And? This isn't man bites dog or even dog bites man. Dog bit man 59 years ago (article says 65 and apparently can't spell Kalashnikov)
Not to mention, have we not been in just a few decent sized engagements with enemy forces wielding just the types of weapons the article is warning us about?
If we have to get into it against Russian or Chinese forces, we’re facing a situation of being overmatched…
- Enemy forces in both Iraq & Afghanistan used primarily 7.62 weapons. Ours seemed just fine.
Artillery & air strikes did most of the killing. C6/M240 had most of the killing power from 250m-300m+
We also thought, until very recently, that Russian artillery had us at an overmatch disadvantage.
Turns out, their kit isn’t as formidable as we once thought. They aren’t 10ft tall.
And NATO won’t have to fight them anytime soon, because as long as we provide generous support to countries like Ukraine, they’ll have their hands full. (After several years of rebuilding their armed forces, ofcourse.)
Any conflict with China will be primarily an air & sea campaign as far as I can predict, so more of a moot point.
I agree with KevinB. Stupid program.
(overlooks a lot of relevant technical facts, and the point of which is to keep the industrial machine chugging along & improvising.)
0.02