_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
DML Modern US Marines
ctmi911
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: May 08, 2003
KitMaker: 151 posts
Armorama: 113 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2003 - 11:30 AM UTC
Hey all,

I just posted this on the figures forum also, but I thought someone might miss it so...

Squadron has these in stock now (or so its says under their "New Items" heading), so I ordered 3 sets. I'll let you know when I hear from them (hopefully tomarrow!), if they are really in stock.

Also, while you're here I have a quick question. I know that the 7.62 is/was the standard NATO round, but will the M240 still fire the same ammo as the older German MG3? Maybe a dumb question, but I just want to make sure

Chris
kkeefe
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: May 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,416 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2003 - 01:57 PM UTC
Chris,

The M240 fires the standard NATO 5.56 rifle round. I believe that the MG3 was the NATO 7.62 round.
m60a3
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: March 08, 2002
KitMaker: 778 posts
Armorama: 396 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2003 - 02:11 PM UTC
Slight correction here,
The M240 is the US equivalent of the FN-MAG medium machine gun. It is chambered for 7.62 X 51. It has replaced the M60 maching gun (the "Pig") in most frontline units, including the USMC within the last few years. The M249 is the 5.56 Squad Automatic Weapon. It is also derived from the FN-MAG.
Here is a good site for it:
Modern Machine Guns
If the figures include the M240, that is great!
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2003 - 03:01 PM UTC
Bob's right, the M240 is 7.62 and used as the loader's machine gun and coax on the Abrams as well as the coax on the Bradley (M240C). I believe the troop carrying verision is the M240B (one with butt stock and forearm grip).
Jacques
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Friday, August 01, 2003 - 04:45 PM UTC
My question is, how prevalent is the M240B vs. the M249 S.A.W.? I was under the impression that the whole move to that damned SAW was to keep 7.62mm ammo out of the logistics train to the frontline infantry soldier, thus decreasing the logistics footprint to each soldier? Another SNAFU from the upper-brass?
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 12:26 AM UTC

Quoted Text

My question is, how prevalent is the M240B vs. the M249 S.A.W.? I was under the impression that the whole move to that damned SAW was to keep 7.62mm ammo out of the logistics train to the frontline infantry soldier, thus decreasing the logistics footprint to each soldier? Another SNAFU from the upper-brass?
The SAW is the automatic weapon for the infantry squad. Each platoon has a heavy weapons squad that has the M60/M240B (still counting the M60 in case some Guard guy says his unit still has the M60). Both will be seen during platoon level operations, obviously, there will be one SAW per squad and a pair of 240s per platoon.
Jacques
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 01:50 AM UTC
Hey Rob,

has anyone explained the mentality of this? Again, I thought the idea was to reduce the logistics? It seems someone wanted us to have more MG's. Do you think it is because they took away the full-auto option on the M16A2? I understand the use of the SAW, even though I disagree with it . But to add two M240B's to the platoon seems...incorrect. I know, maybe I am getting worked up over minutia, but we had a hell of a debate over this in the guards when we were still stationed with our respective infantry line units.

oh, and yes, the M60 is still in use with the Guards, and they seem to be quite happy with it still, thank you very much!
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 02:44 AM UTC
This is my understanding:

The M249 SAW replaced the M16A1 as the Automatic weapon at the squad level.

The M240 is replacing the M60 as the Machine gun at Platoon level.

There are 2 SAWs at the Squad level

There are 2 M240 MG at the platoon level.

Plus a 7.62mm based MG has better pentrating power on Light armor etc then a 5.56 round does.
Jaster
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: January 15, 2002
KitMaker: 579 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 05:38 AM UTC
The 240 with the 7.62 round has considerably more stopping power at considerably more range than any 5.56 round- and I think its' usage would be for longer range suppressive fire...

Add to this the increased penetration of the 7.62, in any setting having a weapon that fires that round on hand would seem to be a welcome addition, or more correctly, since it is not an addition, it seems like eliminating this firepower from the platoon would heve been a serious blow to the ability to project firepower at range of a platoon.

Of course- this is just my view of the situation. As always I am more than willing to admit my ignorance :-)

Jim/ Jaster
Jacques
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 12:46 PM UTC
Well, honestly, I am inthe 7.62mm is definately needed camp...but as I said, most of the scuttlebutt in my days was that the SAW replaced the M60GPMG. We did NOT want to do that, or at least the infantry guys did not. They liked the idea of a lighter 7.62mm, but a strict replacement to the M60 was not being discussed to us. Of course, it was the guards...not like anything of real importance is floated by us...

