? The L86A2 trials answered that one quite conclusively for dusty conditions - the LSW wins, hands down. A very operationally-wise infantryman once suggested to me "never trigger the ambush with a weapon that fires from an open bolt".
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
Not really, once you think about it in a bit more depth...

Here's your first question:
If you have a belt of fifty rounds on your GPMG, and you're firing three-to-five round bursts, how many times will you squeeze the trigger before you have to change the belt? If you've got a 200-round box on a Minimi, is a reload faster or slower than a magazine change on an LSW?

Here's another question:
Do you have one person on the GPMG, or two? Because if you have a two-person team working the GPMG, and one of them does good spotting through optics, and really slick belt changes (but doesn't do any shooting as a result), will you still outperform two people with optic-sighted LSW in terms of "hits on target"?

Here's your next question:
Which is more accurate - a belt-fed weapon that fires from an open bolt, or a magazine-fed weapon that fires from a closed bolt? That delay while the bolt slides forward and fires, has a negative effect.

Here's your final question:
Which is more reliable - a belt-fed weapon that exposes its ammunition to dust and dirt as it moves toward the chamber, or a magazine-fed weapon that doesn't? The L86A2 trials answered that one quite conclusively for dusty conditions - the LSW wins, hands down. A very operationally-wise infantryman once suggested to me "never trigger the ambush with a weapon that fires from an open bolt".
Here is the question - whoever made this decision - has he ever been under fire from multiple PKM teams 800 meters out?

Stick to being a range queen.
 
Here is the question - whoever made this decision - has he ever been under fire from multiple PKM teams?
Is that really relevant for the question "what should the rifle section carry"? Because taken to its extreme, you get to "well, we might be charged by enemy elephants, so we should have a Barratt 0.50 in every rifle section". It's interesting that you didn't address the "gap between reload" / accuracy / reliability questions, though

If you've got a (point?) section under fire from platoon/company-level weapons, surely you'd be using platoon/company weapons to reply. Sections don't operate on their own, that kind of problem is why you have Platoon and Company weapons. I always thought the Soviet doctrine was to use the PKM as a company weapon, and used the RPK at the section / platoon level?
 
I managed to fire the L129A1 Sharpshooter rifle fairly recently; to say that I was impressed with it was an understatement! In a sad, tragi-comic way, I though that I was equipped with Rogue Trooper's rifle, Gunnar.
We've all had that feeling sometime haven't we?
 

MH271286

Swinger
As a former Minimi gunner I can safely say that I would much rather the extra weight and rate of fire from a belt fed support weapon than any magazine fed!

Considering the main purpose of suppression at fire team level is so the rest of the guys can move into a flanking position (as an example) I was always told quite simply to look at it this way, the purpose of the minimi isn't about accuracy it is and always has been about giving the enemy a really good reason to keep their head down!
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Not really, once you think about it in a bit more depth...

Here's your first question:
If you have a belt of fifty rounds on your GPMG, and you're firing three-to-five round bursts, how many times will you squeeze the trigger before you have to change the belt? If you've got a 200-round box on a Minimi, is a reload faster or slower than a magazine change on an LSW?

Here's another question:
Do you have one person on the GPMG, or two? Because if you have a two-person team working the GPMG, and one of them does good spotting through optics, and really slick belt changes (but doesn't do any shooting as a result), will you still outperform two people with optic-sighted LSW in terms of "hits on target"?

Here's your next question:
Which is more accurate - a belt-fed weapon that fires from an open bolt, or a magazine-fed weapon that fires from a closed bolt? That delay while the bolt slides forward and fires, has a negative effect.

Here's your final question:
Which is more reliable - a belt-fed weapon that exposes its ammunition to dust and dirt as it moves toward the chamber, or a magazine-fed weapon that doesn't? The L86A2 trials answered that one quite conclusively for dusty conditions - the LSW wins, hands down. A very operationally-wise infantryman once suggested to me "never trigger the ambush with a weapon that fires from an open bolt".
Answers to the questions in order:

Q1. GPMG isn't really the appropriate comparison because we're talking specifically about the Minimi, so we're comparing a magazine of 30 with a box of 100 or 200. In the case of the former you'll get ~25 3-5rd bursts off, if the latter then ~50. So fairly similar in terms of bursts to shots with the LSW but the Minimi does have a slightly slower reload time.

Q2. Again, wrong comparison because we should be talking about the Minimi but I don't think sections routinely double man the guns in instances where guns are deployed at section level. One gunner probably does outperform an LSW gunner in terms of hits on or near the target. Let's not forget that a suppressive effect is achieved by near misses so there's an inherent value to putting five Minimi rounds downrange near the target compared to putting one round near the target with an LSW. LSW may be able to achieve more rounds on target under range conditions but assuming that you'll get accurate, aimed shots from an LSW gunner who is under fire and breathing out his arse is a pretty dangerous assumption IMHO.

Q3. Closed bolt is more accurate, but as mentioned above is an exhausted bloke under fire more likely to hit with one LSW round or five Minimi rounds in a beaten zone? This is especially true of an army that doesn't devote significant time to range practice. It's also much easier to adjust your windage by eye with a belt fed weapon than it is to adjust it from single shots - expecting scared blokes to accurately account for wind out to 600m is another risky assumption I think.

Q4. LSW is more reliable, but drench the Minimi in oil and it works well enough.

Personally I think the Minimi is clearly better in a firefight under realistic conditions. The key question is whether that's worth the weight and mobility penalty of having to lug around significant quantities of belted ammunition.
 

MH271286

Swinger
Answers to the questions in order:

Q1. GPMG isn't really the appropriate comparison because we're talking specifically about the Minimi, so we're comparing a magazine of 30 with a box of 100 or 200. In the case of the former you'll get ~25 3-5rd bursts off, if the latter then ~50. So fairly similar in terms of bursts to shots with the LSW but the Minimi does have a slightly slower reload time.

Q2. Again, wrong comparison because we should be talking about the Minimi but I don't think sections routinely double man the guns in instances where guns are deployed at section level. One gunner probably does outperform an LSW gunner in terms of hits on or near the target. Let's not forget that a suppressive effect is achieved by near misses so there's an inherent value to putting five Minimi rounds downrange near the target compared to putting one round near the target with an LSW. LSW may be able to achiePersonally I think the Minimi is clearly better in a firefight under realistic conditions. The key question is whether that's worth the weight and mobility penalty of having to lug around significant quantities of belted ammunition.
Personally I think the Minimi is clearly better in a firefight under realistic conditions. The key question is whether that's worth the weight and mobility penalty of having to lug around significant quantities of belted ammunition.

100% worth the extra weight, as for ammo and spare barrel those tend to get split between the section as its a section weapon.
So even though it isn't a double manned gun part of the weight burden is still split up anyway.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top