Comments by "The Immortal" (@theimmortal4718) on "Task & Purpose"
channel.
-
1000
-
1000
-
228
-
210
-
125
-
115
-
105
-
92
-
87
-
54
-
54
-
44
-
42
-
39
-
39
-
33
-
30
-
29
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
We use the Carl Gustaf for this. Can fire HE, HEDP, airburst, rocket assisted rounds, HEAT, smoke, illumination, and incendiary. Way more flexible.
We have 2 per platoon.
We can kill everything from drones, troops, armored vehicles, and bunkers with it. It's the ultimate Swiss army knife, and the newly issued one is 15 pounds empty. That's half the weight of this weapon
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I didn't carry an extra ounce I didn't have to in combat.
Armor and helmet is 28 pounds, water 10 pounds, radio, headset and extra battery another 5, rifle and ammo 16, 203 and 12 bombs another 10, not to mention good, maintenance gear, medical, along with 60mm mortars and belts of ammo for the SAW and 240 or an AT4.
Yeah, that sh*t is heavy. Around 100 pounds or so.
If an M250 becomes organic to each squad, it would be way too heavy to support with ammo. I believe it would end up being the sole MG for the squad and everybody carrying belts for that. Same with the carbine- maybe one per fire team, as other guys would be carrying AT weapons/rounds, grenade launchers, or a stinger for drone defense. The ammo is just too heavy for universal issuance, but I could see it replacing 7.62 in the role it's already used.
The lighter machine gun will be welcome, but the carbine would at best replace the M110A1.
10
-
DGK201
No, I'm not mistaken.
The SIG round is 6.8x51mm, much different that the 6.8 SPC II which is 6.8x43mm.
According to SIG, the 6.8x51mm round fires a 125 grain bullet at 3000 fps and has a total cartridge weight of 24 grams.
The current issued 7.62x51mm round, the M80A1, fires a 130 grain bullet at 3000 fps, and has a total cartridge weight of 24 grams.
The only difference is that SIG claims they get their velocity from a 4" shorter barrel. They increased the chamber pressure from 60,000 psi to an extremely dangerous 75,000 psi. That's like have a potential bomb in the gun, shearing locking lugs, cam pins, and extractors.
As far as bullet construction, I seriously doubt it will be anything revolutionary. It will most likely be an EPR projectile like the M80A1, with a steel penetrator.
I fail to see how the same sized bullet, going the same speed will perform massively different, especially at 600 meters! Lol
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@saltyfloridaman7163
You don't understand combat, and it shows.
You mean the Chinese soldiers who don't wear body armor and fire 5.8x42mm weapons (comparable to 5.56)? Those Chinese troops? We already outrange them.
Wait- aren't you the guy who claimed 338 is just as powerful as 50 BMG, even though that's nowhere near the truth?
The generals who are pushing this program, including Gen Milley, are idiots and just gage up Afghanistan wholesale. They had no clue what was happening on the ground, bullgeadedly didn't listen to troops in daily contact with the ANA, and assisted the corruption there for 20 years. These guys have made careers getting every single thing wrong. Everytime. And ground troops are supposed to listen to people who've never fought there about what we should be doing better? The only times American troops were in disadvantaged positions were directly the result of idiots not understanding the fight. We had every weapon we could ever possibly need, but if you're placed in the tactically worst situations possible ( KOP Keating), none of it matters.
I can guarantee that, in 20 years of fighting, it's doubtful I was ever fired on by someone with a zeroed weapon. Anything over 100 was area fire for them. I was in Iraq 3 times ('03, '05, and 07/08), Afghanistan 2 times ('11 and 2013), and I was in Syria last year.
The mess we are in isn't due to improper weapons and ammo. You don't honestly think that success the next war will be hinged on what ammo we use, to you?
That these would have helped at all to accomplish our mission? I certainly don't.
Our government has terminal cancer, and bee weapons programs aren't going to cure it. We'd just be leaving these guns behind in whatever warzone our generals fail in next.
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
rockn roll
Incorrect, again.
7.62x39 is in the same class as 6.8x43 SPC, 7.62x35 (300 BLK), 6.5x39 Grendel, 5.56x45 and 5.45x39, which are all assault rifle cartridges. They fit in AR15 or AK sized magazines. They all have muzzle energies from 1200 ft lbs to 1800 ft lbs.
6.8x51is a full powered cartridge, like 7.62x51, 7.62x54r, 30-06, 6.5x55, etc. They fit in actions such as the AR10, Dragunov, FAL, M14 and M1 Garand. They have muzzle energies of 2500 ft lbs to 2800 ft lbs.
7.62x39 and 6.5Creedmoor are in completely different cartridge classes and will not fit in the same type of gun. A battle rifle fires a full powered cartridge, and an assault rifle shoots a smaller, shorter "kurtz" round.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@m1garandMUSIC
Yeah I get what the intent is, but I doubt it works out well. Even 40x53mm isn't great on even lightly armored vehicles. The hole made by them is tiny and doesn't have much effect if it gets through. The only reason a grenade machine gun would be a threat to light armor is that you can shoot it 20 or 30 times.
Grenades also have a huge amount of wind drift and spin drift. They fly off course easily.
They don't fly to the target nearly as well as you'd think. Even a bushmaster 25mm has pretty bad drift at 1000 meters, and it's pushing 3X the muzzle velocity of these grenades.
The US abandoned this concept for several reasons. Inaccuracy, lack of sufficient effect on target, excessive weapon weight, and expense were the main ones.
We have put our efforts into the M3E1 Carl Gustaf for this role, instead. The weapon weighs 1/3 as much, has the aid of computerized sights including a laser range finder, has more economically sound ammo, is more accurate, better range, and hits way harder.
It's also more flexible and every light infantry platoon has two in the weapons squad. The Goose can fire HE, HEDP, Airburst, incendiary, HEAT, tandem HEAT, flechette, rocket assisted, smoke, illumination, and even laser guided missiles. Rounds range from 7 to 10 pounds, with effective ranges from 500 meters out to 2500 meters.
The Chinese have nothing like it.
The HE 448 round is a real monster. You can wipe out a whole squad in the open or in defilade at a km with an airburst. Other rounds can knock out drones, troops, armor (including tanks), and bunkers. Before long, SAAB will also have a loitering munition round with a 10 km range. It's amazing.
This Chinese weapon has little utility and doesn't seem worth the weight for what it offers.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@quellenathanar
Yes, it is more powerful. We've had a round very similar in power for decades. There's several reasons we don't field it to every infantryman.
Overall, if you bring an assault rifle to a battle space where most contacts are past 500 meters, you will struggle to hit.
If you bring a battle rifle to a battle space where most contacts are under 300, you will lose firepower superiority, run out of ammo, and get rolled up quickly. We know this already.
We also know one hard rule learned in blood- carry too much weight, and you're combat ineffective. The most a soldier can effectively carry on the approach march is 50% of his body weight, and 25% in a fight.
