The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Uboat509]

I always liked the M60. It sucked with blanks but I never had any significant problems with live ammo. 550 RPM is plenty as far as I am concerned.

As for the M249, when I was a SAW gunner, we called it the (expletive!) gun. The reason for that was that when you pulled the trigger it would often go ka-chunk at wich point you would shout (expletive!), perform immediate action, pull the trigger, ka-chunk (expletive!), and so on. I will never trust that gun again.

SFC W

[Ken White]

The PKM has had a long and successful run, and it has been designed to use both 7.62N and a 6MM caliber. Versions using rimless calibers are actually much simpler.

LMG, the SS 77 in its new Compact format is also a winner. Also a reliable peformer now that they've lowered the cyclic rate. It's based on the old USSR SGM action -- which is the Bren / MAG 58 / BAR action turned on its side.

I'm convinced that the IAR will work, and one of the reasons I'm so sure is because the USMC is also soliciting magazines that hold more ammunition. Information is publicly available about a 55 round magazine in development.

Me too, not least because I once carried a BAR with a 20rd magazine and had no problems... ;D

As for alternate cartridges, there are many designs extant, all of which would outperform 7.62N on soft targets and some of which would outperform it on harder targets.

Progress is all fields; the 7.62 NATO is getting old.

KAC makes a ten pound LMG that is an improvement on the Stoner 63.

Yes, they do. My spies tell me it has reliability problems, though... Lightweight is good -- but it has a cost.

The USMC is soliciting a thermally stable machinegun barrel that will extend barrel life and obviate the requirement for a quick change barrel. There is only one company, that I know of, that has a viable product. It is an SBIR set aside, if that matters.

Noteworthy the new Russian is essentially a PKM with a really heavy barrel (LINK) allowing among other things movement of the bipod to the muzzle where it provides a far more stable firing platform. More accuracy is the result -- and it weighs more. Maybe they know something we don't...

[Ken White]

...As for the M249, when I was a SAW gunner...I will never trust that gun again.

Nearly as I can gather, you've got a lot of company on that. The only person I've ever seen really defend that weapon is Schmedlap -- and even he admits it took extra loving care. Can't always provide that...


Agree on the M 60. It was a good weapon, almost impossible to screw up and did not require an excess of maintenance. No MG does well on blanks IMO -- but then, they don't need to...

[Kiwigrunt]

Not sure from whence that statement is derived. They are two very different weapons and concepts.

The Mk 48 weighs 18 pounds LINK, the M240 weighs 27 pounds LINK -- plus. Folks using it today tell me that those carried in theater today easily weigh over 30 pounds.

Sorry about the confusion. Wilf and I were referring to the 7.62 Minimi made by FN Herstal http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=249&backPID=306&productID=19&pid_prod uct=233&pidList=306&categorySelector=2&detail="][/URL]as opposed to the Mk48 of the US. The M240/Mag 58 are indeed a totally different ball game.
I like your suggestion on the PKM in 6+. The Russians did indeed try something like that with the 6mm Unified Machine Gun but that seems to have gone nowhere.

Darn....can someone please teach me how to tidy those links up (a computer geek I am not).

[Kiwigrunt]

SethB;67682]Ken, your point on on construction is well taken. A friend of mine tells me that the Mk 48 is a reliable weapon until exactly 1100 rounds are fired, at which point the gas system freezes solid and a Small Arms Repairer is required.

That is interesting. Wonder is if that may indeed be different with the 7.62 Herstal Minimi with the 'original' adjustable gas plug.

[Ken White]

Sorry about the confusion. Wilf and I were referring to the 7.62 Minimi made by FN Herstal http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=249&backPID=306&productID=19&pid_prod uct=233&pidList=306&categorySelector=2&detail="][/URL]as opposed to the Mk48 of the US. The M240/Mag 58 are indeed a totally different ball game.

The 7.62 Mimimi is a Mk 48 without an upper handguard and a few very minor differences as the gas cylinder plug you noted.. Your link says it weighs 8.2 kg which is roughly 18.04 pounds, same as the Mk 48 and thus at least 9 pounds less than a MAG 58 / M240 / L7. No confusion. I note that the FN link you used also does not give the weight of the MAG 58...

The Minimi in 5.56 is the M249 and the Mk 46; the 7.62 Minimi is the Mk 48. Minor differences but they are quite insignificant.

I like your suggestion on the PKM in 6+. The Russians did indeed try something like that with the 6mm Unified Machine Gun but that seems to have gone nowhere.

Big armies have too many sunk costs in equipment to change it unless there is a pressing need. Right now, there is no pressing need for them or us.

A 6mm cartridge has a lot of advantages but its still a compromise, heavier and larger than 5,56 and without the reach and power of the 7.62.

Darn....can someone please teach me how to tidy those links up (a computer geek I am not).

Intead of using the clickable link button here, I've found it easier just to type [ url= then copy and paste the link and add an end bracket ]type in 'link' or whatever name you want it to possess then close with [ /url ] with NO spaces between the brackets and the text.

Here's all that using parentheses instead of brackets:

(url=http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=249&backPID=306&productID=19&pid_prod %20uct=233&pidList=306&categorySelector=2&detail=% 22) LINK(/url)

And with brackets:
LINK

[Kiwigrunt]

Thank you for the lesson, Ken.

