Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwolf66
The idea was to take a a gun that wasn't effective and some parts off a broken weapon and make an effective weapon.
Why they built firearms that were nearly useless off of a vehicle is beyond me. Did people never think that the crew of a disabled vehicle may need every bit of firepower they can lay their hands on?
|
As far as Army doctrine goes, the answer is no.
I date back to the transition time between M48/M60 and M1, my experiences may shed some light. Tankers were always considered to be weapon system operators, self defense took a very far second place. Primary weapon for a tanker was a pistol, on the 48/60 series, you had two M3 series SMGs, and it was not unusual to see the older WWII M3, that was it. Others weapons was the M-2HB or M85 .50 HMG or a M73/M219 coax with no ground mount. Yes tankers had training on the M16 during our Basic/AIT, but the only personnel assigned rifles were some of the mechanics and the headquarters platoon personnel.
When the M1 came out, the SMGs were removed, in some units, and replaced by a single M16. The amusing thing was there was no additional training on the rifle and it was treated as a pain in the arse. You now had two M240s, and there was talk about discounting one, but both were the coax versions and could only be used dismounted with a great deal of trouble.
There was always a lot of talk about a ground mount kit for the loaders mg, but I only saw one kit in the six years I spent on the M1.