Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 121

Thread: Abandon squad/section levels of organization?

  1. #101
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Infanteer:
    I miss these threads...it's what brought me to the SWJ.
    Same.

    Fuchs:
    Infantry squad organisation and equipment is very, very sexy to many people.
    Guilty.


    Fuchs:
    It's not very important, though.
    Oh, shut up.


    Fuchs:
    Infantry quality is about intangibles and improvisation much more than about the sexy items and charts discussed so repeatedly and vividly.
    Oh, alright then…


    Fuchs:
    The one question regarding infantry small unit design that I'm still interested in is whether one should focus on burst or sustained capabilities. I lean towards burst, as competent hostiles could have so much fire support on call that breaking contact after at most two minutes should be a habit.
    Interesting. But would that not be very much situation dependent? The Taliban have learnt to do this because they can melt into the populace and become invisible. But in WWIII, will a coy breaking contact be able to hide from the enemy’s sensors and outrun his fire support?


    Infanteer:
    TO&Es are accountants tools. How many people and equipment should I give to this organization?

    By D+1, you ain't fighting by a TO&E.
    Often even by D. Think about how landing craft for Overlord were occupied, in a deliberate bid to ‘scramble’ the TO&E.


    Gute:
    IMO flexibility of the small unit of action is key. Allowing the small unit leaders to have a free hand to organize their unit (platoon, company, battalion) to meet their assigned objectives.
    But they can only (re)organise their units from a given starting point. Which gets us back to some form of TO&E.


    Fuchs:
    But most often, logistics, peacetime training, heavy weapons, fire support, "do and don't" orders, sensors, terrain, the enemy's nature, missions and at times even ual platoons are really just a small part of the whole.

    I suppose very few infantry platoons (if any) had a substantial impact during the invasion of Iraq 2003.*gulp* planning limit the range of possible outcomes so much that individual platoons are really just a small part of the whole.
    Indeed, I wonder if the overall course and outcomes of the adventures over the last ten years would have been any different if coalition forces would have been armed with SMLEs, STENs and BRENs. But that does not mean that nothing can be gained from improving the quality of an M4, or decreasing the weight, or rate of issue, of a GPMG.

    In these threads we tend to perhaps over-emphasise the importance of micro. But that said, a focus on macro should not come at the detriment of micro. If ‘I’ have a slightly better chance of getting home alive, or even just a better chance of doing my job well (what ever that means), with an M4 over an SMLE, than I want that M4. If you want to focus on micro to the point that discussing the diameter of an M4 firing-pin is important or just interesting (as I think it is, in the right context), than a forum like lightfighters is the place to be. At SWC we tent to hover from minutia-micro to macro philosophy, and back again. That makes it harder to satisfy the agendas of all players and to define a context within which to focus a conversation. However, these trigger puller threads are more micro orientated – the pointy end of the spear (or firing-pin).


    After all that, I really just wanted to post this link.
    It highlights the importance of some of the other variables that Fuchs point out. Like here:

    The Germans found, however, that to be acquainted with Russian tactics and organization was useful but by no means decisive in achieving victory in battle. Far more important was the proper understanding of the Russian soldier's psyche, a process involving the analysis of his natural impulses and reactions in different situations. Only thus were the Germans able to anticipate Russian behavior in a given situation and draw the necessary conclusions for their own course of action. Any analysis of the outstanding characteristics of the Russian soldier must begin with his innate qualities.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  2. #102
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Tukh, I vaguely remember reading somewhere (may well have been one Julian Thompson’s books) that the commando organisations were suited for just that, commando type independent operations. The platoon/company/battalion structures were deemed more suitable for a wider scope of more conventional situations. Or something to that effect.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  3. #103
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
    But in WWIII, will a coy breaking contact be able to hide from the enemy’s sensors and outrun his fire support?
    The problem is to break contact in the first place.

    Leaders won't do it in time when things are seemingly going well and other times their (small) unit will simply be pinned, for no route for withdrawal has been reserved or can be created.

    Breaking contact as a small unit and delaying action as a unit are the most interesting tactical challenges against capable opponents in my opinion. These are going to be the WWIII equivalents of WWI's infiltration attack and artillery fire plans. Master these and you're half-way there.

  4. #104
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
    Gute:


    But they can only (re)organise their units from a given starting point. Which gets us back to some form of TO&E.
    Yep, same thought went through my mind 30 seconds after posting the above. I don't know else modern armies would organize without squads, platoons, companies, etc. I think this will be the way we organize until we have one man super troopers in combat suits like in the book Star Ship Troopers. Maybe that's why TOEs interest me because I believe we can organize to be more efficient/effective.

