No, that assumes youve always got eyes on the enemy and are engaging at a distance. Certainly thats the notion behind NGSW, but that was a heavily criticized development even before Ukraine showed that a modern peer war favors maximizing ammunition carriage and volume of fire over range and penetration.
I fervently believe the NGSW platform was designed to be one step ahead of a peer war. Why? The rifle by itself is useless. But add a smart scope with IVAS, matured first world American MIC level drone technology, AI, all networked together? US infantry WILL always have eyes, natural or electronic, on the enemy, and will have enough intelligence on the enemy available to the soldier on the ground that they can always force the enemy into engagements at a distance only suitable for the US.
You gotta remember Puccia is barely a third world country being fought by comparatively tiny country that only recently got catapulted from soviet era jank to first world surplus. It's not a modern peer war at all.
It makes some sense, and that would be the most charitable interpretation of NGSW, but I dont think there is such a grand plan. Its one thing to give your guys a tactical edge over their enemies, its another thing to overspecialize into that technological edge so hard that theyre reliant on it to function normally.
I fervently believe the NGSW platform was designed to be one step ahead of a peer war. Why? The rifle by itself is useless. But add a smart scope with IVAS, matured first world American MIC level drone technology, AI, all networked together? US infantry WILL always have eyes, natural or electronic, on the enemy, and will have enough intelligence on the enemy available to the soldier on the ground that they can always force the enemy into engagements at a distance only suitable for the US.
You gotta remember Puccia is barely a third world country being fought by comparatively tiny country that only recently got catapulted from soviet era jank to first world surplus. It's not a modern peer war at all.
Solution: binary trigger is standard. Now every soldier has controlled suppressive fire on demand. One guy gets an auto sear, that's the SAW.
>why are soldiers in assault roles not using marksman rifles
Because they aren't supposed to fight like designated marksmen. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
The military should equip troops with blowback submachine guns that have two sears, one further back than the other for semi automatic fire, the front one for full auto and then issue rounds loaded hard enough for the bolt to travel to of the sears or the other.
because too many snipers was too OP as a meta and they banned it
Because most infantrymen are garbage
This. Trying get a gaggle of 18/19 year old mouth breathing spergs to do anything beyond basic tasks is a fucking nightmare.
No, that assumes youve always got eyes on the enemy and are engaging at a distance. Certainly thats the notion behind NGSW, but that was a heavily criticized development even before Ukraine showed that a modern peer war favors maximizing ammunition carriage and volume of fire over range and penetration.
I fervently believe the NGSW platform was designed to be one step ahead of a peer war. Why? The rifle by itself is useless. But add a smart scope with IVAS, matured first world American MIC level drone technology, AI, all networked together? US infantry WILL always have eyes, natural or electronic, on the enemy, and will have enough intelligence on the enemy available to the soldier on the ground that they can always force the enemy into engagements at a distance only suitable for the US.
You gotta remember Puccia is barely a third world country being fought by comparatively tiny country that only recently got catapulted from soviet era jank to first world surplus. It's not a modern peer war at all.
It makes some sense, and that would be the most charitable interpretation of NGSW, but I dont think there is such a grand plan. Its one thing to give your guys a tactical edge over their enemies, its another thing to overspecialize into that technological edge so hard that theyre reliant on it to function normally.
Solution: binary trigger is standard. Now every soldier has controlled suppressive fire on demand. One guy gets an auto sear, that's the SAW.
>why are soldiers in assault roles not using marksman rifles
Because they aren't supposed to fight like designated marksmen. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Because America proved years ago that as long as you can hit the long side of a barn, heavy fire is all that matters.
you ever see how infantrymen aim?
They'd definitely do better with a proper DMR with nice glass that's for sure
>They'd definitely do better with a proper DMR with nice glass that's for sure
And who pays for that?
What if they enter a trench complex like the ones in Ukraine?
Not a bad idea but I'm still more partial to making everyone a Machine Gunner
Because they should be issued semi-automatic anti-materiel rifles, giving them future proof solution to enemy body armor
The military should equip troops with blowback submachine guns that have two sears, one further back than the other for semi automatic fire, the front one for full auto and then issue rounds loaded hard enough for the bolt to travel to of the sears or the other.
Ok Max Brooks
Uhm, actually... max brooks said they used 5.56 sweaty...
Firepower > Precision. From WWI onwards, this has been true.
It requires way too much time to train a marksman