[RJBowzer]

• In a hypothetical war on the home-front situation do you guys believe a Designated Marksman would be able to replace the role of a machine gun on a squad tactic level (Due to the lack of machine guns available)?
• How do you believe a DMR would compare to an MG for suppression?

My unit had both machine gunners and Designated Marksmen, but we had overwhelming firepower even w/o the marksman.​

I do believe the MG holds the advantage in a defensive stand-point against large groups,

• but where would the marksman excel in regards to defense?

Again this is just for fun, and was wondering your thoughts. Thanks for the inputs.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Machine guns are for covering fire and placing a lot of directed fire down range.

A DMR is an aimed slow fire event.

Two different jobs.

 

[GLD1980]

MG= Ideal for Suppression or large enemy technical or troop movement engagements, provides neccessary cover fire for friendly troop movements. Can be used in any fight to eliminate immediate threats. Don't play your whole hand too early against a smaller force in regards to guns!

DMR/Sniper employment has been passed up over time. A well organized Sniper team or DMR element can Forward Recon for the platoon or company and locate and remove, or call for fire on most threats the platoon or company will run into. Or they can guide the unit onto the best possible engagement situation to attack the enemy. In some cases hitting a key selected target will eliminate the need for further fighting.
In today's modern battlefield though I love Precision I would never trade my guns! Whitefeather Hathcock took someone out in Nam with a .50cal M-2 which he mounted his scope to. Machine guns are also accurate creatures.

 

[Terry G]

Let me see, a Designated Marksman with a 'scoped bolt action rifle or a M-60? I'll take the pig for 650 RPM.

 

[Deltic]

Let me see, a Designated Marksman with a 'scoped bolt action rifle or a M-60? I'll take the pig for 650 RPM.

Who said anything about a bolt action?

 

[ak103k]

I would think in a conflict something like the OP is describing, that if everyone along would strive to be up to the skills of a DM, they would be better off than one of them having a belt fed MG and the rest just being mediocre rifle shots.

 

[Terry G]

Who said anything about a bolt action?

OK, 'Scoped M-14. I would still choose the Machine Gun.

 

[ak103k]

Would you still choose to be the machine gunner if you knew everyone on the other side had a scoped DM rifle and could shoot?

I would think you would be a popular target for them.

 

[Terry G]

Would you still choose to be the machine gunner if you knew everyone on the other side had a scoped DM rifle and could shoot?

I would think you would be a popular target for them.

Your kind of changing the scenario to fit your point. The enemy is fielding all it's Soldiers with 'scoped rifles? The M-4 has 'scopes too. I still would want a machine gun. Suppressive fire out to 800 Meters as I recall. Crew served weapons are always a primary target. Why? Because they represent the greatest threat. Every member of a Squad or Platoon carries ammunition for the machine gun, not just the gunner and assistant gunner. Or at least we did back in the dark ages.

 

[GLD1980]

Would you still choose to be the machine gunner if you knew everyone on the other side had a scoped DM rifle and could shoot?

I would think you would be a popular target for them.

Thats a tough one.

 

[ak103k]

My main point is, if you have a group of trained and skilled shooters with rifles, youre going to be better off than a group of mediocre shooters, that one has a MG.

If everyone has weapons of the same basic range capability, which one is more deadly, the one that roughly beats an "area"? Or a number that have "precision" and the shooters capable of making use of it?

Personally, I think for most of us, the MG really isnt something youre likely to ever see, and if you do, even fewer are going to understand how to work it, its intended use, and how to actually use it. Probably wont have enough ammo to run it for long either.

People would be better off to learn to actually shoot with what they have, understand its strong and weak points, and understand how to make the best use of it, and why long-range is something best left to the radios and big stuff, if youre lucky enough to have that.

And why you dont go pissing off the guys on the other side that do have that stuff, by taking pot shots at them.

Shoot the knucklehead in your group who thinks you shoot at people 800 yards away, simply because you have a gun that might reach that far, even if they have never actually ever shot at anything that far away. Such a nice, peaceful, sunny day, and that retard has to go kick a bear that didnt even know you were there.

 

[warbow150]

The two weapons have opposite, almost mutually exclusive roles. One’s crew served, for goodness sakes. It’s akin to comparing a knife to a fork for eating. Both are useful, but for very different things.

 

[akpls]

As an old artilleryman I'm not going with either of those!

 

[Terry G]

As an old artilleryman I'm not going with either of those!

In this scenario, you are my best friend. After making sure everyone is doing their job, I’m giving you a fire mission. Either pre planned fire or eight digit grid. You are dropping either 105’s or 155’s on the designated marksman heads.

