Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61

Thread: The Commandant has doubts about replacing SAW with HK M27 IAR

  1. #31
    Dano5326 Guest
    Trunkmonk

    Not sure how you stepped knee deep into adversarial mode. It appears to me some semantics abound, and also that many would differ in opinion in some matters.

    Fire superiority generally is accepted to mean a greater volume of effective fire. I suppose at which point you could chew on the definition of effective fire. Keeping heads down to enable maneuver(suppressive), or ripping apart flesh.

    Suppressive fire, by definition, (visual or audio signature inhibiting action of the enemy) is about low percentage hits. It is a tactic, and it is a tactic the enemy sometimes could care less about... a hundred angry metal bees "keeping heads down" do not distract dedicated individuals who want to die.. at which point only rds impacting the tgt matter.

    Seeing dedicated fighters less than impressed with belt fed flying about them, chewing up their buddies infront of them, and still go forward toward the noise may change ones personal definition of effective. At which point.. given the terrain.. what weapon system will most quickly allow for rapid degradation of individual targets. What tools to accomplish this? A lighter, more swingable, IAR may do the trick in the urban fight. An accurized vari-optic 5.56/7.62 carbine with high % hits may be of much more utility in say open area afghanistan. And .. wow... with a change of magazine size & optic suite the HK offering may offer this. At least the USMC is experimenting

    Regarding the m4.. ah.. the USMC has been at war for yrs now and still has grunts in the urban fight using the non ergonomic overly long 2x4-esq m16a4. Not the best tool for use in confined spaces and covering a 360 sphere of responsibility.

    While I applaud the USMC for embracing the fundamentals of marksmanship by still shooting iron to 500.. it is a 100 year old methodology. I have yet to get be attacked by static black circles while slung in, utilizing classic standing, sitting, and prone positions. The time could be much better spent with higher volume training utilizing issued optics, UKD, movers, etc.

    Your avatar and the time posted might suggest the end of a long day of chest-beatery overseas, wearing skintight underarmor and naysaying all the "non-operators" around you. Beer & keyboards don't mix. Have the best day ever!
    Last edited by Dano5326; 07-21-10 at 10:52.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by trunkmonkey View Post
    You evidently do not understand the importance of the Marine rifle squad having a weapon that can establish fire superiority in a firefight.

    *and a bunch of other shit smeared on his foot and shoved firmly into his mouth*
    Wow.

    Always nice to hear from purchasers of the Pipe Hitter apparrel line. Yer gonna need a crowbar to get that foot out, Sally.
    Contractor scum, AAV

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    273
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by trunkmonkey View Post
    You evidently do not understand the importance of the Marine rifle squad having a weapon that can establish fire superiority in a firefight.

    Yes that has absolutely nothing to do with hit rates. It's about keeping their heads down so the rest of your boys can get in position to get those hits. If you've ever been shot at you understand the difference the SAW can make with that big ass drum laying down continous fire.

    And yes, generally speaking the M4 is NOT needed by the infantry. We are not talking about units moving by vehicle or being dropped by plane. Sure it's nice to have in a CQB scenario as an option. But being the only branch with every man qualified to shoot out to 500 the M16 is a better weapon.

    The statement by the general is the first batch of common sense yet I've read on the whole IAR. It would make a very bad replacement for the SAW in any scenario.

    I suggest you go look up the definition of the Marine Corps rifle squad.
    We ARE talking about units who move by vehicle (and helicopter). And even if you are dismounted 24/7, you still find yourself in spots where a long weapon does not handle well.
    Dustin

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    65
    Feedback Score
    0
    You evidently do not understand the importance of the Marine rifle squad having a weapon that can establish fire superiority in a firefight.
    How much better is a SAW if the Marine carrying it can't keep up with his fire team? How does a SAW help establish fire superiority when it's not there? Leave a Marine behind or lose your momentum?

    The IAR is not a SAW replacement, no one is pretending that it can fill the SAWs shoes. It's a compromise between weight, size and firepower. If it was just about firepower, why isn't the M240 and M2 being fielded at the fireteam/squad level?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,829
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by trunkmonkey View Post
    I suggest you go look up the definition of the Marine Corps rifle squad.
    Wow.

    In the broad spectrum of bad ideas, that ranked somewhere between running with scissors and sticking your pecker in the toaster.

    I'll remind folks that we designate certain individuals on this site with the title of Industry Professional because of

    extensive first hand experience with the deployment of small arms, execution of proper tactics, or development of the past or current military weapons platforms.
    Suffice it to say that F2S's experience falls into the deployment of small arms and execution of tactics bit of the definition. As a board, M4C gives a frowny face to those who feel compelled to lecture our IPs or SMEs on stuff they know far better than most.

    I would strongly encourage folks to muster all the tact possible when taking a contrary position to those espoused by our IPs/SMEs, as well as ensuring that they are firmly within their lane. Otherwise you'll end up with your foot inserted into your mouth so deep that you're gagging on your own knee.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,795
    Feedback Score
    0
    Since the SAW isn't going away with the Corps, anyone know the TOE authorizations of the SAW and IAR in a Infantry company, Plt or Sqd? Will the saw be pulled back to company level, ala weapons platoon, or one per PLT, augmented by several IARs spinkled among the SQDs or 1 SAW per Sqd, augmented by 3 IARs for each team? If I was the Commandant, I'd go with the latter choice.
    Last edited by RogerinTPA; 07-21-10 at 17:58.
    For God and the soldier we adore, In time of danger, not before! The danger passed, and all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted." - Rudyard Kipling

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wakanda
    Posts
    18,863
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Thumbs up

    It never ceases to amaze me...

