Why would you ever buy a machine gun? Options

[Slide]

Seriously, I'm sure its already been said on these forums but the Ares Alpha is a better "Machine Gun" than anything but the RPK HMG, but at a fraction of the cost, with a smart link and free grenade launcher, and no double recoil. Yes I'm aware that you are suppose to mount MGs on a vehicle or fire them from a platform but seriously? The Stoner is only marginally (1 extra armor pen) better than an AK-97 for 7 times the cost. The only discernible advantage is that you have more than double the range increments. I just don't see how this is justifiable.

[Neurosis]

I think it's possible heavy weapon damages weren't upscaled properly with other weapon damage. Possibly this is something that needs addressing in Errata.

[Lynchmob]

I can understand a LMG having very similar damage to assault rifles since I picture a SAW when I think LMG (double recoil penalty kills me though). MMG should be comparable to the sniper rifles/EBR/sport rifles and HMG remove limbs on grazing shots. Ok I guess in the interest of game balance and not having every run turn into The Expendables we could scale down HMGs a little bit.

[Slide]

I can understand a LMG having very similar damage to assault rifles since I picture a SAW when I think LMG (double recoil penalty kills me though). MMG should be comparable to the sniper rifles/EBR/sport rifles and HMG remove limbs on grazing shots. Ok I guess in the interest of game balance and not having every run turn into The Expendables we could scale down HMGs a little bit.

Your view of MGs is about in line with mine. I mean when you look at the calibers of the US MGs thats actually exactly what it is.

SAW/M-16(or variant)- 5.56 NATO
M-40/M-14/M-24- 7.62 NATO
M-2 Browning/ M-107- .50 BMG (or 12.7 NATO but BMG sounds way cooler) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

btw, heavy machine guns and the M-107 aren't meant to be shot at people.

[Lynchmob]

btw, heavy machine guns and the M-107 aren't meant to be shot at people.

That's why you aim for the guns they're carrying. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Seriously though we're not allowed to target people with .50 cals. Navy packs .50 cals on their ships but they're for firing at small craft.

[Slide]

I was on a sub. If we ever needed the .50 cal something horrible happened. Possibly the Zombie apocalypse.

[Lynchmob]

I never really understood why subs packed small arms at all. I guess for just in case moments but I feel like it was more of a psychological thing. Everyone is a little calmer when they know they've got gun. I used to sail on special mission ships (civilian crew, no guns) and people would talk about how we were sitting ducks and one missile would take us out of the fight. I reassured everyone that they would never waste a missile on us, because a .50 cal could take us out of the fight for waaaay cheaper. Assault cannon damage is probably more appropriate for HMGs. Have they ever referenced a caliber for assault cannons?

[Slide]

I don't think so. I think you have to watch robo cop and guesstimate for assault cannons. (btw guesstimate was in spell check.)

Well subs have small arms for a few reasons.
1) a slight deterrent in port even though the seals have proven time and time again that we are still sitting ducks.
2) Mutiny. The Navy frowns on it.
3) To give the Torpedo Men something to do after they wax the decks.

[Wakshaani]

Because having belt fed ammo is AWESOME.

"Who needs more Dakka?"
"Not me! I've got plenty!" DAKKADAKKADAKKA
"Ah geeze! MG! We just need to wait him out."
"Uh oh."
"Uh oh what?"
"They just dropped off three more belts."
"HAHAHAH-HAH!" DAKKADAKKADAKKADAKKADAKKA

[Umidori]

That's actually a fair point. With a 100 round belt, you can suppress for days*.

As for the bit about how you're "supposed" to mount them on vehicles, the fact is you pretty much have to now - MMGs require 8+ strength to carry in SR5, and HMGs require 10+.

~Umi

* Replace "days" with "5 Combat Turns".

[Tzeentch]

That's why you aim for the guns they're carrying. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Seriously though we're not allowed to target people with .50 cals. Navy packs .50 cals on their ships but they're for firing at small craft.

-- That's mistaken. It's a rather widespread belief though, which is why it is specifically addressed in military manuals.