A 200 pound man can only effectively fight with 50 pounds of gear.
If a soldier carries 25 pounds of armor, 12 pounds of water, and a 13 pound weapon, he's already at 50 pounds.
6.8x51mm ammo (21.5 grams) is nearly twice the weight of 5.56x45mm ammo (12 grams). A simple load of 300 rounds in 5.56 is 10 pounds. It's nearly 20 pounds in 6.8.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The most important components of modern combat vehicles in modern war are its optics and targeting systems. The vehicle that can detect, target, and hit a threat first wins. Protection is secondary, as it is defensive.
Better thermals and day optics, stabilization, more precise range finding, and more accurate weapon trump's anything else.
A low profile, quieter and cooler engine signature, better camouflage, lower ground pressure, and speed to quickly displace are more important than thick armor and APS.
By the time you rely on those, you've already failed most of your priorities. I'd much rather engage a threat vehicle first with a devastating hit than get in a gunfight in a phone booth
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@josephdeliz3455
You are mistaken.
In the army, heavy weapons companies only exist in light infantry divisions.
It's not the same as in the corps.
Yes, I have been in the line most of my career, aside from being in a BN sniper section for 2 years. I was also a WSL in the 101st for 2 years. I've now been in fir nearly 20 years and am currently a company first sergeant.
We brought out javelins several times in my time in Iraq (3)and Afghanistan (2). In fact, we often used the CLU as a night observation device separate from the missile. My platoon fired 2 in 2003 and 1 in 2005.
I'm Afghanistan, I watched them being employed twice. All of these were while in line platoons with both 3-15 INF and 1-327
Not all line platoons in the army are the same. We have light, heavy, and Stryker platoons. Light platoons carry javelins only when armor is expected, but heavy carries one in the back of every Brad. Stryker platoons have 2 javelin teams in the TO&E of every weapons squad, though they also are usually stored in the Stryker.
My greater point is that just because a weapon might need to be crossloaded if the issued soldier goes down isn't any reason to negate it's usefulness.
If the SAW Gunner goes down, another soldier will grab it and his ammo.
If a 240 Gunner goes down, another soldier will do the same.
I feel it would be much more effective going forward for each squad (3 per platoon) to carry one M32 than 2 single shot 320's. The ability to reengage without breaking off the sight picture is much more effective than a 320 Gunner doing so after each shot. A dedicated Gunner also means he'll be firing grenades, like he should, rather than firing a rifle. In my experience, most grenadiers act like they forgot they have one until their team leaders screams at him that he needs HE somewhere.
Our biggest problem us that we don't train enough with our GL's. Due to regulations involving live fire ranges and impact areas, you can't fire GLs on the same ranges as the rest of your weapons. We can fire chalk rounds on squad lanes, as we did this current train up for our current deployment. Unfortunately, the GL is seriously underestimated and neglected, treated as an afterthought. In fact, during a training cycle, it's difficult to get our gunners to a qual range more than twice.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BlargeMan
The SIG rifle has alot of steel inserts throughout to stand the increased pressure. Their rifles can possibly stand the pressure (thorough testing would be needed) but converting any existing weapon to this caliber would be unlikely.
The 6.8x51mm (commercially known as .277 Fury) uses a higher BC match bullet to gain much of it's touted ballistic performance. The military requires them to field an EPR projectile, with a lower BC.
Overall, the main difference between the 6.8 and the current 7.62 round is 100 fps additional muzzle velocity. Lethality on target would be nearly identical, and so would it's armored piercing capability. Any advantage the 6.8 would have over 7.62 wouldn't come into play until at least 600 meters.
Replacing 5.56, it's much worse. A soldier will either have 50% less ammo or twice as much weight to carry for an equivelant number of shots. Suppressive fire would be much more difficult, which is the foundation of fire and manuever..
Switching to this 6.8 would logistically be no different than going back to 7.62, since it weighs exactly the same as the current M80A1 round we currently field at 24 grams. Full powered rounds are great for our weapons squads and Designated Marksmen, but is a terrible idea for our assaulters. The Marines have a much better idea in fielding only 5 56 rifles for the squad. If we want to continue to field a belt fed SAW, I would prefer a KAC LAMG at 8.5 lbs, than a 12 pounds 6.8 with double the weight in ammo (it's more accurate, too).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Our military planners are fossilized dinosaurs planning on fighting in the 1990s.
Drones, drones, drones, drones, drones.
How do you get an extra 100 ships without spending a trillion dollars?
Unmanned ships.
Up to 80% of the tonnage of a ship, and it's cost, is to accommodate a crew.
Very soon, we will be operating task forces comprises of mostly unmanned ships that barely come about the water line, made mostly of composite materials, carrying a mix of antiarcraft missiles, long range anti ship missiles, and long range loitering munitions.
They will be nearly impossible to see unless you either have air assets above them or subs below them.
Aircraft carriers will only carry a couple dozen F35 s, a half dozen helicopters, and several dozen types of high endurance armed or refueler UAVs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lalmuanpuiijahau7531
Yes, of course, IEDs are included.Those are mines.
90% of all casualties are due to explosives. Grenades, mortars, rockets, artillery, missiles, bombs, mines, etc.
This idea that we need to ditch the assault rifle and issue battle rifles comes from the tendency to fight the last war. Afghanistan.
As you said, we can't rule out being in a battlespace where fights are occuring in a matter of feet, not hundred of yards, as in urban and jungle environments.
Guys just will not be laying down in a good supported prone position laying sniper fire at enemy positions 800 meters away.
Yes, we have different firearms for different uses. Just in the rifle platoon, we have carbines, grenade launchers, AT4s, SAWs, GPMGs, and DMRs. Replacing the SAW with a GPMG and the carbine with a DMR isn't good use of resources. All of those classifications are designed for a niche, and when you try to press one into the other's role, you're going to have problems.
2
-
2
-
@WilliamOPearce
That's not even close to the truth. The fact is, the US Army and Marines have been steadily upgrading the entire time. We're using everything people would consider high tech, from scout drones, loitering munitions, top attack antitank missiles, the most heavily armored IFVs in use, AI net centric communications and sensor packages, long range Himars, etc.
Ukraine isn't the US vs Russia.
It's the third most powerful military in the world being stalled by a weak nation with NATO weapons deliveries. The fact that Ukraine has lasted this long against Russia is amazing. It's the equivalent of Steve Erkul lasting 10 rounds in the ring with Mike Tyson. The fact they've gone from having Russians attacking all over their country, to containing them, to striking deep into Russia is quite a development.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The 30mm turret is absolutely necessary, whether it be on a tracked or wheeled IFV.
Not only can they punch holes in much larger vehicles at 1600-2000 meters, it has HE that hits like a grenade launcher for soft skin vehicles, fortifications, and dismounted troops in the area. It's the best weapon for killing or suppressing anti tank teams.
