Can't we just give soldiers the guns they need at deployment

>>34782754
soon there will be a world without war then there won't be guns. that is as long as Drumpf gets impeached before he nukes us

We're still talking about buying ammo by the warehouse.
5.56 handles moderate distance, and is cheap to buy.
If you really need 7.62 they'll give you one.
Sub guns lack the versatility to provide them over a normal service size rifle.

>>34782792
I can not tell if you are joking or are a real leftist.

>>34782754
The problem is the US Army, they are simply incompetent. The Marine Corps uses 12 man squads for a reason and trains to shoot at 500M for a reason. Mk.262 with a 20" barrel will fuck your shit sideways at 700M, but for some reason the Army won't look at this but will just blow millions on a round that breaks guns.

>>34782754
a) Have to train troops on two or more additional weapons, even if based on similar system they'll still need to learn how it differs and how to adapt to using it in combat.
b) Increased logistics burden and comensurate opportunities for foul-ups (Murphy's Law is real!)

>>34782823
Both are jokes.

>>34782754
soldiers are too dumb to learn that many things, and its too expensive to train. a better idea would be to have an "afghanistan sector" division each armed forces, an "iraq sector" etc. basically different theaters where they are trained to that specific theater in all aspects like geography, culture, applicable weapons, etc.

then obviously higher commands could cross over forces as needed to other very similar theaters, our open desert forces vs mountain forces, etc

>>34782754
L O G I S T I C S
Learn it.

>>34782823
Then you are too dumb to live and so must be choked to death.

>>34782976
>Mawheens shoot qual at 500m KD range
>must mean 500m combat effective range to near peer adversaries

>>34782754
>Is the one size fits all approach the military tries with its rifles really such a great idea ? If youre deployed to Afghanistan , wouldn't 7.62N rifles be better
Theres almost no scenario when you should actually attempt be close enough and take the time to steal the enemy's ammo, snek. Guns break constantly and theres almost one for every pog at any given base, they age over time and but the Armalite series is used extensively because it doesn't decrode like plastic does, Tavors and ACRs and SCARS and the like are designed to wear out faster so when they leave them in the country they were in they can't use them for as long.

>>34783678
The logistics of the situation really isn't that difficult.
It's the fact that most government workers are welfare queens unable to function on their own without error.

>>34782754
That alongside issuing environment-appropriate camo and boots at deployment would be ideal, but I don't think the big army has that kind of flexibility.

>>34784018
Plastic corrodes faster than metal now?

>>34784039
The US military desperately needs restructuring to accommodate new warfare and future usability.

>>34782823
Ooo~ the spicy reverse b8

>>34784018
I need a translation, does anybody in here speak retard?

>>34782754
>Is the one size fits all approach the military tries with its rifles really such a great idea ?
Yes, logistics win wars and one rifle for all is much simpler logistically.

>>34782792
>soon there will be a world without war
lol

>>34782792
>the world
>being unified in peace by anything other than a series of the most brutal totalitarian regimes taking global control and holding the populace hostage every waking second with satelite weapon systems capable of detecting and destroying leftist ideals inside microseconds of the thought being expressed openly

lol.

humanity will need to become some kind of technological hivemind to ever see peace, as long as 2 sentient entities exist there will be conflict. either we become one mind or we never see the end of war.

also aliens invading could do pretty good things for uniting humanity as a species and as a planet, any form of action movie scenario where the entire planet is threatened

it's all fantasy

>>34784160

This right here. If you have each random grunt able to pick his own gear youll run into a total nightmare of bullshit when it comes to supplies. With standardized equipment you just have to give X people X amount of ammo and misc equipment. If you let every dumbshit put in a personal order you have to micromanage all that bullshit and keep it all straight. The logisitcs hell alone would lose literally any war or battle it was implemented for. Its a stupid and totally impractical idea that only a fucking sofa general would ever think is a good idea.

If you want to increase the range of your soldiers you either mandate that a certian percentage of people carry 7.62 for increased range or move everyone to it. You can adjust the supply demands across the board to adjust for that. Making 7.62 the standard round will pretty much invalidate any and every single reason why intermediate cartridges were made in the first place though and be pretty fucking stupid at this point though. The best bet is a mixed arms method where you have the standard infantrymen with AR platforms a smaller group of long range engagers with 7.62/DMR and then your LMG guys.

