[bubba]

Just a couple of observations, but no real experience with playing with these new toys.

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics:

- New round (not a NATO round) will cause supply issues like it’s 1965 again (We are already seeing this with the new MK22 Sniper system. There is NO ammunition for the gun? I mean… WTF, Over!)
- The High Velocity ammunition coupled with the heat from the suppressor will likely increase the failure rate of internal parts and will definitely cause issues with barrel life
- Battery powered gizmos are prone to fail exactly when needed most
- Has anyone thought about changing out the MG’s on all of our armored vehicles and what that is going to cost?

Now that the Professional stuff is out of the way, here is the look at the tactics:

- Most (somewhere around 80-90%) of enemy casualties are from explosive munitions delivered via artillery and air-borne platforms
- Rifles are there to protect the Machine-gun
- Machine-guns are there to pin down the enemy and prevent them from moving
- APC’s are for moving Infantry around the battlefield quickly and safely with additional firepower
- Tanks are there to maneuver a machine-gun to the flank of the enemy and destroy enemy vehicles & hard points with direct fire
- The Artillery and Air is what kills enemy forces.

With all of that, I’d rather spend the money on training ammunition for the systems we already have stockpiled. We have troops that don’t know how to zero their PEQ Lasers or what the purpose of small arms is (yes, here in Special Forces too), so what makes us think a shiny new gun will change that?

Bottom line, why bother?