US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
That sounds like an advertisement.

What were the design goals of the new cartridge? That paragraph talks about increasing range and "lethality", and penetrating "modern bulletproof vests". There are different levels of protection, and round velocity (range) matters. Going by the Ukraine war it's looks like plate armour will be more common on the battlefield. Can these new rounds penetrate Level 3 armour, and if so at what range?
The design of the 6.8x51mm for NGSW came from two sources the cartridge came from Sig it’s goal to create a casing and propellant load that would allow 80k psi of pressure so as to allow a muzzle velocities on par with 5.56x45mm about ~3000fps above 7.62x51mm at about ~2800 fps but substantially higher energy at about ~3600 j vs 5.56 at ~1700 j and 7.62 ~2600 j.
Note this is based off the commercial Fury not the unknown of the actual military cartridge also I am rounding.
The other source is the Army itself whom supply the bullet, the tip. That’s the important aspect for penetration. This far all of it is EPR which isn’t AP but SAP.
To achieve armor penetration you will need a hardened WC core. Thus far the Army hasn’t said much about the new AP round. It would probably have a lot in common with the XM1158 Advanced Armor Piercing 7.62x51mm round. Which of course has the tungsten problem.( China being the worlds #1 Tungsten producer followed by Russia in event of war with either the Tungsten is likely to be cut off. The US doesn’t produce any not for lack of deposits we have plenty we just don’t mine it. The most secure source for the US would be Canadian. ) a Steel AP round basically becomes an assault rifle chambered in .408 Cheytac.
The Army hasn’t said much about the actual objective but the main assumption is the aim is to Penetrate a level Iv plate at between 300-600m Beyond that the problems increase. 500m is likely a stretch requiring a sort of APFDS round. As such I think 300m is more likely. Again with a WC core.
Generally 5.56 and intermediate caliber rounds with hardened Tungsten cores tap out somewhere below 100m. They just don’t have the energy or mass to keep going and loose velocity fast. Being blunt below 100m Infantry have other means to defeating body armor making it kinda pointless which is why it’s so rarely used.
You have to go to the larger caliber to defeat modern armor. You have to have Tungsten rounds to work against it so it’s not likely to ever be standard issue even in China or Russia who mine the stuff even if they did the likely effective range is still below 100m.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Half of the Navy’s littoral combat ship fleet is suffering from structural defects that have led to hull cracks on several vessels, limiting the speed and sea states in which some ships can operate, according to internal records obtained by Navy Times and confirmed by sea service officials.
The Navy has not previously disclosed the cracks in the Independence-class version of the LCS or the class-wide repercussions of the defects, nor has it identified which ships suffer from the issues.
But documents obtained by Navy Times warn
that cracks can grow if the ships transits faster than 15 knots in seas with maximum wave heights of about eight feet.
Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman Alan Baribeau said in a statement that the service first identified “cracks in higher-stress areas of the structure” on Independence-class ships in late 2019, when the problem became apparent on Coronado, the second ship of the class, which was commissioned in 2014.
Such cracks have since been discovered on six of those LCS variants, according to Baribeau, nearly half of the 13-ship Independence class fleet.
While NAVSEA contends that the crack issue does not hinder the ability of such ships “to get underway and execute missions,” the documents obtained by Navy Times show the problem is limiting how fast ships with afflicted hulls can go and the sea states in which they can operate.

