Grendel LMG

[LRRPF52]

My understanding why we got the FN Minimi was because of the 3-way NATO nation requirement for the licensed manufacture of the F-16A/B.

Denmark and Norway had already agreed to the deal and were waiting on Belgium to join, otherwise it wouldn't have been a viable option for only 2 nations to attempt to manufacture the multirole fighter.

Belgium smartly negotiated to include their SAW entrant as the deciding factor, then they would gladly jump aboard the F-16A/B licensed mfg deal.

The US was providing the engines and much of the critical components, while the European partners would manufacture the airframes, so there was a lot of money to be had all around for General Dynamics, Pratt & Whitney, and the other sub contractors.

Instead of the US Army getting the Colt LMG, Ford Aerospace LMG, or HK select-fire SAW entrants, we got an AK smashed together with a MAG58 feed tray mechanism inside of a welded sheet receiver with a lot of slop between the parts, especially the fire control mechanism housing and how it attached to the receiver.

Since World War II, the Infantryman has basically been neglected as to his weapons, equipment, and training. More focus has been allocated to armored personnel carriers, tanks, artillery, and Army aviation because those were correctly seen as more decisive systems in conventional warfare, and proven as such in the Gulf War. The only problem is that every other war we've fought has been an Infantry and SOF-centric asymmetric engagement driven by concern for collateral damage of civilian populations, elusive insurgents that require small arms fire to engage under restrictive ROEs, and adaptive combined component commands with better trained dismounted soldiers.

The budget still dictates that the conventional systems will get the funding, while infantry might get a bunch of modern weapons and equipment, but very little training, and most senior leadership seem to be perfectly comfortable with that.

[stanc]

That video Stan posted of the M27 during a USMC live fire shows why I'm not a big fan of a box mag fed LMG in the Squad.

The M27 also isn't anywhere near as controllable as designs that are now 80 years old, some of which were German. The Sturmgewehr itself remains one of the only controllable select-fire intermediate cartridge rifles if you look at constant recoil principle.

Another was the Stoner 63A. Watch how the gun barely moves even in the assault rifle configuration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF0aPSyUMjk

A couple of comments:

1. In the assault rifle configuration, the barrel centerline is lower relative to the buttstock than in the machinegun configuration, which aids in controllability.
2. It's Jerry Miculek! He makes even a .50-caliber Barrett look controllable in rapid fire. In the hands of a mere mortal, the Stoner LMG isn't quite as steady.

[video=youtube;QVC-CTa3fzw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVC-CTa3fzw[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVC-CTa3fzw

[stanc]

That Stoner 63 was amazing! had always heard, but never seen video. I want one! How did we miss this and get the minimi?

"Very temperamental weapon." "Requires meticulous care." "Not for the average Soldier or Marine."

[video=youtube;-Zb8OgPwf5Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zb8OgPwf5Q[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zb8OgPwf5Q

[hill37]

The members of the boot camp platoon that did the initial MARINE CORPS trials of the 63 have (had) a face book page. stoner platoon 236. If its still up they should know how good or bad it was.

[stanc]

Mag changes are quick.

Wanna see how fast it's possible to reload a belt-fed? Check out the last 30 seconds of this video.

[video=youtube;oUk43giNulI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUk43giNulI[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUk43giNulI

[stanc]

Hey, anybody here understand Norwegian? I'm wondering why the gunners put their faces to the mat before and after firing their brand new Minimi LMGs.

[video=youtube;8Dpyf7TTi2s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dpyf7TTi2s[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dpyf7TTi2s

[dobrodan]

Hey, anybody here understand Norwegian? I'm wondering why the gunners put their faces to the mat before and after firing their brand new Minimi LMGs.

[video=youtube;8Dpyf7TTi2s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dpyf7TTi2s[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dpyf7TTi2s

Standard starting and ending position from prone shooting to allow the shooting instructors to see when everybody are ready to start, and also to see when they are finished firing.

[dobrodan]

Now, that is how not to shoot a machinegun.

Also, if he had to change ammo-boxes, that reload would take a lot longer. Especially if he was on the move...

[BluntForceTrauma]

Dobrodan, I know you have some strong opinions about machine guns. What is your opinion about a belt-fed vs. mag-fed SAW?

[LRRPF52]

The challenges with mag-fed Squad-level Light Support Weapons are:

* Magazine capacity limits situational awareness and the ability to sustain fire. Belt-fed weapons allow the gunner to focus entirely on the TGT and area around the TGT while firing bursts.

* Magazines add a lot of weight and bulk to the SAW/Auto Rifleman's load, especially if you try to address the limited magazine capacity with drums.

* Lack of quick barrel change feature on a weapon intended for higher volume of fire

With drum mags, they are great to have in the gun for your first mag, but then what do you do with them? With links, I just let the links lay where they fall, no issues. With drums, I now need to retain that drum after it's expended, then reload it once I get resupplied with ammo. When I get resupplied with linked ammo, I either pull the 200rd containers from the ammo can and slap one directly onto the gun, or take the linked ammo out and feed it into one of the Cordura nut sacks that attach to the gun, very fast. If there is a metallic drum, you pull the rear plate off, feed the linked ammo in, close the back, and you're ready to go.