[Ken White]

Hope it was adequate...

[Rifleman]

Ken,

You obviously prefer a larger squad in multiple fire teams with an automatic rifle in each team. I guess we can't deny the success the USMC had with it.

Question: what about smaller squads forced to operate (whether by design or attrition) without a fire team subdivison? Do you think a belt fed MG is preferable to an AR in that case?

Examples: the German WWII gruppe that relied on one MG42 and several rifleman; the average US Army squad in Vietnam that always seemed to be understrength and thus operating roughly along the same lines, even if fire teams were official by TOE.

I've heard more than one Vietnam vet say that they remember a "squad" of six to eight men that usually operated without fire teams with one M60 (usually employed at squad level even if not officially there by TOE), one M79 and a handful of riflemen. For example, James McDonough writes in Platoon Leader that he took over a rifle platoon that consisted of three six-man "squads."

[Ken White]

or situations and the old METT-T applies. The advantages of the USMC Squad to me are ability to absorb casualties and still function, the training value for junior NCOs and flexibility it offers to organize in many ways.

Leading it I've been down to six people, usually had ten, rarely all thirteen. I've organized with all the ARs in one support team team and all the rifles in an assault team. I've held a line and sent out a four man FT patrol many times but have also sent out multiple two or three man patrols and two FT sized patrols -- depends on what the other guy seemed to be doing. Went to Recon where we supposedly had a 10 man Sqd with Three 3 man Scout teams; due to shortages, we usually operated as a Scout Sqd with six or seven total people.

Later, in the Army I ran an 11 man squad briefly in training but spent most of time in Recon thus had either a six bod squad or a 28 man platoon to worry about and I've used various combination of that for a lot of things -- to include Wilfs idea of four five man teams (less drivers or four six man teams with).

Whatever works. I did see 18-20 man platoons in the Army in Viet Nam. A lot of people liked to keep an M-60 with the Squads but there some that did not. Some folks, if short an NCO would combine a squad into a SL, x number of troops and an asst SL; others would try to keep two Ft and put a SP4 or even a PFC in charge.

A lot of Infantry Battalions took their Recon and anti Tank Platoons and combined them into a mini-Rifle Company. They had six M-60s and usually about 50 plus people, generally organized into one big platoon with six seven or eight man squads including an M-60. Some did okay, most got chewed up regularly because they'd give them company sized missions too often.

[William F. Owen]

Two questions:

#1 -- Why the IAR not in 7.62 mm? Does using 5.56 mm for the IAR not just reinstate the lost full-auto option on the M16/M4 without really adding firepower?

#2 -- 30 rounds of 5.56 mm might in some situations be a little ... tight. What's the opinion here about using an adapted Beta C-mag for the IAR? Or a belt-drum?

#1 There's some interesting numbers when you look at mag-fed 7.62mm, but I don't have my note book to hand.

#2 I have only heard bad things about the C-Mag. There is new drum feed mag out now, that apparently works well, but they are bulky and heavy.

I'm not sure there is actually much difference between the two Wilf. The 48 is made in the US, the standard in Belgium, both by FN. They weigh the same. The 48 has a different gasplug and (sturdier) bipod. Other than that they appear to be pretty much identical.

Well I've examined both, and the Mk48 is a lot more "fiddly" than the M7.62, plus there is a body of complaint about it's robustness, which some at FN acknowledge, so I think the point that is worth making, is that while we load the boys down with all the other crap the push to lighten weapons comes at a cost. They needs to be considered in it's overall context.

[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.

[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.

[Kiwigrunt]

b.) Yes, HE projection is massively undervalued. Why? I have some idea.....
.

Pray tell....
It does indeed appear that on this side of the old curtain we (over?) emphasize beltfeds to the detriment of HE.

Your point C. is also interesting, especially since they are 'only' 5.56 anyway. Do the Israelis carry more HE than the rest of us?


Reed, what do you mean by 'ammo is black'?

[William F. Owen]

Pray tell....
It does indeed appear that on this side of the old curtain we (over?) emphasize beltfeds to the detriment of HE.

Your point C. is also interesting, especially since they are 'only' 5.56 anyway. Do the Israelis carry more HE than the rest of us?

I think the reason is blank firing on field exercises. GPMG makes lots of noise and confirms your participation. 40mm, LAW and 84mm, do nothing in field training!

Point C. The reasons vary from the 3-4 guys I've asked, but basically it's all about load and weight. They also scale the MAG-58 to at least one per platoon, but it seems to be an option, in concert with taking the Negevs or not. - and this all varies from unit to unit!

[reed11b]

Pray tell....
It does indeed appear that on this side of the old curtain we (over?) emphasize beltfeds to the detriment of HE.

Your point C. is also interesting, especially since they are 'only' 5.56 anyway. Do the Israelis carry more HE than the rest of us?


Reed, what do you mean by 'ammo is black'?

"Black" is a status report meaning "none available" so ammo is balck means no ammo. While I have seen this in training, cases of this in the field are very very rare, and ussually the result of poor planning.
Reed

[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.