Corps chooses H&K to make SAW replacement

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by Solid Knight

I have to ask, aside from being open bolt and allowing it to cool, what's the real difference between this and just giving everyone a full-auto M4A1? They would effectively be the same weapon as far as the enemy is concerned.

Indeed it is, but this operates on a gas piston system rather than a direct gas system like the M4A1 meaning it is more tolerant of sustained full automatic fire (though arguably harder to control owing to more rearward moving wieght). TBH the open bolt is an important feature (speaking from, as I am, the perspective of a textbook rambo) as it allows quicker heat dissapation especaially as the IAR does not feature a quick change barrel (much like is analouges in other armies - the L86 linkification and RPK-74 you know whats coming) which mean it is likley to overheat far too quickly to be of any real use in a sustained firefight so anything that holds this unfortunate chateristic off is appreciated...

In my opinion the IAR will see very little use with teeth units, who will dump it for the M249 and M240G quick sharp - the only units who will use it are those who value weight over firepower (ie those in non-teeth arms who prefer not to lug around heavy weapons as generally thier lives don't depend on it). Every other military that has tried this concept has seen the same result - troops dump the small magazine, non-QCB, non belt fed weapon in exchange for heavier, older weapons that are capable of delivering more effective suppresive fire (in the two most obvious examples, the L7 GPMG and the PKM GPMG). However, the USMC have the option to continue with a compartivly lightweight weapon rather than raiding company/battalion level stores for section level equipment as the M249 is available.

The simple fact from historical experience squad automatic weapons with small capacity and without a QCB tend to peform poorly in combat and get dumped quickly as such, unless there is no alternative. For example, the British classic, the Bren gun performed (so well infact, that after whitnessing its effectivness when used from the prone position in the jungles of Vietnam that the US Navy SEALs requested that thier new Stoner 63 LMGs feature a top loading box magazine fed variant image here (too drunk/lazy to find explicit source)) well and remained in service until the mid '90s with non-teeth arms, owing much to its QCB, a feature its replacement (the L86) lacked. Not having the key features of a SAW (lacking a large capacity magaizine, lacking a QCB) while attempting to use a weapon in the SAW role are a death sentence for the weapon in question - noone wants a gun that can't to the job asked of it.

[hiberNative]

as far as i know, you might all be textbook warriors with basic experience from basic training, and then a deep interest in warfare which is where your facts come from.

when merits are getting rubbed in each other's faces on the internet, you're bound to be reading some twisted truths.

hell, i remember an argument with a dev that claimed to own a h&k psg-1, but didn't post any open bolt pictures or target results to back it up. the forumites backed him up by saying it was true since he proved it via ventrilo (???). what ever happened to that?

[ReapersWarrior]

Originally Posted by HardcoreCook

Well, your average soldier will cary around 4 pouches of 2 M16 mags.
How would this person deal with ammo? Carry a shi-load in his backpack? Get pouches of 3 mags? I dunno, but it just seems to make more sense to have a belt fed machine gun to be the squad automatic fire because its meant to serve that sole pursopse from the ground up.
It was for the exact same reason the mg42 was superior over the Britsh Japanese and other mag fed machine guns.
Though a new enviroment may call for a new kind of gun.
In Iraq, i'd say you dont neccesarly need an over 9000 rounds per minute, but i surely wouldnt wanna have a maggazine fed weapon because you just dont have enough rounds to keep your ennemy at close(r) suppresed. However, a drum mag could do wonders.
Anyway.
In Afghanistan your ennemy is over 200 meters away. Sometimes even 500. A machine gun based on an assault rifle probably wont cut it, because the ROF might be lower when compared to other machine guns. This, however, can be fixed.
So it really depends on the range you need the gun for and it also depends on how much ammo you have/ wanna save.

I was basing what i said off of the current style of was in Afghanistan. A lot of units are on patrol most of the day and cover a lot of ground looking for the Taliban and usually engagements aren't against a huge force like they would be with a conventional army. Therefore eliminating weight would be a huge improvement for mobility which is very important.

I'm not arguing that the SAW is useless or that the new weapon is superior more that the benefit of losing the weight can be outweighed in the current war.

I know this weapon will not take over the saw's role or even the 240B, its just an alternative for it. Plus these weapons will be mounted on vehicles or at bases to be used where weight is not an issue.

Just because the ammo is no longer in belt fed form doesn't mean you can't carry just as much. Plus this way they can now swap mag's with the other members in their squad if they run out of ammo.

At 500m you better be one hell of a shot with whatever your using cause shit is hard to hit no matter what lol. I do pretty good with an M16 at 300 meters but I've never shot over that.
A saw would be most effective at that range due to it being an area target but heavy suppression is less important at that range unless the rest of your unit is assaulting.

[gazzthompson]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheIED

lol, That or holding your position while calling in a flanking maneuver on the MG nest totally blowing out his cover with that supressive fire. What kind of "enemy" operates alone?

did he say anything about operating alone? whistle flanking the enemy who is "blowing his cover" you will most likely run into his friends.

