LRRPF52 Wrote:One of the biggest things on small unit leader's minds is how much ammunition they have among the Team, Squad, or Platoon. You may not have picked it up, but you can hear one Joe give his ACE report as only having 100rds...You're right, I did not catch that. Still didn't hear it on the second viewing. Must be very faint?
Quote:Having a larger caliber carbine or rifle would guarantee the following:Yet the Marines maneuvered and fought in Vietnam using M14 rifles and 20-rd mags.
1) Less ammo capacity per space/weight
2) Less maneuverability
3) Less capacity/willingness to pursue the fight according to logistics limitations
Handicapped
And before that, riflemen somehow managed to maneuver and fight in WWII with the M1 Garand and basic load of 10x8-rd clips.
Perhaps it's more a matter of adapting to the weapon and ammo, than to a real need for a specific caliber?
Quote:You can also see how having a different caliber for all the riflemen would be quite meaningless...No, I don't see that. What do you mean?
Quote:...your Joes with carbines need to press the fight as these guys were. This is why I like the 8x30rd magazines bare minimum basic load for Infantry, although I personally carried more without issue.Well, I'm pretty sure nobody here advocates a return to 7.62x51, but shouldn't 8-10x25-rd mags of an intermediate cartridge ought to be tolerable?
To match that load with 7.62, you would need 12x20rd mags, which is not feasible with many genotypes other than 6ft+ Northern Germanic descendents of Vikings, Slavs, Pacific Islanders, and other large-statured, high muscle-density men with a warrior spirit.