Prev: Re: UNSC design Next: Re: [SG2] AGL vs SAW

Re: [SG2] AGL vs SAW

From: "Andreas Udby" <andreas.udby@h...>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:24:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [SG2] AGL vs SAW

Just to add my $.02:

The Mk19 and SAW are not comparable;  it's apples and oranges.	The Mk19
is in a
class with the Browning M2 .50 cal, and like the Ma Deuce, it is meant
vehicular mount or tripod.  Neither the Mk19 nor the M2 can be fired by
crunchies without a tripod setup, which means that they are not weapons
that can
be included in standard infantry squad doctrine.

The M249 SAW, on the other hand, is meant to fill the "automatic
position in a standard 4-man fire team (the others are team leader,
and grenadier;	there are two fire teams to a squad in the US Army). 
The SAW is
meant to provide suppressing fire to support the team's riflemen as they
and thus becomes a vital part of squad and platoon dismounted maneuver. 
Mk19 and M2, on the other hand, are meant to be used in mounted
platoon fire and maneuver.  In my last unit (2nd Infantry Division),
Mk19's were
fielded at the rate of one per platoon, with the rest of our M113's
fielding a
.50 cal.  The Mk19's were intended for use against dismounts and
vehicles, while the M2's were meant to pound anything else.

These distinctions become blurred when we move the doctrine into a
setting with PA and hover sleds and whatnot.  But at the present, the
differences are what's key to understanding about the Mk19 and SAW.

Danbury, CT

FREE web-based email for HR
professionals and loads of other helpful
resources too, at

Prev: Re: UNSC design Next: Re: [SG2] AGL vs SAW