>iron sight PKP, 1500m range while the M240 with western optics only has 1100m>SVDS with soviet optics, 1000m range while an M14 with western optics only has 800m>M4 with an ACOG is same range as a fucking AKM with ironsHow did fucking nobody call this retarded bullshit out? Is this really what is driving the firearms acquisitions of the mighty US ARMY? Has the army always been so STUPID?
how the fuck am I supposed to read this chart with no legend or supporting information
>>64312832You can derive the necessary information from the opening post (using it as supporting information).
>>64312827It had to do with effective range of fire, not maximum range in general. 5.56 is a small round and loses velocity much quicker and more dramatically than the bigger russian bullet.It likely also takes into account armor penetration at range and general effectiveness of suppressing fire. There is probably an entire webpage/video breaking down this chart, should've probably also shared that.
>>64312827>iron sight PKP, 1500m range while the M240 with western optics only has 1100m>SVDS with soviet optics, 1000m range while an M14 with western optics only has 800mx54 is a more powerful round and the PKP and SVDS have longer barrels. The machinegun doesn’t need an optic to do its job, but I am pretty sure it can have one if you want.The PSO-1 works fine (4x zoom is fine at that range)>M4 with an ACOG is same range as a fucking AKM with ironsthey’re probably thinking about 5.45mm AKs equipped with scopes
>>64312827implessive
Why is the global southener upset this time?
>>64312827Impressive
>>64312910>x54 is a more powerful roundbullshit>and the PKP and SVDS have longer barrels.marginally so>The PSO-1 works fine (4x zoom is fine at that range)delusional
but all the ak/pk barrels are rusted out because the supply officer sold all the cleaning supplies for cigarettes
>>64312827Effective ranges are more doctrinal than technical in my experience.
>>64312827>why is a baby .30-06 longer range than a 5.56?Holy fuck OP you discovered a huge secret they've been trying to suppress!Ffuuuuuucccckkkkkkk!!!!!
>>64312827call of duty isn't real life
>>64312827>Is this really what is driving the firearms acquisitions of the mighty US ARMY?Desu the desire for battle rifles was probably already there, they just used Schatz' presentations to justify it. You can't reason with old people, as soft and gelatinous their brains are, the stuff inside is rather hard to change.
>>64312909Fucking read the post again, I'm talking about the comparison of 7.62x51 vs 7.62x54r and 5.56 vs 5.45/7.62x39.THEY'RE EQUAL. THE RUSSIANS DON'T FUCKING HAVE OVERMATCH.
>>64312993>>64313120>>64313007The US army just adopted a fucking battle rifle because it thinks that old soviet handmedown hunks of rust are magic and have longer effective ranges then their western equivalents.
>>64314198Just out of curiosity, have you actually read all the Schatz presentations? I think you're missing the point entirely.
>>64312827>unironically using a chart meant to shill HK417 to the US Army
>>64314215The M7 is for MOUT.
>>64312910>4x zoom is fine at that range>1000mlol
>>64313165>>x54 is a more powerful round>bullshitx54 is slightly more powerful. combined with a longer barrel, it's reasonable that the effective range is slightly higher>>64315370>4x isnt enough at 1kmmarines shoot out to 500 yards with just iron sights. 4x is enough for 1km.keep in mind that the svd and mk14 are both semi-automatic.
>>64315557>x54 is slightly more powerfuwrong.>combined with a longer barrel, it's reasonable that the effective range is slightly higherpidor delusions>4x is enough for 1km.mental illness
>>64314465>.338 has same range as PKP 7.62RWhat the fuck is this retardation.I want this fucktard executed right now for being so fucking stupid.
All the western guns have half the MOA or more, that's why.
>>64315679>marksman rifle vs GPMGExplain the difference between a point target and an area target, please.
>>64315595Post rounds on range. You don't spend your entire budget on the finest sigger meal and not bullets do you anon?>>64313325How to landnav?
