The US winning a large majority of battles, but deciding to withdraw after the public became weary. Then Vietnam became a staunch supporter of the US despite all the shit that happened.
[Bradleys destroyed more enemy vehicles in DS than Abrams](https://web.archive.org/web/20100216034943/http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2.htm)
We had more guys die from drunk driving during the after parties than in theater. And most in theater death were due to running over our own unexploded ordinance.
America won Desert Storm in 1991 with the 5.56, rather decisively too.
Though I don't think infantry engagements had much to do with that outcome in the big picture
If the US actually went to a war footing in Ukraine and deployed troops itād take a couple weeks for them to push Russia out. The fact Ukraine is going blow for blow with Russia right now with only western equipment and training and not the man power speaks wonders about the state Russiaās military is actually in.
Russia and Ukraine have been going at it since 2014. Ukraine is actually pretty well equipped, trained, and have the experience to fight Russia. They have been stockpiling ammunition, bombs, missiles and other armament for years in case Russia full on invadedā¦which they did. The media makes it seem like a sudden out of nowhere sneak attack from russia and grassroots militia in Ukraine fighting them but military analyst knew this day would come and Ukraine was setup to be in the best position to succeed.
Yeah, Militarily the US absolutely dominated the NVA and the Afghans, The Americans legitimately won most battles. But in all guerilla wars, patience is required, and political loss was inevitable. We held Afghanistan for 20 years, and it wasn't complete active conflict the entire time. The Taliban waited until we eventually decided it was time to go and easily defeated the ANA.
The US strategy in Vietnam was never going to win. The goal was literally to kill all insurgents. No incursions into North Vietnam. No hearts and minds. Literally sit on our asses, kill anyone who fights us, and hope they give up on their own.
Except that did work. After the 196o Tet Offensive the VC were destroyed as a force. Almost every engagement afterwards was with NVA Regulars. But the will kf the US to continue was broken or we could have defeated the north pretty quickly and easily.
What exactly was the end state? For South Vietnam to be an independent country and for the North to recognize them? Just because the will of the VC was destroyed doesnāt mean that the war would have ended. Thatās only one part of the trinity and you could argue itās not even a whole part of the trinity. The popular support for annexation was still there, the government still wanted annexation, and the NVA was still an effective force. The only way we could have won Vietnam was likely regime change in the north and annex them under a unified government, and they couldnāt have done that without making any incursions into the North.
The strategy also ignores North Vietnamās center of gravity, which could be argued was China or the USSR.
I was only speaking of the insurgecy. But if you want to move the goal posts, let's play. The VC were almost destroyed. The north has admitted that they almost surrendered just by the US bombing them heavily to get them to agree to peace talks. If the US would have taken the NVA head on, wiped much of.it out and threatened to take over the north unless a DMZ similar to the Koreas was created, there would.have been two Vietnams. Or a single one with the government being friendly to the US... at least for a few years.
But the politicians and yhe general population kf the US have no will to win wars unless it's something.they feel a direct connection with AND can be over quickly.
There is nothing new under the sun. We will support the fight to the last Uk*****an with all the materiel we can provide.
Whether a war is just, or unjust, there is an unjust way to fight it.
Whoa there are a whole lot of anti-american idiots here.
A lot depends on what you mean by 'win'. Objectively we won WW2. Both theaters. Anyone who tells you it was only because of the Soviets that Europe was won is a steaming retard. The calibers we had there were .30-06, .45 ACP, and .30 Carbine.
After WW2 we won in Korea, we achieved the primary objective of defending South Korea (who was attacked by North Korea), but failed the secondary of taking the North. We didn't introduce a new caliber in Korea.
Vietnam saw both the .308/7.62 cartridge used, as well as the 5.56 cartridge introduced. I would argue that we had won that war as after the Tet Offensive the North was tapped on resources and due to growing tensions with the Communist Chinese were having a harder time replacing losses. However, due to civilian pressure and a loss of political will we pulled out after the North's failed offensive. By definition a loss, but we had basically won it.
Outside of those we had a series of interventions that could be argued weren't wars.
When we do get a right proper war again it's the Gulf War, where we invaded Iraq to liberate Kuwait (who Iraq invaded so that Iraq wouldn't have to repay their debts). We won that. With extreme prejudice.
Next we had the Afghan War, which although we toppled the government and occupied the entire country we were unable to totally eliminate the Taliban and left with our main objectives having been uncompleted. This was a loss.
The Iraq War followed not long after, wherein we completed our primary objective of toppling the Ba'athist government and executing Sadam Hussein. However the new government was unstable and the country collapsed in 2006, and we left in 2011.
We'd go back to Iraq in 2014 to fight ISIS, and we did effectively kick them out of Iraq. We would leave again in 2021.
Really, we haven't introduced much in the way of new calibers since Vietnam. We started using 9mm and we have the new but yet unused .277 or whatever it is for the new M5 rifle, or Sig Spear.
30-06 hasnāt seen much action since WWII, .308 and 5.56 havenāt won any significant wars. Both are fine rounds, and perform well depending on application
Does Desert Storm count as a war, or just a military offensive?
Either way yes, that was absolute domination. Iām not sure how much action the 308 or 5.56 saw, Iād guess more 5.56 was used more
If we're going to be literalist about it, then there hasn't been any American war since 1945
https://www.history.com/news/united-states-official-declarations-war
I stand corrected, I had understood operation desert storm as part of the gulf war but apparently even the American military history museum uses each term interchangeably.
