Just spent some time talking with my brother in law, a retired Marine infantry officer currently involved in updating and revising the Marine Rifle Company/Platoon field manual based on experience from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will have more detailed info on this later, but the Corps is in the process of retiring the SAW at the fireteam level and replacing it with a heavy barreled M-16A4 as the automatic rifle. This is due to weight and accuracy concerns. This may not be news to some here, but it was to me.

Also there is an discussion in the latest Marine Corps Gazette on the viability of retiring the 40mm grenade and its man pack systems (M203/M32) and returning to the use of rifle grenades.

Again, more later following more info gathering.

Back to the future with the USMC.....

Technically it's not a heavy barrelled M16 they are replacing the SAW with, it's a new weapon, the M 27 IAR, which is basically a heavy barrelled custom version of the HK 416. That makes the decision even worse as they will be paying for a unique to service weapon that will, in practical terms, be about as effective as an M-16.

On the upside they have said they will be retaining the SAWs as a pooled weapon that can be issued depending on mission and circumstance. Will be interesting to see if they have budgeted to replace these pooled weapons or whether natural attrition will remove them from the system.

In most scales you should be able to get away with using an M4/ M16 as the model, with minor clipping/fling. Just remove the +1 modifer the fireteam receives for having the SAW.

Rifle grenades eh? Probably just a silly talking point. Might be a good idea an augmentation to firepower not as a replacement. Still maybe we can look forward to US Marines equipped with Springfield rifles and Lewis guns. I might just buy those Brigade Games marines and paint them in Marpat.

Agreed on the replacement for the SAW, I think the loss of potential firepower, especially sustained fire, will be regretted.

I think the argument for rifle grenades is more compelling. Marine doctrine places the M203 with the fireteam leader. In addition to trying to direct his fireteam he is then also expected to employ the grenade launcher. It places all of that potential firepower in the hands of just one individual who may not be in a position on the battlefield to even observe or engage targets while trying to lead the fireteam at the same time. There is also the problem of weight - how many grenades can one individual reasonably carry, especially if there is a need for a greater variety of grenade types, and ergonomics - the article (and personal experience as a fireteam leader in my Reserve unit) pointed out that the M203 is a very poor compromise of two weapon systems, an awkward rifle or an awkward grenade launcher. Little time is ever even devoted to developing skill with the M203 compared to other systems.

So, why go back to rifle grenades? Types are available off the shelf that don't require special converters or ammunition to use, every Marine in the fireteam could carry and use them (they would not have, underfire to bring them to a specialist already burdened with trying to direct the team, and any Marine in a position to spot and engage the target could do so.) Off the shelf varients have greater bursting radius and are no heavier than current 40mm grenades for the M203/M32.

Army doctrine places the M203 in the hands of a soldier in the fireteam other than the fireteam leader, eliminating the command burden, but still posing the same problerm of the grenadier possibly being in a position when the firepower is needed but can't be employed because the grenadier is out of poistion to observe/engage the target and may be unable to shift to a better position.

Although I'm completely ignorant of the practicalities of the situation, this strikes me as something that'd only be amplified by everyone having rifle grenades. At least with one weapon specialist (as it were) assigned the grenade launcher, he's liable to get more practice with it. I'm picturing instead 13 guys with rifle grenades, all of whom have very little skill at using rifle grenades.

_________________
Wargamer's Cleavage - Shane's wargaming blog

Most the changes the USMC seems to be looking at are in the E part of TOE. The O part doesn't appear to have changed at base in 50 years. This seems to have worked just fine for the USMC. The doctrine has long been based around flexibility in the basic organization, allowing the attachment of specialist teams to other infantry elements as needed. Discretionary weapons with no assigned personnel to carry them have long been a feature of USMC infantry units too. The plan following the introduction of the M27 is to retain some number of M249s either at platoon or company level as a discretionary weapon. The M32 is a discretionary weapon.

I would speculate that any changes to the doctrine will just be more of the USMC's traditional concepts, more tools in the tool kit, more flexibility, etc etc. Little change will probably be made to the basic organization of the rifle squad, platoon, and company.

_________________
Visit the Historical Accuracy Fail Blog

The French forces only use rifle grenades (except special forces which have some M203), this is the APAV 40 ("40mm") for the FAMAS which can be fired with a flat or curved trajectory against soldiers or vehicles. They seem pretty pleased with these grenades. Every soldier can carry some grenades and so it's more practical and several soldiers can fire them simultaneously.

They also use the "Lance grenade individuel Mle F1", a weapon that US Marines of WWII would have described as a "knee mortar", but which in fact is a 51 mm grenade launcher.

_________________
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach." - Aldous Huxley

Yes, I don't know if it is extensively used but from what I remember it is deemed fairly accurate and discreet, with a high rate of fire and the possibility to fire different types of rounds, illumination rounds etc.. Simple weapons work often better.

I for one am happy that the SAW is going away it should have gone away after the first day. It's heavy the ammo is heavy and if something happens to the spare barrel you are screwed, for a couple of pounds more we could have kept the M60E3 and just used it with the Bi-pod. I would much rather have a real machine Gun with 7.62mm rounds than a fast firing 5.56mm. Years ago after training with the Singapore Armed Forces and the Israel Defense Forces I got to use real rifle grenades and I wished we had them as well and not that stupid M-203. while I was in Iraq I went out on patrol with my platoon and I took a Mossberg 590 with me great gun but when we were engaged by a scumbag down the street in a 2nd storie window it was too far for the shotgun and too far to throw a frag but not one guy with a 203 was near me, but if we had rifle grenades I could have picked any Marine to dump a couple of rifle grenades into the window.