User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:04:25 PM EDT
[#1]
So, no .277 Fury?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:06:52 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry, I don't hunt with .223. BTW, it isn't legal for deer in some states. I didn’t realize this conversation was about hunting. My mistake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:20:26 PM EDT
[#3]
It seems like a much better use of time and money to see how much more performance we can squeeze out of a 40mm, or modernization of things like the M72
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:22:59 PM EDT
[#4]
If this new rifle and cartridge is all about engaging an enemy issued with body armor - I have questions.......
5.56 rounds such as the m855 with the penetrator - if not lethal, will it injure ? I am thinking of the "dent" made in soft body armour when the round does not penetrate - often incapacitates to some degree anyway ? What about developing better penetrator rounds for 5.56 ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:25:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why would you want something with a worse BC than Mk262? worse BC or not, my 6.8SPC CLANGS 400 yard steel with a much louder CLANG than 77gr as does my 6.5G both fit in a regular AR15 box, same mag pouches etc. Let's face it, 99.9% of infantry engagements are less than 300meters 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:26:19 PM EDT
[#6]
While developing the 6.8SPC, SOCOM, AMU and Remington tried 6.5, 6.8 and 7mm. 6.5 was more accurate, but worst terminal performance (of these). 7mm was less accurate, but best terminal performance. They chose 6.8. This was to fit in a AR/M4 magwell & mag. SAAMI shows a max COAL of 2.260" for .223. The new Sig round won't fit in a standard mag.
The whole 6.8SPC program goal was to improve terminal performance over 5.56 out to around 400 yards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:31:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Army has "tried this" exactly one time before - and the M14 successfully did exactly what it was designed to do. If it had been introduced 10 years earlier, it would have been hailed as a wonder weapon with the firepower of a BAR in something lighter than an M1. Even in its time, it was as good as the FAL or G3, which are both still in active service around the world. However, the "big Army" was also smart enough to recognize the revolutionary potential of the AR15 (something no other military in the world did, I might add) and ditched the M14 for something even better. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: These discussions are inevitable when big Army tries to make a single rifle do everything from clearing rooms to long range precision. It ends up being a clunky shitshow at both. It won’t be the first time they’ve done this, nor will it be the last. The Army has "tried this" exactly one time before - and the M14 successfully did exactly what it was designed to do. If it had been introduced 10 years earlier, it would have been hailed as a wonder weapon with the firepower of a BAR in something lighter than an M1. Even in its time, it was as good as the FAL or G3, which are both still in active service around the world. However, the "big Army" was also smart enough to recognize the revolutionary potential of the AR15 (something no other military in the world did, I might add) and ditched the M14 for something even better. The M14 was exactly what I was referring to. It was a dumb idea then and it’s a dumb idea now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:35:25 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If this new rifle and cartridge is all about engaging an enemy issued with body armor - I have questions....... 5.56 rounds such as the m855 with the penetrator - if not lethal, will it injure ? I am thinking of the "dent" made in soft body armour when the round does not penetrate - often incapacitates to some degree anyway ? What about developing better penetrator rounds for 5.56 ? There's going to be energy transfer no matter what, though it won't kill/wound reliably vs hard plates. No NIJ rated soft armor will stop 5.56. We have better penetrating 5.56 rounds, M855A1 and M995 Honestly, vs a commie shithole like china or russia, there's a good chance any armor they issue will be little more than paper and cardboard |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:40:35 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kind of irrelevant, as the pacing threat has always been China. The specific threat that Milley was looking at when he decided to look at tungsten bullets for the M110 was Russia. If all of our gear is to be purchased with China in mind, then we may as well send half the Army home, because the USAF and USN could use the money and you don't need a Penetration Division in the Pacific, let alone three of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:42:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's going to be energy transfer no matter what, though it won't kill/wound reliably vs hard plates. No NIJ rated soft armor will stop 5.56. We have better penetrating 5.56 rounds, M855A1 and M995 Honestly, vs a commie shithole like china or russia, there's a good chance any armor they issue will be little more than paper and cardboard Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If this new rifle and cartridge is all about engaging an enemy issued with body armor - I have questions....... 5.56 rounds such as the m855 with the penetrator - if not lethal, will it injure ? I am thinking of the "dent" made in soft body armour when the round does not penetrate - often incapacitates to some degree anyway ? What about developing better penetrator rounds for 5.56 ? There's going to be energy transfer no matter what, though it won't kill/wound reliably vs hard plates. No NIJ rated soft armor will stop 5.56. We have better penetrating 5.56 rounds, M855A1 and M995 Honestly, vs a commie shithole like china or russia, there's a good chance any armor they issue will be little more than paper and cardboard I tend to agree. Remember all the worry about the Red Army during the cold war ? Turns out, based on Ukraine, they are a clusterfuck. Are we making the same mistake with China ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:42:39 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Army also makes dudes mop parking lots in the rain and issued Serpas. Once broken up the rain can wash it away vs finding a pressure washer some units don't have. Mopping in the rain is usually punishment or joes making a funny pic on Facebook. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:47:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: worse BC or not, my 6.8SPC CLANGS 400 yard steel with a much louder CLANG than 77gr as does my 6.5G both fit in a regular AR15 box, same mag pouches etc. Let's face it, 99.9% of infantry engagements are less than 300meters https://i.imgur.com/3FRni9v.jpg So does 30-40 Kraig. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:56:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I tend to agree. Remember all the worry about the Red Army during the cold war ? Turns out, based on Ukraine, they are a clusterfuck. Are we making the same mistake with China ? Lots of things that make a good army, communism has a way of destroying. Thus China will fight how they always fight, mass human wave attacks. Not really something you want a 21st century BAR for. Not when you can have an M4A1 + M203 for the same weight, and carry more ammo for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 12:58:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Well said and accurate Sir
Really should look at the 6mm ARC as a caliber upgrade for the M4 perhaps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 1:03:09 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The specific threat that Milley was looking at when he decided to look at tungsten bullets for the M110 was Russia. If all of our gear is to be purchased with China in mind, then we may as well send half the Army home, because the USAF and USN could use the money and you don't need a Penetration Division in the Pacific, let alone three of them. You know better than to apply absolutes to future acquisitions and OPLANs. Is it your supposition the Army's 2028/2036 plan should be to just hibernate for a while based on one of several near peer threats reducing in value? When X technology comes out Y solution is typically 3-7 years away. A lot can change in that time, some validating or invalidating the process. I'm also pretty sure you can guess what's intended to happen at the end of the rainbow of that USN SLOC fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 1:16:54 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Army ignores a century of battlefield data, including 3 of the most intense wars ever fought in human history and a very long guerilla war against an actually motivated enemy...in favor of a relatively small number of very low casualty incidents in one theater in the GWOT fought against the goatfucking equivalent of homeboys armed with beltfeds at the very far end of their effective range? Am I missing something? No, that pretty much nails the fuck out if it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 1:17:00 PM EDT
[#17]
As a DRM replacement I don't see the big issue, except for adding a different round.
Now if they swap over to the M250 MG this might be a good match, maybe. Dinosaurs like myself might argue, but why not give it to the troops and see. I value the opinion of the folks on the ground vs the $300k a year retired General. Worse case it doesn't work and we go back to the existing M240 and M110s. Then if the military contract shits the bed, SIG can sell a cheaper version to civilian. 75% of the Army will just get new FN M4A1s with updated optics and be fine. We are not Fighting Russian Gundems anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 1:32:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They should have just went with a 6.8 SPC II M4A1 I am sure our NATO allies would completely understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 1:37:16 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am sure our NATO allies would completely understand. Serious question, how many NATO allies would be able to produce 6.8x51 with the hybrid cases? How many NATO countries would you trust to properly load an 80K PSI round? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 1:40:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Serious question, how many NATO allies would be able to produce 6.8x51 with the hybrid cases? How many NATO countries would you trust to properly load an 80K PSI round? I guess they will just have to buy their ammo from Uncle Sugar. I was referring to the 6.8 SPCII. A tiny improvement for a total logistal re-tooling. I think the 6.8 SIG makes sense for belt feeds and DMRs. Assuming you can solve the issue of it eating barrels like a fat cop trapped in a doughnut shop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 1:48:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know better than to apply absolutes to future acquisitions and OPLANs. Is it your supposition the Army's 2028/2036 plan should be to just hibernate for a while based on one of several near peer threats reducing in value? Quote HistoryQuoted: You know better than to apply absolutes to future acquisitions and OPLANs. Is it your supposition the Army's 2028/2036 plan should be to just hibernate for a while based on one of several near peer threats reducing in value? The problem is way thornier than "hibernation." The defense budget is falling in real terms because of inflation and in nominal terms as well. Hard choices are going to be made. The focus on China (which you identified above) means that the systems that are used to deter or defeat China will be prioritized. That means USAF and USN will likely be better funded. The Army is fighting to keep its large modernization programs. The questions that has to be asked is "how do we prepare for a war against China, while also hedging against other threats in other places." You've seen how the Marines have handled that. Now it will be the Army's turn to do it. And I wouldn't expect it to be without some major changes. Quoted: When X technology comes out Y solution is typically 3-7 years away. A lot can change in that time, some validating or invalidating the process. The entire premise of this rifle is flawed. The idea is that a Soldier who fires a little more than 100 rounds a year will have a rifle that can penetrate body armor on the off chance that somehow it connects with the target. The things that the Army can fix without a new rifle are still fundamental to using a new rifle. And still they haven't done them. Quoted: I'm also pretty sure you can guess what's intended to happen at the end of the rainbow of that USN SLOC fight. Limited ground engagements in most parts of the Pacific, the two places where we can expect a larger fight are Korea and Taiwan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 1:50:43 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess they will just have to buy their ammo from Uncle Sugar. I was referring to the 6.8 SPCII. A tiny improvement for a total logistal re-tooling. I think the 6.8 SIG makes sense for belt feeds and DMRs. Assuming you can solve the issue of it eating barrels like a fat cop trapped in a doughnut shop. Yeah, i understood, just making a point. Sigs 6.8 only really makes sense if the XM5 and the 250?(not really familiar with that side of it) can hold up to the full power ammunition. Otherwise we've just spent a lot of money to do what could pretty much be accomplished with .308 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:00:17 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Given that the Russian Army has turned out to be a giant shit show I don't think it makes sense to buy a new rifle to punch through the armor that they don't have. Better idea, PIP the M4 with a better barrel and float rail, create an actual training plan, and shoot 1,000 more rounds a year. Even better idea, spend the money on artillery shells. I haven't read the whole four pages but I was watching some former SF type on youtube the other day and he made a quip about the |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:02:46 PM EDT
[#24]
30 seconds in and I want to chain his arm to the desk.
