The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Jones_RE]

There's more to a weapon than the cyclic rate, muzzle velocity and carried weight. Before the M249, there was an attempt to use an M16A1 with a bipod as the squad automatic rifle.

Machine guns take more of a beating because sustained automatic fire is hard on a gun. The M249 is heavier because it's built to handle that work. The belt feed also means a lot less time spent reloading vs a twenty or thirty round magazine.

Not that I necessarily have an informed opinion on which is the better choice, but I do believe the M249 is not completely irrational. It's simply a different set of tradeoffs.

[reed11b]

There's more to a weapon than the cyclic rate, muzzle velocity and carried weight. Before the M249, there was an attempt to use an M16A1 with a bipod as the squad automatic rifle.

Machine guns take more of a beating because sustained automatic fire is hard on a gun. The M249 is heavier because it's built to handle that work. The belt feed also means a lot less time spent reloading vs a twenty or thirty round magazine.

Not that I necessarily have an informed opinion on which is the better choice, but I do believe the M249 is not completely irrational. It's simply a different set of tradeoffs.

For all of that, how many soldiers (or Marines) do you know that have changed barrels on there SAW in combat? I was a SAW gunner for OIF and I never came close, and rarely had to reload my 100 round soft pouch. I do think that the 30 round magazine is to small and that a belt fed system would be better, but I question the conventional wisdom of "needing" an exchangeable barrel. I also question the need for “mirrored” fire teams and why is the LMG of a squad need to be 5.56? Large variety of 6-7mm rounds that offer better range and effects then the 5.56 NATO while still weighing much less then 7.62 NATO.
Reed

[William F. Owen]

There's more to a weapon than the cyclic rate, muzzle velocity and carried weight. Before the M249, there was an attempt to use an M16A1 with a bipod as the squad automatic rifle.

There may be more but this is the frame of the discussion we can usefully progress. ROF does not = Suppression. Carried weight costs a lot, and muzzle velocity defines an number of things such as comparative ranges and terminal effects.

The flow down effects of an 5.56mm LMG were simply not calculated or argued in a constructive way. It was just assumed that the US, and then the UK, "needed" such a weapon so one appeared.

Agreed the M-16 LSW is a bit of a dog because of the direct impingement gas system, but the concept was basically sound.

The UK L86A2 is conceptually a very good weapon, though widely misunderstood, leading to bad doctrine and not taught well in training. It's now the DMR weapon in the fireteam for no reasons that make sense.

The HK-416 with a 20 inch barrel and a bipod would do the same/better job, as would the Ultimax Mk-5.

[Render]

Wouldn't that SAW's inclusion in the squad TOE have something to do with the squads ability to fill the air with lead?

TIME
AND
PLACE,
R

[Ken White]

I'm unsure why anyone would wish to do so. Seems sort of pointless to me.

[Jones_RE]

Assuming that you don't need the belt feed ability of M249 often enough to justify the weight, complexity and extra maintenance. . . Should the automatic rifle fire the same round as the assault rifle? A more powerful round should still be controllable with the bipod and heavy barrel, but is it worth the weight and logistic hassles?

On another topic - fire and maneuver at the squad level doesn't seem to have a lot of fans here. I can imagine why - how many enemies can one fire team suppress? Is there still a place for fire teams in an organization that's likely to fight as a single unit?

[William F. Owen]

Assuming that you don't need the belt feed ability of M249 often enough to justify the weight, complexity and extra maintenance. . . Should the automatic rifle fire the same round as the assault rifle? A more powerful round should still be controllable with the bipod and heavy barrel, but is it worth the weight and logistic hassles?

I think, that for the general fire teams, a 5.56mm Carbine, and 1-2 5.56mm LSW a good mix. Heavier weapons could go in other fireteams

On another topic - fire and maneuver at the squad level doesn't seem to have a lot of fans here. I can imagine why - how many enemies can one fire team suppress? Is there still a place for fire teams in an organization that's likely to fight as a single unit?

Trials would suggest a fire team of 4 men can suppress about 3-5m frontage. Fire teams are excellent for C2, movement and weapons control. We've always had them, but we just refuse to admit it. Gun Group and Rifle Group, were/are fire teams. The "Marshall error" of creating mirror fire teams meant that got lost.

