now all those Opposition macai have to change their tune, start complaining that Pakatan won't increase defence budget

In other words, increase budget and only give to Navy and Air Force?

Firstly, there will be complaints of discrimination from the Army

Secondly, there really is no extra money to be had

Thirdly, patrol aircraft and boats are essential but it is cheaper to fund a company of foot soldiers especially in Msia where cost of living is cheaper and soldiers aren't that individually well-equipped
Maybe USMC have different mods? rails etc.

They really should develop high-capacity magazines though

This post has been edited by KLboy92: Jul 3 2018, 11:51 AM

Wah new tered

macam mana bole miss

congrtas on new thread.

Not sure of bunny already posted this

But interesting anyway to see new developments in the region threat picture ahem

Bangladesh Air Force training plane crashes in Jashore, kills both pilots





[sos]

Just saw Mat Sabu's interview on RTM. He said no cut, but no increase either. But he stressed it's always possible to get special funding if the Armed Forces needs it and is approved by the cabinet.
Another key point was that they are looking into retiring assets that has too much maintenance costs and replace them with newer assets.

The M27 IAR has nothing that the latest locally-designed M16/M4 derivatives can't do. Also, abandoning firepower for accuracy is a pretty dumb move. Modern infantry tactics are based on fire and maneuver. They are assuming their enemies would stand still enough for accuracy to be relevant. Studies show that only around 10% of ammunition expended during a firefight actually kills an enemy, with up to 80% alone spent on suppressing fire.

Mark my words, the USMC grunt in the future will literally be outgunned by their enemies.


As General Patton said;

“Fire on Infested Areas: Owing to the pernicious traditions of our known distance rifle marksmanship, we are prone to hold our fire until we see targets. In battle, these are seldom visible. When any group of soldiers is under small-arms fire, it is evident that the enemy can see them; therefore, men should be able to see the enemy, but seldom are. When this situation arises, they must fire at the portions of the hostile terrain which probably conceal enemy small-arms weapons. I know for a fact that such procedure invariably produces an effect and generally stops hostile fire. Always remember that it is much better to waste ammunition than lives. It takes at least eighteen years to produce a soldier, and only a few months to produce ammunition.

In battle, casualties vary directly with the time you are exposed to effective fire. Your own fire reduces the effectiveness and volume of the enemy’s fire, while speed of attack shortens the time of exposure....

Infantry must move in order to close with the enemy. It must shoot in order to move. When physical targets are not available, the fire of all infantry weapons must search the area occupied by enemy. Use marching fire. It reduces the accuracy of his fire and increases our confidence. Shoot short. Ricochets make nastier sounds and wounds. To halt under fire is folly. To halt under fire and not fire back is suicide. Move forward out of fire....”

year the idea came about was when US went from afghan to iraq... the terrain changed, instead of mountains they went to flat ground... patrols had to be done 10-20km daily with full gear on foot (same story from m16 to m4 i believe)... that's where the m249 replacement came about, excuse? more accurate suppressive fire.. m27 was chosen then, its reliability was witnessed first hand hence due to similarities became the IAR but the m249 was not fully replaced.. a makeshift alternative is to allow a 50/100 round box to be fixed however the dynamics of the gun would then change again

M240 is the GPMG (medium machine gun), M249 is the SAW (light machine gun). The SAW was never intended to be used as a suppressive fire machine gun in the first place, it was used to bosst the squad's level of fire.

So instead of a steady stream of bullets from a dedicated machine gun to suppress enemies, the USMC would only get short bursts of individual automatic IAR fire to suppress its enemies. Instead of the usual infantry doctrine of a single GPMG crew giving a base of fire and the rest of the squad free to maneuver, the USMC would need to dedicate a large part of the squad (who would otherwise be on the maneuver team) to suppressive fire duties only.

as i had mentioned before, long patrols.. nobody conventionally carries m240 on foot for long distances... at section level, m249 is the weapon for suppressive fire... you can call boost level of fire, or turbo or upgrade or whatever doesnt matter

please dont contradict yourself... gpmg vs m249.. IAR is not replacing the m240/gpmg

Nope, M240s are carried standard with an M16A4 as side-arm (because only officers get pistols and M4s). Belt 7.62s and 5.56s are carried by everyone with the AG carrying spare barrels

The M249 has a very bad reliability issue, unless the gunner took care of it and fired it the right way, bursts of more than 5-7 would make it jam and less than 3 also made it jam

This post has been edited by heavyduty: Jul 4 2018, 07:37 PM

M27 is the M16 while the HK416 is the M4, the USMC prefers full size rifles for it's line units. The people testing the M27 during the early 2010s said the same thing, we need volume of fire.the HK representative answer? No you're wrong

you're right if the section is a designated machinegun section, however patrols given to rifle sections wont have m240 only m249...

The change is apparently based on the experiences of their own troops, that is, a high rate of fire doesn't produce any effective suppression on experienced troops, it is an accurate fire that produces suppression.

This point is still valid. It is how to achieve suppression however that changed.

The volume of fire also will not change that much as they expect to issue each IAR man 20 x 30 rounds of ammo, and the IAR can sustain rate of fire that M16 can't and maintain accuracy at ranges which the M249 can't.

Also every IAR will include ACOG sights which I think is where a lot of the costs go. Squads will also each carry the M32 grenade launcher.

Army prefer volume
Marine claims accuracy is more important - that is the theory underlying these changes

What do you think?

This post has been edited by KLboy92: Jul 5 2018, 12:07 AM

The USMC philosophy is always different from the US Army. Marksmanship has always been emphasized in the USMC.

Every marine spends maybe 120 hours training with a rifle while a soldier spends 20 hours in basic training, the army has too many people to do what the USMC does.the USMC has always been infantry-centric, everything revolves around the rifleman but the army doesn't expect a cook or an accountant to be good shooters

The M4 transition took such a long time because of the rifleman mentality, Marines needed a 'real' rifle not a carbine but now every marine in a line unit gets an M4. M16 is relegated to the rear units.

The quality of marine recruits are also better now, better training and smarter. The recruits of old weren't trusted with automatic fire so they get stupid 3 round bursts. The M27 reflects the Marine of the future I guess

Indonesian Army Avaition 11th Assault Squadron AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters. Credit to Indonesian Army Helicopters.

i though now no more limit page per thread

pinoys getting awacs?