The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Kiwigrunt]

But I still the see the need for IW with at least an effective range of 300m+ and just wondered if a true IAR would be better along the lines suggested by webb.

I think it depends very much on what we really want to use that IAR for, and how it is classified and structured within the organisation.
I would be inclined to agree with you if the IAR is no or little heavier than an IW, like the HK416 or the LWRC. But in that case (and indeed along the lines of Webb) why call it an IAR? It would then really just be an improved assault rifle. That would make sense to me.


It is interesting how opinions differ so widely, even among people with ample experience on the two way firing lane (not yours truly). Regarding beltfeds we have Ken as one ‘extreme’ who doesn’t like to see them below coy level and JMA at the other end who much appreciated the MAG at fireteam level and even at a rate of one per two pers. 2 Para claimed to like two per section in the Falklands (yes Wilf, no proof of effect compared to having only one) and in the sandbox they keep working their way down to the lowest level, as GI Zhou alluded to. Attempts at replacing their ‘firepower’ potential (without going in to what that means) with lighter weapons has been tried with the likes of IARs and LMGs (Minimi) and appears partly successful, at times, but just doesn’t seem to do the trick (what trick?).

And I think that’s the danger of the IAR as a concept, as a class of weapon, rather than with the weapon itself. Treating the weapon as ‘the’ firepower of the team, and having the team manoeuvring around it so to speak, I think creates expectations beyond what the weapon can ever be capable of delivering. And that is why the gimpy keeps coming back down. That is why Brit patrols in A-stan now carry a bit of everything, IW, LSW, LMG, GPMG and sniper rifles (ignoring HE for now).

And that is what I can foresee happening with the USMC as well, once the IAR gets introduced.
(And as an opposing extreme the NZ army is currently testing the 7.62 MINIMI as a possible replacement for the 5.56.)
There appears to be much confusion indeed regarding what constitutes fire power and what is required for effect (at the receiving end) versus a perception of said firepower that possibly does more to boost our own morale than to reduce that of the enemy. That is of course still important but a clearer understanding (training and education) may help to keep the carried weight down a bit and also that confusing plethora of weapons, types and classes.

So I do think that a simplification here would make a lot of sense. Have ‘improved assault rifles’ that can be used on full auto when required and 7.62 beltfeds, anywhere between 7.62 Minimi and MAG 58. Then decide where those beltfeds need to be, and perhaps that should remain more flexible and situation dependant.
That of course negates Ken’s:

My observation has been that MGs at Platoon level are misused and overused -- generally not because they're needed or in many cases even make tactical sense but simply because they're available.

That is more likely to happen with IARs across the board as ‘improved assault rifles’. Yet it may still waste less ammo then the current situation with a bit of everything, or in fact so much of everything else that IWs are hardly carried anymore (slight exaggeration there).