Replacement for the SAW?

[Chino]

Carrying the 200 round boxes can be a pain as well.

Thank you for sharing your valuable experience. I want to add that carrying the Ultimax drums don't look like a picnic either. See attached pic.

I'm not really sure of the value of an IAR per the USMC requirement.

I think the years of fighting in Iraq speeded the requirement for a different kind of weapon and deployment.

Since for the past few years US military had been fighting insurgents in (still deadly) smaller scale urban actions, moving in/out and around buildings a lot...

You won't be digging in and fending off human wave attacks.

In these situations you would want more mobility in firepower than sustainability. So you're gonna be carrying your auto-fire platform into battle more than using it in a bipod role.

Besides, the role of sustained fire MG is well provided for by the platoon's M240s or from the mounted weapons of the accompanying Humvees or other AFVs.

Jim Sullivan's Ultimax is the perfect example for this role of highly mobile firepower. The 100rd drum still gives a good account, and while no picnic, should be easier to change than belts. It is extremely controllable and highly accurate and has QCB if you do need to burn brass.

And even the short gunners (we're all asians) in my reservist section had no problem climbing through windows etc with the Ultimax cos it is so damn light.

 

[SuperSLime]

In these situations you would want more mobility in firepower than sustainability. So you're gonna be carrying your auto-fire platform into battle more than using it in a bipod role.

Yes, but that's what assault rifles are for. I really don't see where this requirement has come from. At CQB ranges, any target can be dealt with by two or three rifle rounds; there is no point in delivering higher volumes of automatic fire unless the weapon is on at least a bipod to make the fire controllable. UNcontrolled automatic fire is a menace to your own troops, who could be unseen behind light cover.

 

[Cutaway]

Would the CETME Ameli be a good replacement for the SAW if it had to?, Its just a watered down MG3 in 5.56 calibre, has good ergonomics, weighs lighter than the FN Minimi. The other users of it outside Spain are Italy, Portugal & Mexico.

http://www.gdsbs.com/web/productos/galeria/fotos/ameli02.jpg

http://www.gdsbs.com/web/productos/galeria/fotos/ameli01.jpg

 

[lobbie111]

Actually I meant conscript v conscript Australia sent in conscripts too if i'm not mistaken, IMO I think that if the army was dumb enough to replace the SAW they should replace it with the Stoner LMG from KAC although I would recomend that it be modified to accept different calibres like newer weapon systems that are apearing are. Would it be hand to to be able to change from 5.56 NATO to 7.62x39 Belts? or the chinese round, no-one has thought of that, once the AK finally has its day I think chineese weaponry will be the most prolific

 

[playtime]

Why would you want to reload a support weapon on the run?

MGs are meant to be set up and fired; using them on the run is a waste of ammunition and a waste of the weapon's potential.

well cos every second counts, unless it a flat desert with open views, you have to move often even if you are the MG (7.62) gunner.
anyway, the SAW is a 5.56 meant to move with the section in most applications.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Er, why would you WANT to? The Minimi is a support weapon; it should be set up outside to suppress enemy fire positions, block retreat or reinforcement etc. Room clearing is done with personal weapons and grenades; to use a fully-automatic weapon capable of shooting through walls which your mates might be hiding behind is utter madness.

Because the tactical situation demands it and you've no other weapon?

AS can be seen in this video, a Minimi can be used quite effectively in CQB operations, apart from the obvious fire support applications it was intended for...

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=ahe81VMK6AI"]YouTube - Australian Infantry Training Before Iraq[/ame]

 

[LazerLordz]

Because if there is a chance in an urban setting to set up a small, temporary firebase even for a few minutes to say, let the team cross the hallways or some sort of passageway, the SAW will come in handy.

And having a magazine fed SAW with a shot burst selector will ensure that there's lesser chance for blue on blue while retaining the ability to lay down a higher rate of cover fire away from your mates.

 

[SuperSLime]

Would the CETME Ameli be a good replacement for the SAW if it had to?

It would do, but again, why bother?? The Ameli has no advantages and on top of that its ROF is too high. It can't do anything the Minimi can't. It also uses an obsolete mechanism that has proven less successful than the Minimi's gas system.

 

[SuperSLime]

And having a magazine fed SAW with a shot burst selector will ensure that there's lesser chance for blue on blue while retaining the ability to lay down a higher rate of cover fire away from your mates.

