This is a discussion on Why the USMC should not buy the "IAR" within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by dobrodan
While the Ultimax is a LMG, like the Bren, it is still unable to accept light, ...
While the Ultimax is a LMG, like the Bren, it is still unable to accept light, reliable, larger than 30rd mags, that wonīt conflict with the ground in the prone position. Still, the original Ultimax mk1-4 would accept what seems to be the only reliable drum on the market, although it is IMO too heavy, bulky and expensive for anything but use in fire-bases, where a belt-fed would do the job just as well, if not better.
True about the drum being bulky. I have posted pictures on other threads/forums of the rig for carrying 3 or 4 of these drums and it is really bulky. That's why since it was introduced in 82, we mostly use only 30rd mags during training. IAR concept? It seems we were on to that 20 years earlier than the USMC...
But irrelevant in the IAR context as this proprietary drum is completely not considered by the USMC for the IAR. Unless someone can make a reliable STANAG drum.
I have posted pictures from early 90s of an M16 with a rare STANAG 75rd drum. I wonder why they don't make a small 50rd drum. It'll be lighter, and probably more robust and reliable.
The most widely-issued LSW, the RPK74, uses a ridiculously long mag which looks like it makes prone firing difficult. But I guess the RPK will mostly be used as a heavy assault rifle as opposed to being support LMG. Which is also the role mapped out for the IAR.
EDIT:
The drum is not that much more bulky if it is just one drum in the weapon, it is still a very light and handy package. However the rig to carrying several drums is. And to your point about a belt-feed being more useful than the Ultimax in a "fire-base", I guess you would have to have fired the thing to appreciate its controllability and accuracy (or watch the youtube video). If you are hitting what you are aiming at, you may need less ammo so whether it has a 200rd belt capacity or not becomes less important.
Last edited by Chino; December 29th, 2008 at 09:25 AM.
GPMG: General Purpose Machine Gun this is a weapon able to provide sustained suppressive fire in the fire team/squad/section and also able to be used as a Sustained Fire Machine Gun (SFMG) firing very long range and indirect fires thanks to a tripod and dial sight.
LSW: Light Support Weapon this is a weapon used in a fire team/squad/section to provide suppressive fire but also able to be used from the shoulder as an individual weapon.
LMG: Light Machine Gun an LSW able to perform sustained suppressive fire through use of open bolt firing (or low breech temperature using other systems), changeable barrel (or active barrel cooling) and large capacity magazines (not exclusively belt feed).
AR: Automatic Rifle an LSW that cant provide sustained suppressive fire because it lacks a changeable barrel and large capacity or open ended magazines (optional).
This is pretty much the international/western/NATO/historical standard for labeling these weapons through there are a few odd terms like SAW, IAR, they tend to be names for individual projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobrodan
That is IMO acceptable, because the mag is much faster to change, than inserting a new belt-box, and fiddling with the belt. Especially in a situation where you are close to the enemy, and donīt have an assistant to assist/cover you.
There are other alternatives like larger capacity magazines. The Beta-C built to its original design is a reliable magazine. The Ultimax 100 round drum is a fairly typical clockwork drum and there is nothing wrong with clockwork systems unless your soldiers are drugged out Liberian gangsters.
The HK73 is the most interesting 150 round clockwork magazine because it is open ended. It can be feed while in action by stripper clips. This is really the only one type of ammunition per section option as stripper clips is how ammunition is delivered for assault rifles.
Last edited by Abraham Gubler; October 26th, 2010 at 04:30 AM.
The problem with a 50rd drum is that two 30rd mags would still be a lot less bulky, and probably lighter as well.
The best solution to this problem (with bottom-fed guns) may be quad-stack magazines, or clock-work magazines, like the one showed above, if the reliability-problems can be fixed. A clockwork magazine like the one above may not need to be as reliable as a quadstack-mag, because it is most likely to be used in a stationary position, where it wonīt be knocked around as much as during fire and movement.
Wow... History does nothing but LIE! And the magazine LSW is not a proven failure, its won quite a few wars and will probably do so in the future.
Yeah sure the only good LSW was the RPK-74 but it has not won any wars and NATO has yet to find a good LSW that can provide heavy suppressive fire and sustained fire as well well being mag fed at the same time.
LSW are dead in the water and the point is moot.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
AR: Automatic Rifle an LSW that cant provide sustained suppressive fire because it lacks a changeable barrel and large capacity or open ended magazines (optional).
And thats what the IAR is an automatic rifle its name says it all. Its just a heaver assault rifle and the SAW is more suited for the job of sustained suppressive fire.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
One IAR may not be able to provide sustained suppressive fire, but two can... And that even better than just one SAW, because the SAW will need fire-breaks to insert new ammo, and to change the barrel, while two IARs can cooperate, overlapping when in need for fire-breaks...
One IAR may not be able to provide sustained suppressive fire, but two can... And that even better than just one SAW, because the SAW will need fire-breaks to insert new ammo, and to change the barrel, while two IARs can cooperate, overlapping when in need for fire-breaks...
Marine Squads have 3 SAWs each and the SAW can fire a lot longer without taking fire brakes than the IAR with its small and limited 30 round mags.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
But if each squad has three fire-teams, and each fire-team has 2 IARs? That means 6 IARs, and that is even better than 3 SAWs, because it means they in theory can fire at 6 different targets at the same time...
Also, what will happen to you if you keep your head up, and fire all the time? The enemy is not stupid, you know...
But if each squad has three fire-teams, and each fire-team has 2 IARs? That means 6 IARs, and that is even better than 3 SAWs, because it means they in theory can fire at 6 different targets at the same time...
Also, what will happen to you if you keep your head up, and fire all the time? The enemy is not stupid, you know...
For one the Marines are hoping replace the SAW with the IAR on a 1 for 1 basis not a 2 for 1 like your saying. But it does say something about the IAR if you need 2 weapons just to replace 1 SAW doesn't it?
The whole point of the belt fed is that you can put down heavy suppressive fire without reloading a mag as often, this is a stupid move on the U.S. Marines part.
The goal of the SAW is to keep their heads down and if they stick their heads up when the SAW is putting 200 rounds of lead down range then it wont end so well for the enemy now would it.
If the Marines just stick with the current plans like the Army with 3 SAWs and 10 M16/M4s each then USMC squads will have more than enough firepower to deal with any enemy but with the IAR you wont have that volume of fire which the solders love to have and need in a fire fight.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
Yes, Iīm 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 itīs 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... Itīs a two way shooting-range out there you know!
I have carried a beltfed enough to tell you that itīs 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)
Yes, Iīm 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 itīs 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... Itīs a two way shooting-range out there you know!
I have carried a beltfed enough to tell you that itīs 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.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
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 wasnīt 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 isnīt 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 itīs supposed to do.
The reason I see a 7.62MG as a good thing isnīt 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.
So, you are saying that the Marines only fight amateurs in Iraq and A-stan?
Well, you are up for a surprise! If it wasnīt 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 isnīt 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 itīs supposed to do.
The reason I see a 7.62MG as a good thing isnīt 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.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
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? Itīs a bit more accurate, and a bit lighter, but thatīs about it. Oh, and itīs 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 thatīs 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... Thatīs 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 donīt need the M249 for sustained suppression.
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.
