IIRC, back then the entire British Army had problems with the entire SA 80 family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vojnik
Understand your point Ken...I don't know, when I was on exchange with the British Army they were not too keen on the LSW (5.56mm mag fed weapon). While it has been over a decade since that experience, the general feeling seemed to be that the LSW was really only a DMR.
Granted, though I wonder how much of that was predicated on the myth of automatic fires as suppressive...
Quote:
Of course, the other argument is that the gunner carrying the SAW only has 100rds in a "nutsack" available for immediate use.
Depends on several things; the Marines have always had another FT member carrying extra rounds for the BAR / SAW. There are also now reasonably reliable -- and they'll get better -- large capacity magazines (NOT speaking of C-Mags and other flawed mechanical types...).
There's also the fact that I'm old and grew up with the BAR so the concept isn't alien to me...:D
Quote:
...that's not quite the point of a squad suppressive weapon. I thought a "machine gun" was supposed to provide a beaten zone of fire in order to kill/injure within that beaten zone, to provide sustained or cyclic grazing fire in the defensive, or to suppress the enemy to allow fire and maneuver...
I agree with what you say about a "machine gun" -- I submit that a squad suppressive weapon (a) need not be a "machine gun," (b) and question whether an infantry squad needs a suppressive weapon organically -- no question they need to have them available. In discussing suppressive fire, the issues of accuracy, maintenance of rates of fire, size of beaten zones and, most tellingly, caliber and capability arise.
Quote:
So if I can't use the IAR for suppressive fire...what do I do with it?...
Final protective fire. :cool:
Quote:
Not being saractic, I'm honestly open to new ideas.
Hopefully, we all are -- but old habits are hard to break... :wry:
Training is everything is training.
We often forget that -- and we do not do it at all well... :mad:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vojnik
So what's the best tactical situation to use precision, automatic fires at the 400-500m range?
Situation dependent obviously but generally in the defense in open terrain. Other than that, little call for it.
Some will say it can be used in the offense as 'suppressive' fire. Been my observation that against even marginally trained or experienced troops automatic fire does not suppress, precision (or more correctly, accurate) fire does suppress. The volume of fire makes little difference other than as noise and a psychological reinforcement to those who have to go forward -- well trained troops do not need -- or want -- that noise. :cool:
Quote:
I feel like we're talking in circles.
"What does the Automatic Rifleman do?"
"Oh, he's the guy who fires his rifle automatically."
"Why does he do that?"
"Because he's the Automatic Rifleman."
Of course, this is the military so that makes perfect sense...
Actually, it does make sense. He provides the capability to do just that on the rare occasions when it's actually beneficial as opposed to just cosmetic. That will generally be in providing aimed fire at point targets (not area targets, that's what MGs are for) in support of offensive movement and for final protective fires in the defense and a combination of those techniques for ambushes and counter ambushes.