Magazine-fed support weapons are not a good thing; the only one that was ever popular, really, was the Bren. Every time a nation adopts one it is eventually replaced by a proper belt-fed LMG.

A properly trained gunner will fire short, 3-5 round bursts most of the time, with longer bursts being reserved for ambushes etc. Burst settings are a lazy substitute for proper training. If someone needs a burst selector to prevent him from firing long, wild bursts then he shouldn't have been issued a weapon in the first place.

 

[SuperSLime]

Because the tactical situation demands it and you've no other weapon?

That's a fair point, but it turns around quite neatly. As your video shows, the Minimi can be used for CQB if necessary. The IAR, however, wouldn't make an adequate support weapon. As the Minimi can do both jobs it is, therefore, the better choice.

 

[SuperSLime]

Because if there is a chance in an urban setting to set up a small, temporary firebase even for a few minutes to say, let the team cross the hallways or some sort of passageway, the SAW will come in handy.

Hmmm no, I don't buy that. Indoors, as I said before, you don't need anything heavier than a rifle and grenades. Support weapons are meant for laying down area fire at longer ranges, not shooting down the length of a hallway.

In urban CQB you don't suppress the enemy to cross a hallway; you enter the building, secure and hold the hallway on the floor you entered, clear each room one at a time then move on to the next floor. There's no role for a support weapon indoors; as Aussie Digger said, you might need to use a Minimi if it's the only weapon you had, but I personally would switch it to semi and use it as a (big, clumsy) rifle.

 

[Chino]

Because the tactical situation demands it and you've no other weapon?

AS can be seen in this video, a Minimi can be used quite effectively in CQB operations, apart from the obvious fire support applications it was intended for...

YouTube - Australian Infantry Training Before Iraq

And also for the simple fact that a section should fight as a section. Especially in small 7-men sections like SAF, it is unthinkable to leave your 2 SAW gunners somehwere else.

Yes, the Minimi can be used in CQB as you say, but a lightweight and very controllable Ultimax can do the same job, perhaps better. An Ultimax will easily out-hit a M249 due to its controllability and accuracy whether on bipod or handheld.

Changing a drum is fast. And in an emergency you can slap in a 30rd from your section mates.

 

[SuperSLime]

And also for the simple fact that a section should fight as a section. Especially in small 7-men sections like SAF, it is unthinkable to leave your 2 SAW gunners somehwere else.

Not really. It's called a Fire Support Group or Gun Group.

A Section should fight as two mutually supporting groups - fire teams or rifle group/gun group. And the Section support weapons are better employed controlling the approaches to a house than creating a huge blue on blue hazard inside.

An Ultimax will easily out-hit a M249 due to its controllability and accuracy whether on bipod or handheld.

But when fired from the bipod as a support weapon, which is what it's there for in the first place, it is less stable due to its light weight.

If all you intend to do is house clearing, don't take the gunners in with you. That's not what they're for. But when you have a contact in open ground you want proper LMGs there, not some bastard offspring of the M-16.

The Ultimax is OK, and would be fine for CQB as it can be used as a rifle, but as an LMG it has no advantages over the Minimi.

 

[kotay]

And also for the simple fact that a section should fight as a section. Especially in small 7-men sections like SAF, it is unthinkable to leave your 2 SAW gunners somehwere else.

You really should be paying more attention to what the rest of your platoon guys are doing out in the field ... maybe it's just too hard to look up when you're humping a PRC77

A 7 man section is, nominally, organised as 2 groups in the TO&E. In practice, I've seen them reassign the groups as needs dictate. eg. a couple of SAWs and the Designated Marksman as a support group while the rest of the section went flanking.

But when fired from the bipod as a support weapon, which is what it's there for in the first place, it is less stable due to its light weight.

Try firing the U-100 first. It's light weight has no implications at all on it's ability to fire accurately or stably in automatic.

There was a link a while back in Defense Review to a Marine Corp Gazette article about a shootoff between the M249, the U100 and some other weapons. Unfortunately, the USMC link is dead, but the gist of the article is that ...

"the ST Kinetics Ultimax was preferred by U.S. Marine Corps test shooters over the FN M249 SAW and rest of the weapons in the test, and downright outperformed the FN M249 SAW--even though the Ultimax used in the test didn't even have workable sights! (Someone must have damaged the factory sights prior to the test.)"

The U100 out-performed the M249 by a significant figure in offhand shooting and by a lesser margin firing prone from bipod (but outperformed the M249 still).

