Thread: hey marines
View Single Post
Old 05-19-2009, 2:06 AM
UncleSamsMisguidedChild's Avatar
UncleSamsMisguidedChild UncleSamsMisguidedChild is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Whittier
Posts: 44
iTrader: 4 / 100%

The tactics used for an assault does not really have to be drastically changed. The principle is that the automatic rifleman (usually the assistant team leader) is to be armed with a magazine fed automatic rifle to make accurate fire and more mobility. As the assisatant team leader, he will have to take over if/when the TL goes down. This would be more difficult if he is handling the SAW. Lugging around the SAW doing individual rushes is an arse kicker making it harder to get accurate fire on target. Suppresive fire will be provided by the support element, usually Weapons Platoon's machine gunners, so having a SAW with the assualt element is really not necessary. The belt fed weapon will be around for a long time to come.
I wouldnt expect the ATL to lug around the SAW if his TL went down. Its like that infamous quote "chit rolls downhill" and so would that SAW if the TL went down and the ATL took over his roll. The next guy in line would become the new ATL and eventually one guy would be lugging around 2 M16's. I understand that the situation in Iraq is not ideal for Fire Teams to lug around a SAW through all those close quarters, but I wouldnt want to rely on just 30 round mags if things get hairy and you need to put lots of rounds down range to get into cover or perform a tactical retreat. I agree that you may not need the SAW for all missions and could use weapons platoon for suppressive fire if needed. But not all battlefields are the same and this is why the Corps will not get rid of the beltfed weapons from its aresenal or infantry squads

You dont need a bigger gun, you just need more AMMO!!!

Mosin Nagant 91/30
M1 Garand
XD Tactical .45
Mossberg 500A Persuader
Looking for complete Bushmaster AR15 20" 5.56/.223 flattop with A2 stock
Reply With Quote