Initial disclaimer: I'm a moron and I only shoot for fun. All I'm doing is thinking about situations and needs in military without knowing jack.
So, here's my question: Do we expect that infantry will engage against enemy infantry over longer distances in the future?
My thinking is the answer is no. Except for special forces no one is really expected to engage the enemy at 100s of yards. I got nothing to back this claim but I know how hard it is to shoot like 500yds so if the expectation from infantry is engaging at these distances our doctrine is focusing on things infantry is just not good at. What I envision is that the long distance firefights will be less about infantry weapons more about cheaper remote controlled mounted platforms which can actually shoot accurately above 500yds.
If my assumption is correct, why do we need to replace all the rifles in the army with the XM7? More importantly why the new cartridge when 7.62 exists? I know 7.62 underperforms compared to .277 but not by a huge margin in terms of energy and bullet drop can be accounted for when shooting.
Anyway, I know a lot of these have probably been said before. I must have missed those, so wanted to ask again.
major advantage of wect kit in afghan and crap is that we'd shoot at them from a long way away and they had shit that couldnt
It makes sense when you realize the whole thing was designed to funnel taxpayer money into sigs pockets, and by extension whatever general got paid off/hired to be a board member or w/e
>muh funnels
>muh taxpayin'
This shit is so tired
I smell bagels.
A lot of US citizens own level 4 plates
You still think shitholes like Russia and China are giving their infantry armor? lol
It’s to take advantage of the new optics you included in your pic. With a red dot or 4x acog, yes shooting accurately at long range difficult, but the idea is to issue out a lot more LPVOs, at least to machine gunners.
> Except for special forces no one is really expected to engage the enemy at 100s of yards.
tbh you’re moronic. The vast majority of fire fights are under 200, but 300 is literally what the army qual is on a man size silhouette (muhreens basically shoot a billboard at 500)
And yes, engagements at or beyond 300 do happen.
This is dumb, there’s no evidence .277 whatever can pen level IV plates, this is just FUD.
> It’s all bullshit. Armor is useless against small arms.
g8 b8 m8
>are giving their infantry armor?
The Chinese Army is restructuring.
In the future it will be smaller, but better equipped and trained.
While I certainly expect CCP levels of corruption, they will have working plates and rifles.
>The Chinese Army is restructuring.
>In the future it will be smaller, but better equipped and trained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnik_(program)
I'll believe this bullshit when I see it (I won't)
the dragon is ovulating
Where do you think half those plates come from?
armor penetration was not a driving factor in the trial.
Body armor is pointless.
The thing most people don’t understand is that body armor doesn’t change the outcome of a fight. If someone, especially a military force, is coming to kill you, they won’t stop after your armor took a hit. They will kill you anyway, the result will be the same.
Some German police tard posted some PowerPoint here that looked at German police deaths. Body armor does not help if you look at it from the perspective of the outcome. In the end, no matter how many bullets the armor stopped, the policeman was dead.
This is what gets ignored constantly, especially by /k/ and others that shill you body armor. You are now living under a tyrannical gov? Well, death squads will certainly stop shooting you after one hit, right? Russia invades? Russians are also known for stopping to shoot after a first round hit on armor.
It’s all bullshit. Armor is useless against small arms.
This procurement process and the trails were even worse. Pure corruption.
yeah they're gonna keep shooting but the plate is the difference in you still being alive to fire back and dead on the spot.
Exactly.
This might be the most moronic post I've ever read on /k/ holy frick.
random hypothetical for you anon, say you get shot but your armor stops the shot, do you
>run away/duck for cover to not get shot again
>stand there because "durr they gon kill u anyway"
>plates are ineffective, you'll die anyways
>they'll slow you down so you can't escape bullets
>if you get shot, the concussion impact will scramble your organs and you'll die anyways
Will/k/ finally just put this into an informative PowerPoint to present to the police dpts and DOD? Body armor is costing lives! It's like you want people to die wearing this stuff!
It's cope for the fake armor Russian Conscripts get.
The Sig was decided on to combat the American public. It reaches farther than 5.56 and punches through the cheap plates people will end up with when shit goes down and the armor will be in ultra high demand.
Keep in mind that a lot of people are going to be too afraid to fight, but are still going to want protection. .277 Fury is the answer to killing both groups of people.
