Search results

Yep and so instead we smushed together the gas system from the FG42 and the belt feed from the MG42 and christened the resulting frankenstein as 'M60'. But by the time we were adopting the M240, Rheinmetall and the Bundeswehr had already done the conversion to NATO spec ammo for us.

Eh, it's better than not having a belt fed at the platoon level. I'm not convinced we shouldn't have just adopted the MG3 and been done with it.

Not bad, no, it ain't the end of the world. But I've humped an 240 and a spare barrel and a belt and the MG3 load. I like the MG3 better. A pound matters after the tenth klick or so, especially uphill. EDIT: The stats I gave are the base FN-MAG, the porky M240B version has this listed. It's...

LOL, compared to what? It's lighter than an M2, sure. But it ain't lighter than an MG3. MG3 Mass 11.5 kg (25.35 lb) M240B/FNMAG Mass 11.8 kg (26.01 lb)

That would help, but the rest of their mix is all over the place. Now, if they dismount all those m1919 30 cals from those tracked targets, then they would be in business.

Team M2 has the best overall equipment mix. Two belt feeds and a mortar, plus the chaingun on the Bradley. The 240B/FNMAG is a bit heavy for a GPMG in dismounted use, but it's a fair sight better than nothin'.