Grendelizer asked;
That varies by unit. The manual will tell you that the basic load is 800 rounds per gun. But that is not enough to sustain them in a fight for very long. 800-1200 rounds of 7.62 is pretty much all the machine gun crew can carry by themselves. Most units will spread the additional 7.62 out through the other members of the platoon. The book will also tell you that 210 rounds should be the basic load for the M16/M4. In reality many units have carried up to 400 rounds per man, plus a couple of frag grenades, claymore mines, machine gun ammo, maybe a mortar round or two. The load pretty much boils down to ammunition, water and mission essential equipment. It's very easy to deploy carrying 90-120 pounds depending on your duty postition. The amount of ammunition carried will also vary by the unit's mission and how long they can expect before resupply.
I'm not certain what you're asking here. Are you asking if the weight would come down if you just had one caliber of ammunition?
You are correct, it would simplify logistics. But, has anyone adapted the M240 to shoot the 6.5? There is a lot that goes into making gas operated weapons function properly, especially machine guns. What modifications would you have to make to the M240 so it functions with 6.5? Do you know? Does anyone? Seemingly simple things like links for a disintegrating link belt can be complicated. Is the 6.5 the equal of 7.62? What compromises would you have to make to the tracer round to get enough tracer compound in it to get a 6-800 meter tracer burn out? Do you know? Does anyone?
What is 6.5's ballistics when fired indirectly? I know I said volly rifle fire ceased to be a viable tactic in 1918, however we still employ machine guns in the indirect fire mode at times.
How about mass production? One of the problems they had fielding the M16 was that none of the commercial manufacturers was able to produce M193 5.56 ammo in consistant lots using IMR 4475 powder. The technology at the time wouldn't permit the powder to be consistant enough lot to lot and then they switched to ball powder and look at the problems that caused.
So, do you think it's still an economical switch once you start looking at all the potential costs of going down that road?
TX65 said;
Ah the mysterious SGT Smith even follows me around online . Seriously, I must have had a double most of my time in the Army. The number of times I had people approach me in places like the PX or NCO Club and mistake me for SGT Smith were too numerous to be a coincidence.
Jeff
Do a search for the Reimer DIgital Library. Almost all of the Army Field Manuals are there. Most of them are unrestricted and anyone can view and download them.(By the way, how can a civilian like myself access that info?)
How many rounds of 7.62 does the rifle platoon carry for those two M240s?
That varies by unit. The manual will tell you that the basic load is 800 rounds per gun. But that is not enough to sustain them in a fight for very long. 800-1200 rounds of 7.62 is pretty much all the machine gun crew can carry by themselves. Most units will spread the additional 7.62 out through the other members of the platoon. The book will also tell you that 210 rounds should be the basic load for the M16/M4. In reality many units have carried up to 400 rounds per man, plus a couple of frag grenades, claymore mines, machine gun ammo, maybe a mortar round or two. The load pretty much boils down to ammunition, water and mission essential equipment. It's very easy to deploy carrying 90-120 pounds depending on your duty postition. The amount of ammunition carried will also vary by the unit's mission and how long they can expect before resupply.
Anyway, if all the 7.62 in a platoon is replaced with 6.5 Grendel, how does that affect the total weight of the platoon's ammo load, even if weight would be increased over the 5.56? Does it balance out?
I'm not certain what you're asking here. Are you asking if the weight would come down if you just had one caliber of ammunition?
Wouldn't replacing both 5.56 and 7.62 actually simplify logistics, once a changeover is fully implemented? Yes, it would. And that simplification would also save money that could then be spent on other projects, such as the XM8. Ha! Just kidding! I know how you feel about the XM8! ;-)
You are correct, it would simplify logistics. But, has anyone adapted the M240 to shoot the 6.5? There is a lot that goes into making gas operated weapons function properly, especially machine guns. What modifications would you have to make to the M240 so it functions with 6.5? Do you know? Does anyone? Seemingly simple things like links for a disintegrating link belt can be complicated. Is the 6.5 the equal of 7.62? What compromises would you have to make to the tracer round to get enough tracer compound in it to get a 6-800 meter tracer burn out? Do you know? Does anyone?
What is 6.5's ballistics when fired indirectly? I know I said volly rifle fire ceased to be a viable tactic in 1918, however we still employ machine guns in the indirect fire mode at times.
How about mass production? One of the problems they had fielding the M16 was that none of the commercial manufacturers was able to produce M193 5.56 ammo in consistant lots using IMR 4475 powder. The technology at the time wouldn't permit the powder to be consistant enough lot to lot and then they switched to ball powder and look at the problems that caused.
So, do you think it's still an economical switch once you start looking at all the potential costs of going down that road?
TX65 said;
Of course, as Jeff Smith has said
Ah the mysterious SGT Smith even follows me around online . Seriously, I must have had a double most of my time in the Army. The number of times I had people approach me in places like the PX or NCO Club and mistake me for SGT Smith were too numerous to be a coincidence.
Jeff