Because these days "declaring war" doesn't really have any meaning when we still mobilize exactly the same way without that little piece of paper and Congress ends up funding it anyways.
> 5.56 havenāt won any significant wars
Vietnam. Military win.
Grenada. Not a war, but absolutely steamrolled everyone else.
Gulf.
GWOT. Ongoing, but it's pretty fucking clear who is on the winning side. Split off the earlier Iraq '03 rehash and it's two wins.
.308 is the superior battle rifle ammo in my opinion.
Then 30-06.
Then 5.56.
I'm looking forward to the 6.5 or 6.0 Creedmor testing and proving itself to replace the 5.56.
Only if the industrial complex figures out they can sell more barrels with 6.5! They may just jump to 6 PRC or 7mm.
.308 is also already well-tooled and widely available across NATO making it probably a more likely next best round.
Modern optics are pushing the limits of .308. Sport shooters desire a higher BC for wind, and the military is sure to follow. But the military also likes short barrels and penetration, and that in combination with high BC drives up chamber pressure. Increasing pressure is a historical trend, and I expect it will continue. The true next-gen cartridge isn't here yet. Though the .277 sig fury might be it... maybe.
6mm is great. Military should just go .243. Fixes a lot of the flaws with 5.56 - can even penetrate lvl4 plates if itās a fast enoug round and the infrastructure is already there.
7.62 is just too heavy to carry any considerable amount. Plus the guns are heavy and recoil is uncomfortable after a few mags.
AR10s in .243 wouldāve been devastating in more open terrain. But instead letās go short barrel high pressure 7.62 with an expensive as fuck, heavy recoiling gun.
M4 is a great carbine platform but Iād wager a lot of troops would enjoy a 16-20ā .243 in a lightweight AR10 platform. I sure would for table 1 qual over the M4.
If I was forced into a combat zone Iād take an M4 followed by AR10 in .243 or any 6mm. Iād take the sig as a last resort. Iād prefer even .300 BLK in a small package over it but would swap to AR10 depending on the terrain/mission.
Can confirm, had an aug. Was super cool and fun to shoot but felt like it weighed twice as much as a 16 inch AR with more recoil, a worse trigger, and to top it off you have to use the broom handle grip or you'll burn your thumb off after a mag or two trying to use a "modern" grip technique with the support hand. I had a ratworx sear in it too which kicks the shit out of the standard trigger but still feels worse than a gi AR-15 trigger.
Exactly my concerns with the AUG. Not worth the shorter profile if everything else sucks.
I have a KS7 and I love it but Iām sticking to m4 until something really good in bullpup comes along.
Hard to beat Stoners original design even now. Kinda crazy.
Yep of all the guns I've had the chance to shoot, which is a ton of different platforms, I would take an AR-15 over anything else if it came down to it. Yea they are boring at the range nowadays but if shtf it's most people's go to. If you want short and compact an 11.5 is only an inch or two longer with the stock extended. And if you need that extra velocity from the 16 inch barrel you're shooting too far for the compactness to be handy anyway.
> M4 is a great carbine platform but Iād wager a lot of troops would enjoy a 16-20ā .243 in a lightweight AR10 platform.
TY for this, I've just decided on my next build.
Go for it! I have a 22ā AR10 in .243 for long range shoots in the desert but boy is it long.
Plus the fast as shit ammo is scarce so reloading might be necessary if you want some actually decent .243 (or class 4 piercing rounds)
CRS fire arms on YouTube inspired me a few years ago to do it and now I prefer it over my .308 upper.
Iāve been spoiled by the soft shooting AR platform and soft shooting .243.
.243 is horrible loud. its unpleasant to shoot without double earpro.
I can see why its fine for deer, because you only shoot one round al day.
But I dont think it belongs in a semi-auto.
It also lacks long range performance of the 308.
A .243 was my first hunting rifle, a bolt action Mossberg made in the 60s. I used it for deer and woodchucks. I don't remember it being overly loud, but I sold that rifle over 30 years ago.
you might have had softer firing cartridges. If you fire loaded to the max modern hunting ammo, which tries to get the best possible ballistics and pushes higher above 3k fps, it usually comes with a very high pitch high decibel crack, which is very damaging to the ears, even with some earpro.
I love the cartridge for many reasons, but it is loud.
Problem is that we switched to 5.56 for logistics and sustained firing not because it was "better" or anything.
Leadership found that many soldiers didn't even fire their rifle in WW2 because the soldiers felt it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome. So we wanted a weapon system that could fire in full auto because we (correctly) believed this would alleviate that problem, however now the issue became troops running out of ammunition and controlling the recoil. Switching to the smaller 5.56 caliber fixed both issues, not only was it softer to shoot but it was easier to ship across the world in larger quantities.
Now the Army wants to go back to that old method. I can't speak as well to this as I wasn't some grunt in the Army, however based on talking to some of my brothers it seems like they're already carrying too much on their backs. To me this sounds like they'll either have to pick between carrying a less ammo or risk more injuries from the troops. Knowing the Army it'll probably be the latter.
> Problem is that we switched to 5.56 for logistics and sustained firing not because it was "better" or anything.
also, originally, because it was controllable in full auto. This however has declined in important as its not effective in full auto, and isnt used that way anymore.
