This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 20:03 by gatnerd
Latest 17:55 by Refleks
Latest 15:11 by graylion
Latest 5:25 by graylion
Latest 25-Sep by stancrist
Latest 16-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 3-Sep by Farmplinker
Latest 1-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 29-Aug by EmericD
The Marines are planning a redux of their World War 2 "island hopping" campaign, with the Chinese cast in the role of the Japanese.
first you have to find such islands, and, second, that's a fast-track solution to the WW3, because China would obviously target supporting US carrier groups, and a loss of a major aircraft carrier for the US is hardly an acceptable price, unless a massive retaliation strike is offered immediately... and then - boom. nuke time.
IMHO its unlikely that any major NATO member would quickly change to 6,8.
I agree. For that matter, I doubt that any NATO member -- major or minor -- would "quickly" change to 6.8x51.
that's a fast-track solution to the WW3, because China would obviously target supporting US carrier groups, and a loss of a major aircraft carrier for the US is hardly an acceptable price, unless a massive retaliation strike is offered immediately... and then - boom. nuke time.
Not necessarily. They are clearly planning on conventional war, which seems to indicate that either they don't expect to lose a major aircraft carrier, or they're willing to take the loss if it occurs.
And -- depending on the scenario -- a major aircraft carrier might not even be involved. An Amphibious Ready Group typically consists of three ships, none of which is a major aircraft carrier.
Reading between the lines, I get the impression that the concept is the Chinese try to seize islands to keep amphibious and carrier groups at bay, the Marines want to keep them from doing that. Then the Marines try to occupy islands closer to the mainland, to keep the Chinese from reinforcing any islands they are able to take.
As someone who has been following this technology very closely for a couple decades I can with great confidence tell you that the technology to pull these off well is more than here at this point.
I understand people's skepticism though. Thankfully a bunch of the key "see thru" display technologies this stuff has been waiting on have finally arrived and the cost on them is rapidly dropping.
This doesn't mean they can't still screw it up, it just means if they do it's because they did a bad job not because they're trying to overreach what's technically possible.
How should the NATO partners make any decisions regarding the new U.S. cartridge?
Nothing of substance beyond bullet diameter is known. Is it still 80000 psi? Who knows. How are the severe practical problems following from using 80000 psi solved? Will it go down the drain like SPIW/SBR? Is the goal of hitting body armour at 600 m (after all, you have to achieve a hit to penetrate) a realistic concept? Is such a requirement a healthy base for a new NATO cartridge? Is it still in effect? Open questions everywhere.
In 1947, when the British went over to proudly discuss the results of their so-called Ideal Calibre Panel with the U.S., they had absolutely no idea that the U.S. already had been developing a new cartridge for around two years. We are beyond this stage, but not much.
The islamists say "You need to know nothing beyond what is in the Koran." I am under the impression that the U.S. policy follows the rule that press statements about NGSW are all its NATO partners need to know.
one can wonder what kind of scenario this would be? China invading mainland US? Seriously? Red Dawn, anyone? China invading Australia? Or both AU and US invading mainland China? What else could be there that would need a new small arms system
Well, Red Dawn seems to be making a comeback:
In terms of 6.8 fan fiction
-Australia retaking the Soloman islands to prevent the establishment of a Chinese military base in their area, with Chinese and Australian Marines exchanging tungsten
-China or US institute a Regime Change in the Philipines (to either break out or secure the first island chain), prompting the other side to try and counter it, either directly or through proxy.
-US supports Japan to recapture the Senkaku islands from China
-My personal favorite - Vietnam attempts to achieve a security pact with the US, at which point China invades Vietnam to prevent US bases that close to its borders. In a perverse buddy movie, the US teams up with Communist Vietnam to fight Communist China.
-And the most boring possibility - US sends ground forces to support Taiwan during an Invasion by China.
That said, I'd place a lot more emphasis on Cruise Missile Submarines (like the 154 Tomahawk carrying Ohios) and long range Stealth Bombers with LRASM then I would on small arms.
I'd place a lot more emphasis on Cruise Missile Submarines (like the 154 Tomahawk carrying Ohios) and long range Stealth Bombers with LRASM then I would on small arms.
Now that sounds like a formula for starting a nuclear war.
Australia retaking the Soloman islands to prevent the establishment of a Chinese military base in their area
From your link above: Sogavare ... also condemned the “glaring hypocrisy” of critics of his deal with China.
Good chap, but his words would fall on the deaf ears.
US sends ground forces to support Taiwan during an Invasion by China
Do they already have teleport booths in Taiwan, to drop those NGSW-armed GIs right into the front of invading PLA units and bypassing that silly stretch of water around the island which is much easier to control by China than by US?
Now back to the NGSW
Even if the 6.8mm NGSW outclasses (on paper, at least) the Chinese 5.8mm small arms system, Chinese units may have some weapons that their US counterparts lacking, i.e. relatively long-range 35mm one-man semi-auto GLs, very lightweight 12.7mm MGs (their latest fifty, the QLZ-171, weights on its bipod as much as the M240 Bravo, about 12 kilogram), and quite a lot of other man-portable equipment that could work on a small-unit type tactics that would make NGSW 'advantages' much less relevant. IMHO, of cause.