stancrist said:

Having two variants of the same rifle -- each operating differently from the other -- would all but guarantee "confusion" in combat. Because they had two, virtually identical weapons used in the squad, it made perfect sense for both to have the same controls and operation.

I think it depends on how similar (or dissimilar) the weapons and their controls are. In the context of a new rifle and cartridge being selected to be used alongside the existing weapons in the same squad, it would surely be better to have the basic controls the same. As the saying goes: "if anything can go wrong, it will", and that probably applies to military operations more than most areas of life. 

To go back to the start of this sub-thread, using the AUG (which has very different controls from the conventional AR-15 pattern) in 5.56mm and a different rifle in 7.62mm (or 6.8 mm) must increase the training requirement.

autogun said:

I think it depends on how similar (or dissimilar) the weapons and their controls are.

I think that's true.

autogun said:

In the context of a new rifle and cartridge being selected to be used alongside the existing weapons in the same squad, it would surely be better to have the basic controls the same.

To go back to the start of this sub-thread, using the AUG (which has very different controls from the conventional AR-15 pattern) in 5.56mm and a different rifle in 7.62mm (or 6.8 mm) must increase the training requirement.

It seems like it may increase the training requirement.

Question is, does it increase it enough to really matter?

The British use a 5.56mm bullpup and a 7.62mm AR-pattern DMR.

The Aussies use a 5.56mm bullpup and a 7.62mm AR-pattern DMR.

Has either army expressed concern about the training requirement?

stancrist said:

Has either army expressed concern about the training requirement?

I don't know - I've never asked. 

Relevant take on NGSW

YouTube

A Critical Analysis: The Sig XM5 (M7)in 6.8, the Army got it Wrong.

The Sig XM5, (M7) points of concern with the rifle, and why I think it will not work as a general issue fighting rifle. My predictions with regards to its ro...

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Relevant take on NGSW

I get his point - especially how an infantryman's rifle is in a way just his PDW. See also my post about snipers https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/8204/1. But also the above points about calibre mix are relevant. So the better coice might well be 6.5 CM across the board. Or something even milder, like a hotted up 6.5 Grendel with hybrid case and ignoring the AR15 length restriction.

graylion said:

Or something even milder, like a hotted up 6.5 Grendel with hybrid case and ignoring the AR15 length restriction.

That's exactly the definition of the 264 LICC.

EmericD said:

That's exactly the definition of the 264 LICC.

I'd forgotten about that. Do we have any more of an idea about that cartridge now?

graylion said:

       Mr. T (MrT4) said: Relevant take on NGSW

I get his point - especially how an infantryman's rifle is in a way just his PDW.

I disagree with that point.  While an assault rifle can be employed as a PDW, an assault rifle is not a PDW.

The assault rifle is designed to be used as an offensive weapon.

YouTube

Russian Marines Storm Ukrainian Army Trenches in Novodonetsk | Daring Attack Caught On Cam

The Russian Ministry of Defence released video of Pacific Fleet Marine Corps assault forces thwarting an attack by Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF). According to...

YouTube

Moment Chechen soldiers ambush Russian truck with machine guns

THIS is the moment Chechen soldiers ambush Russian truck with machine guns, killing the vehicles passengers. This footage was released by the Ukrainian Minis...

I was not impressed by the video, which has surprising errors and omissions.

In addition to the "assault rifle is a PDW nonsense, he mistakenly thinks NGSW was developed for the long ranges of the last war (i.e., Afghanistan), when NGSW actually was created for an anticipated future conflict with opponents equipped with modern body armor.  Since he failed to even mention the body armor issue, he appears to be completely unaware of that design purpose.

And his suggestion for a caliber mix at the squad level shows that he does not understand the Army wants only one caliber for squad weapons.

While it might not be the PDW  , he explained quite well why there is not lack of overmatch . i think he omitted body armor as its not the panacea folks think it is.

NGSW is like many other projects is developed with a lot of nearly irrelevant experience of GWOT, even if its supposedly aimed at future peer conflict. Long range / overmatch is definitely one of the  goals otherwise the optic/FCS requirement would be much different

In Ukraine, rifle use is at very short distances and body armor while adding protection is not an insurmountable obstacle that would warrant a full-power battle rifle in 6.8 that you would carry around all day and have much reduced ammo capacity for it. 

Full auto use also seems quite popular. Of course in ambushes behind enemy lines , suppressors are also used in Ukraine on a level not seen in wars prior.

Streamable

ssstwitter.com_1694098229211

Watch "ssstwitter.com_1694098229211" on Streamable.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Full auto use also seems quite popular. Of course in ambushes behind enemy lines , suppressors are also used in Ukraine on a level not seen in wars prior.

The number of actions constituting war crimes is impressive in that video!