Is this post a joke or…
Ok moron
>5.56
So the US government forgot that the American public has access to cartridges far exceeding the capabilities of both 5.56 and .277 fury, then? This is the smoothest brain take to have come out of the ngsw ordeal
>Russia invades
They're not invading anything again
Yesterday I had my intellect assaulted by the resident earpro schizo shrieking about suppressed PCCs with subsonic rounds deafening users because he was too fricking moronic to grasp a decibel reading chart and couldn't understand why a 140db pressure impulse literally lasting for 2/10000ths of a second wouldn't hurt your hearing.
Now I have this shit from your dumb ass to haunt me for the rest of today.
I hate confident morons so much.
>the resident earpro schizo
if you think his meltdown yesterday was bad you should have seen one from a couple years back where he actually fricking believed that you could only ""safely"" shoot for 10-15 minutes a day so long as you were shooting subsonic rounds through a suppressor while doubling up on hearing protection
I dont know who earpro autist anon is but I know a little about hearing damage.
Hearing damage is cumulative and the "threshhold" begins at 70db.
Cumulative means every sliver moment of time spent hearing noises louder than ~70db adds up over time.
I have a pet theory that the majority of modern hearing loss profiles are due to car travel, which is usually in the 75-85db range (at highway speed).
earpro usually gets ~30 (real shitty) to ~38(good quality and doubled up) db decrease.
refer to chart.
tl;dr you're actually fricking stupid and the "earpro schiz" is correct, now frick off moron.
Oh hey you're pretending to not be you when called out again. Gonna respond to your own posts with a
>b-but X told me that
and also pretend to be an anon that agrees with you,like you've done a half dozen times prior? Your mental illness makes you painfully predictable
>I have a pet theory that the majority of modern hearing loss profiles are due to car travel
Jesse what the frick are you talking about
Just don't bother, he has an actual mental issue and thinks no shooting should be done without doubled up earpro and a suppressor.
Haven't you ever had to attend one of those stupid safety morning meetings where they talk about hearing protection? I swear I remember they would mention that you should drive with your windows up as one of the ways you can protect your hearing
Yeah dude I'm sure every work site morning safety brief includes instruction to never drive with your windows down
Are you fricking with me
Anon I'm pretty sure the guy you're replying to was being sarcastic and pointing out how absolutely ridiculous the hearing aspie is.
Black person don’t lie. You are that autist and it’s apparent. Just own it.
>hearing damage starts at 70db
You are copy/pasting from the cdc. It “can” that doesn’t mean it does. That’s also for constant exposure not for impulses. Talking is 60db and yelling is well above 70. Tons of animals make noises about 70db frequently. Thunder is around 120db. Our ears are not so fragile to be harmed by natural sounds.
There are old farts with hearing that isn’t worse than just age decay who shot .22s all their life without ear pro and hunted without ear pro and are fine. You don’t need to double up. There are hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, who prove this correct.
not my fault you're a moron who doesn't understand simple numbers.
You're the one here advocating wearing earpro while driving. You're deluded and mentally ill. Seek help.
That's jumping conclusions. All I said was "the constant 75-85db road and wind noise of a vehicle is in the known range for hearing damage"
you mil types are a special breed of moron
You’re so autistic you think someone slightly rephrasing your sentence changed the meaning. You again repeated what he said, which was quoting you.
WHAT? I can’t hear you. I drove my car earlier and am now deaf
>Our ears are not so fragile to be harmed by natural sounds.
>natural sounds
you mean like a volcano erupting?
or literally any sound, since all sounds are natural?
but go ahead and tell me more about these 'unnatural' sounds.
Why are you ignoring, yelling, barking, howling, growling, roars, etc as well as thunder which happens every summer many many times? You cope by mentioning a volcano as a “gotcha” even though few civilizations sprouted around volcanos.
You’re moronic. Can you show me documented hearing loss from shooting normal calibers with ear protection? Let alone shooting suppressed with 1 layer of ear pro? Because according to you the latter isn’t enough.
> Because according to you the latter isn’t enough.
Nothing is enough, he's a fricking hypochondriac and mentally unwell. There are literally posts by him saying you should only shoot if you have doubled up earpro and a suppressor, and even then you should only do so for 10-15 minutes at a time. He will literally argue that a supressed 9mm PCC shooting subsonic loads is as loud as an unsuppressed .22, because that's what some charts he only halfway understands told him. Keep in mind that over course of multiple years of him vomiting out his autism-riddled tirades, he's yet to show any proof of actually owning any guns, let alone suppressors. He lives in his own, detached little world.
will also add that he nofrickingshit says you should wear earpro when dryfiring because of the action. we already have him in this thread implying you'll get hearing damage from driving your fricking car. dude is just a fricking nutcase, end of.
