Comments by "The Immortal" (@theimmortal4718) on "Task & Purpose" channel.

  1.  @CharliMorganMusic  In fact, the Russian autoloaders can't even fire their best 125mm apfsds rounds because it's too long. The shorter penetrators that can be fired by the T90 can't reliably penetrate the Abrams at mid range. Manual loading allows for longer rounds.
    2
  2.  @ShivaTD420  Modern MBTs are designed to mostly fight other tanks. IFVs don't do well against tanks at all. If you try using an iFV to fight tanks, you'll die in large numbers Tanks and IFVs are used together in combined arms, along with dismounted infantry squads. It would be very foolish to describe heavy armor based on the performance of a poor, corrupt, mismanaged, and demoralized Eurasian army. Large losses don't necessarily mean a class of weapons is obsolete. It has more to do with poor execution. Compare this to the US Army in both Desert Storm and OIF1. Those armored assaults were highly skilled and effective.
    2
  3.  @ShivaTD420  Maybe the same with Bradley. New turret and electronics
    2
  4.  @TheRealBatCave  I'm sure they can, in theory. I've spent half of the last 2 decades in heavy infantry brigades. Most tank loaders have pride in their speed and are a lot stronger than you think. Most of the loaders I've seen can load a 40 pound shell in less than 3 seconds. They might get slower if they had to load hundreds of rounds in a day, but the tank only holds 42 rounds of ammo. A fit guy can easily lift 40 pounds for 42 reps.
    2
  5. The Russians have no such plans and have never said they do
    2
  6. Haha that was a funny joke. Good one
    2
  7.  @pickleman40  That tech was rolled into more effective systems- 40mm MK 47 AGL 84mm Carl Gustaf 30mm- 50mm Bushmaster 2 Autocannon
    2
  8.  @kschleic9053  We have that- it's called the CROWS. And yes, it will fire indirect- out to 2200 meters
    2
  9.  @Remiel1200  No, Grendel would suck. You'd increase the weight of ammo by 50%, adding weight to soldiers who are already carrying a ton of shit already. In modern maneuver warfare, suppressive fire is essential , and you'd be further reducing either the soldiers ability to suppress the enemy or his ability to move quickly to close with them.
    2
  10.    What are you babbling on about?
    2
  11.    Not at all.
    2
  12.    You replied to a one word comment
    2
  13. The russians were very smart in going this direction with the weapon
    2
  14. We already don't use the same ammo as NATO, since or ammo fragments. No other NATO country uses EPRs
    2
  15.  @MT-eb2dx  They can't follow. The EPR design of the bullet is illegal in most NATO member countries. It's the reason they also don't use M855A1 and M80A1.
    2
  16.  @MT-eb2dx  What would we take for urban fights? Mortars, Javelins, switchblade 300s and 600s, M3E1 Carl Gustaf, and small arms. I add the small arms at the end together, because they are of little importance overall. Explosives is how you win this war, not rifles. Strip the enemy of all vehicles and heavy weapons.
    2
  17. When the chicom military shows they're smarter than American generals
    2
  18. The new SIG case increases velocity by about 150 fps over a traditional case. That means a 6.5 Grendel produced with that technology would push a 108 grain EPR at about 2800 fps from a 16 barrel. Without nearly the weight, recoil, size, or blast of this thing.
    2
  19. Couldn't say it better. Said all that a million times
    2
  20.  @Gunker02  Or a 6mm ARC. 103 grain bullet at 3000 fps is completely possible, as it uses a Grendel case, with a better BC and velocity. This care design would shoot a much better bullet than M262 Mod 1 at M855A1 velocities
    2
  21. I hope so
    2
  22.  DGK201  SIG states their ammo is 80,000 psi. People were complaining that m855A1 was to high pressure at 62,000 psi This ammo will never get off the ground. It's a complete waste of time. The entire direction if the program is.
    2
  23.  @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
  24.  DGK201  No, I won't. This round only offers 100 ft/s more velocity for the same weight bullet. We already know the performance of the round since it's the recently commercially available .277 Fury. The army will require an EPR projectile rather than a match grade bullet. We already know that round won't pierce a level 4 plate at 25 meters, let alone 600 meters. It's pure fantasy. Anything short of .50 BMG won't. There's just not enough performance increase to justify replacing 7.62 with this 6.8, and it's totally unsuitable for assaulters. Full auto fire would be nearly impossible, since it has the same recoil impulse as 7.62, and the double in ammo weight would make suppressive fire much more difficult. Either carry twice the ammo load or run out of ammo twice as fast. No other service is interested in this program, and neither are the guys who would be issued this weapon. The only people who think the NGSW program is a good idea are the weapons companies, the generals they pay, and civilians who will never, ever fight a war.
    2
  25.  DGK201  No, it's not an intermediate cartridge. It's a full powered cartridge. In fact, it's a magnum rifle cartridge. You're confusing this with 6.8x43 (SPC). This cartridge is the SAME size as a full powered 7.62x51 round. What do you not get about that? It's shot out of the SIG MCX Spear, which is an AR10 derivative. If it were an intermediate cartridge, it would be able to be fired out of an AR15 sized weapon. It can't
    2
  26. The M110 unloaded weighs practically the same as an M24
    2
  27.  @ComeOnPelican91  Exactly
    2
  28.  @yourlocalmilkman916  I didn't say anything about the EBR with Sage chassis. I said M14, but I could have easily referenced the FAL at 9.6 pounds. The whole point is that those are full powered battle rifles with heavy 7.62 ammo. This 6.8 round, in any form that is practical, will have similar weight. Modern combat requires weapons with different capabilities. Carbines, DMRs, light MGs, Medium MGs, LATs/That's, etc. The carbine can't be reasonably replaced with these weapon systems it's just too long and heavy. The SIG rifle is over 13 pounds as currently pictured, with the ammo weighing twice as much as 5.56. The US military has already bought it's new DMR in 7.62 from HK and I don't see that going away. I have no doubt that the next carbine will fire 5.56.
    2
  29. Holy shit
    2
  30.  @oiytd5wugho  Your priorities are upside down
    2
  31. You thought you knew everything about the AK? By the end of this video, we all realized you know nearly nothing about it
    2
  32. Not bizarre at all. I'd love to have one
    2
  33. Where do they still find ammo for STG's??
    2
  34.  rockn roll  A 7.62 NATO cartridge weighs 50% more than a 7.62x39
    2
  35.  rockn roll  You're not understanding. The AK47 fires a less powerful round than the 7.62 NATO. It's lighter, also. That enables a soldier to carry more rounds and fire effectively on full auto. That's the exact REASON that the AK beat the FAL and AR10. It fires an assault rifle cartridge, which is more effective per pound than larger battle rifle cartridges in the ranges most soldiers fight. You are exactly right in that the 5.56 was the answer to that advantage, as it also was less powerful, lighter, and was more effective than the 7.62x51 in closer fights. You're also correct that the Russians developed the 5.45 AK47 to match the lightweight and controllable characteristics of the 5.56. You're agreeing with my point. Reverting to a much heavier, long range round such as this 6.5 Creedmoor OR 6.8x51 would be a step backwards. It's the same size and weight as 7.62 NATO, and would cause soldiers to lose the advantage that soldiers gained by going to an assault rifle. The Russians use 5.45, and we should not be going back to a round the size and weight as 7.62 NATO, which is twice the weight of the Russian round.
    2
  36.  rockn roll  The 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54r are used for exactly the same purposes. Both us and the Russians use those nearly identical rounds in the exact same roles- 1. Squad Designated Marksman rifles (M110 for the US, SVD for them) 2. medium machineguns (M240 for the US, PKM for them) 4. Sniper Rifles (M40 and M24 for the US, and SV98 for them) We both use much lighter, less powerful rounds for our carbines and light machineguns (5.56 and 5.45)
    2
  37.  @zro3317  No. I'm a career infantryman and have spent years in sniper sections and weapons squads. I've got a decent knowledge of our weapons, threat weapons, and the options being discussed for the future
    2
  38.  @Greg-vt5pr  Optics still have problems. When you start pushing through muddy and wet environments it can be pretty much useless.
    2
  39. As pictured here, that weapon weighs more than 6 kilos (13 pounds)
    2
  40.  @minhducnguyen9276  These rounds use a steel base, and the bullet is exactly like current M855 A1 and M80A1 EPRs-. Steel oentrator, copper rod core, and reverse drawn jacket. No lead at all.
    2
  41. Yeah, this guy rarely knows what he's talking about
    2
  42.  @DaveSmith-cp5kj  No, it hasn't. That's not surplus. It's rounds stolen off of ranges by soldiers and sold for 2 bucks a round. That's like saying stolen rifles sold on the black market are "surplus"
    2
  43. 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
  44. It's size wouldn't hinder ship transport at all. We transport MBTs with no issues
    2
  45. Not even close
    2
  46. The movie was full of lies
    2
  47. They should ditch the gun and use gun pods Way more versatile and easier to reload. Just swap pods. With 3 hard points on each side, it would be easy to go from cannon, to grenade launcher, machine gun, hydras, hellfires, or stingers.
    2
  48. Facts
    2
  49. A 40mm grenade sure won't "easily take out a tank" it won't do anything to one at all
    2
  50. We still need the humvee, just not the armored ones
    2