Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 61

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

  1. #51
    Dano5326 Guest
    the 416 has a slightly more rigorous recoil impulse than a m4 as compared in 10" format. I have not directly compared a 14.5" m4 to a 16.5" heavy barreled M27 IAR.. so a bit of experienced based supposition on my part. They should consider a brake, for nice useable density of F/A fire at distance

    The utility will still be defined by magazine size... hello industry.
    Last edited by Dano5326; 07-23-10 at 00:34.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DPB View Post
    Here's a thought regarding the basis of issue. A USMC rifle company has all of the true MGs consolidated in a weapons platoon, right? Why not adopt an Army-ish TO&E, where you have, say, six M249s or MK 46s in a separate squad in the rifle platoon, and put the IARs in the fire teams. That way, your fire teams and rifle squads are light enough to assault, but you've still got belt fed guns at the platoon level.
    The IARs are already going to the fire teams, and the belt-fed medium and heavy guns are already at the line-platoon level, on the gun trucks. Have been for nearly a decade. All done without a TO shift.

    The USMC population and force structure can't support a systemic TO shift, for one; it doesn't have a heavy armor/mech infantry basis to justify it.

    Also, the idea of all our SSgts being down-selected from their PltSgt billets and demoted to Squad Leaders...? The inevitable insurrection would make any zombie apocalypse we could dream up a pale, wilting thing by comparison.
    Last edited by JSantoro; 07-23-10 at 00:56.
    Contractor scum, AAV

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,688
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dano5326 View Post
    the 416 has a slightly more rigorous recoil impulse than a m4 as compared in 10" format. I have not directly compared a 14.5" m4 to a 16.5" heavy barreled M27 IAR.. so a bit of experienced based supposition on my part. They should consider a brake, for nice useable density of F/A fire at distance
    Maybe it's not best example, but I have 1-st person experience with HK MR223 16.5" (same barrel profile as IAR) and 16.5" AR-15 with govt profile barrel (Stag-15) in 3Gun competition. Bouth used PWS comp. I can't feel the difference in recoil impulse when prone. I tend to think that HK even have slightly less recoil when off-hand (my splits on double taps seem to be slightly faster with HK). Probably part of this come from higher mass (front heavy barrel flips-up less) and high mass HDTP buffer that HK uses. On the other hand my second Stag in rifle format (20", regular barrel) was much "softer" than bouth 16.5"s.

    BTW Comparing BAR 20rd magazine changes to IAR 30rd magazine changes seem quite pointless. Anyone who did it on bouth will know that IAR/AR magazine change (with modern magazine carry systems) takes virtually zero time compared to WWII era magazine changes on BAR (or Bren).

    BTW2 Shortly after WWII there was interesting story - LMG gunner (with ZB vz 26 if I remember correct) with was left behind by fleeing froces of Polish Army against over 150 Ukrainian partisans assaulting uphill. Guy had 17 20rd magazines with him. Problem was he was fresh and did not know he is already dead. He put effective and dense fire. When he went trought last magazine all attacker were either dead or retreating.
    Last edited by montrala; 07-23-10 at 07:24.
    Montrala

    I'm sponsored competition shooter representing Heckler&Koch, Kahles, Hornady and Typhoon Defence brands in Poland, so I can be biased

    http://montrala.blogspot.com

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    34
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JSantoro View Post
    The IARs are already going to the fire teams, and the belt-fed medium and heavy guns are already at the line-platoon level, on the gun trucks. Have been for nearly a decade. All done without a TO shift.

    The USMC population and force structure can't support a systemic TO shift, for one; it doesn't have a heavy armor/mech infantry basis to justify it.

    Also, the idea of all our SSgts being down-selected from their PltSgt billets and demoted to Squad Leaders...? The inevitable insurrection would make any zombie apocalypse we could dream up a pale, wilting thing by comparison.
    I may misunderstand the USMC rifle company TO. I was under the impression that the rifle platoon had three squads and a small command element, and that the 240s were in a separate weapons platoon in the company, and distributed to the rifle platoon as the mission required. I was also under the impression that the gun trucks were deployment specific and not under the standard TO for a rifle company.

    Again, I may be wrong about all of this. I wasn't suggesting a wholesale TO shift, and certainly wasn't suggesting a change in what ranks hold which billets.

    What I am saying is that if you want to keep the 249s at the platoon level, one solution would to replace the 249s in the fire teams with IARs (which is apparently being done), and create a weapons squad at the platoon level that contained the 249s. Preferably under their own squad leader (like the Ranger or Airborne TOs.) Granted, this adds some machine gunner slots and an NCO slot to every rifle platoon, but I'm not sure that makes it a "systemic shift."