>dropping AR bolt
>obnoxiously loud
You know one of the more famous side effects of autism is extreme sensitivity to noise...that coupled with his obsessive focus on this niche topic paints a pretty obvious picture
What the actual frick? Hopefully we can bully him enough into suicide
You know it's him in the OP because of his moronic hatred for OSHA standards. He'll suck off NIOSH all day, and if you have any other organizational safety standards that contradict his own he'll just say they don't count because they aren't NIOSH. He's a homosexual.
>Better make sure to wear earpro when doing dry fire practice
>I don't see why you wouldn't put ears on for it
Jesus Christ I hope he's just taking the piss and isn't serious.
heh funfact i once closed the bolt of my sig 551 on empty chamber without riding it in front of my face and i heard and felt the pain in one ear. pieces of steel slamming together gets loud
Go ask the mods if your earpro autist and I are the same person.
Again, you're fricking moronic.
As I understand it, science is like magic to morons. And here you are vehemently ignoring publicly accessible data about hearing damage.
do you actually expect us to believe there's more than one flaming homosexual aspie here telling people shit like
>wear earpro while dry firing
>wear earpro while dirving too
both with the exact same kind of aggressive midwit posting style??
frick yourself you asspained schizoid, maybe if you didn't have a chronic history of replying to yourself you'd at least be somewhat believable
I can't help you dude. Maybe stop using PrepHole for a while I don't know.
Other people exist.
Now I have to get going because I leave for a three week job that pays 15 grand Saturday and need all my "taken care ofs" taken care of.
So you do you, just consider my advice.
Oh the classic cope of
>I’m too busy and good for you
You’re an idiot and can’t prove what you claim
Post a gun. Post a can.
I don't have any silencers and am not the fabled earpro anon.
Last post from me. Ya'll dumb as hell.
>Ya'll dumb as hell.
My brother in Christ you're saying in this thread people get hearing damage from driving on the highway and lecturing people about damage thresholds while not understanding impulse pressure peaks lasting in barely measurable units of time. Look at yourself.
>Go ask the mods
Do you actually think you're on reddit now?
Post a singular gun you own
Behold, a brain so smooth it’s frictionless
>atheist's hands typed this
Russian cope is great. But these do look pretty cool
Those are Ukrainian plates
The icons were painted on afterwards.
Isn't that blasphemous to have religious icons get shot at?
pravoslav Catholics believe it isn't it call it icona. real Catholics believe it is. that is why they split up
>if you look at police deaths then in the end the policeman was dead
the psychological effect of wearing body armour is worth more than the actual armour.
so if the armour actually works its just double good.
I was saved by a sideplate.
I'm not staying in the thread, so I'll leave this here.
>Be me, zogbot in 'Stan, unaware of the israeli hand.
>Onadismount walking alongside the road that our trucks are on.
>15 meters away lead truck hits a 45lb IED.
>200+ lb wheel gets launched.
>Truck wheel balljoint flies over Sgt. Vest's head and craters the wall of a house behind him. He lived because he was a manlet.
>I get back and discover my sideplate pouch has a new rip and discover that a bit of rock had chipped the corner of the sideplate.
Armor saves lives and bullets aren't the only threat.
No you weren’t anon. Anyone who was shot with armor died. You’re posting from beyond the grave. A German study of officer deaths showed all officers died. Clearly no issue in that methodology.
You can take your plates off
>no matter how many bullets the armor stopped, the policeman was dead
>Do we expect that infantry will engage against enemy infantry over longer distances in the future?
Obviously yes, why are you blindly ignoring radios, ATAKS, and drones.
Shitty scenario incoming
>Squad 1 provides cover for squad 2 and launches a quadrotor
>Squad 2 advances to objective
>Squad 1 spots enemy combatants 600 yds from Squad 2
>Squad 1 is 800 yds from enemy combatants
Why shouldn't Squad 1 use a machine gun to engage the enemy?
Should Squad 2 hold fire until they are significantly closer or fire on the enemy from 600 yds while advancing?
With adequate communication and surveillance equipment it's perfectly reasonable to expect infantry to engage the enemy at further ranges (weapon permitting).
>Why shouldn't Squad 1 use a machine gun to engage the enemy?