  5. #105
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
    The platoon/company/battalion structures were deemed more suitable for a wider scope of more conventional situations.
    I wonder if "conventional" and "unconventional" actually mean anything these days and what that means for "traditional" organisations. The commando approach seems to me to typify the kind of small unit battles troops find themselves in. In many ways the old Commando organisation prefigures the distributed operations stuff that came out of the USMC.

  6. #106
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfolk View Post

    And if the GPMG crews in the fire support team each need 2 guys to carry 2 belts of ammo, they better send their unfit carcasses to the rear and bring the physically fit forward. I carried the GPMG (my pet name for it was the "G-Pig") and not less than two belts of ammo on my person (only about twice did I carry more - one time was out of newbie stupidity [4 belts], the other time was against my will). A couple other guys were to carry three belts each (and this was as a Platoon-level weapon). At Section level, 2 belts of ammo carried by each individual GPMG gunner (so long as they are not assigned SF tasks as well, just the Light Role) is enough to start.

    If you are using GPMGs as heavy weapons, and especially in the SF role, you need at least 4 men per gun, preferably 6. Each GPMG gunner (at platoon or company level in commonwealth Armies) is issued with 8 boxes of ammo (1,760 rounds); an SF Kit with Tripod (weighs more than the GPMG), spare barrel, two Tritium aiming lamps, aiming stakes, mortar dial-sight, tool and cleaning kit, spare parts, etc.; spade; plus his own and the team's personal weapons and kit. In addition, the Gun Commander has binoculars, range-finder, and a 1:50,000 scale map. And I'm not even adding a Gun Controller here to coordinate the fires of the guns.
    GPMG in the light role is normally scaled for between 600 to 800 rds per man in the pair, that's about 24 to 32 minutes fire at the normal rate of fire, half that at rapid. Weight between 32 to 43kg for 1200 to 1600 rounds. You'd normally drop 400 round per gun and break them into belts of 100 and dump them onto the platoon for them to carry.

    The ammo scale for GPMG(SF) is 5,000 rounds per gun with 3 guns per section. That's 135kgs of belt per gun, 405kgs per section. That's 50 minutes at the normal rate of fire, half that at rapid.

    WFE gave you a 3 man gun team, of gunner, controller and ammo bearer.

    You just can not carry 405kgs between 11 bods for a WFE gun section with 3 guns so once upon a time a section would have 3 LR with trailers or the CSM of the Company you're attached gets a big pile of ammo or the OC gets told by the Guns Section Commander "My rate of advance is about 2km a hour"

    In the SF role you'd be looking for a flank position to give the maximum beaten zone area over enemy positions so that the bulk of targets are between 800 to 1100m from your gun line.

    I've carried 1,000 rounds of link and it's slow movement time, I think my heaviest load on the GPMG (SF) section Commanders course was about 54kgs and took us about 2 hours to cover 5km cross country as a Guns platoon.

    The GPMG is heading back into Support Company holdings post Herrick and post FSG but it would be interesting to see what happens next.

    BTW. The beaten zone of the GPMG is, in part, created by the nature of the kinetic energy upon the weight of the gun. A relativity tight beaten zone where a 20 round burst will impact in an area with a maximum length of 100m and a maximum width of 9m. Repeated bursts will keep landing in the same area, if the gunner keeps his point of aim consistent. Make the gun too light and the trade off is that the beaten zone for a burst will grow in size for less effect.
    Last edited by David I Evans; 06-23-2014 at 07:40 PM.

  7. #107
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    I have a question out of curiosity.

    For those of you who have fired a MAG-58 type gun and a Bren gun, which do think is better suited for use as a squad level weapon?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  8. #108
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    I have a question out of curiosity.

    For those of you who have fired a MAG-58 type gun and a Bren gun, which do think is better suited for use as a squad level weapon?
    My experience is based on C9(5.56 Minimi SAW) with the AR magazine well withdrawn from service(now 7.62 Minimi) and the MAG58/GPMG.

    Talking to folks who were around when a modified Steyr AUG was considered as a complement to the Steyr rifle, one expression used to describe it's deficiencies(which includes the Bren) is the "built in stoppage".

    Which seems to be an issue here....but if the Marines are happy working around the "built in stoppage" with their M27 IAR, then maybe it's not as big an issue as many seem to think.

    Since we are growing closer again with the US(particularly the USMC), maybe this will be re-evaluated in the future.

    I'm a fan of the new 7.62 Minimi. It's a great tool. It has the firepower of the MAG58/GPMG at reduced weight...while brand new it's quite a good system, I can't help but wonder about longevity much like the C9(5.56 Minimi SAW) near it's end of life the accuracy/grouping capacity was becoming shockingly bad.

