The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[COMMAR]

The SAW isn't going anywhere, a Squad will just have another option before leaving the wire. The report fr/ 7th Marines in 2001 should be online, also a recent IAR story fr/ The Marine Corps Times gives some info on it.

Marines to Test, Evaluate 4 Auto-Rifle Models: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...ewsaw_020109w/ ....A Change in Mindset (Note view entire article on link, text removed due to copyright issues)

[Ken White]

However, in the future you might consider that to avoid copyright issues, this site encourages the posting of just an excerpt and a link instead of posting an entire -- or most of -- an article. The various service Times and Gannet in general are one crowd that occasionally get sticky about it. May not be a problem but it just keeps the board from getting in trouble with someone who's picky.

[Granite_State]

For what it's worth, Bruce Gudmundsson had a short article looking at the historical evolution of the fire team around the automatic rifle, dating back to the Danish Army at the turn of the century. It's in Military History Quarterly, the Autumn 2008 issue, if you have a subscription or a good library, doesn't look to be available online.

[William F. Owen]

For what it's worth, Bruce Gudmundsson had a short article looking at the historical evolution of the fire team around the automatic rifle, dating back to the Danish Army at the turn of the century. It's in Military History Quarterly, the Autumn 2008 issue, if you have a subscription or a good library, doesn't look to be available online.

I've never understood Bruce's fascination or reference to this. He made it when he revised English's "On Infantry", except in the book he said it was the German Army with the Danish Madsen.

In my opinion, it's not accurate or helpful. A Fire team is not "a 4 man team." It's a team dedicated to operating a weapon. It's historic roots are the field gun crews. The first MGs where mounted on field gun carriages, and had a field gun crews. Evolution just morphed them all into something, once infantry weapons required more than one man to operate and sustain them. It's historically irrelevant, but it's an argument worth study, once you see Fireteams trying to be mini-all arms entities, which they should not be.

[AlexTX ret]

[QUOTE=William F. Owen;67891
In my opinion, it's not accurate or helpful. A Fire team is not "a 4 man team." It's a team dedicated to operating a weapon. It's historic roots are the field gun crews. The first MGs where mounted on field gun carriages, and had a field gun crews. Evolution just morphed them all into something, once infantry weapons required more than one man to operate and sustain them. It's historically irrelevant, but it's an argument worth study, once you see Fireteams trying to be mini-all arms entities, which they should not be.[/QUOTE]

I've fought this fight before. I think the idea of a fire team being a mini-squad is ridiculous. It may help C&C if all parts of a unit follow a set TO&E. But we need to keep the ability to operate with all sorts combinations of weapons and soldiers. I realize it's much more sanitized now then Vietnam was but who's to say we won't fight another war where we won't be able to resupply or bring in replacements at the drop of a hat.

I like big squads because I've fought mixed squads and platoons. I found it even advantagous at times. It taught me to be flexible in how I adaped my battleplan to the mission rather than try to adapt the mission to the organization I led. It also requires a certain amount of autonomity for unit leaders to get the job done as they see fit.

I realize that this is an anathma for the rigid C&C policy that has come with better, though more complex, telecomunication nets. In my "humble"opinion, leaders today seem as much worried about their careers as they do about accomplishing the mission. If this is true, I don't blame them when higher levels of command are as concerned about the political ramifications of a subordinate's actions and has the abiltiy to micromanage down to the squad level.

As for the concept of an IAR versus a belt fed mg, this is a critical one at the squad or platoon level. I think the squad should reduce the number of ammunition types it has to field. Secondly a squad should be as quick to react as possible. The use of 5.56 ammunition isn't such a liability. (The thought of the M262 mod 1 is interesting) Maybe the Platoon should be the lowest level that has a section that carries a belt fed 7.62 belt fed mg or however many it need to accomplish the mission. There is a need to have the capability of a platoon to be able to keep adversaries from picking a squad or platoon apart from a distance. In my opinion from handeling a SAW up close and personal, it's rate of fire is insufficent. It 's fragile and weighs too much for the little extra you gain from using it. The M48 is not the answer either. It has all the weaknesses of a SAW except for it uses a 7.62 NATO round. I liked the "Pig" too even though it got such a bad reputation over the years.