    This is only applicable if you're one of the people who believes that the shift from the SAW to the IAR represents a catastrophic loss of firepower to the fire team. I'm not at all convinced that this really is a problem, for reasons that others have expressed better than I can.
    Last edited by DPB; 07-23-10 at 10:13.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    I mentioned a zombie apocalypse in the same sentence as our SSgts, and that wasn't enough to denote sarcasm? Never mind. QED, it was clearly not enough, so put it aside. You don't misunderstand the rifle company structure on paper, you misunderstand the Corps and have fallen into the mental trap of thinking that it's no different than the Army, or worse, directly think that is should be just like the Army. Gun trucks are NOT deployment specific, because that's the war we're fighting right now, so that's how everybody is generally equipped. It's not like not wearing white past a certain date.

    You ARE suggesting a wholesale TO shift across the entire combat arms branch. Add "a few" machinegunner slots? That infers 3+. And an NCO, so at least 4 bodies/line platoon. Where are these bodies going to come from?

    Are you going to shift them from the Wpns Plt TO to feed them in? If so, you just effectively wiped out the Wpns Plt from a TO concept that WORKS, meaning you desire it to not work any longer to become more cumbersome. Why would that be?

    The Corps gets $.07 of each defense dollar, so what are you going to cut from our already shoestring budget to foot the bill?

    How are you going to staff the Schools of Infantry to support the plus-up of 0331s? That's presuming that you reached out to the petty-cash vines growing in your back 40 IOT pluck leaves with which to pay for simply adding NLT 4 bodies to each line platoon in, what, 51 battalions?

    In the raw, not only do USMC numbers not support that, USMC force structure does not support that, ergo it's not applicable under any condition that exists.
    Contractor scum, AAV

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    34
    Feedback Score
    0
    Mr. Santoro,

    Allow me to back up for a second. I'm not arguing with the substance of anything you're saying. I do not think that the Marines should be like the Army. I don't even think that a lot of the Army should be like it is right now. Having the machine guns in a weapons platoon (and having a machine gunner MOS) seems to me to be a far more effective method for maintaining well trained machine gunners than TOing them down to the rifle platoons.

    My premise was this: If we accept the idea that the rifle platoon is losing significant "firepower" by transitioning from the M249 to the IAR (which is a shaky idea at best), AND for a moment we ignore the obvious issues with manning and funding (where do the bodies and cash come from), one solution MIGHT be to create an automatic weapons section or squad at the platoon level.

    I fully recognize that there are logistic failings to this idea.

    When I said that gun trucks were deployment specific, I meant that the units with gun trucks were the one's deploying to Iraq or A-stan. I'm making the leap that a MEU going on a float but not going to those theaters would not have gun trucks.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DPB View Post
    I don't even think that a lot of the Army should be like it is right now.
    Ya got me. One of my co-workers prairie-dogged his head over the cubicle to see what I was barking laughter about. Well-played, sir.

    Some of this revolves around your use of the word "solution." I categorically disagree that a problem exists that requires a solution. Certainly not one that will be caused by adding the M27 to the inventory. You're basing the idea on attempting to provide closure to a gap where no gap does or is likely (Cthulu pray it so!) to exist.
    Contractor scum, AAV

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,808
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Will IAR/M27 gunners and SAW/M249 gunners be the same MOS? The determining factor as to what they will carry being dictated by the mission and the authorization of their platoon Sgt.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,469
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cagemonkey View Post
    Will IAR/M27 gunners and SAW/M249 gunners be the same MOS? The determining factor as to what they will carry being dictated by the mission and the authorization of their platoon Sgt.
    No MOS for SAW gunners. 03s of some sort, mostly 0311s.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    34
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JSantoro View Post
    Ya got me. One of my co-workers prairie-dogged his head over the cubicle to see what I was barking laughter about. Well-played, sir.

    Some of this revolves around your use of the word "solution." I categorically disagree that a problem exists that requires a solution. Certainly not one that will be caused by adding the M27 to the inventory. You're basing the idea on attempting to provide closure to a gap where no gap does or is likely (Cthulu pray it so!) to exist.
    Solution was probably the wrong word to use. I also don't think that the theoretical "loss of firepower" is an issue. I was just proposing a theoretical solution to those who believe that we are truly sacrificing "firepower" by replacing the 249 with a true automatic rifle.

    One of the reasons I think that the IAR is a good idea is that, from what I've seen, there is too much of a tendency to use the M249 in the fire team as another machine gun, and not as a true automatic rifle. A lot of this has to do with the additional weight of the 249, and the gunner's issues with keeping up with his rifle armed team mates, as others have pointed out. It makes sense to me that by going to a lighter, more maneuverable system will allow the gunner to maneuver more effectively with his team and squad, while allowing for the more limited, precise, and immediately available automatic fire that an automatic rifle (as opposed to a machine gun) gives you.

    On the other hand, I'm pretty proud to have inspired some "prairie dogging."

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 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
  •