12-07-2017, 08:08 PM
Well, I am probably a bit more moderate than I was back in the day...
I think a SAW could very well be mag-fed. It could also be belt-fed as long as it is light enough and easy to operate under difficult conditions.
However, if you try to put a mag-fed SAW in the place of a belt-fed SAW, without changing the organization or/and doctrine, you could be in for some trouble.
Lately, I have been pondering this issue a bit, and to get as much firepower as possible, even the way assault-rifles are being used should be should be reviewed.
Regarding USMC and the IAR, I think they picked the right question, but the wrong answer(s).
IMO, The chosen IAR should rather have been the Ultimax, because it allows accurate automatic fire at longer ranges. And the primary firing mode of an IAR should be auto.
The M27 is a very good infantry-rifle, but not something I would have chosen for automatic fire at longer ranges....
Also, to exchange the M249 for an IAR on a 1:1 basis is not optimum, because while the belt-fed has more "stamina" when firing, but it takes longer to get back into the fight. the other SAW-gunners try to overlap, so the squad is not left without covering fire, it doesn´t allow each SAW-gunner much time to observe the battle-field. He is always operating the machinegun, and he does not have an assistant.
When you try to use a mag-fed SAW, they have less "stamina", while it takes shorter time for them to get back into the fight. If you have a pair of SAW-gunners in each sub-section, they can time their mag-changes, and have a better overview of the battle-field, giving them the ability to instantaneously fight targets of opportunity.
Ideally, I would like every second weapon in the squad to be an IAR (it should have a longer practical range, but similar weight as a regular rifle with a 40mm grenade-launcher)
Some people are worried that machineguns can be too accurate and controllable.
I am not.
The tighter the cone of fire, the more densely saturated the targeted-area will be. If you need to cover a larger area, then move your aim as you fire. If you are unable to hit what you are aiming for, what are the odds that you would with a less saturated target-area...
But that is machineguns...
When using an assault-rifle in auto-mode, the range should be short, and it should be critical to hit the targeted area with as much firepower as possible in as short as possible time.
Most of the time, when those situations appear, the soldiers would fire only rapid single-shots, because that is what they are trained for, and they may also not have time to manipulate the lever to F, or just forgetting that it exists.
With assault-rifles the rate of fire should be high, and it should have a wider cone of fire, to give a well saturated target-area at closer ranges, because if the enemy is at a short range, chances are that if you are not able to put enough rounds into the target-area fast enough, you may not be able to pull the trigger again. And that may not give you the time to aim properly, or even think about moving the lever to F. Even the process of actually moving the lever that extra notch and move your hand into firing position may be the end of you. But you would still only move it to single. Because that is what you have trained for.
The solution to that is to adopt the short-pull
ingle/long-pull:auto function, and the soldiers should be trained to use this functionality instinctively.
I am of the idea that the IARs and assault-rifles should complement each other:
Long ranges: IAR gunner fires auto, rifleman spots.
Medium to short ranges: IAR-gunner fires auto or single shots, rifleman fires single-shots or auto
CQB/FIBUA: IAR-gunner fires auto, rifleman fires single or auto.
This of course means that the riflemen needs to be outfitted similarly to the current IAR-gunner, and also with maybe a 40mm UGL per sub-section.
I hope this makes some sense. This became a bit longer and more complicated than I had intended.
I think a SAW could very well be mag-fed. It could also be belt-fed as long as it is light enough and easy to operate under difficult conditions.
However, if you try to put a mag-fed SAW in the place of a belt-fed SAW, without changing the organization or/and doctrine, you could be in for some trouble.
Lately, I have been pondering this issue a bit, and to get as much firepower as possible, even the way assault-rifles are being used should be should be reviewed.
Regarding USMC and the IAR, I think they picked the right question, but the wrong answer(s).
IMO, The chosen IAR should rather have been the Ultimax, because it allows accurate automatic fire at longer ranges. And the primary firing mode of an IAR should be auto.
The M27 is a very good infantry-rifle, but not something I would have chosen for automatic fire at longer ranges....
Also, to exchange the M249 for an IAR on a 1:1 basis is not optimum, because while the belt-fed has more "stamina" when firing, but it takes longer to get back into the fight. the other SAW-gunners try to overlap, so the squad is not left without covering fire, it doesn´t allow each SAW-gunner much time to observe the battle-field. He is always operating the machinegun, and he does not have an assistant.
When you try to use a mag-fed SAW, they have less "stamina", while it takes shorter time for them to get back into the fight. If you have a pair of SAW-gunners in each sub-section, they can time their mag-changes, and have a better overview of the battle-field, giving them the ability to instantaneously fight targets of opportunity.
Ideally, I would like every second weapon in the squad to be an IAR (it should have a longer practical range, but similar weight as a regular rifle with a 40mm grenade-launcher)
Some people are worried that machineguns can be too accurate and controllable.
I am not.
The tighter the cone of fire, the more densely saturated the targeted-area will be. If you need to cover a larger area, then move your aim as you fire. If you are unable to hit what you are aiming for, what are the odds that you would with a less saturated target-area...
But that is machineguns...
When using an assault-rifle in auto-mode, the range should be short, and it should be critical to hit the targeted area with as much firepower as possible in as short as possible time.
Most of the time, when those situations appear, the soldiers would fire only rapid single-shots, because that is what they are trained for, and they may also not have time to manipulate the lever to F, or just forgetting that it exists.
With assault-rifles the rate of fire should be high, and it should have a wider cone of fire, to give a well saturated target-area at closer ranges, because if the enemy is at a short range, chances are that if you are not able to put enough rounds into the target-area fast enough, you may not be able to pull the trigger again. And that may not give you the time to aim properly, or even think about moving the lever to F. Even the process of actually moving the lever that extra notch and move your hand into firing position may be the end of you. But you would still only move it to single. Because that is what you have trained for.
The solution to that is to adopt the short-pull
ingle/long-pull:auto function, and the soldiers should be trained to use this functionality instinctively.I am of the idea that the IARs and assault-rifles should complement each other:
Long ranges: IAR gunner fires auto, rifleman spots.
Medium to short ranges: IAR-gunner fires auto or single shots, rifleman fires single-shots or auto
CQB/FIBUA: IAR-gunner fires auto, rifleman fires single or auto.
This of course means that the riflemen needs to be outfitted similarly to the current IAR-gunner, and also with maybe a 40mm UGL per sub-section.
I hope this makes some sense. This became a bit longer and more complicated than I had intended.