Eta: He makes some good points based on personal observations, and my own personal takes on the construction of the gun itself makes me believe the army wont fully replace the M4s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:23:07 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: - Never shot it - No firsthand experience - But he watched some videos on the interwebs. Right or wrong, this is just another gun doofus spouting his ill-informed opinion. Tell me this......do you think the top brass (the ones that actually signed the paper work) that made the ultimate decision to accept this weapon shot it either........... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:29:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem is way thornier than "hibernation." The defense budget is falling in real terms because of inflation and in nominal terms as well. Hard choices are going to be made. The focus on China (which you identified above) means that the systems that are used to deter or defeat China will be prioritized. That means USAF and USN will likely be better funded. The Army is fighting to keep its large modernization programs. The questions that has to be asked is "how do we prepare for a war against China, while also hedging against other threats in other places." You've seen how the Marines have handled that. Now it will be the Army's turn to do it. And I wouldn't expect it to be without some major changes. Exactly. A prioritization towards a smaller, more effective ground force is how you do that and maintain the technological advantage. If we go to war with China the force can grow exponentially almost immediately, but new non-existent technology and equipment don't work like that. New technologies have to be cultivated and developed as the threat arises specially when nobody has a crystal ball and can see where the red MDO threat will take us 5-10 years from now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:32:44 PM EDT
[#27]
It is interesting to identify the age of posters in this thread by if they think of Russia as a near peer adversary
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:33:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is interesting to identify the age of posters in this thread by if they think of Russia as a near peer adversary According to DOD they technically are, along with Iran. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:36:53 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Given that the Russian Army has turned out to be a giant shit show I don't think it makes sense to buy a new rifle to punch through the armor that they don't have. Better idea, PIP the M4 with a better barrel and float rail, create an actual training plan, and shoot 1,000 more rounds a year. Even better idea, spend the money on artillery shells. They are disguising old armor to look like new shit. For example taking angle grinders to ww2 helmets and making then look modern with pads and covers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:38:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to DOD they technically are, along with Iran. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Perhaps I phrased it wrong, I meant identifying age by if they see Russia alone as the most important future threat instead of China and others as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:38:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Im not a veteran and never served.
But all this effort in regards to replacing Small arms Maybe replace the M249 with something else, or go with something new for a DMR role. I mean shouldnt the money just go toward better fire support technology? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:45:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A bullpup design with recoiling barrel to mitigate recoil and used polymer cased ammo. A civilian version is going to be available, similar to how SIG released the SPEAR: https://modernfirearms.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/gd-ngsw.jpg  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoBOuv6qJNUI'm suspicious of that happening, much less surviving with Beretta involved in it, since they can't even bother to support their in-house stuff (ARX). If it does manage to get a release, I bet it won't be chambered in 6.8 TVNC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:46:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am sure our NATO allies would completely understand. Fuck it we have a long history of fucking NATO on caliber changes 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:52:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. A prioritization towards a smaller, more effective ground force is how you do that and maintain the technological advantage. If we go to war with China the force can grow exponentially almost immediately, but new non-existent technology and equipment don't work like that. New technologies have to be cultivated and developed as the threat arises specially when nobody has a crystal ball and can see where the red MDO threat will take us 5-10 years from now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The problem is way thornier than "hibernation." The defense budget is falling in real terms because of inflation and in nominal terms as well. Hard choices are going to be made. The focus on China (which you identified above) means that the systems that are used to deter or defeat China will be prioritized. That means USAF and USN will likely be better funded. The Army is fighting to keep its large modernization programs. The questions that has to be asked is "how do we prepare for a war against China, while also hedging against other threats in other places." You've seen how the Marines have handled that. Now it will be the Army's turn to do it. And I wouldn't expect it to be without some major changes. Exactly. A prioritization towards a smaller, more effective ground force is how you do that and maintain the technological advantage. If we go to war with China the force can grow exponentially almost immediately, but new non-existent technology and equipment don't work like that. New technologies have to be cultivated and developed as the threat arises specially when nobody has a crystal ball and can see where the red MDO threat will take us 5-10 years from now. Years ago at one of the Close Combat Lethality Task Force meetings, I pointed out focusing on the ability to penetrate a suppose armor plate that no has seen unreal life was probably not the best approach because no one runs into a beaten zone with the knowledge their plates will save them because being shot in the face, arm, leg , throat, etc by a round unable to go through my SAPI sucks pretty bad |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:53:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s not Sigs fault the army set forth stupid requirements, nor is it their fault they had the best submission. https://i.imgur.com/nyMQTyl.jpg Sig is definitely the best at designing stupid. The best thing about the sig rifle is that it doesn't go off in holsters or when dropped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 2:57:36 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuck it we have a long history of fucking NATO on caliber changes Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am sure our NATO allies would completely understand. Fuck it we have a long history of fucking NATO on caliber changes UK had a great project going with .280 in the late 1940s - very similar to what the 6.8spc was ? But NATO put paid to it with 7.62 https://www.forgottenweapons.com/rifles/em1/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:01:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can understand the hate for the XM5 because battle rifle but the hate for the XM250 is a pure gnashing of teeth cope. The thing weighs less than a 249 and wayyyyyy less than a 240 I still think "big and heavy" is way overblown though. It's all of an inch longer than an M4 and I don't think 13lbs is super heavy considering that's with the optic, can, and loaded. From what I can find that's pretty much on par with a full GWOT M16 I don't think anyone hates the xm250. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:02:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Years ago at one of the Close Combat Lethality Task Force meetings, I pointed out focusing on the ability to penetrate a suppose armor plate that no has seen unreal life was probably not the best approach because no one runs into a beaten zone with the knowledge their plates will save them because being shot in the face, arm, leg , throat, etc by a round unable to go through my SAPI sucks pretty bad Very true, however the people making those decisions now are who knows what the reality is of the current threat and how widespread it is or will be. GD is still locked onto the Russia FoF ground fight as validating criteria. People like to think of new threats in static bubbles, as in X system can do Y against us, so we just have to beat that basic capability overlap or assume risk based on assumed numbers....then we have bought ourselves a few years. In the end seeing a new thing that has some sort of overmatch capability is only the start of that evolution...and as we have seen over the past few years generational development of technology by our adversaries is now measured in weeks versus decades. Our R&D and POM are not structured to pace that. We have to guess years in advance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:02:59 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem is way thornier than "hibernation." The defense budget is falling in real terms because of inflation and in nominal terms as well. Hard choices are going to be made. The focus on China (which you identified above) means that the systems that are used to deter or defeat China will be prioritized. That means USAF and USN will likely be better funded. The Army is fighting to keep its large modernization programs. The questions that has to be asked is "how do we prepare for a war against China, while also hedging against other threats in other places." You've seen how the Marines have handled that. Now it will be the Army's turn to do it. And I wouldn't expect it to be without some major changes. The entire premise of this rifle is flawed. The idea is that a Soldier who fires a little more than 100 rounds a year will have a rifle that can penetrate body armor on the off chance that somehow it connects with the target. The things that the Army can fix without a new rifle are still fundamental to using a new rifle. And still they haven't done them. Limited ground engagements in most parts of the Pacific, the two places where we can expect a larger fight are Korea and Taiwan. Thinking a war with China wouldn't see massive ground combat is not realistic. Aside from Korea and Taiwan, we could quite realistically expect to see fighting in Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, or Pakistan. Given the way great power wars tend to spread, I wouldn't be surprised to see us facing off against Chinese forces and Chinese allies in Africa or even South America. The Marines' decision to do away with heavy forces is not only highly controversial, it was also predicated on the idea that they could call upon the Army when those heavy forces are needed. If anything, the Army should be scrapping its light forces to focus on its heavy forces so that it can supply capabilities that the other services and our allies do not have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:05:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. A prioritization towards a smaller, more effective ground force is how you do that and maintain the technological advantage. If we go to war with China the force can grow exponentially almost immediately, but new non-existent technology and equipment don't work like that. New technologies have to be cultivated and developed as the threat arises specially when nobody has a crystal ball and can see where the red MDO threat will take us 5-10 years from now. Those dollars need to be spent on things that matter. CUAS, more guided missiles, better optics, etc. Better training all around. The return on investment for a battle rifle lower than almost anything else. A friend of mine told me about going to a night vision class and playing hide and seek to practice working under NODS. That's a $0 cost for an improvement in capability, and it's one that the Army doesn't do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:06:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Never understood this, why not a SR25 with a 6.5mm barrel?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:06:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I tend to agree. Remember all the worry about the Red Army during the cold war ? Turns out, based on Ukraine, they are a clusterfuck. Are we making the same mistake with China ? The red army was real. They included all the countries west of Russia to east Berlin. Including the Ukrainians who are doing so well against Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:07:01 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A friend of mine told me about going to a night vision class and playing hide and seek to practice working under NODS. That's a $0 cost for an improvement in capability, and it's one that the Army doesn't do. I'm not sure what you mean by that, I run a course almost monthly that involves this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:10:40 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thinking a war with China wouldn't see massive ground combat is not realistic. Aside from Korea and Taiwan, we could quite realistically expect to see fighting in Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, or Pakistan. Given the way great power wars tend to spread, I wouldn't be surprised to see us facing off against Chinese forces and Chinese allies in Africa or even South America. The Marines' decision to do away with heavy forces is not only highly controversial, it was also predicated on the idea that they could call upon the Army when those heavy forces are needed. If anything, the Army should be scrapping its light forces to focus on its heavy forces so that it can supply capabilities that the other services and our allies do not have. Absolutely. Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines on the tail end of a Naval Pacific campaign all would require massive JFEs, followed by some significant DuT/SbTO fights. Which is why the Army is still planning on sticking around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:11:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The red army was real. They included all the countries west of Russia to east Berlin. Including the Ukrainians who are doing so well against Russia. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I tend to agree. Remember all the worry about the Red Army during the cold war ? Turns out, based on Ukraine, they are a clusterfuck. Are we making the same mistake with China ? The red army was real. They included all the countries west of Russia to east Berlin. Including the Ukrainians who are doing so well against Russia. There were a couple of books written by Soviet defectors during the Cold War that basically predict todays events. In them they describe the manpower accessions and training, logistics, maintenance than is not dissimilar to what we are seeing today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:13:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Absolutely. Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines on the tail end of a Naval Pacific campaign all would require massive JFEs, followed by some significant DuT/SbTO fights. Which is why the Army is still planning on sticking around. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Thinking a war with China wouldn't see massive ground combat is not realistic. Aside from Korea and Taiwan, we could quite realistically expect to see fighting in Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, or Pakistan. Given the way great power wars tend to spread, I wouldn't be surprised to see us facing off against Chinese forces and Chinese allies in Africa or even South America. The Marines' decision to do away with heavy forces is not only highly controversial, it was also predicated on the idea that they could call upon the Army when those heavy forces are needed. If anything, the Army should be scrapping its light forces to focus on its heavy forces so that it can supply capabilities that the other services and our allies do not have. Absolutely. Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines on the tail end of a Naval Pacific campaign all would require massive JFEs, followed by some significant DuT/SbTO fights. Which is why the Army is still planning on sticking around. That begs the question can the USN and USAF support JFE or the logistics required in the Indopacom? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:13:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There were a couple of books written by Soviet defectors during the Cold War that basically predict todays events. In them they describe the manpower accessions and training, logistics, maintenance than is not dissimilar to what we are seeing today. Most predicted a shortfall in military capability but a massive overmatch in the hybrid campaign leveraging DIMEFIL....which they are currently crushing us at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:15:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah so the armchair flannel dude with the hat knows more about how to arm our army than the army... /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif I know right! Miley: Diversity Key to Joint Force Readiness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:16:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That begs the question can the USN and USAF support JFE or the logistics required in the Indopacom? Well, I sure hope so. I know you already know this is kind of the intended endstate of the Marine transition to EABO/LOCE. The Navy and Air Force should probably get onboard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2022 3:16:25 PM EDT
[#50]
I'll watch it later
But I'm in the camp that thinks it wasn't the right move. I think replacing DMR roles with it would be a good fit. But the other part of me knows that small arms play very little role on the battlefield these days. HE wins fights. So it won't really make much of a difference anyhow. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
