Discussion on the C6 Machine Gun

[daftandbarmy]

That being said, as stated above I am a big proponents for adding some 7.62 capability to more consistently hit 300-600.  But getting back to the purpose of the thread, I think if everyone had a battle rifle we'd be less effective.

And there's a good argument for making sure that we have at least one, and preferably two, C6s in each section. The C9 is nice, but it just isn't as big a bully as 'the General'.

 

[HItorMiss]

And there's a good argument for making sure that we have at least one, and preferably two, C6s in each section. The C9 is nice, but it just isn't as big a bully as 'the General'.

Negative on the C6, there are lighter/better for section use that are 7.62 look at the MK 48s for instance






edited to provide continuity from another thread

 

[Illegio]

Two C6s would reduce the already poor mobility of your average section even further. Guys have enough to lump around without the entire section being ammo slaves to a pair of GPMGs. Plus, imagine trying to clear a room with that thing? The sharpshooter rifle complements the section and platoon level MGs without placing  additional burden on the rest of the men.

Even the "mini-C6s" like the Mk. 48 Mod 0 don't address the issue, which is ammo, not the gun. Unless someone is advocating the return of the WW2 Wehrmacht-style section where the entire section is basically built around supporting a single GPMG, I would say the issue of GPMGs in the section is a non-starter.

 

[Tetragrammaton]

It might be interesting as part of a "long range" section equipped with 7.62 battle rifles, but generally speaking I believe the C6s work best within the Wpns Det.

 

[SeanNewman]

But it suffers from the same faults as 7.62 rifles, as well.  I love the C6 too and I have seen enough pen dems to know how useful it is, but at the end of the day you're going to kill your own troops through fatigue doing section-level movement with a C6.

It is damn hard to hold a C6 on target for a long burst even braced in the prone, and as well it's overkill in terms of range.  Yes it can punch through a lot that a C9 can't, but now you're giving someone a lot more weight to be able to shoot 800-1800m when he might not need to.

A C6 is meant to be a stationary weapon not a mobile one-man system like the C9.  With the sharpshooter rifle, weight will be between a C7 and C9 so that rifleman will still be able to get around.

 

[vonGarvin]

And there's a good argument for making sure that we have at least one, and preferably two, C6s in each section. The C9 is nice, but it just isn't as big a bully as 'the General'.

Actually, each section already has one, if not two C6's per section.  And an M242 Bushmaster 25mm Chain Gun.  Let us not forget that our infantry is mechanised.  (If only one C6 coax, then the pintle mounted MG is a C9)

(Yes, I understand that we remain flexible enough to allow the ten-soldier section to move about the battlespace without its LAV III APC)

 

[Big Red]

The Rhodesians and SAs hauled MAG58s at the section level. Mind you they weren't encumbered with soft armour and plates.

Would be nice to have some Mk48s or Lightweight M240Bs in the armoury for the section to draw for dismounted patrolling. The Russians were onto something with the PKM...

 

[daftandbarmy]

The Rhodesians and SAs hauled MAG58s at the section level. Mind you they weren't encumbered with soft armour and plates.

And the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines. Be fit enough to get the General up and give it big licks when you need it...

 

[vonGarvin]

When the Brits had the FN SLR, the GPMG (aka "MAG 58") was found at the section level.  That was across the army. 


For its role of direct area suppression fire out to 600m, the LMG we have now is more than able to do that job. 

 

[vonGarvin]

What is great about the modern battle rifles though is that they are close enough to an assault rifle size-wise that you can insert some 7.62 systems to increase the overall effectiveness at section level, where as a C6 is not swappable with a C9 because it is too big for section movement.

The MAG 58 (aka "C6 GPMG") was used by the British Army as a section support weapon to great effect.  Same with the German Army from WW2 and beyond.  Now, they didn't "pepperpot" with them, but rather were support weapons. 
But, for the role of "direct area suppression fire" out to 600m, the C9 is "good enough". 

