LMGs, MMGs, and Roles

[Humabout]

I may be a bit fuzzy on the roles light machineguns and medium machineguns play in modern combat. My understanding is that LMGs are used for suppression fire because heat from sustained fire would warp an assault rifle's barrel. The MMG seems to be similar, except that it fires the same type of rounds used in battle rifles and is intended to target light vehicles.

I have two questions:
1) Is my understanding correct? If not, will you please set me straight.
2) If an assault rifle or battle rifle capable of sustained fire without risk of adverse effects on its ability to continue firing, would there still be a role for LMGs and MMGs?

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Humabout

I may be a bit fuzzy on the roles light machineguns and medium machineguns play in modern combat. My understanding is that LMGs are used for suppression fire because heat from sustained fire would warp an assault rifle's barrel. The MMG seems to be similar, except that it fires the same type of rounds used in battle rifles and is intended to target light vehicles.

I have two questions:
1) Is my understanding correct? If not, will you please set me straight.
2) If an assault rifle or battle rifle capable of sustained fire without risk of adverse effects on its ability to continue firing, would there still be a role for LMGs and MMGs?

#1 - not sure about but suspect that each army has it's own doctrine on how they are to be used.

#2 - If the battle rifle could do so it would be an LMG/MMG.

There are problems with 'all MG' units. They run through ammo at a terrific rate. The guns are heavier to begin with and to keep them in ammo you have to burden the men more. They don't give you the flexibility that a mixed arms unit does. In addition there are accessories that help make MGs more effective such as sights for long range work and tripods. You can't really outfit every man with an MG, a battle load of ammo, bipod/tripod, spare barrels etc. In fact in modern US usage an MG is manned by a 3-man crew - Gunner, Asst Gunner, and Ammo Bearer. The two who aren't firing the MG have rifles to help make sure the Gunner isn't disturbed. ;)

[sir_pudding]

LMGs are generally a fireteam level asset. MMGs are generally a company level asset. MMGs are a lot heavier and technically crew served weapons.

[Humabout]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

#2 - If the battle rifle could do so it would be an LMG/MMG.

This is my suspicion, but I want to run it past the hivemind, since I have no military background whatsoever. My inclination is that the LMG/MMG would simply cease to be a valid weapons anymore and soldiers would simply carry assault or battle rifles.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Humabout

This is my suspicion, but I want to run it past the hivemind, since I have no military background whatsoever. My inclination is that the LMG/MMG would simply cease to be a valid weapons anymore and soldiers would simply carry assault or battle rifles.

No, probably not, insofar as I even understand your question. Higher rates of fire means greater ammunition requirements and aren't any more effective against point targets than single shot automatic weapons.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Humabout

2) If an assault rifle or battle rifle capable of sustained fire without risk of adverse effects on its ability to continue firing, would there still be a role for LMGs and MMGs?

I there would be. After all there are assault rifles made these days that can be set up to work as LMGs in a pinch (the AUG, SA80, QBZ95 according to High-Tech) but they haven't replaced dedicated LMGs. I think the main requirement is sheer amount of ammunition. It's impractical to give each soldier a 100 round belt of ammunition.

MMGs are, I think, simply more powerful than assault rifles.

[Joseph Paul]

And a 100 rd belt is only the begining! I think the standard load out for M-16s is 180 rounds. The SAW load out is 600. (ooh! just saw that the M249 (SAW) can be magazine fed! I had forgotten that.)

[Humabout]

Allow me to reword my quesiton. Given that an assault rifle could handle the same sustained fire capability of an LMG but still offers single round and three-round burst options and can accept typical clips instead of just belts, would there be a reason to continue employing dedicated LMGs?

In other words, what's to stop a squad from all carrying LMG/assault rifles and just one guy lugging around the 600 rounds in belt form? Wouldn't the prospective versatility of a weapon capable of filling two roles edge out the specialized weapon?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Humabout

Allow me to reword my quesiton. Given that an assault rifle could handle the same sustained fire capability of an LMG but still offers single round and three-round burst options and can accept typical clips instead of just belts, would there be a reason to continue employing dedicated LMGs?

In other words, what's to stop a squad from all carrying LMG/assault rifles and just one guy lugging around the 600 rounds in belt form? Wouldn't the prospective versatility of a weapon capable of filling two roles edge out the specialized weapon?

You know, that's an interesting question. If I compare the FN MINIMI (aka a SAW, our machine gun) to the H&K GW36 (our assault rifle), I don't see much reason to take the former. They do the same damage, the latter has superior accuracy, they have the same RoF (and you can't fire less than 3 rounds per second with the SAW while the assault rifle can switch), the assault rifle is much lighter, has easier ST requirements and is about a third of the price.

The only reason I can see to take the SAW is that you can sustain fire for longer, which might be reason enough.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Humabout

Allow me to reword my quesiton. Given that an assault rifle could handle the same sustained fire capability of an LMG but still offers single round and three-round burst options and can accept typical clips instead of just belts, would there be a reason to continue employing dedicated LMGs?

Most LMGs have quick-change barrels and almost all are more ruggedly built than an assault rifle. Thus, they have a much better sustained fire capability.

In other words, what's to stop a squad from all carrying LMG/assault rifles and just one guy lugging around the 600 rounds in belt form? Wouldn't the prospective versatility of a weapon capable of filling two roles edge out the specialized weapon?

An LMG is generally too heavy and expensive for general purpose use.