Okay so fully armoring soldiers in general is quite unrealistic

>what are sandbags
OP you are a fag

>>33876905
dumb. The entire point of a LIGHT machine gun is being able to reposition it when necessary and giving fireteams more bang for their buck. If you're going to armor them up and make them sit in one spot, give them actual cover and a bigger gun.

>>33876915
>carrying sandbags with you everywhere
>>33876922
This is why i emphasized only armoring the parts that are exposed when prone, it would surely be feasible to carry the armor required to protect these areas with you.

File: IOTV-III-Front.png (329KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 600x600px

>>33876905
we already kinda do. a full iotv has a yoke (collar) and shoulder pads. and they have ballistic masks. i mean all of this is kevlar and not plates, but a soldier in full kit is pretty well protected.

>>33876944
I guess for shrapnel but is all that really necessary? I mean unless you get ambushed or something you're gonna be prone making a lot of that armor quite useless.

>>33876997
it's standard issue from the e-fuzzy private all the way up to the top brass. and no, no one wears most of that shit.

>>33877011
Well lets say that something shaped a bit like this that could frontally stop 7.62x54r was available, paired with a thickened helmet front and a face mask attached to the gun, do you think it would useful?

File: upper body.png (151KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 600x600px

>>33877077

File: 288fe131a88af154.jpg (45KB, 526x377px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 526x377px

>>33876905
They tried it and found out it wasn't really worth the trouble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNVfe5Et9-I

>>33877086
no you still gotta bound/maneuver to set up the gun. the op4 would be able to kill you super easy with your center mass exposed.

>>33877077
you don't really understand how an lmg fire team works. 4 personnel are attached directly to the gun. two serve as direct support to the gun on both sides. the gunner and the ammo bearer serve the gun itself; the gunner aims and the bearer feeds. after a while the barrel heats up and you have to change it out. you can't have a shield on the gun due to it getting in the way of the barrel change. you're also worried about direct contact from the 12 o'clock position of the gun; which is where the gun is firing at. the only time the gunner would be shot from there is during a barrel change or in between bursts. however, during the barrel change the two riflemen supporting the flanks will have the enemy suppressed during the 5 second barrel change or the 2 seconds between bursts. there's no need for the armor, it's just extra weight. weight that can be used for ammo.

You know being a machine gunner involves a fucking fair bit of running around.

The gun doesn't get to a vantage point by itself.

For the weight of the armor you could carry more ammo

>>33876905
I was a LMG Gunner, or Saw Gunner. We wear the same shit everyone else does retard.

You still have to be mobile. If you're stationary they do have armor, it's called a bunker. Class dismissed, retards get to go home early (OP).

>>33877222
>check'd
>medicfag here
what's a weapons squad gun team leader called. can't fucking think of it for the life of me.

>>33876933
Armor is heavy. Have you ever worn plates and a helmet?

portable machine gun nests made of kevlar

>>33877248
Was an 0311. I don't know what the Army calls them.

In the Marines it's 3 fireteams. Leader is called fireteam leader. Usually a SAW Gunner per team unless it's a skeleton crew. Then the leader of those 3 fireteams is just your squad leader.

Of course our docs are corpsman, you probably know that. Again I was a SAW Gunner so m249. Weapons platoon carried 240s, mine was a LMG, a 240 is a proper machine gun.

>>33877275
>shit
thanks anyway devil dog

>>33876905
This entire post reads like a 12 year old kid who's been playing too much CoD and BF

>>33877310
so pretty much half the people on /k/

>>33877285
Np doc.

Im pretty semper fly, for a white guy.

>>33876905
Gunshields are a thing, but they're just too heavy. That's why you see them on vehicle mounted MG's, but not man-portable ones.

If you EVER wonder why don't do something with armor, the answer is it's too heavy.

>>33876933

Sandbags are pretty light. Are you carrying filled ones or something?

File: gunshieldIMT1.jpg (1MB, 3500x1911px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3500x1911px

I like your idea OP. It should probably be a detachable piece that you can just click in place when needed.

File: ee114e76f5cfe652dd55359827fac07f.jpg (17KB, 236x279px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x279px

>>33878124
You're welcome

>>33877248
11B here.
In the army there's 1 LMG in each fire team in each line squad; plus a weapons squad of 2 3-man 240 (GPMG) teams and an AT team with a Javelin or Carl Gustav.

A 240 team has the assistant gunner (leader), gunner, and ammo bearer (new guy, and provides flank security).

A 240 is heavy enough already. 22 pounds for the lima, 26 for the bravo, 11lbs for the tripod (which is only dropped if you're in a city), then about 7 pounds per 100 rounds of linked 7.62 spread across the team. Theoretical minimum 800 rounds, normally about 12-15 hundred, sometimes as much as 18-20 hundred on a bad day.

>>33878243
>assistant gunner
THATS IT YOU FUCKING BEAUTIFUL GRUNTFAG
idk why that was so hard to remember

>>33878124
Yeah something like that is what i was thinking. Why is it symmetrical though? A right handed man shoulders the rifle on his right shoulder and therefore there is more of his body on the left side of the gun, shouldn't that mean that the shield is bigger on the left side of the gun? I guess the balance of the gun might become somewhat annoying if it is bigger on one side, that wouldn't be a real problem with an lmg though.

File: IMG_4281.gif (99KB, 586x441px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 586x441px

>>33876905
>armoring machine guns
I have a way to make your idea EVEN BETTER
Let's put it on a sort of motorized transportation system enabling the machine gun to travel safely across enemy territory

>>33878543
That is fucking crazy talk sir. Completely impractical. What if it gets stuck trying to move over rough terrain that only horses and infantry can move over? What about crossing a river or chasm? The logistic train required for such a contraption would render it strategically useless. Next thing you'll do is tell me automobiles have a martial use and trains aren't the best way to move massed infantry.

>>33877248
A section leader?