Why the USMC should not buy the "IAR"

[F-15 Eagle]

Yes, I´m aware that they intend to do it on a one-to-one basis, and I believe that is a grave error, and that they will discover and fix it quite fast.

Now, the weight of a M249 with a spare barrel, and an M16 is probably a bit more than the weight of two IARs. That means the fire-team with the IARs will be able to move a bit faster than the fire-team with the M249, especially if this is in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Together, those two IAR-gunners, should be able to provide at least the same firepower and volume of fire as the SAW-gunner, and are even able to put more lead on more targets faster than the SAW-gunner should the need arise.

How do you know it´s the SAW that keeps the enemies heads down, and not the PKMs of the enemy keeping the SAW-gunners down? They do not only have a bit more range, but strikes harder too, thereby at least kicking up a lot more dirt than 5.56... It´s a two way shooting-range out there you know!

I have carried a beltfed enough to tell you that it´s not fun having to stop and insert a new belt in the gun while ten metres from the enemy machine-gunner, who was in the same situation as me... Although that was only an exercise, it changed my view on a few things... Btw, I got him with my Glock after some quick thinking

The ideal Marine squad as I see it, would consist of five IAR-gunners, and one 7.62 LMG-gunner (outfitted light enough to be able to keep up with the rest of the squad)

The IAR is a bit heavier than an M16 by a few pounds but still lighter than the SAW. Yes the SAW gunner is slower but thats not the biggest issue with it and the volume of fire it gives far out weighs it.

I would say the biggest shortcomings with the SAW is reliability but that can be fixed with better LMGs like the FN MK 46 it is also lighter too which helps.

If you have ever seen some of the enemies that U.S. troops face such as in Iraq they are poorly trained and they use crummy 40 year old AK-47s and maybe a few RPDs which are belt feed not much PKMs though I could be mistaken on the RPDs and PKMs but the point is that U.S. troops with the M16 and the M4 and the SAW have much better firepower than the insurgents.

Every time they go up against U.S. Troops with their AK-47s, RPGs and PKM/RPDs they just end up getting killed by the superior weapons of the U.S. troops or they just run away because they learn fast that they can't win.

The 7.62X39 Soviet round I think is over rated its inaccurate at long ranges over 300yd and I think the 5.56 NATO is overall a better round.

I would prefer the M16 or M4 over a AK-47 and I would take a M249 SAW over a RPD/PKM any day. Plus the 7.62 kicks up around the same amount of dirt as the 5.56 but I don't see how that has to do with anything.

You said that Marine squads should have a lighter 7.62 GPMG that can keep up with the rest of the squad but don't you think they can do that with the belt fed LMG like the SAW? I'm telling you the MK 46 would be a better solution than the IAR.

I think Army and Marine squads should have full auto M16/M4s which are like the IAR like around 7-10 of them, lighter and more reliable LMGs like the MK 46(2-3 of them depending on if its Army or Marine) and one 7.62 GPMG. That would be the way to go.

 

[dobrodan]

The IAR is a bit heavier than an M16 by a few pounds but still lighter than the SAW. Yes the SAW gunner is slower but thats not the biggest issue with it and the volume of fire it gives far out weighs it.

I would say the biggest shortcomings with the SAW is reliability but that can be fixed with better LMGs like the FN MK 46 it is also lighter too which helps.

If you have ever seen some of the enemies that U.S. troops face such as in Iraq they are poorly trained and they use crummy 40 year old AK-47s and maybe a few RPDs which are belt feed not much PKMs though I could be mistaken on the RPDs and PKMs but the point is that U.S. troops with the M16 and the M4 and the SAW have much better firepower than the insurgents.

Every time they go up against U.S. Troops with their AK-47s, RPGs and PKM/RPDs they just end up getting killed by the superior weapons of the U.S. troops or they just run away because they learn fast that they can't win.

The 7.62X39 Soviet round I think is over rated its inaccurate at long ranges over 300yd and I think the 5.56 NATO is overall a better round.

I would prefer the M16 or M4 over a AK-47 and I would take a M249 SAW over a RPD/PKM any day. Plus the 7.62 kicks up around the same amount of dirt as the 5.56 but I don't see how that has to do with anything.

