RE: [DS] Specialist Elements

Hi Brian,

Forgive me if I sound like I'm lecturing here :-)

When looking a particular countries published docrtine for employment of
a
weapon you do need to be a little careful and consider more than a
single
written statement. Also you really shouldn't just consider a weapon
caliber
as defining it's role nor just it's rate of fire.....

Oh, the Commonwealth Section is the equivalent US Squad

Consider -

Tracer burnout is 1100 meters, for the range of 1800m you will find the
weapon needs to be tripod mounted (without C2 site) and requires a
spotter,
preferably one close to the target. Trying to spot fall of shot at 1800
is
nigh impossible with 7.62 ammo. With C2 Site (or equiv) the Effective
Range
is extended to 2,500 to 3,000m.

In bipod role role both the MAG58 and Minimi (240/249) have an effective
range of 500 to 600m. Effective SECTION/SQUAD fire is 500m with
M16A2/Steyr/SA80. In the bipod role the No2/Asst Gunner on a MAG58 is
quite
free to fire his own rifle during a fire fight except for the times the
MG
has a stoppage. in the tripod role it is a different story.

I'd suggest you look at how a weapon is employmed rather than just
straight
capabiliites. So, at Coy Level with Tripod MAG58/240 is APSW but in a
Team
it is just a SAW.

So, you see there is no SEEMLESS port from SG to DS nor 20C to 22C
combat. 

Cheers,

Owen G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Bilderback [mailto:bbilderback@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, 21 April 2000 11:10
> To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: RE: [DS] Specialist Elements
> 
> 
> Hi Back Owen,
> 
> This is one of the reasons I proposed more than one class of 
> APSW - The 5.56 
> weapons seemed obviously too light to be APSW's, and the .50 
> cal and 40mm 
> grens were OBVIOUSLY APSW's, but it left me asking "What 
> about 7.62 mm and 
> such?"  I don't know what the American equivalent of your 
> Section is, but 
> the M240G, to quote the USMC, as they use it, is "able to 
> provide a heavy, 
> controlled volume of accurate, long range fire that is far beyond the 
> capabilities of individual small arms." Moreover, the maximum 
> effective 
> range is listed as 1,800 meters (forgive the yank spelling), which 
> definitely gives it, in DS terms, range on the order of an 
> APSW.  The M249 
> SAW, on the other hand, "supplements the firepower of the... 
> M16A2 rifle."  
> Definitely part of a rifle element, not an APSW.
> 
> Which brings us back to, "OK, if 7.62's an APSW (Humor me for 
> the sake of 
> arguement), and .50 cal is an APSW, that's a heel of a lot of 
> divergence of 
> power within one weapon class." Which is why I proposed that 
> APSW's be split 
> into APSW/M's (APSW's as we know them)and APSW/H's(NAstier 
> than APSW's, not 
> as scary as an RFAC 1).
> 
> Brian Bilderback
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@museum.vic.gov.au>
> >Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> >To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
> >Subject: RE: [DS] Specialist Elements
> >Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:46:05 +1000
> >
> >Hi Brian,
> >
> >I'd have to argue against this. First I apologise if this is 
> tending to get
> >off thread a little...
> >
> >DS, Page 13 - the APSW is quoted as "...eg. heavy MG, 
> Automatic grenade
> >Launcher or equivalent." - Mk19 AGL and 50 Cal equiv
> >
> >The Rifle team is described as "...also contain a light team 
> support weapon
> >(an LMG or GPMG equivalent0..."  Minimi and MAG58
> >
> >The Australian Army Infantry Centre, Small Arms Wing, implemented the
> >replacement of the MAG58 with the Minimi. At section level. 
> The MAG58 is
> >retained as a tripod mounted support weapon at Coy and Bn 
> level. In this
> >role then classification as APSW may be warranted but bear 
> in mind that
> >First Line for a section something like 1,000 rds and for a 
> SFMG it is
> >40,000!!! The SFMG has tripod and C2 site system as 
> well....it really does
> >need a vehicle and 3 men to operate it!
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Owen G
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian Bilderback [mailto:bbilderback@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, 21 April 2000 10:29
> > > To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> > > Subject: RE: [DS] Specialist Elements
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd argue that the M240 IS an APSW, while the M249 is NOT -
> > > quite a bit of
> > > difference between a weapon that fires 7.62 mm ammo, is
> > > replacing the M-60,
> > > and is used for fire support at the PLATOON level, and a 5.56
> > > mm weapon,
> > > capable of using an AR clip, and called a SQUAD Automatic 
> Weapon. JMO.
> > >
> > > Brian B
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@museum.vic.gov.au>
> > > >Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> > > >To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
> > > >Subject: RE: [DS] Specialist Elements
> > > >Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:04:26 +1000
> > > >
> > > >Oops, to clarify before John A gets jumpy I misreferred to
> > > the M240 as the
> > > >M249...doesn't change my comment though, the MAG58/M240 is
> > > still not an
> > > >APSW...it is replacing the M60E3 in the USMC and we
> > > (Australian Army) used
> > > >it for quite a few years as an interim between the 
> venerable M60 and
> > > >Minimi....
> > > >
> > > >Owen G
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > __________
> > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> >http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at 
http://www.hotmail.com