>>64312827Lol seething pidor. I know you've seen video testimonies from mobiks complaining that they're regularly getting outshot by western rifles because all they have are dogshit SVDs
>>64316116>because all they have are dogshit SVDsAnon Russian military canned SVD like in 2010 or something. Boomers continued to reprint soviet era TOEs with SVDs and RPK in squad when Russian removed SVD and RPK about 2010, and boomers didn't get the memo because Russian TOEs are classified.
>>64312827>>64312910>>64312909I just leave it here.Soviets trials of RPK-74 prototype.At 800 meters hit probability for PK was 0.095 for RPK-74 0.170.Jim Swartz was just gaslighting boomer spurting fake news pretending its revelation (remember classic boomer "firm handshake"?). IF US military actually tested these guns weapons head to head in similar conditions i guarantee you they would had great surprises about "muh Overmatch". But they didn't andtook bullshit at face value.
>>64316406>canned SVD like in 2010 or somethingReplaced with 91/30s with PUs right?
>>64316443>Replaced with 91/30s with PUs right?With PKM. Rest of the squad AK-74 (some AK-12 later).
>>64316434oh and here is target for 800 meters shooting run. Soviet "Target number 9 recoilless antitank rifle" inspired by M40.Sizes are in centimeters.
>>64316116May we see them?>>64316434It says 7.62mm RPK not 7.62mm PK. x39 is not a good round for long range shooting, everyone knows that
>>64316521Oh yeah. Wrong file. 0.202 vs 0.137 for PK run.
>>64316406yeah just like they phased out BMP-1s and MTLBs right? I guess now they are well and truly phased out
>>64316116>reading comprehensionThat graph is from the US army and was used to justify adopting a battle rifle.
>>64312827Its standard military doctrine to increase the Planning Range as if your opponent weapons have overmatch to how they will normally perform.E.g. the PKs outranging the M240When planning battalion-level tactics like finding a Formup and Departure point for an assault on an entrenched position, it should be selected to be outside the "max planning range" of enemy MG fire, but your Fire Support position should be closer so its MGs can cover the whole target area.Ditto if your doctrine assumes the guy with the SVD is going to be Vassily Saitsev 2.0 and therefore you set up your OP at over 1000metres, the average Ivan marksman won't be a risk.
>>64312827>effective range The maximum range at which a soldier of average capability is probable to hit a target when engaged according to equipment doctrine.>Maximum rangeThe ballistic maximum capability of a weapon system, without weighting for probability of hitting a target. Guess which definition is used to calculate range by which military.
>>64312827We DID. Didn't matter, because a very small number of people ramrodded it through by hijacking the LSAT program that spent 20 years working on a *lighter* weapon to reduce the soldier's burden.
>>64316534>>64316434
>>64317617>>64317620No you don't just assume that a fucking PK outranges a 240. That's fucking retarded.
Repostan a post I just made in the PKM threadYou won't hit shit if you're downhill from an MG with an equivalent caliber to your infantry carbine, especially at these distances. They'd be fortified and you'd be out in the open no matter what.In the past, and without air support or armor (as you might find yourself in a hot near-peer war), you would have used a mortar, another maneuver element, or overwhelming numbers to defeat this sort of threat, none of which are compatible with the modern Western doctrine of high survivability, speed, and precision. You NEED Switchblade 300s and/or XM25-style counter-defilade programmable grenades for this. This is *true* overmatch, like how you leave enemy tanks to air support and only use your own tanks to kill infantry and destroy entrenchments. You shouldn't give your tanks comically huge and unreliable guns of questionable utility and 150 tons of armor to go up against enemy MBTs, because your tanks shouldn't be dealing with enemy tanks in the first place. This isn't the Cold War.Another way of putting it is that the most reliable way of achieving the effect of "overmatch" - increasing your lethality and survivability - is exceeding the enemy *qualitatively,* not quantiatively, especially if your quantiative "improvement" actually results in decreased real-world combat effectiveness, which is the case with the NGSW's cartridge, MG, and rifle choices.