This allows the vehicle to either transport a full rear compartment full of troops, with a little bit of firepower, or just carry a couple of troops with the crew, and a lot of extra ammo.
I do think that the Protector MCT is the most though out remote operates 30mm turret out there right now. It's the one being installed on the Stryker Dragoon. Remotely operated. Easy to reload from in the hull, fantastic optics and sensors, expandable, has room for spike or javelin ATGMs, and network capable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brandonlevy8680
None of that is true.
An M3E1 Gutaf weighs 15 pounds unloaded, with no sight.
This weighs 28 pounds, unloaded with no sight.
In other words, the Gutaf with 2 rounds weighs the same as this unloaded.
A squad can have as many 84mm rounds as they're willing to carry.
Gustafs can fire HE, HEAT, HEDP, airburst programmable HEDP, tandem HEAT, smoke, illumination, flechette rounds, and a laser guided HEAT missile with a 2500 meter range.
Rounds can be rocket assisted and come in CS confined space rounds that can be fired from within a room.
The Gustaf can also have a computerized FC that can predict flight path to each round, sending environmental and even the temperature of the round in the breech.
A Gutaf can easily destroy a whole squad in the open with an airburst 448 round at 1500 meters. Only one shot needed peppers everything within 25 meters with 4000 fragments. All from a round that weighs 6 pounds.
The Gutaf is superior in every way, and we have 2 per light infantry platoon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tilepusher
Honestly, the next service rifle is way down on our priorities, and I'm carrying one every day right now. im on my 6th deployment as an infantryman and I'm on my 20th year in the army.
Replacing our machineguns with more accurate, lighter ones should've our highest priority right now, along with getting the M3E1 Carl Gustav and M110 DMR down to every infantry squad.
For what we need it to do, the M4A1 with M855A1 ammo are about perfect for the role for which we use them
Bullet drop and BC do matter, because it increases hit probability. Soldiers do often enough shoot past 300 meters, and 5.56 has a flatter trajectory
The US military won't be going back to lead cored bullets. The EPR is the way forward from now on. They both penetrate deeper and have a lower fragmentation threshold than a conventional design. A M855A1 round will fragment past 400 meters from an m4, something that even the 77 grain M262 Mod 1 cannot do. They're accurate enough at around 2 MIA from our guns. That gives us a 50% hit probability at 600 meters.
Overall, if we had 12 man squads, with one team supporting a lightweight 7.62 machinegun and the other supporting a recoiless rifle, that would give us the most flexibility. Add a drone operator, with everyone carrying M4s and ammo for those 2 guns, and you have a very lightz responsive squad with both CQB and Long range fires.
I honestly don't think a caliber change us in order. A great mix of 7.62 and 5.56 weapons gives us the best of both worlds. That's what all other armies are doing as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tilepusher
Yeah, this is more about what our military needs as apposed to for civilian uses.
The xm-8 and xm25 were proposed military weapons.
For civilian fighting rifles, the 5.56 AR variants and the 7.62 AK variants are the most practical for the relatively close ranges and limited fire needed. Civilians aren't going to be getting into fights involving dozens of men using fire and manuever with mortar, machineguns, and CAS.
Honestly, for civilians , any round would be fine (6.8, 5.56, 6.5, 7.62, whatever) as they don't have to carry hundreds of rounds or move miles in a day with it. Shooting a home intruder with any of those rounds at living room distances would produce about the same results.
An AR15 carbine loaded with Speer Good dot 75 grain, Barnes Vor-tx 70 grain (optimized Brown tip), or 62 grain Federal trophy bonded bear claw ammo is about ideal for a fighting rifle/ammo combination for civilians. Keep a couple mags loaded and practice with plain Jane FMJs.
If I were to use an AK, I'd go with Hornady 7.62x39mm 123 grain SSTs. That seems to be a solid performer that expands well at fighting distances.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't forget that any replacement for 7.62 is going to have an EPR projectile. All copper with a steel penetrator. Lower BC, and lower bullet weight.
The 130 grain 7.62 EPR M80A1 us the same length as the 147 grain lead cored M80, with a MV of 3050 fps.
A 130 grain 6.5 Creedmoor is slower, at 2950 fps, and would be even slower in EPR form, since it would take up more case capacity.
A 6.5 Creedmoor MG barrel would also have a 50% lower barrel life, and would heat up quicker, necessitating more frequent barrel changes in the middle of a fight.
In truth, we shouldn't be having dismounted troops shooting anything bigger than 7.62 for machineguns, and 6.5 us completely inappropriate for anything other than precision guns.
As far as .338 goes, the ammo weight is too much to carry on foot, and us outperformed by .50 BMG in every single way, from antimateriel rifles, to machineguns. It has higher BCs, more payload for API and explosive rounds, and penetrates deeper in armor.
Stick to 5.56 up to 500 meters, 7.62 to 1000, and .50 for light armor and fortifications.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheOriginalJAX
I have made entirely structured arguments, including examples. I've done everything but draw you schematics.
Instead of saying "IFV and tank armor is thin", I have you actual dimensions and a detailed description of how that armor is composed. I can tell you anything you want to know about the capabilities of these systems, but you haven't even asked a question.
The truth is, civilians watch these videos about military weapons and jump to the conclusion that this or that weapon is amazing or garbage based on what they heard on the internet. When guys who've had to fight in combat tell the realities on the ground, they bristle.
Many people use the example of Ukraine as proof that a weapon like this would be useful. Where would it be useful, where other weapons would be less appropriate to carry?
If you're ambushing armor, you want dedicated anti armor weapons, including drones. If you're reacting to contact against troops, belt fed machine guns are your best option, as they saturate the kill zone with much denser fire. Bunkers are best engaged with anti structural munitions with tandem warheads. If your sniping at long range, you want a weapon that is capable of 1 moa and isn't highly effected by wind and bullet drop.
Rather than trying to look for a scenario in which this weapon would fail, it would be more useful to come up with a scenario in which this would succeed where another weapon would fail. Are there any that come to mind?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jimothy-723
It's about incremental improvements. Over the years, there's been enough advancements in certain areas to leave room for other designs. Lighter weight polymer materials, steel inserts for high wear areas, adjustable gas regulators, fully Amby controls, folding stocks, easily replaced barrels, mono recievers, etc., are just getting combined into one weapon.
I personally think weapons like the SCAR, ACR, Grom, GK43, Spear, and other weapons like it are good examples of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kschleic9053
A CRWS can be networked to any system that can share coordinates. You would still want two separate operators for the systems, just like we do with drones and artillery. Not only for safety reasons, but also in order to not lose the drone and so you have someone loading the gun, clearing malfunctions, etc.
But, yeah, what you describe can be done. It's a pretty good idea. A MK19 is a good gun for hitting dead space, and networking the two would make corrections really fast.
