10-04-2017, 06:45 PM
stanc Wrote:My understanding is that the M27 replaced the M249 in the rifle squad.
So you have confirmation the M249's are being turned in? Not kept in inventory? :-)
That may be the case... don't claim to be an expert on things USMC. Just Army perception is this is a supplement, not replace.
Quote::confused: The issue is not with the 7.62x39 RPK, but the 7.62x54 PKM, which at least equals the range of the 7.62x51 M240B, and outranges the 5.56x45 M249 and M4.
Correct, PKM, rather. Which on paper, may be ballistically slightly faster than the 7.62x51, but in the real world are effectively equal. Except the PKM has sights to 1500m and on paper an effective range of 3800m, yet the 240B effective range (by us) is 1100M. So what's the difference?
Our forces train and operate side by side with allies using the PKM. Every bit of input from folks who have done so is that they are effectively equal, and if anything the 240B is a bit more accurate at the same range.
So you want to compare a crew served against a squad weapon???
The PKM issues you hear about are not from them being carried as squad or platoon weapon... it's insurgents who can setup at a known distance at extreme ranges, and do harassing plunging fire (defilade/indirect), typically from very high sites. And they do train at that, as they do not have the other options that we do to deal with that type of situation.
Some of this is doctrine as well. An Army IN platoon has tools available to them to deal with that situation. Most of the well known "we can't deal with PKM's" situations were (in retrospect) poor tactical decisions associated with FOB siting and/or peeling of what should have been company assets. (Mortars, etc). It was not that a normal Army Platoon/Company does not have multiple methods to deal with that threat. It was local decisions in nearly all cases. "Hey, let's put a platoon in a FOB at the bottom of a valley between two ridgelines that we don't control due to ROE"
Just saying- any perceived PKM risk as justification to increase solder payload or reduce ammo sustainability is not supported by the guys who would use it.
Quote:Adopting a new cartridge would not create a "logistical nightmare." Been done many times: .50-70 > .45-70 > .30-40 > .30-03 > .30-06 > 7.62x51 > 5.56x45.
They even handled the logistics of fielding a new cartridge (.30 Carbine) during the biggest war in history, so it's quite illogical to think it would be a nightmare now.
Not really going to debate this... if you really think there is appetite to do such a large change you are far more optimistic than most of us.
Clearly the Army can roll out new ammo types, has done so multiple times in recent memory. But it does not obsolete our emergency reserves, which a new cartridge would. Recognizing this would require simultaneous individual and squad weapon changes. That or introduce a third ammo type into logistics and remove the commonality between the carbines and SAW's.
There are bigger expenditures on less useful stuff. But this is a big enough change it really needs to be a transformative breakthru to justify doing. (Like M-14 to M-16 was)
Do I think having grendel (or similar) carbines and SAW's would be neat? For sure. Worth reducing ammo capacity for same weight by 16% (roughly)? Not so sure.
If we had better Joe training/performance at 300m now it'd be a better argument. If they can't hit at 300m, do we think they can at 500-600m?