I'm not holding out the above article as a gospel truth ... just that your impression of the U100 as a bum auto weapon because of it's light weight is unfounded. Try reading up on it's constant-recoil system.

If all you intend to do is house clearing, don't take the gunners in with you. That's not what they're for. But when you have a contact in open ground you want proper LMGs there, not some bastard offspring of the M-16.

The Ultimax is OK, and would be fine for CQB as it can be used as a rifle, but as an LMG it has no advantages over the Minimi.

There is no sense in comparing the U100 and the M249 as is. One is a strictly magazine fed weapon and the other belt fed. They each have different strengths and are suited for different applications. Undoubtedly in a fixed defensive position, the M249 will outperform the U100.

From what I understand, the USMC IAR is not going to totally replace the SAW within the section but to beef up the automatic fire capability of the section by up-arming a couple of rifleman. There may be a consequent reduction in the number of SAWs in the section ... I'm not too clear on this.

[edit for typo]

 

[lobbie111]

Because the tactical situation demands it and you've no other weapon?

AS can be seen in this video, a Minimi can be used quite effectively in CQB operations, apart from the obvious fire support applications it was intended for...

YouTube - Australian Infantry Training Before Iraq

I have a few questions about that video, were they using the minimi's as if they were just long assault rifles most of the time and what was the song

 

[Aussie Digger]

I have a few questions about that video, were they using the minimi's as if they were just long assault rifles most of the time and what was the song

One by One by the Foo Fighters.

Yes, the F-89 Minimi's were being used as "rifles", which takes a bit of strength to keep that up for any period of time...

However as shown, the Minimi is perfectly capable of being employed within CQB environments and "Para-Saw" variants with foregrips build on this...

http://world.guns.ru/machine/fn_minimi_spw.jpg

 

[Chino]

You really should be paying more attention to what the rest of your platoon guys are doing out in the field ... maybe it's just too hard to look up when you're humping a PRC77

A 7 man section is, nominally, organised as 2 groups in the TO&E. In practice, I've seen them reassign the groups as needs dictate. eg. a couple of SAWs and the Designated Marksman as a support group while the rest of the section went flanking.

Ahem... I see very well with the PRC77, thank you.

And as a corporal, I have led sections when attached to other units for ICT that didn't have enough NCOs.

In a SAF 7-man section, one group (fire-team) is only TWO guys. So if you say there is a SAW and a Sharpshooter, man... that's one complete group.

So when the section's groups leapfrog towards objective, the Sect Cmdr may leave one group with the SAW to provide the support fire.

...

This is not to say that leaving BOTH SAWs behind cannot happen. But in SAF where the SAW is so light, including the SAW in the assault groups is no problem. And in fact is what usually happens.

So no real ground for disagreements either way.

...

Besides, I was replying in the context of groundless suggestions that the SAW is ONLY for the support role and not included in the assault role by certain member of this forum (not Aussie Digger).

In fact, in SAF, our instructors used to refer to SAW as "Section Assault Weapon" instead of (the US's) "Squad Automatic Weapon". To this day, I don't know if they were wrong of if this is how SAF terms it. Maybe you can clarify.

 

[Cutaway]

It would do, but again, why bother?? The Ameli has no advantages and on top of that its ROF is too high. It can't do anything the Minimi can't. It also uses an obsolete mechanism that has proven less successful than the Minimi's gas system.

The ROF could be sorted out with a slightly heavier bolt/different springs(thats if you wanted to). Besides that SuperSLime, I always thought you were a big fan of the MG42 & derivatives. The Ameli may be a 5.56 weapon but at least its better than these pointless magazine fed support weapons.

 

[Chino]

The Ameli may be a 5.56 weapon but at least its better than these pointless magazine fed support weapons.

How many "pointless" mag fed support weapons have you used before arriving at this conclusion?

 

[kotay]

In a SAF 7-man section, one group (fire-team) is only TWO guys. So if you say there is a SAW and a Sharpshooter, man... that's one complete group.

So when the section's groups leapfrog towards objective, the Sect Cmdr may leave one group with the SAW to provide the support fire.

...

This is not to say that leaving BOTH SAWs behind cannot happen. But in SAF where the SAW is so light, including the SAW in the assault groups is no problem. And in fact is what usually happens.

Oops ... thought I fixed the typo You're right ... it's 3 groups.

In any case, I guess your unit has a different SOP then mine. We used to strip away "support" elements into ad hoc groupings all the time.