Thread 64077810

How would /k/ distribute emerging equipment like the Precision Grenadier System (the XM25 replacement), Switchblade 300 and lightweight ISR UAS, or even portable EW to US infantry squad MTOEs of different services?

In the modern battlefield, outside of patrol duty (if that is even applicable nowadays), a squad with nothing but rifles wouldn't be able to achieve even the most basic missions. It would be outmatched in range, information, lethality, and mobility, and has severely reduced independence.

The future is in higher infantryman specialization. Fewer infantrymen would carry boring old rifles so more can carry equipment like PGS for short-medium range engagements and drones for medium-long range engagements, with higher integration between organic and combined arms elements. While you won't have as many guns firing at a treeline, you won't have to fire at the treeline for as long to achieve the same or a better result.

I think:
>We should go back to M4s or another intermediate cartridge rifle.
>Switchblades should be issued on the squad or even team level as the primary means of long-range (1.5km+) engagement. ISR/BDA could be provided by dedicated surveillance squads with lightweight and high endurance UAS. Micro drones may be organic to the squad.
>Potentially replace SAWs with drone operators and munition carriers, this could be done by highly mobile forces like the Marines instead.
>PGS grenadiers with more ammo and no muskets, primarily for counter-defilade and medium-range engagements, potentially even suppression.
>Every squad could get a miniature console or two with extensive information sharing, an 8-inch tablet with a keyboard.
>Also stuff like ENVG/IVAS, SMASH FCS, Nett Warrior, etc.
>All of this should be done in conjunction with extensive weight saving measures to keep the overall load roughly equal or maybe even reduce it. Hopefully the M7 gets cancelled.

>>64077810 (OP)
>The M7 is a heavy POS
>Also I want drones and thermals and networks with 2 antennas for UHF and satcom, and augmented reality and 10 lbs of batteries for all of this. Also I want heavy grenadier capabilities and 20lbs of grenades.
>And CUAS.
>And AT (???)
>And sustainment
>and lots of ammo because I think suppression by volume is still critically important

Much like everyone else, you're seeing a lot of new toys and gadgets being developed for a rapidly changing battlefield, and throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks because you don't know how to come up with a doctrine where mechanized infantry can reliably counter swarms of small to medium sized drones.

It's okay. Many such cases. Just summer /k/

Bring back M16A1
Bring back 1911A1
Bring back olive drab
VX nerve gas drones issued at the platoon level
Davy Crockett issued at the company level (replaces mortars)
Bring back Sprint missile (anti-drone role)
M60 + M79 class as seen in Battlefield Vietnam 1.0 release
God bless our troops

>>64077810 (OP)
Everyone gets whatever is cheapest rifle available, and a drone control system.
Job done.

>>64077860
>VGH MVH SOVL
i know you're memeing but this shit is so tiring. it's not even contrarianism anymore if everyone has the same opinion. can't discuss anything on here anymore without some faggot inserting their little personal war into it.
>inb4 kike nigger tranny leftist brown democrat soiface etc

>>64077884
you'd have a point if the XM7 and M17 weren't genuinely both worse than the M16 and 1911

>>64077858
Yes, Anonymous. If you want to issue useful but heavy equipment, one of the first things you should do is reduce the amount of useless and heavy shit. It's the last line in the OP.
This is the whole point of the discussion: What equipment is worth having in most squads, and what is better relegated to specialized squads? There's no shame in experimenting.

Stuff like ENVG/IVAS and SMASH FCS are already being rolled out (the latter in the USMC), and the capabilities they offer are quite attractive. Magazine depths are also a question of weight allocation; if we can save enough weight, we can have grenadiers carry enough ammo to perform suppression if strictly necessary. If not (which is more likely), then we change tactics.

If we increase mobility generally (via light infantry mechanization or whatever), we might not have to make as many concessions. Obviously infantry always get the shit end of the stick and can never get actual weight reductions, but that's the VA's job.

While the proliferation of suicide FPVs is a big part in this, it's not really the main driving factor. The fact the enemy has more PGMs than ever is highly influential, but Western militaries won't have to suffer as much as Ukraine because they don't fight wars of attrition. The main focus should be to get in and accomplish the mission as fast as possible while staying exposed and vulnerable for as little as possible.

>>64077858
also I never suggested AT or C-UAS, but that's my opinion

>>64077860
Might as well have everybody always wear full CBRNs with moisture pumps.

>>64077810 (OP)
The pistols are retarded as is the loss of the machine gun.

>>64077810 (OP)
i would completely get rid of the standing military and navy apart from regional hrt teams, regional f35s staged to intercept threats, and nukes. Large standing militaries are irrelevant once you have nukes

>>64078227
>pistols
yeah
>machine gun.
Not really. You don't have to suppress a potential target (for as long) when you can just fly a Black Hornet to where you think it might be and promptly dispatch it with a programmable grenade or Switchblade 300.

>>64077934
>. The main focus should be to get in and accomplish the mission as fast as possible while staying exposed and vulnerable for as little as possible.
See, you're still thinking in GWOT terms.

