M249 SAW as base of fire weapon

[SlapHappy]

Various websites refer to this as a base of fire or high-volume fire weapon which replaced the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) in the basic squad. What I read this to mean is that it is a high ROF weapon that can be used suppressively to give the other squad members maneuver capability.

But honestly the only difference I see is a slightly higher ROF for the SAW compared to the basic M4 or M16 in-game. In typical combat situations, is this essentially the only difference when compared to the assault rifle. I guess I was expecting a more robust delineation between the roles of these two weapon types after reading books like "House to House" and some other modern AAR accounts of actual combat. From those accounts the large magazine affords the M249 to become a real buzz-saw when the need arises - A weapon capable of laying down a tremendous amount of lead in a short amount of time. The base ROF being 750 RPM and an emergency ROF of 1000 RPM.

In-game ROF seems to be based on about 5-7 round bursts, never seeming to simulate anything approaching the "sustained fire" role that the weapon is designed for. I'm not military or ex-military. Are my expectations not in-line with real-world application of the weapons firepower?

[Guest]

I split off my SAWs and use them with Target orders to suppress my assault location or suspected enemy locations. They tend to give a good accounting of themselves. I confess I don't pay much attention to their ROF.

[akd]

The SAW will lay down automatic fire out to 800m, while rifles will stop even single shots at 500m. As range decreases, the SAW practical rate of fire will increase before rifles, but at the closest ranges it is hard to distinguish the two, especially as the audio doesn't seem to always reflect rate of fire accurately. One for one the SAW will always maintain a higher practical rate of fire than rifles, as even if each individual rifle is approaching the cyclic RoF of the SAW, it still has to be reloaded every 30 rounds versus the SAW's 200rds.

The second gas regulator setting for the SAW is not intended to be selected to simply to achieve a higher cyclic RoF. It is meant to allow the rifle to continue to function in adverse conditions (fouling/weather). Newer versions of the M-249 have eliminated the higher RoF setting.

[Dietrich]

I split off my SAWs and use them with Target orders to suppress my assault location or suspected enemy locations. They tend to give a good accounting of themselves. I confess I don't pay much attention to their ROF.

How do you split off the SAWs, rather than just splitting the squad into fireteams? In some scenarios, I have seen squads split asymmetrically (such as one team with all M4s and the other team with the M249s and M4/M203s), but I always wondered "how did the scenario designer get them to split like that?"

[Guest]

As I recall (I haven't been able to play in a couple weeks) I use the "Split Assault" option. That usually puts a majority of guys with rifles in one team, the rest in another. For most squad layouts that equates to the SAWs and 1-2 riflemen.

[SlapHappy]

Yup. If you use assault split twice you can get 3 groups. One of them will typically be the 2 SAWs with 1-2 M4 soldiers.

[Dietrich]

After some experimentation in the editor, I found that with a standard IBCT/SBCT rifle squad, ordering "Split Assault" twice and then reconstituting the teams yielded one with 2x M249, 2x M4, and 1x M4/M203, and the other team with 3x M4 and 1x M4/M203. (Trying this with an HBCT "assault" squad is superfluous, since such a squad is already arranged in three fireteams of three, the first of which includes the two M249s.) Doing a similar trick with a Marine rifle squad yielded one group with 3x M249 and 1x M32 and another of two fire teams (led by the squad leader) each with 3x M16A4 and 1x M32.

I guess this shows that I need to have more aware of the tactical flexibility afforded by the various squad-splitting options. hehe

[Guest]

There's definitely some great stuff in there. I spend a lot of time playing with split squads and I still think I haven't seen all the combinations, but they're all fun. (For instance, in infantry-heavy scenarios AT teams are the ultimate "go back and get 'em" medics.)

[MikeyD]

Has anyone tested the in-game difference between the Army's SAW and the Brits' short barrel L110A2?

I just now did a quick test. Brit and American split squads at one end of a map, advancing Syrians at the other, starting at 1000m. The American SAW finally self-targeted the advancing enemy at 440m. The Brit L110A2 self-targeted the same advancing squad at 400m. I don't know if that 40m gap is the difference between the long-barelled and short-barreled weapon. The SAWs were first to open up. Even the long-barreled L86A2 came in after SAW.

[SlapHappy]

Yes, I've done trench-defense tests that confirm that L86A2 didn't open fire until well after the SA80's had already started engagement with individual rounds fired. This seems rather counter-intuitive, since the L86A2 is a squad support weapon with marksman quality accuracy.

[MikeyD]

Second test.

