The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[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.

[Render]

Wouldn't that SAW's inclusion in the squad TOE have something to do with the squads ability to fill the air with lead?

TIME
AND
PLACE,
R

[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.

[William F. Owen]

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.

Yes, I concur.

I have always wondered why the UK loaded up the two section Fire teams with a Minimi LMG each, when giving one team a 7.62mm GPMG, and spreading the ammo across both teams would have created a proven, better and cheaper solution.

I have some issues with Drum Mags, even if they are reliable, but yes, an HG-416, or G-36, with a 100 or 150 drum Mag, and a bipod, does everything a Minimi does, for less weight, bulk and no loss of effect.