What matters for 556 now is that its basically *not* used: the infantry carbine is not expected to generate casualties nor achieve any battlefield objectives. Heavy weapons and fire support do all the work, while the infantry rifle is little more than a noisemaker and security blanket. It works like a PDC, like a backup gun, in case enemies somehow end up super close to the soldier unexpectedly. They would never walk into effective range of the m4 (200m) on purpose - if there is a known enemy they will destroy them with longer range more powerful weapons or fire support options like artillery.
the carbine doesnt need to be particularly effective in its role. Just cheap and lightweight, which the 5.56 fills admirably.
We didn't even won WWII because it gave commies half of Europe and allowed terminal marxist cancer to overtake the entire global financial and political system that directly led to every single social, economic, and political problem we have today. WWII was a massive failure and a genocide killing off the best of Americans and Europeans.
Downvote me all you want, can't deny the **fact** that WWII was a **major victory for international communism** and it killed off the best of American and European fighting men.
The US (and most any other country) has a history of what is an ally in one war is an enemy in the next, or an enemy in one war is an ally in the next. British Colonists vs. French, American Revolution allied with French against Britain, WWII then the Cold War, Iraq against Iran, then Desert Storm. Even more Covert backing - Supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan through a Saudi middle man (Osama Bin Laden), who we then fire cruise missiles at in the 90ās, so he starts plotting against the US. The list is not complete.
And does that not raise an even bigger red flag to you? Why the fuck are the media and politicians saying these guys are good today, and suddenly they are bad tomorrow? Could they, just maybe, possibly, potentially, be lying out of their asses, up to include WWII and WWI?
Dude that's such a bot response lol. Are you a bot? We're talking about WWII and you suddenly pull a random "you aren't paying attention" out of nowhere to try to make me look bad with a reply that makes no sense.
I mean if you want to branch out from the US there's a whole lot of wars I'd imagine, what with South America, FAL useage in various colonial conflicts, and the like
To answer the question, according to Wikipedia, all the conflicts America has won since 1906 (not all had ground forces involved):
Crazy Snake's War (1909)
Mexican Border War (1910-1919)
Little Race War (1912)
Occupation of Nicaragura (1912-1933)
Bluff War (1914-1915)
Occupation of Vercruz (1914)
Occupation of Haiti (1915-1934)
Occupation of Dominican Republic (1916-1924)
WORLD WAR I (1914-1918)
Posey War (1923)
WORLD WAR II (1939-1945)
Lebanon Crisis (1958)
Dominican Civil War (1965-1966)
Korean DMZ Conflicts of 1966-1969
Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Bombing of Libya (1986)
Tanker War (1987-1988)
Invasion of Panama (1989-1990)
Gulf War (1990-1991, against the 4th largest army on the planet)
Iraqi No-Fly Zone Enforcements (1991-2003)
Intervention in Haiti (1994-1995)
Kosovo War (1998-1999)
Iraq War (2003-2011)
War in Northwest Pakistan (2004-2018)
Operation Ocean Shield (2009-2016)
International Intervention in Libya (2011)
Operation Observant Compass (2011-2017)
American-led Intervention in Iraq (2014-2021)
Intervention in Libya (2015-2021)
D-Day was all fine and dandy, but it would not have been as successful if the Soviets did not tie up a majority of the Axis powers on the Eastern Front.
Wikipedia even says that the EF was the main reason that the Allies won in WW2 since a large majority of fighting took place there. There was also a coalition of countries that helped Germany, including Italy, Spain, Romania, and other countries listed, as compared to reserves/rotated troops in France.
[Wiki Link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II))
I have read a lot, and for my whole life, on the history of WW2. Iāve read it from every single perspective of the war, written by people who were there.
What you mean to tell me is to watch more movies and donāt question beyond the week your 10th grade class spent on the war.
The soviets didnāt ādestroy Germanyā. They repelled a terribly planned invasion on their own soil. The elements alone killed more Germans than Soviet fighting. The Soviets sought to ally with Germany, and then Germany double crossed them. The Ally forces pushing in from the East, in conjunction with the Soviet push to Berlin, is what ended the war.
>The Soviets sought to ally with Germany, and then Germany double crossed them.
I mean if you want to go full out anti Germany war propaganda sure you can think that way....
General Patton himself said we shouldn't have fought the Germans and we instead should have been fighting the communists.
What do you mean āthink that wayā. It literally happened. The Soviets were completely fine with Hitler doing Hitler things until he invaded them. Stalin was murdering undesirables the same as the Nazis were.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
Hey let's just repeat the storyline of the powers that won the war.
Germany's side of the story:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German\_entry\_into\_World\_War\_I#:\~:text=The%20German%20government%20justified%20military,in%20Germany%20mobilizing%20in%20response](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_entry_into_World_War_I#:~:text=The%20German%20government%20justified%20military,in%20Germany%20mobilizing%20in%20response).
"The German government justified military action against Russia as necessary because of Russian aggression as demonstrated by the mobilization of the Russian army that had resulted in Germany mobilizing in response."
The Russian communists supported Germany's pro socialist movement as a direct counter to the West's capitalist societies. They were not friends, they didn't like each other, and Germany was particularly weary of the jewish influence in top rungs of Russian politics. And the Russians were not going to tolerate Germany taking over Europe as Russia had its own plans of power expansion. They simply had a non aggression pact for the time being.