You said that Marine squads should have a lighter 7.62 GPMG that can keep up with the rest of the squad but don't you think they can do that with the belt fed LMG like the SAW? I'm telling you the MK 46 would be a better solution than the IAR.

I think Army and Marine squads should have full auto M16/M4s which are like the IAR like around 7-10 of them, lighter and more reliable LMGs like the MK 46(2-3 of them depending on if its Army or Marine) and one 7.62 GPMG. That would be the way to go.

So, you are saying that the Marines only fight amateurs in Iraq and A-stan?

Well, you are up for a surprise! If it wasn´t for helicopters, UAVs, nightvision, thermal sights, and airsupport, the allies would have a MUCH tougher time than they already have!

And another surprise to you may be that western weaponry isn´t that much better than what the Taliban and insurgents have, except the electronics of course... The PKM would give the M240 very good competition, while not weighing very much more than a SAW. And the AK is more than good enough to do the job it´s supposed to do.

The reason I see a 7.62MG as a good thing isn´t because it necessarily has a lot more range than the SAW, but rather that it has better effect against cars, buildings and cover at both close and long ranges, and that it also has more effect in the target than 5.56 at long ranges, and thus will work better as a firebase than the SAW.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

So, you are saying that the Marines only fight amateurs in Iraq and A-stan?

Well, you are up for a surprise! If it wasn´t for helicopters, UAVs, nightvision, thermal sights, and airsupport, the allies would have a MUCH tougher time than they already have!

And another surprise to you may be that western weaponry isn´t that much better than what the Taliban and insurgents have, except the electronics of course... The PKM would give the M240 very good competition, while not weighing very much more than a SAW. And the AK is more than good enough to do the job it´s supposed to do.

The reason I see a 7.62MG as a good thing isn´t because it necessarily has a lot more range than the SAW, but rather that it has better effect against cars, buildings and cover at both close and long ranges, and that it also has more effect in the target than 5.56 at long ranges, and thus will work better as a firebase than the SAW.

Yes I am because thats what they are they are civilians that have never been trained in fact they are not even in a regular army.

Isn't much better? The rumors that the AK-47 is better than the M4 is complete crap as I said with the AK-47 you can't hit the broad side of a barn beyond 300yd, its not very accurate, not very long range and the body armor that U.S. solders wear can stop the round from killing.

The M4 is like a professional tool used by the superpowers or the most powerful military's and it is more advanced. The AK-47 on the other hand for 3rd world nations and is used by poorly trained solders(some of them are actually kids like in Africa) with small defense budgets and its cheap to make. I think U.S. troops deserve something better than a 3rd world weapon. The same goes for the SAW and the PKM.

Also the 7.62 GPMG and the M249 SAW are for 2 different roles. The SAW is a LMG that moves with the squad to provide suppressive fire and is carried by an individual solder, the 7.62 GPMG like the M240 on the other hang is many used as a stationary weapons such as machine gun nest or mounts and vehicles such as trucks, tanks, and APCs. You can't possibly use a GPMG for the LMG role jus like you can't use the LMG for the GPMG role. They complement each other.

 

[dobrodan]

From what do you base your assumptions?
Both on the level of training, and on the weaponry...

I never said that the AK is "better" than the M4, even though, in some instances it might be... Still, it is no sniper-weapon, but within 300m I should not have very big problems hitting a person-sized target, and I would expect to be easily able to hit a barn up to at least 500-600m

How is the M4 more advanced by the way? It´s a bit more accurate, and a bit lighter, but that´s about it. Oh, and it´s more complicated and expensive to make...

And about GPMGs, I have carried a MG-3 machine-gun (in 7.62) for some time, and in Norway, it is the "SAW", and is quite heavy (11,5kgs) and bulky. A PKM weighs in comparison 7.5kgs (and that´s 7.62x54R, not 7.62x39, so comparable to 7.62x51), and the SAW weighs 7.1kg. The Mk 46 weighs 5.75kgs (with a very light barrel) All weights are gun only, without ammo or spare barrels.

The GPMG can be employed as a LMG... That´s what the bipod is for.
But while being able to be used off a tripod, the SAW is unable to completely fill the shoes of the GPMG, because the calibre is a bit too light for effective long-range fire.

