XM7 worries from the field.

1.4 million conscripts don't concern me unless they are on the way to America, which will never happen.

Nobody is coming to kill us. This scare tactic bullshit is why we've been sucked into every single war we've wasted American lives on since WW1. If there isn't a standing threat, we create a paper tiger so we can keep funneling money into the MIC. Don't drink the kool aid.
Is that why we want Greenland? Because there's no threat?

Extestential threat is not why we get sucked into wars. It's our position as a leading Nation and what we think our responsibility to the rest of the world is. That was Reagan's mindset and we got sucked into Beirut. That's why all the sudden we're mediating between Pakistan and India now. That's why we got sucked into Vietnam. That's why we got sucked into helping South Korea. That's how we got into the first Gulf war. It's our self-image as a free Western society. That and a competition for global resources. And by extension competition for a strategic position for future resources that we have yet to identify. And it's absolutely the current administrations mindset on attempting to meditate/ assist in UKR right now. That's why the deal we struck was based on minerals.


What you are saying is not true. It's just rhetoric.

You should listen to that book by Jack Carr about Beirut. Just for starters. It's on audiobooks and it's a decent listen
 
Last edited:
Is that why we want Greenland? Because there's no threat?

Extestential threat is not why we get sucked into wars. It's our position as a leading Nation and what we think our responsibility to the rest of the world is. That was Reagan's mindset and we got sucked into Beirut. That's why all the sudden we're mediating between Pakistan and India now. That's why we got sucked into Vietnam. That's why we got sucked into helping South Korea. That's how we got into the first Gulf war. It's our self-image as a free Western society. That and a competition for global resources. And by extension competition for a strategic position for future resources that we have yet to identify. And it's absolutely the current administrations mindset on attempting to meditate/ assist in UKR right now. That's why the deal we struck was based on minerals.


What you are saying is not true. It's just rhetoric.

You should listen to that book by Jack Carr about Beirut. Just for starters. It's on audiobooks and it's a decent listen

No sir, nothing I said is rhetoric.

I don't want to get off topic here, so I'll make it quick.

In a single sentence, please write an explanation for our involvement in each of these situations:

1. The Korean war
2. The Vietnam War
3. Desert storm
4. OIF
5. OEF

It's the cold war, the red scare, nuclear proliferation, the spread of communism, the threat of chemical warfare, the scary Muslims, now the Chinese standing army, the Iranian threat, bla bla bla. It's all bullshit, every single one of them. We ran out of credible enemies after WW2, but the war supply economy made us the foremost superpower in the world, so in absence of a credible threat, agents within the government combined with private sector agitators have continually fed the American people paper tigers as credible threats to keep the trillions flowing to the mic companies. This is a fact. A short study of history will quickly prove that the number one perpetrator of attacks that launch America into wars are carried out by America, or facilitated by in some cases, or allowed to happen at a minimum. Money is the driving factor for everything, and nothing makes more money than war.

Edited to add: our military should absolutely be ready and capable of defeating the might of the Chinese military, and we are, but they should stay domestic, and stop meddling in everyone else's business, and it won't happen. People start starving to death in China within a month of developed nations refusing to continue to buy their cheap bullshit products. They can't afford to wage war, and their citizens would be next to useless in a large scale conflict.
 
dude, 1.4 million screaming chinamen will get to see our portable suns.

I have seen some recent developments with nickel cased ammo that is getting 100 extra feet per second out of the 556 round, and has a choice of 55, 62, 75, and 77 grain ammo. Would like to see the case loaded with the bullet from the 855 A1 cartridge.

I'm afraid the XM7 is going to get 86ed by big army. We have to be smarter and make the M4 lethal.
 
I'm afraid the XM7 is going to get 86ed by big army. We have to be smarter and make the M4 lethal.

Man, I hope you're right, but with the amount of first-hand insight I've had on it the past few years at the program level "too big to fail" comes to mind. You can lead a horse to water and all that shit...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyT
1.4 million conscripts don't concern me unless they are on the way to America, which will never happen.

