Question on the HK 416

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

In weapon weight sure they had it hard, but they carried less rounds and equipment back then too. Body armour didn't really come into play until Korea. Look at the guys of today compared to the guys of yesterday. Today the guys can't even run! They trot and jog. The guys of yester year ran, because they didn't have to carry much compared to what they force on troops of today. So bitch about a M249 being to heavy? God damn right I will. It's not like you just through on some duece gear with water, a chow, and your ammo, and grap your weapon. They load you down with a bunch of shit. When your foot mobile weight is your enemy.

I understand what you're saying but I do have some level of disagreement. Back then they didn't always carry less gear or ammo and I fully understand that once the military makes one thing lighter they give you more crap to carry so the weight ends up being the same.

When my father went to Vietnam to the time that I was in the Reserves, we carried about the same weight of gear despite the decade or so of time difference. I carried a pack, sleeping bag, 2 x Claymores, entrenching tool, the M60, 300-rds of ammo for it, four litres of water, 3 days worth of rations, a couple of smoke grenades, a steel helmet and a bunch of other crap I can't remember at the moment.

That was my unit, other units had different ideas of what the gunner should carry but believe me, nobody was running like a sprinter, it was a slow, tedious jog - the Army wants packhorses not racehorses and we were all foot mobile.

I'm not trying to get into a "who's got the bigger dick competition" with you but it seems that the weight of gear you're carrying was pretty much the same amount that I was carrying when I was in during the 1980s - they used to joke that if you could carry all the required gear and still run then you had obviously left something out of your kit. I understand the bitching about the overall weight carried but I still have little sympathy for bitching about the weight of a 5.56mmN compared to a 7.62mmN MG

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I understand the bitching about the overall weight carried but I still have little sympathy for bitching about the weight of a 5.56mmN compared to a 7.62mmN MG

The point of the 5.56 LMG was that the Soldier could carry twice or three times the ammunition.

Then they added other crap so your back to carrying the same round count but at one third the effectiveness.

[Legbreaker]

As an M60 gunner it wasn't uncommon for me (a tiny 65kgs/143lbs at the time) to carry around 40-45kgs/90-100lbs of gear. Most of that was combat load - my pack was usually fairly light.
And then one exercise they gave me the 77 set as well... (another dozen kgs)
All that and 40+ degree C heat to deal with too!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

As an M60 gunner it wasn't uncommon for me (a tiny 65kgs/143lbs at the time) to carry around 40-45kgs/90-100lbs of gear. Most of that was combat load - my pack was usually fairly light.
And then one exercise they gave me the 77 set as well... (another dozen kgs)
All that and 40+ degree C heat to deal with too!

That's insane. Why would the MG gunner end up with the radio too? Were they trying to break you? Stuff that. I hated carrying the 77 set when I was just carrying a rifleman's load.

[LAW0306]

read soliders load and mobility of a nation. We do carry more today in USMC I dont know about the rest we are up to 92 pounds in OEF and that is no pack just indvidual gear.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by LAW0306

read soliders load and mobility of a nation. We do carry more today in USMC I dont know about the rest we are up to 92 pounds in OEF and that is no pack just indvidual gear.

That book is indeed an excellent reference and it's a damned pity that most politicians aren't forced to read these sorts of books and officers should probably be tested on their practical knowledge of such things.

Interesting to see some practical info on the load increase over the years regards USMC too. 90 pounds is about 40kg I think. This is exactly the sort of area where the Aussie Army was (still is to a point) let down, we never had enough transport for anything and they always lumbered us PBI with "everything we'll ever need" (exactly why I carried 2 Claymores with the M60, my No2 was meant to carry them for defence of the gunpit but he couldn't pack his gear properly to save his life - just lucky I was 181cm tall with broad shoulders and big feet!)

From memory (and this was the 1980s mind you so my memory ain't so good anymore!) we would patrol with about 35-40kg of gear without the pack and yeah I see that that is a bit of an increase in the carried load over what my WW2 & Korean War predecessors carried but it isn't really too much of an increase.

They had less gear but it was heavier in general where as we've got lighter gear but have to carry more and more. From the following website it looks as though the average US Army rifleman in Europe during 1944-45 carried close to those sorts of loads, about 37kg (approx 82lbs) while a US Army BAR gunner had about 45kg (approx 98lbs). That's a nasty weight to carry for just 240 rounds on an automatic weapon!
http://www.45thdivision.org/Pictures...combatload.htm
Just goes to show, PBI really are the packhorses of the military!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

This is exactly the sort of area where the Aussie Army was (still is to a point) let down, we never had enough transport for anything and they always lumbered us PBI with "everything we'll ever need" (exactly why I carried 2 Claymores with the M60, my No2 was meant to carry them for defence of the gunpit but he couldn't pack his gear properly to save his life - just lucky I was 181cm tall with broad shoulders and big feet!)

Yes, this is the difference between Australian infantry and pretty much everyone else in the world. We have to carry EVERYTHING on our backs most of the time while most other nations get vehicles intergral to their organisation down to section/squad level. Now I could be wrong here, but I rather doubt those vehicle mounted/mobile troops will be throwing on their packs each and every time they get out to stretch their legs....

Back in my day the entire Australian Army had one, JUST one mechanised battalion - virtually everyone else walked unless they were lucky enough to hitch a ride with one of the APC squadrons, which was a very rare occurance. Integral battalion transport was barely enough to shift a company at a time by truck, and then only really possible by stripping the single truck assigned to each of the other companies for logistical support.

[Legbreaker]

4 man sections that time around instead of the usual 9.
The terrain wasn't very nice either - hills so steep that when the scout lost his footing he tumbled about a hundred feet down the slope swearing his head off all the way before being stopped by a mass of lantana (nettles).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The point of the 5.56 LMG was that the Soldier could carry twice or three times the ammunition.

Then they added other crap so your back to carrying the same round count but at one third the effectiveness.

Edit Note: My apologies, I misunderstood ArmySGT's post and I thought I was replying to something that was actually said by waiting4something (I'm having a 'dumb' day today...)

Certainly and I do understand your point, (they lessen the weight of one thing then add other crap so the weight loss is negated) e.g. 300 rounds of 7.62mmN weighs about the same as 600 rounds of 5.56mm (actually about a kilo more I think but near enough is good enough in this example).

But overall... the weight distribution is different, with the Minimi/M249 loaded you have about 7kg in your arms, with the M60 loaded you have about 14kg

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

But overall... the weight distribution is different, with the Minimi/M249 loaded you have about 7kg in your arms, with the M60 loaded you have about 14kg

And unless you have the arms of a gorrilla, you won't be throwing the M60 around like a rifle as you can with the Minimi.

[headquarters]

Just talked about this with a colleague.

When he served in Afghanistand he was a squad leader - fully equipped for a footmobile op ( max 72 hrs) they started out with a total of 51 kg kit. Including plates, comms,some of the water needed and I think around 420 pc. 5.56 , 64 pc. 9x19mm, flares etc etc. If the skip it pack/ small pack was left in the vehicle it was " only" around 30 kgs.

In comparisson the 7,62N weighs around 35 kgs for a crate of 1000 rnds. If equipped with or former AG-3 rifles the ammo would have weighed around 16 kgs - bringing the total kit up to around 60 kgs.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I understand what you're saying but I do have some level of disagreement. Back then they didn't always carry less gear or ammo and I fully understand that once the military makes one thing lighter they give you more crap to carry so the weight ends up being the same.

When my father went to Vietnam to the time that I was in the Reserves, we carried about the same weight of gear despite the decade or so of time difference. I carried a pack, sleeping bag, 2 x Claymores, entrenching tool, the M60, 300-rds of ammo for it, four litres of water, 3 days worth of rations, a couple of smoke grenades, a steel helmet and a bunch of other crap I can't remember at the moment.

That was my unit, other units had different ideas of what the gunner should carry but believe me, nobody was running like a sprinter, it was a slow, tedious jog - the Army wants packhorses not racehorses and we were all foot mobile.

I'm not trying to get into a "who's got the bigger dick competition" with you but it seems that the weight of gear you're carrying was pretty much the same amount that I was carrying when I was in during the 1980s - they used to joke that if you could carry all the required gear and still run then you had obviously left something out of your kit. I understand the bitching about the overall weight carried but I still have little sympathy for bitching about the weight of a 5.56mmN compared to a 7.62mmN MG