My general feeling is that they could have made teh "pig" lighter and kept the general deign without going to the M240B. Does it share some common parts with the SAW to help with parts commonality? Or did the army mess up? Many have argued the mentality of reducing the M16 to 3 shot...is this another case, as in many times before , of the army trying to "fight cheap", ie keep the soldier from shooting too many bullets?
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 02:31 PM UTC

Quoted Text

My general feeling is that they could have made teh "pig" lighter and kept the general deign without going to the M240B. Does it share some common parts with the SAW to help with parts commonality? Or did the army mess up? Many have argued the mentality of reducing the M16 to 3 shot...is this another case, as in many times before , of the army trying to "fight cheap", ie keep the soldier from shooting too many bullets?


Well with my time in the NJARG, the SAW pretty much did replace the M60s we had. Makes more sence since Guard units aren't usally deployed to combat (unless your in a enhanced unit) and there wasnt really a need for a Heavy MG like the M60. Also using the M240B to replace the M60 makes sense since its the same weapon thats used as a Coax on the M1 and Bradley.

The M16A3 has full auto again, but I'm not sure of how the Army or the Marines are using them since theres also a M16A4 thats similar to the M16A2 with just the interchangeable site package on top.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 03:22 PM UTC

Quoted Text

My general feeling is that they could have made teh "pig" lighter and kept the general deign without going to the M240B. Does it share some common parts with the SAW to help with parts commonality? Or did the army mess up?
As previously stated, the M240 has been kicking around in our Army at least as long as the M1 and Bradley. It is a very reliable weapon that has a tremendous rate of fire. Since this is a common weapon (at least 116 per armor battalion and 54 per mech infantry battalion in vehicles alone), parts commonality shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Quoted Text

Many have argued the mentality of reducing the M16 to 3 shot...is this another case, as in many times before , of the army trying to "fight cheap", ie keep the soldier from shooting too many bullets?
I do believe that the 3 round burst was a USMC requested modification and not an Army requirement when the M16A2 was being designed. As you would figure, accuracy in marksmanship is paramount in Marine Corps basic rifle use. Not that it is unimportant to the US Army.

BTW, I took a close look at the box art of the Modern Marines (in another thread). Did anyone notice that the Marines have the elastic camouflage headband on their Kevlars? Every Marine's K-pot I've ever seen has not had the band on.
Jacques
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 01:30 AM UTC
Well, thanks guys for the posts on all this...I know I am seriously biased to the M60GPMG. I was a serious detractor of the SAW as the NG was supposed to replace them with the SAW...no talk of the M240B at all. We all thought that the loss of our heavier firepower would be a serious detriment.

On a small related note, when the guard got rid of the 81mm Mortar for all 120mm (4.2in), we all became rather upset as well...because all of our 120's were Korean war vintage OR OLDER, and the 81's were much more accurate, and had a higher rate of fire...really. And some of our guard units were round-out units for Korea, so we had some units with m113's and some with the Bradley's.

Oh, and Rob, when I was at Ft. Sill for AIT we did some mixed training with some Marines in calls for fire. At least back then, the only way to tell a Marine from a Army puke was by the way we rolled our BDU sleeves, I don't remember them missing their "cat eyes".
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 03:03 AM UTC

Quoted Text

On a small related note, when the guard got rid of the 81mm Mortar for all 120mm (4.2in), we all became rather upset as well...because all of our 120's were Korean war vintage OR OLDER, and the 81's were much more accurate, and had a higher rate of fire...really.
The 4.2" is not the 120mm. The 4.2" is 107mm and the 120mm is a rather new piece of US Army artillery. I think we got it from Isreal in the late 90s.

BTW 120mm is approximately 5".
Jacques
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 10:29 AM UTC
Urr, *BLUSH* Ok, I really messed that up...we had 4.2 inch stuff...what the hell was I typing...(going to sit in the corner and keep his mouth shut for a while)
Alpenflage
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: May 21, 2003
KitMaker: 1,120 posts
Armorama: 1,002 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 01:36 PM UTC
Go get 'em Maj G ! Marines use the M249 SAW on a squad level. Marines have the M240G (thats Golf) is used by the Weapons Platoon, along with 60mm Mortars and SMAWS. This is how it is in most USMC Rifle Companies. M249 is 5.56mm (same round as M16A2). M240G is 7.62mm (same as MG30). Each Rifle Platoon is assigned an M240G team per squad. I know this is true as I had one attached to my squad at Coronado.

As for the Marines having the "green camo headbands" on their Kevlars, we had them. I had one on my "brain bucket". We were told that we couldn't have the "cats eyes" turned out, because that is how the Army wore them. If Marines did not have these "helmet bands" is was because they lost it, or it was their Company SOP not to wear them.

Also, the Marines are looking into a new weapon, the M4 Assault Rifle. Not sure on any techno, but its a modified M16A2 (?) with a return to full-auto, shortened barrel, and a telescoping butt-stock. I was to be used in a MOUT environment (urban-type). My unit was issued some of these right before I got out. Still firing the 5.56 round, but with a 30-round magazine.

This is from my own experience as a Marine 0311 with Bravo 1/25.

For all those fellow Marines out there......HOORAH !

Robert



SEMPER FI, MARINE
 _GOTOTOP