The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[RJ]

Gentlemen,

Here is a item I just picked out of the Marine Corps Times.
The Corps is looking at a adopting a new Infantry Automatic Rifle in the 12.5 pound range.

FYI - Corps testing lighter alternatives to belt-fed M249
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Sep 13, 2008 7:31:52 EDT

Marine infantry units soon may replace their light machine guns with new automatic rifles designed to help gunners move faster on assaults.

Weapons officials at Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., are testing magazine-fed weapons from at least six gun makers in a search for a lighter alternative to the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, which weighs close to 17 pounds unloaded.

At the squad level, “the biggest hindrance to being able to effectively fire and maneuver is the weight of the SAW,” said Patrick Cantwell, capability integration officer for the Infantry Automatic Rifle program at SysCom.

The winning IAR design — which the Corps wants to weigh no more than 12.5 pounds — could begin replacing the SAW in infantry squads as early as next year.

“We see this being the automatic rifleman’s primary weapon,” Cantwell said. “We obviously want it as soon as possible, but we are looking at sometime in 2009.”

The M249 has been in service with the Corps since the mid-1980s. The standard model weighs about 22 pounds when loaded with a 200-round belt of 5.56mm ammunition.

Despite its weight, the weapon spits out up to 750 rounds per minute, providing small units with a tremendous rate of sustained automatic fire.

Why the Army says no thanks
That’s why the Army, which also uses the M249, has ruled out a soldier version of the Marine IAR.

“We are not considering adopting an auto rifle for the infantry squad,” said Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of the Infantry Center’s Directorate of Combat Developments at Fort Benning, Ga.

Currently, Marine and Army infantry squads equip their fire teams with one M249 each. The difference, Radcliffe said, is that Marine squads have three fire teams, and Army squads have two fire teams.

“It’s really all about firepower. The Marine Corps has a 13-man squad; we have a nine-man squad — that’s a four-man difference.”

I feel strongly that the Marine 13 Man Squad is still the best infanty assualt unit. Three automatic weapons provide flexibility and supression for the squad are always better than the two in the 9 man squads. And like the man said - That's a four man difference.

[bikewrench8541]

I'm a little worried about this. None of the programs in the past have worked out that well.
M-16A1(in an AR role), LSW, the Norwegian Marines AR (correct?) et al.
In fact the M249 is one of the more popular and effective weapons in a rifle squad. Some are very worn but...

[RJ]

The Marine Corps is only looking at an inital order of 4,000 IAR's. And half of those will be retained for testing and the other 2,000 will be tested in the field.

Hey, most Marines thought the M-1 Grand was a pos in the early 1940's. After they aquired a few from Army units on Guadacanal, they switched to the M-1 and got rid of the 03A1 bolt action Springfield as fast as they could.

The upgrade to the M-14 was easy in the early 1960's.
I saw my first M-14 and M-60 MG when the 503rd Airborne Regt. arrived on Okinawa in late 1959. The Paratroopers let us play with their new toys at a Fam-Fire exersize in the Northern Training Area on the Rock.

The Marine Divisions started getting M-14's in 1961. Then switched out to the M-16 after the Vietnam War Started.

They didn't like that shift at all.

I think you have to keep exploring the possibilities. If they can develop a solid IAR that is 6 pounds lighter, that will transfer into the ability of increase the individual AR gunner to carry more ammo, water, etc.

[Rifleman]

Three things from infantry combat in WWII that I think are notable:

1) The big USMC squad with it's internal fire team structure developed around three automatic rifles, not light machine guns. I believe there were three squads to a platoon.

2) The smaller German squad with no internal fire team structure developed around a single light machine gun. I believe there were four squads to a platoon.

3) Both squads were successful in heavy combat. I think it would be hard to make a good argument that one squad proved more successful than another.

[William F. Owen]

As I have said before, the M249 is based on a misreading of light weapons doctrine.

The barrel length of the M249 is 20 or 14 inches. Same as the M16 or M4 so it has the same muzzle velocity.

It’s cyclic rate is practically the same as the M4/M16, so it has no better terminal effect than an M16/M4 Carbine. It appears to be no more accurate, bar the bipod. – and it weighs more than double and eats rounds at an embarrassing rate.

Why is it even there?

This is sharp contrast to almost all other support weapons doctrine, where the “Squad LMG” has had a provably better performance than all the other squad weapons. UK testing seems to indicate that the M-249/LMG has a worse performance than all the other section weapons. It has added carried weight to the section for no useful increase in performance.

The other big problem is the very odd idea that all “Fireteams” need to have the same weapons mix. Again, I suggest this is doctrinally flawed.

IMO, the USMC search for some type of solution is long overdue, and everyone else should take note.

[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.

[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.