    We've only recently introduced the 7.62 Minimi and not long before that the LMT DM rifle. An announcement was just made that we will be replacing the Steyr rifle in the next 2 years.

    I wonder if there is a possibility of not just seeing an AR platform purchased here for individual issue, but also evaluating the USMC's recent M27 IAR choice and role in the section/platoon.

    Time will tell.

  9. #109
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flagg View Post
    Talking to folks who were around when a modified Steyr AUG was considered as a complement to the Steyr rifle, one expression used to describe it's deficiencies(which includes the Bren) is the "built in stoppage".
    That surprises me. I've read (and only read, I have zero practical experience) that the Bren was quite reliable, at least in WWII.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  10. #110
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    That surprises me. I've read (and only read, I have zero practical experience) that the Bren was quite reliable, at least in WWII.
    The built in stoppage reflects the limitations of a mag-fed vs. beltfed. It stops every 30 rounds.

    The Bren (and L4) was indeed very reliable. And also very accurate. Often regarded as too accurate for area fire. Mounted on a tripod it had a beaten zone of .303" (or 7.62mm for the L4). I exaggerate, but only a little bit. I think this may have been partly due to a significantly lower rate of fire, at just over 500 rpm. Those aspects made it a very useful light machine gun, leaving the SF role to the Vickers. A GPMG wants to do a bit of both, so there are compromises. I suppose anything that starts with 'general purpose' imposes compromises.

    Quote Originally Posted by flagg
    I'm a fan of the new 7.62 Minimi. It's a great tool. It has the firepower of the MAG58/GPMG at reduced weight...while brand new it's quite a good system, I can't help but wonder about longevity much like the C9(5.56 Minimi SAW) near it's end of life the accuracy/grouping capacity was becoming shockingly bad.
    Light MGs like the Minimi (both calibres) obviously attain their reduced weight – and manufacturing cost - by virtue of lighter materials. The compromise is that the gun will rattle to bits a lot faster than a MAG58. That suggests that they should be replaced a lot sooner. Been-counters won't like that, because that would nullify the lower procurement costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by flagg
    I wonder if there is a possibility of not just seeing an AR platform purchased here for individual issue, but also evaluating the USMC's recent M27 IAR choice and role in the section/platoon.
    The M27 is really just an HK416, not unlike the standard Norwegian rifle.
    One of the main advantages that its (essentially G36) piston holds over the AR direct impingement tube, is that it is 'frogman friendly'. Fill that skinny AR gas tube up with water and you have problems trying to fire it. That is as I understand it the main reason why Dutch special forces replaced their C8s with 416s.

    As for the new Kiwi rifle, I wonder if the army was a step ahead by selecting a direct impingement DMW. Purely speculation, but a new DI rifle might make sense. In which case, look no further. The L119A2 was made especially for us.....I'm sure....
    Last edited by Kiwigrunt; 06-24-2014 at 04:12 AM.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  11. #111
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    I have a question out of curiosity.

    For those of you who have fired a MAG-58 type gun and a Bren gun, which do think is better suited for use as a squad level weapon?
    My experience of MGs was mainly as a reservist and did not involve combat operations.

    The top-mounted magazine made the Bren LMG fast to reload and easy to carry and use particularly when prone. Also its downward ejection was low observable except when in a dustbowl. For a right-handed firer the sight was unobscured, less applicable to left-handed. Weapon was overlong but well-balanced and very reliable and accurate. During 1970s, AusArmy reintroduced the Bren especially for patrolling to complement the troublesome M-60 GPMG.

    With regard to built-in stoppages, a manageable sized belt of say 30 to 100 rounds used up without extension makes for a much slower one-man reload than does a box magazine.

    As a MAG-58 type GPMG, the M-60 was usefully compact and well balanced for carriage and ready fire. But it had many dysfunctional aspects. In fact so many problem areas that during the 1970s AusArmy reintroduced the Bren especially for patrolling.

    Have handled but not trialed and fired the MAG-58. Found it overlong and poorly balanced with the belt-feed too far forward of the trigger grip. But durability/functioning and robustness/ruggedness count for a lot everywhere. In general the MAG-58 is thoroughly proven as suitable – though not ideal – for squad/section, and better as a GPMG/MMG for use above that level.

    Currently there are two well-credentialled LMGs contending for squad/section level use. The Mark48 and Negev 7 are each compact and seem well balanced with belt-feed near the trigger grip. The Mark-48 has great lineage. But so does the NG7. Assuming similar durability/maintainability and robustness/ruggedness my vote goes to the NG7 for its single shot capability and alternate use of bottom-mounted box magazine.