 

[George Wallace]

Actually, each section already has one, if not two C6's per section.  And an M242 Bushmaster 25mm Chain Gun.  Let us not forget that our infantry is mechanised.  (If only one C6 coax, then the pintle mounted MG is a C9)

(Yes, I understand that we remain flexible enough to allow the ten-soldier section to move about the battlespace without its LAV III APC)

And there is NO RULE stating that these weapons (Coax and Pintle Mount A/A) CAN NOT be dismounted and used in the Ground Role. 

 

[vonGarvin]

And there is NO RULE stating that these weapons (Coax and Pintle Mount A/A) CAN NOT be dismounted and used in the Ground Role.

Well, the coax in the LAV III APC cannot be used in the ground role simply due to its configuration.  The Pintle-mounted MG, however, certainly can.  As for man-packing the M242....unless Jesse "the body" Ventura is in your section, don't even think about it.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

And there's a good argument for making sure that we have at least one, and preferably two, C6s in each section. The C9 is nice, but it just isn't as big a bully as 'the General'.

I have yet to see C-6 at the Section Lvl for Engineer Sections at least (well for the Reserves not sure how the Regs are....), for us they are a Troop Lvl weapon with one per Troop (at a min).

 

[SeanNewman]

I would agree with the pintle but not the coax.  Too much of a PITA to quickly get the coax out, change it back to bipod/butt etc.

Even if your vehicle was disabled in a war-like scenario, unless the vehicle was at risk by anti-armour assets I would consider leaving the pintle on the vehicle for its elevated position but yes it you had to move anywhere it would only be a matter of taking the pin out to dismount it.

As I wrote on the battle rifle thread though, IMO a GPMG is not really meant for the section.  Of course it provides you more punch and more range; those points are obvious, but until they come out with a GPMG that weighs 5-10 pounds less I don't like the idea of losing the rapid mobility and agility of a section and fatiguing the poor guy carrying it advancing to contact.

IMO I think it's much better off in a weapons det type of role where it can be moved a bound at a time and be static when firing.

 

[George Wallace]

Well, the coax in the LAV III APC cannot be used in the ground role simply due to its configuration.  The Pintle-mounted MG, however, certainly can.  As for man-packing the M242....unless Jesse "the body" Ventura is in your section, don't even think about it.

There is a reason I put the (Coax and Pintle mounted A/A) in brackets.  ;D

As for the Coax, it is nothing more than storing a Butt plate in the tool box or with a tripod/ground mount in the back/or storage bin.  On the tanks, the Coax and A/A were interchanged to reduce wear and overheating during long engagements (When you can see the rounds actually moving up the translucent barrel and flames coming in through the mantlet as air ignites over the hot barrel, this is a necessity.) or during a Prolonged Stoppage.  It was sometimes quicker to change the whole gun, rather than fart around trying to change a barrel in restricted quarters.

 

[vonGarvin]

IMO I think it's much better off in a weapons det type of role where it can be moved a bound at a time and be static when firing.

Old-school section tactics used by us, the brits, etc, did just that with the section support weapons. 

But, not matter how it's used, the C9 LMG fills its intended role quite well, where the range of the GPMG allows the platoon to reach out to 800 (light role) and "much further" when it's on the SF kit.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And there is NO RULE stating that these weapons (Coax and Pintle Mount A/A) CAN NOT be dismounted and used in the Ground Role.

This has to be :spam:  The rule is 'Death before dismount'. How dare you even think of such a thing! Turn in your crewman ticket right now! ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

This has to be :spam:  The rule is 'Death before dismount'. How dare you even think of such a thing! Turn in your crewman ticket right now! ;D

To be fair, I think he was referring to us lowly infantry-types.  ;D

 

[SeanNewman]

To be fair, I think he was referring to us lowly infantry-types.  ;D

Either the population is getting dumberer or the Infantry is the coolest trade in the world, because they're batting back wannabe Infanteers with sticks at the recruiting centres.

 

[Illegio]

Too many teenagers raised on Call of Duty and Black Hawk Down. There was an infamous letter circulating around battalion a couple of weeks ago from a disgruntled "no-hook" trying to put in his VR. He claimed that with our involvement in TF 1-11 being squashed, the military could not offer him the "adventure of combat," and that the battalion should be structured more like close protection, to hit a couple of the high notes.