[120mm]

There's more to a weapon than the cyclic rate, muzzle velocity and carried weight. Before the M249, there was an attempt to use an M16A1 with a bipod as the squad automatic rifle.

Machine guns take more of a beating because sustained automatic fire is hard on a gun. The M249 is heavier because it's built to handle that work. The belt feed also means a lot less time spent reloading vs a twenty or thirty round magazine.

Not that I necessarily have an informed opinion on which is the better choice, but I do believe the M249 is not completely irrational. It's simply a different set of tradeoffs.

Exactly. Any machinegun that requires a sustained rate of fire needs to be heavier than a rifle.

But I'm liking what Wilf says about that theoretical "sustained" rate of fire at the fire team level. I think a "real" machinegun is a better choice, with a "real" machinegun round and rate of fire. And your automatic rifle can be a piston gun with a drum.

[William F. Owen]

Exactly. Any machinegun that requires a sustained rate of fire needs to be heavier than a rifle.

But I'm liking what Wilf says about that theoretical "sustained" rate of fire at the fire team level. I think a "real" machinegun is a better choice, with a "real" machinegun round and rate of fire. And your automatic rifle can be a piston gun with a drum.

Yes, I concur.

I have always wondered why the UK loaded up the two section Fire teams with a Minimi LMG each, when giving one team a 7.62mm GPMG, and spreading the ammo across both teams would have created a proven, better and cheaper solution.

I have some issues with Drum Mags, even if they are reliable, but yes, an HG-416, or G-36, with a 100 or 150 drum Mag, and a bipod, does everything a Minimi does, for less weight, bulk and no loss of effect.

[Norfolk]

I think I find myself like Rifleman here, torn somewhat between the German Group organized around a single GPMG, and the USMC Squad organized into three Fire Teams, each based upon an AR/LMG. Used properly, each gets the job done. However, I suspect that, all other things being equal, a USMC-type Squad with three of the new ARs that would be replacements for the SAW, might prove somewhat more agile, allow for a little bit quicker, quieter movement, and better chances for seeing without being seen and for achieving surprise and shock effect.

The "safe" choice is a Squad/Section based upon a single GPMG, with a Platoon containing up to 4 more or less identical Squads. There are no arguments with the firepower of a GPMG. None. I suppose though, this leads to the the only serious reservation I have about Wilf's proposed Platoon make-up (admittedly one entirely different from the German and old Commonwealth models), in that he proposes only 2 GPMGs per Platoon. The Germans switched to 4 GPMGs per Platoon in 1940, considering this to be the minimum required for winning the firefight quickly. And Commonwealth Platoons usually possessed at least 3 GPMGs or 6 LARs/LMGs plus a GPMG until the 1980's. Back then, if you wanted serious, sustained firepower, there were only GPMGs (or LMGs that weighed almost as much as the GPMGs). However, Wilf may well be right that only 2 GPMGs per Platoon might be needed, and each in its own dedicated gun team separate from the rifle teams. The Germans only had rifle grenades and got rid of their light mortar, but Wilf's platoon has 4 modern grenade-launchers as well as a light mortar. I don't know one way or the other, but that, together with the way his platoon functions, may make all the difference necessary.

On the other hand, the "bold" choice may be to pool the GPMGs at Company level, attaching them out to Platoons as needed, and to have the Platoons composed of Squads/Sections with no less than three ARs or magazine-fed LMGs, firing from an open-bolt and dispensing with belts and changeable barrels. Leaves the Squads (and the Platoon as a whole) more fleet-of-foot and better able to move. Basically, I'm arguing that this maximizes the potential for achieving surprise and shock-effect (and minimizing fatigue). Now with ARs or magazine-fed LMGs being available that are truly light but potent, perhaps GPMGs may no longer be usually necessary at Squad and Platoon levels. But the success of this approach depends in good part upon the usefullness of the AR's/LMG's round. If it is just going to be the old 5.56 (which is what's planned), then it's dubious, though if the Mk 262 round is used more or less exclusively (best of luck there ), it may be doable. Personally, nothing less than something approaching the class of the Grendel (a military derivative of the Grendel would likely be rather more modest in "paper performance" than the Grendel itself) would completely allay my doubts on that matter. However, a pair of ARs putting rounds downrange (while the third is moving) may be able to suppress more or less as well as a single GPMG, but if the rounds aren't killling those people that they do hit, that suppression is partly wasted as you have to spend time digging out and killing folks that may have been hit and stunned or wounded, but not killed as they would have been by a 7.62. I'm hopeful about the potential of the new AR in the USMC Squad, but I still need to be fully convinced that three of the new ARs will be able to suppress more or less as well as having a GPMG in each Squad. And needless to day, I am not a fan of the Minimi/M-249.

