this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
31 points (97.0% liked)

US News

2427 readers
26 users here now

News from within the empire - From a leftist perspective

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Darkcommie@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

XM7 was made because China and the US adversaries were getting better armour it was designed to penetrate that armour and “kill in one round” and to be fair it does it fairly well the problem is everything else, reduced ammo capacity, heavier equipment (in an era where surveillance is easier than ever and the army expects its troops to be constantly on the move) and also the idea of the weapon sounds neat but as we see in combat footage like Ukraine, Afghanistan etc combat is chaotic whenever you fire at someone they’re going to be ducking for cover, trying to get away from you or hiding themselves to such an extent that the only way you could see them is through their muzzle flash.

Only time will tell if this rifle is good enough

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So this actually does use different ammo then?

[–] IsThisLoss@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well good for them for actually iterating on that!

I am sure the ability for an infantryman to kill another infantryman is highly, highly crucial in tomorrow's wars, where everything will be a drone that explodes.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Drones are important but the infantryman isn't getting replaced any time soon. Still the backbone of the army.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yea, to hold ground, die and kill civilians. None of these activities require particularly cool guns.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yea, to hold ground

Yes that's part of it. Also storming positions is still done by dismounted infantry. You don't need very fancy guns but you still need good ones. Also the role of sniper has not disappeared.

Drones have not replaced infantry. They fulfill roles previously assigned to reconnaissance, sabotage, specialized anti-armor units, CAS, and partly artillery (though artillery has also not been obsoleted by drones, it just serves a slightly different purpose).

Drones can neither take nor hold ground. Anyone who makes the mistake of overinvesting into drones at the expense of the traditional "basics" makes the same mistake as those who overinvest in airpower.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The US does not need this, as any war they could need it for would end on the day it's started in nuclear hellfire. You don't need this fancy shit to murder civilians and irregulars.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The US doesn't need a military. It has two oceans and two weak neighbors. But that's beside the point.

Also, the US sells a lot of weapons to other countries.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

They need it to project their Empire. All those bases don't staff themselves.

Heck, I am happy that the US is wasting more and more money on the dumbest shit ever. this new gun will perform worse then existing ones in my opinion so let's hope the military buys ten for every soldier.