BF2S Forums New USMC weapon - M8 , XM8

Perhaps in one of the expansions....maybe----dunno


Greetz,
Agent

the m16 is the way it is suppose to be!  Maybe they could make it a 1 headshot kill... but other then that... it is pretty much how it is... unless they add gun jaming like America's army... and i dont think that is going to happen.  Which is why we (US) want to change weapons.

yeah, i say the M16 owns all guns...just concidering its 3 round burst and effectiveness and its friggin accurate

If I remember correctly, you can pack it with snow, sand, water, leaves, anything, and it will form bullets with them to use as ammo if you find yourself without any.

The current M16 does not "blow".  You don't have to spend a lot of time keeping it clean, though you do have to treat it with more respect than an AK. 

As for the 5.56 vs 7.62 debate, there's a few serious reasons why we went with a smaller round.  The first is packing ammo...5.56 weighs a lot less than 7.62, so you can have a LOT more ammo in the field without being overburdened, not to mention the weapon itself weighs less.  Even a 7 lb M16 can get heavy after awhile, trust me. 

The second is that 7.62 is HORRIBLE as a round for an automatic rifle.  The greater recoil on 7.62 means a lot of wasted ammo, because beyond point-blank range any shot after the second is likely going to be high.  You wonder why the Soviets switched to the smaller caliber AK74 and 101?  Same reason, the 7.62 AK47 was a first-rate ammo-waster.

7.62 is a good round for a semi-automatic or bolt action rifle if you're worried about range and trajectory and stopping power.

The reality is, we don't fight a lot of open country long range battles with rifles these days.  Engagement ranges are almost always under 200 meters.  For those times when you have to reach out and touch someone, most Marine rifle squads have a designated marksman with a scoped and accurized M16, or a modified M14 (they are not Scout Snipers, just good shots), but that's one man out of 20.

And for a "wounding" weapon, the M16 has killed an awful lot of people.  The problems being faced in Iraq right now are mostly the Army with the short barrel M4, which does not hit as hard as a full barrel M16.

By the way, the Marines don't use the M24, that's the cheaper, less accurate long-action mass-produced Army version.  The Marines use the M40 series, that has a better "short-action" and the weapon is assembled my Marine armorers, not a factory.   http://www.snipercentral.com/m40a3.htm

And finally, we already HAVE the XM8 in BF2.  It's called the G36C.  Same weapon inside, different exterior.  It won't kill any better or worse than the M16.

Last edited by Croak (2005-09-21 17:47:55)

The problem with "bigger round, more damage, more efficient" thinking is training.  Most military personel only receive basic familiarization training with a rifle, enough to know which end points downrange, how to load it, and how to maintain it.  I could also mention the fact that most armed forces around the world now include women, who (in general) have more problems with lugging the same loads a male can, and have a problem with heavy recoil as well.

And even "well trained" troops (not "elite") have a real problem with fire discipline, putting a LOT of rounds downrange without ever hitting anything.  It's just a better idea to have a greater ammo load for the same weight.

And there are times when you WANT to put a lot of rounds downrange, suppressive fire requires a volume of fire that eats through ammo, so again it's better to have more ammo. 

The people on the other end of your suppresive fire are going to take cover regardless, and could care less if the rounds whizzing by are 7.62 or 5.56, they don't want to be hit by either one.  Since you can "spend" more 5.56, you can lay down heavier suppresive fire, for longer, than you could with 7.62.  And before you mention that supressive fire is the job of the machine gun, you have to realize that an MG is not always availible, whereas an assault rifle is.

And yeah, I agree that they've made the G36c into an uber-carbine in the game.  BTW, when I said we had the XM-8 in the form of the G36c, I should note that the most common/widely produced variant of the XM-8 will in fact be the short-barrled carbine version, by a 4:1 margin over the full-barrel version.  So in a few years when people talk about the M8, they'll usually be referring to the shorty.

The Army really seems to like the carbine these days, which is why the M4 is now in such widespread use.  The Marine Corps has a clue though, and will be ordering the full-length version almost exclusively, much like it still uses the full length M16 now.

Last edited by Croak (2005-09-23 19:05:43)

the m16 is in reality not the best weapon by far! the ak-47 is the most durable of weapons just like pish said. Allot of armies have those guns. i don't know allot about the USMC, but from pictures of IraQ i think american soldiers also love AK-47.

Some time ago i watched this program about guns and they weren't that positive about the m16, i believe those people are experts and there for i have the same opinion as them.

M8 new weapon for the US Army?? news to me. I was under the assumption that the OICW was gonna replace the M4 and M16A2

pish180 wrote:

About the women thing in the military... well women are not allowed to go to the front line or even see combat!  The closest they can get is a humvee driver, in a secured area.

And yes you have a good pt, about the suppressing fire thing... that is why we have a m249 saw!  200 Round drum, belt fed.  That shoots VERY VERY fast!! (750-1000 rounds per minute, depending on barrel and conditions). I agree, you do not always have an LMG at hand. 

