Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Videos

  • 579083128.mp4

Downloads

Content

Hope you like graphs! Because there's a lot of graph in this one. Probably worth it though- there are plenty of conclusions we can draw from all the data, even if the ultimate answer is "it depends."

Notably, this is all with troops that are regular-no modifiers. It could easily by that better trained troops with battle rifles do better.

Files

Comments

Matthew Zaleski

Interesting! Now us Americans are trying the battle rifle again with the M7. My civilian self thinks in a few years, we'll realize going all 6.8mm was a terrible idea and will go to mixed 5.56 and 6.8mm in teams, along with all the pros and cons of mixed ammo in a single team.

Ben Kerry

I'd say M7 could be a bootleg idea for the "thermal sniper company" concept HTS tried in Syria. But again Afghanistan could not won by some flashy battle rifles.

GLG

Does CM model cover penetration? Battle rifles should penetrate cover more effectively than assault rifles. Urban warfare is often short-ranged but also behind heavy cover.

UsuallyHaplessVideos

Penetration is actually something I didn't test. I sort of folded range and power into the same thing here (they are closely related at least). It did at least allow me to cut out a rant about stopping power...

Ben Kerry

Really would argue the CM infantry shooting logic need to be revamped based on real world datas (how much rounds would an infantryman put out in real life as their doctrine would tell them to do)

Ray L

From the late 19th Century Age of the Rifle to today, what has been the relative supremacy/importance of the foot soldier versus other arms? I’ve been wondering if FPV drones may have changed the relative balance yet again. Do armored vehicles have more vulnerability to them than infantry?