It would be really cool for anti drone work, too. Friendly drones spotting threat ones, sharing data to multiple guns, and each firing airburst rounds as the enemy drones come into range. Pretty awesome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@musikSkool
The 5.56 is plenty lethal for infantry combat.
There's no place on the human body that, if hit from a more powerful round like a 308, would be deadly but not with 5.56.
A hit to the head, heart, spine, liver, kidneys, would be a fatal wound with 5.56 as much as any other round. It's light, deadly out 500 meters, and relatively inexpensive. It's easy to carry 300-400 rounds, too. Most soldiers aren't firing all that far, and having a lot of rounds is more important than more energy or long range performance.
I predict that a hybrid steel/brass 5.56 with 80,000 PSI will be forthcoming soon from SIG. That would be enough pressure to push a 77 grain 5.56 round at 3000 fps from a 16" barrel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@アンーさん
You don't have to headspace or time the M2A1 .50 Cal anymore. No more screw in barrels.
Honestly, we should replace the M2A1 with another 50 with all of the properties of the Russian Kord. Buttstock, pistol grip, bipod, proper optics mount, lighter weight, the ability to feed from right or left side.
They replaced their DshK HMGs over two decades ago with them and it's the right choice.
Against troops, the 338 LM does great out to 1500 meters and is a great choice for ultra long range sniping. It can also fit in a much lighter rifle (15 pounds vs 30).
As an anti material round, it's severely lacking. It's not big enough to fit a payload like incendiary loads or massive tungsten penetrators. The 50 has twice the energy of the 338 LM and not much changes downrange since 50 Cal rounds have such high BCs.
I'm of the opinion that 5.56mm, 7.62,mm and 12.7mm all fulfill their roles perfectly as is (short, medium, long range) and we shouldn't replace them. Finding rounds that fit in-between them and try pulling double duty is misguided and a waste of resources.
The US military would be better served with purchasing lighter, more accurate, more controllable machineguns to replace the ones we have, but retain current calibers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MRIWILLPLAY
And even back then, artillery was crushing tanks. Even at the beginning of the war, neither the Javelin or the NLAW were the deadliest ATGMs against Russian armor. That title goes to the Ukrainian Stgna-P laser guided missile. Those have to be fired from a remotely operated tripod or from a vehicle, though. The Ukrainians have been fighting this fight since 2014, and Stugna-P has been employed the whole time.
The NLAW is a fantastic high caliber, short range man portable missile, but struggles with moving targets at range.
The Javelin is a fantastic medium range, man portable missile, but it's expensive.
What is great about systems like these is that they can be used by maneuvering light infantry, which is what they're designed for. But no missile is going to be a hack of all trades.
The Stugna P has greater range at 5k, is fired remotely so the operator isn't in danger and can watch the sector for a long time. He can be in a bunker while the launcher is 50 meters away on a powered tripod.
It's also much cheaper per shot, at $20,000 USD, which is half the cost of an NLAW and a quarter of the price of a Javelin.
No missile has killed more Russian tanks in Ukraine than the Stugna-P.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Drew Peacock
Laser Range Finder. You scout for enemy, identify, laze, send 10 digit grid coordinate to fire support. It's done all the time.
Stealth is going to be very important in the next wars. Being small, lithe, silent, with a low heat signature is of upmost importance.
Anything up to high will be targeted and blown out of the sky. Everyone can see it.
Yeah, we already have armed drones. Including loitering munitions. The Israelis have been very successful in developing the harpy, which can be used for armed recon.
Every size of quad copter drone, from as small as a hand, to the size of a car is going to be fielded. The large ones can carry a decent sized amount of ordinance. Laser guided bombs work well on something like that.
Advances in AAA and C-RAM mean that aircraft will have a hard time out there, drone or manned. Anti drone drones, with short range SAMs, or just made to crash into the other drones and knock them out of the air.
Maybe even drones camouflaged to look like living birds in the air, drafting on the air currents. Maybe even land them on power lines or tree branches for mission endurance. Possibly even use them to drop incindiary grenades onto enemy encampments prior to an assault.
There's a lot of possibilities out there. The armies been looking for a light armed recon helicopter because the AH64 is expensive to operate. Not sure how this is going to be necessarily cheaper. I'd rather see more investment in drone tech than this.
1
-
@Drew Peacock
Oh, you seem to be talking about long range support weapons. This video is about armed recon. That means aircraft right over the enemy, low to the deck. It's not taking about missile ships or artillery.
These are the aircraft that scout for armored brigades on the battlefield. Many will be replaced with drones, but we still need eyes close to the fighting.
I do think that artillery is advancing quickly, and drones and light helicopters In Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, Armenia, etc., can spot for everything from mortars, towed artillery MLRSz and SP artillery. The Russians used drones to scout for MLRS, which is defended by armor and AAA.
This combined arms concept is nothing new, but it does show that light aircraft that are unarmored and lightly armed, if all, still have their place amongst supersonic jets and armored gunships
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Taskandpurpose
The corps got the M27 because it better suits their tactics. Light, maneuverable, reliable, and easy to reload on the move. All heavier weapons are up at company and brought out for specific missions. I think it's a good choice for them.
The issue I had was that they compared the M27 to the m249 without considering other 5.56 belt fed lmgs on the market.
The army needs to abandon the idea of changing calibers all together. 5.56 is an ideal 300 meter and less caliber and 7.62 is great past where an enemy can even be identified. Dismounted soldiers have absolutely no reason to be shooting past a kilometer with anything but mortars and antitank weapons.
The people who are excited about these heavier calibers aren't the people who have to carry them and they have no personal experience in combat to explain the need for them. I would guarantee that 99% of the people claiming we need bigger rounds have never been in a gunfight and certainly haven't trudged around a battlefield with armor, radios, NVGs, water, packs, AT weapons, MGs, mortar rounds and the 100+ pounds of shit we carry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lalmuanpuiijahau7531
Warfare is changing rapidly. Expecting line dogs to take 800-1000 meter shots us just not going to happen.i saw it when they gave those M14s out. Those guys weren't hitting shit past 500. Fir real. No joke.
The long distance attacks that coalition forces experienced were nearly exclusively harassing fire with no casualties.
90% of all casualties in war are due to explosives. The Carl Gustav is a much better solution for infantry squads to hit enemy positions at range. Airbursting a 3.5 pound charge 5 meters over their heads at 1000, hitting them with the power of a claymore mine is much more effective, especially with the thermal computerized sight.
Individual riflemen need to be lightly armed and carrying ammo for the big guns like the GPMG and Recoiless, while remaining light for the assault.
If anything, we should be going the direction of the Marines in the army. High sustained fire carbine, Gustav, and drone operator to find the enemy, lase him, and call precision fire from the Arty, mortars, or aircraft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gnrnrvids
Hahaha sure you'd, bud, sure you did. Are you off your meds?