    Of course would prefer to see both modified to provide downward ejection alongside - or via a chute in - the belt container. Also as a lesser priority belt-feed from left and right sides. Plus immediate alternate use preferably in either belt-feed slot of say a 30-round box mag. ..... etc

  12. #112
    Council Member Chris jM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
    Light MGs like the Minimi (both calibres) obviously attain their reduced weight – and manufacturing cost - by virtue of lighter materials. The compromise is that the gun will rattle to bits a lot faster than a MAG58. That suggests that they should be replaced a lot sooner. Been-counters won't like that, because that would nullify the lower procurement costs.
    You're pretty much spot on here. I'd also add, though, that the MAG58 is capable of sustained fire for extended periods. The smaller Light MGs are suited for bursts over extended periods - while you can put a belt through them in a single burst, it tends to drastically reduce the life of said barrel (and rest of the weapon). It really is a compromise. When you're patrolling or assaulting, the LMGs like the 7.62 Minimi are wonderful. It's when you're prone behind the gun firing, though, that you simply can't beat the heavier, solid MAG58.

    As to the USMC IAR I've got my own doubts about it. I suspect that it is in many ways a product of the recent wars where 'winning the firefight' was achieved against a lightly armed and elusive enemy. If you're facing an enemy firing interlocking machine guns back at you from dug-in positions, I suspect the weight of fire from a belt-fed machine-gun to regain some form of initiative/suppress the enemy's own rapid firing weapons, especially when you know roughly where they could be firing from but can't identify the exact firing points is worth more than a heavy assault rifle (IAR).

    However, despite my above reservations about the IAR I also think that the USMC may have made the right decision albeit for the wrong reasons. With the improved sights we are now getting down to personal weapons, a heavy rifle with magnified optics and the ability to acquire targets through thermal, IR or hybrid views the ability to identify and acquire a target is greatly improved. If you can deliver accurate, repeated fire then the traditional need for bursts to suppress an area is almost removed. I'm pretty much in love with 7.62mm DMWs, you might have noticed
    '...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
    Donald Kagan

  13. #113
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris jM View Post
    However, despite my above reservations about the IAR I also think that the USMC may have made the right decision albeit for the wrong reasons. With the improved sights we are now getting down to personal weapons, a heavy rifle with magnified optics and the ability to acquire targets through thermal, IR or hybrid views the ability to identify and acquire a target is greatly improved. If you can deliver accurate, repeated fire then the traditional need for bursts to suppress an area is almost removed. I'm pretty much in love with 7.62mm DMWs, you might have noticed
    Doesn't that get us back to something like a Bren or a BAR with good optics?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  14. #114
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Compost View Post
    Of course would prefer to see both modified to provide downward ejection alongside - or via a chute in - the belt container. Also as a lesser priority belt-feed from left and right sides. Plus immediate alternate use preferably in either belt-feed slot of say a 30-round box mag. ..... etc
    The above was an effort at humour and easy to misread despite the "..... etc. "
    Addition of a wishlist of nice-to-have features is a sure way to turn a good basic design into a poor system.

    The Israelis are keen on prophylactic fire. Hence their NG7 must carry its belt containers of up to 200 rounds – wide and about 7kg full – centrally below the receiver. That makes downward ejection difficult to arrange. Belt feed is from the left with ejection to the right and non-reversible as is appropriate for a LMG. A box magazine can be attached below as an alternate to the belt container.

    The fanciful wishlist can be reduced to a single nice-to-have. Either downward ejection or if that is impractical it could for concealment and left-handed gunners be useful to add a ready attach/detach deflector to force right-side ejected cases downward. But any sensible D and E team would have assessed both already. The Israelis with a well-earned reputation for good sense must have assessed both as troublesome. And the wishlist then has no genuine entries.

  15. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    I have a question out of curiosity.

    For those of you who have fired a MAG-58 type gun and a Bren gun, which do think is better suited for use as a squad level weapon?
    Horses for courses. Only did training on the Bren which were converted from 303 to 7.62. No wow or Gee-whizz with that baby.

    As you will be aware the RLI contacts on Fire Force (Rhodesia) were close range 10m or less. If they were running into you, you waited till you couldn't miss. Under those conditions you wanted fire power right up front - and so FN MAGs were carried on a scale of one per 4-man stick with 500 rounds in 50 belts and no spare barrel. Was used as a personal weapon with no number 2 crewman to assist. Controlled bursts only of 2-3 rounds. Can't think of what more you can possibly need to lay down immediate - devastating - fire power to win the fire fight. All you need are lads strong enough to carry and handle the weapon - firing mainly standing from the hip or from the squat - on a ratio of 1:4 among your troops.

