mfw westerners try to reinvent PKM
https://i.imgur.com/xay91fr.jpg
Printable View
mfw westerners try to reinvent PKM
https://i.imgur.com/xay91fr.jpg
nothing wrong with the PKM from the folks i know in the army who cross-trained with poles, they basically wanted to break into the armory and steal them.
Exactly.
Like, there was one thing that came close but got dropped in it's infancy with all the awkward quirks - stoner 63.
Trying to lighten machined bricks works but it's expensive.
both the MG-3 and the FN MAG are largely stamped guns m8.
MG-3 is just a bit overbuilt and MAG? Idk man, idk.
http://www.armasizarra.com/tienda/im...700%20(34).jpg
the MG-3 is designed for a different sort of war and basically 2 generations behind at this point, the MAG is all stamping and rivets with a polymer stock tho.
So is PKM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liare
Der totale krieg.
the PKM is very much designed with modern mechanized warfare in mind Razor, it's lighter build because it doesn't have to fulfil the now functionally non-existent MMG role of a tripod mounted long range suppression tool as exemplified by the Feldlafette mounting for the MG3.Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoRSo is PKM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liare
Der totale krieg.
nor does it have to deal with the double edged sword that is the 900-1500 RPM, on one hand nothing short of a recoiless rifle can "shout down" a MG3, they can and will establish fire superiority over basically everything else given the opportunity, on the other hand the ammunition consumption is terrifying, the belt-system is severely dated at this point and the whole gun is heavy, the design cumbersome ergonomically by modern standards and so forth.
the PKM and the MAG is designed for the sort of war we'd have in Europe during the cold war, the MG3 is very much a WW2 era gun rechambered, it's very good at what it does, but what it does is not really precisely what's needed.
I am also autiste.
I don't think we carried more than 800rnds per gun on dismounted patrols while I was in Afhganistan. MMGs in light infantry platoons really only exist to provide suppressing fire until artillery or air support get on target
idk are you saying PKM can't be mounted on tripods or smth
https://arizonaresponsesystems.com/w...-tripod-24.jpg
also have you heard about our lord and saviour NSV?
http://www.military-today.com/firearms/nsv_l3.jpg
soviet stuff was designed to be as flexible as possible, that's why some had to be light
Stoner LMG > all
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by sarabando
Stoner 62 has a truckload of quirks that have to be ironed out. That said pentagon spent half a century with heads up their asses not ordering that.
no, i am saying that there's a difference between what the PKM can do on a tripod compared to a MG3. the PKM is mounted fixed in place on the tripod, the MG3's are free floated on it and include a set of gimmicks like limited indirect fire capability and what have you, the MG3 can also sustain a higher total volume of fire because it still had to slot into the sort of combat role that maxim guns filled in WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoR
i... what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Liare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCfUqaNFWZI
you want 5:00
is that the standard tripod ? i was told the one used by the PKM basically fixed it in place rather than free-floating the gun, meaning the whole mount is affected by recoil rather than the gun sitting in carriage that recoils separately without affecting the tripod.
oh, THAT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6mCT3rqajQ
as you can see the recoil is barely enough to rattle the setup
Furthermore, Maxim had the same ROF - around 600. So PKM literally does everything it can sans water-cooling. Which MG-34/42 also didn't have.
except it doesn't actually does sustained fire for thousands upon thousands of rounds the way maxims do, even swapping barrels heat eventually gets into the action and you gotta stop firing, or you get a runaway gun, the MG-3's go for significantly longer, but weigh more as a result, it's not a meaningful distinction in modern usage, hence my point with the MG-3's being build for the last war, with the PKM's being build for the cold war style conflict.
I think the most exhausting documented use of PKM occured on Hill 3234. That was a 39/51 against 200+ battle that raged for 14 hours, 9th was fully stocked for holding an entrenched position and then resupplied mid-night.
Not saying MG42 would give out before PKM but that's about as intense as any WW2 battle.
Was that before or after he had to straighten the barrel of his PKM with a rock?
Good film that. Must watch it again.