    Much thanks for those of you who are in the know on this and keeping the rest of abreast.
    "In a nut shell, if it ever goes to Civil War, I'm afraid I'll be in the middle 70%, shooting at both sides" — 26 Inf


    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon 10/30/18

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by RogerinTPA View Post
    Will the saw be pulled back to company level, ala weapons platoon, ...
    This is the most likely, 6 per company in Wpns Plt. Honestly, remains to be seen. There's still a lot of "you got your chocolate in my peanut butter! / no you got your peanut butter in my chocolate!" conversations going on, with interdepartmental gnashing of teeth, screams of apoplexy, and cross-accusations of the worshiping of graven images. Business as usual.

    I'm sure trunkmonkey could probably settle the whole hash in like 3 days, between being all doctrinally cutting edge like he is and given such a fantastic display of situational awareness:

    "Help us Obi-Wan, you're our only hope! We'll give you a Pipe Hitters Union hat."

    "Oh hells, yeah! Meep-meep *zoom*!"
    Contractor scum, AAV

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,359
    Feedback Score
    76 (100%)
    personally, i find that the IAR project is headed in the wrong direction. magazine fed and closed bolt? no thank you.
    i think that the corps should have looked more into light weight LMGs, such as the ultimak and KAC LMG.
    but im no grunt, what do i know.
    -Joe

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    159
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dano5326 View Post
    Trunkmonk

    Not sure how you stepped knee deep into adversarial mode. It appears to me some semantics abound, and also that many would differ in opinion in some matters.

    Fire superiority generally is accepted to mean a greater volume of effective fire. I suppose at which point you could chew on the definition of effective fire. Keeping heads down to enable maneuver(suppressive), or ripping apart flesh.

    Suppressive fire, by definition, (visual or audio signature inhibiting action of the enemy) is about low percentage hits. It is a tactic, and it is a tactic the enemy sometimes could care less about... a hundred angry metal bees "keeping heads down" do not distract dedicated individuals who want to die.. at which point only rds impacting the tgt matter.

    Seeing dedicated fighters less than impressed with belt fed flying about them, chewing up their buddies infront of them, and still go forward toward the noise may change ones personal definition of effective. At which point.. given the terrain.. what weapon system will most quickly allow for rapid degradation of individual targets. What tools to accomplish this? A lighter, more swingable, IAR may do the trick in the urban fight. An accurized vari-optic 5.56/7.62 carbine with high % hits may be of much more utility in say open area afghanistan. And .. wow... with a change of magazine size & optic suite the HK offering may offer this. At least the USMC is experimenting

    Regarding the m4.. ah.. the USMC has been at war for yrs now and still has grunts in the urban fight using the non ergonomic overly long 2x4-esq m16a4. Not the best tool for use in confined spaces and covering a 360 sphere of responsibility.

    While I applaud the USMC for embracing the fundamentals of marksmanship by still shooting iron to 500.. it is a 100 year old methodology. I have yet to get be attacked by static black circles while slung in, utilizing classic standing, sitting, and prone positions. The time could be much better spent with higher volume training utilizing issued optics, UKD, movers, etc.

    Your avatar and the time posted might suggest the end of a long day of chest-beatery overseas, wearing skintight underarmor and naysaying all the "non-operators" around you. Beer & keyboards don't mix. Have the best day ever!
    Well in response I can say I definitely want you be just like you.

    I didn't realize that the only branch of service still left teaching the core fundamentals of marksmanship as it should be taught was an outdated concept. Last I saw it all begins with that. You might say I consider the use of iron sights a concept that far too many have forgotten these days since becoming dependent on optics of some nature. Sure you may not hop down in the sitting position all the time in the real world, it's simply about knowing what you can do and applying when the time comes. Just because you don't use those positions often doesn't mean the time will never come or that you shouldn't learn them in the first place.

    Now go read verbatim the mission of the marine corps and you'll find that while yes the M4 is preferable for some scenarios it is not a necessity for the marine corps specialty-beach landings. While the marine corps prides itself on being able to operate in any clime and place the commandant doesn't want to get away from the primary function of the corps.

    As for the definition of effective fire I can agree with most of what you posted. Except for the fact that only 3 in a marine rifle squad carry the SAW. Leaving more than enough trained marksmen to put those "lighter, more swingable" firearms to good use. If that large volume of fire doesn't slow down the enemy that is "not impressed" I'm sure the other members of that squad are dropping that that small percentage of fighters that absolutely has no fear of death. But lets not lie about this. Not every fighter is like that, in fact MOST are not like that. So that "suppressive fire" tactic does indeed do what it's intended to do. If not I guess they wouldn't have come up with the term huh. Now which firearm is best at providing that "suppressive fire" on a marine rifle squad???..................you guessed it.

    As for your last paragraph you assume alot more than you actually know. I'm out, have to go do some "chest-beatery".

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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