Omaha, a $440 million LCS commissioned in 2018 — which has since been turned into a training vessel — is one of the ships suffering such cracks.
According to a temporary standing order, or TSO, issued by Omaha’s command on July 8, 2021, and obtained by Navy Times, the ship was operating under “speed and sea state restrictions” in order to “limit crack propagation.”
The order prohibited Omaha from traveling faster than 15 knots — 17 mph — in “sea state 4,” a level entailing a maximum wave height of 8.2 feet.
The four-to-eight foot wave range of sea state 4 is “fairly common,” according to Martin, who reviewed the records for Navy Times.
“Being unable to go at speed in sea state 4 is a pretty significant limitation,” he said. “Fifteen knots is a transit speed, a very normal transit speed, less than half of LCS’s supposed maximum speed.”
While NAVSEA states that the crack issue is not hindering operational requirements, a 2021 investigation into Omaha’s command notes that the ship “has more restrictive seakeeping limits due to cracks in her aluminum hull and superstructure,” and that those limitations played a role in hindering a transit from San Diego to Everett, Washington, in November.
Omaha’s temporary order includes a February 2020 NAVSEA advisory noting that the entire Independence class “have under-designed structural defects” at ship frames 36 and 45.
Frames are attached perpendicularly to the keel, which runs the length of the ship.
Another section of the NAVSEA document states that the office recommends Independence-class ships stay below the 15-knot speed and out of sea states more severe than level four “to limit further crack growth.”
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
The design of the 6.8x51mm for NGSW came from two sources the cartridge came from Sig it’s goal to create a casing and propellant load that would allow 80k psi of pressure so as to allow a muzzle velocities on par with 5.56x45mm about ~3000fps above 7.62x51mm at about ~2800 fps but substantially higher energy at about ~3600 j vs 5.56 at ~1700 j and 7.62 ~2600 j.
Note this is based off the commercial Fury not the unknown of the actual military cartridge also I am rounding.
The other source is the Army itself whom supply the bullet, the tip. That’s the important aspect for penetration. This far all of it is EPR which isn’t AP but SAP.
To achieve armor penetration you will need a hardened WC core. Thus far the Army hasn’t said much about the new AP round. It would probably have a lot in common with the XM1158 Advanced Armor Piercing 7.62x51mm round. Which of course has the tungsten problem.( China being the worlds #1 Tungsten producer followed by Russia in event of war with either the Tungsten is likely to be cut off. The US doesn’t produce any not for lack of deposits we have plenty we just don’t mine it. The most secure source for the US would be Canadian. ) a Steel AP round basically becomes an assault rifle chambered in .408 Cheytac.
The Army hasn’t said much about the actual objective but the main assumption is the aim is to Penetrate a level Iv plate at between 300-600m Beyond that the problems increase. 500m is likely a stretch requiring a sort of APFDS round. As such I think 300m is more likely. Again with a WC core.
Generally 5.56 and intermediate caliber rounds with hardened Tungsten cores tap out somewhere below 100m. They just don’t have the energy or mass to keep going and loose velocity fast. Being blunt below 100m Infantry have other means to defeating body armor making it kinda pointless which is why it’s so rarely used.
You have to go to the larger caliber to defeat modern armor. You have to have Tungsten rounds to work against it so it’s not likely to ever be standard issue even in China or Russia who mine the stuff even if they did the likely effective range is still below 100m.
Nearly 50% more kinetic energy than a 7.62 in a lighter rifle? I wonder what recoil is going to be like, especially controlled bursts. Not to mention all the women soldiers the Americans seem to be inducting.
Going from the M16/M4 to this new rifle is going to be quite a jump.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Nearly 50% more kinetic energy than a 7.62 in a lighter rifle? I wonder what recoil is going to be like, especially controlled bursts. Not to mention all the women soldiers the Americans seem to be inducting.
Going from the M16/M4 to this new rifle is going to be quite a jump.
This weapon is being targeted to the “Close quarters forces” translation combat arms. Soldiers whom have have time and generally training to try and lead to deal with the heavier weapon.
The basis of the rifle is the MCX which is generally considered one of the softer shooting piston operated rifles on the market. Part of the recoil can also be adjusted by the gas system in the gun. Most combat rifles have been historically over gassed to compensate for potential reliability issues. This rifle has a two setting gas port normal and adverse. The latter being the overdrive mode.
As to the weight it’s not that light… it depends on your comparison. The M5 empty and stripped is 8.3 pounds that’s not the lightest thing in the world but is fairly good. In combat configuration it will have another pound from the suppressor and up to 2 pounds for the optic. Which is where the M14 comparisons come in. Fully kitted out it comes close to the weight of the old M14 but it has far better ergonomics. In particular here is the way the recoil is directed back more like AR15 than M14 where it goes back but the shoulder pad is below causing the rifle to leaver up. For contrast the M110A1 fully kitted in similar configuration is 15 pounds.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
This weapon is being targeted to the “Close quarters forces” translation combat arms. Soldiers whom have have time and generally training to try and lead to deal with the heavier weapon.
The basis of the rifle is the MCX which is generally considered one of the softer shooting piston operated rifles on the market. Part of the recoil can also be adjusted by the gas system in the gun. Most combat rifles have been historically over gassed to compensate for potential reliability issues. This rifle has a two setting gas port normal and adverse. The latter being the overdrive mode.
As to the weight it’s not that light… it depends on your comparison. The M5 empty and stripped is 8.3 pounds that’s not the lightest thing in the world but is fairly good. In combat configuration it will have another pound from the suppressor and up to 2 pounds for the optic. Which is where the M14 comparisons come in. Fully kitted out it comes close to the weight of the old M14 but it has far better ergonomics. In particular here is the way the recoil is directed back more like AR15 than M14 where it goes back but the shoulder pad is below causing the rifle to leaver up. For contrast the M110A1 fully kitted in similar configuration is 15 pounds.
Having an adjustable gas port isn't a solution though, is it? You vent more gas out and you lose projectile energy. If not much projectile energy is lost then you still have a lot of recoil to deal with. It's physics, whatever momentum the bullet has is the same momentum the gun directs into the operator.

