Jcustis:
Quote:
Hmmm, so if the SAW was never really an AR because it deserved to be maneuvered like a MG, but the IAR is realistically not that much different from the other weapons of the team and therefore there might not be lessons to be derived from the BAR, where can we look?
I wouldn’t necessarily say that no lessons can be learned from it (although I can't think of them), just to be careful not to make one on one comparisons, like Wilf says:
Quote:
History here is not helpful, because form got confused with function very early on. The BREN was not an LSW (MG crewed by 3), but the BAR was sometimes (when crewed by 1).
Wilf pretty much hits the nail on the head again:
Quote:
Basically they are a rifle, with a better chance of hitting at longer ranges. Use them that way.
If you have a fire team, of 4 men with rifles, you can make it more effective, for very little increase in weight/penalty by adding an LSW.
And of course some increase in ability to deliver auto-fire in a more sustained manner.
I think the key here is not to over-rate the weapon and base a doctrine on it that makes it the nucleus/pivot point of the team. It’s just a good tool that is handy at times, like the DMR, or 40 mm, or hand grenades, or Claymores.
Rifleman:
Quote:
Agreed again, but is that a bad doctrine? Isn't that more or less what the Germans did with the MG42 and their nine man gruppe?
Well, that is indeed the question. But one separate to the AR conversation. And this is where I agree with Wilf again with regards to confusing form and function. For as far as I understand it, Melody talks explicitly about MGs, not ARs
Quote:
Three men may be too few to effectively work around and support an LMG the way eight German riflemen worked around and supported the MG42. Take one or two casualties in a fire team and that doctrine breaks down.
And that is probably why it is not a good idea to have a ‘true’ (and heavy) support weapon at fireteam level under the assumption that the fireteam is there to support the weapon. I think that kind of defeats the purpose of the fireteam. That is why we used to have the gungroup/riflegroup combination. If every riflegroup (fireteam) becomes a gungroup, who’s gonna play riflegroup?
An LSW (or whatever we may call it) probably just wants to be a one-man weapon that is capable of giving some internal support to the team, but not one that becomes the reason for the team’s existence, like with a gun-group.
Quote:
Then is it really needed? Or is the USMC too fixated on a modern BAR replacement because the BAR is what the fire team that they've had since 1945 was built around?
Exactly. That is pretty much my point. I don’t think it is really needed. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be handy though….
Quote:
I understand, but what else can we compare it to? Isn't it meant to fill a role that has been unfilled (as originally envisioned) since the demise of the BAR?
…if there isn't that much difference between modern assault rifles and ARs is a modern AR really needed?
And again, that is my point. I can no longer see a need for that exact role. I think the very close gap between assault rifles and their AR versions make that need redundant.
Quote:
Or is the USMC too fixated on a modern AR because the squad and fire team organization that they've had since 1945 was designed around AR employment?
That’s a good question. They may be…unless we are not seeing something. Maybe they are not envisaging a modern day mirror image of the BAR but indeed just an assault rifle with slightly improved support capabilities. Remember, they are not fully replacing the SAW, just adding to it and shifting some furniture within the platoons.