File: FB_IMG_1501866078670.jpg (16KB, 480x488px)

16KB, 480x488px

>>34784018
What the fuck are you saying?

>>34782754
We don't do that because we're already $20T in debt.

>>34784564
>We don't do that because we're already $20T in debt.
It would actually be cheaper.

The obvious solution is to use a modular weapons system that can convert to different calibers depending on the theatre of war woulc make the most sense and it should be logistically feasible bit it hasnt happened yet,

>>34784648
>inb4 AR15
??

>>34784657
>ar15s can fire 308

Today I learned

>>34783674
thank you for your service

>>34784684
>what is 300AAC
?

>>34784570
How?

>>34784719
Issue and Order by demand instead of building a surplus with the expectation for use.
I'm not sure if anyone here works with the military, but I work with the military on a state and federal level.
You'd be amazed by the bureaucracy and incompetence.
If you create a simple order and requisition system to replace the bulk supply, you could save hundreds of millions on munitions.

>>34784564
t. doesn't understand how national debt works at all

>>34782754

Why don't you own 20 different cars, OP?

After all, different cars are better for different kinds of roads, or different distances traveled. You really need 20 if you're going to be reasonably prepared.

>>34784739
And when is the last time a government agency has asked for a smaller budget? When all they have to do is whine to congress, there is no such thing as "saving money" when it comes to our military. Nor is there a need.

>>34784740
Niglet, what?

>>34784767
>And when is the last time a government agency has asked for a smaller budget?
Why would they need a smaller budget? I never said anything about that?
>When all they have to do is whine to congress, there is no such thing as "saving money" when it comes to our military.
Sentence fragment and run-on. Impressive. Maybe not wasting money is the important part of keeping it a well tuned machine.
>Nor is there a need.
There is always a need to be more efficient. Our entire society revolved around it.

>>34784767
You think that the government doesn't do anything expensive or buy anything new because of muh debt without knowing anything about how it operates. The military spends something $200 million every month. It's not like the entire US government has a single bank account with a balance of -20 trillion that everything gets paid out of. They absolutely DO do things like buy a million new guns or whatever despite muh debt.

>>34784780
You said it would save money. There isn't a need to save money, because it's government run.

Besides, having a different rifle for every different theater we're in would just lead to a stockpile of three or four different rifles per soldier instead of having far too many extra of one.

Not only that, but keeping up all the spare parts, magazines, ammunition, manuals, etc., would now take up three or foue times the amount of space. Because there are now three or four different rifles being used for main infantry combat.

>>34784785
They do buy shit they don't need, and it's a problem. Ever noticed how your dollar buys less and less every year? Thats how the government finances their debt.

>>34784822
>Ever noticed how your dollar buys less and less every year? Thats how the government finances their debt.
In your mind inflation somehow equals "financing debt."
Have you EVER taken an economics class? Have you even read the wikipedia page for it?
Again, you're acting like the government has one supply of money that they have to pay denbts out of. Do you know who owns the debt? Do you know why it's there? Do you know how it's calculated? Do you know how it relates to government spending at all?

>>34782754
>Nobody trains on weapons until they deploy

>>34784875
>Have you EVER taken an economics class?
Yeah, so many in fact, I have a degree in in it.

>you're acting like the government has one supply of money that they have to pay denbts out of.
There are others, obviously. Taxes, debt (which is just taxes taken later), and inflation (which is taxing time).

>Do you know who owns the debt?
The Federal Reserve has a lot of it, foreign governments have quite a bit, and so do individual people in the form of bonds.

>Do you know why it's there?
Because government spends more than it takes in, and we cant really do anything to stop it.

>Do you know how it's calculated?
The debt is how much the government owes to those people, organizations, and governments that have bought it's debt.

>do you know how it relates to government spending at all?
It's the difference between how much the government takes in and how much it spends.

So what's your point? We still have built up a debt, that we owe to various groups, that is nearly $20T. Do you not see an issue with that?

Do you not see that things cost money? Do you not see that the US government currently has a negative amount of money?

>>34783969
>what are you gonna do, run 500m away and then shoot me?
>dammit! How did he know?!

>>34784751
I do own a car a truck and a bike so.....