>>64317945I think what OP is struggling to understand, and what you're describing, is that that the schatz presentations are sort of afghanistan coded in that troops were being engaged at standoff distances with PKMs on mountain tops. You're not responding with 5.56. Hence the LICC/338NM. Of course the switchblade was also designed for this.
>>64317958I actually agree with Schatz on unifying 5.56 and 7.62 for all domains, not just the sandbox, primarily for logistical reasons and increasing flexibility. 6mm/.22 ARC has demonstrated that you can get 7.62 ballistics from a cartridge with around the same power/recoil and weight (with weight reduction measures) as 5.56. If the LICC is anything like that, it would be awesome. The difference might not be felt by the average rifleman and the extra range wouldn't be useful to them most of the time, but they wouldn't mind because it weighs around the same and is still easy to shoot. However, it would mean that any boring rifle can be used as a DMR or similar (in a sort of modern long-range suppressive volley fire role), every squad would have an M240 equivalent at their disposal, and the weapons squad could either carry a ridiculous amount of ammo or a .338 if the situation calls for it. That's huge.But all of this is of secondary importance compared to expediting the adoption of squad and platoon-level loitering munitions. The USMC knows this. I think guns should mostly be used when you already outmatch the enemy with a diverse range of weapons, at which point they mostly serve to pin the enemy down and finish them only after other weapon systems removed their advantage, be it an MG position, a vehicle, or a trench. Never fight a fair fight, even if you have a slightly longer stick. Personally I'm also a big fan of programmable grenades, as was Jim, who probably only shilled for them because the XM25 was made by HK. The PGS program doesn't seem to be getting a lot of love though.
>>64318104Think about Swartz presentation it's just blatant lie.He, or anyone they didn't tested mentioned weapons head to head in similar conditions. These "effective range" numbers are just made up.
>>64318167And when guns were actually tested there interesting surprises https://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2016/03/british-army-reviewing-whether-to-lose.html?m=1
>>64318167They're not at all. Again begging you to read the fucking PPTs and the underlying studies he's citing. Look at the adoption of platforms in SOCOM. Schatz was arguing for a broader LICC adoption, basically everything in these ppts came to pass. In particular i would point you to the 6.5CM adoption going back a decade or so.
>>64318215Where are the studies that compared these >>64312827 mentioned weapons hit probability over range set in the same conditions? I ll wait when you provide me citations.When Soveits trialed PK against RPK-74 PK flopped (no surprises here btw , PK is 30 MOA gun). >>64316534
>>64318167I don't really need any data to support my interpretation of Schatz's ideas, it's more of a thought exercise:>modern technology allows you to make a cartridge that weighs and recoils as much as 5.56 but can reach as far as 7.62I'm suggesting that one way of exploiting this new understanding is keeping riflemen's firepower roughly the same (albeit with increased range) but massively increasing the firepower and capability of the SAW-turned-GPMG. This has the side effect of giving you more logistical headspace for the more powerful .338 for snipers and man-portable HMGs in an XM806-like role, resulting in a two-cartridge paradigm ({new_intermediate_cartridge} and .338, with .50 almost exclusively on vehicles or in upper echelons). Another approach (that of LSAT pre-6.5mm) is a cartridge with performance similar to M855A1 but much, much lighter, allowing for lighter loads or more firepower for everyone, but you still keep the three-cartridge paradigm (5.56, 7.62/6.5CM, .50).Here, you can actually use testing to determine which of the two is better for a given situation, but since testing something like this is so damn complicated and bound to fail if done by the Army, it might be better to conclude it more or less theoretically and stick to one's guns when shit goes down.Again, against a serious enemy, I don't think any of this matters all that much, the meat is in other weapon systems. Either of these *done well* is good for me. Hell, M4s/M110s/M249s/M240s/M2s are good enough for me. Emphasis on "done well," NGSW fucking sucks and is the worst possible interpretation of Schatz, it's downright sabotage.I had heard about the British using sharpshooters instead of belt-feds in Afg, but had no idea it was that bad. M240s only at the company level? Jesus.