Nobody is coming to kill us. This scare tactic bullshit is why we've been sucked into every single war we've wasted American lives on since WW1. If there isn't a standing threat, we create a paper tiger so we can keep funneling money into the MIC. Don't drink the kool aid.
You're absolutely right.

They're not coming here, and we're not going to fight them within the borders of China.

The United States is bound by six formal Indo-Pacific treaties with: Korea; Japan; Thailand; the Philippines; Australia; and the UK and Australia (AUKUS).

We've told the world there is only one China.

If they attack Taiwan and don't bomb an American facility or attack US forces we have absolutely NO reason to stop them. China holds a seat on the UN Security Council with Russia and they can cancel a war vote.

Mao killed more Chinese than Stalin killed Russians. Why does the US think they need to isolate and contain the Chinese?

On the other hand, if you live there everyone else in the Indo-Pacom is wondering what it would be like with a China-dominant western Pacific and southeast Asia.
 
No sir, nothing I said is rhetoric.

I don't want to get off topic here, so I'll make it quick.

In a single sentence, please write an explanation for our involvement in each of these situations:

1. The Korean war
2. The Vietnam War
3. Desert storm
4. OIF
5. OEF

It's the cold war, the red scare, nuclear proliferation, the spread of communism, the threat of chemical warfare, the scary Muslims, now the Chinese standing army, the Iranian threat, bla bla bla. It's all bullshit, every single one of them. We ran out of credible enemies after WW2, but the war supply economy made us the foremost superpower in the world, so in absence of a credible threat, agents within the government combined with private sector agitators have continually fed the American people paper tigers as credible threats to keep the trillions flowing to the mic companies. This is a fact. A short study of history will quickly prove that the number one perpetrator of attacks that launch America into wars are carried out by America, or facilitated by in some cases, or allowed to happen at a minimum. Money is the driving factor for everything, and nothing makes more money than war.

Edited to add: our military should absolutely be ready and capable of defeating the might of the Chinese military, and we are, but they should stay domestic, and stop meddling in everyone else's business, and it won't happen. People start starving to death in China within a month of developed nations refusing to continue to buy their cheap bullshit products. They can't afford to wage war, and their citizens would be next to useless in a large scale conflict.
You're mixing apples and oranges. You're injecting extreme right wing nationalism(isolationism) into whether or not DOD should be ready to fight and win our nation's wars.

DOD's mission is to win wars. Period. DOD doesn't decide what wars to become involved in. Policy makers do. In that lens, DOD pursues many advantages through innovation. It's a pretty simple analysis of our competitors capabilities.

You're trying to smear the fallicy of past political decisions of policy makers onto DOD efforts to gain technological advantage against it's most credible and obvious competitors. "If this is wrong, then that is wrong". If we're going to have a conversation about DOD modernizing to fight and win our nation's wars, it's pretty simple. We're experimenting in an attempt to gain advantage.

If you're trying to migrate the conversation to the past decisions of policy makers and political leaders, I would say this: It's all a lot more simple than most people would make it. You either design the chessboard, set the pieces where you want them, and make the rules that others follow. Or you get placed on the chessboard and get the rules dictated to you. That's what competition is. If you don't like getting the rules dictated to you or your place on the chessboard, you can try to buck up. But you better win. If you don't, then you're going to get sat back down and told to color. And you may be in a worse situation as a known loser. So if you're going to try to buck up, or if someone wants to challenge you for running the board, you better be able to win. That's your military's job. To win the fight.

