this post was submitted on 18 May 2025
79 points (97.6% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

4079 readers
184 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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.world 13 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Psaldorn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Aren't they killing off strykers too?

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Last I read they were upgrading them, looking at MCWS.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

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

[–] mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago

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