The XM7 isn’t a machine gun
Video games. Everybody knows that armor reduces damage taken, but distance isn't really a factor in games, or people's action movie larp fantasies.
New round is flatter shooting and has less travel time. It's about making the 100-400 yard shots easier to hit. The 6.8mm requirement was to make it better at barrier penetration via a thin, heavy projectile. The LPVO is there to make accurate shots easier to line up.
End goal? Accurate shots through cover. The NGSW "automatic rifle" variant was explicity stated to not need belt feed because it's not a suppression-focused concept. The MG was wanted for its direct fire capability through cover and at range. We're done with shooting a frickload of rounds in the enemy's general direction as the primary tactic.
>We're done with shooting a frickload of rounds in the enemy's general direction as the primary tactic.
Clearly since the combat load out is going to be 140 rounds, the problem becomes apparent however when you actually grasp what long range shooting entails and why expecting grunts with paltry 1-8x LPVOs to make 500m shots against moving targets doing their best to remain in cover is laughable.
The MG is going to be more for hitting moving targets at range while the rifle is going to be for volume of fire against enemy squads, just in a different way. It seems like the idea is to just be more accurate than your average M4 setup with better barrier penetration. You'll still be shooting AT the enemy, but each shot will be significantly more potent and you'll have a decent chance of hitting at 500+ yards where an M4 w/ ACOG struggles to get near the bad guys in a firefight and hits like a 9mm.
If I had to guess, they're trying to make the XM7 do at 800 yards what the M4 does at 400 yards; just hit close enough to get a lucky shot off every few mags. The benefit is magnified by .277 Fury actually being able to blow through trees and explode bricks at that distance where 5.56 struggles with that point-blank. Add on the fact that an intermediate rifle is going to be nearly ineffective at 800 yards and it kind of makes sense from a combined arms point of view.
>F-35 spots infantry 1km from one of your fireteams
>commence suppression with near impunity from enemy fire
>artillery hits suppressed enemies
Something to that effect. You just need to make it dangerous *enough* at ranges that intermediate rounds have very little effect. US doctrine has always had an emphasis on combined arms and the NGSW seems to boost infantry's utility when combined with air and artillery assets.
>just hit close enough to get a lucky shot off
>suppression
sounds like something antithetical to having a comically low combat load out...
Suppression is simply forcing stoppages of enemy movement. A single M82 can suppress an enemy squad under the correct circumstances. It's not about spamming fire to scare the other guys. It's about making it too dangerous to move and/or shoot back.
With full-powered rifles firing outside your effective firing range, it'll be far more likely you get hit when returning fire and you have to move 200+ yards against guns that are hitting within a few feet at minimum with every shot. They're also hitting through most things you can hide behind while having the magnification to keep eyes on what enemies are getting behind as they advance.
It's going to be VERY difficult to fight back against a squad of dudes with what are essentially DMRs, which is going to massively improve the suppressive effect of each individual shot. While you only have about half the ammo of an M4, each shot is going to be several times more effective at keeping heads down and several times more likely to inflict casualties.
So this theoretical doctrine revolves around having fields of fire in excess of 300m, a geographical oddity outside of Afghanistan. What happens when engagements move in closer? Do they just make do?
The massively improved barrier penetration still applies. I'd say it's even more of a factor in the Chinese jungles its likely to be used in. China also has a ton of mountainous terrain where sightlines are very likely to extend that far out.
IMO, the 6.8mm projectile diameter requirement is telling that they want something that blows through shit easily. Everyone is saying body armor, but a tree the width an average person can hide behind is prime fodder for the level of cartridge asked for in the NGSW requirements.
>The massively improved barrier penetration still applies. I'd say it's even more of a factor in the Chinese jungles its likely to be used in.
Calling this the M14 2.0 is supposed to be in jest anon, you're not supposed to actually advocate for that.
The M14's poor utility was a product of its time. It didn't suck because it was a battle rifle. It sucked because the equipment of the time didn't support battle rifles. The inclusion of optics alone makes it a new ball game.
A 1-8 LPVO is going to make a high recoil, heavy battle rifle with 20 round mags not struggle in a jungle environment? What?
The M14 sucked dick because it was forties firearm tech that didn't enter service until the sixties.
It's extra funny because when the M14 went up against the AK47 in the earliest Vietnam engagements it had a major disadvantage due to higher recoil and lower mag capacity which resulted in many lost firefights until the M16 filled the gap.
5.56 has much worse barrier pen and performance through foliage was awful. The reason it improved things were two fold, magazine capacity/rate of fire and combat load out.
That's great sweetie but we know for a historical fact it performed better than the M14 which performed worse than the AK.
NGSW has neat technical characteristics and branding but in the sub-200m range where peer infantry combat actually happens it's worse than a frickin AK from the 1950s.
It's an adequate DMR for policing sandBlack folk in mountain edition durkadurkastan though so boomers and zoomers with last-war syndrome will fellate the concept.
Where did I say it didn't?
Ok. It performed better and that’s not up for debate. A heavier, higher recoiling, lower capacity rifle won’t do any better today in a similar environment just because it has a scope.
>Chinese jungles
>but a tree the width an average person can hide behind
Oh so you want soldiers to fire at targets they can’t see and use lots of bullets in hopes they connect? I sure hope they are able to carry a lot of ammo to keep up that volume of fire. Oh wait….
>fields of fire in excess of 300m, a geographical oddity outside of Afghanistan.
I know this isn’t PrepHole but holy shit, actually go outside and touch grass. Just because when you’re out and about you’re looking at shit near you doesn’t mean 300+ yard sight lines don’t exist.
Now take cover into account and actually understand what's being discussed.
No one was saying 300m+ sightlines didn't exist, but that outside of Afghanistan you're going to be hard pressed to find those sort of unobstructed distances as the norm in a realistic combat environment
>each shot is going to be several times more effective at keeping heads down and several times more likely to inflict casualties.
You have no way of quantifying this and you’re pulling it out of your ass.
What happens when you aren’t fighting in desert and mountains and don’t have sightlines miles long? If giving everyone a DMR for extra range is good why don’t we give everyone actual rifles and hook them up with Nemo Omens in .300 win mag?
>The MG is going to be more for hitting moving targets at range
Have fun doing that with no quick change barrels. If you are shooting enough rounds through a LMG to hit moving soldiers at 800 yards you’ll be burning through ammo and heating up your barrel something fierce.
>while the rifle is going to be for volume of fire against enemy squads
How do you win in volume of fire when you carry 140 rounds?
>It seems like the idea is to just be more accurate than your average M4 setup
Give the M4 the same LPVO and it would be just as accurate. It can compensate for drop for either round id designed that way.
>hitting at 500+ yards where an M4 w/ ACOG
Give the M4 the LPVO you double Black person. The scope doesn’t make the gun. The scope can be used on anything.
>has less travel time
Basically no practical difference within 500 yards. 6.8 is 200fps faster than a M4. Averaging flight times it’s about .589 seconds to get to 500 yards with a 6.8 vs .638 seconds with a M4 and 5.56. If someone is running at a 90 degree angle to you at 12mph (which is pretty fast for carrying a combat load) he’d move 10.37’ in the 6.8 flight time vs 11.23’ with the M4 flight time. It is 10” less that you have to lead, but only a 8% change. You’d have to lead 124” with 6.8 vs 134” 5.56. You aren’t aiming with that degree of lead accuracy anyhow.
That’s a more extreme example and if someone is angling towards or away or moving slower the lead is less, but so is the difference in lead between the two rounds. My math could be off since I’m doing it quickly, but let’s not act like this turns the gun into a laser.
You ever try to shoot 5.56 to 500y? How about 6.5cm?
Actually yes. And it sucks to do with 5.56. My comment was on flight time and is accurate.
If you want to discuss drop, ok. However all pro-NGSW people are acting like the scope makes it a walk in the park. You can know your range and drop and a 500 yard shot is still difficult. If the scope really does range and calculate drop and give you an aiming point that fluidly, then it can do that with 5.56 or any caliber. The scope is independent of the caliber and rifle.
>If the scope really does range and calculate drop and give you an aiming point that fluidly, then it can do that with 5.56 or any caliber. The scope is independent of the caliber and rifle.
5.56 does not have the same on target effects at 500m as the new 6.8 round.
>5.56 does not have the same on target effects at 500m as the new 6.8 round.
interdasting
In a few posts you went from
>here are all the ways 6.8 is so much better
To
>well at least it hits harder
Fascinating.
