The article gatnerd linked to in Msg 3417 said the forward assist was deleted to reduce the XM7's weight.

PRM2 said:

That is an interesting real life gotcha. I could imagine the following type of event happening: In close contact with the enemy, mates dead or wounded, ammo running out. Only possible source of ammo is some belted, looks very similar to my 6.8x51, quickly de-link it and stuff into magazines. S**t the action won't close. Is it dirty due to number of rounds fired? No time to check, enemy is almost on me, kick the b*stard closed. Click. Possible outcomes: 1. Have an expensive jammed up club. 2. Keblam, dead or injured soldier.

Obviously, mixing 6.8x51 mm and 7.62x51 mm weapons in the same combat group is not going to be a wise move. France did that in the past with it's own 7.5x58 mm and German 8x57 mm, and it was not a success.

Given the fact that the US Army also want to convert the M240 to 6.8x51 mm, their idea is to totally get rid of the 7.62 mm NATO, and replace most front-line 5.56 mm with 6.8x51 mm.

Thanks for the information, coincidentally the thread just started on the 6.5 Creedmoor L129A2 also shows no forward assist (and there wasn't a forward assist on the previous L129A1 either)

Stand by for never ending meetings and anguished discussions on how to maintain NATO standardization, with echoes of similar events that happened in the 1950s.

PRM2 said:

Stand by for never ending meetings and anguished discussions on how to maintain NATO standardization, with echoes of similar events that happened in the 1950s.

Well, it's not a problem because the US isn't really talking about the 6.8 mm during NATO meetings, and some countries have to remind Uncle Sam about the need to write a STANAG about this round in a not too distant future.

Don't forget that from a US perspective, NATO standardization is not a "common set of requirements", but just an opportunity offered to "the rest of NATO countries" to operate smoothly with the US armies.

Several years ago I visited the Steyr Mannlicher factory as part of some consultancy work. In commenting on their future  military rifles, I pointed out that as the current trend was to field both 5.56mm and 7.62mm together, choosing a matched pair of weapons with the same controls, handling etc would have considerable attractions in simplifying maintenance and training. 

The logical next step for Steyr would therefore be to develop a 7.62mm-class AUG, rather than joining the overcrowded field of 5.56mm AR-15 derivatives. It would be nice if it happened!

7.62 AUG would make me a happy panda. 
 

Thales 6.8 prototype shows a great path forward toward modernizing the AUG as well as boosting the power.

EmericD said:

Well, it's not a problem because the US isn't really talking about the 6.8 mm during NATO meetings, and some countries have to remind Uncle Sam about the need to write a STANAG about this round in a not too distant future.

Even if they did this doesn't mean the round will be adopted by onyone else soon or ever. It just would mean the US had comunicated the bare minimum of spects to the NSO.

EmericD said:

Don't forget that from a US perspective, NATO standardization is not a "common set of requirements", but just an opportunity offered to "the rest of NATO countries" to operate smoothly with the US armies.

To be fair this is more or less the approach of all NATO members.
 

A STANAG has nothing to do with a common set of requirements. Its also not the job of the NSO to come up with such.
They just develop and formulate the technical specification for an allready existing piece of equipment that one member nation asks them too.
There are common requirements and minimum standards defined by STANAGs but these are not for specific pieces of equipment but for categories and mostly for evaluation and comparison purposes.
In any case the specs given by STANAGs and AOPs are so loose and especially the tolerances and measurement methods are so poorly defined that interchangeability is more or less a dream.
This is the reason for the introduction of the NATO shamrock symbol in addition to the NATO cross. The latter being around for a long time but really only means "the ammo will fit into the chamber" the much younger latter actually means "wil fit the chamber and will work (at least once)".

Is it naive to hope that partner nations retain the knowledge of historical events and work together to avoid past mistakes?

The probable short term outcome will be that everyone except the US will retain both 5.56 and 7.62x51 for their primary infantry small arm calibres, as being good enough, whilst making small incremental changes to cartridge materials to save weight. I can't help but be disappointed that LSAT has come to naught and will only be remembered as a 'what if', as with .276 Pedersen and .280 British (the original loading). However, I think that Churchill made the correct call in 1951, going against the Defence Staff, to prioritise NATO standardization despite the technical allure of the EM2 and the Taden.

It also isn't said enough that we are very fortunate in Europe to have retained the substantial US commitment to NATO and that the US understandably gets disillusioned when some partner nations don't meet their defense budget commitments (I'm not having a go at either the UK or France here). 

At least in Germany, in the small arms field, there is no retaining of knowledge of historical events. First, in the short term, it would cost money. Because only short term profits count in modern management thinking, this is a show stopper. The beancounters of Bundesrechnungshof for years have been busily trying to destroy the technological memory of Bundeswehr at Koblenz and turn it into a useless showpiece. 

Second, modern management (including military officers) is quite sure of its own infallibility. At least on the outside. The word "arrogant" pops up again and again if you talk to people with hands on experience in the small arms (ammunition) field. The management view, heartily supported by engineers fresh from university, is that antiquated junk like the MG42 was designed by morons anyway. You simply cannot learn anything from it, is their mantra. MG5 is the outcome. My other pet example is the totally wrong, sometimes even out of scale description of the effect of air humidity in sniper field manuals -- over decades. Obviously, it went unnoticed by generations of "managers" responsible in the sniper field.        

Third, with rare exceptions, the professional military historians (and archivists) practically ignore anything where you really have to come to grips with technological details. No help is to be expected from history science.