With the availability of .50 cal ammo - you can easily find it in enemy arms caches and use - if needed on your mounted 50's. Ammo is cheap, it is accurate and will take out most APC's and other military vehicles. If mounted properly, it can be a AA weapons against ground attack craft (low and slow planes/helo's).
In a pinch, it makes an excellent anti-personell weapon hehehehe....

Can't beat ma deuce...every troop I know has fond memories of the 50. When it starts thumpin, the enemy hits the deck...

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

03USMC - You can't just carry around an M2 with a fireteam, it's heavy and it weighs down mobility. That's why it is used in static positions or on vehicles. The advantage of the OCSW is that it will bring a lethality greater than the M2 in a package lightweight enough to keep up with the modern infantry maneuvers.

There is a big difference between in suppression and flank maneuver when you're getting suppressed by a few M16s or by a .50 machine gun that rips through what you thought was good cover.

I have served with in infantry units in the Marines and ARNG, we never even thought about humping the M2 unless it was to our primary position away from the vehicles. It is a static position weapon when it is not vehicle mounted, its replacement will be the same, not because of the weapon weight but because the ammo and the time it takes to setup a good HVYMG position. Even at 32#, manuvering that weapon in a fire fight would be cumbersome making it worthless, ask some of the old DRAGON jockies here how they felt wrestling that thing around.

Yes, hulk that is eactly what I'm saying.

03 - I never said it was meant to surplant the SAW, the OCSW is a Crew Serviced Weapon as the last 3 letters of it's name indicate

The idea of the OCSW is that now the infantrymen will have an extremely powerful crew serviced weapon that is light enough to be made feasable for it to be used offensively. Also it will be much more accurate, better sights the whole 9 yards.

Yeah but I don't know where you got the idea I thought an M2 could be deployed with a fire team?

No, what I'm saying is that the big advantage of the OCSW over the M2 is that the M2 is way too heavy to be carried around offensively. The OCSW is much lighter and can be carried around in an offensive maneuver, unlike the M2.

With the OCSW the infantry will have a .50 heavy machine gun (and an airbursting ammunition varient) that is light enough to keep up with them.

It may be lighter. But refer to Hulks post. They will be deployed the same way as the .50. It will be one HVYMG replacing another HVYMG doctrine will remain the same.

The original plans to replace obsolete, but numerous .50 caliber (12.7mm) Browning M2HB heavy machine guns in the US service listed the 25mm Xm307 OCSW weapon as a successor to the 80+ years old Browning. But the present delays in the development of the highly expensive and sophisticated OCSW led to the conclusion that the US Forces do need something new, and at least as effective as old "Ma Deuce" (M2HB) right now. So in 2000 US military requested for the lightweight, .50 caliber machine gun to supplement old M2HB until the arrival of the much more effective 25mm XM307 OCSW system, which will be capable of firing 25mm explosive shells with great accuracy and lethality. The described version of the XM312 "lightweight heavy machine gun" (sounds weird, huh?) is being developed by the General Dynamics, a huge US-based defense company. The XM312 is based on the 25mm XM307, but without its comprehensive and expensive explosive ammo and fire control it is much cheaper and could be finalized much faster. It is entirely possible that XM312 will enter limited service with US military before 2005, while XM307 OCSW is scheduled for much later date.

The XM312 will be one of the lightest (if not lightest of all) .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine guns on the market. This advantage, which will made it two-men portable, comes at the cost of decreased cyclic rate of fire, which is more than 2 times lower, than on other .50 caliber guns. This will made this gun strictly anti-ground weapon, because this low rate of fire will made it ineffective against fast-moving targets like helicopters and low-flying aircrafts. The practical rate of fire, however, is quoted to be no less than of M2HB, around 40 rounds per minute. XM312 also should be no less (if not more) accurate than the M2HB.

more info at;
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg39-e.htm

The Ma Duece is a superb heavy support weapon in that role also as a suppresive fire weapon, but it is being replaced by the M3 (An M2 that the timing and head space don't have to change and a heavyer barrel) and the M312. I think the Ma duece is an effective weapon and will continue to be for the next 50 years. There is also the M2's brother the fast firing m85. Just an M2 thats not stablize and can fire 1,000 RPM.

Oh ya, someone said the only M3 they've heard of was the Greaser. The Army likes to designate weapons withy the same names like the M203 Grenade Launcher and the M203 Chaingun.

Doctorine changes to fit the technology, not the other way around 03USMC.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Doctorine changes to fit the technology, not the other way around 03USMC.

That is so not true. The M163 and M167 VADS where sent to the Nam to be used for AA use but instead where used as convoy protection. Doctorine stated they where for AA use, but they where never used that way. Doctorine was never changed there.