If video games taught me anything it's that shotguns and SMGs are way more fun than rifles. And if you're not having fun, what's the point?
First rule of warfare is to have fun
Exactly as Sun Tzu said.
Be me, a TACTICAL modern warfare player
Gear up with my M4+Shotgun loadout. Im ready for some intense, exciting, and tactical gameplay. Set up shop in any building of my choosing. Place a claymore near the single entrance of my room. Tactical. Mount my m4 on the window. I see an enemy crouching around a car trying to slowly inch forward. Fool, he should have thought about tactics more and checked every single obscure window on the map before running around like a headless chicken. 4 shots is all it takes. My first kill. This is so exciting and fun! I hear my claymore go off in the background. Ive claimed another victim. These enemies are total noobs, no tactics at all! Now that my claymore is gone i should move to the room right next to me. Smart tactics. Watch the each side of the hallway for 60 seconds each to make sure its clear. Tactics. I sprint 5 feet to the other other room. That was jaw clenching! I should dial it back, im moving around too aggressively. Mount my m4 on the window. Wait and scan. Its been 3 minutes and i havent engaged anyone. Should i move to a different locat- NO WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE POWER POSITION DONT GIVE IT UP TO RUN TO ANOTHER BUILDING LIKE A HEADLESS CHICKEN! Sometimes its hard to keep myself in check. claim 2 more kills with my superior tactics before the match reaches its time limit. Im suprised allot of matches have been ending from the time limit rather than kill count. Wonder why that is... What a fun, exciting match that was! Those 5 kills over 10 minutes really showcase my tactical skills. Load up another match and repeat my tried and true strategy. 9 kills this time. Headless chickens the lot of them. They are no match for my tactics. I can hear their footsteps from 50 feet away. And im not even wearing a headset. Load another match. I set up shop near a window. Dont move. Moving means certain death. I should play the game the way its designed to play: being tactical. Load up another match. Dont move. Tell myself im having fun with this tactical playstyle. This is just what i wanted in cod. Fuck the fun run and gun style that absolute scrubs are used to, i want REALISM GOD DAMMIT. Load up another match. Dont move. Load up another match. Dont move. Load up another match. Dont move. I havent moved an inch. I hear gunfire outside but i will NOT risk my 2.1 KD to peek my head out and join the action. It wouldnt be very tactical of me. I havent moved an inch the whole game. Im not sure if this tactical gameplay is fun anymore
Man is just describing Hell Let Loose
Finally, someone has the courage to say it.
No no, this NEXT war will be fought out in the steppes with engagement ranges of ~1km, just trust me, it came to me in a dream
Counterpoint: Rifles need to account for global obesity trends.
By 2050, Americans and Chinese alike will have a natural two inches of armour directly protecting their vital organs.
I'm concerned you've possibly never witnessed a 5.56 round going through tough clothing, then 4 inches of ballistic gelatin.
Airsoft pellets can punch through those Temu armor plates at 300 meters, who needs 6.8x51?
Chinese plates can actually be really good quality. I got my hands on some and then tested one with a 7.62x54r firing B32 API rounds. It stopped both hits, which was fucking impressive. Thing is, the plates are cheap enough that it's worth buying 3 and then just shooting one to test the quality.
Did the NGSW program ever explicitly state that 6.8 was for smoking Russian and Chinese plates or was that something that mil writers extrapolated then everyone took as gospel?
I don't think I've seen any definitive testing of the AP potential of the rifle/round. Maybe it's TOP SECRET DONUT STEEL, but even a cheap level IV ceramic is really tough stuff, I have my doubts.
Increased body armor penetration has been a consideration since at least 2017(page 10), however it was less the driving force back then compared to pushing for longer range, which given that Afghanistan was ongoing makes sense. Increased range and increased armor penetration were both justifications from the start, but it has been interesting to watch which of them was the publicly pushed focus and when. As heated combat in Afghanistan became less pressing, there was more of a spotlight on armor penetration.
But did they say Chinese body armor
No, I haven't found an official DOD document specifically calling out Chinese body armor. Publicly the DOD is going to mostly avoid naming names of a nation it isn't at war with. "Emerging threats" "Peer adversary" "Global situation". But about the time the US was getting serious about the NGSW they were also gung ho about the M10 Booker, a vehicle that really only makes sense for the US to create if it is planning on island hopping combat, and the US was getting super serious back into jungle training for conventional troops. Meanwhile China was showing off it's capabilities. So, yeah. Chyna.
I'm not sure if it's in the program docs but it does seem like a reasonable conclusion. Maybe we'll get some field testing data on its effectiveness in the next few years. Might be harder to find a Russian with real plates by then though, lots of cheap knock-off body armor out there.