  16. #116
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Horses for courses. Only did training on the Bren which were converted from 303 to 7.62. No wow or Gee-whizz with that baby.

    As you will be aware the RLI contacts on Fire Force (Rhodesia) were close range 10m or less. If they were running into you, you waited till you couldn't miss. Under those conditions you wanted fire power right up front - and so FN MAGs were carried on a scale of one per 4-man stick with 500 rounds in 50 belts and no spare barrel. Was used as a personal weapon with no number 2 crewman to assist. Controlled bursts only of 2-3 rounds. Can't think of what more you can possibly need to lay down immediate - devastating - fire power to win the fire fight. All you need are lads strong enough to carry and handle the weapon - firing mainly standing from the hip or from the squat - on a ratio of 1:4 among your troops.
    There was a board game many (like 35) years ago called Firefight. It simulated combat in the ETO and the units went down to individual vehicles and groups of two men. It is interesting that in that game the most effective way to organize the infantry was exactly as you said, 1 MG per 4 man group.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  17. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    There was a board game many (like 35) years ago called Firefight. It simulated combat in the ETO and the units went down to individual vehicles and groups of two men. It is interesting that in that game the most effective way to organize the infantry was exactly as you said, 1 MG per 4 man group.
    I agree but with the caveat that not all MG are equal.

  18. #118
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    175

    Default correction

    Quote Originally Posted by Compost View Post
    The Israelis are keen on prophylactic fire. Hence their NG7 must carry its belt containers of up to 200 rounds – wide and about 7kg full – centrally below the receiver. That makes downward ejection difficult to arrange. Belt feed is from the left with ejection to the right and non-reversible as is appropriate for a LMG. A box magazine can be attached below as an alternate to the belt container.

    OK in a blurb on the NG7 I misread " Ammo. box, Assault drum " as ' Ammo: Box, Assault drum '.

    The NG7 does not accept box magazines. Take one point off me, and one off the NG7.

  19. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Compost View Post
    Have handled but not trialed and fired the MAG-58. Found it overlong and poorly balanced with the belt-feed too far forward of the trigger grip. But durability/functioning and robustness/ruggedness count for a lot everywhere. In general the MAG-58 is thoroughly proven as suitable – though not ideal – for squad/section, and better as a GPMG/MMG for use above that level.
    With the greatest respect ... before you can pronounce on the MAG-58 you would need to have more than fired it but carried it, fired it and employed it in combat on a number of occasions.

    Having done a Sustained Fire course (back in the day) - where we used the MAG on tripods - I am not sold on its ability in the sustained fire role.

    So we find ourselves with diametrically opposite opinions. Feel free to respond.

  20. #120
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    With the greatest respect ... before you can pronounce on the MAG-58 you would need to have more than fired it but carried it, fired it and employed it in combat on a number of occasions.

    Having done a Sustained Fire course (back in the day) - where we used the MAG on tripods - I am not sold on its ability in the sustained fire role.

    So we find ourselves with diametrically opposite opinions. Feel free to respond.
    My opinion not based on combat experience is that a squad/section patrolling or otherwise on the move should currently have a compact 7.62mm LMG. That would be the NG7 or Mark 48 with a barrel of about 500mm and preferably none of the 350 to 400mm flash-bang variety. A squad/section in and around a location should have a more robust even though cumbersome 7.62mm GPMG/MMG. ('"currently" because 7.62 and also 5.56mm are going to be eventually succeeded by new calibres).

    Hence, believe a company ‘arms room’ should enable a modern version of the Bren-M60 combination as previously used by AusArmy. That was one LMG plus one GPMG/MMG for each squad/section in an infantry platoon. So issue of all its NG7s and MAG58s to a modern platoon would put one in each 4-man team.

    If location of the ‘arms room’ - or ‘arms rooms’ spread across several company or platoon vehicles – were remote or lacking then some reduced number of one type of MG or mix of both types would be on issue for portable use. Decision on the number and type(s) of MG on issue should always be made by PL CMDR subject to overrule by COY CMDR. See also post 117 on Trigger thread Size of the Platoon and Company. Some CMDRs might routinely prefer a 50/50 split.

    Understand your apparent preference for the MAG58, probably supported by something like a slow-firing L3 Browning with fixed headspace and QCBs. Further back there is the water-cooled version and also the remarkable but hard-to-manoeuvre Vickers. Makes one wonder if/when the water-cooled SFMG might reappear as a vehicle weapon.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •