Squad LMG?

[Failure16]

I don't think the debate has changed since the invention of soldiering. They'll find something else to burden Marius' Mules with. More ammo. Drones. Batteries. Heavier body armour. Another LAW. More grenades. Augmented reality headset. Better shovel, more comprehensive first-aid kit. Another pilum. A bigger shield. War darts. A bigger shovel, a better pick...

I am quite sure that the modern Western infantryman carries more on a patrol than his buddy in the 1940s and '50s. That is the Lord's Truth. But how those SOBs managed to fight a war with only one canteen I will never, ever, understand. Tough bastards, the lot of 'em.

[DOC_Agren]

Also to handle the recoil.  Jesse Ventura was a big, jacked dude when he costarred in Predator and he could barely carry the minigun, and the recoil (while firing blanks) was so strong that he needed to have someone standing out of view of the camera pushing on his back to avoid being knocked over by it.

I think miniguns are rather out of scope for this discussion...  ^-^

Not really.  You'd be amazed at what some folks will think is practical, esp. game-designers and people in the entertainment industry.

That why you breakout this xm556 minigun
a weapon system looking for a job

[Prospernia]

I am quite sure that the modern Western infantryman carries more on a patrol than his buddy in the 1940s and '50s. That is the Lord's Truth. But how those SOBs managed to fight a war with only one canteen I will never, ever, understand. Tough bastards, the lot of 'em.

And guys in the trenches of the Great War would call those guys with canteens a luxury. 

[Failure16]

And guys in the trenches of the Great War would call those guys with canteens a luxury.

To them, web-gear was a luxury. But they had water bottles. The British and Germans at least. I've read that the British Pattern 1908 web-gear (possibly the first of its kind) weighed over thirty kilos loaded up, but do not have recent confirmation of that.

But sure, no matter what, those guys had it rougher than just about anybody, with some notable exceptions.

[NightSarge]

Correctly.

[kato]

How will when and if the Squad Support Weapon 40mm arrive make changes the SSW role?  Will you have 1 LMG and 1 40mm SSW?

German light infantry when the SSW40/Hydra concept was first conceived had a rather different, much heavier armed makeup compared to international counterparts. This included not just three dismounted machine guns (plus the one on the APC), but also no less than four 40mm grenade launcher tubes in a squad.

I guess the possible business avenue Rheinmetall saw was a heavier replacement for the separate grenade launchers in such a layout, especially as the ones currently used are fairly old. In reality it's of course a weapon in search of a role.



Squad outfit:

10 men total - 1 senior NCO (sergeant) as squad leader, 1 junior NCO (corporal) as troop-leader-on-demand, 8 Enlisted

- 1 heavy machine gun, typically 7.62mm (on Fuchs APC - .50cal or 40mm used in deployments)
- 1 medium machine gun, 7.62mm (for dismounted use with tripod carried on vehicle)
- 2 light machine guns, 5.56mm (as squad support weapons)
- 1 anti-tank rocket launcher (two rounds carried)
- 2 grenade launchers, 40mm
- 2 rifles, 5.56mm with grenade launchers, 40mm
- 2 rifles, 5.56mm (secondary weapon for the two men with medium MG and rocket launcher)
- 2 rifles, 5.56mm (primary weapon for the two men carrying the separate grenade launchers)
- 2 PDWs, 4.6mm (primary weapon for APC driver and squad leader; squad leader sometimes switched to G36 instead)
- 2 pistols, 9mm (secondary weapon for squad support machine gunners)
- 2 flare pistols, 26mm (squad leader and troop leader, usually)

That's the setup from about 10-15 years ago. Some rolling changes with regard to introduction of new hardware since then, and overall there's a sorta toolbox approach in the background through which the squad can be equipped differently based on tasks and missions (e.g. switching two rifles for DMRs), and there's pushes for some medium-term enhancements in the sense of "more" (e.g. second rocket launcher).

[Vonshroom]

I think both the IAR and the recent development of composite cartridges will change this debate going forward...  :)

I highly doubt it, the IAR concept is completely flawed when it comes to sustained suppressive fire. Ironically the newer NGSW program sought from the beginning to replace both the SAW (With a belt fed open bolt design) and the M4 (with a closed bolt rifle design). Which indicates that the military learned some lessons from the IAR program. Until closed bolt weapon systems are capable of replicating the sustained rate of fire that a belt fed open bolt design is capable of you aren't going to see our entire military move towards an "IAR" concept rifle.

The composite cartridges simply add to the firepower of an already existing weapon, they don't re-write tactics or make weapons systems currently in use somehow obsolete.

So is that why according to a couple of my Marine friends they assigned the MG to the smallest guy.

Now on a question:
How will when and if the Squad Support Weapon 40mm arrive make changes the SSW role?  Will you have 1 LMG and 1 40mm SSW?