Linked ammo in soft ammo bags weighs less than magazine contained ammo.



It helps to better understand some of the challenges if people could see how we employ machine-guns at the Squad level. It's absolutely nothing like the movies, and involves a lot of team work, with SAWs covering specific avenues of approach, manning blocking positions, or setting up in certain positions for ambushes. There is quite a bit of study required to learn Small Unit Tactics to get a better idea of what actually happens.

The driving force behind the current push for IAR in the Marines is more as a DM and limited burst IAR, with more focus on the precision that optics and accurate barrels allow. What gets overlooked between the Marines and the Army are how USMC Infantry Squads are organized. They have 3 Fire Teams, whereas the US Army went full abortion and did a top-down MTO&E that ignored decades of combat lessons learned from junior leaders, and instead decided to structure all of its Infantry Squads around the Bradley Fighting Vehicle crew and soldier compartment limitations, even though none of the Light Infantry, Airborne, or Airmoblie units have Bradleys anywhere close to them. That means a 9-man Rifle Squad, which is really an oversized Fire Team.



A Marine Infantry Rifle Squad looks like a small platoon, and their Infantry Platoons look like small companies. There is a significant advantage in flexibility with the USMC MTO&E because as soon as you take casualties, there are plenty of guys in the trail fire team to either CASEVAC them, or fill in the attrited Team's position and continue the momentum of an attack. They have a Rifle Squad Leader and 3 Fire Teams of 4 men each, for a total of 13 pipe swingers.

The US Army Infantry Squad has no such luck, which is interesting because all of the post-combat (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) AARs that were conducted with combat-experienced junior NCOs and Lieutenants all concluded that 11 men was the bare minimum needed for a capable Infantry Squad. Why the US Army subjects all of its Light, Airmobile, and Airborne forces to the 9-man Bradly Squad has more to do with the ill-conceived "Army of Excellence" initiative of the 1980s and their management of manpower from a top-down approach, rather than building from a Fire Team-up approach as previously done. They didn't care about the Infantry really, since they had so much capability with Armor, Artillery, and Aviation, and figured Infantry was more of an after-thought. Grenada, Panama, Mogadishu, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq would all expose the folly of that thinking.

[stanc]

Now, that is how not to shoot a machinegun.

Also, if he had to change ammo-boxes, that reload would take a lot longer. Especially if he was on the move...

Of course.

[stanc]

Standard starting and ending position from prone shooting to allow the shooting instructors to see when everybody are ready to start, and also to see when they are finished firing.

Thanks!

[stanc]

With drum mags, they are great to have in the gun for your first mag, but then what do you do with them? With links, I just let the links lay where they fall, no issues. With drums, I now need to retain that drum after it's expended, then reload it once I get resupplied with ammo.

To be fair, you have to do all of that with nutsacks, too.

[LRRPF52]

To be fair, you have to do all of that with nutsacks, too.

They collapse and stuff into a much smaller space when they're empty, which is one of the main things I like about them.

They are also quiet, unlike drums. Drums resonate like a percussion instrument when impacted. We would even silence the 200rd plastic SAW ammo drums with MRE cardboard as a noise dampener.

The cloth ones are far superior I found.

[dobrodan]

Well, I am probably a bit more moderate than I was back in the day...

I think a SAW could very well be mag-fed. It could also be belt-fed as long as it is light enough and easy to operate under difficult conditions.

However, if you try to put a mag-fed SAW in the place of a belt-fed SAW, without changing the organization or/and doctrine, you could be in for some trouble.

Lately, I have been pondering this issue a bit, and to get as much firepower as possible, even the way assault-rifles are being used should be should be reviewed.

Regarding USMC and the IAR, I think they picked the right question, but the wrong answer(s).

IMO, The chosen IAR should rather have been the Ultimax, because it allows accurate automatic fire at longer ranges. And the primary firing mode of an IAR should be auto.

The M27 is a very good infantry-rifle, but not something I would have chosen for automatic fire at longer ranges....

Also, to exchange the M249 for an IAR on a 1:1 basis is not optimum, because while the belt-fed has more "stamina" when firing, but it takes longer to get back into the fight. the other SAW-gunners try to overlap, so the squad is not left without covering fire, it doesn´t allow each SAW-gunner much time to observe the battle-field. He is always operating the machinegun, and he does not have an assistant.

When you try to use a mag-fed SAW, they have less "stamina", while it takes shorter time for them to get back into the fight. If you have a pair of SAW-gunners in each sub-section, they can time their mag-changes, and have a better overview of the battle-field, giving them the ability to instantaneously fight targets of opportunity.