It seems the US army have done a full 180 from the 5.56 era, and gone beyond. This rifle may have made sense in low intensity gunfights across Afghanistan, less so in an urban battle in Europe.

Furthermore, if 6.8mm is going to become a NATO standard it's not going to be popular in European countries. Infantry quality varies massively among NATO members.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Having an adjustable gas port isn't a solution though, is it? You vent more gas out and you lose projectile energy. If not much projectile energy is lost then you still have a lot of recoil to deal with. It's physics, whatever momentum the bullet has is the same momentum the gun directs into the operator.
Not really. The velocity and pressure of the gases is less an issue as it’s released at the muzzle a muzzle break can tame that what the gas port does is control the redirected gas used to cycle the bolt. The more gas in the piston or gas tube the more velocity of the bolt the more energy directed into the shoulder as the mass of the bolt shifts.
The energy of the gas that isn’t siphoned is either vented into the atmosphere or containment in the suppressor until released at the end. The gases felt recoil is fairly small on its own. It may seem like it should be the 70k psi pushing back but that’s not entirely the case as the gases are allowed to escape once the bullet clears the barrel.
This is why system like the constant recoil or balanced recoil.
It seems the US army have done a full 180 from the 5.56 era, and gone beyond. This rifle may have made sense in low intensity gunfights across Afghanistan, less so in an urban battle in Europe.
Ha that’s based on a major assumption. One that is wrong Urban warfare isn’t Close quarters warfare. Room clearing is CQB, Indoor fighting is CQB, Police work is CQB but combat in urban is mixed. In MOUT you could be fighting to clear what is in front of you yet then come under long range fire. Farther Europe isn’t a mega city out of Judge Dread. It’s a mix with open steppe, hill-lands woodlands, Arctic, urban, even desert. M5 and M250 seem designed more to establish a wider range of combat capabilities. IE it’s the same length as an M4 or M249 weapons well considered for Close combat. Well also offering range potential to one Km. That means that it’s designed to allow engagement in a building vs foes with Aks we’ll also allowing engagement of a sniper in a high rise 600 m away. The assumption that this is a return to M14 and that this is an error is based off the assumption that one couldn’t fight in close quarters with such weapons. That is wrong they could just not as efficiently due to their long size.
86A0A2E7-1E5E-4D2F-AEDD-F0574353FA78.jpeg
US soldiers fighting in Tet Offensive.
Farther one of the failures of the M14 as a weapon was that until the advent of the M21 sniper system M14’s range was limited by the fact it like the rifles that came before it used Iron sights only. That system is okay if your trying to engage out to 300m but vs the potential range of the M14 is akin to putting a moped engine in an Muscle car. M16 proved effective as its .223 caliber round was able to be operated very effectively out to 500m in a stretch well still offering effective lethality and much more friendly to iron sights and the spray the berm engagement of the time.

