I think the alternative is a three team squad, which has twice the potential for suppression all other things being equal, or a two squad "section." Wilf's "fire team group" potentially offers both of those options at the same time.

Obviously, the SAW can work well. We know that because you've said that you've seen it happen. So can squad level fire and maneuver - we know that for the same reason. I don't think anyone can credibly say that the curretn weapons and tactics aren't working at all. However, your experiences (and those of basically every soldier using the same weapons and tactics) don't tell us how other weapons or techniques would have faired in the same situation. Or how the current system would do in more challenging circumstances.

The burden is almost always on those who would challenge existing doctrine. Especially when that doctrine has produced success in the past. If our weapons and tactics had lead to bloody failure everyone would be ready for change . . . .

That said, I'm concerned that we're drawing lessons from success that may not be justified. The current squad structure, equipment, and tactics were validated against an enemy force that is on the whole considered to be poorly trained, often badly outnumbered, and incredibly outgunned.