>>64078281
I don't disagree that maneuver will be contested, that supply lines will be deficient, and that popping in and popping out would not be as viable as it was during the sand wars.
The very concept of mobility might change, but there will still be a need for infantry in some missions, and their doctrine and loadouts will be shaped by the fact that their role will be more specialized and restricted.
Infantry that go out into no man's land or behind enemy lines can't just be dudes with guns whose main mission is to interview and collect the local fauna. Even against near-peer adversaries, they would still get air support on tap. They wouldn't advance alone or anxiously await to be rotated as Ukrainians do.

What do you think they should do?

>>64077810 (OP)
No idea, I've never served. Ditch the pistols and the M7, maybe the grenadier can get a pistol or carbine. Let him bloop people to oblivion. If we're in combat maybe a small sack of grenades can replace the rifle if you're trench fighting.

>>64078500
That's just Vietnam

>>64078396
>What do you think they should do?
it in the butt (ohh-kay?*)

* ? doesn't signify a question, it's just the best character to represent uptalk

>Switch to polycased rounds
>Bullpups
>Quad stack mags
>Exclusively use black soldiers for night operations
>Everyone gets a helmet mounted thermal camera that uses AI to scan for humans and then gives an audio call that includes the range and direction of the human.

The MV-75 will give individual squads insane mobility. They'll be able to perform operations hundreds of miles behind enemy lines if the need arises. It's kind of sad that the US is guaranteed to have air superiority everywhere, we could have seen some really kino sabotage using the tiltrotor. Imagine air dropped ad hoc Spiderweb packages deployed 200 miles behind the frontline.

>>64078227
There's two machine guns in that squad.

All guns replaced with .50 Deagles
Two of them have Deagles with extended magazines and fullauto selectors
Two have Deagles with extended barrels and 4X scopes

decently sized infantry element with nothing but XM29s and XM8s full with all the cool bullshit from late 90s/early 2000s future soldier programs

>Steyr ACR
>5mm cased telescopic cartridge (no flechettes)
>cartridge designed to be as light as possible while maintaining the same retained energy at 300 yards as 5.56 from an M4
>200rd linkless box magazine
>No handguns
>Overslung 25mm grenade launcher for grenadiers

>>64079590
>Overslung grenade launcher

>>64080290
I see you're not an XM29 enjoyer.

>>64077860
this sort of XD posting was really only funny in the 2000s. you just sound like an adult pretending to be a child.

>>64080361
That was more of an underslung rifle imo
Your guns are good, but it's too cold war. Aren't you going to give them future soldier shit?

>>64077810 (OP)
Complete rebuild. Going from a nominally 9 man squad to 13 with an authorized 17 for mission specific requirements.
1st, all soldiers are now authorized a pistol force wide. However the army will no longer issue a pistol instead they are privately purchased by the individual and maintained by the individual. The approved list is any 9x19 pistol adopted by a NATO power.
2nd XM/M7 and 250 are gone. Good riddance. Instead the RM227 is adopted as rifle (X)M17
The 13 man squad is split into 3 fire teams of 4 with a floating command element.
Teams 1 & 2 form the maneuver elements and are designed conventionally with a team lead, grenadier, and rifleman. Each carrying a M17, M17 & 320 launcher, M17H auto rifle & AT4, and M17 & AT4 respectively. These teams loose their dedicated machine gunner in exchange for a more mobile force and more organic AT support.
The 3rd team is the fires team and are a radical departure from recent doctrine.
The team lead carries a M17 rifle with a 320 more for marking and signaling then the destruction of hard points. The grenadier is replaced by a squad level drone operator who has control of a small thermal equiped quad copter designed for reconnaissance use. The squad's auto rifle and rifleman are replaced entire with a GPMG team armed with a 240L rechambered for the common 6.8. This provides the section with sustained fire that the M17 auto rifles are not capable of really matching. At the Platoon leader's discretion the MG team can exchange their weapons for a javilen ATGM system and reloads if expecting high numbers of hostile armor.

>>64080409
They were on to something in at the end of the cold war, they just didn't quite get the formula right. Not every soldier needs a grenade launcher, and the Steyr ACR was beautifully simple but flechettes are a dead end. It's a bunch of tech that could be developed today to be both lighter and more capable than what's currently in service, freeing up weight to be used on squad level autonomous drones, HMDs, and other future tech.

>>64080568
>Nato adopted 9x19 pistols
Can't want to see what kind of schizophrenic loadouts that would create as different units try to SOP shit

>>64080568
How do you transport a 13-17 man Squad around? That's like 2-3 vehicles per squad

>>64080992
>>64080568
Sorry, more like 2-4 vehicles per squad

>>64080568
>The 13 man squad is split into 3 fire teams of 4 with a floating command element.
Oh shit. This rocks. This would work brilliantly with FLRAA, the MV-75 can carry 14 fully-equipped soldiers.

With modern technology, you can have fireteams perform the job of entire squads (not sustained). This is insane. Imagine a special-purpose squad with kinetic, drone, and AT fireteams. Fuck.

A thread on the catalog suggested a bigger version of the Switchblade 300, this would pretty much give your fires team AT4s with 10km range for the same weight.
I'm not sure about replacing grenadiers, with PGS they'd be better suited to dealing with pop-up infantry threats and pillboxes.

>>64080992
Strykers can carry 9 guys, so maybe you can split the squad across two vehicles Bradley-style. The XM30 will still only hold 6 guys though.

Putting any kind of drone in a rifle squad is a waste. Infantry squads need to focus on their job of firing and maneuvering. A squad leader doesn't have the bandwidth to be managing teams as well as looking/striking at the deeper fight. Not to mention all the battery weight. I think specialized sections should be at the company level similar to how mortars are. Have them fall under hq, and task organize pilots out to the platoons or squads as the mission requires.

>>64079590
>>64080568
Heard you fellas needed a rifle

>>64081185
They won't be able to fire and maneuver if they keep being peppered by all sorts of things, or if they can't even advance in the first place for fear of encountering them. They can't engage on their own, and even holding objectives becomes difficult-to-impossible when they don't have organic ways of responding to modern threats. LMAMS gives them surveillance and true overmatch.
Mortars are different because they are strictly stationary. LMAMS can be deployed in 2 minutes, put on autopilot while you maneuver, and given an attack order in seconds.
You're right about the squad leader. Maybe newtorked communication with screens would a little bit, they won't have to talk/hog comms as much if all the drone team's leader has to do is tell the SL to look at his own newtorked tablet. The drone operators might have to be slightly more independent too.
I don't think batteries is that big a problem, but feel free to correct me on that.

>>64081433
>batteries is that big
battery weight is that big...*

>>64077810 (OP)
>chop up XM7 and XM250 into parts kits then sell of as surplus
>remove fire controls and strikers from issued M17 and M18 pistols for liability reasons (smelt them for scrap), then surplus off the guns for cheap, which gunsmiths can use as project guns for fixing
>sentence Ron Cohen to lifetime in prison for negligent manslaughter and mass bodily harm

With that out of the way...
>M4A2
>mostly the same, but add ambi selector, use an improved fluted barrel to get the best balance between pencil and gov't, then go back to a larger teardrop forward assist, maybe add adjustable gasblock and shape the charging handle to be gas deflecting
>M320 is good as a standalone, but needless weight and bulk for an underbarrel, thus in this role adopt something like the Steyr GL40 as a rail-mounted 40x46mm

For the light support weapon, we do the KAC LAMG. One in 5.56mm for the light ammo and recoil, and one in 7.62mm, to make sure that there's always a 7.62mm on the squad level just in case, but so that the gunner doesn't always have to lug an M240.
M240L and the Barrett M240 LWS are good too, but they don't always need to be on the squad level.

For the sidearm, roll a dice on the M9A4, Glock, Ruger-MagPul, or anything else competent.
On the XM25, I wouldn't, I'll wait to see where the new one goes.

>>64080992
marines have 13 man squads and they make it happen. You'd probably split squads up via teams with 4 to a vehicle for most tasks. In reality however you are never at maximum strength and your typical 9 man squad is generally at 7 or less.

>>64080568
honestly if you could find a way to data link a javelin to that drone you could have some fucking nasty anti armor ambushes

>>64081433
Drones certainly have a purpose supporting maneuver at the squad level, but they shouldn't be organic. A squad will almost always move with the rest of the platoon, and even a small drone has the range to cover a platoon corridor. The platoon leader is also going to have a bigger picture and allocate assets more effectively.
I think giving a squad leader access to a drone feed on his phone could be counterproductive. I could see a them getting tunnel vision on the feed trying to make the best decision when they really need to be executing a battle drill.

Weight is a huge problem. Batteries themselves aren't too heavy, but it adds up if you're going more than 24 hours without a refit. I'd rather have riflemen carry extra mags, frags, and AT.

>>64081291
Basically this, yeah. Give it an HK23 linkless box and make the ammo a 5.7 FN-sized 100,000 PSI .204 caliber CT.

>>64078020
I know they're from India, but even with that considered, how on earth do you get away with letting your rifle get that bad?

>>64081755
>prelude
kek.
It's interesting to see so many anons focus on the sidearm, I guess that's to be expected considering current events. It really is weird that the OP image is essentially just SIG (and HK).
>On the XM25, I wouldn't, I'll wait to see where the new one goes.
Fair. Barrett's entry won and it looks like an oversized toy, the optics don't seem to be integrated either. This appears to be the current trend in US small arms procurement. I think Barrett also used to deal with spontaneous discharge problems on the MK 22.

>>64082039
>Drones certainly have a purpose supporting maneuver at the squad level, but they shouldn't be organic.
I agree. While I still think *attack* should be the squad members' job, local surveillance should definitely be carried out by platoon-level lightweight ISR drones (fixed wing or quadrotor) as part of a dedicated ISR element. Distributing this mission too much decreases efficiency and risks tunnel vision, as you said.
>I think giving a squad leader access to a drone feed on his phone could be counterproductive.
Sure. IMO, ideally, the squad leader would only have to authorize strikes already planned by the drone operators and their system ('planning' takes a few second at most), where they would momentarily forward/direct him to footage on his screen. Rarely he might ask the drone operators for a SITREP if they have a dedicated surveillance drone, typically something very small like a Black Hornet.
>Weight is a huge problem. Batteries themselves aren't too heavy, but it adds up if you're going more than 24 hours without a refit. I'd rather have riflemen carry extra mags, frags, and AT.
I legitimately don't know if most infantry do operations for more than 24 hours without resupply or a truck to charge their things (neverserved). I've seen promo videos for Nett Warrior and the like and they say things like 'up to 24h'. Foldable solar also helps for digging in, and modern stuff generally has far better energy densities.

>>64081291
>NGSW
Into bubba's shed it goes!

>>64080804
The Steyr ACR was an absolute jam-o-matic, it could never make it through a magazine without experiencing a malfunction.

>>64082090
Eugene Stoner?

>>64082201
Unless the squad is completely detached from its platoon, any drone attacks should be at the platoon leader's call. They're a pretty valuable asset that you can't carry a lot of and can only use once. You don't want a squad leader to blow his load on a bunker if there's a column of BMPs coming down the road in a few minutes.

You're right that going more than 24 hours without resupply is not what you'd generally plan on, but things happen. 24 hours on nett warrior is also very optimistic. Especially if you're active on the radio and periodically checking grids etc.
Those fold up solar panels are a meme.

I dont think that putting attack drones at the squad level has any real merit, but I'm also doubtful that trying to integrate them to the platoon level is much better. I think that attaching them at the company level is the lowest that it makes real sense, as you'll be able to deal with the supply issue easier and can concentrate their ordinance more effectively.

>>64082370
You're completely correct, anon. I hadn't thought of that. You also brought up a case where a squad is separated (or maybe the nature of the mission dictates smaller groups of soldiers), I think that's a good indication for distributing the munitions on the squad level but keeping higher echelon control in most cases, what do you think?
Such a doctrine would consider loitering munitions to be a core capability of a rifle squad, and as integral to the squad as the SAW is today. AFAIK nothing like this been done before.
>Those fold up solar panels are a meme.
Yeah, that figures.

>>64082448
I don't know the logistical reality of how ammunition is dispensed out on the field, but my concept of squad-level Switchblades 300s (or similar) really seems to hinge on them being handed out almost like candy, with people dropping off their excess to everyone they come across like they sometimes did with ammo boxes. I also don't account too much for extended duration use of these munitions, as I imagine infantry usually going out on rather short raids. Upon achieving their objective and becoming less mobile, they would rely more on air and armor support.

>>64082471
>Such a doctrine would consider loitering munitions to be a core capability of a rifle squad, and as integral to the squad as the SAW is today.
Issue I take with this is that realistically you cant equip a squad with more than one or two of these things while also expecting them to be able to do infantry stuff. That ultimately makes a core component of their capabilities 'one-shot'.

A squad is also usually not going to be acting alone but as part of a platoon, which adds a few questions: if munitions capacity is an issue, doesn't it make more sense to put a greater number at a higher level? Having three seperate squads with 1-2 loitering munitions seems less useful than a platoon squad that can have twice as many and support the entire platoon. It also avoids the problem of every squad trying to do squad things while one guy has to stop and fiddle with his drone equipment.

>>64080800
>Shoesting
Lel

>>64082471
>>64082508
I'm not convinced the infantry should even carry drones. They could be launched from a supporting carrier vehicle somewhere in the vicinity, to either fly directly for a mission or land nearby in preparation (for shorter delays in use). Also bird's eye drones should always be hovering overhead, controlled by someone in the rear who analyzes the footage and provides intel to the platoon leader as needed.

>>64082471
Company level seems about right. Gives the commander the flexibility to push drones to where they're needed most. Three teams to easily align to the platoons. Though I think they'd see the best use if the commander hangs on to them.

>>64082526
One Switchblade 300 with its launch/storage tube weighs 6 pounds and three fit in a rucksack (assuming you aren't carrying much of anything else), theoretically you can comfortably carry 4 per team - 8 per squad - if you do away with the SAW. They are much lighter than the Javelin. I get what you mean though.

Putting them in the hands of a drone squad (or even higher) would also obviate the training, integration, and doctrine overhaul problems and is a more realistic solution especially in the short term.

The segregation of drone squads or platoons also allows gives you greater flexibility with where you can put them, which is important considering the lack of existing logistical tail for LMs.

Hopefully the loitering munitions currently in use are plug-and-play and don't require much messing with. The Switchblade especially should be pretty durable with its launch tube, I think, and the software should be very simple.

>>64082566
See >>64081433. Infantry could be severely crippled without overmatch. LMs can provide that. Drones launched from vehicles would obviously figure into the plan, but vehicles can also fulfill their mission in many other ways.

>>64082643
To clarify, I imagine that some drone carrier or deployed drone is organically attached to the squad, to be used at a moments notice. I just don't think the squad should carry them, but they should go where they need to be on their own. Either, when they're expected to be used soon, hovering overhand, or landing near the squad in preparation.

>>64081291
This makes my soft iron become the BIG IRON

>>64080568
Is this just pushing the weapons squad down from platoon to team level?

>>64080800
>>64082536
kek

>>64077810 (OP)
The M5 rifle is probably the justification for the big ass optic. CQB makes it pretty worthless

>>64082834
It's ma'a.. M7. The new optic is a 1-8x FFP LPVO with a range finder, ballistics computer, datalink and all kinds of things. It even crashes (picrel). They'll work out most of the kinks eventually but it will always be bloated and expensive IMO.

The Marine Corps is getting the Trijicon VCOG and the SMASH 2000L for their smart optic, supposedly for C-UAS but it remains to be seen if this is how it will end up being used.

>>64080804
You should check out Stoner's ARES-Olin AICW.

>>64082981
Neat, for some reason I always thought this was another flechette gun, I guess I confused it with the AAI ACR. That's basically what I'm envisioning, but with a smaller cartridge and longer bullet, relying on aerodynamics rather than muzzle energy to achieve the same retained energy. Get the cartridge small enough and you can carry enough of it in the gun that you don't have to reload at all in combat.

>>64083043
Well the ARES-Olin is almost a flechette gun, it uses discarding sabots.
>but with a smaller cartridge and longer bullet, relying on aerodynamics rather than muzzle energy to achieve the same retained energy
My brother.

Textron/AAI's CT design put the 'sealing ring' (I don't know the proper word), or the inverted shoulder, at the fore-end of the bullet's bearing surface, which kind of implies that CT wouldn't be very well suited to long ogive bullets (too much wasted space), but the ARES CT report seems to think the exact opposite is the case: that CT is much better suited to VLD projectiles.
>Critically, this means that the ogive space—that is, the space between the end of the projectile's cylindrical shank when it is seated in the cartridge case, and the maximum allowable overall length for the cartridge to reliably function in magazines—of both NATO standard rounds is short enough to preclude the use of the most modern low-drag projectile shapes. More efficient projectile shapes, designed around the modern theory of supersonic drag, now exist, and any new calibre that dispenses with the constraints of existing 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ammunition could be designed to take advantage of this. These principles have been understood for many decades, evidenced by the fact that in the 1970s the U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory and the now-defunct Frankford Arsenal developed a 5.56 × 38 mm round with a very fine ballistic shape (see Figure
7.1), which allowed that round to match the performance of then-standard 5.56 × 45 mm M193 ammunition, despite it generating just two-thirds as much muzzle energy (Hackley et al., 2015).
https://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ARES-Research-Report-No.-7-Cased-Telescoped-Ammunition.pdf
picrel is not Figure 7.1

>>64077810 (OP)
Reliable low maintenance intermediate cartridge rifle like the 74 is good enough so they can carry a shit ton of ammo and then have a high rof gpmg like an mg3. From there mainly invest in drone spam.

Please rate

>>64083782
6.5/10

>>64083366
Long ogive rounds are poorly suited for long freebore.

>>64082039
>Weight is a huge problem. Batteries themselves aren't too heavy, but it adds up if you're going more than 24 hours without a refit. I'd rather have riflemen carry extra mags, frags, and AT.
In the age of the drone foit slooging infantry is dead humans don't have weight lifting capacity to support drone related things: drone themselves and anti drone systems.
Any future infantry should operate around their APCs that carry anti drone guns, drones, chargers for drones and other gizmos.
We need "drone carrier" vehicles. Like aircraft carriers in Navy only on land. APC that is filled with drones and crew that can maintain them and launch including on the move. Current drone operations have problem that drone teams are static when operating, that is problems for maneuver warfare.
And every vehicle needs at least 7.62 bullfrog RWS for drone defense.

>>64083836
CT interacts differently with freebore than normal cartridges because the mouth of the cartridge stabilizes the bullet.

>>64083366
>at the fore-end of the bullet's bearing surface, which kind of implies that CT wouldn't be very well suited to long ogive bullets (too much wasted space)
True actually. CT cases are retarded, there's so much wasted space. It's much better to have the bullet sticking out of the front of the case.

>>64083853
If you tie infantry to a vehicle, you lose some of the capability of infantry, namely providing firepower and MK1 eyeball intel in a spread area and under camouflage or in bunkers. That drone carrier/defense vehicle you imagine is vulnerable to ATGMs and drones itself, not to mention gun-based firepower. We need such vehicles, but they need to stay further back. The infantry needs to operate as a screen towards the front, with basic infantry weaponry and maybe anti-drone tracking point systems for their rifles (assuming those will even work). Note that I am not decided on whether (or how long) infantry will remain useful in that role at all, as drones, AI and datalinking improves. But there will definitely be a transitional area where infantry still has a place. If rifles cannot be pressed into an anti-drone role, small anti-drone drones (also launched from further in the back) can take over that role.

>>64083836
>>64084011
Yup, CT has the lower peak pressure/longer barrel life advantage of long freebore without yawing problems thanks to superior stabilization.
>>64084101
Everything has advantages and disadvantages. This space is also wasted on conventional catridges, only it's a void instead of plastic and also decreases feeding reliability. It's really not that big a deal. The G11 has propellant in front of the ogive, so it's not like it can't be done anyway.

>>64078244
expert-pilled

>>64083811
Lol

>>64084101
CT allows push through feeding, which is extremely reliable and eliminates the need for an extractor groove, which in turn means that the case can be fully supported and 100k+ psi retard pressures are possible even with plastic cases.

>>64077810 (OP)
Lol. You already fucked up. Gunner going to slap the shit out of you.

>>64082589
So you think drone teams should be outside the typical organization to float freely between platoons?

>>64077860
>Davy Crockett issued at the company level (replaces mortars)
you absolute mad lad

>>64084588
It's not like you have any choice.
If your infantry and vehicles don't have reliable anti drone defenses they would become characters of looney tunes FPV videos.
Infantry can't carry such reliable defenses shotguns etc are cope. Only vehicles have enough payload and power generation capacity to support actual not cope anti drone SHORAD.

>>64084011
Support by soft plastic is much less than by barrel. So bullet min maxed to be degree it's barely has enough stability when moving through barrel would be instable moving through CT case mouth and it require step back a d reduce ogive length and increase cylindrical part length, Comparing to a bullet that don't need to move through long CT case freebore. And that majeskes bullet form factor worse .

>>64077810 (OP)
let me guess, you NEED more?

>>64082806
Honestly not a horrible idea. The weapons platoon needs to stay a unit since they have a fairly long tail to their tooth with things like .50s and 60/82mm mortars. The weapons squad however however doesn't have nearly as long of a tail since they're usually just some GPMGs and a heavier AT option.
As much as I dislike the drone making everything irrelevant meme being pushed by Ukraine it is true that it makes centralized forces more vulnerable and putting your heavier firepower in one spot is probably not so solid of an idea anymore. Breaking them up and pushing them down to a team level gives you a lot more flexibility at least in my view as now the PL can more readily decide them up or group them together depending on the threat on hand.

>>64077810 (OP)
The squad is symbolic to the normal person because it's an instinctively sized group; but it must be noted the traditional minimum for modern conventional war is a platoon (if light infantry) and a company otherwise.

Drones may or may not affect this but your concept is flawed from the start. Specialization will be at a higher level. We might see drone teams of 3-5 men as the new sniper squads, EW teams of 4-6 men split between 2 trucks, or mech infantry companies with 14-15 IFVs and 12 dismount squads.

>>64081433
In a generic infantry force the kamikazes should be at the platoon level. Make the weapons squad and RTO drone users. Gutting the line squads or overloading them with extra kit only makes them worse at their niche of close combat.

>>64082370
>Those fold up solar panels are a meme
They're a target. Shoot here plz.

>>64084588
Why not use the vehicle launched drones as the screen and have infantry follow up for congested areas the drones can't get a full view on?

>>64083366
>5.56x38mm FABRL
>40% weight reduction [1]
>polymer CT
>42% weight reduction [2]

1-((1−0.40)(1−0.42)) ~= 0.65.
65% weight reduction.
3.4 gram boolits.
Holy shit.
>mfw

[1] https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/12/modern-historical-intermediate-calibers-011-5-56x38-fabrl/
[2] https://www.army.mil/article/42987/reducing_soldier_load_one_round_at_a_time_ardec_lightweight_technologies_slash_weight_in_half

>>64086766
100%. During a company attack each platoon will have different tasks and need different assets. Much more convenient for the company commander to put drone teams where they need to go if they fall under company hq. Ideally there would be something similar at the battalion level with a drone platoon hunting priority targets or supporting companies as needed.
Honestly just copy how mortars are implemented

>>64086996
Yeah textron was on some wizard shit

>>64086977
The close combat community can still make use of some types of drones, like the FLIR Black Hornet.

>>64086996
>>64087046
Oops, calculated it wrong. I included the figure for the aluminum cased 5.56x38mm and compared it with the figure for the brass cased FABRL as if it were M193, which actually weighs 11.6 g. For the brass cased FABRL, the total weight is 9.7 g; 9.7*(1-0.42) = 5.6 grams a cartridge, 52% weight reduction. Still very good. Since the weight of the case head is identical despite the lower muzzle energy, CT could have greater relative weight savings in lower-power cartridges like 5.56x38mm FABRL, especially if it exploited higher pressures, as the 5.56x38mm's max pressure was a pitiful 39,500k psi.
Nathaniel F (probably the same Nathaniel Fitch from the ARES report, kek) could have overestimated the weight savings from the aluminum case, but then again aluminum cans weigh less than plastic bottles.

Imagine being the one guy who doesn't have an automatic

>>64086874
Just stop pretending you know what you're talking about, Pajeet.

>>64078244
get off the computer Eisenhower

>>64086884
>all the sections become identical after a minute of fighting
Kinda based

>>64077810 (OP)
Retvrn to Pentomic divisions with modernizations like:
>Drones
>Possible Ressuply by rocket or private yankee biker gang contractors for logistics
>Regular GI using Mix of battle rifles and assault rifles with standardized shotguns/gren lunchers fitted underbarrel alongside extensive experiments, even using B*llpups for battle rifles to save on bulk or weight
>Light armor, M1s and their successors relegated to heavy tank duties, the sheridan can be fixed by not being made of aluminum
>Tactical Nuclear and chemical armament with extensive CBRN
Because biological threats are worse since they can sustain/expand by themselves while theres a finite amount of fallout or agents
>ATACMS fixed to carry nukes again
Some ideas may be bad, some may be added but these just from the top of my head

>>64087386
G43 is also semi auto

>>64086846
If they can hide in forests or bunkers, and/or if anti-drone scope systems work, they can still have a role for a while. If not... well, I don't think they will have too much use directly next to those vehicles either. Infantry probably going the way of the dodo soon anyway.
>>64086985
Current tactics are dual infantry/drone screen. Future will be probably be drone only screen, yeah.

