The Armory - Guns, Knives, and Axes

[The Conservative]

There's nothing wrong with the G3, it's just not as elegant as a FN FAL

The new Squad Weapon System 6.8 x 51mm would replace the light caliber 5.56 x 45mm

The caliber to replace 7.62 x 51mm would be 8.6 x 70mm; which is otherwise known as .338 Lapua Magnum

The new 6.8 x 51mm Squad caliber gives the Squad 7.62 x 51mm like range, but in a lighter cartridge.

The new 8.6 x 70mm machine gun has a range of over 2 klicks, so it's GPMG sized, but shoots like a .50 cal

These new calibers wouldn't add that much to mechanized forces, which have firepower from the vehicles

For Infantry, Marines and Special Operations, it would be a significant increase in firepower, particularly range

The other aspect of the new ammo is polymer casings, to make them lighter

So even tho the new cartridges are larger, they actually weigh less than the current ammo calibers

With 6.8 x 51mm, the Squad gets the range and stopping power of the G3/FN FAL back, without the weight

With 8.6 x 70mm, you've got a 2 man GPMG team which can now reach out and hit at .50 cal ranges

Wouldn't you want uniformity across a multi-country fighting force though?

America is the Superpower due to logistics, the other countries don't contribute to the massive American arsenal

It's not an issue for the US Army, Marine Corps & SOF, the US military is a logistical universe unto itself

It's no different than when America adopted 5.56 x 45mm, the allies would eventually switch to the US ammo

In just thinking of worst case scenario in where a US soldier is forced in with a group of Internationals due to a combat situation, in where if he needs a quick passing of the ammo because he ate through his, said weapon won't be able to take international ammo.

[TheReal_ND]

stfu faggot

[Montegriffo]

Locked up and loaded.

[Smitty-48]

6.8 x 51mm is a significantly more powerful round than 5.56 x 45mm

The slug is 120gr ; so it's twice the bullet, but the muzzle velocity is high like a 5.56 x 45 mm : 2700 fps

So it's basically the best qualities of the 5.56 x 45mm and the 7.62 x 51mm ; all in one

So logistically, it replaces both NATO calibers with a single new caliber

Then the 8.6 x 70mm is a new caliber which replaces the GMPG with a more powerful machine gun

For a Rifleman, it means you can carry the same number of rounds, with twice the range and lethality

For the Machine gunner it means you can carry a GPMG which has the range of the HMG, with a lot of ammo

The Pentagon did a study which found that the 168gr slug of the 7.62mm wasn't actually required

Anything over 130 gr doesn't add much effects, so the new round with a 120gr slug does the damage of 7.62mm

At the same time is has the high velocity flat trajectory of the 5.56mm, so it's both laser accurate and long ranged

Interestingly, it appears it has both the ambi charging handle of the AR and a new side cocking lever as well

It's also a short stroke gas piston driven rifle like the HK416/417 instead of the direct gas impingement of the AR

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EG7fcY1W4AA ... =4096x4096

[heydaralon]

It is boss, it's just a little pricey at $4000.00 : twice the price of a top o' the line AR

Do you like Heckler and Koch weapons? From what I have read, H&K is the default for a lot of our NATO allies. I forget what Hastur carried when he served but I'm 99% sure it was an H&K something.

It was an H&K G3. Or AK4 as we called it. Swedish built and slightly modified. I think they changed 40 things about it. It was a nice gun. When I moved to a non-combat unit I was issued the Kpist m/45 or Swedish K as you call it. That was a fun gun. I also shot a lot of KSP 58 (FN MAG) and some Grg m/48 Carl Gustaf.

I think it was a mistake to follow NATO and change from our 6.5x55 to 7.62×51. I've talked to people who shot the FN-MAG and also the BAR in 6.5×55. They say it runs much better. A G3 in 6.5x55 would probably be much nicer to handle.
I guess making the switch was a money decision. All because the Americans refused to let go of the M14 project everyone had to go with 7.62×51.

When you were in the military, was the culture in Sweden that WW3 was gonna happen? Did most of your buddies think that Russians were gonna invade?

[Hastur]

Do you like Heckler and Koch weapons? From what I have read, H&K is the default for a lot of our NATO allies. I forget what Hastur carried when he served but I'm 99% sure it was an H&K something.

It was an H&K G3. Or AK4 as we called it. Swedish built and slightly modified. I think they changed 40 things about it. It was a nice gun. When I moved to a non-combat unit I was issued the Kpist m/45 or Swedish K as you call it. That was a fun gun. I also shot a lot of KSP 58 (FN MAG) and some Grg m/48 Carl Gustaf.

I think it was a mistake to follow NATO and change from our 6.5x55 to 7.62×51. I've talked to people who shot the FN-MAG and also the BAR in 6.5×55. They say it runs much better. A G3 in 6.5x55 would probably be much nicer to handle.
I guess making the switch was a money decision. All because the Americans refused to let go of the M14 project everyone had to go with 7.62×51.

When you were in the military, was the culture in Sweden that WW3 was gonna happen? Did most of your buddies think that Russians were gonna invade?

I don't know how many believed WW3 was a possibility. I finished my service in 1988, one year before the wall fell. It was glasnost and perestroika but Michail Gorbatjov still didn't have firm control of the situation. When Mathias Rust landed his Cessna on the red square Gorbatjov had an excuse to replace a lot of military leaders that didn't want to go along with his plans but it was still early stages.

We don't trust the Russians. They are our eternal enemy. We regarded military service as a sacrifice we had to do in order to deter Ivan. We had a big military back then. Not big enough to beat the Soviet army but big enough to make an invasion to expensive. So we didn't think they would invade, but it was up to us to persuade them not to. It was uncertain times. We didn't know if there was going to be a backlash in the East.

[heydaralon]

When my parents went to Hungary, Czech republic, Finland etc, they noted the strong hatred for Russians there. Can't say I blame those people considering what happened.

[Smitty-48]

The key for Sweden is simply to present a hard target.

The Russians are not going to invade unless there is an easy path to victory

The Swedes just have to make it a high risk prospect, and that's enough to keep the Russians at bay.

The situation is that it is simply not worth the cost for Russia to attack Sweden nor Finland

The Northern Flank is a stalemate and always was, the Russians are not poised for an offensive in the North.

Russia's critical imperative is simply keeping NATO out of the Eastern Baltic & Belarus.

Russia's more aggressive interests are further south, in the Black Sea, it's all about the Bosporus.

The countries which are under threat of actual invasion by the Russians are Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan

The Russian Empire is not in the West, it was always in the East; Caucasus and Central Asia.

In terms of war in the Baltic theater, that would be primarily a naval war.

Russia would not try to invade Scandinavia, Russia would go defensive to protect Murmansk

With Russia's nuclear deterrent, they wouldn't need that many troops to do it, NATO is not going to invade

Hence why the bulk of Russia's land forces are actually facing East, towards China

Any war against NATO & Co. : is going to be a sea war not a land war.

The Russian war plan is not like the Soviet war plan, the Russian war plan is asymmetrical

They have the existential threat nuclear deterrent, so they can't be attacked directly

They will leverage that by fighting a limited war to bring Europe to the negotiating table by Nuclear Deescalation

They will employ Escalation Dominance to force a resolution, with their hydrogen bombs as the trump card

This actually makes them potentially more dangerous than the Soviets, simply because it would be war by gambit

The Russians would have to throw caution to the wind and brandish their nukes more promiscuously

This is where you get to a thermonuclear war, by accident more than anything.

The Soviets were actually very cautious, Cuba was an uncharacteristic overreach.

With the Russians, in the event of war, they would have to offset their lack of mass by being aggressive

Escalation Dominance is an effective strategy against the bourgeoisie in Western Europe

Brinkmanship however, is hard to control, the fog of war enshrouds the red lines, and that's where shit happens

As interventionist as the Washington-Wall St Axis may be, it's still far less interventionist than the competition

[Smitty-48]

[Hastur]

The sub that "sank" USS Ronald Reagan.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... k-us-18383