I don't see this really changing the role of the grenadier. Given their relative limited ammo supply grenadiers have to be somewhat choosy with their shots. With the weight and size / bulk of 40mm grenades the grenadier arguably does not need a semi automatic weapon system in most scenarios. Ideally they would be able to use one, but it is hard to justify the weight and added bulk of a complete weapons system when something like the M320 exists. Carrying an M4 along with an M320 with the same amount of ammo is going to provide a similar overall volume of (Aimed) fire as the SSW 40mm would allow. I think this is one of the reasons this concept has been scrapped, retrieved, scrapped again and ultimately is on a slow walk.

 

[Vonshroom]

We cannot even say that the SAW/AR/LMG has primacy within such a fire team, as doctrine tells us that:
It is the synergy between complimentary weapons-systems (in this case, high-volume direct [suppressive] fire allied with accurate and timely indirect/area-effect fires) that is the goal of the infantry fire team leader, not just the automatic weapon system. Indeed, that passage, as you see, is specifically related to the fire team acting in a support-by-fire (SBF) role. (Which, if we want to be pedantic, is specifically not what Elmoth asked.) It would be folly to assume that the first-among-equals status (not primacy) of the SAW/AR/LMG makes it more important than a single rifle/carbine.

Two situations that I have seen with my own eyes, but are easily imaginable by anyone on these boards: making initial entry into a building/room and suppressing a bunker for close assault by dismounted personnel.

Which position/system do you think is best suited? A SAW, or a rifleman? Choose carefully...



Okay, that was a trick. You use both. The SAW suppresses the windows of the building during the approach by the assault team (per doctrine or SOP, or prior discussion/walkthrough, or specific orders at the moment by a leader) composed of mainly riflemen; just as it suppresses the bunker for a close assault team composed of riflemen with grenades. If you get crazy and do things the opposite way, it will likely be...challenging.

If you want to clear out a second-story room, you use a grenade launcher. If you want to stop a car speeding towards your checkpoint, you use a SAW. If you want to kill one person at range or in the midst or non-hostiles, you use a rifle.

If you want to make a modern infantry skirmish game, you model effects, not minutia. It may seem hard to believe, but an infantry platoon leader or company commander doesn't really care if all their SAWs are operating at any given moment. But they care a lot if their teams or squads are maneuvering or otherwise accomplishing the mission they are responsible for.

Wholly agree on your first point. Squads are meant to work in synergy and the weapons mix reflects this.

The point I am trying to make is that the SAW has primacy for the role of suppressive fire, nothing more. Clearly as you and I have both pointed out the SAW is not intended for taking out individual point targets (however it can), nor is a 40mm.

My whole argument from a game mechanic is the fact that with the SAW or any GPMG at the squad level there needs to be an "effect" on the enemy while the MG is firing. That effect is suppression & friendly suppressive fire grants you a huge tactical ability. This should be reflected in the game. An MG has a role which does way more at a squad level than an M4 ever could. That doesn't necessarily make it more important, just as a wrench isn't more important in a tradesman's toolbox than a hammer. However no one argues that if you need to tighten down a nut the wrench is a superior tool for the task at hand.

[Daryk]

The composite cartridges take a lot of heat with them.  When Task and Purpose put a belt of them through an M240, the bolt was cold when he was done.

[Vonshroom]

The composite cartridges take a lot of heat with them.  When Task and Purpose put a belt of them through an M240, the bolt was cold when he was done.

The bolt might be (colder) but the barrel is still going to be hot. Everything forward of the chamber has the same things going on as a conventional round...

[NightSarge]

@Kato

the 7.62 MMGs would be MG5 Then, right?

[kato]

@Kato
the 7.62 MMGs would be MG5 Then, right?

7.62mm vehicle MG = back then MG3 (front mount on Fuchs), now FLW200 RWS with 40mm GMW (fixed, with dedicated operator)
7.62mm squad MG = back then MG3 (rear mount on Fuchs), now MG5 (no mount on vehicle)

As said it's a bit of a toolbox approach. In most units under common circumstances for combat on foot they'd probably only take the LMGs along and leave the MMG in the vehicle or in the armory (with the tripod that's an additional 25-30 kg after all), but if e.g. for securing a checkpoint or other fixed position they'd want a heavier MG on a tripod then they'd have one available to take out additionally.

It's similar for the 40mm grenade launchers too. Supposedly the standalone AG40-1 is preferred over the rifle-mounted AG40-2 btw (probably due to the combination weapon weight), and in urban combat the AG40-1 is used as default.

The squad in this layout also doesn't have predefined fireteams btw, but by default fights as one unit. The junior NCO as troop leader is available if the squad leader wants to split the unit into two fireteams, with the troop leader usually taking command of a split-off fireteam for specific tasks, such as directing the MGs or leading an anti-tank team.

[NightSarge]

Thanks you for your views.