Today and Tomorrows war.
-
@Grumpy Gnome
The M4 is not inherently less accurate than the M16A2. The reduced site radius (roughly the same as the maligned AK) makes it less accurate in actual use than the M16A2 when using irons only. As pretty much laddy doddy everybody has an optic of some sort, the two weapons are equally accurate.
Reliability of the M16A2 was initially a little better than the M4. But M4 feed ramps, improved ejector springs, etc., have made the difference negligible or nonexistent.
The handling as you noted is greatly improved. I have a 1SG buddy who has a Signal Company with a number of smaller statured females in it. That company recently turned in their M16A4s for M4s and had a radical improvement in qualification scores. (Bear in mind the qual now incorporates standing, kneeling, and barricade). Amazing what you can do with a weapon that fits.
-
@Grumpy Gnome
I look at it another way. The AR was so innovative when introduced it's been near impossible to improve upon in 66 years. Inline stock, space age light weight materials, this weird at the time concept of ERGONOMICS, inherently accurate design. Stoner was a genius.
Other rifles have arisen over the years that might better the AR in one area or another. But no rifle has truly exceeded it in totality.... at least not by a margin making it worth adoption.
-
@Blutze
100% agree with this.
100% disagree with this.
1. Those are pretty normal females in pretty normal poses above.
2. There is no nefarious plan by the IDF to have sexy female recruitment drives. The IDF has prohibited the tailoring of uniforms to combat the most egregiously form fitting examples. (With obviously mixed success on enforcement).
3. What you are seeing is what happens when you draft an entire population. All the females who wanted to post sexy selfies or be Instagram "Influencers" continue to do so... they are just in uniform now.
-
-
@Blutze
Despite living in Germany for many years now my German is still abysmal, especially my spelling. Sorry about that. The correct spelling is of course Schützenschnur, thanks for the correction. For some reason my rusty memory seemed to think it was “shootzensnare” phonetically so deferred to Jtam’s spelling. I should have checked it first. Again, apologies.I agree with your points about the G36. Some fair observations and likely causes.
@JTam I am not surprised at all to see smaller framed people do better on the M4, especially with an adjustable stock. I have seen similar things with folks do better with smaller framed pistols in law enforcement firearms qualifications.
L85... SA80. I have heard folks call it both and I have been trying to remember, without much luck, which was preferred back in the Royal Welch. The design goes way back to the 40‘s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle
Training with the Brits was a blast, punctuated with some not so nice stuff. Like getting battered one night in the barracks by four drunk squaddies from another company. I looked like a raccoon for a couple of weeks.
The various accents and the slang can be difficult to navigate for some of us Yanks. Throw in Cymraeg (Welsh) and Gaelic, it can make your head spin.
International cross training is awesome. I miss that. Sounds like you had some great opportunities.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The US Army has finally (supposedly) adopted a new rifle and squad automatic weapon.
The rifle seems to offer no real capability increases over the M4 other than the new round. The SAW replacement is welcome as the M249 always kind of sucked.
That being said, I'll believe it when I see it.
(I also find it interesting that both the Japanese and Italians moved away from 6.something rounds some 70 years ago due to perceived lack of range/punch.)
The 5.56 Enhanced Penetration Round (EPR) was starting to challenge body armor plates. I wonder what a 6.8 EPR round will be able to do? Sigh.... probably start a race leading to heavier and heavier plates. Maybe this will lead to the exo-skeleton adoption?
-
-
-
@Grumpy Gnome
These weapons are supposedly to be fielded to all US Army "close combat forces." I would assume that translates to grunts, cav scouts, FISTERS, and SF.
It took a little bit to get all the Army Infantry units M4A1s recently. Your unit tended to get them as they got ready to rotate into Afghanistan.
‐--------
The casual reader may not realize what a big deal this is. The new caliber thing is huge. As Grumpy Gnome pointed out, there goes NATO commonality. That being said, where the US goes NATO generally follows. This is the first new rifle for what 65 years? The M16/M4 is the longest serving rifle in US history.
If WGA wanted to work on near future Infantry they should probably arm them with these. Note how the US M4 or variants has become the weapon of choice for pretty much every SF unit in the Western world. As I like to say, anyone who has a choice, chooses the M4. We may (or may not) see the same with this rifle.
________
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/heres-everything-we-now-know-about-the-armys-new-squad-rifles
Eight and half pounds empty before you add the a mag filled with ammo, a suppressor, and that giant ass (and heavy) optic. (Does the optic incorporate an IR laser? If not add a PEQ of some sort too). Better start eating your Wheaties.
-
-
-
-
-
Later update on this:
Article starts dismally with the author not understanding the difference between 7.62x39 (AK47, AKM, SKS, etc ammo) and 7.62x51 (G3, M240, FN MAG, etc.) / 7.62x54 (SVD, PKM, etc.)
The M4 and its 5.56 is a match for any common service rifle out there in range and lethality. 5.56 is almost certainly a superior round to 7.63x39 and gives up only a little to 5.45 (Maybe nothing, the 77 grain stuff is amazing).
The enemy will have SOME 7.62x54 stuff but we have two 240Bs per PLT.
After that, the article has some useful information.
I'm not sure if this is counting the weight of the 2.5 lb optic. As I was saying Joe better start eating his Wheaties.
Fielding:
Here's a different article on Alaska Strykers:
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/05/10/army-looks-to-ditch-stryker-vehicles-in-alaska/
Turns out Strykers can't operate effectively in deep snow and are basically road bound. Obviously light armored vehicles stuck on roads in a peer conflict are going to have a bad day.
-
-
@Grumpy Gnome
Ref:
No real surprise. It's painfully obvious most Army Times writers have no idea what they are writing about. Bear in mind the Army Times is a civilian rag trying to profit off Joe. I.E. it should not be confused with the Stars and Stripes. (I know you know that Grump Gnome, but that may not be common knowledge for other readers).
I started to see the 7.63x39 vs 7.62x54/51 confusion from "journalists" around the time they were writing all the M4 hit pieces post Wanat.
https://www.cleveland.com/world/2009/10/in_2008_afghan_firefight_us_we.html
The press reached all kinds of garbage conclusions from that fight. You go near cyclic for twelve mags with ANY rifle on earth it's going to go belly up. You think an AK would do any better? Nope.
Ref:
I largely concur with your concerns/conclusions.
Unless that optic really is magic, qualification scores will go down with the increased recoil.
And even if the round and magic optic combo allow ones to shoot and hit out to X far..... Nothing changes the fact you will never see the enemy X far away in real life.
I doubt it. The Ranger Regiments adoption/flirtation with the SCAR only lasted a few years if I remember rightly. And I believe the majority of rifles were 5.56. The Army IS fielding a 7.62x51 designated squad marksman rifles to Infantry squads these days. But the fielding is in slow motion. Evidently HK can't build a 7.62 rifle that doesn't double feed.... at least that's the word on the street.
-
@Geoff Maybury
Great sale:
https://us.warlordgames.com/products/project-z-spec-ops
This is sadly sold out already:
-
-
-
-
-
-
@Geoff Maybury
If The Damned Kickstarter reaches (a mere) $500,000, Wargames Atlantic will do a plastic kit for this:
https://wargamesatlantic.com/community/xenforum/topic/87512/deathfields-crowdfunding?page=1
A vehicle that looks like it could fit from roughly 1935 to 2135.
- 1
- 2 / 2