>>64087507
>Infantry will be obsolete soon guys
>Those fancy aeroplanes will deem them unnecessary
>No those tanks will
>No fools, it's the cavalry!
Douglas haig did nothing wrong

>>64087471
>semi-automatic
>fully-automatic

>>64087535
>It hasn't happened yet, so it will never happen
This is how retarded you are

>>64087666
Dunno fag, pretty good track record

>>64086719
>*smart grenades you*

>>64087507
>they can hide in forests or bunkers, and/or if anti-drone scope systems work, they can still have a role for a while. If not... well, I don't think they will have too much use directly next to those vehicles either.
Infantry stopped being main force since like WWI when 80% casualties became artillery. Role of infantry became picking slack. Drones here are massively more capable artillery.
What optimal combination of infantry and drones is up to practice but you need to start practice now without delays, and I think a good start is adding drones on every level starting with platoon. Platoon gets drone squad, company gets drone platoon, battalion gets drone company etc. With more capable (and expensive and logistically demanding) drones on higher levels.
As for infantry hugging vehicles isn't that mechanized infantry already? By their practice of operation they don't move far from their IFV.

>>64077810 (OP)
>/k/ designs squads

>>64078244
>>64087421
>The New Old New Look Policy

>>64088952
If you want infantry to be protected from drones by vehicle guns, they will have to hug those vehicles closer than ever before. Line of sight issues for those guns would be massive.

A big issue is with surge infantry. You don't want to increase training times, in peacetime every soldier can be a specialist but in wartime the average lifespan of an infantryman after deployment might be 4 months.
This is why specialists are moving to their own units, and NOT being integrated with GI.

You will never get a drone, the drone unit will get a drone. You will never get a javelin, the AT units will get javelins. COIN era is over, you get a rifle, a radio, rations and a pocket bible.

>>64089357
>they will have to hug those vehicles closer than ever before.
They will. But do you have a choice?
It's like shift of naval meta during WWII. Suddenly it was required to bolt AAA guns to every free inch of the deck and superstructures, ships needed to be protected by fighter CAPs, because even this amount of AAA wasn't enough. It was extremely uncomfortable to fight comparing to "good ol times". But do navies had a choice? You either do these things or you get sank by pesky airplanes (and they still sank ships even with all these things).

>>64083782
Fixed
Build your own squad! Select two or three for teams

Bump

>>64077810 (OP)
Bigger squads first of all. If they unit must be Light Infantry, then 15 is a good size. 3 4 man fireteams SL, ASL, and RTO/Drone/Runner guy. The amount of physical work that an infantry unit has to do outside of direct combat like say, digging trenches, is highly underrated. Many hands make the load lighter. Furthermore, it gives you overmatch in a squad v squad engagement. More dude > less dudes as a general rule.

Second of all, the idea that the terminal ballistics of the projectile are *the* most important aspect of an Infantry Rifle is retarded. 70% of all actual infantry engagements happen at less than 100 meters, 90% at less than 300. Why? Because even the most RETARDED mobik knows how to use cover, concealment, and intervening terrain. building a 600M+ weapon for general issue is pointless for this exact reason. Trying to build a rifle around a cartridge that can penetrate modern body armor is a fools errand. Material Science has advanced so significantly in this area it's basically pointless. Body armor is too good, however, it's still encumbering so you can't cover everything. Statistical analysis shows that hits with small arms are basically evenly distributed over the whole body. You're just as likely to get shot in the eye as you are in the thumb. PPE Helmet/Body Armor will save you from getting killed, but it won't stop you from becoming a casualty.

We should be focusing on giving them individual weapons that give them more combat endurance. i.e. lighten the physical weight and size of the ammunition so you can carry more for the same load. 5.56 is fine, but it's 60's technology, we could definitely make something better/lighter if we actually tried. Caseless, plastic, or combustible cased ammunition is still somewhat under researched and developed technology.

>>64089293
Bloop

>>64089293
Based.
>>64089368
I'm not really sure if this is Western doctrine.
>>64090560
Can any haveserveds inform us what the heaviest parts of a light infantry load is? I know that even for SAW gunners, the helmet is in the top three. Maybe the rifle isn't that important for weight saving as long as we don't go overboard. Also what kinds of missions necessitate carrying along MREs, extra water, etc. and whether those would happen in a near-peer conflict.

>>64090955
The rucksack full of stuff is the heaviest, but having to hold stuff gets heavy fast as well. Ounces turn into pounds after enough walking

>>64090955
A rucksack with a full sustainment load is the heaviest thing, but that's pretty rare to carry. You only really carry everything when it's a required packing list for schools. If you're willing to suck for a few days, you can cut most things out of your ruck. The only missions that would really require full rucks are long range patrols, which don't seem to be too relevant right now.
The non negotiable heavy things are ammo, plates, and water. Radio if you're a leader. Any foot movement will have soldiers maxed out with ammo.

The Army is gay

How about:
Squad Leader E6: M4A1 and Glock 19, ATAK, Radio
Tech/Gizmo nigga E4: Drone peripherals and assets, ATAK, Larger Radio, M4A1

Squad A/B:
Team Leader Corporal/E5: M4A1 with m203, covers down on gizmos, performs grenadier tasks
Automatic Rifleman E2-E4: "M16A5" HBAR rifle or KAC LAMG
2 Rifleman E1-E4: M16A5

By M16A5 I mean basically an M4A1 with a 16" barrel, midlength gas and a free float, like a URGI M4A1 just stretched slightly. The LMG variant could just be a heavier barrel, or even open bolt, or piston driven, or all the above.