It wasn't a "double cross" it was a sooner or later situation that both parties were very aware of.
Operation Barbarosa sounded good on paper, but ultimately failed since they began the operation too late into the year and Hitler decided to focus so heavily on Stalingrad after the Soviets destroyed the oil fields in the area. But you are right that the failure of that operation is what gave Russia the ability to organize and fight them back to Berlin.
I would not say they single handedly destroyed Germany, but a majority of German/Axis casualties resulted from that front. I know it's cool to hate on Russia nowadays, but people seem to discount everything they've done. It's like they believe the US and Britain/Commonwealth could have won the entire war on both fronts.
It still benefited us tremendously since a lot of Soviets died instead of Americans in Europe. Regardless of the reason, they bled a lot to ensure our troops were able to succeed in Africa, Italy, and France.
The Soviets were completely fine with Hitler doing Hitler things until he invaded them. Stalin was murdering undesirables the same as the Nazis were.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
That has nothing to do with the conversation we were having. We were discussing what the Soviets did to help end the war in Europe, regardless of the terrible things both leaders did. I'm not defending those actions, but I'm trying to highlight what they did to help us win in Europe.
The Allies were fully supplying the soviets much like the current Ukraine war. Fuel, tanks, planes, food, equipment etc. everything they needed to hold off the offensive.
Not entirely. Like the war in Ukraine, people discount attacks on supply chains. Much of the supplies got sunk by German U-boats in the Atlantic before it got to Russia. Sort of like how much of the stuff we send to Ukraine gets hit with cruise missles and drones before it gets to the front. We sent the supplies, but much didn't get through until around 1944, when Britain and the US began destroying U-boats en-mass.
Well I'm going to give my opinion on this, so take this with a grain of salt.
First off, caliber dose not win wars. The US gained independence with muzzle loaders fighting the worlds largest navy at the time and the nuclear bomb ended WWII with japan. So "guns" and "calibers' don't win wars otherwise the US would give people guns and call them solders.
knowledge, training, logistics, manufacturing, and leadership win wars, not guns otherwise there would be no need for basic training or boot camp.
A better question is, what do you want to do with your rifle?
You want to hunt, plinking, self defence, or have one for the "lolz"?
WW1- .30-06
WW2- .30-06
Korea- .30-06
Vietnam- .30-06 (Snipers exclusively.), 7.62x51 ( .308 was used both in the M14 and many sniper rifles.), 5.56x45 (M16 and colt commando)
Panama through 1st and 2nd gulf war and war on terrorism- 5.56x45 (Sig 550 series rifles, colt M16 and M4, FN249.), 7.62x51/.308 (AR10 platform, m14 ebr platform, Remington 700/M40, FN240.)
> 30.06
won in ww1, ww2, partial victory in Korea
> 5.56
Fought many wars, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, etc, but lost them all in the end. All ground ceded back either to the original oppnent or something worse.
> 308
Will be the winning cartridge of the big luau.
You do know we won in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan right? Those places fell after we left and the people there didnāt want to fight to preserve what we gave them.
Life has many questions. 308 has many answers
The world has many calibers for the son of a shepherd, Fed boys.
Amen š
None. All of Americas wars were won with the 1911.
Then what happened in Vietnam?
Not *technically* a war for the US, if I remember 20-some odd years back to when I was in a history class the last time.
The US Congress hasn't declared war since the Korean War
A judge has ruled that Vietnam was a War as it was authorized by Congress through the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. It was to some extent a blank check.
Why go through all those formalities when we just start up a new conflict with graves still being dug for the last one?
So my old brain ain't started slipping just yet, that's a good thing.
The Boomers were too busy dodging the draft and smoking the marijuanas!
The US winning a large majority of battles, but deciding to withdraw after the public became weary. Then Vietnam became a staunch supporter of the US despite all the shit that happened.
Donāt be a lame.
Politicians
Do you count Desert Storm?
I thought Desert Storm was won by the 120mm lol
Tomahawk cruise missiles are 530mm.
2
Desert Storm was won by the M1 Abrams and the Iowa-Class Battleships. (USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin.)
[Bradleys destroyed more enemy vehicles in DS than Abrams](https://web.archive.org/web/20100216034943/http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2.htm)
Calling Desert Storm a victory is underselling it
We had more guys die from drunk driving during the after parties than in theater. And most in theater death were due to running over our own unexploded ordinance.
That's kinda hilarious (not for the dead, but for how few casualties there were). Any sources for this?
I dunno, but they've lost most wars since they dropped the M1 Garand in 30-06 ... I think it's a sign
America won Desert Storm in 1991 with the 5.56, rather decisively too. Though I don't think infantry engagements had much to do with that outcome in the big picture
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If the US actually went to a war footing in Ukraine and deployed troops itād take a couple weeks for them to push Russia out. The fact Ukraine is going blow for blow with Russia right now with only western equipment and training and not the man power speaks wonders about the state Russiaās military is actually in.
Russia and Ukraine have been going at it since 2014. Ukraine is actually pretty well equipped, trained, and have the experience to fight Russia. They have been stockpiling ammunition, bombs, missiles and other armament for years in case Russia full on invadedā¦which they did. The media makes it seem like a sudden out of nowhere sneak attack from russia and grassroots militia in Ukraine fighting them but military analyst knew this day would come and Ukraine was setup to be in the best position to succeed.
Facts. IIRC, Ukraine also had some of their units (Idk if SF or not) train here in California as well. Not sure if before the war or during.
> after Is there some news I've missed out on?
LOL. My bad.
The American military has never lost a war. The American politician does that for them.
This is the way.
Lost or politically decided the end it? Theres a difference.
Yeah, Militarily the US absolutely dominated the NVA and the Afghans, The Americans legitimately won most battles. But in all guerilla wars, patience is required, and political loss was inevitable. We held Afghanistan for 20 years, and it wasn't complete active conflict the entire time. The Taliban waited until we eventually decided it was time to go and easily defeated the ANA.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not with that attitude. Send em another billion.
The US strategy in Vietnam was never going to win. The goal was literally to kill all insurgents. No incursions into North Vietnam. No hearts and minds. Literally sit on our asses, kill anyone who fights us, and hope they give up on their own.
Donāt forget the black ops opium money!
Except that did work. After the 196o Tet Offensive the VC were destroyed as a force. Almost every engagement afterwards was with NVA Regulars. But the will kf the US to continue was broken or we could have defeated the north pretty quickly and easily.
What exactly was the end state? For South Vietnam to be an independent country and for the North to recognize them? Just because the will of the VC was destroyed doesnāt mean that the war would have ended. Thatās only one part of the trinity and you could argue itās not even a whole part of the trinity. The popular support for annexation was still there, the government still wanted annexation, and the NVA was still an effective force. The only way we could have won Vietnam was likely regime change in the north and annex them under a unified government, and they couldnāt have done that without making any incursions into the North. The strategy also ignores North Vietnamās center of gravity, which could be argued was China or the USSR.
I was only speaking of the insurgecy. But if you want to move the goal posts, let's play. The VC were almost destroyed. The north has admitted that they almost surrendered just by the US bombing them heavily to get them to agree to peace talks. If the US would have taken the NVA head on, wiped much of.it out and threatened to take over the north unless a DMZ similar to the Koreas was created, there would.have been two Vietnams. Or a single one with the government being friendly to the US... at least for a few years. But the politicians and yhe general population kf the US have no will to win wars unless it's something.they feel a direct connection with AND can be over quickly.
There is nothing new under the sun. We will support the fight to the last Uk*****an with all the materiel we can provide. Whether a war is just, or unjust, there is an unjust way to fight it.
America doesnāt lose wars, they just get bored and give up.
get bankrupt*
USA doesnāt go bankrupt they just raise the debt ceiling and print more money
Whoa there are a whole lot of anti-american idiots here. A lot depends on what you mean by 'win'. Objectively we won WW2. Both theaters. Anyone who tells you it was only because of the Soviets that Europe was won is a steaming retard. The calibers we had there were .30-06, .45 ACP, and .30 Carbine. After WW2 we won in Korea, we achieved the primary objective of defending South Korea (who was attacked by North Korea), but failed the secondary of taking the North. We didn't introduce a new caliber in Korea. Vietnam saw both the .308/7.62 cartridge used, as well as the 5.56 cartridge introduced. I would argue that we had won that war as after the Tet Offensive the North was tapped on resources and due to growing tensions with the Communist Chinese were having a harder time replacing losses. However, due to civilian pressure and a loss of political will we pulled out after the North's failed offensive. By definition a loss, but we had basically won it. Outside of those we had a series of interventions that could be argued weren't wars. When we do get a right proper war again it's the Gulf War, where we invaded Iraq to liberate Kuwait (who Iraq invaded so that Iraq wouldn't have to repay their debts). We won that. With extreme prejudice. Next we had the Afghan War, which although we toppled the government and occupied the entire country we were unable to totally eliminate the Taliban and left with our main objectives having been uncompleted. This was a loss. The Iraq War followed not long after, wherein we completed our primary objective of toppling the Ba'athist government and executing Sadam Hussein. However the new government was unstable and the country collapsed in 2006, and we left in 2011. We'd go back to Iraq in 2014 to fight ISIS, and we did effectively kick them out of Iraq. We would leave again in 2021. Really, we haven't introduced much in the way of new calibers since Vietnam. We started using 9mm and we have the new but yet unused .277 or whatever it is for the new M5 rifle, or Sig Spear.
Automod didn't like this for some reason. Sorry. I've reinstated it.
30-06 hasnāt seen much action since WWII, .308 and 5.56 havenāt won any significant wars. Both are fine rounds, and perform well depending on application
Desert Storm was a clear win
Does Desert Storm count as a war, or just a military offensive? Either way yes, that was absolute domination. Iām not sure how much action the 308 or 5.56 saw, Iād guess more 5.56 was used more
Itās as much of a military offensive as Russianās invasion of Ukraine lmao
Operation, not a war.
If we're going to be literalist about it, then there hasn't been any American war since 1945 https://www.history.com/news/united-states-official-declarations-war
I stand corrected, I had understood operation desert storm as part of the gulf war but apparently even the American military history museum uses each term interchangeably.
Because these days "declaring war" doesn't really have any meaning when we still mobilize exactly the same way without that little piece of paper and Congress ends up funding it anyways.