Is there a reason bullpup isn' the standard? (reloading issues maybe?) it seems like a sensible way to get more barrel length while maintaining a compact weapon.
Nerd shit.
Well if PHYSICS and THE IMPLICATIONS THEREOF are "nerd shit" we can just go back to swords and spears 😠
Pls can we go back it was so cool
I'm working on it.
They're too OP and got banned by the admin.
same. i think they're harder to manufacture
As long as you aren't British, they aren't that hard to make. But, the "conventional vs. bullpup" debate is a separate one from the "intermediate rifle vs. full power rifle" debate for the most part. I know people are going to talk about overall length, but really that's an argument point that applies no matter the caliber.
Intermediate caliber vs. full power is really a fundamental difference in thinking.
why aren't all rifles bullpup then?
I want to emphasize my above comment was made specifically to avoid the "conventional vs bullpup" debate, because it is a separate one from the "intermediate caliber vs full size". I can not stress this enough.
The benefit of having a full length barrel in a shorter package looks amazing on paper, but in practice isn't as big a deal for most purposes.
Bullpups introduce issues like an upper limit on how good the trigger can be because of a needed linkage, and I think more pressing is making something as simple as brass ejection a bit of a head scratcher to make work for both left and right handed people. There are solutions but they aren't necessary if you just don't deal with bullpups.
Since AR-15 derived designs are the most popular military rifles worldwide, I'll mention that the straightline recoil and beefy buffer assembly are appreciated and that impulse can't really be replicated in a bullpup design.
Now, I feel it in my bones that you want to argue for the merits of bullpups. Maybe I'm wrong but I just get that sense. I genuinely have been a part of so many bullpup conversations and I honestly don't care about it. Bullpup vs conventional is a boring argument. If you're still wanting to continue a discussion/debate/internet argument please direct an angry correspondence to the French military about their dropping of the FAMAS for HK416s.
Now, I feel it in my bones that you want to argue for the merits of bullpups.
Only ONE merit that matters:
looks cool
No further arguments needed.
I'm sorry lol I only know what call it duty has taught me about guns.
It's the left (handed) conspiring against us again.
Ok uh, am I just stupid, or would it not be possible to just...
Have a doctrine that just includes both squad templates of troops with with mostly medium - close range weaponry, with a DMR, a SAW, and then another squad template that is mostly medium - longish range weaponry, with a couple 'cqc' pointmen / perimeter defense dudes, with just M4s, who also carry some spare mags for the 'battle rifleers'?
Like, stupendously simplified, the entire reason the push for 6.8, longer range weapons happened was because Afghanistan has big ole mountains and valleys.
So just... have essentially mountaineer infantry squads, with more of the mix weighted toward 'battle rifles', and then also have normal infantry squads, with less of the mix weighted toward 'battle rifles'.
Like really, am I stupid?
Why would you not just do this?
You're trying to compromise and meet in the middle by creating a horrendously complicated TO&E to appease people wanting to make money by overhauling US small arms, which is all solving a "problem" that existed and got solved without the NGSW. The NGSW was pushed by gun industry people looking to sell a lucrative solution by cherry picking and distorting data. You can tell this because the justification for the NGSW has shifted from "we need long range overmatch overmatch overmatch buzzword" when they could scare monger about Afghanistan, to "we need to punch through Chinese body armor" once that particular scare wasn't pressing anymore. People who make money by selling new guns will always find a reason for you to ditch what you currently have in favor of their new gun.
I mean, I know the 'real answer' is the Mil-Ind complex figuring out the most expensive way to solve a problem that didn't really exist...
But is it really that hard on the TO&E to just... do 5.56x45... and 7.62x51?
HK 416/417?
CZ Bren 2 variants?
Or... just... M4, some kind of homegrown AR10 type thing, that works similarly?
Like, you have the same 7.62 weapon be the DMR/BR... the DMR is just built with a fancier, but less durable barrel, the BR variant has a more durable, less fancy barrel. 10 rnd mags for the DMR, 20 round mags for the BR.
We... we've been doing this, to varying extents, for decades...?
Maybe I'm not properly reading a layer of sarcasm in what you wrote?
The solution comes first from thinking bigger than the squad level. Think at the platoon level at a minimum, since as a baseline that's going to be the smallest independent element for conventional purposes. A platoon already includes 7.62mm MGs in the weapons squad. Adding onto that a limited amount of DMRs in the platoon level, as was done in Afghanistan solves the supposed "overmatch" issue. A select amount of the platoon has the full powered ballistics, while all the standard service weapons remain in intermediate caliber, which is the best all around caliber for infantry service. Optics are much easier to modify to match the theater. Want to add some M110A1s or something to the platoon for a few dedicated guys? Sure. Want to make a floating TO&E where every normal guy might get one of two calibers of weapon? Nah, nah. Want to give the standard guys a bunch of extra weight? Give them some extra belts of 7.62mm that they can feed the weapons squad.
An example of some of the early not-quite-honest MIC pushing of the NGSW idea was they would list the consistent terminal ballistic range of 5.56mm and then compare it to something like 7.62x54r that was being used by insurgents in Afghanistan. Obviously the full power round has a longer reach. Everyone already knows that, that is part of the trade off. The presentations however scare mongered as if this was a newly discovered and terrifying fact. "Oh no our brave boys are being outranged in combat, they're sitting ducks!"- as long as you ignore that platoon already has DMRs and M240s that is. As well as the fact that US military optics are allowing standard Joes to accurately reach out to basically the edge of the effective ballistic range of their calibers, whereas an iron sighted Mosin with a clapped out barrel is not doing the same. In extended advances by remote US units, a platoon may even carry it's own mortars to make it's own organic base of fire, which is a heavy ask, but is both effective and doesn't completely disrupt the TO&E.
I want to re-emphasize that ever since the Afghan drawdown the primary push of why the NGSW is supposedly so important has shifted. Nowadays it is all about punching through body armor and playing up the trouble 5.56mm has. You know ignoring that M995 has existed for decades and that it would be a lot simpler to mass issue it or an improved 5.56mm armor piercing round than it would be to completely switch calibers.
If the US is so worried about keeping ahead, there are a lot of things that would be a lot more effective like actually making some headway on issuing the guided, extended warhead 40mm rounds that were part of the justification for moving to the M320, which have not materialized at all.
Want to add some M110A1s or something to the platoon for a few dedicated guys? Sure. Want to make a floating TO&E where every normal guy might get one of two calibers of weapon? Nah, nah. Want to give the standard guys a bunch of extra weight? Give them some extra belts of 7.62mm that they can feed the weapons squad.
Ok, that makes sense, I understand what you're saying now, not just from this snippet, but I think this snippet encapsulates the answer to the confusion I was having.
We're gonna need to start a NonCredible War College, lol, if you keep dropping write ups like that!
I guess, if I were still to quibble, what I'm proposing is that you'd just have different kinds of battalions.
The 'standard' battalion would have combat companies with primarily 5.56, augmented with 7.62 DMRs peppered in, and then the 'mountaineer' battalion would have 7.62 BRs, with 5.56 peppered in, basically, perhaps slightly different standard platoon/squad compositions.
(Again, where the DMR and BR would be at least somewhat interchangeable varianants of each other, either could take the 10 or 20 rnd mags, though maybe you'd be ok with the barrels/uppers not being fully interchangeable, so the DMR can be more focused on precision, the BR can be more focused on endurance)
Like, if you're not mounted, or not mounted as often, maybe you can make an argument that cutting out a SAW gunner, and instead just having enough ammo, in general, to do collective suppressive fire... this is worth it as you are overall less equipment heavy in an unmounted, on foot situation, because you gain mobility and endurance/stamina, as a unit.
Perhaps I don't fully understand exactly what constitutes a floating TO&E, but... if you went with this, you'd presumably have a more stable and defined pool for the battalion, at which level you'd have an accompanying support company, to keep all this straight.
Though this would mean that said 'Mountaineers' would essentially have to actually train and qualify on both the 5.56 and the 7.62... maybe you could just pull Mountaineers from people who qualify as marksmen and are also built like refrigerators, lol?
I'm definitely not sure of how the actual training pipeline progression looks, how it would have to change.
I totally hear you on the M955 though.
Yeah... it is... pretty absurd to pivot to 'we need a whole new kit and kaboodle to defeat body armor' when just... no, you don't, we already have a pretty good, much cheaper solution to that 'problem'... if its really a 'problem', just get some heavier duty barrels and chambers, refit a bunch of existing M4s/16s.
And yeah... yeah having a guided 40mm would be pretty neat, in a lot of situations.
Like, we ... did figure out how to make this:
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-camera-drone-grenade-launcher-gluas/
In think I recall an earlier similar thing that just deployed a parachute, and was just basically a floating camera.
You'd think you could make something along similarish kinds of lines, just pop it high up, it deploys wings, then it glides itself down toward just a laser designated target, or maybe its FPV via a terminal or AR glasses/headset?
We’re gonna need to start a NonCredible War College, lol, if you keep dropping write ups like that!
I am in an unusually altered state. I normally don't essaypost like this.
what I’m proposing is that you’d just have different kinds of battalions.