>>64091217
Just give everyone M27s

>SIGshit
Not even once. You just know the rifles are going to cook off the entire mag every time you hit a pot hole or speed bump

>>64090955
>I'm not really sure if this is Western doctrine
They don’t even give the ukrainians iron sights anymore

>>64091091
>>64091161
Thanks.
Politically, lightening the rifles and ammo first would probably kickstart a big movement for lighter equipment in general.

>>64091659
Maybe?
Or, they'd just say "oh, well the weapons are lighter now, problem solved", and never address the Ruck in the room

>>64089464
Yeah I'll have a Command Team with three orders of Grenadiers? With the RPGs, hold the grenade launchers

>>64089464
>anti-air fire team
Libya-tier

>>64091898
What is wrong with MANPADS?

>>64092032
Nothing wrong with Libya-tier
also hadn't noticed the Shmel team, good shit

>>64089464
>>64083782
Why are you so gay for 6.5?

>>64080800
BASEDBASEDBASEDBASEDBASEDBASED

>>64081291
That....actually works.

Interesting piece about implementing organic light infantry LMs in a USMC context

https://thecxfile.substack.com/p/marine-corps-loitering-munitions

>>64077810 (OP)
Give every squad an M82A1, train all infantry as snipers, the enemy will never get close enough to do shit. Yes, 100% of my knowledge on warfare comes from vidya, why do you ask?

>>64095116
If you move the magazine up a bit a la VHS-2, which you may have to do because of the 'action length' (I think it has to be at least twice as long as the chamber) and provisions for springs, you can have it eject from the same location as the MP7.

>>64095560
Reminds me of those medieval war parties consisting solely of archers, all crouching and duckwalking, completely unseen

Bullpups for everyone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-bbM4QKozQ

>>64080800
Best one so far

>>64083782
Cmmg sucks. They spend all their money shilling and marketing and use sub standard metal when they actually have to make anything. I had a .45 PCC of theirs that never got through a magazine.

>>64096230
Dang, disappointing to hear
Who makes a better AK-AR mutant that takes AK style mags?

Instead of a SAW gunner, have a guy with a powered exoskeleton, one of those lightweight chinese HMGs and a huge backpack with a thousand 50 BMG rounds.

>>64080568
>must be a 9mm popgun

Make it 10mm or .45, homo

>>64080800
based beyond relief
pleasant digits to look at too
>Captcha: ARRGH

>>64089293
>THOOMP
>THOOMP
>THOOMP
>THOOMP
>THOOMP
>THOOMP
>THOOMP
>THOOMP
>THOOMP

>Aaaaah! Chân tôi đâu rồi? Cứu tôi với, hỡi những người lao động trên thế giới!

>>64080992
3 crew + 34 passengers.

>>64097835
>It's just another day for you and me in paradise

>>64091161
Excluding sustainment loads, the platoon heavy weapons ammo is the heaviest. A M240L with tripod and 1800 rounds is 160lb. A Gustav with optic and 6 rounds is 62lb. A Javelin CLU plus 2 missiles is 85lb.

>>64098342
>tripod
Fuck that noise. I ain't carrying that shit.

>>64098362
It's a massive boost for a GPMG's accuracy and only 11-12lb. Without the tripod you might as well give up and carry a SAW.
So if you're in any doctrinal US light infantry unit you will be carrying it.

>>64098362
>>64098369
The tripod makes shooting out to even 800m with irons easy as fuck man. That's not even locking it to the T&E thats just free gunning it.

>>64093298
They're great rounds, what can I say?
>6.5 Grendel is like a more powerful 7n6
>6.5 PRC outperforms 7.62x51 whilst being in a similar form/ weight class

>>64099622
>>>6.5 Grendel is like a more powerful 7n6
More like a slightly more aerodynamic 57n231.

>>64099700
>Checked
BAW GAWD

>>64080992
>How do you transport a 13-17 man Squad around?

150+ posts in this thread and no one has made the distinction between LIGHT infantry and MECHANIZED infantry.

Light infantry walk everywhere besides getting a ride from a vehicle once in a while (so a truck or a MRAP works) while mechanized infantry are permanently attached to a vehicle (APC, IFV, etc.) thus limited amounts of seats are available (but that is made up by the fact that any vehicle brings significantly more firepower to the battle than any infantry squad).

Here is a good overview video discussing infantry squads:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZT6pKJSBPw

>>64100815
I think everybody was talking about light infantry wrt weapons, mechanized infantry don't have to make as many compromises because of weight.
Great video. I would agree with a 14-man squad even from a purely aesthetic basis, and man would it work nicely with the new tiltrotor.

As many anons have mentioned previously, the squad needs to become bigger, due to the need for organic heavy support and light (antidrone) AA. The question then becomes which org would be better, 14-man ( and then either 2 heavy teams of 7, or 3 teams of 4, with 2 "floating" specialists), or 15-man (3 teams of 5). Though this might be a doctrinal question, since 15-man squads would be better for mech inf (5 grunts per IFV), while 14 would be more suitable for light inf.