It's amazing how many schlongs crawl out of the woodwork quoting shit they read in gun forums. They're always the guy who was on some program or another. Just on this channel alone there's probably 20 guys just like you.
There are actually real people actually using these guns everyday. In fact, we're out in the field right now and running the carbine range tomorrow. I've been carrying some version of the AR for the past 22 years. I see every single issue we have with our weapons, and the M4's are rarely a problem.
We shoot a metric shit ton of ammo through these guns in a training cycle. On range 33 on Bragg, we have 70k of loose 5.56 to expend between zero, practice, qual, night fire, CBRN day and night and reflexive fire over the next 2 days for an infantry company of 135 men.. That's over 500 rounds per soldier. Usually, not one single carbine will go down, and it's rare that a soldier will really experience a malfunction. None of that will be full auto or heating the rifle past it's sustained ROF. In fact, we have way more issues with back up irons and optics shitting the bed than the actual guns. In a year, we shoot somewhere around 5k per carbine and notice no degradation of accuracy.
And you're here telling me our guns are going to be shot out soon? These guns havent had new barrels in 3 years and are still chugging along. According to you, we should have swapped out barrels 3 times already.
Really. You have no idea what you're talking about. Wikipedia will only get you so far with your BS. One thing I've observed is that the soldiers who have the least time on the guns and the least training also have the lowest confidence in the weapons. Support Joe's who shoot 100 rounds a year and have never had a solid NCO to give them a PMI, let alone mentorship out at the range. Those are the guys who spend time telling anyone who will listen that it's the gun, not them. That's the issue here. You don't know what you don't know.
Meanwhile, a ton of pimple faced teenagers who sit on the internet have huge opinions on what weapons our soldiers should rely on to defend their lives in combat. Will they ever be carrying them thousands of miles from home in a combat zone? Not a chance.
I'm sure you can burn an M4 barrel out in 5000 rounds, with sheared locking lugs, broken cam pins, etc. You know how it happens, for real? Crappy leadership over allocates ammo and they don't want to turn in the excess because it's too much work. Instead they burn it off shooting full auto mag after mag and destroy their carbines in short order shooting them as if they were SAWs. That'll do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The_Foxymew
You dont understand the reason the reflekt missile was procured in the first place.
It's for tanks in the defense to have greater range PAST sabot rounds (>2500 meters) to either ambush or just outrange the opposing force.
It's not missile vs gun, as the gun has to be potentially exposed to fire for up to 2 km of movement while not being in it's maximum effective range. Once THAT happens, the tanks in defense are loaded with SABOT.
The missile allows that tank to fire from a well camouflaged fighting position, without giving it away, for at least the first couple of shots before switching to sabot.
It's also useful in a battle space with enemy helicopters. While sabot would have to much drop after 2.5- 3 KM, the missile can still achieve a hit out to 5 KM.
Armored vehicles are very confining for the senses. They're loud, so a missile launch wouldn't even register. A soft launch like the reflekt has nearly no flash and very little smoke and dust. Harder for attack air to see, as well.
You're not going to see an incoming missile, either. You have the gunners site, commanders site, and unmagnified vision ports. Can't trace a wire back while a TOW is coming at you, yet there are laser warning systems for laser guided missiles. All that might do is tell you the direction, but you're dead in a few seconds, regardless. And the system only works for the targeted vehicle, not ones near it. And if it's outside sabot range, the gun can't shoot back anyway.
That's why the missile exists. You can argue that there's no need for a tank to have 5000 meters of direct fire effect range, but not that you can kill a tank firing reflekt missiles at you from 4km-5km with a sabot with a max effective range of 2.5km-3km.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The most obvious use would be for recon and hunter/killer teams armed with a Javelin launcher, a couple of MGs, and drones.
Drones are used to scout ahead and avoid chance contacts, while weapons can be dismounted as the vehicle is hidden and camouflaged for a quick exfil.
2 IISVs can carry a 9 man section, supplies for 72 hours, 40 gallons of extra fuel cans, 4 M240s with 1000 rds each, and 2 Javelins with 4 missiles each. 4 spotter drones on each vehicle can scout positions and direct artillery fire. A heavy armored vehicle would be more difficult to conceal, lower situational awareness, attack fire, and lower off-road mobility.
I predict a move towards smaller and lighter armed vehicles for the foreseeable future. The tracked and 8 wheeled IFVs, and large supply and fuelers will be phased out in militaries with smaller 6x6 vehicles capable of add on armor packages depending on mission requirements. The Pandur is a prime example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scoutdynamics3272
That's not true at all.
Where is a hit on the body lethal with a bigger round, but not lethal with 5.56?
You still haven't answered that. Modern 5.56 fragments in the body and penetrates deeply out to 350 meters. It punches right through cars, level 3 body armor, and engine blocks.
A soldier with a magnified optic has no problem engaging targets at 500 meters.
Any place a bigger round would kill, so would 5.56.
Soldiers use carbines for personal defense weapons while operating other systems, for close quarter fighting, and cover fire while maneuvering. The main weapons in a platoon are the GPMGs, Javelins, drones, and Gustav's. Having a long range rifle round isn't that important for rifles, and neither is barrier penetration. That's what the AT weapons and machine guns are for.
What most troops need is folding stocked, 12 inch barreied 5.56 with a suppressor, folding stock, a clear 1-6 day optic with the ability to add a clip on thermal. Maybe a quick change barrel for marksmen to add an 18" barrel in minutes. Make the carbine and ammo under 15 pounds with 210 rounds.
Most guys will be carrying MG ammo, 84mm ammo, and AT/AA missiles. A heavier carbine round just adds weight with little benefit. I'd rather be able to get 20" 5.56 performance from a 12" barrel and have a light weapon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ostiariusalpha
Lol. You really are shilling for this round aren't you?
Where are you getting that it's capable of doing that at all? In fact, what you are doing right now is completely ignorant of physics or the history of ballistics.
This round will not be replacing 5.56, because it weighs twice as much, and the USMC has heavily invested in the M27.
It won't replace 7.62 because it can't be fired from existing 7.52 weapons, since it has a chamber pressure of 80,000 k MAP.
The only guns that even claim to fire it are SIGs. The US Army is investing heavily in the M110A1 to every squad, and it fires the M80A1 just like our MGs do.
The US military isn't going to field 5.56, 7.62, AND 6.8, and sure aren't getting rid of either of those other rounds.
Face it. This program is a pipe dream of Generals who don't understand combat, colluding with a weapons industry out to make a buck. This idea of the universal combat round fired by every weapon was tried with 7.62x51 and it failed. The military realized it needed 2 separate and distinct cartridges through combat experience. Trying to revive that idea is foolishness. The one size fits all cartridge should remain a relic of the long dead era of the 1950s.
1
-
1
-
This necessity for armor penetration is misguided, and ultimately will cause the program to be cancelled. It's a boondoggle in the making .