No shit it’s more powerful. No one is disputing that. That doesn’t mean it’s a good decision. 7.62x51 hits harder than 5.56 and we switched to that. The Soviets switched to 5.45. Every country abandoned battle rifle calibers for a smaller intermediate round. Why should we switch back?
no i am a different idiot
He didn't go anywhere from that initial point. All of the ways 6.8 is better are still true, including hitting harder
We have NG scopes now
We're basically aimbotting now, so the round that hits hardest in 1 shot is better
>We're basically aimbotting now
it's always people with no understanding of actual shooting that are so floored by something as simple as an automatic BDC solution
We're very close to actual aimbot tech, though. I give it 20 hears maximum before you can nail a dude within 1 second of them peeking cover.
>HUD concept is able to track infantry like a fricking Battlefield game
>optic/FCG combos are able to target objects and fire only when the shot will hit as the user's aim moves
Those two technologies together would give you an absurdly high hit rate even at long distances. I don't think the NGSW is where we need to be to take full advantage, though. The best option would be a full-power version of .224 Valkyrie that can push the high BC 90gr bullets to 3500ish FPS. Something that gives the absolute minimum flight time so target movement is less of a factor.
>basically aimbotting now
No we aren’t and anyone saying this is a sure fire sign of someone who has never shot past 100 yards. I’d argue it’s often by someone who doesn’t even own a rifle.
>7.62x51 hits harder than 5.56 and we switched to that.
7.61x51 is also kind of a shitty cartridge whose major achivement was actually getting a standardized NATO round.
You didn't refute any of the ways 6.8x51 is better.
>We're done with shooting a frickload of rounds in the enemy's general direction as the primary tactic.
That’s moronic. That’s been the trend since guns were first used in war hundreds of years ago. Soldiers always shoot as much as they can.
We’ve seen this play out with the Krag vs the Mauser and stripper clips. It didn’t go well. Purposely limiting how much you can shoot or carry isn’t going to end well.
>purposely limiting
It isn't purposely limiting. It's going to a smaller count than we had before with hopes of greater effect. If more rounds carried and fired was the only thing of consequence, we'd have switched to .22lr and American 180's.
>It isn't purposely limiting. It's going to a smaller count than we had before
What? Do you hear yourself?
>with hopes of greater effect.
Hopes. Wow. So comforting.
I mean what do you call experimental? That doesn't mean it's without good reason and evidence
>do you hear yourself
So where's the unstoppable army of american180 armed infantry
>The MG was wanted for its direct fire capability through cover and at range. We're done with shooting a frickload of rounds in the enemy's general direction as the primary tactic.
The Sig LMG is like a 10 MOA gun under the best circumstances.
It seems like pretty moronic cope for a few dozen AFG engagements where the US couldn't effectively return fire against PKMs in elevated positions. It's not a good concept for the peer fight imo. I think a caseless round with similar to 5.56 performance but much less weight would have been a better investment. I'd rather wave my procurement wand and make everyone a machine gunner than a designated marksman, personally. Especially since we designed the whole fricking gun because machine gunners were dunking on marksmen
It doesn't matter how far away you can hit the guy if the bullet just goes *ping* when it hits his chest plate.
>So, here's my question: Do we expect that infantry will engage against enemy infantry over longer distances in the future?
Yes. The scope will aim for you.
That's a stupid last-war idea since the scope isn't what determines whether you can engage enemy infantry with a rifle. Their use of cover is.
>He doesn't get it
The scope and your helmet will be datalinked to a sensor net. The drone, or even satellite overhead will feed you real time information that draws the outline of your foe behind cover like a videogame HUD. You shoot him through the concealment, or simply wait for him to poke his head out and kill him, since you know exactly where he is at all times.
That's the endgame is all of these programs that are being tied together into increasingly information dense networks - the next best thing to omniscience.
>The drone, or even satellite overhead will feed you real time information that draws the outline of your foe behind cover like a videogame HUD
If I have this kind of Intel why am I using a fricking bullet to put this guy down instead of an air strike, mortars, artillery, grenades of all types etc etc
False dichotomy. You can do both. Your bullets are what keep him in place while he awaits his death by airstrike.
If my bullets are meant to just keep enemies in place why am I given a whopping 140 to do the job?
Better yet. Why am I carrying all this extra weight to sit on my ass waiting ten to fifteen minutes for an airstrike, that may never come in contested airspace, when I and my squad could be carrying smart airburst munitions and a launcher to do the job ourselves?
How many bullets do you spend to keep him in place? Why wouldn’t you want 50% more rounds for 28% less weight? If this rifle is for fighting peers or near peers, can you rely on air strikes to do the killing every time?
