 |
|
June 25th, 2011, 07:14 AM
|
#1 | | Squad Leader
Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Nj
Posts: 271
| USMC NOT replacing SAW!!!!
For once someone listened to the end user. The 249 is not being replaced by the IAW. The IAW was a waste of time and money. Past SAW type weapons failed due to magazine capacity and fixed barrels. Why the Corps wasted our limited budget on proving something that the basic grunt and SAW gunner already new is behond me. But I digress, the new SgtMaj of the Corps stopped by this week and infact said that the IAW is not replacing the saw, regardless of what the Marine Corps Times said.
But he then said that he was all for Females in Combat Arms....
| 
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 08:36 AM
|
#2 | | Squad Leader
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Orygun
Posts: 264
|
Is this a joke?
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 08:42 AM
|
#3 | | Automatic Rifleman
Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: NC
Posts: 147
|
Nothing wrong with the SAW...
Last I heard the IAR was to "augment" the Grunts and they would retain 9 SAW per Company or 1 per Squad.
I see no need for the IAR but apparently someone out there thinks we needed it....
Last edited by Jeremy2171; June 25th, 2011 at 08:59 AM.
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 08:45 AM
|
#4 | | Lifer
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Tampa
Posts: 3,290
|
Are you talking about the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle? If so, it was never intended to replace the SAW, it was only meant to be another tool in the tool box.
| 
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 08:46 AM
|
#5 | | Lifer
Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 3,869
|
I hope you're right, I've seen articles as recent as June 14th saying that they still plan on moving to the M27. I expect them to get rid of the SAW because Airwing Amos has every sign of being a political puppet rather than a Marine.
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 08:49 AM
|
#6 | | Lifer
Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 3,869
| Quote:
Originally Posted by GARRARD  Are you talking about the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle? If so, it was never intended to replace the SAW, it was only meant to be another tool in the tool box. | Not according to this article. http://www.military.com/news/article...tic-rifle.html
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 09:00 AM
|
#7 | | Lifer
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Tampa
Posts: 3,290
| Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMMAC | http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...ne_iar_091308/
The Marine Corps Times article says that only a few thousand SAW's will be replaced and that Infantry commanders can still use the SAW if they feel they need more fire power.
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 09:04 AM
|
#8 | | Lifer
Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 3,869
|
The bean counter's plan is to make the SAW a company level support weapon and remove it from squad level support. Each team will have one M27 instead of the SAW.
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 09:09 AM
|
#9 | | Lifer
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Tampa
Posts: 3,290
| Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMMAC The bean counter's plan is to make the SAW a company level support weapon and remove it from squad level support. Each team will have one M27 instead of the SAW. | That's what it looks like. The Army has been looking at the MK46, which I think is a better solution than the M27.
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 09:35 AM
|
#10 | | Squad Leader
Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Nj
Posts: 271
|
Ok some of you arent reading what I wrote. The Corps was planning to remove the SAW from front line grunt units. The 249 was going to stay with the support guys!! The belief was that it would ease the burden on the fire team, as it was thought that the SAW slowed them down. It was to be a 1/1 swap. That has changed AAR's have come back from Afghanistan, BC's want the SAW, the IAW isnt going to replace it now, might be an augment but not replacing as thought before. And remember we are small, no way near the size as the Army, a few thousand worth of M249s is about 1st and 2nd DIV worth of weapons! These are the words from the new SgtMaj of the Corps, the Marine Corps Times at best is eqaul to the enquire. Ive been keeping a close ear to this as it effects me greatly, I hope the word from the SgtMaj is true!
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 09:37 AM
|
#11 | | Squad Leader
Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Nj
Posts: 271
| Quote:
Originally Posted by GARRARD Are you talking about the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle? If so, it was never intended to replace the SAW, it was only meant to be another tool in the tool box. | Yes it was. Ive had plenty of heated debates with Gunners about this.
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 09:48 AM
|
#12 | | Lifer
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Tampa
Posts: 3,290
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason0839 Yes it was. Ive had plenty of heated debates with Gunners about this. | No arguments from me. What I should have typed was "never intended to completely replace the SAW."
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 10:21 AM
|
#13 | | Lifer
Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 3,869
|
I read one article where they make the point that the difference is in the size of the Army squad vs. the Marine Corps squad (9 vs. 13 and 2 fire teams vs. 3). Obviously they are looking at numbers and statistics rather than tactical reality.
One weapons planner for the Marine Corps stated that the 30 round mags for the M27 would allow for the same 600 RPM capability that the SAW has, as long as the temperature doesn't go over about 80 degrees. Since the barrels can't be switched out they have reduce the rate of fire when the air temps are higher. It seems to me that this would be a major concern considering where our fighters are today, most of the places are pretty hot.
The standard load for the M27 will be 20 or so mags. Each loaded mag is about a pound so the standard ammo load and weapon is about 28 pounds. Just about the same weight as the standard load for the 249 so there isn't any real advantage in weight savings. Some people talk about switching mags more often then having to switch belts being a problem but I'm not so sure I would agree. Switching a mag seems a lot easier and faster.
There might be an advantage in so far as maintainability, the M27 seems like a simpler weapon with less number of parts and less complex of an operating system. I've always liked the idea of the SAW but I was never impressed with their reliability, especially compared to the 240. The last time I saw a machine gun platoon train (back in the mid 1990s) I was amazed at how fast the SAWs fell out of their "talking guns" pattern of fire. Within minutes the 240Gs were the only guns firing.
Personally, I think that the ultimate decision should go to the field Marine. If he says that he has an advantage if we go with the M27 then so be it.
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 10:46 AM
|
#14 | | Lifer
Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 3,869
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason0839 Ok some of you arent reading what I wrote. The Corps was planning to remove the SAW from front line grunt units. The 249 was going to stay with the support guys!! The belief was that it would ease the burden on the fire team, as it was thought that the SAW slowed them down. It was to be a 1/1 swap. That has changed AAR's have come back from Afghanistan, BC's want the SAW, the IAW isnt going to replace it now, might be an augment but not replacing as thought before. And remember we are small, no way near the size as the Army, a few thousand worth of M249s is about 1st and 2nd DIV worth of weapons! These are the words from the new SgtMaj of the Corps, the Marine Corps Times at best is eqaul to the enquire. Ive been keeping a close ear to this as it effects me greatly, I hope the word from the SgtMaj is true! | I think that's what I said isn't it? Quote: |
The bean counter's plan is to make the SAW a company level support weapon and remove it from squad level support. Each team will have one M27 instead of the SAW.
| Maybe I should have been a little more clear and said "The bean counters plan is to make the SAW a company level support weapon and remove it from the squad. They want to exchange each fire team's SAW for a M27."
| |
| | |
June 25th, 2011, 12:06 PM
|
#15 | | Squad Leader
Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Nj
Posts: 271
|
Sorry not to you RAMAAC but the intent and I have this from all involved WAS (past tense thank God) was to replace the SAW 1/1 completely from the grunts, not even in Weapons Co, yes the BC could request, but.
It wasnt a beans counter thing, it was a bunch of Generals and civs who thought they knew better. The theory was that well aimed shots were better than massive suppressing fire and that the ammo needed for suppressive fire was slowing down the Sqds (not the useless 50lb MTV!!!!).
But thank God for once someone listened, I dont mind the option of a IAW, I just dont like being told I cant have.
| |
| | | Moderator Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | |
