Two 4 man USMC fireteams...
#1 is what you'd find today.  #2 is circa 1965-66.


#1:  (2) M16A2s (1) M203 (1) M249 SAW

#2:  (4) M14s   (1) M79 with one of the M14s {just to make it fair}


Which fireteam is more able to compete on the modern battlefield?
Why?

Overall the modern fireteam is more versatile.  If we narrow the situation to one where long-range fire is of the greatest importance, the M-14 team will have some advantage.

That SAW and the M203, are pretty lethal.

Originally, there was only (1) M79 in a squad.

Quoted: Overall the modern fireteam is more versatile.  If we narrow the situation to one where long-range fire is of the greatest importance, the M-14 team will have some advantage.

This is a good point.  Also, the squad gun greatly increases the firepower of the modern fire team.  The M14's equipped men would have a harder time laying down suppressive fire w/semi-auto rifles assuming their selectors are fixed like most were.  

One question, back in Vietnam did the M79 guys also carry rifles?  If not, then the M16/M203/M249 team has quite a bit more firepower.

Some did, but SOP said no.

The M79 normally won't be found at the fireteam level.

That SAW has a 200 round box, and one hell of a cyclic rate.

I think the M14 FT would be toast.

Keep in mind, the "range" of these weapons is dependant on the shooter.

Most shooters aren't as skilled as their weapons.

I voted for the M16's and M249, assuming this is a modern battlefield where mobility is key.  The withering rate of fire on an M249 alone outweighs four M14's.

However, for fighting in fixed positions such as bunkers or where body armor / light armored vehicles are involved, I would want the whallop of the .308.

I was going with the assumption that Marine Corps dogma about "every Marine is a rifleman" and, thus, is completely able to exploit the advantages of his weapon, is true.  That being the case (which I fully realize it is not, in the real world), the M-14 team would have some advantage in a long range encounter.  Not an overwhelming or insurmountable one, but an advantage none the less.
In virtually any situation, I would expect the M-16 fireteam to prevail, even the long range encounter.  Their SAW and their M203 are going to provide a volume of fire, together with their M-16's, that will limit the ability of the M-14 team to effectively respond.

In 1965/1966 I was a member of the second battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment in VietNam. We had M14's and M79 'bloopers' at the squad level. Occasionally an M60 was also assigned. There were 3 fire teams per squad of 4 men each each plus a squad leader. Rarely were the squads up to full strength due to casualties, R&R, etc. However, each fire team had 1 M14 with full auto capability and the rest of the fire team were armed with semi auto only M14's. The range of the M14 was a plus but the limitations of VietNam rarely allowed the long range capability to be utilized. However, I know of no Marine casualty that was found next to a field stripped M14 with a cleaning rod down the barrel. I like AR's and shoot them a lot but would believe the M14 fireteam to be better equipped than the M16 fireteam. SemperFi. JarheadGunner.

Quoted: #1:  (2) M16A2s (1) M203 (1) M249 SAW

I voted for the M16A2 team as well. But just out of curiosity, on a 4 man fire team, 1 one them isn't armed with only an M203 as indicated, is he? Wouldn't it be attached to an M16A2, bring the total to 3 for the team and giving them an even greater advantage?

M203 is always on an M16.

I think the SAW trumps the auto M14E2, any day.
(the M16 and ammo of the 60's is not the M16A2 and ammo of THIS century)

From a squad perspective, even more so.

Think about it.

#1 squad would have 13(+) men:
(7) with M16A2s
(3) with M249 SAWs
(3) with M203/M16A2s
(+) attached M240

#2 squad would have 13(+) men:
(9) with Semi-M14s
(3) with auto-M14s
(1) with M79 {also an M14?}
(+) attached M-60E


No contest, IMHO.

It depends on what sort of boots they're wearing.

What was the TOE of a fireteam in the WWII days of Garands and BARs?

There are 3 fire teams in the squad.  The bulk of the fire power is the SAWs, and they have a greater practicle range than the M14s, so you have more fire power and more range.

It seems like common sense to me.

during my short 03 career it wasnt uncommon to have 2 240G's attached to each squad. thats a whole lot of lead going down range.

DvlDog is right i never seen two M240G's with a rifle sqaud.
I never seen two M240G's with one Platoon.
Weapons platoons set up their M240g's in support of the line platoons they dont normaly attach them to a sqaud or a platoon.Unless that particular M240 is covering that particular platoons movement.
Mortars and Machine gun sections setup on their own Antitank assault is normaly attached to a line platoon.
As far as your assesment of a rifle sqaud in circa 1965-66 theres another problem.
My uncle who was with the 101st in those years said they switched the M14 with the bipod out with the M60 as the Sqaud Automatic Weapon so you had 3 M60's per sqaud and the Weapons platoon had them too,in support of line platoons.
And lets face facts the Rifle sqaud of 1965 was developed for the battlefields of Europe in the event of a Soviet invasion.
The Rifle sqaud of today has such an overwhelming array of mission profiles its pathetic.
As to who is better?I think if they were both trained to the same degree,and in a open field of battle and had the same amount of logistical support I think the 1965 sqaud would win.If in a closed in area with alot of Mout type enviroment today rifle sqaud would have an advantage.

The 3 fire teams in a squad is the Marine Corps' TO/E, the army uses the 2 fire teams per squad.  The Marine Corps originally adopted the structure prior to world war II, and has gone back and with it even going at one point to 1, 2 and 4 teams in a squad.

Crew Served Machineguns are most effective when employed in pairs.
The guns can then "talk".