>>34785353

Only seventeen more to go.

What's the problem? Why only three? You want to be prepared, don't you? You're going to need 20.

>>34785534
Did I advocate for 20 guns ?

>>34785144
Of course things cost money you total retard but you're saying that the government can't buy ANYTHING NEW or try ANYTHING EVER because of its debt which is blatantly untrue. The government throws money around like candy. The military just adopted a new service pistol and are buying new guns right now. They're in the middle of rolling out the F35 - a stupidly expensive plane that for some reason they can pay for. There's railguns and new ships (gerald ford) and a new rifle trial and a hundred other things that money is being spent on.
But for some reason, despite your "economics degree," you insist that there's not enough money to go around for all this stuff and that the dollar is being devalued every year because that's how the gubmint pays debt.
You're retarded. Of course there's debt but it is by no means a barrier to spending. Your original thesis, that we "don't do that because we're 20t in debt," is wrong because we DO do that. We do buy new stuff and replace things and purchase new stocks of rifles and whatever else despite our debt. Sure we don't have rotating stocks for different theaters but the reason has nothing to do with the cost of buying however many guns needed. That's like a billion dollars tops. It's chump change compared to what the military and government spends every year.

>>34784699
>>34783674
lots of other countries have militaries divided by topgraphical or theater region skillsets. mountaineers vs woodland vs desert vs jungle vs oceanic.

tactics and skills are different for each one, it makes sense to specialize since there are only a handful of geographical/climate differences in the world

does it make sense to send marine trained for beach landings to fight urban combat in a desert?

>>34784822
>You said it would save money. There isn't a need to save money, because it's government run.
Anon is really this stupid lol
>Besides, having a different rifle for every different theater we're in would just lead to a stockpile of three or four different rifles per soldier instead of having far too many extra of one.
You do realize we have modular rifles now, right? You can have one lower and several uppers.
>Not only that, but keeping up all the spare parts, magazines, ammunition, manuals, etc., would now take up three or foue times the amount of space. Because there are now three or four different rifles being used for main infantry combat.
Or you could save on the manuals, magazines, and spare parts by using 556 and 300AAC.
Both cartridges would satisfy all applications from close to intermediate range.
After that, you're not using regular soldiers or are engaging in distances beyond current capabilities anyways.
The original idea was made to order instead of surplus to fill later demand, which is stupid for a long term strategy, anyways.

>>34785804
I'm not saying they can't buy anything new ever, but when they have figured out how to source and supply something that still works incredibly well, why change and waste money? And just because they've always spent an assload of money on everything, doesn't mean they should continue. Looking at you, F-35 project.

>>34786182
I was under the impression that OP was talking about entirely new rifle platforms for each theater, not swapping out parts for different theaters. That just makes sense.
Governments have no profit motive, as they can either tax, inflate, or borrow to earn their revenue. Thats why they don't have to save money.

>>34786652
>And just because they've always spent an assload of money on everything, doesn't mean they should continue. Looking at you, F-35 project.

>Far better than the alternative
>Delays/overruns were the DoDs fault for adding on a ton of tech to mature with it
>After project budget/timeline was fixed it has been on time and under budget for ~9 years now
>Keeps proving excellence in exercises

Fucking Spreyposters...

>>34786751
If by "under budget" you mean that Congress threw more money at it, yes.

>>34786874
>New budget that actually correctly accounted for all of the new costs
I get it, you're a contrarian

>>34787108
If by "correctly accounted for all of the costs" you mean, Congress threw more money at it once the realized it was going to destroy the old budget, yes.
>you're a contrarIan
No, I think we should live within our means. Our government hasn't done that since Calvin Coolidge. If that's what makes me a contrarian, sure.

>>34787193
>Congress threw more money at it once the realized it was going to destroy the old budget, yes.
The budget set a decade before the actual JSF selection without consideration of demanded changes in the technologies.

>>34787193
>be congress
>fund an f-16 replacement
>lol, but we want an f-22 in features
>WHY ARE YOU OVERBUDGET?!

File: 1500825193388.jpg (51KB, 510x427px)

51KB, 510x427px

>>34785225
Idk why but this made me kek really hard

>>34787396
And it's still a less expensive fighter than the latest new-build F-16s.