If you have a light enough GPMG, you don´t need the M249 for sustained suppression.

 

[kato]

True, a proper GPMG like the MG3 is often used in the very same role that other militaries use a SAW or other LMG. In the Bundeswehr too, although in that role it's gonna be replaced by the MG4. And yes, i mean an individually issued MG on squad level intended for suppressive fire-on-the-move and suppressive, penetrating automatic fire from temporary squad positions. In the first role, a SAW is obviously better, in the second role a SAW is utter crap in comparison (and the IAR will be crap as well).

There's obviously also a doctrinal difference; US forces do not support a builtin platoon-level role change of sub-elements ("Stormtrooper" tactics*), but instead collects sub-elements in fixed roles (maneuver, assault etc) with no possibility of realignment. In a structure supporting such a role change, a general GPMG will be better used, while the US doctrine calls explicitly for LMGs in the maneuver/attack elements and MMGs/GPMGs in a company-level fire support element.

*- what i'm talking about is e.g. collecting a solid fire support base for covering fire at platoon level, or impromptu formation of platoon-level demolishing, indirect-fire or auxiliary elements in order to pool resources into a stronger local response. The infantry doctrines of the USMC like other anglophone militaries don't support this really.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Back to the original topic as Kato said the IAR is crap and I doubt it will ever replace the SAW in the suppressive fire role.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There's obviously also a doctrinal difference; US forces do not support a builtin platoon-level role change of sub-elements ("Stormtrooper" tactics*), but instead collects sub-elements in fixed roles (maneuver, assault etc) with no possibility of realignment. In a structure supporting such a role change, a general GPMG will be better used, while the US doctrine calls explicitly for LMGs in the maneuver/attack elements and MMGs/GPMGs in a company-level fire support element.

*- what i'm talking about is e.g. collecting a solid fire support base for covering fire at platoon level, or impromptu formation of platoon-level demolishing, indirect-fire or auxiliary elements in order to pool resources into a stronger local response. The infantry doctrines of the USMC like other anglophone militaries don't support this really.

Woahh there buddy. It ain't WW2 any more... This is totally wrong.

USMC, US Army, British Army, Royal Marines, Canadian Forces, Australian Army have all restructured their infantry companies into modular 'brick' based sub-units able to mix and match. Including with heavier support weapon down to a section based patrol and assault force.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Back to the original topic as Kato said the IAR is crap and I doubt it will ever replace the SAW in the suppressive fire role.

You keep saying it yet its a happening.

As someone who has used both a changeable barrel, belt feed (AR) and magazine feed non-changeable barrel weapon (MG) in a squad automatic role (both in 7.62mm: the M60 and the L2A2) in infantry training I can say in patrol type engagements the difference in the kind of firepower you can put out is very small.

The AR on the other hand is a lot easier to move and shoot with. The worst thing about the L2A2 was it lacked a reasonable barrel guard but by taping together the bipod sticks as either a monopod or a barrel guard (and it would change between the two whenever it wanted as the clip was useless) it was a really useful weapon. With a 30 round magazine I had 5-6 quick, good bursts before changing.

The M60 with a 50 round 'snail' belt holder was a lot harder to move and dealing with the belt after the first 50 rounds a nightmare. In these kind of patrol engagements (all we did as we weren't an infantry battalion) you never needed to change the barrel but you would have to feed in a new belt.

 

[dobrodan]

Back to the original topic as Kato said the IAR is crap and I doubt it will ever replace the SAW in the suppressive fire role.

Oh, sorry didn´t the slight drift in the thread (but still very related to the topic) fit you very well?

Well, thats too bad, because IMO it was getting a bit interesting...

If you want to get into deep water, you have to be able to swim, or at least be very good at holding your breath...

 

[Chino]

There are 2 separate components to the IAR adoption process: developing the idea/concept, and selecting the hardware/weapon.

IAR CONCEPT
The concept is sound.

Already weighed down with equipment, ammo, body armour... a squad needs to climb through windows, crawl, jump, dash etc.

So the Squad level suppressive fire weapon needs to be light, compact and mag-fed like the standard assault rifle. It should also be able to double in a limited fixed fire support role.

Rifle squads on the move usually finds itself in situations too fluid to bipod a gun for any length of time..

Also...

For fixed fire support there's always the possibility of platoon or company GPMG/Mortar/RR assets added/chipping in.


IAR WEAPON
I guess until I know more about the capabilities of the remaining contenders I have to put aside my bias and keep an open mind.

In a limited fixed support fire role, firepower from 30rd mags can still be acceptable because IAR magazine changes probably doesn't require re-cocking to fire, which would help somewhat in terms of speed. You just need to have a stack of mags ready.

But it's a matter of time before someone makes a decent STANAG hi-cap mag/drum.

 

[Chino]

...MG on squad level intended for ...suppressive, penetrating automatic fire from temporary squad positions. In the ... second role a SAW is utter crap in comparison (and the IAR will be crap as well).

Yes. But people shouldn't interpret your sentence to mean the IAR concept is crap overall, because the IAR is to fill a different role.

The IARs will provide badly-needed suppressive automatic fire with the squads together on the move. The USMC's combat experience told them that the M249 (or another belt-fed gun) is unsuitable for this role.

IMO savvy USMC units will still squirrel a M249 in the squad somewhere should the need arise just like how M14's now find their way back to combat.

And there's absolutely nothing stopping the PC from attaching the platoon GPMG to the squad that needs to give "penetrating automatic fire from temporary squad positions".

 

[kato]

USMC, US Army, British Army, Royal Marines, Canadian Forces, Australian Army have all restructured their infantry companies into modular 'brick' based sub-units able to mix and match. Including with heavier support weapon down to a section based patrol and assault force.

Yes, their companies. But not for impromptu platoon-level mix-and-matches. These forces still pool all their support weapons at company level; i.e. in the form of a 60mm mortar section, an assault section with GPMGs and an AT section, all together in a relatively theoretical weapons platoon - which is of course usually split down to support the infantry platoons separately with a number of teams as needed.
The infantry platoon itself does not have any such weapons to pool within itself; additionally, in these forces the fireteam concept is often ingrained so deeply that impromptu breakups won't be all that easy to accomplish, i.e. that you can't even pool the nine SAWs of the platoons into a single firebase likely. The SAW actually basically threw a good 30 years of higher flexibility out of the window when the squads were reorganized around it in the 80s.

Yes. But people shouldn't interpret your sentence to mean the IAR concept is crap overall, because the IAR is to fill a different role.

Indeed. Within the anglophone concept, a dedicated LMG - or automatic rifle - with such properties still makes sense.

And there's absolutely nothing stopping the PC from attaching the platoon GPMG to the squad that needs to give "penetrating automatic fire from temporary squad positions".

Technically the platoon doesn't have the GPMG at all, the company has - but its almost always attached down to the platoon.
But - see the difference? If the squad has an organic GPMG, there is no need for the PC to even act in that regard. The fact stand that the USMC does not have a squad-level automatic weapon for behind-cover penetrating fire; only a light automatic weapon for suppressive fire in the open.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But - see the difference? If the squad has an organic GPMG, there is no need for the PC to even act in that regard. The fact stand that the USMC does not have a squad-level automatic weapon for behind-cover penetrating fire; only a light automatic weapon for suppressive fire in the open.

You are severely missing the point. If a company has a weapons platoon (or in the new Australian infantry company a weapons sergeant) it is not just for fire and movement purposes but for training and management of the heavy weapons. The weapons are mixed and matched as per need with the infantry squads/sections swapping fire teams for weapons teams to form the right mix for each mission.

Before the introduction of the 5.56mm LSW 'Anglo' sections all had 7.62mm MGs. In the case of the British armies it was to replace the Bren from WW2 and each section was made up of a gun group (operating the GPMG) lead by the deputy section leader and a rifle group (made up of the spear carriers) and a section leader. Jungle warfare sections split a few soldiers from the rifle group for forward scouts. The US squad had a different evolution as they went from BARs to the bipod Browning to the M60 but followed the same principle. Such a squad/section was quite similar to the WW2 German section which was never unique.

With the 5.56mm LSW someone came up with the idea of equalising the gun and fire groups, calling them fire teams, and issuing two machineguns per section. But they worked in the same way with one fire team acting as the gun group to shoot in the rifle group (the other fire team) but with the added benefit of being interchangeable and providing supporting fires alongside the MG from new section weapons like the 40mm GL and 66mm LAWs.

 

[kato]

The weapons are mixed and matched as per need with the infantry squads/sections swapping fire teams for weapons teams to form the right mix for each mission.

Yes, but this still limits flexibility to pre-mission rampup. Once the platoon is in the field with assigned teams from the weapons platoon, this layout is "fixed". Stormtrooper Tactics allow the platoon and its teams to be internally reformed into operational teams as needed using the existing structure and weapons. A USMC platoon essentially consists of its 10 fixed teams (incl. HQ team), with the possibility to switch some of these out for dedicated heavy weapons teams pre-mission. What i'm talking about is breaking up the individual teams to form dedicated mission teams in-mission.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes, but this still limits flexibility to pre-mission rampup. Once the platoon is in the field with assigned teams from the weapons platoon, this layout is "fixed".

No it isn’t fixed. Again you miss the point. The internal platoon, company and even battalion structure has a ‘barracks’ or administration structure as seen on the order of battle. This groups weapons elements together for purposes of individual training and administration. However for collective training and operations these individual bricks of four man teams are mixed up as per need.

So for example an Australian infantry platoon with an "on paper" structure of three 8 man infantry sections, one 12 man weapons section (MSS) and a four man command team becomes two 12 man sections (each with two infantry teams and one weapons team with 7.62mm GPMG) and one 12 man command section (with the command team, one weapons team with a 12.7mm HMG and a four man DFSW team with a Javelin from the battalion direct fire support weapons platoon). They will train like this on exercises in Australia and deploy to Afghanistan as such. Other arrangements can be put together for the need.

Stormtrooper Tactics allow the platoon and its teams to be internally reformed into operational teams as needed using the existing structure and weapons. A USMC platoon essentially consists of its 10 fixed teams (incl. HQ team), with the possibility to switch some of these out for dedicated heavy weapons teams pre-mission. What i'm talking about is breaking up the individual teams to form dedicated mission teams in-mission.

OK then I would say the ‘stromtrooper’ unit is fundamentally flawed. Fixing each of the four man teams (or bricks) makes a lot of sense. Because this is the smallest unit of manoeuvre. If you need your team to have a 7.62mm GPMG then don’t stick some 7.62mm gunner into an existing team just use a pre-existing 7.62mm team. In ‘anglo’ armies each of these teams have a standard range of capabilities. For example each 7.62mm GPMG team in the Australian Army will also have a 40mm GL and a marksman rifle (7.62mm Mk 11) and a CNR. The same for many other teams, even the crew of each cavalry vehicle (ASLAV) is equipped with a LSW and a 40mm GL.

So why the need to break up and rehash your four man teams. The term brick is used because they are the building bricks of a modular force. Many of these modular principals hark back to the British Army in Northern Ireland and special forces operations have been reinforced and developed by the past 5-7 years of intensive operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s a ‘body of work’ of continuous, shared, analysed and developed infantry experience that is only matched or exceeded by the Israelis.

 

[kato]

Other armies use concepts on a different base that work just as well.

E.g. in the Bundeswehr, the base unit has always been the squad - no separate maneuver units (fireteams) below that, the squadron works as a whole. If needed, teams are formed impromptu in the field.
The squadron already has a "minimal" organic anti-tank and fire-support capability; in a standard IdZ-ES Jg squadron this organic capability is formed by two PzF3, two MG4 LMGs and three AG36 40mm GLs. There is no fixed structure below the squad, it does not shape up into e.g. two infantry teams with a MG4 and a AG36, and a AT team with the PzFs and a AG36. The squadron commander can use and resort these assets at will, without having a strict order of fixed maneuver units below him, and without "ordering" an additional team from two level above him (!) that will only be able to do one specific task for him.

If i have 3 bricks, i can only use them in a certain way. Having the capability to reshape this into anywhere between 1 and 10 "bricks", each with an individual capacity, adds flexibility. Of course juggling the "bricks" might add to the SCs job, but that's what Auftragstaktik and Innere Führung is for.

