Just remember that they’re only talking of moving the 249’s out of the fire teams … and that in the end, company commanders will still have discretion as to what squads use what rifles. Its just another option.

Though I get the feeling you’re gonna see more and more Sergeants Major and Colonels walking around like the cool kids on the block with these things than you’re gonna see lanky 18 year old squad automatic gunners with them…

I guess I’m not convinced that a magazine fed rifle will provide the fire power that we need in the current fight. Are we going to change our tactics to field a weapon? Sounds like putting the cart before the horse.

Easy, problem solved.

Next problem please.…

Is the IAR intended as a 1-for-1 swap for the SAW?

Grenade launchers aren’t a volume of fire weapon — if anything they’re the reverse; getting other section members close enough to put grenades into trenches/over walls/through windows is generally the point of suppressing fire. If you can do that without having to hand-throw the grenade, so much the better.…

Ideally, an infantry unit needs four things;

1) The ability to generate sustained suppressive fire with a weapon that’s powerful enough to be threatening. That means either multiple full automatic capable rifles with drum mags or a number of light support weapons issued at section or fire team level.

If replacing a single SAW with multiple automatic rifles per section, I can fully understand — it distributes your ability to generate fire, which makes it less of an issue if the support weapon is jammed, damaged, or lying next to the corpse of its former operator. A one-for-one replacement with a less capable weapon makes less sense to me. As noted, drum magazines might help — the problem is that if generating suppressive fire a 30 round mag won’t last long enough for anyone to take advantage of it.

2) The ability to fire precise shots to actually drop a target — something suppressive fire is very unlikely to do (unless firing something extremely potent that can punch though the walls, like a genuine HMG). This used to be the job of ‘squad marksman’ types but more and more a decent optical sight has become standard issue and the more this trend continues, the better, as with (1); if everyone or nearly everyone in the squad can play machine-gunner or sniper as required, you are significantly more flexible in a surprise situation compared to a world war two model of nine grunts and two competent marksmen.

3) The ability to punt fragmentation and/or thermobaric grenades into cover; underslung grenade launchers mean less proximity required and less exposure to use them and hence less risk.

4) The ability to accurately mark a point or target for someone else — which means anything from smoke to laser designators (especially the latter for air or artillery precision munitions, given the seeming dislike airforces have for a low-and-slow with guns).

Easy, problem solved.

Next.…

Basically in a REAL firefight you cannot beat volume when talking about suppressing enemy fire. I n WWII the German squad was hard to beat because it centered around their MMG the MG34 or 42, the USA having Garands helped. Anybody who knows infantry tactics knows the only way to move is to suppress enemy fire. The best way to do that is to throw a large volume of rounds at the target. Then move before they return fire.

I think the idea of these new grenade launchers are to do just that. But adding those and taking away the LMG for an IAR is one step a head, 2 steps back.