Jump to content
HashDaddyBrown

Medium Machine Guns as FOB deployables

Recommended Posts

HMGs are good now they've been implemented, however MMGs would be a great addition as an FOB deployable

I know there's a Machine Gunner Role in PR that carries a 7.62 MG such as the FN MAG or the PKM, but as a deployable it could have some advantages over a HMG but then have some disadvantages too.

Pros

-lower profile than a HMG, can be set on a tripod low enough to use in prone position instead of a low mounted HMG where the user has to sit down, making themselves an easier target to see and hit.

-A wall that is part of the map or has been assembled can have a HMG with a bipod put on top of it using the bipod, meaning that it doesn't have to be deployed with a bunker or hesco block to support it all the time.

-Can be picked up moved around the FOB if it's needed to be quickly placed somewhere else

-Optics can be used on them for long range use. (iron sights are optional)

-Doesn't overheat as quickly as the HMG. (not sure if this is true IRL, but it could be a good idea for an advantage if so)

-Costs less to assemble

Cons

-Less damage output

-Lower effective range

-If moved within the boundaries of an FOB, the weapon will only have the ammo belt inserted into it, ammo boxes next to it will have to be moved to it in order to reload it (this is to balance it)

-Belts have less round capacity

-Can only be placed and moved within the boundaries of an FOB if it's within the area, if it's not near an FOB it costs more to deploy (balancing)

-Restrictions on how many a squad can deploy, 1 per squad (due to it's ease of movement within an FOB)

 

Feel free to agree, disagree or make a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums. I'm kinda sensing that deployable bipods and weapon leaning on surfaces would scratch your itch. Don't worry, those are likely to get implemented in the future.

 

As far as your general idea goes, I'm not a fan. I don't think we need three different types of machine gun deployables, let's not make the build menu too complicated for no good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure there is a 240B in the works. 

 

my main concern is this:

41 minutes ago, HashDaddyBrown said:

-Can be picked up moved around the FOB if it's needed to be quickly placed somewhere else

 

I wish that the .50 could be moved once purchased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HashDaddyBrown said:

-Lower effective range

 

Since you want the 7.62 lmg to have an optic it would actually make no sense because the .50 bmg got no optics and is hard to use on longer ranges imo.

 

I would rather have the 7.62 lmg as a playable kit again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess MMGs could be implemented and could freely be used as either a kit or an MG which doesn't take as much resources to deploy as a HMG.

Perhaps if there's vacancies for the machine gunner kit, a player can pick up the weapon in exchange for their current kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, HashDaddyBrown said:

Pros

-Can be picked up moved around the FOB if it's needed to be quickly placed somewhere else

-Optics can be used on them for long range use. (iron sights are optional)

-Doesn't overheat as quickly as the HMG. (not sure if this is true IRL, but it could be a good idea for an advantage if so)

Cons

-Belts have less round capacity

 

Feel free to agree, disagree or make a suggestion.

 

The posts that I've selected make no sense, like, at all. I'll break them down individually:

 

-Can be picked up moved around the FOB if it's needed to be quickly placed somewhere else

 

Why? Tripods are heavy and to move a GPMG and a tripod would take two people or two separate trips, not counting the rest of the fortification (HESCOs and such). I don't think what you're thinking of is even something permissible by the way the game engine is set up, but I could be totally wrong on that.

 

-Optics can be used on them for long range use. (iron sights are optional)

 

Why does this make sense at all? The M2 .50 has several optics made specifically for it, such as the TA648 and the DCL120. To me, it feels like the TA648 should be an option found for both the M2 as well as a possible M240 emplacement, but at a price increase (I honestly think that it should be the standard optic for the stand-alone M240 as it is in use by the USMC and is likely to replace the old M145, at least in my opinion). I don't think optics should be restricted to a single setup, so long as there are optics for both of them.

 

-Doesn't overheat as quickly as the HMG. (not sure if this is true IRL, but it could be a good idea for an advantage if so)

 

You'd have to ask someone like @Yukari_Akiyama who knows more about this than me, but I'm almost 100% sure that this is total BS. As far as I know, it's damn near impossible to make a properly timed/headspaced M2 stop firing. M240s don't exactly have lightweight barrels, but have you seen the barrel on a .50? They're pretty damn thick.

 

-Belts have less round capacity

 

Entirely incorrect. Belted 7.62x51mm ammo comes in cans of 200, whereas belted .50 comes in cans of 100 rounds. The M240 would be able to fire for much longer before having to change cans.

 

I don't disagree with the idea of a tripod mounted M240, however I am trying to think of a way where it's more feasible than that of a mobile M240. Personally, I think it might lend too much defensive power to FOBs and give more encouragement to build super-FOBs that are damn near impossible to destroy and result in stalemate conflicts where one team runs at the enemy over and over until the match is over. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Russia,HMG is a man portable weapon.Kord are man-portable and able to fire from bipod.

 

13 hours ago, revolverheld said:

Since you want the 7.62 lmg to have an optic it would actually make no sense because the .50 bmg got no optics and is hard to use on longer ranges imo

 

Just one forward question - how the weapon been used before late 80?Not much weapons had optics.

Edited by samogon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

 

 

The posts that I've selected make no sense, like, at all. I'll break them down individually:

 

-Can be picked up moved around the FOB if it's needed to be quickly placed somewhere else

 

Why? Tripods are heavy and to move a GPMG and a tripod would take two people or two separate trips, not counting the rest of the fortification (HESCOs and such). I don't think what you're thinking of is even something permissible by the way the game engine is set up, but I could be totally wrong on that.

