Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 150

Thread: U.S Army switching to 6.8mm

  1. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    ... adopt a 6.5CM ....
    "Holy Marx, the Americans are arming their troops with six and a half centimeter rifles!"
    Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
    “It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
    Glenn Reynolds

  2. #112
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    "Holy Marx, the Americans are arming their troops with six and a half centimeter rifles!"
    Frankly, I propose we go general issue with the 8.4cm - Carl Gustaf M3A1. It’s heavier than an M14, but the capability is really there to outperform any other small arms munition.

  3. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    Frankly, I propose we go general issue with the 8.4cm - Carl Gustaf M3A1. It’s heavier than an M14, but the capability is really there to outperform any other small arms munition.

    The 30-round magazine for that is gonna be HUGE!
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  4. #114
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    The 30-round magazine for that is gonna be HUGE!
    About 3kg for 1100 rounds ...https://www.smallarmsreview.com/arch...fm?arcid=20371

  5. #115
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Asuncion, Paraguay
    In the mean time, to keep the perspective....

    US Army Orders $180 Million-worth of M4s from Colt & FN

    https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...my-orders-m4s/

    The Department of Defense has announced the purchase of $177,214,218 worth of M4 carbines with orders split equally between Colt and FN America. The orders were made on behalf of the US Army’s Contracting Command.

    Sadly, no quantity is stated in the contract award notices, however, both are valued at $88,607,109. With a roughly estimated per carbine cost of $600, that would suggest orders for just short of 300,000 M4s. It seems likely that most of these weapons are destined for the Army rather than foreign military sales, as no buyers have been mentioned in the Department of Defense contract award notices (as previous FMS contract notices have). Additionally, the contracts are handled by Army Contracting Command’s New Jersey department, which normally handles Army, rather than FMS, procurement.

  6. #116
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Given the reports that we are behind the curve on major issues with the Chinese and Russians - https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon...-sounds-alarm/ and elsewhere, is it worth redoing all the small arms in the various services and losing compatible with allied nations?

    Having a 6.8 isn't going to stop a cybertalk or a hypersonic antiship missile.

  7. #117
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canton GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    Given the reports that we are behind the curve on major issues with the Chinese and Russians - https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon...-sounds-alarm/ and elsewhere, is it worth redoing all the small arms in the various services and losing compatible with allied nations?

    Having a 6.8 isn't going to stop a cybertalk or a hypersonic antiship missile.
    Honestly, how big a deal is ammo compatibility with all our allies when we supply almost all of the combat power in the first place. I will never forget sitting in Kuwait at a 3rd Army briefing where a daily briefer described how we were an "alliance" of 20+ nations in our Iraq fight. He then started naming off the names of countries and how many troops they had on the ground. Multiple European allies with less than 10 "boots on the ground" in several cases counted as combat power. Except for the Brits (and they did not have that much), our biggest "allies" with boots on the ground were former Soviet Republic states such as Rumania and Georgia. The Rumanians were not ammo compatible (former Soviet bloc arms) and I think we outfitted the Georgians (The nation - we were the US kind of Georgians!).

  8. #118
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    Given the reports that we are behind the curve on major issues with the Chinese and Russians - https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon...-sounds-alarm/ and elsewhere, is it worth redoing all the small arms in the various services and losing compatible with allied nations?

    Having a 6.8 isn't going to stop a cybertalk or a hypersonic antiship missile.
    Say what?!?! The same group tasked with creating, fielding, and selling weapons, is simultaneously tasked with assessing threat profiles of other nations. And low and behold they conclude that what we need is more new weapons? Eisenhower was right about the Military Industrial Complex.

    I'm not suggesting we sit on our laurels and not develop new tech. But I don't actually believe that we can't fight a two front war as necessary (where are these two fronts supposed to be anyways?). We've been fighting a two front insurgency campaign for 17-years. Arguably, insurgency campaigns are the hardest to fight. A two front war with battle tanks, artillery, and airplanes? That's a hell of a lot easier war.

    I also do not believe that the development of near-peer technology exists in Russia. In China, maybe, but in Russia? No. Russia can't field an aircraft carrier. As far as we can tell, their missile technology still lags behind ours by a dozen+ years. Russia has not invested substantially in upgraded radar technologies, either. We have a pretty good tech advance on Russia.

    China is a different story, but I'm not now, nor have I ever been, worried about a war with China. Economically, they need us and Europe to buy their shit. A war with us shuts virtually all of it down. And economically China will grind to a halt. Inner turmoil will spill over faster than you can blink, because China is currently running on the ragged edge of population control and dynamics. The Japanese and South Korean militaries in conjunction with the U.S. would be able to sink most of China's navy in short order and while China has a huge airforce, it's not made up of peer-level aircraft of even the F15, let alone the F22 and F35 (and our anti-aircraft systems).

    Besides, I think we could launch a dozen or more US-backed insurgencies against China that would really screw with them. Imagine a bunch of Mongol horsemen riding around with Gustafs, and a bunch of M4s, occasionally backed by drones, blowing holes in the Great Wall? Or what would happen if an insurgency managed to seize control of the hydroelectric dams in Tibet? Ghurkas + SOF + Insurgents = Bad time for China. China doesn't exactly make friends and influence people everywhere and the U.S. is often better at that.

    In fact, the only actual factual landwar that isn't an insurgency that I am concerned about is DPRK-ROK, because we will absolutely have to come to the aid of ROK (though I'm not sure if the Japanese will, but it would help significantly). As long as China does not back DPRK, I think we'll be okay. But that's an unfortunate shooting war in an isolated place, where the potential for insurgency and/or economic sanctions are highly limited.
    Last edited by RevolverRob; 11-15-2018 at 12:18 PM.

  9. #119
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    Say what?!?! The same group tasked with creating, fielding, and selling weapons, is simultaneously tasked with assessing threat profiles of other nations. And low and behold they conclude that what we need is more new weapons? Eisenhower was right about the Military Industrial Complex.

    I'm not suggesting we sit on our laurels and not develop new tech. But I don't actually believe that we can't fight a two front war as necessary (where are these two fronts supposed to be anyways?). We've been fighting a two front insurgency campaign for 17-years. Arguably, insurgency campaigns are the hardest to fight. A two front war with battle tanks, artillery, and airplanes? That's a hell of a lot easier war.

    I also do not believe that the development of near-peer technology exists in Russia. In China, maybe, but in Russia? No. Russia can't field an aircraft carrier. As far as we can tell, their missile technology still lags behind ours by a dozen+ years. Russia has not invested substantially in upgraded radar technologies, either. We have a pretty good tech advance on Russia.

    China is a different story, but I'm not now, nor have I ever been, worried about a war with China. Economically, they need us and Europe to buy their shit. A war with us shuts virtually all of it down. And economically China will grind to a halt. Inner turmoil will spill over faster than you can blink, because China is currently running on the ragged edge of population control and dynamics. The Japanese and South Korean militaries in conjunction with the U.S. would be able to sink most of China's navy in short order and while China has a huge airforce, it's not made up of peer-level aircraft of even the F15, let alone the F22 and F35 (and our anti-aircraft systems).

    Besides, I think we could launch a dozen or more US-backed insurgencies against China that would really screw with them. Imagine a bunch of Mongol horsemen riding around with Gustafs, and a bunch of M4s, occasionally backed by drones, blowing holes in the Great Wall? Or what would happen if an insurgency managed to seize control of the hydroelectric dams in Tibet? Ghurkas + SOF + Insurgents = Bad time for China. China doesn't exactly make friends and influence people everywhere and the U.S. is often better at that.

    In fact, the only actual factual landwar that isn't an insurgency that I am concerned about is DPRK-ROK, because we will absolutely have to come to the aid of ROK (though I'm not sure if the Japanese will, but it would help significantly). As long as China does not back DPRK, I think we'll be okay. But that's an unfortunate shooting war in an isolated place, where the potential for insurgency and/or economic sanctions are highly limited.
    You think a two front near peer war will be “easier” than two insurgencies ?

    You really don’t understand what you are talking about.

    Fighting a near peer like the PRC or Russia will be costly in both men and materiel even if it goes “well.”

    The biggest advantage we have over the PRC is our operational experience. The PRC even acknowledges this, their military thinkers call it “the peace disease.” It is why you now see the PRC trying to get involved in overseas operations like peace keeping etc.

    I could go on but instead, watch this lecture on lessons learned in Ukraine from Dr Philip Karber at the Modern War Institute. It sounds a lot like the warnings about the changes wrought by new technology from military observers which came out of the Russo-Japanese war prior to WWI.



    I like guns as much as anyone here but in a near peer war small arms are just not that important.

  10. #120
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canton GA
    "I like guns as much as anyone here but in a near peer war small arms are just not that important."

    I think you have a very good point. I am a retired US Army Infantry officer, I know that Close Air Support, Artillery, etc. are the primary killers. However, at the end of the day, an Infantry soldier - US Army or Marine - has to stand on key terrain to truly finish a war. We tend to not "finish" a war in that manner so we seem to have endless wars.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •