http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/05/ironman-ammo-pack/

Backpack ammo feed for belt fed weapons?!

It was originally jury-rigged from an ALICE frame, an ammo box and an ammo feed chute (the only expensive part of the three). Roll 12 on an extended Armorer roll and you're set.

Swet jesus, carrying all that has got to weigh a TON ... O_o

First off, that's why there's basic training (boot camp). Secondly, that's why it's in a super-ergonomic framed backpack. And thirdly, that's why they go through basic training (boot camp).

Shoot, just go work out with the Marine Corps recruits sometime - all you need to do is sign a waiver and you can partake in the exact same 2 hours of grueling punishment as everyone else.

I love ALICE and take her with me whenever I go out to the desert, and she has many positive qualities, but being ergonomic is not one of them.

Prototype was 43 pounds fully loaded.

The new ones being made by the actual Army engineering folks are supposedly even lighter.

Granted, this means the machine gunner won't be carrying as much other gear, but with the current doctrine of shorter missions, closer to home base, this shouldn't be a problem.



-k

So it basically weighs in about as much as the Platoon Radioman is carrying with his radio, batteries and Crypto Gear. Probably a bit unweildy, though. How many rounds does it hold? ANd for which weapons? M60 MG or M249 SAW?

I went through that, actually. Army, not Marines, but there it is nonetheless. And I still say: that's got to weigh a freakin' TON. And doesn't include the gunner's actual pack.

Still, for the right circumstances, that's got to be a damned fine improvement logistically, for the guy already tasked with humping an MG around.






The picture looks like the SAW. And, the article says it holds 500 rounds - basically, one ammo can of belted ammo.

Finally managed to read the link, and actually, that looks like an M-60. Now, if it is a SAW (Does not look like it) 500 Rounds of SAW ammo is not too heavy (M-60 ammo, on the other hand is significantly more heavy). Honestly, though, each drum of 200 rounds (SAW) is probably more convenient than that monstrosity on his back. And he is not carrying anything else. As a Marine, I would not want to carry that thing around, along with the combat load of other equipment I carried.

When I carried a SAW, I carried a drum in place, and 1 Additional Drum. I spread the other 4 drums around my team. Each team carried 1200 Rounds for the SAW). Add to that that everyone was carrying rounds for the mortar teams and M-60 Teams (3 Mortar Rounds and 100 MG rounds each) as well as Rockets (1-3 M-72 LAAW, a few carried AT4's), and you had a pretty hefty combat load. This did not include your ALICE gear, flak vest, helmewt, water, additional batteries for your Radioman, rations, etc. Now, once the shooting started, you usually dropped your mortar and MG rounds, with the teams as you deployed, so that resulted in less bulk, but not significantly so, in the long run.

Throwing 43 pounds of pack, feed equipment and rounds into the mix is often excessive, since the SAW gunner is already carrying so much equipment. Now, if the unit is motorized, that may mitigate some of the issues, but not all units get the luxury of motorized transport.

http://www.ng.mil/news/archives/2011/12/120211-Iowa.aspx

http://www.army.mil/article/67318/_Ironman...on_battlefield/

Holds 500 rounds for the Mk 48 7.62mm machine gun.

Apparently the backpack the ammo container sits in also has some space for other gear.

Clearly, one should never underestimate the creativity of the motivated field armorer.



-k

My understanding is that it is intended for just base defense, not patrols or recon.

Could be true, but the second article I linked indicates the idea came about during discussions on how it was sometimes difficult for fire teams to stay together during running firefights over difficult terrain. Which is more of a patrol problem, not a static defense problem.

Also:

"The ammunition sacks that came with it made it too cumbersome and heavy to carry over long, dismounted patrols and especially when climbing mountains. Initially, we came up with using 50-round belts and just reloading constantly, which led to lulls of fire and inefficiency."



-k

On the weight issue, tho in the HULC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Universal_Load_Carrier

I still prefer the old Universal Carrier.

Those babies could catch air at full speed!

There's also the Cyberdyne Systems HAL Exo-Skeleton.
Anybody else thinking of Jin-Rho's Wolf-Brigade Ammo-Tornisters?

Mk48? I thought it was made for M240, which uses the same ammo.

So much potential wasted. They could have called it the Human Universal Load Karrier.

If 20 kilos + standard field kit are not a problem, then why not just load up with 20 kg worth of 100 rd belts? Granted, a fixed carrying frame frame makes it a bit easier to haul, but I seriously doubt the extra weight : benefit ratio...

Because you're carrying all those 100 round belts in separate bandoliers. Link

This guy has a few good images if you scroll about halfway down his page. Full page link.