What if you can't get air support because you've got peer AA nearby?
You can’t. that’s what I was saying
*You* don't get it. Datalinking a gun doesn't enable you to shoot through a stone wall. It enables you to launch HE on him or maneuver around him to shoot from the side; which NGSW is bad for because it weighs more and has less ammo.
The more important datalinks become the less sense NGSW makes.
Replace "armor" with "intermediate barriers" and the whole thing makes a lot more sense. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the .mil had to use "armor pen" as a sexy line to get it approved and funded.
At any rate, it opens up longer range options, which also opens up movement and cover options while maneuvering. Think of it as adding a long handle to a tool for convenience and you're not terribly far off.
Increase in capability or options is never a bad thing.
The Army is shifting from suppressive fires to destructive fires.
>the bloopsturm lives again
https://sam.gov/opp/c5fed50b4d7f4f7bab604f0b57b2123b/view
The XM250 is not a machine gun, anyone talking about it like it is one is not to be taken seriously.
>infantry over longer distances in the future
yes and lots of people in Ukraine now saying they are often being target by "lobbed bullets" basically like infantry using some advance HMG tactics
I mean if you have the optic, have the target area, why not try to lob some some bullets there? At least suppress them... It works in Arma
Brass is obsessed with the idea of overmatch, and got sale's pitched a concept of *hood slap* this baby can fit so much overmatch into it.
I don't think it's the best idea ever but I don't think a bit more kick, 6 more inches of OAL, and 10 less rounds in a mag suddenly makes the thing useless in close combat. If footage from ukraine is anything to go by then the trend in a peer war seems to be to run lighter on ammo than what we're used to from the GWOT days since you probably don't want to stick around anywhere long enough to shoot 300+ rounds.
It seems like coffin mags and holding down a trigger would work well in the trenches you're thinking of.
>Initial disclaimer: I'm a moron and I only shoot for fun. All I'm doing is thinking about situations and needs in military without knowing jack.
Me too.
500 yards is still quite shootable once you've walked yourself on target. Not first round hits but imagine hitting a building or dirt bank nearby and being able to see your bullet splash you could adjust your fire and enterpulate +/- X amount of yards further with the cartridge easier. Pretty sure I've seen videos on the Ukraine front of fire from pretty far distances (especially between buildings) its just not as exciting because you can't see what's happening.
I think the ammunition itself is going to make a big difference for general barrier blind performance but compared to M80A1 on the same task: I don't know.
I know OP didn't mention plates but I found the other day that special threat plates like the l210 can't handle 308 despite being able to take 5.56 at pretty high speeds and I'd imagine steel level 3 likely couldn't stop hardened steel penetrator EPR loads. Level 4 exists amd isnt hard to get for us but they're pretty heavy and expensive for reasonable weight ones. At least currently the EPR style ammunition is likely very capable against peer armor for quite some distance.
>Why is there a focus on armor penetration over distance?
Because the next enemy will be wearing body armour
>So, here's my question: Do we expect that infantry will engage against enemy infantry over longer distances in the future?
That's the idea behind it, hence the fancy computerized optic that can make such hits possible. What they're missing is that marksmanship isn't what determines engagement range, but line of sight.
Anyone who has been in the field can tell you that even "flat" terrain has dips and folds that break line of sight with an enemy in any sort of defensive positions until you're pretty close. And once you're that close, you have a giant musket with high recoil and fewer rounds, making the whole thing a liability when you get to the part of the fight that's actually decided by the infantry - at that point your $15000 rifle and optic combo might as well be an FAL, which got replaced for a reason.
they melted them all down instead of giving it to us leafs 🙁
It gets even worse when you consider that infantry never act on their own and never act with only assault/battle rifles in play
There's DMRs, machine guns, sniper rifles, rifle grenades, light and heavy mortars, AT4s and CGs and even the infantry has access to vehicles and their mounted weapons
Then you factor in the other parts of the service and other services that may be involved in any combat situation and it gets ridiculous
Especially on flat terrain where air and ground vehicles rule
>Initial disclaimer: I'm a moron
The question is: how make better M4 that will kill through lvl4 body armor?
The answer is: could do it a lot if ways, but if you want an improved AP round, consider changing caliber.
So they picked a SCAR and changed it to 6.5sneedmore and made a better AP cartridge. That's literally it.
>But what about hunting
Just use whatever. Obviously you don't need to use AP or FMJ like military is required to.