Americans shot first again, thought oddly enough an M4 took a pot-shot before the SAW did - 407m. Brits opened up at 380m. Unfortunately that puts them both withing range of the Syrian squad's RPD mg.

Third test. American start firing SAWs at 410, Brits at 401. Another oddity, the Yanks were getting incoming fire from the Syrian from 450m without returning fire. That RPD mg again.

Fourth test. Brits and Americans open up at the same range - 405m. Kneeling U.S. got incoming rounds from the Syrians at 470m.

Conclusions. U.S. SAW seems to have a minimal advantage over the shorter Brit L110A2, and both weapons open up well before L86A2 even thinks about it. The Russian 7.62 squad MG has the range advantage over both, though not an accuracy advantage (may have been an affect of green Syrian troops).

[MikeyD]

About L86A2 opening fire late:

This seems rather counter-intuitive, since the L86A2 is a squad support weapon with marksman quality accuracy.

I've heard L86 was roundly despised by Brit troops. Its neither-fish-nor-fowl. Its not a marksman rifle and its not a mg, its badly balanced. Of course the worst complaints came during the Kuwait conflict when the rifle would literally fall apart in the firer's hands. They had the same complaints with the L85 back then too. I haven't heard how 'beloved' the rebuilt L86A2 might be by the troops in Iraq or currently in Afghanistan.

[SlapHappy]

And I believe the same charges were leveled against the M-16 (not robustly constructed) during the Vietnam War, but I have never heard any complaints about the AR-15 families accuracy as an assault rifle.

[Apocal]

I've heard L86 was roundly despised by Brit troops. Its neither-fish-nor-fowl. Its not a marksman rifle and its not a mg, its badly balanced.

And I believe the same charges were leveled against the M-16 (not robustly constructed) during the Vietnam War, but I have never heard any complaints about the AR-15 families accuracy as an assault rifle.

You know, it's entirely possible for two different segments of the same military to have a vastly different opinion of the same piece of gear. It's even possible for two people in the same functional area to have a differing opinion, although it's a lot less likely if they are both reading from the same sheet of music.

It doesn't mean someone is lying, just that one found a way to make it "work" within the context of their fight and likely the other didn't (or doesn't need it to begin with).

[Sgt Joch]

I always presumed the M249 SAW's adoption was driven by logistics, namely to use the same 5.56x45 mm ammo as the rest of the squad's weapons.

Since it uses the same ammo as the M4 or M16, I presume there is no reason it should act differently in game, except for the potentially higher ROF and perhaps greater accuracy due to use of the bipod stand.

[SlapHappy]

True, but the potential of the 200 round capacity can't be so easily dismissed...probably more important to the topic than just bullet caliber. Also, the fact the M4 is 3 round burst limited, while the SAW can actually only fire full auto (no semi-auto setting) tends to suggest a certain relationship/role within the squad.

The handful of practice shoots I've seen on the available internet videos suggest a fire rate very similar to what's in the game. I guess my question is, in actual combat situations, especially within 200- meter engagement ranges, is the SAW fire output so pedestrian. I realize there a lot of factors that would weight into this in a situation by situation basis.

My guess is only a combat veteran could give an educated insight into the matter.

[MikeyD]

I've had conversations with an ex-Marine who despised the M249 SAW, and someone else who sung its praises. Weapons might be like cars. On paper they're exactly the same, but one's a clunker and another's a dreamboat. What did they used to say about American cars back-in-the-day? Never buy a Chevolet built on a Monday? The same might hold true for squad machineguns

[akd]

I've had conversations with an ex-Marine who despised the M249 SAW, and someone else who sung its praises. Weapons might be like cars. On paper they're exactly the same, but one's a clunker and another's a dreamboat.

As I understand, some M-249s are, in fact, very old clunkers at this point.

[ScubaSam]

Some regiments don't really care for the L86, and have all but taken it out of service, while others have gotten into the whole DMR idea and kept the rifle in use within sections. The LMG/Minimi/SAW (whatever you want to call it) seems to have found an awful lot of fans within the UK military, but that may be "shiny new toy" syndrome that will wear off in a few years.

I've done my own tests with rifle squads and advancing Syrian units. Using an unsplit IBCT rifle squad, the SAWs opened fire at 1010m, would you believe.

Casualties were achieved at:

949m

849m

693m

674m

604m

And a surrender happened soon after. Similar effects were achieved using the Marines, but the British didn't open fire until 500m. All weapons opened fire together, and 3 casualties plus 2 yellow wounded were inflicted within about 30s of them opening up.

However, this test was conducted with target arcs covering the axis of Syrian advance, which might make a difference.

