New Marine Corps squad configuration, M27 automatic rifle revealed...

Explosives have a limited field of application.

They can not be used in close quarters, nor when there is an inordinate risk of collateral damage.

And even though people have been going on and on about "new tech" in the end of the 2nd decade of the 21st century, nothing has really changed for the Infantry since Reagan was President. Or Johnson 2 decades prior to him. Infantry has always been about putting boots on the ground, and the rifleman getting up close and personal with the enemy.

Sorry, I do not see that changing in 10 years, or 20 years, or 30 years. And no amount of technology is going to change that.

Small arms are the preferred weapon of the Infantry for many reasons. It is the safest to use for those employing it. They are light weight, and can put a lot of damage downrange at the enemy. You can carry a lot of ammunition for them, without being over-encumbered.

After all, there is a reason why for decades the ratio was 2 grenades for every 3 magazines (90 rounds). It is pretty much impossible and unwise to even try to go into combat carrying 180 hand grenades.

And small arms are pretty reliable. The more "advanced" a weapon system is, the more likely it will break or perform in a harmful way to the operator. And the more it will weigh.

There is a reason why we do not try to strap every grunt down with 3 AT4s. There is a reason why not everybody in a rifle squad has a radio. There is a reason why not everybody has night vision scopes and GPS units (although a lot do carry civilian models that they bought from their own pocket).

That is because ultimately, technology is not really that much of a game changer, on the Platoon-Squad level. At the Company level and higher such technology makes things much easier, quicker, and more accurate with faster intelligence. But at the individual? Not really.

 

The biggest game changer will probably be the UAVs. A squad has a god eye's view of the battlefield so they can more accurately and quickly maneuver

I really like the idea of the MAAWs since now it's reloadable unlike the AT4.

 

The biggest game changer will probably be the UAVs. A squad has a god eye's view of the battlefield so they can more accurately and quickly maneuver

I really like the idea of the MAAWs since now it's reloadable unlike the AT4.

 

There are many things involved. And one thing that many enemies are good at doing is camouflage.

In fact, Russia has made camouflage an art form for decades. "Maskirovka" is something that the Russians have excelled at for over a decade. This has enabled them to make entire Corps sized units to vanish. And it has also let them create entire Corps sized military organizations where none actually exist.

Only a complete fool trusts only what they can see with their eyes. And ultimately, that is all a drone is, an extension of the eyes. It can not detect units hidden underground or inside of buildings. It will also lead the operators to believe that the large base surrounded with AAA and artillery is a major unit concentration, when ultimately it is only a handful of forces around essentially an empty emplacement.

Anybody is a fool to think that what they see tells the entire picture. One thing the US learned from Vietnam is that large enemy forces can be concealed right under their feet, without any idea they are there.

Such systems as you describe are helpful tools in managing a battle space, but are neither new nor unique. We have been using similar manned systems since at least the Korean War, as well as Vietnam and newer conflicts. But previously they have been manned, so much harder to eliminate.

 

No we did not. These are hand sized quadcopters. We are talking about squad level god eye's view. This will greatly benefit places like in Urban combat, where you can guard multiple streets to see enemy movement.

Warfare has changed for good.

Hide=can't move as effectively. Many times the Germans in WW2 tried to hide their movements since the Allies controlled the air which gave the Allies a initiative advantage.

 

Agreed.

We can launch drone swarms by air, ground, and sea. I can see drones being used to clear insertion sites, guard outposts, and even as close air support.

Imagine a swarm being dropped in the dark just before a beach invasion.





I can see HIHO/HALO insertions releasing drones as they exit the aircraft, to scout out landing zones.

 

The problem with squad level drones is that you now have to completely change Infantry doctrine and TOE because one member of the squad is going to be tied up with managing the drone instead of fighting.

 

That's the real reason why they eliminated the three automatic riflemen in the rifle squad, making room for the UAV controller and adding a M-3 MAAW to the rifle squad.

In my opinion thew MAAW should be a platoon or company level weapon not a rifle squad weapon.

The MAAW is cool but at almost 20 lbs. empty and each round weighing around 6 lbs, one Marine rifleman can carry 4 loaded M-72 LAW's on his back.


M72 LAW

The Light Anti-tank Weapon came to be in the heady first decades of the Cold War, when radical weapon concepts were born in quick succession.

Rather than encumber an infantryman with a large Bazooka-type rocket launcher–the short-lived M20 comes to mind–the LAW was a retractable aluminum tube housing a 66mm rocket. Always a modest weapon, the original LAW’s effective range was 250 meters and its penetration is less than 10 inches of armor or concrete.

Simple to operate and novel for being disposable, the LAW that was introduced in 1963 did poorly during the Vietnam War. But its concept and affordability kept it in US and NATO arsenals for decades. The former Soviet Union copied it, creating a whole lineage of disposable one-shot launchers like the RPG-22, RPG-26, RPG-27, and RPG-28.

The LAW also inspired a revolution in disposable anti-tank weapons, with similar rocket launchers built in the UK, Sweden, France, Turkey, and Germany. Better munitions are being produced for it as well.

Owing to its compactness, US ground forces are still confident with the LAW and new orders from manufacturer Nammo Talley are made every year. Interestingly, the LAW might become a precision weapon if someone decides to install a miniaturized fire-control system on it.

Source -> These American Weapons Will Last Forever
https://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/2015/09/06/these-american-weapons-will-last-forever/

 

Yeah I actually agree with this.

The LAW is a fantastic weapon for counter-insurgency warfare. Even more so if they produce a "novel explosive"/thermobaric warhead version for bunker busting. For higher intensity combat where you could actually come up against armor, go with the AT-4 instead.

And keep the MAAW/SMAW/Carl Gustav (for the Army) as a platoon or company level weapon. And anything more serious gets a Javelin or a TOW.

 

MAAWS on a squad level is a good idea. Squads may maneuver in areas a Company weapons squad may not be there. M4 MAAWS they were able to get the weight down to 15 lb.

It is a very advanced weapon. Scopes, laser rangefinders and airburst rounds give a huge advantage over the primitive RPG-7.

 

Does the LAW have the payload for bunker busting?

The Gustav the squad is now carrying has more payload.

The M3 Multi-role Anti-armor Anti-tank Weapon System (MAAWS) is the U.S. military designation for the Carl Gustaf M3 recoilless rifle. It is primarily used by United States Special Operations Command such as the Army Rangers, Army Special Forces, Marine Raiders, Navy SEALs, and JSOC operators. When used by the U.S. Army's 75th Ranger Regiment, the M3 is known as the Ranger Anti-tank Weapons System (RAWS).[citation needed]

In the late 1980s, the Special Operations Forces Modernization Action Plan indicated need for a Ranger Anti-Armor/Anti-Personnel Weapon System (RAAWS) to replace the M67 recoilless rifle in use by the 75th Ranger Regiment. A market survey in 1987 indicated that the Carl Gustaf M3 was the best candidate for satisfying RAAWS requirements. On 29 September 1988, the M3 was selected as the RAAWS from candidate proposals submitted in response to the market survey compiled by ARDEC. A subsequent review of the contractor-supplied fatigue test data determined that the data did not meet U.S. Army requirements. Benét Laboratories conducted fatigue test of two tubes to establish an interim safe service life for the weapon. Tests were conducted in 1993. The manufacturer’s recommended life for the weapon was 500 rounds, but bore surfaces showed no indications of erosion until 2,360 rounds. The U.S. Navy SEALs became interested in the program and moved it to a Joint Integrated Product Team. The program name subsequently changed from the RAAWS to the Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System (MAAWS).[15]

Army Rangers found the M3 Carl Gustaf was best employed using a two-man team. One person would carry the launcher and be armed with a pistol for personal protection, and the other would carry 5–6 rounds of ammunition and act as a spotter for the gunner. Although the single-shot AT-4 is lighter and can be carried by one person, a Gustaf team with the heavier recoilless rifle can reload and fire more rounds.[16]

The M3 MAAWS fires the following ammunition:[citation needed]

• High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) round
• High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) round
• High Explosive (HE) round
• Illumination round
• Smoke round
• High Explosive Anti-Tank - Rocket Assisted Projectile (HEAT-RAP/551)

