Re: DS: SAW versus APSW versus RFAC

Actually Owen,
Tom and I have been having this discussion off line, but I must
emphatically
agree with your point. In the USA Army using the M60 new gunners are
taught
to squeeze the trigger and say to tehm selves "six to nine rounds" and
let
go of the trigger. By that time you will ahve fire..yep you guessed it
6-9
rounds. It's not too hard to get it down to 2-3 rounds bursts (it's
considered "chic" amongst expert gunners to have your bursts as small as
possible.) however with eh M60 (Pig as we affectinately call it), firing
bursts that are TOO small (2-3 rounds) can lead to Jams and misfeeds.
Weird

Los
Glover, Owen wrote:

> Snipped a lot here.......
>
> > ----------
> > From:	  John Leary[SMTP:realjtl@sj.bigger.net]
> > Subject:	  Re: DS: SAW versus APSW versus RFAC
> >
>	  >	HOWEVER, the reduction in weight coupled with an
increase
> in
>	  >firepower (tri-barrel), will cause the weapon to 'walk'
upwards
> at
>	  >an alarming rate, it is not unlikely that such a weapon would
> roll
>	  >over if an attempt was made to fire a sustained burst.  It is
> very
>	  >unlikely that more that two rounds from this weapon could
have
> a
>	  >chance to hit a target.   (It could justify the 'fourth man'
on
> the
>	  >crew, he could throw himself across the gun to add weight.
> The
>	  >disadvantage here is that it will be more difficult to aim!)
> Please readjust the perception that machine guns fire in long
sustained
> bursts every time the trigger is pulled. The correct teaching (ala
> Australian Direct Fire Weapons Platoons) is to fire bursts of 2 to 3
> rounds when firing from bipod or tripod "free traverse". Only in
firing
> "fixed lines" or dedicated Fire Missions are bursts of 20 rounds
fired.
> In the latter case the mount (when on tripod) or the barrel/bipod are
> firmly secured. Anyone who would be trying to fire long bursts without
> bedding the tripod should expect the mount to move and his fire not to
> be effective!!! These are your Green 3 troops!
>
> Another point of note is that machine guns are not primarily employed
to
> kill individual soldiers (what ? blasphemy?) but are employed to
> suppress an enemy position!! That is why they produce a 'cone of fire'
> and the pattern the rounds will form on the ground is a 'beaten zone';
> generally around 1 m wide and from 40 to 100+ m long (another reason
why
> MGs are best used in ENFILADE). Heavy Machine Guns are meant to take
out
> lightly armoured vehicles, lightly fortified postions and definitely
are
> effective at SUPPRESSING  infantry.
>
>	  OK, Theory of Small Arms Fire lesson over for now. I would
like
> people to have a close think about what effectiveness they are trying
to
> acheive with the weapon categories.
>
>	  And a last comment; please be a little careful about using the
> 'in WWII.......'  Present day military theorists have recognised that
> there is a great danger in preparing an army to 'fight the last war'.
>
>	  Carefully donning Kevlar,
>
>	  Owen G