[Sgt Joch]

one other interesting point about the SAW is that, apparently, 5.56 rounds fired tend to fragment more consistently, causing more damage, since the longer barrel imparts greater velocity:

Though early M855 experiments showed the round fragments well in the lab, more recent testing has been showing inconsistent fragmentation. Partially because of the complex construction of the round, M855 has widely-variable yaw performance, often not yawing at all through 7-8" or even 10" of tissue. Testing has shown large batch-to-batch differences in yaw performance even from the same manufacturer, and given the number of plants manufacturing SS-109-type bullets, fragmentation performance is very difficult to predict. This is complicated by the low velocity implicit in using M855 out of the short barreled M4 platform.

Interesting, few of these reports seem to be coming from troops 20" or SAW platforms. It would seem that the additional velocity from the longer barrel provides adequate usable fragmentation range for M855 in the majority of cases. From shorter barrels, such as the M4's 14.5" barrel, M855's fragmentation range varies from as much as 90m to as little as 10m, which frequently isn't enough range.

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html

I don't know if this is modeled in the game, but then I don't know how strong the evidence of more reliable fragmentation is. It appears to be just anecdotal evidence.

[Destraex]

sustained fire is much more important than ROF unless faced with wave attacks.

i liked the older gpmg idea, but u need stronger men for that.... i reckon a gun group with an gpmg and a rifle group with a Lmg.

this is a step up from two fire teams with lmg, but a step down in flexability.

gpmg usually have slower rof, but are scaried, bigger and badder. iirc the belgians(or whoever made FN design the smaller version of ther GPMG) realised that logistics would be easier at the cost of troop safety. the higher rof and velocity was supposed to make up for the shere power and range of the gpmg.

with a gpmg you are much more likely to set down with 500 rnds or more attached.... and next to useless in mout assaults.

another question on my mind is why the hell the brits wold shorten the minimi and throw an l86 in as some sort or super long range sniper rifle?

another question is do all minimi have scopes these days?

just some thoughts....

[Apocal]

with a gpmg you are much more likely to set down with 500 rnds or more attached.... and next to useless in mout assaults.

Experience begs to differ on that point. Crew-serves are effective at isolating buildings and blocks by locking down the streets around them. Unless by MOUT assault, you mean actual doorkicking and contact so close you could spit on them.

another question is do all minimi have scopes these days?

just some thoughts....

Not all, although that probably varies unit-by-unit.

[MikeyD]

Following Scubsam's lead, I reran my test but this time targetting as soon as the enemy came into view. U.S. started firing at 930m and the Brits started at 830m. Can't entirely credit the longer barreled SAW for the range difference, the U.S. SAW men were up on one knee and the Brits were prone. That may have made all the difference. Oh, and the L86A2 started firing at 800m. The M4 carbine suprised me by firing-off a pot shot at exactly the 750m mark. Ah, I see - that's the marksman's scoped M4 firing - non-specialist M4 stays put until the enemy reaches 515m.

[Sgt Joch]

Some regiments don't really care for the L86, and have all but taken it out of service, while others have gotten into the whole DMR idea and kept the rifle in use within sections. The LMG/Minimi/SAW (whatever you want to call it) seems to have found an awful lot of fans within the UK military, but that may be "shiny new toy" syndrome that will wear off in a few years.

I've done my own tests with rifle squads and advancing Syrian units. Using an unsplit IBCT rifle squad, the SAWs opened fire at 1010m, would you believe.

Casualties were achieved at:

949m

849m

693m

674m

604m

And a surrender happened soon after. Similar effects were achieved using the Marines, but the British didn't open fire until 500m. All weapons opened fire together, and 3 casualties plus 2 yellow wounded were inflicted within about 30s of them opening up.

However, this test was conducted with target arcs covering the axis of Syrian advance, which might make a difference.

Does it make sense for the SAW (and the M4 or M16) to be that effective at long range? 5.56 ammo, presumably because of its lightweight, loses energy quickly as you can see from this chart:

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/perf_ballmil.html

5.56 ammo has to be moving at over 2,500 feet/second to fragment and cause a severe wound:

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_velocity.html

That works out to a maximum of 225-250 yards when fired from a M249 SAW (21" barrel) or M16 (20" barrel) and between 150-175 yards when fired from a M4 (14.5" barrel).

There is even data that a 5.56 round fired by a M4 may not reliably fragment past 10-90 meters:

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html

[MikeyD]

5.56 ammo has to be moving at over 2,500 feet/second to fragment and cause a severe wound:

I suppose it all depends on the interpretation of the word 'severe'. If it were me getting wounded, I'd consider it plenty 'severe' if someone poked me in the eye with a sharp stick! :eek: