# Utilizing the M-249 in a suppressed Marine Corps Infantry Battalion



## Bob Westermann (Oct 16, 2017)

I don’t know how I feel about a suppressed Infantry Battalion.

I spent time as an M-249 gunner. I gained that responsibility after leading a Fireteam (i didn’t f*** up, we got an actual fleet Sergeant as squad leader) during OIF I.

“You are the target. Until successfully establishing talking guns.”

After getting some salt on me and before chopping to the 11th MEU (SOC), I was a makeshift* Combat Marksmanship Instructor.

The psychological impact of the MG-42 on the allies was enormous. I made a point of including that lesson with an overview of WWII German Infantry tactics, which supported the machine gun, as opposed to the rifleman. Automatic fire over flanking maneuverability. 

American troops called the MG-42 “Hitler’s Zipper.” They resented it. They would seek vengeance on the next one after victory over the first.

It’s a sobering lesson. As technology has advanced, a squad now has the firepower (or more) a platoon had then. You ARE the target.

I surmise that’s about to change, after reading the article I’ve included at the end.

I was unaware that you could suppress a belt fed weapon. I’d like to know how long before the baffles wear out, necessitating a replacement. And if it effects the rate of barrel changes when sustaining 5-15 round bursts.

This is something I assume you tier-1 and tier-2 guys have been doing for years. How do you feel about this?

Marine Corps experiment silences entire infantry battalion’s weapons

*Not an actual school position. If a slapped on title during the scramble for the next pump


----------



## 8482farm (Oct 16, 2017)

I understand the psychological aspect of the weapon in terms of it spreading fear among enemies. But, we've moved away from the massive personnel trench-fighting style to more guerrilla-type warfare where cover, concealment, superior intelligence, and the element of surprise would be more effective. However, I too, am curious as to how quiet the DoD wants to go, how long the suppressors last, if they will also use subsonic rounds, and how it will affect the machine's overall kill-potential.


----------



## Bob Westermann (Oct 16, 2017)

I meant to say “*It’s* a slapped on title” not_ “_*if *it’s a slapped on title”


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 16, 2017)

Whose suppressing the Marine Corps, should I take a knee when someone plays music?

You do realize a suppressor does not make the weapon silent, just a little quieter.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 16, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Whose suppressing the Marine Corps, should I take a knee when someone plays music?
> 
> You do realize a suppressor does not make the weapon silent, just a little quieter.



Spot on.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 16, 2017)

gotta wear out the suppressor faster.....but I can see their place for specific missions.


----------



## nitrohuck (Oct 16, 2017)

I'm sure they'll make beefed up suppressors to handle it better, but they'll still go soon enough... but honestly suppressors are pretty simple hunks of metal... it's not that big of a deal for the military to just slap on a new one compared to your civilian counterpart who has to twiddle his thumbs for 4-6 months waiting for the ATF to, well, do whatever they do... 

subsonic 5.56 ammo? I would highly doubt that


----------



## CDG (Oct 16, 2017)

The more things you add to the packing list, the more weight and space it takes up, one more part that can break, or be lost, etc.  Is it really worth it in this case?


----------



## Topkick (Oct 16, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> I don't see the point unless it's to cut down the number of hearing loss claims.
> 
> It might make an infantry battalion a hair stealthier at night, provided you don't load tracer and have effective flash suppression..,Even with suppressed weapons if you get in contact your position's compromised and you'll have to move.
> 
> ...



Agree. Once the first round is fired, the stealth phase is complete. Make as much as noise as you can😉


----------



## nitrohuck (Oct 16, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Agree. Once the first round is fired, the stealth phase is complete. Make as much as noise as you can😉




Perhaps this isn't for stealth but rather to make communication easier in a firefight and/or not blow out peoples ear drums if they don't have ear pro in? Just an idea,

Oh, I just read the article, yes, that is their intention... increased effectiveness in comms... it isn't about stealth at all.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 16, 2017)

Yeah, I read the article. I was responding to "I don’t know how I feel about a suppressed Infantry Battalion" from the OP. My response wasn't at all about stealth either. In my experience, the sound of an automatic weapon has a demoralizing effect on the enemy. Even if you don't hit the mark, the sound can make the other guy consider a contingency plan. Training/ rehearsals eliminate most communications problems. In all fairness, I don't have any experience with suppressed automatic weapons so I can only speak about what I know.

Edited for grammer


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 16, 2017)

I shoot a 7.62 with a Surefire suppressor, and it still so loud you need hearing protection. They ain't that quiet.

My understanding is that it is to increase and enhance Communications. I don't know that I know enough yet to make an opinion.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 16, 2017)

Agree. All in for trying new TTPs.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 16, 2017)

Topkick said:


> Yeah, I read the article. I was responding to "I don’t know how I feel about a suppressed Infantry Battalion" from the OP. My response wasn't at all about stealth either. In my experience, the sound of an automatic weapon has a demoralizing effect on the enemy. Even if you don't hit the mark, the sound can make the other guy consider a contingency plan. Training/ rehearsals eliminate most communications problems. In all fairness, I don't have any experience with suppressed automatic weapons so I can only speak about what I know.
> 
> Edited for grammer



SASR and NZSAS in Vietnam used to cut down their SLRs and lay down a whole magazine when they had a contact. This was to make them seem like they were a much bigger unit than they were (5 man patrols usually) and to create a bit of hesitation so they could withdraw.


----------



## AWP (Oct 17, 2017)

I think some of our members with "a few" fights under their belts while using suppressors cited better communication and obfuscation (for lack of a better word) as the primary reasons to run suppressed. Even a 20dB reduction is a big deal


----------



## Bob Westermann (Oct 17, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> gotta wear out the suppressor faster.....but I can see their place for specific missions.


Consider the additional maintenance.


----------



## Bob Westermann (Oct 17, 2017)

The infantry is a jack of all trades, at least it felt that way during nation building. Hmmm... maybe more time maintaining exciting new equipment and less rotational guard = better amphibious force in readiness


----------



## Bob Westermann (Oct 17, 2017)

Or could be a way to spend time at the armory. Thoughts?


----------



## Bob Westermann (Oct 17, 2017)

With the proposed upgrade of gunny platoon leaders, seems like fair trade. 
Staff sergeant squad leaders?  they can handle it


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 17, 2017)

Bob Westermann said:


> Consider the additional maintenance.



was thinking more of a SOF specific use, not Infantry.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 17, 2017)

AWP said:


> I think some of our members with "a few" fights under their belts while using suppressors cited better communication and obfuscation (for lack of a better word) as the primary reasons to run suppressed. Even a 20dB reduction is a big deal





Kraut783 said:


> was thinking more of a SOF specific use, not Infantry.


Suppressor's don't make weapons silent, but they obscure the actual report of said weapon and make it sound different. Yes, of course quieter, but I can tell the difference between an M4, AK, .50, etc. When those weapons are suppressed, it's really hard to identify which weapon is being fired and it's a small thing, but my time spent going, "What the shit was that?" is enough time for an attacking force to exploit that advantage. 

The main benefit to a suppressor is identification.  A loud, clear report gives me distance, direction and which weapon is fired. A suppressor takes away that identification, at least for a time.

As for SOF vs. regular infantry- it's really useful in all circles, honestly, for the reasons outlined above.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 17, 2017)

I suppose there is a time and place for everything. I can buy off on an infantry squad with suppressed weapons. Maybe a platoon. Maybe. I don't think there is much point at the company level and above though. Keep in mind that infantry units are often employed at the squad and platoon level in COIN but generally fight as battalions, brigades and divisions, with unsuppressed armor and artillery support, in high intensity conflicts.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Oct 19, 2017)

Suppressed belt-fed arms suck major ass as far as effects-longevity is concerned but nonetheless worth the effort in the right situation. I've never seen any last longer than a few operations/exercises/uses before they were blown out or just jacked up in general. Most of _our_ implementations were on the 240 or a mk48 (when able) in hides or whenever the task organization was so minimal that direct enemy contact was to be avoided if possible.

Could this have been a failure in how we trained on them? Maybe so, and perhaps we could have employed the weapons better in a suppressed operation but any differences as far as our produced effects weren't really identifiable.

In hindsight - we always had tracers on our belts so it kind of contradicts the idea of a masked location. None of the systems are much quieter but the report is significantly reduced. Personally, I feel that if you're able to roll suppressed on your T/O weapon system by all means do it - but anything belt fed with significantly higher rates of fire is going to do more harm than good once the can starts getting major carbon build-up.

That crap is okay on a range day but I wouldn't want that taking my supporting fires out of the fight when push comes to shove. Ask anyone that's done a days worth of shooting suppressed on say, a precision weapon like a SASS and they can tell you about the effects on their trajectory after a round goes whacky. Multiply that by a bajillion on a belt fed and now what good is your immediate supporting fires?

The irony here is depending on proximity to the target, the louder your weapons are the more you're winning at least from a psychological standpoint. Let a few 240s start putting in work, or even an M2 or Mk44 let off and watch the whole momentum feel like it shifted forward..

.02

H/A


----------



## Gunz (Oct 19, 2017)

The Hate Ape said:


> Suppressed belt-fed arms suck major ass as far as effects-longevity is concerned but nonetheless worth the effort in the right situation. I've never seen any last longer than a few operations/exercises/uses before they were blown out or just jacked up in general. Most of _our_ implementations were on the 240 or a mk48 (when able) in hides or whenever the task organization was so minimal that direct enemy contact was to be avoided if possible.
> 
> Could this have been a failure in how we trained on them? Maybe so, and perhaps we could have employed the weapons better in a suppressed operation but any differences as far as our produced effects weren't really identifiable.
> 
> ...




I'm probably not adding anything worthwhile to this conversation, but there was never a time when we worried about our tracers compromising our poz...since the second we initiated contact we figured they knew where we were. And if they ambushed us, we were compromised anyway.


----------



## JMonty (Oct 19, 2017)

The Hate Ape said:


> Suppressed belt-fed arms suck major ass as far as effects-longevity is concerned but nonetheless worth the effort in the right situation. I've never seen any last longer than a few operations/exercises/uses before they were blown out or just jacked up in general. Most of _our_ implementations were on the 240 or a mk48 (when able) in hides or whenever the task organization was so minimal that direct enemy contact was to be avoided if possible.
> 
> Could this have been a failure in how we trained on them? Maybe so, and perhaps we could have employed the weapons better in a suppressed operation but any differences as far as our produced effects weren't really identifiable.
> 
> ...


Personally I’ve had zero issues in the field or at the range. Being attached to Ranger Reconnaissance, I probably have a solid 2500 suppressed rounds fired. Can’t say much for the SAWs or the 240s, but with the 416/417 and the Mk11, I have nothing but great things to say concerning suppressed fire. At 300+ yards, I actually notice a significant improvement in my shot group. Keep in mind, with any rifle platform, we often aren’t trying to be silent assassins. The report may be stifled, but it doesnt do shit with supersonic ammo. I personally have never used or even seen any subsonic 5.56 or 7.62x51 before. It just wouldn't be effective enough. All our ammo is supersonic. It’s really not meant for us to keep stealth, it’s just to distort the location of the shot. Even when I was still with 1/75 before I moved to STB, we still went suppressed far more often than you would think. You may think going loud is scary, gonna psych them out, but trust me. When your taliban buddies start dropping all around you and you can’t tell where the fuck the shots came from, you’ll be shitting in your boots trying to unfuck yourself from the hellhole you just walked into.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Oct 20, 2017)

JMonty said:


> Personally I’ve had zero issues in the field or at the range. Being attached to Ranger Reconnaissance, I probably have a solid 2500 suppressed rounds fired. Can’t say much for the SAWs or the 240s, but with the 416/417 and the Mk11, I have nothing but great things to say concerning suppressed fire.


Yeah I'm all about suppressed primary arms and precision fires like the Hk variants you mentioned (lucky you) - but belt-fed _will_ get blown the hell out per the OP's question. Suppression absolutely is a utility worth sustaining and I hope we implement beefed up cans to effectively apply & maintain belt fed options.

My experiences are dated a few years back, perhaps @Hillclimb or @Stanimal can expand on what is out there now or share their own experiences.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 20, 2017)

JMonty said:


> Personally I’ve had zero issues in the field or at the range. Being attached to Ranger Reconnaissance, I probably have a solid 2500 suppressed rounds fired. Can’t say much for the SAWs or the 240s, but with the 416/417 and the Mk11, I have nothing but great things to say concerning suppressed fire. At 300+ yards, I actually notice a significant improvement in my shot group. Keep in mind, with any rifle platform, we often aren’t trying to be silent assassins. The report may be stifled, but it doesnt do shit with supersonic ammo. I personally have never used or even seen any subsonic 5.56 or 7.62x51 before. It just wouldn't be effective enough. All our ammo is supersonic. It’s really not meant for us to keep stealth, it’s just to distort the location of the shot. Even when I was still with 1/75 before I moved to STB, we still went suppressed far more often than you would think. You may think going loud is scary, gonna psych them out, but trust me. When your taliban buddies start dropping all around you and you can’t tell where the fuck the shots came from, you’ll be shitting in your boots trying to unfuck yourself from the hellhole you just walked into.


It doesn't take long to find an active machine gun on the battlefield. Suppressed or otherwise. It is harder in an urban environment but certainly not impossible. The Taliban I encountered were not easily intimidated by loud noises and casualties aside from large caliber indirect and aviation fires. 

Have you ever taken heavy PK fire? Not one or two weapon systems, I mean several of them. It's intimidating and I promise you it will factor into your decision making. The TB had two four barreled ZSUs in Nowzad. My heart would drop every time they used it against us. 

The infantry do not have the luxury of conducting preplanned precision raids with stacks of air and support. You gain contact with the enemy and lock horns until one of you is consumed by fire. Then you consolidate and do it again. And again. 

Casualties in this kind of fighting, in my experience, are never as one sided as you describe.  The price of victory is often very steep. We often must expend our greatest resource -our service members - to win. 

The wars of today are not the wars of the future. We enjoy a steep technological and logistical advantage over our current adversaries. This will not be the case if we go to war with a near peer competitor or hybrid opponent. The weapons we procure today need to meet future objectives not only contemporary ones.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 20, 2017)

Teufel said:


> *...The infantry do not have the luxury of conducting preplanned precision raids with stacks of air and support. You gain contact with the enemy and lock horns until one of you is consumed by fire. Then you consolidate and do it again. And again...*



This^^^

The heaviest organic infantry weapons--not counting 122s, mortars, B40s and RPGs--that we encountered were RPKs and the DS 39... And demoralizing enough. Thank God I never had to face a multi-barreled anti-aircraft weapon, like a ZSU.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 20, 2017)

To be clear, I was never personally in the beaten zone of the the ZSU. I could hear it though. They would wheel it out of a cave if we crossed a certain line in the sand. We didn't have the assets to root it out and aviation fires proved surprisingly ineffective against it. They would just tuck it back into a cave. We avoided it honestly. It just wasn't worth getting within it's ECR. 

The ZSU, the 120mm mortar and the recoiless rifle were all on my nope list. I have been in the beaten zone of the latter two and it's not a good time, especially in a prolonged engagement.


----------



## JMonty (Oct 20, 2017)

Teufel said:


> It doesn't take long to find an active machine gun on the battlefield. Suppressed or otherwise. It is harder in an urban environment but certainly not impossible. The Taliban I encountered were not easily intimidated by loud noises and casualties aside from large caliber indirect and aviation fires.
> 
> Have you ever taken heavy PK fire? Not one or two weapon systems, I mean several of them. It's intimidating and I promise you it will factor into your decision making. The TB had two four barreled ZSUs in Nowzad. My heart would drop every time they used it against us.
> 
> ...


Are you questioning whether I’ve taken PK fire being assigned to a Ranger Battalion? It’s kinda what we fucking do... How about the DShK38s with 12.7 rounds whizzing past your face into the concrete wall next to you. That shit will fuck up your day any day of the week. I’m just stating that putting suppressors on the SAW for a suppressed battalion makes sense to me. Personally, if we had an AR assigned to the fireteam, and stealth was a priority, he'd be unsuppressed, but make sure to keep off the gun unless we blow our sound cover. After that, he'd go loud and the valley would light up like a Christmas tree. Obviously having a BTR-40 roll up on you out of nowhere and start lighting the place up is gonna make your head spin, but like you said, the TB aren't easily affected by this. To me it's best to keep quiet as long as possible, because when rounds start flying, so does adrenaline, and that NEVER leads to you being calm, so tactics disappear into the wind and it just becomes a fucking mess.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 20, 2017)

JMonty said:


> Are you questioning whether I’ve taken PK fire being assigned to a Ranger Battalion? It’s kinda what we fucking do... How about the DShK38s with 12.7 rounds whizzing past your face into the concrete wall next to you. That shit will fuck up your day any day of the week. I’m just stating that putting suppressors on the SAW for a suppressed battalion makes sense to me. Personally, if we had an AR assigned to the fireteam, and stealth was a priority, he'd be unsuppressed, but make sure to keep off the gun unless we blow our sound cover. After that, he'd go loud and the valley would light up like a Christmas tree. Obviously having a BTR-40 roll up on you out of nowhere and start lighting the place up is gonna make your head spin, but like you said, the TB aren't easily affected by this. To me it's best to keep quiet as long as possible, because when rounds start flying, so does adrenaline, and that NEVER leads to you being calm, so tactics disappear into the wind and it just becomes a fucking mess.


I'm not questioning anything. I tend to disregard combat hyperbole on the internet though.


----------



## JMonty (Oct 20, 2017)

Why is that hyperbole exactly? Can I not use past experiences to make a point? I thought that was the whole point of this community.


----------



## CDG (Oct 20, 2017)

Ok, @JMonty, before this gets out of hand I'm going to step in here.  No one is saying you can't use past experiences to make a point.  Teufel asked a simple question that didn't warrant the response you gave.  Before you escalate this any further, take a step back and realize it wasn't a personal attack.


----------



## JMonty (Oct 20, 2017)

That’s my bad, I took away something different from your post than you intended. It was just me reading quickly and not really paying attention. Didn’t mean to cause a stir


----------



## Kakashi66223 (Oct 20, 2017)

I'm guessing the ammo for such an op is possibly classified, but for this post for some reason call it silly POGgy rational thinking. Forgive my ignorance.

A 240 May be more cumbersome and from my own exp I FN hated humping it, so I understand why the need for 249s and I hated those like a 203(Army range wise). 762 ammo had better suppression performance as I found at a civilian range than my 77gr 556. So here's where I'm going,  Ive seen supers crack the sound barrier and subsonics drop hogs 1x1x1, youtube. So if they did go silenced 249 at which ever BN-CO-PLT-squad lvl, in my wisdom ( no disrespect) wouldn't it be smart to swap the m855a1-mk262 or standard ammo for linked 300blk & matching barrel with a 762 can?

As far as it goes, it would just be a barrel swap from 556- 300blackout and yields a far "quieter" performance.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 20, 2017)

Kakashi66223 said:


> I'm guessing the ammo for such an op is possibly classified, but for this post for some reason call it silly POGgy rational thinking. Forgive my ignorance.
> 
> A 240 May be more cumbersome and from my own exp I FN hated humping it, so I understand why the need for 249s and I hated those like a 203(Army range wise). 762 ammo had better suppression performance as I found at a civilian range than my 77gr 556. So here's where I'm going, Ive seen supers crack the sound barrier and subsonics drop hogs 1x1x1, youtube. So if they did go silenced 249 at which ever BN-CO-PLT-squad lvl, in my wisdom ( no disrespect) wouldn't it be smart to swap the m855a1-mk262 or standard ammo for linked 300blk & matching barrel with a 762 can?
> 
> As far as it goes, it would just be a barrel swap from 556- 300blackout and yields a far "quieter" performance.



Don't forget about supply and demand. With SOF, this is less an issue and it should be. With conventional forces, simplicity, cost effectiveness, and supply and demand are a priority. Having equipment that is DXable, common, and exchangeable is a must.


----------



## SuperchargedSVTCobra (Mar 22, 2018)

I can see where the applications for this suppressed M249 squad automatic weapon could be useful in certain combat scenarios.  Considering that it will more than likely be magazine fed or belt fed and silent and supposedly lighter weight category. Plus, the  reduction and recoil  due to the “silencer” and internal recoil dampening /less recoil and muzzle risevdue to the silencer.  May help assist the war fighter with being More agile aiding in mobility, lowering the weight and decreased recoil. This may add to the accuracy, therefore possibly increasing  The overall Lethality. Plus, by lowering the decibel levels of the weapon the war fighter could lay sustain fire/suppressive fire from a concealed position without the app fo Plus, by lowering the decibel levels of the weapon the war fighter couldlay sustained  fire/suppressive fire from a concealed position without the OPFOR Being able to  ascertain the POS exactly where The war fighter is.  However, without being able to read any engineering or technical manuals on the weapon or see any conclusive data these are all just opinions obviously.  I’m curious if the suppressor screws in to the groomers inside the barrel and can be removed if need be.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 22, 2018)

If suppressed weapons are useful and necessary on this kind of scale, is it possible / does it makes ensues to develop internally-suppressed barrels so you get the same or close to the same effect without adding a completely separate part?


----------



## NikNifSik (Mar 24, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> If suppressed weapons are useful and necessary on this kind of scale, is it possible / does it makes ensues to develop internally-suppressed barrels so you get the same or close to the same effect without adding a completely separate part?


If I had to guess the main reason we don't utilize suppressor-fixed weapons, it would be due to the wear-out life of each of them.  The barrel and partnering suppressor rarely have the same round expectancy, and without the capability to replace one you are limiting the other.  Also, the extra heat from the suppressor on the barrel as well as extra carbon build up could shorten barrel life further.  

In a perfect world, with unlimited budget I would love to have a set of our weapons with internally-suppressed barrels.  Unfortunately, we are not there yet.  I think as we keep tweaking our ammunition, and utilizing the cans we do have, we should be able to find a good balance.  Some of our better funded brothers have made some huge strides in this department already.


----------