Specifically, Dr. James Newill of the Army Research Laboratory seems to have gotten it in his head that armor penetration is of paramount concern and that his ambitious project (with performance up to 5,000 J muzzle energy) is the way to solve it. This was preceded by a gun industry effort to push armor as the central issue for small arms development, with the idea that it would lead to an AR-10 pattern weapon in 7.62 or 6.5 being adopted with lucrative sole-source contracts to follow. ICSR is my evidence for this, a program Newill was evidently not involved at all in but which was very much armor focused and (gun) industry-driven. I also have heard gun industry advocates impugn the 5.56mm caliber as an armor penetrator in Senate testimony (specifically, Ret. Maj. Gen. Scales, a long time covert salesman "consultant" for HK). The gun industry in general spoke positively of ICSR, despite the program being utterly ridiculous and completely off-base as far as I'm concerned. Taking recent history in view, it does not seem the industry much cares what direction the Army takes, so long as it ditches the M4 and gives them the opportunity to get lucrative sole-source contracts for whatever the next weapon may be.
Many, many, arms programs have gotten further than this and tanked.
- Interim Combat Service Rifle program
- HK XM8 rifle
- XM Objective Individual Combat Weapon
25mm GL
- Advanced Combat Rifle trials
- XM806 50 Cal MG
- HK Close Assault Weapons System
shotgun
- Special Purpose Individual Weapon
- HK MK23 Offensive Handgun
Some of these weapons were even fielded and then cancelled. The 6.8x51 will meet the same fate.
That's just with small arms.
The US has spent hundreds of billions on cancelled weapons programs.
Everything from the Sgt.York, RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter, the XM2001 Crusader 155mm Cannon, the Brilliant Antitank Munition, Future Combat System, Future Warrior 2000, the Ground Combat Vehicle, AH 56 Cheyenne Helicopter, Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS), etc.
That's just to name a few, and just from the Army. The military has spent 50 billion in the last 10 years on cancelled projects.
Why in the hell do you think the NGSW has any more legs than any of these other programs? They built all of these and now they're POOF! gone.
1
-
1
-
@ostiariusalpha
Wow, you seriously ARE an idiot.
You claim that 6.8 ADVAP has already been proven in tests to defeat Lvl 4 armor in tests.
I ask you to provide the results of those tests.
You provide
1. A document from 1998 describing the parameters for testing armor (MIL STD 376A)
2. A 2005 Army Research Lab study of the feasability of various composites for armor
3. A 2016 study of the effectiveness of .50 caliber AP against Boron Carbide
You didn't even read your own links! Jesus fucking Christ you're dishonest, too.
Face the facts that others who have been studying ballistics a lot longer than you already have- these rounds had limited ability to penetrate lvl 4 armor at modest distances, let alone at 600 Meyers even with the original program requirement of 3400 fps. That velocity requirement was downgraded, and now these proposed weapons are only reaching velocities of 3000 fps. The SIG carbine doesn't even reach that lower requirement.
We already know that M993 is defeated at 2850 fps, which is at approximately 100 meters, and Russian B32 AP 7.62x54r is defeated at 10 meters,
Even if the 7.62 XM1158 was twice as effective as M993, and a 6.8 ADVAP was twice as effective as XM1158, it STILL wouldn't reach the technical requirement to pierce lvl 4 armor at 600 meters.
And what will come of producing super armor piercing bullets for millions of dollars? Thicker plates will be issued.
That's it. 25% thicker plates, and the program fails, even at close range.
How do you not get that?
The objective of the program is stupid. It adds heavier weapons (the lightest is the SIG carbine at 12 pounds) and ammo that weighs twice as much. Soldiers are already carrying too much weight.
My average infantryman is already carrying 80-90 pounds in their fighting load, let alone their approach load.
And when will you be carrying these weapons?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ostiariusalpha
Well, damn. I typed a long response but it didn't post.
Listen, these weapons and ammo will add more and more weight to already overburdened soldiers. People who have abd will never carry all this shit are always really opinionated on what new, heavy assed piece of shit they want to see us carry next.
I have guys climbing mountains with 130 pound loads while the enemy is doing it with 30. The musculoskeletal injuries alone will cost the country hundreds of billions.
Do have any idea how frustrating it is to see billions wasted on this shit when we can't get the support we actually DO need?
Fighting for ammo at ranges to actually train our troops, our armor and packs suck, our NODS are old, and are vehicles are too complexed. Yet, were constantly told they don't have it in the budget.
How much more weight do you want us to carry? This program adds TEN more pounds to the already overburdened rifleman, and EIGHTEEN pounds to the automatic rifleman. Fuck me, right?
When are YOU going to carry a 13 pound 6.8 rifle/AR , 30 pounds in armor, 40 pounds in ammo, HE (rockets/mortars), water, rations, NODS, batteries, radios, THOR, mine detector, grenades, and all the other shit we are supposed to carry?
When is enough, enough?
We should be making our loads lighter, not heavier. The Marines have the right idea, while the Army has the heads up their asses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Donald Martin
From what I've read, hydrostatic shock is a myth.
Hydrostatic shock is the concept that a penetrating projectile can produce a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage", "subtle damage in neural tissues" and/or "rapid incapacitating effects" in living targets.
That just isn't true.
Now, if a projectile is going fast enough, the temporary stretch cavity will be much bigger than from a slow one. A fragmenting bullet will shred those stretched tissues, resulting in more pronounced wounding.
Handgun bullets produce a very small temporary stretch cavity compared to higher velocity rifle rounds. That low velocity causes them to be less effective.
Of course, the effectiveness of one bullet over another using anecdotes isn't entirely convincing. If one subject is shot in the lungs with one round and the other is shot in the brain, it would be easy to say the round that hit the brain was more effective, when in reality it was the shot that was.
Fmj handgun rounds have very narrow permanent wound cavities and penetrate through both sides of a target. The difference between 45 and 9mm fmj wounds are negligible.
Now, when we speak of hollow points, that another story entirely. While many 9mm HPs can expand to .60 Cal, there are .45 HPs that expand up to an inch. That's a significant hole in your chest, there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimmyjones4985
Not really. If "they" means people who don't fight with or carry these guns, yeah "they" are interested in 6.8.
.338 us being used by some snipers for RANGE, as in, it shoots farther than 7.62.
On the ground in MGs and DMRs, 7.52 will continue to dominate. In fact, the US Army and Marines are phasing in their newest rifle, the M80A1 in 7.62, not in either of those calibers.
The M4 in 5.56 has as much energy as a 44 magnum, at roughly 1200 ft pounds. Nobody in their right mind would describe the 44 Mag as underpowered. It has 3X the energy of a Thompson SMG, and nobody has ever called it a weak, underpowered gun.
Shit, a 338 magnum DOES have more power than 5.56, but only a complete jackass would choose one to fight from room to room or down a Street.
7.62x39 only has about 20% more muzzle energy than a 5.56, but both rounds are hitting with the same EXACT force at 300 meters.