That wasn’t the question that was asked. Body armor penetration was a Sigger cope. The NGSW parameters never mention it.
>So they picked a SCAR and changed it to 6.5sneedmore and made a better AP cartridge. That's literally it.
No, they didn’t at all.
Yes, you are indeed a moron.
The original question of the program was: how to justify a bigger boomer bullet.
The answers were: range & stopping power (pre-Iraq), stopping power (Iraq), range (Afghanistan), muh plates (return to near peer).
Pretending NGSW is only about the excuse of the current 5-year buzzword is misleading. It's a 15 year+ attempt to return to the M14 which has cycled through several program names.
All of these look ugly and gay.
It was specifically to prepare for conventional conflict with second world nations like Russia
Where it is far more likely that enemy infantry are wearing plates or other body armor
I'd imagine China as well, because we have been teetering on global war for a while now
So we merc our combat loadout, dramatically increase the bulk and weight and recoil of our service rifles, so we can shoot a round that still needs a tungsten core to penetrate combat plates.
Well you can also not bog down troops with extra equipment that they don't need
Then you have increased mobility and firepower, without sacrificing armor
That makes sense to me, especially in the context of the ME conflicts, but I'm not anyone important really
If we truly have a third world war
It could result in total nuclear destruction
But the military must prepare for all threats
I value national security as an American citizen
This is important to consider in an armed insurrection
A patriotic person would defend their land from foreign invasion
And would also overthrow a despotic foreign occupation as well
Such as the genocidal zionist occupation, killing Christians in Palestine
pretty sure its about effective range
USGi probably got tired to being dabbed on by DShK
>fall over and attempt to breathe while suffering pain from broken bone
>getting shot will shatter your ribs
When will this meme end? People have gotten shot in their plates tons of times and generally they get a bruise and nothing else. BFD causing serious wounding isn’t a thing
Distance was a major priority, situations in Afghanistan where US soldiers with M4s were outranged by insurgents in the hills were a major inspiration for the NGSW program.
The real advantage of the .277, and one people don't seem to understand very often, is how well it performs out of short barrels. Shot out of the XM7's 13" barrel, it's comparable to .308 out of a 20", and that's a massive advantage, basically allowing every soldier in the squad to have a DMR (especially with the new optics) but in a form factor that still allows for CQB and for the gun to be manageable with a suppressor attached.
>but in a form factor that still allows for CQB
If I get handed a 15 pound rifle that's uncontrollable in FA with an LPVO and a 20 round magazine and told this is my door-kicking gun, I'm going to laugh. I picked a bad time to join up.
We know distance is the point of it. The issue is the distance the gun can shoot doesn’t match most battlefield conditions. And the extra weight and loss of ammo isn’t worth the tradeoff when most the world isn’t Afghanistan. Classic example of fighting the last war
>, situations in Afghanistan where US soldiers with M4s were outranged by insurgents in the hills were a major inspiration for the NGSW program.
those situations barely ever happened and could be readily countered by a DMR or GPMG...things that are already available at the squad level.
Go back to M1 Garand, but with box mags full of .30 06 Springfields
in hindsight focusing on penetration is really funny now that we know our "near-peer" enemies send their troops out in airsoft LARP helmets and cardboard plates
Can the assmad 19 year old min.wage dropouts ignore the oversensitive autismos and stay on topic?
US Mil operates on Overmatch capability and doesn't give a dog's hair of a frick about anything else except budget restrictions. XM5 program is basically a trial run for small arms overmatch to quiet down the 5.56 haters.
Penetration isn't just body armor. It's also windshields and hard cover at engagement distance, and terminal KE is also a huge factor in "1 shot drop" capability.
But really the XM program is more about the computer optic and future integration with HMDs/battlespace information networks/etc.
It doesn't make every frontline grunt a standalone DM, it gives them a "I can hit you with this sledgehammer farther than you can poke me with that needle."
thread's gay and full of nogunz and armchair generals
>thread's gay and full of nogunz and armchair generals
Pot, meet kettle
>It doesn't make every frontline grunt a standalone DM, it gives them a "I can hit you with this sledgehammer farther than you can poke me with that needle."
Wow actual videogame moron logic where the only thing taken into account is gaming range mechanics and DPS.
Because that rifle was designed for civil war 2.0 and the govt has realized probably more than half of white men now own body armor.
We should've just adopted 6.8 SPC like 10 years ago