What we have persistently failed at is using our military for "policing". That's usually when we get sucked into unwinnable conflicts. DOD isn't built to police. Nation building is an extreme extension of policing but involving DOS and other governmental agencies. Since the Marshall plan, we haven't been able to reproduce the hat trick. It's the hat trick because you're the ultimate good guy. You defeated evil and created good. We jacked up AF and IZ by moving past revenge and trying to be good guys and build nations. That's where we got bogged down. That's a policy decision. There isn't anything wrong with laying a smackdown. It's the prolonged pursuit of being the ultimate good guy that gets us. Everytime since WWII. It remains to be seen if isolationism is going to benefit Americans. My guess is most Americans won't be happy with isolationism. And it also violates a core tenant our nation was built on. Capitalism and free trade. From taxation, fighting the French and Indians for primacy of trade and valuable goods, and manifest destiny.

I could meet you in the middle. There are two mines in the world that produce a high enough quality of quartz to make make micro processors. One of those two mines are located in North Carolina. Why does a French company own one those 1 of 2 quartz mines. In America. Why did we let that happen? I think there's a lot of things we can do as a nation before we try to be Sweden. And ironically, capitalism is probably why we let the former happen. But some of us would call it corruption rather than acknowledge that perhaps there's a bad side to all out capitalism and running the country like a business where the bottom line is the thing that matters the most.
 
I would say this: It's all a lot more simple than most people would make it. You either design the chessboard, set the pieces where you want them, and make the rules that others follow. Or you get placed on the chessboard and get the rules dictated to you.
This right here. Americans don’t understand our context in the world because our progenitors have built the luxury of being #1 for us generation after generation. Monroe Doctrine wasn’t about isolationism, but combatting European influence in the Americas. Once The Great War set the tone for waning European dominance in the world, and WWII finalized it with the US emerging as the unexpected top dog, it was only natural for our influence and rule-making to expand (Bretton Woods).

If China had a Navy, Air Force, and Army like we do, they would not be so benevolent to anyone, starting with their own people, then working outward through the Island rings of the Pacific until they at least controlled the choke points for ocean trade there. Then they would assert their power in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. They have already planted the seeds for these strategic pretexts if you look at Djibouti, diplomatic scheming on Seychelles and Mauritius, buying off Australian, Taiwanese, Japanese, South Korean, Filipino, Hawaiian, Canadian, and mainland US politicians.

They would like to avoid open conflict unless all the odds were in their favor and it helped them somehow (demographic pressure release on 45 million + males aged 0-49 with no female counterparts due to One Child as an example). Instead, if they can bribe their way into dominance in the Pacific without firing a shot, that’s the preferred route.

What does any of this have to do with NGSW? They’re watching us openly talk about them as our #1 military pacing threat, especially after Russia has demonstrated gross military incompetence for 3 years. So they will more likely trigger an asymmetric series of events to knock us off that strategic military focus in the Pacific and India, which is exactly what 9/11 did 24 years ago.

Notice how 9/11 got us to knee-jerk into one of the most wasteful series of military campaigns that degraded high-level combat systems in multiple COIN environments, while also sucking hundreds of billions into low-capability Army programs with almost zero return on investment back into the high capability force posture. The biggest force structure loss we suffered from 9/11 was not going into Full-Rate Production with the F-22A, and a group of traitors within 2 White Houses and DoD made sure to do China’s bidding by killing the Raptor before it could be mass-produced. Notice that Obama kept Bush’s SECDEF on, Robert Gates. What did he say? “We don’t need F-22s to bomb the Taliban."

So a new bogeyman (or the old bogeyman reimagined) has already been constructed for us by China, that will be as geographically-far from them as possible, designed to trigger more emotional responses that will be fed with hundreds of billions in wasteful, misplaced military spending, vs high-capability Pacific-oriented regional combat systems that keep them in check.

A conversation about Infantry weapons is so far removed from the high-capability strategic threats as to be irrelevant.
We don’t fight dismounted Infantry with Infantry, so any talk about armor-piercing heavy carbines is moot in that regard and would lead to our soldiers being out-gunned and run-down anyway.

The only real roles for US Infantry in LSCO are security in rear areas or initial security for airfields and basing as heavier forces deploy and stage in-theater. For COIN, we need a lighter, adaptable force mix that works closely with Intel, its own Recon Elements who are augmented with UAS and language-speakers, SF who have already been working in that part of the world for generations to brief on cultural norms/terrain/area study basics/key nodes/smuggling routes/various actors, and limited air support with their support assets and basing.

We don’t need huge conventional forces dumped into the area with Burger King, swimming pools, shopping areas, massive logistics footprints with FOBBITs and contractors galore as fresh targets for insurgents to constantly hit and feed the emotional trigger response or entanglement.

We certainly don’t need Infantry armed with mongo-blasters chambered in 77-80ksi cartridges with a reduced basic load, LMGs with no quick-change barrel capability that separates bi-metal cases, and $13/rd ammunition that automatically kills live-fire training budgets. That is a recipe for even more failure. Insurgents will be trained, equipped, and led by foreign intelligence services whose sole mission is to keep us tied-up in some pointless campaign, so if we can avoid that entirely and hit them asymmetrically ahead-of-time, then run them on our loop, that would be preferred.

The whole mindset, that we need to react to China is how you play into China’s hands. NGSW further’s China’s strategic objectives by robbing the budgets of actually-useful systems even within the Army. If I could wave a magic wand, I would at least have taken almost every dime from NGSW and given it to PrSM, M-SHORAD (Stryker with Stingers and Hellfires), Stryker DE M-SHORAD with 50kw High Energy Laser that zaps drones, LTAMDS Radar, and more ENVG-Bs Thermal/NV BNVDS. I say that as a die-hard 11B.

For small arms down at the Infantry Platoon, Squad, and Fire Team Level, why are we still even using these antiquated MTO&E structures that date back to the 1950s? Is it because of institutional inertia/failure to adapt, with senior NCOs and careerist officers who can’t think outside of the low-GT score box they’re trapped in after most of the good NCOs went to SOF?
 
My main complaint with the platform is ambidextrous mag release. Had a KAC 15 and went to a rifle course where I wore a chest rig. When we moved from position, holding my rifle close to my body caused me to drop a mag with only the round in the chamber. Sold the rifle.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Bakwa
Yeah, that’s part of it. There is also the intent of reaching overmatch against near-peers. The INDOPACOM area of responsibility isn’t all dense jungle. Bonus that it would also provide overmatch against war lords/terrorists in the Sahel too.

7.62 is good, but no it doesn’t provide overmatch against 7.62x54. Kind of keeps us on par, not overmatching.

The 6.8x51 is a good idea. If the M250 is reliable (TBD), then it does exactly what you’re thinking. It provides great range and is lighter than the M249 or Mk48. They’re also going to re-barrel the M240s in 6.8x51.

The XM7 is a poor implementation. Though if someone other than Sig made them I would see benefit for 2-4 per squad, while keeping a full compliment of M4s in the arms rooms for situations when the XM7 provides no benefit.
A 6.5 creed machine gun would provide overmatch on range, cost way less than a 300nm machine gun, way lighter and you could carry significantly more ammo as a dismount.

Not that I am against a 300nm machine gun. I think it should replace the 240 and 50 cal for mounted weapons and fixed emplacements. It's a great idea but I would eliminate the saw and replace with a mk48 in 6.5 creed with stellite barrels or maybe some form of constant recoil mg.

308 other than it's massive stockpile of ammo, offers nothing and is a downgrade from a 6.5 ( or hell even a 7mm slinging super high bc bullets)
 
Last edited:
I don't think it really matters what caliber the weapon comes in -- the United States Army goes a poor job teaching soldiers to engage targets at 300 Meters and beyond, let alone farther against a moving and turtled-up foe.

I would beg to differ on the point of infantry. You may control the sea and air, but land is controlled by people. The Straits of Malacca have to be held or controlled by soldiers on the ground. Naval, air, and logistic ports and bases are secured by occupation forces or otherwise affected by commandos, partisan-guerrillas, and saboteurs -- as history has proven.

Artillery and drones inflict over 80% of the casualties on both sides in Ukraine. They're trying to kill humans (the infantry).

If it isn't for those pesky humans an invading power could just hoist its flag and say, "This is now mine."
 
Last edited:
I don't think it really matters what caliber the weapon comes in -- the United States Army goes a poor job teaching soldiers to engage targets at 300 Meters and beyond, let alone further against a moving and turtled-up foe.

I would beg to differ on the point of infantry. You may control the sea and air, but land is controlled by people. The Straits of Malacca have to be held or controlled by soldiers on the ground. Naval. air, and logistics bases are secured by occupation forces or otherwise affected by commandos, partisan-guerrillas, and saboteurs -- as history has proven.
I am a former infantryman myself. What you are describing is true, but only in this modern age of nation building. In a total war, with the technology we have now, being a light infantry man in a platoon or larger element is in all but a few limited cases, a really bad idea. If the Iraquis and Afghans has apaches and fast movers, things look very different. Infantry are good at cordons for hvt extraction, holding a hardened structure against infiltration by foot and light skinned vehicles, and doing the bda's after the smoke clears, but with all of the cool stuff flying around out there, taking a walk with 35 of your buddies is suicide. Vehicles help, but they haven't made one shy of a tank that can handle rockets and bombs of any size. 20mm cannons on aircraft cut right through them. Even drones will wipe them out with efp's. The day of the infantryman is at it's end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeathBeforeDismount
The day of the infantryman is at it's end.
You may very well be correct -- but wars are about politics, power, and control, and that is determined by people.

At a certain point, even in Ukraine, one side runs out of machines, ammo, or combatants.

A war ends when the weaker surrenders, is subjugated or enslaved, or goes extinct. I don't think that's changed since sharp sticks and rocks, bronze swords, or Mauser rifles. I imagine it will continue long past the M4 and M7.

The US Army is at risk and is trying to transform on the fly. We may or may not be focusing on the right things. One thing is certain -- we tend to fail early.
 
Last edited:
Won’t ever happen, not possible or realistic.

The infantryman has been around since the beginning of time in one fashion or another.

Agreed...if you watch anything in Gaza or Ukraine if anything to me it proves how vital infantry is to taking and holding ground... They ain't going anywhere any time soon
 
Won’t ever happen, not possible or realistic.

The infantryman has been around since the beginning of time in one fashion or another.
The spear was in use in warfare for probably a million years. The rifleman is less than 200y old. There will always the the need for men with rifles, but the need for massive groups of rifleman is over, especially in an actual war. Gathering in large groups with modern technology floating about is foolish.
 
Used to be a saying back in the day(probably a few variations).

“The U.S. Army doesn’t own anything until there is a 19 year old paratrooper standing on it”

The U.S. Army doesn’t own anything until there is a 19 year old paratrooper standing on it...backed with a 155mm gun hiding somewhere in range 😂 something about King of Battle or something
 
The rifleman is less than 200y old.
The American rifleman is 242 ish years old.

What do you think those dudes with spears were? Sound like some kind of infantry or foot soldier.





but the need for massive groups of rifleman is over, especially in an actual war
First you said the infantry was coming to an end, then you said they weren’t needed in large amounts. Can’t have it both ways, they will ALWAYS be around
 
The American rifleman is 242 ish years old.

What do you think those dudes with spears were? Sound like some kind of infantry or foot soldier.






First you said the infantry was coming to an end, then you said they weren’t needed in large amounts. Can’t have it both ways, they will ALWAYS be around
The American rifleman is 242 ish years old.

What do you think those dudes with spears were? Sound like some kind of infantry or foot soldier.






First you said the infantry was coming to an end, then you said they weren’t needed in large amounts. Can’t have it both ways, they will ALWAYS be around
You misquoted me. I didn't say there wouldn't be any infantry. There will always be a need for Joe and his rifle. However, the day of the infantryman is at its end. For the last 20k years or so, (and this varies greatly, Alexander and Patton had very different battles), your force would be primarily composed of infantrymen. The plan is based on sending your line troops to meet the enemies line troops and get belt buckle to belt buckle. As we used to say "to close with and kill the enemy". Most of the troops in every military I'm aware of going back as far as we have records were infantrymen. This is what is over now. Imagine organizing 50k ground troops in an actual war in 2025. They wouldn't be alive long enough to get into position. The old days of mortars and artillery being the greatest threat are over. You'll have battalions eliminated in 10 minutes by 16 year old Chinese kids using Xbox controllers. You can't mass troops anymore, unless you want to watch them die. When you can't mass troops, the battlefield has to change. Your primary combat force will not be infantry troops moving forward (again, assuming an actual conflict, not nation building and fighting guerrillas). You don't have to agree with me, let's re-visit this conversation in a decade.
 
You misquoted me. I didn't say there wouldn't be any infantry. There will always be a need for Joe and his rifle. However, the day of the infantryman is at its end. For the last 20k years or so, (and this varies greatly, Alexander and Patton had very different battles), your force would be primarily composed of infantrymen. The plan is based on sending your line troops to meet the enemies line troops and get belt buckle to belt buckle. As we used to say "to close with and kill the enemy". Most of the troops in every military I'm aware of going back as far as we have records were infantrymen. This is what is over now. Imagine organizing 50k ground troops in an actual war in 2025. They wouldn't be alive long enough to get into position. The old days of mortars and artillery being the greatest threat are over. You'll have battalions eliminated in 10 minutes by 16 year old Chinese kids using Xbox controllers. You can't mass troops anymore, unless you want to watch them die. When you can't mass troops, the battlefield has to change. Your primary combat force will not be infantry troops moving forward (again, assuming an actual conflict, not nation building and fighting guerrillas). You don't have to agree with me, let's re-visit this conversation in a decade.

Bro you're high ... do you even watch videos in Ukraine? Are you aware of the massive amounts of infantry in play there?
The number one killer of people is...... You guessed it good old fashion arty.

Ukraine has more infantry divisions than we do right now why is that if tech has changed the game?

The technology is changing but the game hasn't... Until they got t1000 on ground it will always be large amounts of infantry to take and hold anything. If Ukraine has showed anything it's how true still that he that can bring the most artillery to the field and and has the infantry to hold wins. That's why Ukraine is lost cause they will never get the upper hand at either.
 
Bro you're high ... do you even watch videos in Ukraine? Are you aware of the massive amounts of infantry in play there?
The number one killer of people is...... You guessed it good old fashion arty.

Ukraine has more infantry divisions than we do right now why is that if tech has changed the game?

The technology is changing but the game hasn't... Until they got t1000 on ground it will always be large amounts of infantry to take and hold anything. If Ukraine has showed anything it's how true still that he that can bring the most artillery to the field and and has the infantry to hold wins. That's why Ukraine is lost cause they will never get the upper hand at either.
You think you're watching a real war?

🤣🤣

Russia could eliminate the Ukraine in a weekend if they committed the technology. This is a play, and they are killing enough people to keep everyone watching..

But..... since you brought it up, let's look at the casualties. You're proving my point. They are losing whole units out there at a time. Dudes stumbling into arty and air strikes, drones, etc. Entire company sized units eliminated by one fire mission. That only happens because of the drones and the satellites. Those aren't fisters out there calling for fire, it's ua, and these folks aren't even good at it. Like I said, let's talk about this in a decade.
 
You misquoted me. I didn't say there wouldn't be any infantry. There will always be a need for Joe and his rifle. However, the day of the infantryman is at its end. For the last 20k years or so, (and this varies greatly, Alexander and Patton had very different battles), your force would be primarily composed of infantrymen. The plan is based on sending your line troops to meet the enemies line troops and get belt buckle to belt buckle. As we used to say "to close with and kill the enemy". Most of the troops in every military I'm aware of going back as far as we have records were infantrymen. This is what is over now. Imagine organizing 50k ground troops in an actual war in 2025. They wouldn't be alive long enough to get into position. The old days of mortars and artillery being the greatest threat are over. You'll have battalions eliminated in 10 minutes by 16 year old Chinese kids using Xbox controllers. You can't mass troops anymore, unless you want to watch them die. When you can't mass troops, the battlefield has to change. Your primary combat force will not be infantry troops moving forward (again, assuming an actual conflict, not nation building and fighting guerrillas). You don't have to agree with me, let's re-visit this conversation in a decade.
The battles are all ultimately the same(someone has something someone else wants). They use someone to get that something.

The TTPs will change along with the delivery options and numbers of pax on each chalk/lift/pass. They may not mass in one spot like they did for ODS in the 90s, but the will have multiple staging areas for troops to move into the fight. As bad as the 16 year old chinese boy is, he can’t hit them all and definitely can’t hit them all at the same time. Plenty of well tested and reliable anti drone tech out there.

As far as indirect not being the biggest threat, wrong again. Don’t matter how good your counter battery radars and detection get, by the time the system has alerted you to a launch and sent you an estimated POO site, the round is coming and will splash. There is not enough new fangled wizardry to stop a battery of indirect rounds inbound. Take cover and hope one doesn’t impact within its kill/injure zone.

Revisiting anything combat related in a decade is useless because it will all have changed again by that time. Surely you remember the clown show transition into “COIN” ops. Suddenly shooting at Ivan on the range wasn’t the same as it was
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hecouldgoalltheway
You think you're watching a real war?

🤣🤣

Russia could eliminate the Ukraine in a weekend if they committed the technology. This is a play, and they are killing enough people to keep everyone watching..

But..... since you brought it up, let's look at the casualties. You're proving my point. They are losing whole units out there at a time. Dudes stumbling into arty and air strikes, drones, etc. Entire company sized units eliminated by one fire mission. That only happens because of the drones and the satellites. Those aren't fisters out there calling for fire, it's ua, and these folks aren't even good at it. Like I said, let's talk about this in a decade.

Sure a decade from now maybe t1000 exists you were talking right now hero...

If Russia could, they would... but they can't so they don't. Look at their invasion... thought they were going to just walk right in...However, they absolutely can and will win the game of attrition.

Uh you are outta your element if you think those fire missions are generating from uavs and satellites you are really speaking outside of your element rn with modern tech. Go Google Russian pilots duct taping civ gps units inside their cockpits to understand why... You think their satellites are functioning great lol?

Fisters with hardine comms and or "other" tough to jam coms are 💯 calling in that shit

If anything Ukraine has shown to me how fragile Russias mic is compared to ours. Having to field t55s n shit because they got no capacity to upscale.


But we digress xm7 is terrible lol
 
The battles are all ultimately the same(someone has something someone else wants). They use someone to get that something.

The TTPs will change along with the delivery options and numbers of pax on each chalk/lift/pass. They may not mass in one spot like they did for ODS in the 90s, but the will have multiple staging areas for troops to move into the fight. As bad as the 16 year old chinese boy is, he can’t hit them all and definitely can’t hit them all at the same time. Plenty of well tested and reliable anti drone tech out there.

As far as indirect not being the biggest threat, wrong again. Don’t matter how good your counter battery radars and detection get, by the time the system has alerted you to a launch and sent you an estimated POO site, the round is coming and will splash. There is not enough new fangled wizardry to stop a battery of indirect rounds inbound. Take cover and hope one doesn’t impact within its kill/injure zone.

Revisiting anything combat related in a decade is useless because it will all have changed again by that time. Surely you remember the clown show transition into “COIN” ops. Suddenly shooting at Ivan on the range wasn’t the same as it was
What I'm describing is evolution. The logical conclusion is that at some point in the future, there wont even be humans on the battlefield, or at least not very many, and this becomes a war of drones and other various robots. Maybe there will be command elements nearby in hardened structures or something. That's where it all goes. The next thing that will be largely removed from the battlefield will be ground troops. This is the source of all of your casualties. With the technology available now and what's popping up every day, conventional infantry units will not produce casualties at a rate that will be acceptable to anyone when compared to their own deaths. I'm sure this information is available, but let's say today the Army is 40% infantry, (I have no idea if that's correct), but in a decade it will be 20%, and in 2 decades it will be 10%. That's my prediction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roostercogburn98
A 6.5 creed machine gun would provide overmatch on range, cost way less than a 300nm machine gun, way lighter and you could carry significantly more ammo as a dismount.

Not that I am against a 300nm machine gun. I think it should replace the 240 and 50 cal for mounted weapons and fixed emplacements. It's a great idea but I would eliminate the saw and replace with a mk48 in 6.5 creed with stellite barrels or maybe some form of constant recoil mg.

308 other than it's massive stockpile of ammo, offers nothing and is a downgrade from a 6.5 ( or hell even a 7mm slinging super high bc bullets)
A 6.5 CM MG would be good for a squad weapon, but does not provide the “turning cover into concealment” attributes of heavier/more powerful ammo.

I would definitely support a Mk48 in 6.5 CM and replacing M2s and M240s with a light 300nm MG.
 
… The next thing that will be largely removed from the battlefield will be ground troops. …I'm sure this information is available, but let's say today the Army is 40% infantry, (I have no idea if that's correct), but in a decade it will be 20%, and in 2 decades it will be 10%. That's my prediction.
Oh no, land autonomy will be the last step. It is exponentially more complex for computer systems to sense, analyze and understand.

Air, surface, and subsurface autonomous systems will all be in place before we have land systems. We barely have the early stages of autonomous logistics vehicles, and that’s been aided by far more advanced civilian vehicle autonomy. Civilian companies are not at the forefront of land combat autonomy.

Also, infantry account for 15% of the U.S. Army. Actually surprised it’s that high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roostercogburn98
Re: all of this
People tend to always overestimate in the short term and underestimate in the long term.

I think @JR1200W3 has good things to say about innovation, and with innovation comes failure. If you don’t fail while trying to innovate, you’re doing it wrong. Let’s see if the mil can learn from mistakes this go around.

I could be wrong, but man, looking at videos by guys trying to control the XM7 in full auto told me that gun is not going to work across the whole military. Dudes look like they’re trying to control some industrial drill with all the torque the rifle was kicking out, not to mention the recoil.

Does the military have a weight limit of gear? Maybe they should, and a minimum max round count too. Then work backwards with what they add or subtract.

Still scratching my head in why they don’t copy the PKM (in 7.62 nato) with its reliability and relatively light weight. If you can’t overmatch, then how about “match”? This includes weight.

But I’m just a low-info onlooker…so there’s that.
 
The American rifleman is 242 ish years old.
June 14, 2025 marks the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States Brigade of Infantry and the United States Army.

We had infantry and an Army before we had a nation.

The side that runs out of fighting and resisting humans first dies.

You want to take over a country, you kill enough the other side quits fighting.

Limited war means you don't intend to win.

Modern civilization has forgotten what unconditional victory and slaughter in Biblical proportions mean.

To get back on the rails -- the United States (if ordered in a total war mobilization) can produce M4s in numbers the average American can't even imagine. Think about how many large and small companies crank out lowers.

Now think about a single American automotive plant -- let's say the Honda lines -- were on a wartime footing and contracted to produce nothing but rifles. It could take a minute to re-tool, but then hold on to your hats.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: roostercogburn98
June 14, 2025 marks the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States Brigade of Infantry and the United States Army.

We had infantry and an Army before we had a nation.

The side that runs out of fighting and resisting humans first dies.

You want to take over a country, you kill enough the other side quits fighting.

Limited war means you don't intend to win.

Modern civilization has forgotten what unconditional victory and slaughter in Biblical proportions mean.
I was using arkansaw maff, forgot to take my left shoe off.

1775 to now is 250 according to the cakalater, you are correct