Abandon squad/section levels of organization?

[carl]

Talking to folks who were around when a modified Steyr AUG was considered as a complement to the Steyr rifle, one expression used to describe it's deficiencies(which includes the Bren) is the "built in stoppage".

That surprises me. I've read (and only read, I have zero practical experience) that the Bren was quite reliable, at least in WWII.

[Kiwigrunt]

That surprises me. I've read (and only read, I have zero practical experience) that the Bren was quite reliable, at least in WWII.

The built in stoppage reflects the limitations of a mag-fed vs. beltfed. It stops every 30 rounds.

The Bren (and L4) was indeed very reliable. And also very accurate. Often regarded as too accurate for area fire. Mounted on a tripod it had a beaten zone of .303" (or 7.62mm for the L4). I exaggerate, but only a little bit. I think this may have been partly due to a significantly lower rate of fire, at just over 500 rpm. Those aspects made it a very useful light machine gun, leaving the SF role to the Vickers. A GPMG wants to do a bit of both, so there are compromises. I suppose anything that starts with 'general purpose' imposes compromises.

I'm a fan of the new 7.62 Minimi. It's a great tool. It has the firepower of the MAG58/GPMG at reduced weight...while brand new it's quite a good system, I can't help but wonder about longevity much like the C9(5.56 Minimi SAW) near it's end of life the accuracy/grouping capacity was becoming shockingly bad.

Light MGs like the Minimi (both calibres) obviously attain their reduced weight – and manufacturing cost - by virtue of lighter materials. The compromise is that the gun will rattle to bits a lot faster than a MAG58. That suggests that they should be replaced a lot sooner. Been-counters won't like that, because that would nullify the lower procurement costs.

I wonder if there is a possibility of not just seeing an AR platform purchased here for individual issue, but also evaluating the USMC's recent M27 IAR choice and role in the section/platoon.

The M27 is really just an HK416, not unlike the standard Norwegian rifle.
One of the main advantages that its (essentially G36) piston holds over the AR direct impingement tube, is that it is 'frogman friendly'. Fill that skinny AR gas tube up with water and you have problems trying to fire it. That is as I understand it the main reason why Dutch special forces replaced their C8s with 416s.

As for the new Kiwi rifle, I wonder if the army was a step ahead by selecting a direct impingement DMW. Purely speculation, but a new DI rifle might make sense. In which case, look no further. The L119A2 was made especially for us.....I'm sure....

[Chris jM]

Light MGs like the Minimi (both calibres) obviously attain their reduced weight – and manufacturing cost - by virtue of lighter materials. The compromise is that the gun will rattle to bits a lot faster than a MAG58. That suggests that they should be replaced a lot sooner. Been-counters won't like that, because that would nullify the lower procurement costs.

You're pretty much spot on here. I'd also add, though, that the MAG58 is capable of sustained fire for extended periods. The smaller Light MGs are suited for bursts over extended periods - while you can put a belt through them in a single burst, it tends to drastically reduce the life of said barrel (and rest of the weapon). It really is a compromise. When you're patrolling or assaulting, the LMGs like the 7.62 Minimi are wonderful. It's when you're prone behind the gun firing, though, that you simply can't beat the heavier, solid MAG58.

As to the USMC IAR I've got my own doubts about it. I suspect that it is in many ways a product of the recent wars where 'winning the firefight' was achieved against a lightly armed and elusive enemy. If you're facing an enemy firing interlocking machine guns back at you from dug-in positions, I suspect the weight of fire from a belt-fed machine-gun to regain some form of initiative/suppress the enemy's own rapid firing weapons, especially when you know roughly where they could be firing from but can't identify the exact firing points is worth more than a heavy assault rifle (IAR).

However, despite my above reservations about the IAR I also think that the USMC may have made the right decision albeit for the wrong reasons. With the improved sights we are now getting down to personal weapons, a heavy rifle with magnified optics and the ability to acquire targets through thermal, IR or hybrid views the ability to identify and acquire a target is greatly improved. If you can deliver accurate, repeated fire then the traditional need for bursts to suppress an area is almost removed. I'm pretty much in love with 7.62mm DMWs, you might have noticed

[carl]

However, despite my above reservations about the IAR I also think that the USMC may have made the right decision albeit for the wrong reasons. With the improved sights we are now getting down to personal weapons, a heavy rifle with magnified optics and the ability to acquire targets through thermal, IR or hybrid views the ability to identify and acquire a target is greatly improved. If you can deliver accurate, repeated fire then the traditional need for bursts to suppress an area is almost removed. I'm pretty much in love with 7.62mm DMWs, you might have noticed

Doesn't that get us back to something like a Bren or a BAR with good optics?