About the Ak.  Look how many armies are using the ak47 or some variant of it...  It must be doing something right.  Easy to make, durable, powerful, cheap, accurate.

I really doubt they would change the weapon model or make the m8 as an unlockable weapon... so i guess it would be a good idea for an expansion. EA is to busy *lazy* to do something like this.

Remember that Army convoy that got ambushed in Iraq?  You know, the one where they captured one woman and killed another?  Those women were armed, and they were in a combat zone.  Lots of women in harms way in the US military, and we're "backwards" on the subject.  Many other countries have women in front-line jobs these days.

About the AK47.  It was easy to make, durable, powerful, cheap, but it was NEVER particularly accurate, even in well trained hands.  It was replaced by the AK74 with a smaller round over 30 years ago, for a number of good reasons.

Don't forget the "grass is always greener" syndrome and "war trophy" aspects.  The Viet Cong really liked the M16, the Germans liked the Colt 1911A1 automatic pistol, the Americans loved the Luger Automatic pistol, etc.

Hey, I'm a big guy too.  And I used to have to carry a rifle and pack for a living, 0311 (infantry rifleman) in the Corps back in the early-mid 80's, and went to machine gunner and assault (LAW, TOW, Dragon) schools as well, though my MOS never changed. 

Big guns and heavy ammo definately loose their appeal when you have to hump them.  And combat is exhausting.  The difference in getting a light-weight/low 5.56 recoil rifle on target and making a shot that counts is a LOT higher than trying to swing a heavy 7.62 rifle on target and deal with the recoil and noise, especially when you're tired.

In a game like BF2, where only KILLS matter, it's one thing.  In the real world, a bad guy with a 5.56 in him that isn't dead is still a lot less effective, or combat ineffective.  That's almost as good as dead, and in some ways better (depending on the morals/motivation of the bad guys), because a wounded bad guy can also take one or more other bad guys out of the fight as they deal with their wounded comrade.  If nothing else, having a buddy bleeding and screaming nearby sure as hell DISTURBS the other bad guys. 

And the simple fact is that an M16A2 is a very lethal weapon.

And while 500 meter engagements are rare, you'd be suprised at the times when you'd be expected to make shots beyond 100 meters. 

Marines (ALL Marines) are trained to hit accurately out to 500 meters with an M16.  In the Corps, if you EVER want to get promoted, you MUST qualify on the rifle range KD course every year, Marksman being the minimum passing grade.  To qualify on the old KD, you had to hit targets at 200, 300, and 500 meters, firing 50 rounds in a mixture of standing, kneeling, sitting and prone positions, single shot and rapid fire.  You had to score a 190 out of a possible 250 to qualify as Marksman, with points per shot ranging from 0 (miss) to 5 (bullseye).

Marine Infantry generally score Sharpshooter (a score of 210+) or Expert (225+).  A grunt that only scores Marksman doesn't stay a grunt long.  And your "cutting score", which determines if you get promoted or not, no matter what your job is in the Corps, cook to mechanic to admin to infantry, is comprised of your actual rifle range score, so there's real incentive to do more than just pass on the rifle range.

On top of the KD course that you had to qualify on every year, 03xx Marines had a lot of CQC training.   The CQ training back in my day isn't as good as the MOUT training they're doing currently, and they've revised the KD course quite recently as well, but range and accuracy are still stressed, and even at close ranges, the accuracy of the weapon matters.

So, given that background, (my lowest score in 5 years in the Corps was 232, my highest 243) you might understand why I value accuracy so highly.  Training obviously helps a great deal, but so does the hardware.

To put that in comparison, the shooting skills of the lowest passing grade for a Marine requires more accuracy than the highest ranked Army score.  That doesn't mean there are not good shots in the Army, it just means that the Army stresses accuracy much less than the Corps overall, and generally they don't train out any farther than 200 meters.

Sure, I could kill with an AK47, but I'd have better, repeatable chances of doing it with an M16 over a broader engagement range.  If the chances of a Marine hitting the bad guy at 200+ meters with an M16 is a reliable skill, and the bad guy hitting the Marine at the same range with an AK47 is mostly luck and a prayer to Allah, guess which guy is more likely to come home. 

For a Marine, the reliability of the two weapons is NOT a factor,  you are HEAVILY indoctrinated to care for your rifle.  The reliabilty factor of the AK47 only really matters if you're a poorly trained goat-herder, or a truck driver in the Army. 

Marines learn this creed in Boot Camp, and it may be a bit corny, but it is TRUE:

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I WILL...

My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. WE WILL HIT...

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready. We will become part of each other. WE WILL...

Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. WE ARE THE SAVIORS OF MY LIFE.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

Last edited by Croak (2005-09-28 22:35:33)

they look like their from starship troopers

i like ROughneck Starship Troopers it was the CG series they had better guns