Marines don't *Need* Machine Guns

[Dench]

Always mistrustful of a site copying another site.

Here is the original article: 4 reasons why infantrymen don't need full auto weapons

The author was a Navy Corpsman. Tim Kirkpatrick

Tim Kirkpatrick
Tim Kirkpatrick entered the Navy in 2007 as a Hospital Corpsman and deployed to Sangin, Afghanistan with 3rd Battalion 5th Marines in the fall of 2010. Tim now has degrees in both Film Production and Screenwriting. [email protected]

I love these artivles becuase they show such a basic lack of understanding of the actual subject that they are inadvertent satire.

"trigger happy" - This is mitigated by training. It's that simple. This training is supplemented by team and squad leaders who correct machine gunners who fail to use the weapon platform correctly.

"negligent discharges" - This is mitigated by training.

"barrel changes" - This is a good thing if the weapon is being used correctly in it's role. MG's that don't offer barrel changes will have shit accuracy, shot out barrels, damaged barrels/receivers and cook offs a lot more often than weapons with barrel changes.

"it can lower accuracy" - This is what barrel changes are for. Entertainingly we have the Arnold M60 hip fire which is absolutely not how a medium machine gun is supposed to be used. It's as if the writer has no idea it's supposed to be used from a supported position.

This is basic doctrine stuff thats been around since the 1930's. But I remember when I got in and how naive I was. The Mattel M16 thing, everyone thought M240B's were M60's. No one knew how to take apart an M9 despite it probably being one of the easiest pistols in the word to get apart. I've never heard anyone bash a MG though. The M240's were universal hits and the M249's were popular even though all of ours were usually broken or damaged half the time due to misuse or lack of maintenance.

Looking back it was pretty FUDDY actually.

 

[crazymjb]

This guy is a retard.

 

[M60]

Always mistrustful of a site copying another site.

Here is the original article: 4 reasons why infantrymen don't need full auto weapons

The author was a Navy Corpsman. Tim Kirkpatrick

Tim Kirkpatrick
Tim Kirkpatrick entered the Navy in 2007 as a Hospital Corpsman and deployed to Sangin, Afghanistan with 3rd Battalion 5th Marines in the fall of 2010. Tim now has degrees in both Film Production and Screenwriting. [email protected]

He'd better stick to what he knows, since he knows jack shit about weapons.

 

[richc]

Let's give our military paintball guns instead!

They are easier to keep on target, the ammo is cheaper and no one gets hurt!

Yeah, that's perfect liberal logic right there!!!

 

[Andy in NH]

He'd better stick to what he knows, since he knows jack shit about weapons.

Anyone remember the "Jordan letter" from the beginning of the Iraq War?
My Google-fu is weak, but "Jordan" sent a letter (or email) home describing all the pros & cons of U.S. weapons.
Turns out "Jordan" was a member of the division band and got all his information from talking with other Marines in the chow hall.
At least Doc Kirkpatrick served with an operational unit, but he's still way out of his lane.

 

[fshalor]

Let's go back to muskets. I think we can all agree that we'd be safer world-wide if the US got rid of everything BUT muskets, right? You can't argue with that.

They are weapons of war.

So is a rock.

People who don't understand the concept of logic and also do not apply that to history will do what history and logic have taught us: repeat mistakes.

 

[garandman]

//"trigger happy" - This is mitigated by training. It's that simple. This training is supplemented by team and squad leaders who correct machine gunners who fail to use the weapon platform correctly.//

When the U.S. Army officially adopted the M1 Garand in 1937, it was the only major army to standardize on a semiautomatic rifle. In every other army, officers felt that the soldiers would be "trigger happy" and expend their ammunition too fast.

In late 1940, the USMC conducted an official battle rifle competition and selected the M1903 Springfield, in part because of concerns that Marines would be "Trigger happy."

Army National Guard units hit Quadalcanal in October 1942 (Marines had landed in August) and the Japanese attacked less than two weeks after their arrival. Their night attacks were repulsed with the loss of only 26 soldiers killed, 52 wounded, and 4 missing.

Decoded messages from Japanese forces soon noted "New units had landed," and that "Every man was equipped with a machine gun." The effective rate of fire was at least double soldiers equipped with bolt-action rifles.

Combat Marines began writing letters home, asking why they were stuck with bolt-action rifles while the Army had Garands. This eventually got the attention of Congress and pressured the USMC command staff. Of course, the reason they had M1903's was because their command had chosen them ("Red" Edson, one of the officers in the evaluation, dissented)!

The eventual result was that USMC units had to be supplied with Garands as well. This was a major logistical problem because the Armory system had already been geared up to produce up to two million M1903's the USMC had asked for in 1940. The compromise was to train all riflemen stateside with the M1903, and issue Garands when they reached a combat theater.

 

[Andy in NH]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feP22i5VLNM