[William F. Owen]

As for the concept of an IAR versus a belt fed mg, this is a critical one at the squad or platoon level. I think the squad should reduce the number of ammunition types it has to field. Secondly a squad should be as quick to react as possible. The use of 5.56 ammunition isn't such a liability. (The thought of the M262 mod 1 is interesting) Maybe the Platoon should be the lowest level that has a section that carries a belt fed 7.62 belt fed mg or however many it need to accomplish the mission.

In the British Army we did have an all 5.56mm Magazine section from when we lost the SLR-GPMG till they introduced the GPMG back into the platoon and then the Minimi-SAW into the fire teams.

[AlexTX ret]

In the British Army we did have an all 5.56mm Magazine section from when we lost the SLR-GPMG till they introduced the GPMG back into the platoon and then the Minimi-SAW into the fire teams.

I agree that we have sacrificed HE at the target. But I don't think that adding a SAW type weapon will add to that. And using a 7.62 NATO MMG will affect the maneuverability of your assault sections. I also agree that the 40mm grenade is too light and too short ranged to be effective in a lot of actions. The M79/M203 was considered too light back as far 'Nam. It was just that we didn't have anything else and we stretched its envelope beyond what was considered its capabilities.

I think that IARs and SDMs should be aquired as needed. I would think that this would be one of the assets that accumulate as unit progresses. (Sort of "lost" assets that just never is turned in by the unit so their availability grows far outside of the units static TO&E). Let the belt fed MMG be used at platoon level as needed.

However, I have a couple of of additions that I would like to add. The Russians in WW2 made an artform out of aggression and this with high fire power, (They made use of a lot of submachine guns in their Guard Units) created an amount of abject fear in thier opponents. While I have back pedaled a bit on this because of unnecessary casualties, an outwardly aggressive unit can be as effective when compared to a unit twice its size. I think that this has as much to do with tactical effectiveness as fire on the target.

The final thing that I would added to a squad liberally is some sort of equivalent of the Russian RPG system, especially the RPG 7 (newer model) and possibly RPG 16. They are compact, light and easily maneuvered. Just the thing to bunker bust as well as attacking bunched up troops. How much this would add to a squad's HE is up to how well it is utilized. In the movie, Blackhawk Down, they had to cut down the numbers pof RPG round expended by a devisor of 3. Think of that and how it could of affected other missions.

I like the RPG 29 and think highly of it as a replacement for all our smaller anti-tank weapons. However, I would again keep the Platoon as the lowest level of distibution.

As for the Negrev, I have had my hands on it once and was impressed with its robustness for what was basically a SAW. It did have the capability using Galili inf rifle magazines and M16 magazines with an adapter. How ever, it didn't have quite the range of a SAW, so it was even more limited in my opinion. A good weapon with very littel tactical usefulness. Howeve, when I was there, the IMF loved them. They even gave it the capability to fire rifle grenades.

[reed11b]

I think the squad should reduce the number of ammunition types it has to field. Secondly a squad should be as quick to react as possible. The use of 5.56 ammunition isn't such a liability.

I disagree strongly. How many true "ammo is black" scenarios have there actually been? Even most of those were preventable if the unit had better HE projection. Giving HE projection (203 is inadequate) to the team is a force multiplier not an attempt to create an "combined arms team". For all of that I have been an advocate of moving belt-fed weapons out of fire teams and up to platoon level for years. The combat load for the SAW gunner creates a mobility imbalance in the team and that is bad.
Reed

[William F. Owen]

I disagree strongly. How many true "ammo is black" scenarios have there actually been? Even most of those were preventable if the unit had better HE projection. Giving HE projection (203 is inadequate) to the team is a force multiplier not an attempt to create an "combined arms team". For all of that I have been an advocate of moving belt-fed weapons out of fire teams and up to platoon level for years. The combat load for the SAW gunner creates a mobility imbalance in the team and that is bad.
Reed

I think Reed11b and AlexTX may be closer than you think.

a.) Few units ever run out of ammo, but it is a constant and enduring fear, that has to be addressed - and though rare, has been a reality.

b.) Yes, HE projection is massively undervalued. Why? I have some idea, but a good mix of 40mm, rifle grenades and LASM/LAWs, would seem to address most issues, especially when the enhanced 40mm MV comes out.

c.) - and as I think I have said before, talking to some IDF guys a while back, they have reduced the number of Negev to as few as 2 per platoon.