Continue with Morrow Project weapons choices, the next up is fire support for the team- i.e. some sort of machinegun.
The US Military uses the M249 SAW, however fires the rather wimpy 5.56mm NATO round that I've already dismissed as unsuited for the Project. It does have it advantages, especially in the role of suppressive fire due to the ability to carry larger amounts of ammo. Throwing some lead down range is almost more important than killing anything with it. So it was tempting, but just not tempting enough.
That didn't leave me with many choices as not much effort has been directed towards SAW development of late. There is the IAR concept, which in many ways strikes me as a return to the famous BAR. But like the Army, I just can't buy into that concept.
This left me with basically two options- either rechamber the M249 for the 6.8mm SPC to match my rifle choice, or go with a general purpose MG instead.
I decided upon the latter, and since the campaign starts 'near-future' the M240E6 with it's titanium receiver for weight reduction suits perfectly.
I'm a little less certain in this choice then my previous ones. But I doubt the players will be unhappy. Most of the advantages offered by lighter weapons/ammo will not impress them as in practical terms the weapon will be far more used to put heavy fire on target than it will be for suppression.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Ah, the M249 SAW. Probably the weapon have seen jam most under pressure. I think I dislike it more than the M9.
A titanium 240? Now that's impressive (7 lbs!). I'm familiar with the M240G, which was friggin' heavy, especially when combined with its unwieldly tripod and ammo. I'm assuming your 240E6 would be deployed only with the bipod (which were integral on the G)?
Also, will you be looking into heavy weapons attachments [units]? A light-weight version of the MK 19 could be devastatingly effective. This of course would lead me to think about fire mission support with mortars (which was my primary MOS)...
This is for mounting on vehicles right? Maybe I'm showing my ignorance not just assuming that, but I don't see it as possible that someone could run that without it being bolted to something.
@Mad Brew: To be fair to the M249, the ones in use today are badly worn, that may have something to do with your experiences. On the other hand, I don't have much insight into how solid they are new out of the box.
The M240G is 6-7 lbs lighter, not 7 lbs. So it should come in around 20 lbs with the bipod which is how it will be issued (when not mounted on a vehicle). Vehicle will have a spare tripod for it if needed.
As to heavier weapons, the Project will certainly have them, including a mortor carrier. The players won't start with one of those however. A vehicle mounted MK 19 however might be in the cards...
@Helmsman: With bipod it can be used by personal on foot. With the weight reduction for the E6 version, it drops down to something close to the old BAR (and fires a similar round as well) and that weapon was often fired from the shoulder or hip.
It's also lighter than the M60, which can often be seen being carried and used by foot infantry in Vietnam photos.
Still, it is heavy compared to an Assault Rifle. Stronger characters will likely be tasked with this weapon.
@Gleichman: Ah I see, I totally misread that entry. I thought a 7lb machine gun was freakin' insane!
True, the M249s I have experience with were aged and probably hand-me-downs from the Army (which much of Marine equipment seems to be). But I've used/seen them in 6 different companies from 3 different battalions, they all were horrible.
@Helmsman: I can attest the 240G is deployed with foot infantry and you have to keep up with the people just carry pistols (thank goodness for being the FDC for mortars!).
Yeah, but it's not fully auto right? The recoil from that that round looks like a serious bitch, I'd figure that would make it too much for infantry to accurately fire... but then again suppressive fire doesn't really have to be accurate now does it.
Post a Comment