Re: [GZG] QUESTION: are SAWs becoming less significant...?

G'day,

>From Derek's experience (admittedly nearly 20 odd years ago now) the
LMG's in their units (M60s and Bren guns) were still "king". Section
commander's basic tactics were still based around the use of the MG
(e.g. sighting of the "gun") and the further up the chain you went there
were more MGs to play with but they were still a serious consideration
in shaping tactics. Back then at least Australia's unit structure was
dividing the section in 3 - one based on a scout group, another based on
rifles and the third based around the LMG (the "gun group"). This last
group contained the LMG, grenade launcher and light anti-tank weapons
(with everyone not carrying the LMG carrying a rifle). The bulk of
section's firepower still came down to the LMG. 

Other nations will have done it differently back then and weapons of
today may have progressed some, but from the discussions Derek and I
have had with guys who've seen combat (and the 4 books of interviews
I've read this summer covering interviews with guys in Australian army
that have seen combat WW1 to now) the power of an MG still out does that
of combat rifles and so they remain a significant component of a units
fire power (and certainly dictate tactics). Just because the rifles
evolve there is no reason to think they'd stop developing heavier
support weapons along the same lines.

After all how sexy would Prince Harry look holding a piddly rifle for
the press instead of letting lose on a honkingly huge gun? ;)

Beth

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l