Ammo load

[qazwsx]

As far as you know, how much ammo do machine gunners and machine gun teams of other countries carry? I know this can vary a lot but there must be standard loads recommended by doctrine and usual loads that would be typical.



NB: I am not asking about what the Canadian military standard load is. This seems to get your thread put into limbo until someone deigns to take a look at it.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

As far as you know, how much ammo do machine gunners and machine gun teams of other countries carry? I know this can vary a lot but there must be standard loads recommended by doctrine and usual loads that would be typical.



NB: I am not asking about what the Canadian military standard load is. This seems to get your thread put into limbo until someone deigns to take a look at it.

How about you go to their forums and ask?

 

[qazwsx]

I thought of that, but I figured I'd get an answer like:"I'm locking this until one of the more all-knowing Mods has a look at the question." which is what happened when I asked the same question about the Canadian military.



So, if I ask about country X on a forum dedicated to country X, that information is not to be disclosed about military X. If I ask about non-X militaries on a forum dedicated to military X, I get told to go to non-X forums, where they won't want to disclose that information about their own military. Ever read/watched Catch 22?

 

[Michael OLeary]

So does that mean you're asking what Canadians carry on those other forums?

Why do you want to know?

 

[1feral1]

As far as you know, how much ammo do machine gunners and machine gun teams of other countries carry? I know this can vary a lot but there must be standard loads recommended by doctrine and usual loads that would be typical.

I am NOT pissing on anyone's parade here, but quite frankly, IMHO, I really don't think this should be discussed on an open PUBLIC forum.

We know how much we carry, or how much we are capable of carrying. On my tour in Iraq, as an Australian, we had more than enough to get the job done confidently, efficiently, and effectively

Cheers,

OWDU

 

[1feral1]

Here's us 'bombing up' in Kuwait, the evening before our push into Baghdad  ;D

OWDU

 

[qazwsx]

So does that mean you're asking what Canadians carry on those other forums?

Why do you want to know?

I haven't asked on other forums. This seems like a pretty informative place and people from other countries don't really care or know much about Canada anyway : )

I want to know because I have an idea for lighter rounds. I already know that a 5.56 NATO round usually weighs 180 to 200 grains and that a 7.62 NATO is usually 380 to 400 grains. I have an estimate of the weight saving per round but to know the overall weight saving, I'd need to know how many rounds machine gunners typically carry.

I figured information like that wouldn't be extremely sensitive since MGs are unsophisticated small arms and that even the ammo capacity of tanks is freely available.

 

[1feral1]

....and people from other countries don't really care or know much about Canada anyway : )

I think that is a foolish thing to say. Canada is at war, and our enemies do read this site.

Regards,

OWDU

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Here's us 'bombing up' in Kuwait, the evening before our push into Baghdad  ;D

OWDU

you taking pics and the rest bombing up ....


tsk tsk tsk


;D

 

[1feral1]

you taking pics and the rest bombing up ....


tsk tsk tsk


;D

:nod:, for the war records, ha!

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Michael OLeary]

I want to know because I have an idea for lighter rounds. I already know that a 5.56 NATO round usually weighs 180 to 200 grains and that a 7.62 NATO is usually 380 to 400 grains. I have an estimate of the weight saving per round but to know the overall weight saving, I'd need to know how many rounds machine gunners typically carry.

Why don't you just work on calculating savings per 200 round belt?

Keep in mind that lightening the bullet will have a variety of ballistic effects leading to changing the effectiveness of the round on the target.  Just using a lighter material may create more problems than it solves.  You might want to investigate the various trials of caseless ammunition, where experiments to decrease the soldier's load by reducing casing material and weight was considered preferable over reducing the weight of the bullet.

 

[qazwsx]

I think that is a foolish thing to say. Canada is at war, and our enemies do read this site.

Regards,

OWDU

I meant that even if I were to ask about Canada on other forums, the people on other forums won't know what Canadian MGers carry because they don't care. The only non-Canadians who might know that are, as you point out, its enemies. But I don't think Canada's enemies would answer anyway.

 

[1feral1]

I But I don't think Canada's enemies would answer anyway.

Answer?

Sorry, but its about blabbing information which is unnecessary. Like Mike said, figure things out per 200rd belt on whatever calibre, you do the math, ammo weight vs average mans weight, plus weight normal kit carried (rats, frags, h20 etc).

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Perhaps you could tell us, in general terms (so you don't blow your patent application)  ,what your idea is for making rounds lighter.  There are many really knowledgeable people here on the subject of small arms- they might be able to tell you if your idea is a good one without getting into the whole cans of worms about what an average soldier's loadout is.

 

[qazwsx]

Michael,

Calculating the weight per belt without knowing the number of belts carried wouldn't tell me the expected weight saving (or supplemental ammo carrying capacity) that could gained per man/MG team.

"Keep in mind that lightening the bullet will have a variety of ballistic effects leading to changing the effectiveness of the round on the target."

I'm thinking of something more radical than changing the material although that's involved too. As you point out, reducing the sectional density of the projectile isn't the way to go to lighten the round.

I'm thinking of a design that would reduce the weight of the bullet while maintaining its diameter and frontal density. This would produce a lighter projectile but would preserve its range and penetration.

Caselessness seems like a requirement for any round that seeks to significantly reduce weight. The only problem I know of with caseless ammo is overheating as one of the fonctions of the case is to absorb heat and extract it from the gun. Without a case, you have to figure out a way to reduce heat if you fire a lot, which is certainly the case for MGs. I have an idea for that as well.

I started by rethinkting the bullet. With the result I got I rethought the round. With that result I rethought the gun and now I'm at the point where I am trying to see how that would fit with the MGer and the MG team.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It has been a long time since I took my ballistics course at the Artillery School, but I seem to recall that if you lengthen or shorten the projectile, you will affect the ballistics.  No?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Calculating the weight per belt without knowing the number of belts carried wouldn't tell me the expected weight saving (or supplemental ammo carrying capacity) that could gained per man/MG team.

It's not like you can't move forward without that final calculation.

Start with an assumption:

"Assuming a machine gunner carries 2 x 200-round belts of ammunition, and his No. 2 carries 4 x 200-round belts, the weight saving between them would be would be . . . ."

It's all theoretical until someone actually straps on the ammo.

 

[Michael OLeary]

It has been a long time since I took my ballistics course at the Artillery School, but I seem to recall that if you lengthen or shorten the projectile, you will affect the ballistics.  No?

Similarly, changing the mass but not the cross-sectional area leaves you with a different projectile and ballistic result.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yeah, that's what I thought I remembered.  Mucking with the projectile is very tricky work and is likely to have unexpected results...

 

[qazwsx]

It has been a long time since I took my ballistics course at the Artillery School, but I seem to recall that if you lengthen or shorten the projectile, you will affect the ballistics.  No?

Yes. I am thinking of a design that would lighten the bullet, maintain its diameter, its length and its frontal density*. If you're having trouble wrapping your head around that description, I'm sorry not to be able to give you more details as I have the patent-stealing fears you clearly saw.




* I use "frontal density" rather than "sectional density" because the latter concept is not applicable to my design. Suffice is to say that as much weight would be behind every square milimeter of frontal surface area as is behind a conventional bullet so that you don't end up with a projectile that quickly bleeds off velocity.