 

[Terry G]

My main point is, if you have a group of trained and skilled shooters with rifles, youre going to be better off than a group of mediocre shooters, that one has a MG.

If everyone has weapons of the same basic range capability, which one is more deadly, the one that roughly beats an "area"? Or a number that have "precision" and the shooters capable of making use of it?

Personally, I think for most of us, the MG really isnt something youre likely to ever see, and if you do, even fewer are going to understand how to work it, its intended use, and how to actually use it. Probably wont have enough ammo to run it for long either.

People would be better off to learn to actually shoot with what they have, understand its strong and weak points, and understand how to make the best use of it, and why long-range is something best left to the radios and big stuff, if youre lucky enough to have that.

And why you dont go pissing off the guys on the other side that do have that stuff, by taking pot shots at them.

Shoot the knucklehead in your group who thinks you shoot at people 800 yards away, simply because you have a gun that might reach that far, even if they have never actually ever shot at anything that far away. Such a nice, peaceful, sunny day, and that retard has to go kick a bear that didnt even know you were there.

Do you have any idea about Infantry combat at all? You post like your thinking it's going to be a fair fight. Keep your "DM"s. I'll take machine guns, mortars, grenade launchers, Artillery, and air strikes.

 

[rds95991]

I always thought the machine gun was for suppressive fire to allow the rest of the squad to advance. The DMR was to engage targets further out. But I really don't know anything.

 

[ak103k]

Do you have any idea about Infantry combat at all? You post like your thinking it's going to be a fair fight. Keep your "DM"s. I'll take machine guns, mortars, grenade launchers, Artillery, and air strikes.

I was referring to the OP's scenario, and we go with what we have.

You took it to another conflict in another time and place, and with the luxury of "support".

I still think "most" wouldnt know what to do with a MG, even if they had one and I still think that most would be better off putting the time and effort into honing their shooting skills, and becoming better marksmen with what they have, since that is what they have, and they need to learn to make things work with them. From what Ive seen, a lot of people these days dont really seem to know the difference between shooting and marksmanship.

And just because you might have force multipliers, doesnt mean Im going to play your game. Why would I? That would be silly on my part, dont you think?

My idea of warfare here, or anywhere else for that matter, has nothing to do with fighting like you seem to think it should be fought. I dont have to follow, nor am I limited by someone else rules. And trust me, fairness has nothing to do with any of it, unless of course, it benefits me. In that case, Im all about you being fair and having to follow your ROE.

 

[AK_Stick]

My main point is, if you have a group of trained and skilled shooters with rifles, youre going to be better off than a group of mediocre shooters, that one has a MG.

If everyone has weapons of the same basic range capability, which one is more deadly, the one that roughly beats an "area"? Or a number that have "precision" and the shooters capable of making use of it?

Personally, I think for most of us, the MG really isnt something youre likely to ever see, and if you do, even fewer are going to understand how to work it, its intended use, and how to actually use it. Probably wont have enough ammo to run it for long either.

People would be better off to learn to actually shoot with what they have, understand its strong and weak points, and understand how to make the best use of it, and why long-range is something best left to the radios and big stuff, if youre lucky enough to have that.

And why you dont go pissing off the guys on the other side that do have that stuff, by taking pot shots at them.

Shoot the knucklehead in your group who thinks you shoot at people 800 yards away, simply because you have a gun that might reach that far, even if they have never actually ever shot at anything that far away. Such a nice, peaceful, sunny day, and that retard has to go kick a bear that didnt even know you were there.

An Mg will fix your position allowing the mediocre shooters to flank and kill you.

 

[AK_Stick]

• In a hypothetical war on the home-front situation do you guys believe a Designated Marksman would be able to replace the role of a machine gun on a squad tactic level (Due to the lack of machine guns available)?
• How do you believe a DMR would compare to an MG for suppression?

My unit had both machine gunners and Designated Marksmen, but we had overwhelming firepower even w/o the marksman.​

I do believe the MG holds the advantage in a defensive stand-point against large groups,

• but where would the marksman excel in regards to defense?

Again this is just for fun, and was wondering your thoughts. Thanks for the inputs.

No, they’re different roles for different jobs.

The DMR is a role only filled by a medium range semi precision rifle. And an MG is only filled by a belt fed weapon.

 

[ak103k]

An Mg will fix your position allowing the mediocre shooters to flank and kill you.

Yup, thats exactly what I would do, sit there and let you run the show and wait to be killed.