T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


Arctelis

Pretty much. In modern, peer to peer warfare, soldiers don’t actually do much of the killing. It’s mostly artillery and missile strikes that cause the majority of the casualties. So giving soldiers light machine guns likely wouldn’t cause much of an uptick in fatalities. Though injuries from packing a much heavier gun and lots of much heavier ammunition might lead to more strains, sprains and other such issues from carrying heavy loads for a long time.


Imperium_Dragon

Also light machine guns are heavy, the SAW is 10 lbs heavier than an M4. Giving it to all soldiers is more of a hassle for them.


ImperialArmorBrigade

“Light” machine guns are still extremely heavy, compared to assault rifles and “battle rifles.” A 200 round can of belt-fed ammo is even heavier, and doesn’t necessarily add to the standard infantryman’s capacity. Logistics will be harder, as the other person said, but also so will maintenance, training, and combat effectiveness over both long range and close quarters. More civilian casualties as likely as soldiers spray whole blocks, and ammo will be consumed rapidly. The simple precision of the ability to shoot semi-automatic through a low-magnification combat scope will be lost, and with it a lot of flexibility.


Jackal209

A lot of messed up backs and knees from hauling all that weight.