Im just an arm chair general, but isnt the basis of all infantry combat about putting more rounds down range than the enemy?

Suppressive fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and all?

Isnt the aim of infantry combat reducing the enemy's effectiveness to move with heavy volumes of fire, thus allowing your own force to move easier and kill the enemy from flanks etc?

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by gazzthompson

did he say anything about operating alone? whistle flanking the enemy who is "blowing his cover" you will most likely run into his friends.

Im just an arm chair general, but isnt the basis of all infantry combat about putting more rounds down range than the enemy?

Suppressive fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and all?

Isnt the aim of infantry combat reducing the enemy's effectiveness to move with heavy volumes of fire, thus allowing your own force to move easier and kill the enemy from flanks etc?

Indeed it is - the book which is largley the basis of 20th century infantry tactics - "Infantry Attacks" by Erwin Rommel notes specifically that the first of the opposing units to get thier MGs set up is almost universally the side that will win the enguagement.

Now, I am basing this on evidence almost half a century old if not more and based on data gathered from conscript armies - but every major study (German, American, Russian, British & Belgian at least) into casualties inflicted by infantry (which, to be honest, doesn't really happen. The infantry's job is to pin the enemy in place so they can be killed by the artillery/armour/air power's BFOGs [Since the 17th century and probably before the biggest killer in every armed conflict has been artillery (When I say artillery, I refer to all forms of fire used to support the infanry)]) are linked to the number of rounds fired rather than the accuracy or power of said rounds. This is why post (and in some cases, during) WWII armies equipped thier troops with weapons that were effective to around 300m and could be fired reasonably accurately quickly in semi-automatic and had full auto capability (at least when they wern't being dicked around by countries who handn't bothered to conduct thier own studies yet, anyway).

What wins firefights is the capability to throw large amounts of lead at the enemy and having the nerve to keep doing it even as they throw lead back at you. But, having more lead is important. If the firepower of the section cannot be matched by the enemy, all the nerve in the world doesn't make up for another couple of hundred rounds a minute forcing a unit to, as Gaz said, either **** off or die.

Just because the ammo is no longer in belt fed form doesn't mean you can't carry just as much.

Equally, you can't throw it at the enemy as quickly - if you're putting a new mag in every 30 rounds and he's changing every 200 you're at a serious disadvantage. While you might have just as much as the enemy, the enemy can put it to use that much more quickly and effectivly, driving friendly forces off thier positions.

[[R-DEV]DankE_SPB]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Equally, you can't throw it at the enemy as quickly - if you're putting a new mag in every 30 rounds and he's changing every 200 you're at a serious disadvantage. While you might have just as much as the enemy, the enemy can put it to use that much more quickly and effectivly, driving friendly forces off thier positions.

ontop of that mag variant will result in more carrying of "dead" weight
i mean isn't material "box" for M249 belt lighter than 7 30-round mags?

[[R-DEV]Jaymz]

Originally Posted by hiberNative

hell, i remember an argument with a dev that claimed to own a h&k psg-1, but didn't post any open bolt pictures or target results to back it up. the forumites backed him up by saying it was true since he proved it via ventrilo (???). what ever happened to that?

If it's the dev I'm thinking of, he owns a hell of a lot more than a PSG-1.

[Scot]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz

If it's the dev I'm thinking of, he owns a hell of a lot more than a PSG-1.

Haha, that made me quite literally wet myself

[hartbilt]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

The simple fact from historical experience squad automatic weapons with small capacity and without a QCB tend to peform poorly in combat and get dumped quickly as such, unless there is no alternative. For example, the British classic, the Bren gun performed (so well infact, that after whitnessing its effectivness when used from the prone position in the jungles of Vietnam that the US Navy SEALs requested that thier new Stoner 63 LMGs feature a top loading box magazine fed variant image here (too drunk/lazy to find explicit source)) well and remained in service until the mid '90s with non-teeth arms, owing much to its QCB, a feature its replacement (the L86) lacked. Not having the key features of a SAW (lacking a large capacity magaizine, lacking a QCB) while attempting to use a weapon in the SAW role are a death sentence for the weapon in question - noone wants a gun that can't to the job asked of it.

The SEALs had no input that I know of into a design request for top-feeding ability, Stoner had it in the design before he began to develop w/ SEALS.
Vietnam SEALs preferred the 150 Round Belt Drum Magazine or 100 rd plastic belt box on the Stoner 63A, anyways the Stoner was a modular weapon it could be configured easily to different feed styles.


SEAL that looks strangely like Woody Harrelson w/ 63

[hiberNative]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz

If it's the dev I'm thinking of, he owns a hell of a lot more than a PSG-1.

still, he didn't man up and show some decent pics. just one that looked like an airsoft.

also, this might be relevant to the thread.



i had no idea.