Re: [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-lAct
ually a SAW doesn't have to use different ammunition to provide
increased
firepower. By simply increasing barrel length you derive more energy per
round (increase efficiency) without having to change the round at all.
In
addition, by increasing barrel length, you increase accuracy. Therefore,
by
simply making an AR with with a heavier, longer barrel you can create a
SAW
type weapon without having to increase the round size. This does create
a
heavier weapon, but not because the ammo is larger or heavier.
With this in mind it appears that a SAW will continue to provide a major
base of firepower for the squad for several key reasons - increased rate
of
fire, increased penetration, increased accuracy and increased range over
assault rifles.

By its nature, the SAW will be a heavier more substantial weapon than an
AR
- this increases stability when grounded, thus increasing accuracy over
a
weapon held by hand.

Sustained ROF will be critical as an area denial capability - an AR that
fires 600 RPM will drain a 30 round mag in 3 seconds, it then takes
several
seconds to reload meaning that there are large gaps in firing coverage -
whereas a SAW with 100 or 200 round belt or magazine could sustain 10-20
seconds of fire, along with a heavier barrel would also be able to
maintain
such rates over longer periods of time. Thus a single SAW provides the
firepower equivalent of 3-5 regular AR's.

I think that as individual AR technology improves, the SAW will also
improve
proportionately and remain a mainstay for assaults and defense.

--Binhan

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Allan Goodall
<agoodall@hyperbear.com>wrote:

> I agree with the others.
>
> There's always going to be an advantage to having a weapon that's
> bigger than what the squads carry. "Bigger" meaning everything from
> physically bigger, to the same weapon with greater abilities. Greater
> abilities come at a cost, and that cost usually comes down to
> per-soldier weight penalties.
>
> There are advantages to having a weapon that fires larger ammunition
> further down range than the ARs carried by the regular soldiers. For
> one, it allows you to fire at the enemy out of the range of _their_
> ARs to suppress them while you manoeuvre some of your guys into
> position. To get further down range with more energy is going to
> require... well, more energy. That energy has to come from somewhere,
> be it chemical, electric, or nuclear. The bigger weapon will use up
> more energy, meaning that it's energy supply has to be greater, be it
> bigger batteries or more ammunition. So you won't be able to have as
> many of these bigger weapons in the squad as the number of base
> weapons.
>
> If your SAW uses the same ammunition as your ARs, has the same range,
> the same _sustained_ rate of fire, and is just as accurate as your
> ARs, then yes, you're going to see the SAW disappear in that form.
> However, some bright spark is going to say, "You know, it would be
> really useful if one or two guys in the squad had a weapon that had
> greater range/greater sustained rate of fire/greater stopping
> power/greater penetration. At which point, the support weapon comes
> into being, albeit possibly in a different form than we see today.
>