 

-Optics can be used on them for long range use. (iron sights are optional)

 

Why does this make sense at all? The M2 .50 has several optics made specifically for it, such as the TA648 and the DCL120. To me, it feels like the TA648 should be an option found for both the M2 as well as a possible M240 emplacement, but at a price increase (I honestly think that it should be the standard optic for the stand-alone M240 as it is in use by the USMC and is likely to replace the old M145, at least in my opinion). I don't think optics should be restricted to a single setup, so long as there are optics for both of them.

 

-Doesn't overheat as quickly as the HMG. (not sure if this is true IRL, but it could be a good idea for an advantage if so)

 

You'd have to ask someone like @Yukari_Akiyama who knows more about this than me, but I'm almost 100% sure that this is total BS. As far as I know, it's damn near impossible to make a properly timed/headspaced M2 stop firing. M240s don't exactly have lightweight barrels, but have you seen the barrel on a .50? They're pretty damn thick.

 

-Belts have less round capacity

 

Entirely incorrect. Belted 7.62x51mm ammo comes in cans of 200, whereas belted .50 comes in cans of 100 rounds. The M240 would be able to fire for much longer before having to change cans.

 

I don't disagree with the idea of a tripod mounted M240, however I am trying to think of a way where it's more feasible than that of a mobile M240. Personally, I think it might lend too much defensive power to FOBs and give more encouragement to build super-FOBs that are damn near impossible to destroy and result in stalemate conflicts where one team runs at the enemy over and over until the match is over. 

 

 

Correct on all fronts. The M2 will not overheat to the point of being inoperable. We lather the guns in motor oil rather than LSA or CLP which keeps the gun cool enough to fire a few hundred thousand rounds without failure. If you conduct a proper headspace and timing check, that is gauge it to where it is in the center of it's tolerances it will fire without interruption. The M2A1 has fixed headspace and this is a non issue.

 

As far as Tripod use for the M240b. It is common practice at static positions, not so much for dismounted combat patrols.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, samogon said:

Meanwhile in Russia,HMG is a man portable weapon.Kord are man-portable and able to fire from bipod.

 

 

Just one forward question - how the weapon been used before late 80?Not much weapons had optics.

 

Your reply to makes no sense at all since I replied to the op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, revolverheld said:

Your reply to makes no sense at all since I replied to the op.

 

Ok,I'll refrase.

-Bipods for GPMGs makes no sence at all.

-Optic isn't nessesary thing.First mass-used personnel optic appears not really to much time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, samogon said:

 

Ok,I'll refrase.

-Bipods for GPMGs makes no sence at all.

-Optic isn't nessesary thing.First mass-used personnel optic appears not really to much time ago.

 

You can refrase it all you want and it still does not make sense to the post i replied to the op ;)

All i sad was, that if we would get general purpose Mg's as an emplacement for FOB's, that are equipped with a scope and are cheaper to build, no one in their right mind would build a M2 anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2016 at 9:41 AM, samogon said:

 

Ok,I'll refrase.

-Bipods for GPMGs makes no sence at all.

-Optic isn't nessesary thing.First mass-used personnel optic appears not really to much time ago.

 

1. I somewhat agree about GPMGs so long as you mean tripods and not bipods. Tripods for GPMGs might still be somewhat commonplace, but (at least to me) it's much more of a 20s, 30s, and 40s concept then it is a modern day concept. Would it be cool to see in the game? Maybe, but it would definitely feel a bit awkward, especially since some factions don't use tripods for GPMGs at all, though I guess that's not going to matter all that much when faction-dependent FOB structures start being built up.

 

2. I disagree with you completely on this concept. The US Army adopted the TA01 ACOG for the first time in 1995, and though it didn't start being issued to everyone until maybe 5-10 years ago, it's been in use with the US Armed Forces for 20 years strong. The Russian military might not have adopted optics for standard soldiers on a wide scale yet, but it's been a concept for many militaries for a long time (the StG-44 was originally supposed to be issued with optics for every soldier, I believe the FG-42 had the same idea, flashing forward we can talk about the ACR project, the G11, the G36, the XM8, and the Steyrs). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think arguing about sights and scopes matters all that much. I've had a fire support course in my time with the  dutch marines and we barely used scopes and it was still pretty easy too hit targets from over a kilometer since you could aim using tracers. "Accuracy by volume" is what we called it. Also a .50 has armor piercing capabilities while an m240 doesn't as much. Also an m240 on a tripod is pretty easy too carry short distances inside of a fob (perhaps adding walking speed limitations whilst carrying). I personally do like the idea of a deployable 240 inside a fob radius. More mobile and cheaper but not as effective against armour? Perfect! I as a squad leader would like the option of saving building points for putting down multiple smaller caliber machine guns.

Edited by TzeAzzazino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2016 at 8:17 AM, samogon said:

Meanwhile in Russia,HMG is a man portable weapon.Kord are man-portable and able to fire from bipod.

3

When in RU...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hunter_Sh0tz said:

When in RU...........

 

well,at least I saw such usage twice.

1)Crimea.

2)Arctic exersizes.

 

There was vidos in Military media thread,which prooved this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

well,at least I saw such usage twice.

1)Crimea.

2)Arctic exersizes.

 

There was vidos in Military media thread,which prooved this.

Well I wasn't arguing with you xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×