-- I'll quote GURPS Tactical Shooting here (BTW buy this book, it's great!), since I helped write this particular paragraph:

.50-Caliber Legalities
Even some members of the military believe that firing a .50- caliber machine gun or sniper rifle at a human target is illegal, according to the Geneva Conventions of 1864/1949. This myth is widespread, but wrong. The closest applicable law is actually the Hague Conventions on land warfare of 1899/1907 – which doesn’t ban such use! Military manuals like The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (for the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard) or the U.S. Army Military Police’s Law of War spell this out explicitly. The same is true for large-caliber autocannon and tank guns. Specific rules of engagement may differ – but those are about tactics and appropriateness of means, not law.

-- Just so you know I'm not BSing. Here's a quote from The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (July 2007 update, p. 9-1)

Use of .50-caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of this proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.

[RHat]

Superfluous injury is just legalese for overkill, isn't it?

[Lynchmob]

Use of .50-caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of this proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.

Good to know. Not that they ever let me play with the cool guns. It's amazing how much bad information becomes "truth" because we never bother rtfm. The only time I remember specific guidance about the .50 cal not being used against enemy combatants was in reference to defending a ship against small craft/boarders and since the whole point of the guidance was de-escalation to prevent the boarding without bullets being exchanged I'll assume either the guy who wrote it didn't realize we're allowed to shoot people or assumed that if everything goes pear shaped nobody cares about the guidance anymore.

Reminds me of this.

[Umidori]

Perhaps the story is told to keep down costs?

After all, if you tell your grunts they can't use .50 rounds on individual troops under penalty of law, they typically won't waste an entire magazine, belt, or drum on tagging that one guy running across an open field.

~Umi

[Tzeentch]

After all, if you tell your grunts they can't use .50 rounds on individual troops under penalty of law, they typically won't waste an entire magazine, belt, or drum on tagging that one guy running across an open field.

-- Oh man, the stories I could tell regarding OIF/OEF ...

-- Let's just say that you would be SHOCKED at the ammo consumption of convoys during combat ops.

[Umidori]

No I wouldn't. The US averages something like a quarter of a million bullets per corpse.

I've heard firsthand stories. Ten thousands rounds for five bodies, with only six bullets hitting flesh in four of them. The fifth was killed when the roof fell in.

~Umi

[FuelDrop]

And yet the US is still THE dominant global military power. Can't argue with results.

[Aaron]

In the debate about assault rifles v. machine guns, has range come into consideration?

[Slide]

In the debate about assault rifles v. machine guns, has range come into consideration?

I did look at ranges and the mgs have a much longer range. However in most situations that is negligable especially considering the price tags. Imo anyways.

[Slide]

And yet the US is still THE dominant global military power. Can't argue with results.

Well that's just because we discovers that like all our problems if you throw enough money at it they go away. But ultimately it does save our soldiers lives being able to control the battlefield with massive amounts of support fire.

[FuelDrop]

Another use for all those bullets...

PS: do you think I'd need a gyromount for my troll to carry a GAU-8 Avenger? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Slide]

Another use for all those bullets...

PS: do you think I'd need a gyromount for my troll to carry a GAU-8 Avenger? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

short awnser: Why not?
Semi Short Awnser: Do you plan on firing FA in multiple passes on the same turn? yes.

[FuelDrop]

Ok, next question: what's the price and availability on a GAU-8 Avenger?

Also, I think that LS/KE might take issue with me purchasing one. Any suggestions on how I get the truck-sized minigun back home without attracting unwanted attention?

[IKerensky]

I think there is an element why range should be important. In case of a vehicular pursuit range can be much more long (especially airborne)... And high speed should also count in this extra range.

I think this game should benefit of having vehicular and personna DV on each weapon rather than a single one.

[FuelDrop]

I think there is an element why range should be important. In case of a vehicular pursuit range can be much more long (especially airborne)... And high speed should also count in this extra range.

I think this game should benefit of having vehicular and personna DV on each weapon rather than a single one.

Maybe something like Personal scale/Vehicle scale/Naval scale/Building scale damage codes?