In truth, these weapons will go nowhere and 5.56 and 7.62 will remain the mainstay in the Infantry platoon. The 6.8 is a non starter from the get go, as it presents no advantage of 5.56 or 7.62.
338 might gain more traction as a long distance sniper round, but that's about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CCM1199
The driver, TC, Crows .50, gunner, two rear cameras, and I think one more, might be wrong. They have varying capabilities, based on size. Obviously the driver and rear cameras have less range but can probably spot a dismount at 300. The gunner, TC, and Crows all have independent optics that have long range capability and can scan different sectors. Many armored vehicles across the world are upgrading to this capability.
The tank has the same challenge the ATGM team does- stay undetected, see the enemy first, shoot first, and kill. The tank will use it's superior optics and electronics and ATGM teams will use it's small size and mobility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Painfulwhale360
The "90% of combat within 300 meters, and half under 100 meters" statistic is correct, and it's not based on the capabilities of the weapon.
Combat distances are most often dictated for small arms by the terrain, not weapons.
If your terrain constricts you to observing out to 300, that's as far as you can possibly meet contact.
Another variable is weather. It will often keep you from seeing far.
Yet another is the actions of the enemy. He has a vote in how the contact develops. He will most likely be using cover and concealment along his whole approach. He's not trying to get killed.
Of course, the true answer is now ground troops are under constant threat of being spotted by manned and unmanned aircraft, especially in a peer fight. Troops must constantly have some kind of air & antiair coverage themselves, and to send out their own drones to locate the enemy beyond masking terrain features. From now on, infantry will have to be able to have long mission endurance, be well camouflaged, and be constantly using drones to locate the enemy first. Then, launch guided mortars, missiles, or kamikaze drones into the enemy without giving away their position.
If they are detected, they will either receive fire similar to what they were dealing out themselves, or be discovered at relatively close range. They need their small arms, which by this point are simply personal defense weapons, to be short, light, and easy to tuck out of the way while they are carrying and operating much larger, more effective weapons.
That's not the environment custom made for a long range shooter. Open up with small arms at long range, and some kind of high explosive is going to blow your head off.
But, sure, let's field the gun the army wanted in order to fight the Taliban.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you read all the comments, the attitude seems to be very clear from most of them.
- discount ANY experience by men actually doing the job RIGHT NOW
- discount price, completely, because they imagine units have unlimited budgets
- discount any discussion of actual combat ranges
- discount the fact that small arms are the real killers in combat
- discount the fact that these weapons and ammo haven't been issued at all, so we don't even know how well they actually work
- discount weight, because civilians here will never see one, let alone have to carry then
- discount durability, because they think combat is like shooting on the flat range
- discount the fact that METT-TC dictates range to targets, not the optic
- discount the fact that our generals are morons who don't know what they're taking about
Despite all of this, you guys still have this idea that privates who are still learning their jobs, for which shooting a rifle is maybe 10%, will be Carlos Hathcock if you had them one of these. They won't. The rifle doesn't shoot itself.
If you would have the wisdom to listen to men who have killed for a living, you will understand that the 6.8 round and this optic will not ever be general issued to most of a rifle company, let alone anyone else.
It can, at best, replace current 7.62 weapons in service. It certainly won't replace the 5.56 individual carbine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tilepusher
No, you're not wrong. I just disagree with some of your points. Others, I completely agree with. There's a difference.
The AR15 is a great rifle, and probably one of the most adaptable of any invented. It's actually my favorite rifle.
The 5.56 is such a low recoil round that almost anyone can shoot it. Like I said, calibers like 6.8 SPC, 25-45 and 6.5 G are great for hunters and target shooters, just not for militaries. I would say out of the 3, 6.5 is the best for hunting, but I wouldn't prefer it over 5.56 or 7.62 for infantry combat. It'll continue to enjoy success in the civilian shooting world, but it's a dead end for armies.
The same seems to be true for a lot of these more modern firearms designs. Guns like the SCAR, G36, Famas, Galil, etc., that were supposed to be the next great evolution in combat firearms really haven't, and most are fading from use over time. Yet, the AK and AR live on.
Personally, if i were to have any AR chambered in a caliber other than 5.56, it would be an AR10 in 7.62x51.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deriznohappehquite
Not for anything less than brigade level. That would be a very large and specialized vehicle. A missile would always outrage it, as it doesn't need line of sight like a laser does.
Anti-drone warfare includes electronic warfare, air defense radars, manpads, airburst autocannon smart rounds, and interceptor counter drones. It's an entire effort.
To small teams on the ground, there's not a lot of options for something that is light, easy to use, with a higher hit probability and range than a guided missile like the stinger. It's still incredibly effective.. Maybe a loitering drone could be designed to do a similar job with less weight and cost. Use the Carl Gustaf as a universal launcher for HE, HEAT, Guided HEAT/ airburst for antitank and anti-aircraft, and a kamikaze drone launcher for long range precision strikes with a 2 Kg warhead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PhantomM16
I'm again going back to a cartridge similar in size and weight to 7.62x51. I'm specifically speaking about the SIG offering. Now, if the other composite ammo offerings can be proven to be just as reliable, that's a different story. As of now, the SIG 6.8 round is pushing a 135 grain bullet at 3000 fps from a 16" barrel, while the current M80A1 is pushing a 130 grain bullet at 2950 from the same barrel. Sure, the 6.8 has a longer, higher bc bullet, but it's not exactly a game changer. Out if the 13" carbine they presented, the MV is 2850 fps.
The "extended ranges in Afghanistan" mostly comprise PKMs shooting at us at 1000 meters, completely missing us. I know because I've experienced it. These guys don't have tripods, spotters, or a zeroed weapon, which are all necessary for making hits at those ranges.
Same applies for riflemen hitting enemy troops at that range- it will require a spotter and a highly skilled shooter. In other words, a sniper team.
You won't get that performance from a line rifleman. In fact, they won't hit any further than their current weapon systems.
What you will get is troops carrying twice the weight in ammo for diminishing returns, and a higher chance of running out in a high intensity fight.
These 6.8 rounds, at present, aren't all that much better than our current M80A1, and I'm doubting that a carbine with a 13" barrel is going to penetrate armor at the ranges they want it to (600 meters).
1
-
1
-
@PhantomM16
I'm not even saying that 5.56 is the best round ever, but pound for pound it is more effective at the 0-300 meter range. Especially with m855a1.
We already know the ballistic capabilities of the army 6.8 round. They're published, and are based on the requirement the army already out out. And it's not much better than our current 7.62 round, other than a higher BC.
It's not just a matter of the US having more money to spend. Which , btw, isn't true. We already have a 125% debt to GDP ratio and have a national debt of nearly 23 trillion
Were broke but aren't acting accordingly.
It's not that other countries are looking for a replacment to their assault rifle calibers like the 6.8x51, but can't afford it
They aren't even searching for one.
