The comments on accuracy remind me of all the other times in the past US mil leadership has prioritized marksmanship over rate-of-fire, ease-of-use, maneuverability; practically every other consideration. Accuracy is good, obvsl, but a holistic understanding of engagements is NECESSARY, and the necessary really ought to drive design. It's a bit frustrating that we keep having this problem.
Bingo. I totally get the appeal of suppression by accuracy over volume, but fun fact: you don’t always really know where the enemy is and you may end up “accurately” suppressing a bush
I definitely agree. Same for the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge, much more cost-conscious to make a hybridized higher-velocity/ pressure round in a preexisting platform with simple changes to the weapon systems and achieve and even better performance metric than the 6.8 (the standard .277 Fury/ 6.8x51 performs worse than .308/ 7.62NATO, only the hybrid combat cartridge out-performs standard rounds). A Battle Rifle scaling of fireteams (i.e. Rhodie Fire Force) is extremely effective, but of course coordination and logistics have to be in place. The DoD's logistics system right now (and as we've experienced in the past) is all sorts of wonky with ever-augmenting systems and segues, add yet another cartridge into the mix for production and supply, and then the dynamics of additional operations support necessity (constant mech or air fire support) due to the carried load deficiencies, you're asking for a lot of problems that can get people killed.
I do not think this person has learn how battle's been won, or why lost. Example, the Falkland War back in the 80s, was won by the rifleman with the single repeater FAL, the enemy, with the full auto FAL lost, because they could not control the muzzle, Amongst other training. I think, with proper trading, this cartridge will have an drastic effect on the moral of any opposing force, as AK had to our troops over seas. I thank you for making the video to educate, but maybe, as a suggestion, should also play devels advecate. On what the positive is , alongside the negative. 3:27 Thank you for taking your time to read.
@@slafleur7551 I didn't make this video, and I think you didn't quite understand the entire context of both what TF and I said. There is a thing called a Halbek device that attaches to the outside of the muzzle of FAL rifles that mitigates barrel rise when firing fully automatic, but even besides that device, if you're reasonably fit/ strong it is not a problem to manage lol.
Good day ! In reference to the Halbek Devise, that was used in the Rhodesian conflict. There is NO evidence that the British / or Argentina used the devise during the conflict. @@DJTheMetalheadMercenary
I agree i think this is just the modern day version of the m14 program. I think the army is gonna learn the hard way in the next conflict. They could have been like the marine corps or SOF and just stick to a better 556 AR platform.
This typifies what has been wrong with military logistics since the dawn of time. The 7th Cav was hindered by the single shot weapon they were issued because the logistics people treasured long range accuracy over voume of fire. (That decision was fatal at the Little Bighorn since the volume of fire could not match or supress the numerically superior Sioux and Cheyenne adversaries) The folks that control procurement of new infantry fighting weapons rarely take the individual soldier into account when making these shortsighted decisions. I believe quite ofthen it comes down to "I want something different", or a kickback check. The excuse they used during Vietnam to go to the M-16 was"Recon by fire" meaning shoot the hell out of ann area then go see what you hit. Thus a huge individual combat load. With this lower ammount of ammo you have just removed the possibility of suppresive fire and told the troops that they must make every shot count. I wonder howmany soldiers we will lose before the powers that be decide that this is not a great idea.
What if we actually go hot with a peer nation? Would your opinion change? From my perspective you're right on everything except we should be preparing for armored targets before we encounter them. The shortfalls of 6.8 is meh when fighting irregular forces as we have been but the advantages are huge against regular forces. We absolutely demolished the middle east and the VC, I think we can stand to have a marginally worse rifle for the game changing advantage of punching through body armor if we come across it.
If we were to go against a peer nation we should expect reduced logistical support which means I would 100% prefer a smaller round that I can carry significantly more of. And again, our “peer” enemies don’t field body armor in significant quantities
@TacticalForge1 The war in UKR says otherwise. Armor over there is fairly common, not as much as the west but it's by no means rare. I can get your thinking, I just think it would be worth fully adopting in this theoretical peer to peer war. In reality I think this was just a ploy for the army to get a new DMR like the marines did with the M27
Ive recently done the familiarization with this new rifle, i got to shoot about 300 rounds, this rifle sucks, after about 60 rounds your shoulder is cooked. It only runs well on adverse gas settings, this shouldn't replace the m4 at all
First of all you have to determine what kind of war you gonna fight. In the lights of current events it might be something quite different, that your DoD are expecting/experienced. From my experience small arms are not fired on the long distance. And that's without mention that war might change drastically in matter of months with new tech and approaches, and i don't really think that small arms would be part of that game changer.
Oh, and another thing - mobilization. In case you have to fight China, how many people you can equip with your new rifle? How many people could comprehend and use advantages of the rifle, even with a good trained reserve, that US Armed Forces have? That's a lot of questions you should ask yourself, based on the experience of the latest wars.
The comments on accuracy remind me of all the other times in the past US mil leadership has prioritized marksmanship over rate-of-fire, ease-of-use, maneuverability; practically every other consideration. Accuracy is good, obvsl, but a holistic understanding of engagements is NECESSARY, and the necessary really ought to drive design.
It's a bit frustrating that we keep having this problem.
Bingo.
I totally get the appeal of suppression by accuracy over volume, but fun fact: you don’t always really know where the enemy is and you may end up “accurately” suppressing a bush
I definitely agree. Same for the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge, much more cost-conscious to make a hybridized higher-velocity/ pressure round in a preexisting platform with simple changes to the weapon systems and achieve and even better performance metric than the 6.8 (the standard .277 Fury/ 6.8x51 performs worse than .308/ 7.62NATO, only the hybrid combat cartridge out-performs standard rounds).
A Battle Rifle scaling of fireteams (i.e. Rhodie Fire Force) is extremely effective, but of course coordination and logistics have to be in place. The DoD's logistics system right now (and as we've experienced in the past) is all sorts of wonky with ever-augmenting systems and segues, add yet another cartridge into the mix for production and supply, and then the dynamics of additional operations support necessity (constant mech or air fire support) due to the carried load deficiencies, you're asking for a lot of problems that can get people killed.
I do not think this person has learn how battle's been won, or why lost. Example, the Falkland War back in the 80s, was won by the rifleman with the single repeater FAL, the enemy, with the full auto FAL lost, because they could not control the muzzle, Amongst other training.
I think, with proper trading, this cartridge will have an drastic effect on the moral of any opposing force, as AK had to our troops over seas.
I thank you for making the video to educate, but maybe, as a suggestion, should also play devels advecate. On what the positive is , alongside the negative. 3:27
Thank you for taking your time to read.
@@slafleur7551 I didn't make this video, and I think you didn't quite understand the entire context of both what TF and I said.
There is a thing called a Halbek device that attaches to the outside of the muzzle of FAL rifles that mitigates barrel rise when firing fully automatic, but even besides that device, if you're reasonably fit/ strong it is not a problem to manage lol.
The person that done the video, has he ever been in a infantry unit ? If he has, how many tours / years in ?
@@slafleur7551 I know he was an Officer, beyond that you have to ask him.
Good day ! In reference to the Halbek Devise, that was used in the Rhodesian conflict. There is NO evidence that the British / or Argentina used the devise during the conflict.
@@DJTheMetalheadMercenary
I agree i think this is just the modern day version of the m14 program. I think the army is gonna learn the hard way in the next conflict. They could have been like the marine corps or SOF and just stick to a better 556 AR platform.
I could write a dissertation for why it's awful... that said it's incredible technology... but it's not what we need for a fighting rifle
This typifies what has been wrong with military logistics since the dawn of time. The 7th Cav was hindered by the single shot weapon they were issued because the logistics people treasured long range accuracy over voume of fire. (That decision was fatal at the Little Bighorn since the volume of fire could not match or supress the numerically superior Sioux and Cheyenne adversaries) The folks that control procurement of new infantry fighting weapons rarely take the individual soldier into account when making these shortsighted decisions. I believe quite ofthen it comes down to "I want something different", or a kickback check. The excuse they used during Vietnam to go to the M-16 was"Recon by fire" meaning shoot the hell out of ann area then go see what you hit. Thus a huge individual combat load. With this lower ammount of ammo you have just removed the possibility of suppresive fire and told the troops that they must make every shot count. I wonder howmany soldiers we will lose before the powers that be decide that this is not a great idea.
The other big issue at Little Big Horn was leaving behind the Gatling guns on the patrol that day
Nailed it. I really hope they don't implement this.
Fingers crossed ha
What if we actually go hot with a peer nation? Would your opinion change? From my perspective you're right on everything except we should be preparing for armored targets before we encounter them. The shortfalls of 6.8 is meh when fighting irregular forces as we have been but the advantages are huge against regular forces. We absolutely demolished the middle east and the VC, I think we can stand to have a marginally worse rifle for the game changing advantage of punching through body armor if we come across it.
If we were to go against a peer nation we should expect reduced logistical support which means I would 100% prefer a smaller round that I can carry significantly more of.
And again, our “peer” enemies don’t field body armor in significant quantities
@TacticalForge1 The war in UKR says otherwise. Armor over there is fairly common, not as much as the west but it's by no means rare. I can get your thinking, I just think it would be worth fully adopting in this theoretical peer to peer war. In reality I think this was just a ploy for the army to get a new DMR like the marines did with the M27
Ive recently done the familiarization with this new rifle, i got to shoot about 300 rounds, this rifle sucks, after about 60 rounds your shoulder is cooked. It only runs well on adverse gas settings, this shouldn't replace the m4 at all
I agree and the army should use use 20 inch barrel uppers which increase the range and muzzle velocity of the 5.56x45
First of all you have to determine what kind of war you gonna fight. In the lights of current events it might be something quite different, that your DoD are expecting/experienced. From my experience small arms are not fired on the long distance. And that's without mention that war might change drastically in matter of months with new tech and approaches, and i don't really think that small arms would be part of that game changer.
Oh, and another thing - mobilization. In case you have to fight China, how many people you can equip with your new rifle? How many people could comprehend and use advantages of the rifle, even with a good trained reserve, that US Armed Forces have? That's a lot of questions you should ask yourself, based on the experience of the latest wars.