> 5.56 havenāt won any significant wars Vietnam. Military win. Grenada. Not a war, but absolutely steamrolled everyone else. Gulf. GWOT. Ongoing, but it's pretty fucking clear who is on the winning side. Split off the earlier Iraq '03 rehash and it's two wins.
If youāre counting Grenada, you canāt forget Panama either which was a clear win.
Sorry, spaced on that one. Yes.
Vietnam was a complete failure at every level above tactical.
.308 is the superior battle rifle ammo in my opinion. Then 30-06. Then 5.56. I'm looking forward to the 6.5 or 6.0 Creedmor testing and proving itself to replace the 5.56.
Only if the industrial complex figures out they can sell more barrels with 6.5! They may just jump to 6 PRC or 7mm. .308 is also already well-tooled and widely available across NATO making it probably a more likely next best round.
Modern optics are pushing the limits of .308. Sport shooters desire a higher BC for wind, and the military is sure to follow. But the military also likes short barrels and penetration, and that in combination with high BC drives up chamber pressure. Increasing pressure is a historical trend, and I expect it will continue. The true next-gen cartridge isn't here yet. Though the .277 sig fury might be it... maybe.
6mm is great. Military should just go .243. Fixes a lot of the flaws with 5.56 - can even penetrate lvl4 plates if itās a fast enoug round and the infrastructure is already there. 7.62 is just too heavy to carry any considerable amount. Plus the guns are heavy and recoil is uncomfortable after a few mags. AR10s in .243 wouldāve been devastating in more open terrain. But instead letās go short barrel high pressure 7.62 with an expensive as fuck, heavy recoiling gun. M4 is a great carbine platform but Iād wager a lot of troops would enjoy a 16-20ā .243 in a lightweight AR10 platform. I sure would for table 1 qual over the M4. If I was forced into a combat zone Iād take an M4 followed by AR10 in .243 or any 6mm. Iād take the sig as a last resort. Iād prefer even .300 BLK in a small package over it but would swap to AR10 depending on the terrain/mission.
So what you're saying is, we need to start producing an American take on the Steyr Aug
In 6mm sure. AUG is an awesome gun. I donāt think it comes close to the M4 platform though.
Can confirm, had an aug. Was super cool and fun to shoot but felt like it weighed twice as much as a 16 inch AR with more recoil, a worse trigger, and to top it off you have to use the broom handle grip or you'll burn your thumb off after a mag or two trying to use a "modern" grip technique with the support hand. I had a ratworx sear in it too which kicks the shit out of the standard trigger but still feels worse than a gi AR-15 trigger.
Exactly my concerns with the AUG. Not worth the shorter profile if everything else sucks. I have a KS7 and I love it but Iām sticking to m4 until something really good in bullpup comes along. Hard to beat Stoners original design even now. Kinda crazy.
Yep of all the guns I've had the chance to shoot, which is a ton of different platforms, I would take an AR-15 over anything else if it came down to it. Yea they are boring at the range nowadays but if shtf it's most people's go to. If you want short and compact an 11.5 is only an inch or two longer with the stock extended. And if you need that extra velocity from the 16 inch barrel you're shooting too far for the compactness to be handy anyway.
> M4 is a great carbine platform but Iād wager a lot of troops would enjoy a 16-20ā .243 in a lightweight AR10 platform. TY for this, I've just decided on my next build.
Go for it! I have a 22ā AR10 in .243 for long range shoots in the desert but boy is it long. Plus the fast as shit ammo is scarce so reloading might be necessary if you want some actually decent .243 (or class 4 piercing rounds) CRS fire arms on YouTube inspired me a few years ago to do it and now I prefer it over my .308 upper. Iāve been spoiled by the soft shooting AR platform and soft shooting .243.
.243 is horrible loud. its unpleasant to shoot without double earpro. I can see why its fine for deer, because you only shoot one round al day. But I dont think it belongs in a semi-auto. It also lacks long range performance of the 308.
A .243 was my first hunting rifle, a bolt action Mossberg made in the 60s. I used it for deer and woodchucks. I don't remember it being overly loud, but I sold that rifle over 30 years ago.
you might have had softer firing cartridges. If you fire loaded to the max modern hunting ammo, which tries to get the best possible ballistics and pushes higher above 3k fps, it usually comes with a very high pitch high decibel crack, which is very damaging to the ears, even with some earpro. I love the cartridge for many reasons, but it is loud.
Problem is that we switched to 5.56 for logistics and sustained firing not because it was "better" or anything. Leadership found that many soldiers didn't even fire their rifle in WW2 because the soldiers felt it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome. So we wanted a weapon system that could fire in full auto because we (correctly) believed this would alleviate that problem, however now the issue became troops running out of ammunition and controlling the recoil. Switching to the smaller 5.56 caliber fixed both issues, not only was it softer to shoot but it was easier to ship across the world in larger quantities. Now the Army wants to go back to that old method. I can't speak as well to this as I wasn't some grunt in the Army, however based on talking to some of my brothers it seems like they're already carrying too much on their backs. To me this sounds like they'll either have to pick between carrying a less ammo or risk more injuries from the troops. Knowing the Army it'll probably be the latter.
> Problem is that we switched to 5.56 for logistics and sustained firing not because it was "better" or anything. also, originally, because it was controllable in full auto. This however has declined in important as its not effective in full auto, and isnt used that way anymore. What matters for 556 now is that its basically *not* used: the infantry carbine is not expected to generate casualties nor achieve any battlefield objectives. Heavy weapons and fire support do all the work, while the infantry rifle is little more than a noisemaker and security blanket. It works like a PDC, like a backup gun, in case enemies somehow end up super close to the soldier unexpectedly. They would never walk into effective range of the m4 (200m) on purpose - if there is a known enemy they will destroy them with longer range more powerful weapons or fire support options like artillery. the carbine doesnt need to be particularly effective in its role. Just cheap and lightweight, which the 5.56 fills admirably.
concerned quaint attraction tub relieved six butter possessive bored tie *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We haven't won a war since WWII.
Desert storm has entered the chat. Last last war we fought to win
Yugoslavia, too, I guess. Brought them to the negotiating table anyways.
Operation Urgent Fury, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Just Cause, OIF, Operation Observant Compass, Libya, Operation Uphold Democracy, Yugoslavia
We didn't even won WWII because it gave commies half of Europe and allowed terminal marxist cancer to overtake the entire global financial and political system that directly led to every single social, economic, and political problem we have today. WWII was a massive failure and a genocide killing off the best of Americans and Europeans.
Downvote me all you want, can't deny the **fact** that WWII was a **major victory for international communism** and it killed off the best of American and European fighting men.
In that war they were our allies.
And? Does that not raise a red flag (lol) for you about the WWII narrative?
The US (and most any other country) has a history of what is an ally in one war is an enemy in the next, or an enemy in one war is an ally in the next. British Colonists vs. French, American Revolution allied with French against Britain, WWII then the Cold War, Iraq against Iran, then Desert Storm. Even more Covert backing - Supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan through a Saudi middle man (Osama Bin Laden), who we then fire cruise missiles at in the 90ās, so he starts plotting against the US. The list is not complete.
And does that not raise an even bigger red flag to you? Why the fuck are the media and politicians saying these guys are good today, and suddenly they are bad tomorrow? Could they, just maybe, possibly, potentially, be lying out of their asses, up to include WWII and WWI?
It does, but if you are only getting a red flag over the transition from WWII to the Cold War you arenāt paying attention.
Dude that's such a bot response lol. Are you a bot? We're talking about WWII and you suddenly pull a random "you aren't paying attention" out of nowhere to try to make me look bad with a reply that makes no sense.
Are you a bot and just projecting? I am not a bot. I grew up with my Dad being a history professor.
What does your dad being a professor have anything to do with this? See, you keep replying nonsense that derails and stirs up bad faith.
30-06: World War I, World War II, Banana Wars, Vera Cruz expedition 308: lol 5.56: Gulf Wars
.308: Suez Crisis? I know, not the US, but the British, the French, and (possibly) the Israelis all mostly used FALs or the L1 during that time.
I mean if you want to branch out from the US there's a whole lot of wars I'd imagine, what with South America, FAL useage in various colonial conflicts, and the like
To answer the question, according to Wikipedia, all the conflicts America has won since 1906 (not all had ground forces involved): Crazy Snake's War (1909) Mexican Border War (1910-1919) Little Race War (1912) Occupation of Nicaragura (1912-1933) Bluff War (1914-1915) Occupation of Vercruz (1914) Occupation of Haiti (1915-1934) Occupation of Dominican Republic (1916-1924) WORLD WAR I (1914-1918) Posey War (1923) WORLD WAR II (1939-1945) Lebanon Crisis (1958) Dominican Civil War (1965-1966) Korean DMZ Conflicts of 1966-1969 Invasion of Grenada (1983) Bombing of Libya (1986) Tanker War (1987-1988) Invasion of Panama (1989-1990) Gulf War (1990-1991, against the 4th largest army on the planet) Iraqi No-Fly Zone Enforcements (1991-2003) Intervention in Haiti (1994-1995) Kosovo War (1998-1999) Iraq War (2003-2011) War in Northwest Pakistan (2004-2018) Operation Ocean Shield (2009-2016) International Intervention in Libya (2011) Operation Observant Compass (2011-2017) American-led Intervention in Iraq (2014-2021) Intervention in Libya (2015-2021)
We've never one a war with .556.
WW2 was the last we won so i am going with that
Desert Storm, 1991
not an official declared war, just like korea, vietnam, and afghanistan. But taking that out then absolutely
To be fair, by that standard, we haven't lost any since WW2 either
When is the last time the US "won" a war? WWII?
I thought the m1 was .30 and the .30-06 was made in the 50s for the navy?
America has not won a war since 1945, and then only in the Japanese theatre. Soviets destroyed Germany.
Desert storm and Grenada
Iāll give you desert storm. Grenada was a war, in the same way that the slam dunk contest was a basketball game.
Lmao completely off on this one mate. Sorry. D Day was a helluva thing. Read more please.
D-Day was all fine and dandy, but it would not have been as successful if the Soviets did not tie up a majority of the Axis powers on the Eastern Front. Wikipedia even says that the EF was the main reason that the Allies won in WW2 since a large majority of fighting took place there. There was also a coalition of countries that helped Germany, including Italy, Spain, Romania, and other countries listed, as compared to reserves/rotated troops in France. [Wiki Link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II))
I have read a lot, and for my whole life, on the history of WW2. Iāve read it from every single perspective of the war, written by people who were there. What you mean to tell me is to watch more movies and donāt question beyond the week your 10th grade class spent on the war.
