12-06-2017, 03:50 AM
So I got curious as to what the author's experience was in the military to draw all those conclusions.
Answer: nada.
Some interesting points, most seem to be pulled from the Marine justification for their automatic rifle.
And some bogus or invalid comparisons.
It's very clear that tactically he doesn't understand how SAWs are used doctrinely in line units. And also totally ignores sustained fire rates.
Periodically I ask my infantry officer son about these types of things and is it really a gap they see and is it something they want? The answer I get is that the saw is not perfect but it's pretty darn good and meets their needs better than the alternatives to date. It's an important tool and is at the heart of their tactics.
It fills the gap at the squad level as its intended between individual and crew served weapons. Well trained saw gunners can give suppressive fire 400 to 600 plus meters. It's going to be hard to do that with an automatic rifle.
If the answer is more weight or less ammo capacity for the same weight, it's not a good trade-off.
The author's main point seem to be suppressive fire is not worth the weight in ammo. I'm not sure most line infantry units would agree with that assessment.
If the automatic rifles had a higher sustained fire rate that would be useful, but it comes at a heavier weight relative to M4s, and still doesn't address the ammo issue. So it doesn't really fix the problem they have, and would be a net loss if they had to give up SAWs to do so.
There is also the "fighting the last war" aspect where there is a big emphasis on door kicking CQB which has led towards automatic rifle thinking vs SAWs. But that is not representative of the current engagements or potential engagements.
Everything I said above also applies to the reoccurring 7.62 replacement for 556 ideas. More weight, less ammo, net reduction in Effectiveness without solving any big problems line units have, even very good ones. Special units can have different needs, and can get what they want anyway.
Always interesting to read different viewpoints, especially if they come from a point of experience. I think that's the big gap in this one.
Answer: nada.
Some interesting points, most seem to be pulled from the Marine justification for their automatic rifle.
And some bogus or invalid comparisons.
It's very clear that tactically he doesn't understand how SAWs are used doctrinely in line units. And also totally ignores sustained fire rates.
Periodically I ask my infantry officer son about these types of things and is it really a gap they see and is it something they want? The answer I get is that the saw is not perfect but it's pretty darn good and meets their needs better than the alternatives to date. It's an important tool and is at the heart of their tactics.
It fills the gap at the squad level as its intended between individual and crew served weapons. Well trained saw gunners can give suppressive fire 400 to 600 plus meters. It's going to be hard to do that with an automatic rifle.
If the answer is more weight or less ammo capacity for the same weight, it's not a good trade-off.
The author's main point seem to be suppressive fire is not worth the weight in ammo. I'm not sure most line infantry units would agree with that assessment.
If the automatic rifles had a higher sustained fire rate that would be useful, but it comes at a heavier weight relative to M4s, and still doesn't address the ammo issue. So it doesn't really fix the problem they have, and would be a net loss if they had to give up SAWs to do so.
There is also the "fighting the last war" aspect where there is a big emphasis on door kicking CQB which has led towards automatic rifle thinking vs SAWs. But that is not representative of the current engagements or potential engagements.
Everything I said above also applies to the reoccurring 7.62 replacement for 556 ideas. More weight, less ammo, net reduction in Effectiveness without solving any big problems line units have, even very good ones. Special units can have different needs, and can get what they want anyway.
Always interesting to read different viewpoints, especially if they come from a point of experience. I think that's the big gap in this one.