In late 2012, the Army fielded 58 M3s and 1,500 rounds of ammunition to units deployed to Afghanistan to destroy enemy targets out to 1,000 meters. This was because RPG and machine gun teams could attack 900 meters away, while existing weaponry like the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition, M72 LAW, M136 AT-4 and MK153 SMAW had effective ranges of only 500 meters. The AT-4 is lighter and cheaper but is made of reinforced fiberglass, while the M3's rifled metal/carbon fiber launch tube allows for reloading. Employing the 22 lb M3 is easier than the 50 lb FGM-148 Javelin with its launcher with missile and reusable command launch unit, is faster than waiting on mortars, and is cheaper than the Javelin and artillery shells for engaging targets in hard cover.[15] Although Special Operations forces had been using the M3 since the early 1990s, light infantry unit commanders in Afghanistan had to submit operational needs statements to get the weapon. The M3 became an official program of record in the conventional Army in 2014, and a conditional materiel release was authorized in late 2015 to equip all brigade combat teams with one M3 launcher per infantry platoon.[17]


The M3E1 is an updated M3, by using titanium, the weapon system is six pounds lighter, 2.5 inches shorter and has an improved carrying handle, extra shoulder padding and an improved sighting system that can be adjusted for better comfort.
In 2017, the U.S. Army approved a requirement for 1,111 M3E1 units and field them to Soldiers as part of an Urgent Material Release. The M3E1 is part of the Product Manager Crew Served Weapon portfolio. A key benefit of the M3E1 is that it can fire multiple types of rounds, giving Soldiers increased capability on the battlefield. By using titanium, the updated M3E1, based on the M3A1 introduced in 2014, is more than six pounds lighter. The M3E1 is also 2.5 inches shorter and has an improved carrying handle, shoulder padding and an improved sighting system that can be adjusted for better comfort without sacrificing performance. The wiring harness was included in the M3E1 configuration that provides a foregrip controller and programmable fuze setter for an interchangeable fire control system. For added safety and cost savings, an automatic round counter enables Soldiers and logisticians to accurately track the service life of each weapon. The M3E1 uses the same family of ammunition as the M3, which has been successfully tested.[18]

In November 2017, the U.S. Marine Corps announced they planned to procure the M3E1 MAAWS. 1,200 M3E1s would be acquired with one fielded to every infantry squad. In addition to infantry use, the Marines are considering it to replace the SMAW in combat engineer squads. While the SMAW weighs 2.5 lb (1.1 kg) less loaded, the MAAWS has a greater variety of ammunition available and a maximum effective range of- 1,000 meters, twice that of the SMAW; the Marines plan to test both weapons' effectiveness against bunkers to inform their decision.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_recoilless_rifle

I've read the Gustaf has better penetration (nearly 2x) and the same range now.

And it can be reloaded.

Perhaps this makes it better for neer peer enemies.

The law seems to be better for use where there is little chance of encountering armor.

The m203 launchers the new squads are carrying are capable of launching guided grenades for even less weight.

 

Against a sandbag bunker or insurgents strongpointing a house? Sure.

If they have anything more reinforced than that, you'll want something bigger. Not because the LAW won't penetrate. It will; it'll blow little holes in the walls. But it isn't like to kill everyone inside in a single shot.

 

Only if you are in a position to actually employ it.

Remember, I have actually been a Marine Infantry Squad Leader. And you are only talking about a situation militarily like we have been in for the last 15 years or so. In a desert environment, assuming that the squad can even employ such a device in the first place.

And exactly how much good would this do if say the nest place we find ourselves in combat is Panama? I have also done operations in Panama, this would be absolutely worthless in a triple canopy jungle.

Or say the combat is heavily involved in MOUT, where your enemy is say built into an area like New York City? Good luck getting any useful intel from this if the enemy is actually embedded inside of buildings. Unlike your claim, this would be almost worthless. From the air, one building looks like the last, and fighters hide inside of the buildings until it is time to attack, you are not going to see much from the air.

No, my answer is the same. Give me another trigger puller in my squad instead of a glorified RC operator. This to me is yet another example of trying to fight the next war like the last war. And that is a guaranteed failure.

 

For light improvised bunkers, yes. A sandbag bunker, a bunker with an exposed metal door, the LAW is a great weapon.

For a bunker that is actually constructed in a cave, or where it is heavily reinforced with a mixture of materials to reduce the effectiveness (say dirt, then rock, then concrete), it is much less effective. The "composite materials" that make up these kinds of constructions makes them much less effective (which is why we ourselves use this kind of construction when possible).

For permanent bunkers, we ourselves use designs to prevent weapons like this from working. The doorway at a 90 degree angle, with a walkway of 3-4 feet between the door and a dirt-concrete wall to eliminate the capability of a HEAT warhead. Layering dirt and rock in front of the concrete wall on the face of a bunker for the same reason. It is stupid to think that our enemies are not aware of these techniques as well.