Thing is as this was happening Russian forces recognized that the pure assault rifle infantry formations lacked something and adopted the Dagunov. This allowed Russian forces a weapon that could engage out of 800m.
US and western forces wouldn’t adopt in wide numbers a similar concept until the the late 1980s early 1990s. Yet even then they were based around the “improved” 5.56x45mm weapons. By the new millennium US forces had adopted 7.62x51mm weapons to this role by force as in Afghanistan and Iraq they faced off against insurgents armed with a number of Russian sources weapons. The PK and SVD both chambered in 7.62x54R easily out ranged 5.56x45mm weapons with American infantry’s responses being the DMR rifles in resurrected modified M14s and Weapons squads using M240 machine guns in 7.62x51mm.
The Russian rifle squad has during its reorganization adopted modernized or legacy iterations of the same PKM and Dragunov at the squad level (save for in VDV and Naval Infantry formations) Offering superior range of engagement.
Of course they are not the “Pacing threat” the US DOD is watching. The PLA claims to similarly out range the US infantry forces with 5.8x42mm weapons in the QBU88 QJY88 families with claimed ranges between 500-1000m which seems a stretch on the latter QBU191 out to 800m which is more conservative.
As a result the 5.56x45mm has lost ground farther exacerbating this was the move to the M4A1. Though widely appreciated for its compact size, better features and trigger. The barrel length reduction from the 20” M16A4 to the 14.5” M4/M4A1 resulted in significant reduction in muzzle velocity and effective range. Moving from a 550m point target to 500m and 800m area target to 600m still beyond the 300m rule but with the then addition of Body armor to the mix. It is significant ground lost.

Of course I can already hear “then why not adopt M5 as a DMR?” What happens if the one or two DMs in the squad are the ones pinned down? That’s a bit of a problem point isn’t it.
How do you maintain a force with three ammunition types at platoon level? The want here is that the three primary small arms of the US Army squad would be using the same ammunition type. A universal cartridge… Gee sounds familiar? A cartridge common between Infantry rifles, LMGs and GPMGs… and common capabilities. Reasoning that with the advent of smart scope systems like Tracking point and Smartshooter the technology is available to actually make a General issue weapon able to allow the soldier to engage at extreme long range well still having suitability for close quarters.
This is the biggest shift from the M14 compared to M5. That the weapon as issued is designed to cover both close and longer range engagement.
It’s why the XM157 NGSW Fire Control system exists and is the real “game changer” of the set up. It’s part of why I wonder how so many are obsessed with the M5 on their criticisms well ignoring the M250.
Furthermore, if 6.8mm is going to become a NATO standard it's not going to be popular in European countries. Infantry quality varies massively among NATO members.
I doubt it end up being popular with (majority of) US infantry either.

At the moment it won’t become NATO Standard and as to US infantry it will require retraining to get the soldiers up to speed.

As it was just adopted by the US it would take time to begin a process of NATO standard assuming it even did. Not every NATO state is looking at its doctrine the way the US is.
I mean hell some NATO states don’t use 5.56 but 7.62x51mm as their main cartridge. Despite the meme of 7.62x51mm NATO, The US didn’t force NATO to adopt an “11.43x23mm NATO” (.45Acp) and with the adoption of SS109 was forced to adopt a Belgian 5.56x45mm NATO round as opposed to the original American .223 Remington on which it was based. Farther of late multiple NATO states have adopted weapons and cartridges and not pushed standardization IE .300 win mag, 300 Norma mag, .338 Lupua mag, .338 Norma mag, 5.7x28mm, 4.6x30mm, 6.5x48mm, 35x228mm, 40mm CT, 50x319mm These have all been adopted or the cusps of by NATO states including the US in some cases yet never a STANAG. Just because the US Army chooses 6.8x51mm doesn’t mean that France or Germany have to redraw their modernization programs to match.
Currently Australia is looking at 6.5x51mm for their potential future weapons systems.
Tranche 2 Land 159 obviously not a NATO state (well observer status).
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The UK and Canada are in the stages that they are looking at replacing their main service weapons and may go this route but as yet no solid evidence.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Not really. The velocity and pressure of the gases is less an issue as it’s released at the muzzle a muzzle break can tame that what the gas port does is control the redirected gas used to cycle the bolt. The more gas in the piston or gas tube the more velocity of the bolt the more energy directed into the shoulder as the mass of the bolt shifts.
The energy of the gas that isn’t siphoned is either vented into the atmosphere or containment in the suppressor until released at the end. The gases felt recoil is fairly small on its own. It may seem like it should be the 70k psi pushing back but that’s not entirely the case as the gases are allowed to escape once the bullet clears the barrel.
This is why system like the constant recoil or balanced recoil.
I was a bit confused why you brought up the gas valve, I understand now.
The bolt travelling back isn't the primary cause of recoil, the detonation of the bullet is. Bolt movement can affect the type of recoil and make it more difficult to control. You double the kinetic energy of the bullet, you double the recoil force. This rifle will kick hard, and more than a 7.62 chambered rifle.

As for it being balanced recoil, we'll have to see. Even a perfectly balanced rifle is going to present issues if the recoil force is too high.
Ha that’s based on a major assumption. One that is wrong Urban warfare isn’t Close quarters warfare. Room clearing is CQB, Indoor fighting is CQB, Police work is CQB but combat in urban is mixed. In MOUT you could be fighting to clear what is in front of you yet then come under long range fire. Farther Europe isn’t a mega city out of Judge Dread. It’s a mix with open steppe, hill-lands woodlands, Arctic, urban, even desert. M5 and M250 seem designed more to establish a wider range of combat capabilities. IE it’s the same length as an M4 or M249 weapons well considered for Close combat. Well also offering range potential to one Km. That means that it’s designed to allow engagement in a building vs foes with Aks we’ll also allowing engagement of a sniper in a high rise 600 m away. The assumption that this is a return to M14 and that this is an error is based off the assumption that one couldn’t fight in close quarters with such weapons. That is wrong they could just not as efficiently due to their long size.
View attachment 88719
US soldiers fighting in Tet Offensive.
Farther one of the failures of the M14 as a weapon was that until the advent of the M21 sniper system M14’s range was limited by the fact it like the rifles that came before it used Iron sights only. That system is okay if your trying to engage out to 300m but vs the potential range of the M14 is akin to putting a moped engine in an Muscle car. M16 proved effective as its .223 caliber round was able to be operated very effectively out to 500m in a stretch well still offering effective lethality and much more friendly to iron sights and the spray the berm engagement of the time.

Thing is as this was happening Russian forces recognized that the pure assault rifle infantry formations lacked something and adopted the Dagunov. This allowed Russian forces a weapon that could engage out of 800m.
US and western forces wouldn’t adopt in wide numbers a similar concept until the the late 1980s early 1990s. Yet even then they were based around the “improved” 5.56x45mm weapons. By the new millennium US forces had adopted 7.62x51mm weapons to this role by force as in Afghanistan and Iraq they faced off against insurgents armed with a number of Russian sources weapons. The PK and SVD both chambered in 7.62x54R easily out ranged 5.56x45mm weapons with American infantry’s responses being the DMR rifles in resurrected modified M14s and Weapons squads using M240 machine guns in 7.62x51mm.
The Russian rifle squad has during its reorganization adopted modernized or legacy iterations of the same PKM and Dragunov at the squad level (save for in VDV and Naval Infantry formations) Offering superior range of engagement.
Of course they are not the “Pacing threat” the US DOD is watching. The PLA claims to similarly out range the US infantry forces with 5.8x42mm weapons in the QBU88 QJY88 families with claimed ranges between 500-1000m which seems a stretch on the latter QBU191 out to 800m which is more conservative.
As a result the 5.56x45mm has lost ground farther exacerbating this was the move to the M4A1. Though widely appreciated for its compact size, better features and trigger. The barrel length reduction from the 20” M16A4 to the 14.5” M4/M4A1 resulted in significant reduction in muzzle velocity and effective range. Moving from a 550m point target to 500m and 800m area target to 600m still beyond the 300m rule but with the then addition of Body armor to the mix. It is significant ground lost.