The US is the country that fields the most level 4 body armor on the planet, yet nobody else seems to care about penetrating it at nearly 700 yards.
You know why? Because they don't have a General Milley pushing a program from the top down. Other peer nations already know the direction 21st century combat is going, and it's not backwards to long range rifle fire from line soldiers. It's drones.
Wanna see a glimpse of the future? Look to the conflicts in Yemen, the Donbass, and the Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. Soldiers will need to be light, fast, and camouflaged from attack from the air.
If you wanna see where combat isn't going, look to the west in Afghanistan the past decade. Western soldiers have become do overburdened with weight to the point they can no longer approach march or manuever.
We're just overloaded pack mules carrying ever high speed gadget the MIC can think up.
A modern army has two have a two cartridge strategy. Light, fast carbines for squads to manuever and close with the enemy, and heavier and more powerful support machine guns for long range and suppressive fires. Combining both will be a disaster. The answer to incoming long range machine gun fire is an M240 on a tripod, with an AG. Not issuing DMRs to every soldier.
Not only will the average rifleman be incapable of taking advantage of the larger round and fragile optic that goes along with it, but he will be doing something he's not supposed to- task saturate on long range targets and ignoring security that keeps him from being flanked.
You need layered capabilities, with specialization, not a one size fits all approach. Anyone who spends more than two decades in this profession says the same thing. There's a reason you don't see SOCOM issuing SCARs to every troop. It's why you don't see Russian FSB fielding SVDs to every man. This program us just the cancelled ICSR program tweaked to keep the money flowing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lowlevel9448
I'm not saying they do. I'm saying ANYONE who does. If the Russians do in a fight, they will have an advantage. If the Ukrainians do, then they will. Complete penetration and a kill don't necessarily have to be the highest priority if the initial hit severity degrades the target vehicle and makes it vulnerable to successive hits. In many armored fights, it takes multiple shots to disable and kill. It's not rare at all.
The majority of tank kills in this fight, on both sides, have been accomplished with guided or spotted artillery and ATGMs, both fired outside the maximum range of MBT main guns. The tank is rarely the ideal weapon to engage other tanks in the 21st century.
Both sides have increasingly used them as indirect assets with HE rounds due to their vulnerability.
Non line of sight missiles, drones, and artillery are safer to crews and offer the same offensive power, but with standoff capabilities. Many nations are watching and analyzing this conflict, though I don't expect the inertia of the defense industry will allow it to make drastic and rapid changes no matter what data is presented to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ColonelSandersLite
M855 and M855A1, as currently used, also have the same muzzle velocity and BC.
The main differences are an updated powder type, and a new bullet construction.
The bullet construction allows the M855A1 from a 14.5" to have 50% greater fragmentation range, which is the most important factor of terminal performance in 5.56. 350 meters in a handy M4 beats out 225 in a long 20" gun.
The problem with this 6.8 program is that it's exactly what we don't need in the 21st century battlefield, especially in peer warfare.
Infantry will now have to contend with constantly hiding from ISR drones, moving quickly, and concealing their positions.
Under cover and concealment,, they will utilize their own manned and unmanned ISR to detect the enemy first. If they do, they will call for artillery support, fire guided mortars, missiles,or kamikaze drones, without being detected.
If the squad is discovered, they will either receive similar fire to what they were delivering, or be discovered at relatively close range.
What the modern infantry really needs is the most compact, lightest, handiest firearm they can get, with performance similar to 5.56/5.45/5.8. They can tuck them out of the way while driving, carrying and operating those heavier and more effective weapon systems.
If you engage an enemy with long range small arms fire in that environment, you will have your head blown off by guided high explosives.
That's not an environment condusive to long range small arms use. If anything, having long and heavy small arms and ammunition means you will be less effective with your best weapons.
This 6.8 is the weapon the army wanted to fight the Taliban. It's fighting the last war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ghastly_Grinner
Lol, that doesn't mean anything. If the tracks had enough armor to withstand antitank mines, they would have been too heavy to be in most of the terrain in Vietnam, in the first place.
Lighter vehicles can go places that heavy vehicles can't. That means more guns, ammo, and supplies in a place that heavy vehicles can't even go. Quite often, it doesn't matter if you ride in it at all, as long as it has your ruck, chow, water, commo, extra ammo and a support weapon. It's not the main element, the dismounted infantry are.
Lots of these basic vehicle designs can really be improved for a long time going forward because the basic profile, shape, configuration, and materials make the most logical sense. Designs that look similar to the BTR, Abrams, BMP, M113, BRDM, and HMMWV will continue to be produced for a long time.
The M113 is well designed for the current Ukrainian conflict. If a protector RWS .50/Javelin were to be installed, it's a great home for an infantry squad armed with drones, ATGMs, and GPMGs, conducting as ambushes while their track stays to their rear in overwatch and in a camouflaged position. Additional armor wouldn't help much. The light weight does.
They make great mortar carriers, too. A 120mm mortar carriers paired with drone recon is nasty, and the m113 is small enough to tuck into some narrow spots to hide them.
1
-
@Ghastly_Grinner
When did they ever fail at what they were designed to do? They didn't. They were only designed to protect against small arms fire and shell splinters.
Today, we have the M113A3, with V Hull to protect from buried IEDs, new armor protects up to 14.5mm AP, turbo charged V6, cage armor to protect against rockets, RWS turrets with thermals, and advanced communications suites.
Even in the 60s in Vietnam, these things were loved. Mech infantry plowed through huge swaths of the jungle there, constantly resupplying, conducting fire missions, evacuating casualties, and keeping communications running in very austere and expeditionary environments.
I would no more call an M113 variant a failure than I would the BTR. Both are fantastic and successful vehicles with a list of wars under their belts a mile long.
I actually think that the US Army would benefit from having a lightly armored 6 wheel vehicle resembling a BTR-80. Something light enough to go anywhere fast like an ATV, just enough armor to protect against 7.62, with a remote turret. Put a Mk19 40mm, 7.62minigun, .50 call HMG, whatever you want, paired with a couple ATGMs. Enough HP to push it 70/mph on the highway and 50mph off-road. Kinda like an armored version of the iSV squad vehicle.
Lighter vehicles use a lot less fuel, which means you need less fuelers and fuel points. They can be self sufficient longer. Perfect for OP/LPs, Mortar fire missions, drone recon, Shorad, kamikaze drone launch vehicle, medical evacuation, electronic warfare, counter battery radars, light refuel vehicles, resupply vehicles, etc.
Every army needs a support vehicle. Something reliable, mobile, and decently protected. In an active warzone, they're much better than riding in a truck, which is the alternative. APCs aren't apex predators in war, they're mules, and damn good ones too..You still have the tanks, aircraft, and artillery to do the real killing and these are for the multitude of guys that support those efforts that still have to be very near the fight.
The US army operates way more M113 APCs than M2 Bradley's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1