• SSTF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I guess somebody decided a 16ish ton difference between the M10 and the M1E3 made it redundant for tank-like roles, and the existence of the Stryker with a 105mm fills the strategically air mobile fire support role better.

    Now we wait for the Army to figure out that the XM7 is just an M14 with extra steps.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 days ago

      Careful, you almost make it sound like we’re creatures capable of learning from our mistakes.

    • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Firstly, an m14 can use standard 7.62x51 ammo.

      The xm7 has its own nightmare logistics chain for literally 0 reason and kills all Nato compatibility, because fuck you.

      They are not the same.

      • SSTF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        I was referring to the cult of the battle rifle, and how the XM7 has revived many of the same proponent arguments.

  • mariusafa
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Shouldn’t they do some kind of army history in the military, they keep repeating the same mistakes all over again