Ideally, I would like every second weapon in the squad to be an IAR (it should have a longer practical range, but similar weight as a regular rifle with a 40mm grenade-launcher)


Some people are worried that machineguns can be too accurate and controllable.

I am not.

The tighter the cone of fire, the more densely saturated the targeted-area will be. If you need to cover a larger area, then move your aim as you fire. If you are unable to hit what you are aiming for, what are the odds that you would with a less saturated target-area...

But that is machineguns...

When using an assault-rifle in auto-mode, the range should be short, and it should be critical to hit the targeted area with as much firepower as possible in as short as possible time.
Most of the time, when those situations appear, the soldiers would fire only rapid single-shots, because that is what they are trained for, and they may also not have time to manipulate the lever to F, or just forgetting that it exists.
With assault-rifles the rate of fire should be high, and it should have a wider cone of fire, to give a well saturated target-area at closer ranges, because if the enemy is at a short range, chances are that if you are not able to put enough rounds into the target-area fast enough, you may not be able to pull the trigger again. And that may not give you the time to aim properly, or even think about moving the lever to F. Even the process of actually moving the lever that extra notch and move your hand into firing position may be the end of you. But you would still only move it to single. Because that is what you have trained for.

The solution to that is to adopt the short-pullingle/long-pull:auto function, and the soldiers should be trained to use this functionality instinctively.

I am of the idea that the IARs and assault-rifles should complement each other:

Long ranges: IAR gunner fires auto, rifleman spots.
Medium to short ranges: IAR-gunner fires auto or single shots, rifleman fires single-shots or auto
CQB/FIBUA: IAR-gunner fires auto, rifleman fires single or auto.

This of course means that the riflemen needs to be outfitted similarly to the current IAR-gunner, and also with maybe a 40mm UGL per sub-section.

I hope this makes some sense. This became a bit longer and more complicated than I had intended.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Appreciate your comments. As LRRPF52 pointed out and as you are doing, the whole issue needs to be viewed in the bigger context.

[Buck2732]

This is something that has been doing the rounds over my side of the pond as well. Though from a slightly different angle. We ended the second WW with a mag fed LMG (BREN) and a a heavy MG (Vickers) both were kept until we adopted 7.62. Then the LMG was converted to 7.62 and eventually relegated to support arms, though some inf units kept them on. We adopted the FN MAG and fettled with it to make it our own (GPMG). When the dust (or should that be peat settled) after the Falklands operation. Our small unit tactics, were up revised. One of the lessons learned was that units that took both the LMG and GPMG in their sections had an easier time suppressing the enemy and winning the fire fight.

So when we adopted the 5.56 each 8 man section had two LSWs each gunner had 9x30rnd mags and extra mags carried through out the section. The ammo scale ended up at 15x30rnd mags per LSW. Fast forward a few years, units started to add the GPMG back in to the section organisation, as there was a distinct lack of sustained covering fire from the LSWs. So now we had a mix of ammo in the section 7.62 and 5.56. We eventually gave up the GPMGs and moved them to a dedicated fire support group. We replace the LSW and GPMG with what we call the LMG (FN Minimi).

So we have gone Mag, belt, mag and back to belt. The decision by the USMC to go to the IAR to us looks like a retrograde step.

[LRRPF52]

I look at the units that actually have a say in what LMGs they choose for their missions, particularly raids.

Common to both the UK and US high priority SOF units who can literally adopt whatever they want, the FN Minimi has been pretty popular dating back into the 1980s.

They have dedicated, world-class armorer support that conventional units can't even dream of though. Even Ranger Regiment enjoys armorer support that would shock a regular unit's leadership.

SFOD used them in Panama
SAS has been using them for decades

I often wonder what would have happened if they had been able to get the Ultimax or Stoner LMG made in the US or Canada.

I will say that having served as a SAW gunner in operational units, as well as filling that duty position in one of the Army's premier Small Unit Tactics schools when I wasn't be graded in a leadership position, and later managing my SAW gunners as a Fire Team Leader and Squad Leader, I don't want to lose the belt-fed capability for the reasons stated, but I do want the weapon weight to come down significantly, with constant-recoil principle operation.





[video=youtube;jlWcmJqAHsw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlWcmJqAHsw[/video]

[BluntForceTrauma]

Does the Ultimax have a quick-change barrel? If so, convert it to belt feed and call it done. Or have we just re-created the Stoner LMG?

[dobrodan]

Yes it does have a QCB.

But I do not believe a QCB should be a requirement for a SAW.

To have the QCB functionality adds a little bit weight, but to actually bring an extra barrel adds much more weight.

I would rather double the number of SAWs in the squad. That way the SAW gunners would be a bit more mobile, and the squad would have a bit more firepower.

Of course this is not a good solution if the SAW is heavy and difficult to handle when standing. But with Ultimax, Stoner LMG, or the lighter Minimi-versions, it should be possible.

This is BTW how the SAS were outfitted in GW1 (B20).