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

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lInt
eresting question Jon. Pardon the lengthy reply.

If we assume that shortly many squaddies will have the ability to
successfully engage enemies in hard cover (without top protection) and
in
windows using laser-ranged grenades from every AR in the squad, then we
have
to imagine a ubiquity of firepower previously unseen. Presumably other
forms
of grenades will enable direct engagement of light armoured and
soft-skinned
vehicles and potentially powered armour when it appears.

At the same time, a SAW still tends to have 1) greater (practical)
range, 2)
greater accuracy at range, and 3) a sustained fire capability that
outpaces
the rifles of the squad. Heavier and replaceable barrels, belt feed
mechanisms, bipods, and so forth. Further, if we start to project more
portable AGLs (25mm auto AGL with a bipod for instance), we may find
that
the SAW maintains a lot of support power. Even now, the 40mm AGL has a
significant range and a great ability to lay some seriously dangerous
ordinance onto a target at a high rate and fairly continuously, as long
as
ammo is in easy supply.

Now, I've heard some argue we need to move ARs in favour of heavier
rounds
or even 10:1 flechettes to deal with newer armour for persons and
perhaps
shortly for exoskeletons. I've heard comments saying the 25mm GL grenade
will be too small to be effective against many targets and still weighty
to
carry. I've even heard arguments suggesting infantry will be replaced or
at
least preceded by swarms of autonomous sensor and weapons-capable robots
of
small size. All of these things may prove true, or not. Much like when
you
wrote Stargrunt in 1987, it is hard to know what the full truth of the
next
30 years will be, let alone 300.

I've heard rumours we've got railgun and laser rifle prototypes waiting
for
sufficient power density in batteries. I've seen pictures of Darpa
exoskeletons that make me think we'll see combat armour in the next
twenty
years and then of course, weight of armour and weapons may well go up
(thus
meaning weapons have to hit harder and possibly rendering conventional
rifles nearly a moot point).

A lot in the assessment of military armament and defense depends on who
you
are talking about assessing. First world nations taking on
tunic-wearing,
sandal-clad insurgents with basic rifles and explosives? Or first line
powers who will perhaps have powered armour, modern infantry body
armour,
robots in support, and the new generation of visual and wideband optical
camouflage that is coming?

If you're fighting the natives, they'll be relegated to ambushes,
explosives, plus the occasional smuggled in weapon capable of actually
scoring kills against vehicles and maybe powered armour. The rest of the
time, they'll hide because they'll lose any open field engagement due to
the
presence of armed drones, armed groundside bots, advanced sensors and
recce,
and high quality personal armour and defenses. The SAW here will
probably
still play a role, but infantry engagements generally will be rarer as
most
warfare will be asymetric. You can thus expect individual infantry
firepower
to receive only a limited portion of the tech budget so it may generally
fall behind. Look where money is being spent now - not the X programs
for
infantry weapons - mostly on robots, recce, sensors, detecting
underground
lairs, artillery, ground penetrating air deployed munitions, smart
weapons,
IED detection and autonomous transports.

If, on the other hand, any sort of conflict with Russia or China looms,
or
at least seems feasible enough to allow the military-industrial complex
to
get its lobby into gear, then we'll see more research on fighting those
sorts of foes. And in that scenario, we'll probably still see a lot of
money
go into smart weapons, but the warfare may be more symetric, so there
may be
more attention to individual capabilities of infantry - say a shift
toward
combat armour or powered armour and weapons to penetrate same. Support
platforms may become robotic mules (like Big Dog) with chainguns or
AGLs,
controlled by heavy weapons controllers or maybe just squad leaders. In
that
case, we'll still see a big place for the squad support weaponry and
it'll
still be important for the same reasons - long range, heavy round,
better
sustained fire, better coordination with remote sensors.

As an instantaneous sort of evaluation of FP at any one moment, I've
often
thought that 1 point of firepower for the added GL and d8-d12 for a SAW
is
disproportionate. But I don't think SAWs fade to insignificance at any
point
where the fighting still looks like men fighting, instead of a bot fight
controlled from afar. Seems to me the SAW is worth the firepower of
about
3-5 riflemen, if they aren't making frequent use of grenades. If they
are
using lots of grenades, maybe it drops to 2-3 riflemen. But the SAW may
still retain range advantage and sustained fire capabilities.

In SG and DS, the turns are long enough that those two capabilities
should
still mean the SAW keeps its role as 'the hitter' in the squad. In FMAS,
with shorter turns, the SAW might not tend to put out much more FP than
the
rifle or rifle+GL, but it should keep it up over a longer number of
turns.
Similar ratings, just capable of acting over a longer period.

Tom
-- 
http://ante-aurorum-tenebrae.blogspot.com/
http://www.stargrunt.ca

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

"When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty
quits the horizon." -- Thomas Paine