Of course I can already hear “then why not adopt M5 as a DMR?” What happens if the one or two DMs in the squad are the ones pinned down? That’s a bit of a problem point isn’t it.
How do you maintain a force with three ammunition types at platoon level? The want here is that the three primary small arms of the US Army squad would be using the same ammunition type. A universal cartridge… Gee sounds familiar? A cartridge common between Infantry rifles, LMGs and GPMGs… and common capabilities. Reasoning that with the advent of smart scope systems like Tracking point and Smartshooter the technology is available to actually make a General issue weapon able to allow the soldier to engage at extreme long range well still having suitability for close quarters.
This is the biggest shift from the M14 compared to M5. That the weapon as issued is designed to cover both close and longer range engagement.
It’s why the XM157 NGSW Fire Control system exists and is the real “game changer” of the set up. It’s part of why I wonder how so many are obsessed with the M5 on their criticisms well ignoring the M250.



At the moment it won’t become NATO Standard and as to US infantry it will require retraining to get the soldiers up to speed.

As it was just adopted by the US it would take time to begin a process of NATO standard assuming it even did. Not every NATO state is looking at its doctrine the way the US is.
I mean hell some NATO states don’t use 5.56 but 7.62x51mm as their main cartridge. Despite the meme of 7.62x51mm NATO, The US didn’t force NATO to adopt an “11.43x23mm NATO” (.45Acp) and with the adoption of SS109 was forced to adopt a Belgian 5.56x45mm NATO round as opposed to the original American .223 Remington on which it was based. Farther of late multiple NATO states have adopted weapons and cartridges and not pushed standardization IE .300 win mag, 300 Norma mag, .338 Lupua mag, .338 Norma mag, 5.7x28mm, 4.6x30mm, 6.5x48mm, 35x228mm, 40mm CT, 50x319mm These have all been adopted or the cusps of by NATO states including the US in some cases yet never a STANAG. Just because the US Army chooses 6.8x51mm doesn’t mean that France or Germany have to redraw their modernization programs to match.
Currently Australia is looking at 6.5x51mm for their potential future weapons systems.
Tranche 2 Land 159 obviously not a NATO state (well observer status).
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The UK and Canada are in the stages that they are looking at replacing their main service weapons and may go this route but as yet no solid evidence.
So much here I don't know where to start! Have you seen any of the combat footage from the Ukraine?
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I was a bit confused why you brought up the gas valve, I understand now.
The bolt travelling back isn't the primary cause of recoil, the detonation of the bullet is. Bolt movement can affect the type of recoil and make it more difficult to control. You double the kinetic energy of the bullet, you double the recoil force. This rifle will kick hard, and more than a 7.62 chambered rifle.

As for it being balanced recoil, we'll have to see. Even a perfectly balanced rifle is going to present issues if the recoil force is too high
The Bolt is pushed back by the gas from the firing. The felt recoil is a combination of factors ranging from the momentum of the bolt being the primary as well as the gas release. It’s not just the power of the bullet being fired it’s how the weapon operates as a whole. This weapon in combat configuration does however have some heft which absorbs the energy as well. Its a question of training on this. If soldiers are given time and training this is going to be controllable.
So much here I don't know where to start! Have you seen any of the combat footage from the Ukraine?
TikTok battalions in safe areas making a hilariously bad “battle film”? Or Russian tanks sending their Turrets into the stratosphere.
One battle doesn’t make a war. Much of what has been put on social media from Ukraine is from Ukrainian militias often assigned or only responsible for defense of specific cities. If you just relied on said videos then the primary combat would be via SKIF SACLOS missiles. Videos can only show so much and only allow a snippet of what is happening on the ground. Both Ukraine and Russia are known to have snipers on the ground. Besides again both sides are more or less equal in that fight which means that the only way to use what they have is to close with and use what they have in the same limitations.
 
Top