In either case, the two-fire team Squad/Section only seems to make sense if the idea is to perform full frontal assaults (especially during mechanized ops) using a maximum of firepower and a minimum of manpower. Squad/Section TO&E and TTPs by bean-counter. Other than that, it doesn't seem to offer anything that either a GPMG-based Squad or a three-fire team Squad with ARs/LMGs can't do better.

[William F. Owen]

I think I find myself like Rifleman here, torn somewhat between the German Group organized around a single GPMG, and the USMC Squad organized into three Fire Teams, each based upon an AR/LMG. Used properly, each gets the job done. ]

The 30-man model I use to start discussion is capable of 3 entirely different organisations, using the same number of men, ranks, weapons, sesnors and radios, so you don't have to choose between German or USMC if you train and organised correctly. You can do both.

However, Wilf may well be right that only 2 GPMGs per Platoon might be needed, and each in its own dedicated gun team separate from the rifle teams. The Germans only had rifle grenades and got rid of their light mortar, but Wilf's platoon has 4 modern grenade-launchers as well as a light mortar. I don't know one way or the other, but that, together with the way his platoon functions, may make all the difference necessary.

You are exactly right, that my thinking is far more focussed on HE Projection, rather than just direct fire suppression. The problem with discussing the Platoon structure is that very few folk discuss the how and why, rather than just counting the number of MGs.

[Uboat509]

Based on my experience, I firmly believe that a belt fed machine gun is needed at the fore team level, although I personally don't like the SAW. A magazine fed weapon could never be a substitute for a belt fed one in that role. As someone who has been fired at I can tell you that there is no substitute for putting a lot of lead down range very quickly. Even if you don't hit the target it still has a profound psychological effect on the target. You are going to loose a good bit of that with a magazine fed weapon, plus you won't be able to carry as much ammunition.

GPMGs are not the answer either. A GPMG is a supporting weapon. Taking a GPMG on an assault is problematic at best and taking them in for CQC or trench clearing is simply impossible. Furthermore, whereas a light machine gun can be effectively carried and employed by a single soldier, a GPMG requires, at the very least, an AG and an ammo bearer is also a hell of a nice thing to have (I've heard anyway. I never had one) Add to that the fact that you just can't carry as much ammunition for the GPMG and you can see why they need to kept out of the fire teams and left in the weapons squad.

SFC W

[Ken White]

Having a great deal of experience with magazine fed ARs in Squads here and there, I've never seen the magic of belt fed as worth the weight, parts problems and potential for misaligned belts, misfires and overheated weapons. Mag fed weapons, both the BAR and the M14E2 put out more than adequate suppressive fire -- and they were totally reliable. Aside from the fact it is quicker and easier to reload using a new magazine, an easily portable belt is only going to be about 100 rounds -- and an Ultimax can hit that. C-Mags aren't perfect but they are getting better; the problem is that no real effort has been made to provide better large magazines

As someone who has been fired at I can tell you that there is no substitute for putting a lot of lead down range very quickly. Even if you don't hit the target it still has a profound psychological effect on the target. You are going to loose a good bit of that with a magazine fed weapon, plus you won't be able to carry as much ammunition.

I respectfully disagree in part. I acknowledge the truth of the statement when operating against inexperienced or poorly trained opponents but all the wasted ammo in the world will be totally ignored by competent enemies and you'll run out of ammo before they will...

GPMGs are not the answer either. A GPMG is a supporting weapon. Taking a GPMG on an assault is problematic at best and taking them in for CQC or trench clearing is simply impossible.

Totally agree on that. Did take them occasionally during the SE Asia war games but always tried to avoid it if possible, more trouble than they're worth if you're patrolling and only of marginal use in most circumstances other than a pure meeting engagement or defensive battle. I'd keep 'em at a MG Platoon at Company level instead of in a Wpn sqd.