This is somewhat similar to India which uses a lot of 7.62x39mm AK-203s and 7.62x51mm SiG-716, distributing them to different units. However, India is primarily concerned with protecting its borders rather than preparing for hypothetical military force projections so they have a more stable idea of what weapons will be used where.
For the US I still do not think making battle rifle specific units is a good idea. It presumes a fully battle rifle equipped unit is ideal in a given situation. I don't think that's right. While 5.56mm can struggle at 600-800m (depending on the weapon specifics, ammo specifics, and who you ask), the presumption that even in the mountains of Afghanistan that this was a debilitating problem is overblown. Full power MGs and DMRs can work on the longer ranges, and inside of the extreme ranges intermediate caliber just gets better and better compared to full power for a service rifle. It is not as if every firefight in Afghanistan was at 800m.
Now, something that makes sense and has been done in the past is creating accurized 5.56mm rifles for units specializing in longer ranges. The USMC made the SAM-R and the US Army's 3rd ID made the SDM-R. Both of them were 20 inch barrel, M16A4 derived weapons that were modified, assembled with care, and given appropriate optics. If you want a "Mountaineer" outfitted unit, such a rifle makes a lot of sense as the service rifle as it prioritizes range without sacrificing ammo and parts compatibility with everyone else, and those rifles are a lot more usable inside of longer distances than a battle rifle would be. And still assuming this hypothetical unit still has all the full power DMRs and MGs backing up the smaller rifles.
Like, if you’re not mounted, or not mounted as often, maybe you can make an argument that cutting out a SAW gunner, and instead just having enough ammo, in general, to do collective suppressive fire… this is worth it as you are overall less equipment heavy in an unmounted, on foot situation, because you gain mobility and endurance/stamina, as a unit.
This was literally the TO&E in Vietnam. In WW2, there was a squad automatic rifle (usually the BAR) organic to squads. After WW2, the US first tried the idea of M14 equipped troops supported by an M15/M14E2 squad automatic rifle taking the place of the BAR. When the M14 was replaced by the M16, the squad automatic rifle role was removed because hey every soldier could do that job in a pinch with their controllable, full auto service rifle. This looked good on paper, but eventually resulted in the M249 SAW and that role coming back because a weapon that could be the base of fire organic in the squads was important. (This is partially btw why I am convinced the USMC is going to pull their M249s out of storage the second they deploy for force-on-force in the future)
If you are dismounted a lot, there's also a half decent chance you are on the strained end of the supply chain. You want to be able to carry more ammo per pound, not less. Suppressing fire is how firefights go. It is how people are trained. It is how they will fight. Dave Grossman is a fraud. The idea sometimes floated that soldiers with less ammo (because they are carrying bigger full power rounds) will compensate by firing more accurately and using fewer rounds is the opposite of pretty much every study I know of and of doctrine developed from studies and experience. More ammo is good, and a soldier can carry more intermediate ammo than full power ammo.
And yeah… yeah having a guided 40mm would be pretty neat, in a lot of situations.
Guided 40mm exists...somewhere. The Raytheon Pike was hyped for a while. What I mean by these rounds not materializing is, that they are essentially cryptids. People have photos of them, and maybe even they'll drunkenly tell you a story of how they touched one once, but they aren't just out and about. If a US infantry unit deployed tomorrow, none of the grenadiers would have any.
... well I honestly don't know what to say other than 'holy shit, how do you know all this, off the top of your head?'
Uh.
Yeah.
Other than that:
No clue who Dave Grossman is, I am not an... adherent of Grossman thought, but uh yeah, what you've said makes sense, suppressive fire is... much more about the number of rounds, than their 'lethality'.
Also: Hope whatever you are altered on has a smooth edge to it, I would perhaps recommend chamomile tea?
well I honestly don’t know what to say other than ‘holy shit, how do you know all this, off the top of your head?’
Traveling and absorbing from people who knew a lot more.
The Dave Grossman aside wasn't a shot at you, it was more for those who know. He wrote a book where his conclusion was that soldiers in war intentionally miss. His methods for gathering data were sketchy to say the least. His name or book seemingly inevitably appears on comments any time the number of rounds fired vs kills in war comes up. It's a very reductionist idea that appeals to the sensibilities of what I might imperfectly call "mainstream Reddit culture".
I would perhaps recommend chamomile tea?
Thanks but that isn't the direction I'm heading.
Ah, you're heading to Bat Country then.
Well, have a good trip!
Pfft, just issue everyone a 1911 and a box of ammo for it, problem solved. Well, except for how to clean up all the dropped panties and jizz filled BDUs.
Militaria shitposting central! Post memes, tasteless jokes, and sexual cravings for military equipment and/or nuclear self-destruction!
Rules:
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
!forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