>>64318360>modern technology allows you to make a cartridge that weighs and recoils as much as 5.56 but can reach as far as 7.62That is called RPK-74.
>>64318530I'm starting to think you're just a noguns or something man. No understanding of external ballistics. 6.5CM ARs can do first round hits at 1000 with zero effort.
>>64318530>5.56 but worseno thanks lmao
>>64318602I think you can't read.>>64316534>>64314465
>>643186037N6 actually has slightly better BC than M855.
>>64317958Schatz is claiming that old soviet PKM's have a longer range than 240's and that SVD's have a longer range than western DMR's and that's why we NEED to adopt a battle rifle as our universal issue rifle or we will be OVERMATCHED.
>>64318863Extremely wrong, begging for some reading comprehension. Schatz supported the IC/LICC, a conversation that predates the NSWG. His focus was on lightening the load not battle rifle memes.
>>64318894Going for a bigger round is not lightening the load.
>>64314198No they aren't they perform differently at different ranges and each actually excells at it's job, the problem is which job are YOU doing?
>>64318894>he doesn't knowLICC was the same boomerism as the NGSW; but more open about its goal of trying to replace 556 with a 762 "battle rifle."
>>64318894Schatz absolutely did advocate for full power and was likely the one who introduced the "overmatch" buzzword to programs like ICSR. He mostly shilled for HK though, so he may have been trying to sell the HK417 there. He praised the fucking XM8 and G36 in some presentations.I'm not sure about the timeline, but he never wanted lighter loads or anything like that, only a full power service rifle. It seems to me that bringing up weight stuff for LICC was just to make it more palatable, which ultimately wasn't necessary in the end.
>>64319362No free lunch>>64319393You are getting your programs mixed up bud. There are a lot of them, but i think you should get a pen and paper to draw a timeline.>>64319441You are genuinely an illiterate person. I recommend finding a local remedial English class or something.
I'm also at this point convinced there's only one other person in this thread that understands what they're trying to accomplish, or what schatz is getting at in the first place with a decade worth of powerpoints. picrel
Way too hung up on battle rifles
>>64312827>us military overstates threat to get new program funded>every procurement program since the goddamned korean warFirst time reading about MIC fuckery?
>>64319782I think the IWTSD IWS is very cool and the best way forward, I just don't think weight and low recoil were priorities for the late Schatz, and his way of selling the extra range was questionable at best and contributed to the even more severe battle rifle autism of the NGSW. And he shilled for the Krauts. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>64319782>>64319782>capability gapPURE BULLSHIT FROM THE VERY START.A western GPMG is equivalent to an eastern oneA western DMR is equivalent to an eastern oneTHERE IS NO GAPABILITY GAPThe whole basic premise is pure and unaltered bullshit, and indeed belief in pure bullshit is what it takes to make someone want to go back to battle rifles.
>>64319953No, the extra range was the entire point of the endeavor. He was employed at HK prior but this is after that, most of the related autism there was in regards to caseless/polymer ammo developments (explicitly to decrease weight/increase capacity). He was also involved with the IC situation when they were looking to replace the M4. The NGSW was after him, but a lot of the related R&D and perceived threats ended up in that program. >>64320055You are not considering the time period in which these PowerPoints were written. The GPMG/DMR situation did not exist for big army. This is only one facet of the efforts to change small arm programs in the US, the ppt is for industry symposiums. They were trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to fight inertia in .mil. What the people involved realized is you basically have to do a new weapon system to get any progress made because nobody will green light caliber charges (IC cancelled, no 6.8spc memes etc)
>>64319866americans are warmongers, we know
>>64317528>That graph is from the US armyIt was from an unironic paid shill for HK
