Thanks Thanks:  4
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    637
    Post Thanks / Like

    US marine 15 man squads

    US
    Marines going to 15 man squads and losing SAW Mhttp://https://www.marinecorpstimes....ture-infantry/

  2. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  3. #2
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    By all accounts the 5.56 SAW is no more. If suppressing fire is required, 7.62 or better is required.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  4. #3
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    637
    Post Thanks / Like
    I read this elsewhere quote "Based on their experiences, troops were not suppressed by high volume of fire as previously thought since WW2. They were suppressed by accurate fire. E.g. in Iraq, insurgents would spray and pray at them and the Marines wouldn't be bothered in the least. But when even a single fighter starts getting rounds uncomfortably close, that's when Marines would worry. Vice versa; the Marines found the M249 wasnt as accurate as they'd like, and their snipers and ACOG-scoped riflemen were more effective at suppressing enemies than M249."

  5. Thanks Auldsod, DeV, Flamingo thanked for this post
  6. #4
    Recruit Poiuyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apc View Post
    I read this elsewhere quote "Based on their experiences, troops were not suppressed by high volume of fire as previously thought since WW2. They were suppressed by accurate fire. E.g. in Iraq, insurgents would spray and pray at them and the Marines wouldn't be bothered in the least. But when even a single fighter starts getting rounds uncomfortably close, that's when Marines would worry. Vice versa; the Marines found the M249 wasnt as accurate as they'd like, and their snipers and ACOG-scoped riflemen were more effective at suppressing enemies than M249."
    But this is a case of training and equipping to fight your last war. For decades, sustained accurate fire down range was the way to suppress. After the experience of Iraq/Afghanistan, it is believed that accurate fire is better.

    But that is 1 war with one type of enemy whose modus operandi does not include accurate sustained fire.

    I don't know about you, but when Im trained with LMGs, we trained to be accurate with our fire.

    I forsee issues with the US altering doctrine & TO&E to suit a particuliar war. Fine while fighting continues in Afghanistan or against another similar enemy but this will not work against the people the US is preparing to fight who will bring heavy amounts of accurate sustained fire to bear.

    And yes, I understand the Mark Urban argument that future wars will be amongst the people/Insurgencies but the US is preparing for wars against Russia & PRC, not insurgents.

  7. #5
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,090
    Post Thanks / Like
    The answer is really both

  8. #6
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like
    This debate is as old as firearm. At the start of WW1 it was believed by the British Army that their rapid rifle fire was all they needed and machine guns where used similar to artillery. The Germans took a different view and were the ones to introduce light weight rapid fire weapons such as the Bergmann. We see the same discussion in WW2 with the US Army claiming that the MG42 was not to be feared and that due to their slower firing more accurate weapons they had the best.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFFO4Th6ags

    We have also seen the British also remove the SAW and the 60mm mortar; replacing them with an accurate long range rifle. While these developments might be good if the BA and USMC will only ever fight long range engagements against a few lightly armed opponents there would be problems with mass attacks or other swarm tactics especially in urban environments. Here accuracy will be less important than the rate of fire, while the IAR is a good rifle (it is basically a HK416) it will never be able to put down sustained fire. LSWs are designed not only with a heavier barrel but one that can be easily changed. With some weapons it is easy, the Steyr is a great example. But to do an exchange an extra barrel(s) has to be available. So will each squad member now carry spare barrels?

    One criticism of the SAW was the poor reliability of fire when using magazines, so there could be load sharing amongst the squad. But as the Israelis have shown with their SAW; the IWI Negev, is that a design solution can be produced that will work.
    Another was the weight of fire with the 5.56mm round, but here FN already has a solution with the 7.62mm version. In fact I would like to see us as change from the GPMG (11.8kg) down to the 7.62mm Minimi Mk3 (8.8kg). That weight is the same as a 100 rd belt.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •