gatnerd said:

Would a Full Power DMR & LMG paired with SCHV rifles be adequate for the 2nd scenario? 

For example NZ's configuration; 5.56 rifles paired with a 7.62 DMR and 7.62 LMG...

To me, a similar configuration with NGSW seems better then a pure 5.56 or pure 6.8.

6.8 LMG(s) and (optionally) 6.8 DMR, paired with 5.56 rifles for the rest.

That does not seem logical to me.  The only reason to field 6.8 NGSW is to give Level IV armor defeat capability to the rifle squad.

IMO, if the squad should have to fight enemy infantry equipped with Level IV armor, not giving the squad's riflemen the capability to defeat said armor is a bad idea, both for combat effectiveness of the squad and for morale of the riflemen.

stancrist said:

The only reason to field 6.8 NGSW is to give Level IV armor defeat capability to the rifle squad.

Another reason for the NGSW was increased effectiveness and longer ranges, whether against body armor or not. 

Everyone in the squad will need a weapon capable of incapacitating the opponent.  The question is at what range and with how many shots.  I believe that in many cases a mix of light SCHV and heavier NGSW will end up being preferred.  Although logisticians prefer everyone to use the same cartridge, it does not always make sense.  I think that a "golf bag" approach of matching the weapon mix to the mission is not unreasonable.

I would think it more important that all weapons use a similar set of controls and share the same "muscle memory" movements.  I found it interesting that one of the SIG reps in a recent video stated that the reason that its Spear still has a rear charging handle is for that reason.  More accurately, I think that he stated that soldiers when under stress tended to reach for the rear charging handle, so it was maintained in the new weapon system for that reason.

nincomp said:

I believe that in many cases a mix of light SCHV and heavier NGSW will end up being preferred.  Although logisticians prefer everyone to use the same cartridge, it does not always make sense.  I think that a "golf bag" approach of matching the weapon mix to the mission is not unreasonable.

The "golf bag" approach may seem not unreasonable, but I think it is rather unrealistic to expect it to be adopted.

And judging by history, I also think it unlikely that the US Army would mix 5.56 and 6.8 weapons in the rifle squad.

From the First World War up to the present, the SOP has been to use a common caliber for rifles and squad autos.

U.S. Army Rifle Squad (1918-2020) (battleorder.org)

\

If NGSW gets fielded as planned, I fully expect that US Army rifle squads will be equipped with 6.8 rifles and LMGs.

nincomp said:

I think that a "golf bag" approach of matching the weapon mix to the mission is not unreasonable.

It's just 2x to 3x more expensive.

nincomp said:

Although logisticians prefer everyone to use the same cartridge, it does not always make sense. 

It makes sense from a logistic / strategic point of view, and in a high-intensity conflict that's as important as more technical considerations.

EmericD said:

nincomp said: I think that a "golf bag" approach of matching the weapon mix to the mission is not unreasonable. It's just 2x to 3x more expensive. nincomp said: Although logisticians prefer everyone to use the same cartridge, it does not always make sense.  It makes sense from a logistic / strategic point of view, and in a high-intensity conflict that's as important as more technical considerations.

As we are looking more at "near peer" instead of COIN, these things need to be considered.

graylion said:

As we are looking more at "near peer" instead of COIN, these things need to be considered.

During WWI, France produced (and used) more than 8 billions of 8 mm Mle1886D cartridges. That's more than 100,000 metric tons of brass used only for the bullets.

During the height of the GWOT, I think that the US used around 1.2-1.4 billion of 5.56 mm ammo per year. At this time, a 5.56 mm cartridge was around 22-25 cents a pop, so that's ~300 millions of € of 5.56 mm ammo per year.

Most of those rounds were used for training, and we know from history that you need to fire more 7.62 mm ammo than 5.56 mm ammo to reach the same level of shooting proficiency (the historical trend is that you needed to fire less 5.56 mm ammo than 7.62 mm ammo to reach the same level of qualification).

With a full fleet of 7.62 mm rifles and a cost of 50 cents a pop, the bill would have raised to more than 800 millions per year (hypothesis: you need to fire 30% more round to reach the same level of proficiency).

With a full fleet of 6.8x51 mm rifles, the bill would be probably higher than 1.1 billion per year...

XM250:  So controllable, even a girl can shoot it.

YouTube

Lena Miculek shooting the new Sig Sauer Xm250 NGSW

? @SIG SAUER, Inc @Germanic Army @lenamiculekNEWINGTON, N.H., (April 20, 2022) - SIG SAUER is honored to be awarded the Next Generation Squad Weapons Syst...

This girl is Lena Miculek.

I doubt that any man on this forum can shoot nearly as well as her, and only a handful men around the world can do the trick.

That said, the weapon does appear controlable, but the ammo remains pretty heavy,

Brilliant response, Emeric. People forget that ammunition logistics are hugely important. 

Going back to the main thrust of my argument against NGSW, I don't think regular infantry battalions will need to engage enemies wearing body armour at 600 metres. They'll certainly need to do so at ranges below 300 metres. As Tony's iconic chart shows, only a small percentage of engagements took place beyond 400 metres. 

If the NGSW requirement is reduced to Level IV to 300 metres, this would allow a lighter, less powerful round with genuine weight savings to be adopted. A round like the Russian 6x49 mm fired at 3,500 would be awesome. 

With NGSW as it now is, we're seeing four standard loadings, Special Purpose (SP), General Purpose (GP), Reduced Range (RR) and Tracer (T). it looks like GP, RR and T may come in a standard bass cartridge and be fired at 62,000 psi. Whatever, I think we will need to get used to 6.8x51 defining the next NATO standard. 

Everything I've read here so far convinces me that 6.8x51 mm can replace 7.62x51 mm NATO, but not 5.56x45 mm. 

I think the US Army's new PAAC study will end-up trying to replace 5.56x45 mm NATO with something like 6x39 mm ARC. This could well make 6.8x51 mm redundant. In any event, I don't see the rest of NATO jumping on the NGSW bandwagon, at least in the short-term. 

Guardsman26 said:

People forget that ammunition logistics are hugely important.

With the US Army selecting the 6.8x51 mm; SOCOM adopting the 6.5 mm Creedmoor along the .300 AAC; some Navy operator inside SOCOM adopting the 6 mm ARC; UK SF adopting the 6.8 mm SPC and some SF units in Europe adopting the 260 Rem and the .300 AAC, life is going to be interesting, for sure!

And let's not forget the .338 Norma along the .338 Lapua, the .408 CT, the .375 Enabler and the .300 Norma (and the old .300 Winchester Magnum) for good measure.