Must be at least six inches

Height over bore, that is.

I’ve only half jokingly mocked other “future weapon” designs in the past, saying that the trend is toward an ever more clownishly high sight axis. My educated guess is that this is in fact a psychological problem.

With the lower velocity of the grenade/shotgun, it would make actual sense to put it on the bottom, with the flatter trajectory rifle barrel closer to the sight axis.

The new terms like “Soldier integrated such and such” (which obviously turn ordinary warfare into something totally new and different) are also the result of psychological problems. Years ago, while reading one of the supposedly big cheese U.S. military publications, I found that such a thing as an “army” is, technically speaking, no more. No, ladies and gentlemen; we now have a “Soldier-Centric Force Structure” instead, don’t you know, which no doubt changes EVERYTHING.

The advantage you see is that people who have actual experience in stuff are no longer needed, and can therefore be safely and conveniently brushed aside. Who needs an Army General when you can have a shiny, new, Soldier-Centric Force Structure Command and Control Engineering Specialist? Hmm? Was General Patton a Soldier-Centric Force Structure Command and Control Engineering Specialist? I don’t think so. All he did was lead an Army to kill a bunch of folks and break things. Feh!

And who needs a stupid old rifle when you can have something that looks like it came out of a bad Sci-Fi movie written by an ignoramus, and having the ergonomics of a cinder block?


13 thoughts on “Must be at least six inches

  1. Didn’t read the article but it reminds me of the XM29 from a decade or more ago. I wonder what the effect would be on true combat effectiveness if they spent money on training and shooting instead of spending that money developing (or attempting to develop) advanced weaponry that may or may not be better… Basically, what’s scarier: a grunt with a high tech, space age gun, or a SEAL (Ranger, Green Beret, etc.) with an M4? Practice, practice, practice.

  2. Actually there is an advantage with elevated sighting axis; the bullet path stays closer to the line of sight at intermediate ranges. On the minus side, it also accentuates the effect of cant.

  3. Yeah, I’m getting OICW vibes off this thing as well. Interesting in theory, but why all the gewgaws?

    I’d rather see single-function weapons that deal superior damage being developed, as well as improved protection gear (read: powered armor).

      • Well yeah, I know THAT. That was my point behind superior single function weapons as opposed to what appears to be the result of a one night stand between a Tavor and a Swiss Army Knife. Single weapon, learned well, no surprises.

  4. ” Who needs an Army General when you can have a shiny, new, Soldier-Centric Force Structure Command and Control Engineering Specialist? ”

    The reverse is happening. The army has many more generals than brigades, the navy has more admirals than ships. The current downsizing effect O-4 to O-6 billets, is leaving old political generals to manage and implementing technology SOP’s that they are incapable of understanding.

    Everyone feels the need to be in the decision tree to drop a bomb because they can “see” what is going on in the battle space. It doesn’t matter that Lt. Butterball’s platoon is taking fire from a position, because Col. Mustard is in the library with a feed from a drone and thinks it’s not needed or passes the request up to some staff 1000 miles away.

  5. I believe that would be a Metal Storm 40mm grenade system or 12 gauge system perched on top of whatever bullpup is hiding inside the chassis.

    Whoo Hoo! Maybe my stock in MS will someday be worth the powder to blow it to hell…

  6. I, for one, will be glad when the civilian versions hit the streets. Those things will *really* scare the Demanding Moms – maybe they’ll start to think that my obsolete old wooden stocked arms (M-1, M1A, AK74, FN49, etc.) are pretty harmless and take them off the “assault weapons” list. Ah, who am I kidding…..

  7. “ergonomics of a cinder block”
    What does it say about me that my first thought was “high kinetic energy, negligible acoustic, thermal, and magnetic signature, easily disguised, reusable, multiple global vendors, no trade restrictions, transportable by common means, devastatingly accurate at close range”? Some forward-thinking company needs to hop onto this idea and secure a contract.

    Unit of Issue: EA
    Nomenclature: rock

  8. I read Armored Thunderbolt by Steven Zaloga a few months ago. The quote that sort of sticks with me was someone saying something like, “Patton knew how to fight, but he didn’t know @#$% about tanks.” (Don’t have the book with me to look it up exactly.

    Expecting generals to know what tools their troops need isn’t always a good idea.

    • I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean that asking generals to have that level of understanding holds them to a standard not all of them can meet? I can believe that is true.
      Or did you mean that it is a standard they don’t NEED to meet? That doesn’t make sense to me. How can you lead men if you don’t understand what they do? How can you understand what they do if you don’t understand how they do it, which includes understanding how they use the tools of the job?

      • Anyway; if my understanding of history is correct, Patton read extensively into the subject of German tank warfare tactics. He may not have known how to pull the Engine out of a Sherman, overhaul it and reinstall it, but he knew the kinds of things a General should know about tanks, which is how to use your side’s strengths against the enemy’s weaknesses, anticipate enemy actions, and manuver your forces into positions in order to kill other tanks, and sucklike.

        • That’s what I expected. And that’s exactly what is required — of officers most of all, and of soldiers generally.

Comments are closed.