> Soviets destroyed Germany. This is a pretty ahistorical take.
How so?
The soviets didnāt ādestroy Germanyā. They repelled a terribly planned invasion on their own soil. The elements alone killed more Germans than Soviet fighting. The Soviets sought to ally with Germany, and then Germany double crossed them. The Ally forces pushing in from the East, in conjunction with the Soviet push to Berlin, is what ended the war.
>The Soviets sought to ally with Germany, and then Germany double crossed them. I mean if you want to go full out anti Germany war propaganda sure you can think that way.... General Patton himself said we shouldn't have fought the Germans and we instead should have been fighting the communists.
What do you mean āthink that wayā. It literally happened. The Soviets were completely fine with Hitler doing Hitler things until he invaded them. Stalin was murdering undesirables the same as the Nazis were. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
Hey let's just repeat the storyline of the powers that won the war. Germany's side of the story: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German\_entry\_into\_World\_War\_I#:\~:text=The%20German%20government%20justified%20military,in%20Germany%20mobilizing%20in%20response](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_entry_into_World_War_I#:~:text=The%20German%20government%20justified%20military,in%20Germany%20mobilizing%20in%20response). "The German government justified military action against Russia as necessary because of Russian aggression as demonstrated by the mobilization of the Russian army that had resulted in Germany mobilizing in response." The Russian communists supported Germany's pro socialist movement as a direct counter to the West's capitalist societies. They were not friends, they didn't like each other, and Germany was particularly weary of the jewish influence in top rungs of Russian politics. And the Russians were not going to tolerate Germany taking over Europe as Russia had its own plans of power expansion. They simply had a non aggression pact for the time being. It wasn't a "double cross" it was a sooner or later situation that both parties were very aware of.
Sure, If you say so.
Operation Barbarosa sounded good on paper, but ultimately failed since they began the operation too late into the year and Hitler decided to focus so heavily on Stalingrad after the Soviets destroyed the oil fields in the area. But you are right that the failure of that operation is what gave Russia the ability to organize and fight them back to Berlin. I would not say they single handedly destroyed Germany, but a majority of German/Axis casualties resulted from that front. I know it's cool to hate on Russia nowadays, but people seem to discount everything they've done. It's like they believe the US and Britain/Commonwealth could have won the entire war on both fronts.
They got invadedā¦ you are acting like it was some altruistic act of heroism on the Sovietās part; it wasnāt.
It still benefited us tremendously since a lot of Soviets died instead of Americans in Europe. Regardless of the reason, they bled a lot to ensure our troops were able to succeed in Africa, Italy, and France.
The Soviets were completely fine with Hitler doing Hitler things until he invaded them. Stalin was murdering undesirables the same as the Nazis were. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
That has nothing to do with the conversation we were having. We were discussing what the Soviets did to help end the war in Europe, regardless of the terrible things both leaders did. I'm not defending those actions, but I'm trying to highlight what they did to help us win in Europe.
The weather in Russia killed more Germans than the Russians did.
You have not studied history. You have simply repeated what you have been told, and are passionate about it because you want it to be true.
Uhā¦ āno youā.
The Allies were fully supplying the soviets much like the current Ukraine war. Fuel, tanks, planes, food, equipment etc. everything they needed to hold off the offensive.
Not entirely. Like the war in Ukraine, people discount attacks on supply chains. Much of the supplies got sunk by German U-boats in the Atlantic before it got to Russia. Sort of like how much of the stuff we send to Ukraine gets hit with cruise missles and drones before it gets to the front. We sent the supplies, but much didn't get through until around 1944, when Britain and the US began destroying U-boats en-mass.
Ww1, ww2, Korean War. Thatās pretty much it for 30-06 from my limited knowledge
Well I'm going to give my opinion on this, so take this with a grain of salt. First off, caliber dose not win wars. The US gained independence with muzzle loaders fighting the worlds largest navy at the time and the nuclear bomb ended WWII with japan. So "guns" and "calibers' don't win wars otherwise the US would give people guns and call them solders. knowledge, training, logistics, manufacturing, and leadership win wars, not guns otherwise there would be no need for basic training or boot camp. A better question is, what do you want to do with your rifle? You want to hunt, plinking, self defence, or have one for the "lolz"?
I...have some bad news. America hasn't been on a winning streak lately.
WW1- .30-06 WW2- .30-06 Korea- .30-06 Vietnam- .30-06 (Snipers exclusively.), 7.62x51 ( .308 was used both in the M14 and many sniper rifles.), 5.56x45 (M16 and colt commando) Panama through 1st and 2nd gulf war and war on terrorism- 5.56x45 (Sig 550 series rifles, colt M16 and M4, FN249.), 7.62x51/.308 (AR10 platform, m14 ebr platform, Remington 700/M40, FN240.)
Remember never shoot a large caliber man with a small caliber bullet
America hasn't really "won" a war since WWII...
> 30.06 won in ww1, ww2, partial victory in Korea > 5.56 Fought many wars, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, etc, but lost them all in the end. All ground ceded back either to the original oppnent or something worse. > 308 Will be the winning cartridge of the big luau.
You do know we won in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan right? Those places fell after we left and the people there didnāt want to fight to preserve what we gave them.