I'm talking about this basic brick which is fixed in the "anglo structure".

There's no capability to break up these bricks, such as to form a pure MG team only holding down from a certain position with suppressive fire while one or both of their assistants are assigned to another task with another "brick"; in a strict function, there's no way to assign a man from a rifle team to a mortar team to help carry ammunition into a position at will. See what i mean?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There's no capability to break up these bricks, such as to form a pure MG team only holding down from a certain position with suppressive fire while one or both of their assistants are assigned to another task with another "brick"; in a strict function, there's no way to assign a man from a rifle team to a mortar team to help carry ammunition into a position at will. See what i mean?

I think you’ve also missed a point about fire teams and sub-squad/section elements. They are not manoeuvre elements. The squad/section is the lowest level of manoeuvre. Fire Teams are sub-groups formed to assist in the squad/section maintaining its appropriate battle formation. I don’t know how the German Army does it but the formation of the squad/section for the appropriate situation is hugely important in ‘anglo’ armies. Arising from this is the need for four man bricks in current operations to provide an all angle coverage in urban operations. Also this feeds to the principal of fours: fix, flank, assault, reserve.

E.g. in the Bundeswehr, the base unit has always been the squad - no separate maneuver units (fireteams) below that, the squadron works as a whole. If needed, teams are formed impromptu in the field.

That’s not true. Of course the bricks can be changed and cut and so on as per need and the commander’s orders. If the section commander says team 1 leave your LSW gunner on the roof to provide a stronger base of fire then the team leader can’t and won’t turn around and say ‘you can’t break up my order of battle!’. That’s just nonsense.

But the section commander doesn’t have to say to soldiers X, Y, Z form a suppressive fire group and then to soldier’s A, B, C you cover the rear and then to the rest of the soldier’s you come with me into this house. He just has to talk to his team leaders.

Of course juggling the "bricks" might add to the SCs job, but that's what Auftragstaktik and Innere Führung is for.

You are out on the slimmest, shakiest branch in the tree to claim that the German section organisation is somehow makes for better reconnaissance pull versus command directive tactics! On the contrary I think the Germans are making things more difficult for their section commander. But this might be the same as their tank commander’s who are given more jobs (the radio) in German tanks compared to ‘anglo’ tanks. I think this has a lot to do with the modern German Army being a short term conscript based army rather than the professional and long term conscript (2-3 years) combat arms volunteer armies of the ‘anglos’. They don't trust the conscripts skill base for a range of more complex jobs so load them onto the long service regular section commanders.

 

[Chino]

As someone who has used both a changeable barrel, belt feed (AR) and magazine feed non-changeable barrel weapon (MG) in a squad automatic role (both in 7.62mm: the M60 and the L2A2)

Perhaps you mean the belt-feed as the (MG)?

The AR on the other hand is a lot easier to move and shoot with. The worst thing about the L2A2

L2A2 I presume is the FN FAL heavy barrel? Because google threw up within the British forces a L2A2 SMG, a L2A2 grenade...

The M60 with a 50 round 'snail' belt holder was a lot harder to move and dealing with the belt after the first 50 rounds a nightmare.

The GPMG (FN MAG) NCO attached to my platoon was the biggest guy and in good shape. But after a whole night involving capturing 2 objectives, even he was exhausted. As useful as it is to have a heavy 7.62 MG, I can't imagine the days when the GPMG is issued to the squads/sections.

 

[kato]

L2A2 I presume is the FN FAL heavy barrel? Because google threw up within the British forces a L2A2 SMG, a L2A2 grenade...

He presumably means the L2A1 Automatic Rifle, the Australian/Canadian heavy barrel full auto FAL variant, also used by Israel, Belgium and Argentina.
Was there ever a L2A2 improved version?

 

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

i dont see the big hype about the IAR it delivers the simular amount of volume of supression fire. and holds the same amount of ammunition as other AR. The British, Russians and Chinese all basically keep their existing AR and install heavey barrels to compensate. It took the USMC this many years to convert an M-16 platform AR to a SAW. Its nothing special in my opinion just a rifle with heavier barrel. Firing from open bolt instead of a closed one.